Tsai: We Want Taiwan Independence, Therefore We Refuse to Recognize the 1992 Consensus

Tsai: We Want Taiwan Independence, Therefore We Refuse to Recognize the 1992 Consensus
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2011

Summary: Beijing considers refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus equivalent to advocating Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence advocates say that acceptance of the 1992 Consensus is treason against Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen must chose one or the other. She cannot say that the two do not exist.

Full Text below:

Yesterday we asked, why does Ma Ying-jeou support the 1992 Consensus. Today we ask, why does Tsai Ing-wen oppose the 1992 Consensus?

Beijing has declared that refusing to recognize the 1992 Consensus is the same as advocating Taiwan independence. Beijing considers the 1992 Consensus the cornerstone of cross-Strait relations. If it is removed, then the superstructure of cross-Strait relations will collapse. Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She has in effect refused to recognize One China, Different Interpretations. She has not expressed opposition to Taiwan independence. Nevertheless she wants to maintain ECFA. She wants to maintain economic and trade relations with the Chinese mainland. Most of all. she wants to maintain peaceful development with the Chinese mainland.

Now, just before the presidential election, Tsai Ing-wen is pumping up the volume. She is full of bluff and bluster. But if she is elected president, Beijing will demand to know whether she still refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. President Tsai will be in absolutely no position to thumb her nose at Beijing. At least not if she still wants peaceful development. So the question is, will President Tsai blink? If she does, the result will not just be a personal and political disaster for President Tsai. It will be a major political and economic disaster for everyone on Taiwan.

But Tsai Ing-wen has left herself an escape clause. So far, she has only said "The 1992 Consensus does not exist." But she has yet to touch upon the meaning of One China, Different Interpretations, and no immediate reunification, no independence, and no use of force. If she can stonewall until after the election, she can then say that what she meant was that the actual term "The 1992 Consensus" did not exist. She can qualify her position, and say that the "Spirit of '92" does exist, or that the "Tacit Agreement Reached during the 1992 Talks in Hong Kong" does exist. She can change her colors like a chameleon, without missing a beat. Chen Shui-bian used this gimmick as well. But if Tsai Ing-wen harbors such intentions, then she is too shallow and frightening for words. If she fails in her attempt to deceive voters, she will destroy whatever legitimacy her presidential term might have had.

If Tsai is elected president, Beijing is sure to hold peaceful development over her head. It will demand that she accept the 1992 Consensus. Tsai Ing-wen cannot afford to lose peaceful development with the Chinese mainland. In the end, she will have no choice. She will have to recognize the 1992 Consensus, or at least a variant. She will have to recognize One China, Different Interpretations. She will have to express opposition to Taiwan independence. This is inevitable. This is common sense.

Tsai Ing-wen's campaign committee has relentlessly floated rumors, alleging that after the election she will hold talks with Beijing. Years ago, Chen Shui-bian wanted Washington to dismiss his pronouncements as nothing more than election rhetoric. Years later, Tsai Ing-wen is hoping Beijing will do the same. But Tsai Ing-wen may have difficulty stonewalling until after the election. The focus of the debate is no longer whether the 1992 Consensus exists. Instead, Tsai is being asked directly whether she supports One China, Different Interpretations, and no immediate reunification, no independence, and no use of force. She is being asked directly whether she believes the Republic of China is a government in exile. She is being asked directly whether she supports Taiwan independence. She cannot revert to the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. But neither can she declare that the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the Resolution for a Normal Nation are null and void. If she intends to fall back on the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, she may as well affirm the Constitution of the Republic of China, and its provision for One China, Different Interpretations.

Ultimately, Tsai will be forced to make a public declaration. Is she attempting to advance Taiwan independence by means of "backdoor listing?" Or does she truly intend to act as a President of the Republic of China? Does she truly intend to assume the privileges and responsibilities provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of China?

Tsai Ing-wen has a dilemma. She cannot say that she opposes Taiwan independence. But neither can she say that she advocates Taiwan independence. No matter what Tsai Ing-wen says, she cannot divest herself of the spectre of Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian and other Taiwan independence elements. She cannot change a simple fact. The DPP is political party whose gatherings include hundreds of thousands of people, but never a single Republic of China flag.

Tsai Ing-wen can say, "The 1992 Consensus does not exist." But she can not say, "The Constitution of the Republic of China does not exist." She cannot say that "The Republic of China Constitution and the welfare of the Republic of China do not exist." She cannot reject backdoor listing. Nor can she say that "Taiwan independence does not exist."

Set aside whether the 1992 Consensus exists. Ask instead whether Taiwan independence exists. Tsai Ing-wen can no longer evade the question. Does Taiwan independence exist? Shouldn't the question of whether Taiwan independence exists be taken seriously? Taiwan had two decades of bitter experience with Taiwan independence. Does Taiwan independence really "love Taiwan," or does it harm Taiwan?

Consider two statements quoted in the papers over the past few days. First, the Chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union called the Republic of China a ficttion, a "phantom." He called the Republic of China a walking zombie that lives off the flesh and blood of the Taiwanese people. Second, during a campaign speech on Saturday, Yu Shyi-kun, Chairman of Tsai Ing-wen's Campaign Committee, called the Republic of China a fiction. Tsai Ing-wen cannot say these statements do not represent her position. She cannot deny that her most important supporters are advocates of Taiwan independence. She cannot say that the "spirit" of Taiwan independence "does not exist.

Beijing considers refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus as equivalent to advocating Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence advocates say that acceptance of the 1992 Consensus is treason against Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen must chose one or the other. She cannot say that the two do not exist.

The answer has emerged. Why does Tsai Ing-wen insist that the 1992 Consensus does not exist? Because she knows that Taiwan independence exists, and that she cannot escape the clutches of this "phantom."

因為台獨存在，所以九二共識不存在
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.09.08 01:24 am

昨天談馬英九為何主張「九二共識」；今天談蔡英文為何否認「九二共識」。

北京將否定九二共識指為主張台獨，並稱九二共識的屋基若毀，一切兩岸交流的樓層即失憑藉；蔡英文則一方面否定「九二共識」，亦即否定「一中各表」，更未表態「不獨」，另一方面卻欲維持ECFA，且欲維持與中國的經貿交流，更欲維持與中國的「和平發展」。

此刻，在總統大選揭曉以前，蔡英文儘可催盡油門，虛張聲勢；但在她若當選總統後，一方面北京必然要她交代究竟是否仍然否定「九二共識」，而「蔡總統」又絕無與北京決裂的本錢，即仍欲維持兩岸「和平發展」，試問：屆時「蔡總統」仍能撐持得住嗎？若是撐不住，那將不只是「蔡總統」個人的政治大禍，台灣亦必將墜入一場不堪設想的政經大災難之中。

蔡英文其實留有一個一廂情願的伏筆。她迄今只說「九二共識不存在」，但幾乎未觸碰及否定「一中各表」或「不統／不獨／不武」的內涵問題。如果此一策略可以讓她拖到當選後，則屆時她或許可宣稱，「九二共識這四個字當年不存在」，但並不是不能用「九二精神」或「九二香港會談默契」等變體及化身加以銜接（陳水扁用過此法）。然而，大位不以詐取，蔡英文若心存此種僥倖，未免太淺薄也太可怕，更必將全盤解構「蔡總統」的統治正當性。

蔡若當選總統，北京必然會以是否維持「和平發展」，來挾持她，要她接受「九二共識」；而蔡英文由於絕對承當不起失去「和平發展」的後果，以致最後必然會回過頭來接受「一中各表／反台獨」的「九二共識」內涵（或許出以變體及化身）。這是必然的結果，也是常識的結論。

蔡英文方面不斷放話，謂選後可與北京談；這就好像陳水扁當年要美國將他的話視為「選舉語言」，蔡英文此刻亦如此寄望於北京當局。但是，蔡英文似乎很難把問題拖到選後。因為，辯論的焦點已不在「九二共識存不存在」，而是直接問蔡英文：是否支持「一中各表」及「不統／不獨／不武」？中華民國是否流亡政府？是否支持「不獨」？她雖又回到《台灣前途決議文》，但能否宣示《台獨黨綱》及《正常國家決議文》失效？且若回到《台灣前途決議文》，為何不支持中華民國憲法「一中各表」的兩岸憲政戰略？

這些問題歸結到底，就是要蔡表態：究竟是主張「台獨」、欲「借殼上市」？或是要當真正的中華民國總統，而將中華民國憲法的利益與責任一律概括承受？

蔡英文的問題在於：她不敢說、不能說「反對台獨」，但又不敢說、不能說「主張台獨」。且不論蔡英文怎麼說，她皆不可能擺脫她的「背後靈」李登輝與陳水扁等台獨勢力，也絕對改變不了民進黨是一個數十萬人集會看不到一面國旗的另類政黨。

蔡英文可以說「九二共識不存在」，但她不能說「中華民國憲法不存在」，或「承當中華民國憲法利益及責任的中華民國不存在」（不是借殼上市）；另一方面，她更不能說「台獨不存在」！

因而，當大家放下「九二共識存不存在」的問題，改問「台獨存不存在」時，蔡英文已無可迴避。台獨不存在嗎？台獨不應「嚴肅面對」嗎？台灣二十年來的沉痛經歷，台獨究竟是愛台灣或害台灣？

且看這兩段幾天前才見報的言論：一、中華民國是一個虛構的「幽靈」，中華民國根本是為吸食台灣人民血肉而存在的「活殭屍」……。這是台聯主席的最新見解。二、中華民國是虛構的……。這是蔡英文競選總督導游錫?上周六的發言。蔡英文不能說這些皆不代表她的立場，她不能否認台獨是她最主要的支持者，她也不能說台獨這個「背後靈」不存在。

北京指否認「九二共識」就是台獨；台獨則說接受「九二共識」就是背叛台獨。蔡英文必須接受二者之一，不能說二者皆「不存在」。

答案出來了。蔡英文為何說「九二共識不存在」？因為她知道「台獨是存在的」，而她根本擺脫不了這個「背後靈」。