Abandonment of Taiwan independence is Beginning of Wisdom
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
March 29, 2012
Summary: The DPP finds itself in a dilemma. It knows Taiwan independence is infeasible and a dead end. But it is unwilling to abandon Taiwan independence. It is unwilling to accept the Republic of China. The DPP wants to transform itself in order to save itself. Therefore its first step should be to repudiate Taiwan independence and reaffirm the Constitution of the Republic of China. Only this premise, only this fundamental choice, only this allegiance to the nation and to its constitution, will enable the DPP to transform its cross-Strait policy and its platform for governing the nation. For the DPP, the abandonment of Taiwan independence is the beginning of wisdom.
Full Text below:
The DPP is in total disarray and internal contradiction over the Wu/Hu Summit. That is because party officials cannot decide whether to critique the Wu/Hu Summit from the perspective of Taiwan independence.
Tsai Ing-wen persists in critiquing the Wu/Hu Summit from the perspective of Taiwan independence. She says One Country, Two Areas is a very dangerous concept."
One Country, Two Areas can be understood on several levels. One. The concept of One Country, Two Areas is derived from Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China, which refers to the Free Area and the Mainland Area. It also derives from the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples Of The Taiwan Area And The Mainland Area, which refers to the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. Why should such a concept be considered "dangerous?" Two. The two sides of the Strait have long been engaged in a semantic tug of war. The concept of One Country, Two Areas is actually One China, Different Interpretations in another form. The government of the Republic of China must interpret the Mainland as an "area." This is consistent with its position on the One China Constitution. Otherwise, in its cross-Strait semantic tug of war, it will undermine its position that Taiwan is legally an "area" of the Republic of China. Legally it must insist that the Mainland is an "area." Only then can it affirm that Taiwan is also an "area." This perspective may involve certain "dangers" for the Republic of China. But it also provides the Republic of China with many more assurances. Three. One Country, Two Areas is consistent with constitutional thought regarding the Republic of China over the past 60 years, Lee Teng-hui presided over the amending of the constitution. The Preface in the Additional Articles established a constitutional framework entitled, In Response to the Need for National Unity. One Country, Two Areas became an explicit part of the constitution. The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years, during which Tsai Ing-wen served as Vice Premier and Mainland Affairs Council Chairman. Without the One Country, Two Areas concept, and the Republic of China Constitution as a legal mandate, would her position have been assured, or "dangerous?" What is Tsai doing, other than using One Country, Two Areas to denounce One Country, Two Areas?
Taiwan independence advocates are determined to repudiate the Constitution of the Republic of China. They are determined to distort it, to treat it with contempt, and to demean it. Therefore they mock One Country, Two Areas. Therefore they resort to populist demagoguery. Therefore they refer to President Ma as "Regional Governor Ma." Therefore they utterly fail to grasp the legal arguments. Therefore they ignore the question of how the cross-Strait semantic tug of war must be waged. Therefore they stubbornly persist in reckless brinksmanship. The One Country, Two Areas framework upholds the Republic of China. It ensures equality in cross-Strait negotiations. Yet Taiwan independence demagogues persist in characterizing it as One Country, Two Systems, and allege that it is "destroying the Republic of China."
Just what constitutes "dangerous?" Any cross-Strait policy involves dangers. But is there any cross-Strait policy more dangerous than Taiwan independence? As for the "destruction of the Republic of China," isn't that precisely what advocates of Taiwan independence propose?
The election is over. Several prominent figures within the DPP have spoken up. They have all declared that Taiwan independence is infeasible, and that Taiwan independence is a dead end. Julian J. Kuo was the first to speak. He said that unless the DPP changes its Taiwan independence party platform, it has no future. Hong Chi-chang chimed in. He said Taiwan cannot pursue de jure Taiwan independence. Conditions domestic and foreign do not support it. Finally, Chen Ming-tong said that objectively speaking, Taiwan independence is a dead end.
This trio have different backgrounds. Julian J. Kuo served as the DPP's ECFA Response Group convener during the general election. Hong Chi-chang served as SEF chairman during the Chen administration. Chen Ming-tong served as Mainland Affairs Council Chairman during the Chen administration. Among the three, Julian J. Kuo and Hong Chi-chang, both propose accepting the constitutional framework of One Country, Two Areas.
Given the state of the nation and global trends, Taiwan independence is impossible. The DPP must change its political path. It must admit that Taiwan independence is infeasible, that it is a dead end. It must establish a consensus within the party. Otherwise some will accept the One Country, Two Areas constitutional framework. Others will oppose it. Some will conclude that Taiwan independence is infeasible. Others will insist that the goal of Taiwan independence must be retained. Without unity, the DPP will remain stuck.
Over 20 years of experience have shown that Beijing opposes Taiwan independence. The United States opposes Taiwan independence. The majority of people on Taiwan oppose Taiwan independence. Globalization and liberalization the world over rule out Taiwan independence. This is the global scenario. If the DPP persists in promoting Taiwan independence, it is effectively opposing Mainland China, opposing the US, opposing the business world, opposing democracy, and opposing globalization. Needless to say such opposition is infeasible, and constitutes a dead end.
Kuo, Hong, and Chen have pointed out that the DPP must earnestly confront a number of essential and fundamental issues. Namely, if the DPP refuses to abandon Taiwan independence, all talk of transforming the DPP will be for naught. The Democratic Progressive Party is akin to a child who has fallen into a Taiwan independence water tank. Only Shi-ma Kuang can shatter the tank. Only then will the DPP have a future.
The Republic of China's survival and prosperity depend upon the Constitution of the Republic of China, not on the DPP's Resolution for Taiwan's Future and "backdoor listing." The DPP finds itself in a dilemma. It knows Taiwan independence is infeasible and a dead end. But it is unwilling to abandon Taiwan independence. It is unwilling to accept the Republic of China. As a result it remains tied to its "backdoor listing." It failed to implement Taiwan independence. It succeeded in tearing the Republic of China apart. It failed in both endeavors. The DPP wants to transform itself in order to save itself. Therefore its first step should be to repudiate Taiwan independence and reaffirm the Constitution of the Republic of China. Only this premise, only this fundamental choice, pnly this allegiance to the nation and to its constitution, will enable the DPP to transform its cross-Strait policy and its platform for governing the nation.
For the DPP, the abandonment of Taiwan independence is the beginning of wisdom.
2012.03.29 02:10 am