Abandonment of Taiwan independence is Beginning of Wisdom

Abandonment of Taiwan independence is Beginning of Wisdom
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
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.

否棄台獨，是民進黨智慧的開端
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.29 02:10 am

《2012吳胡會系列社論》六之五

民進黨對吳胡會評論的錯亂無章、自相矛盾，是因黨人不知是否仍要以台獨的立場評論吳胡會。

例如，蔡英文就是仍以台獨的立場評論吳胡會。她說：「一國兩區是個滿危險的說法。」

「一國兩區」的說法有幾個層面：一、一國兩區是根據中華民國憲法增修條文第十一條所稱「自由地區」及「大陸地區」而來，至《兩岸人民關係條例》則稱為「台灣地區」、「大陸地區」。這個「說法」有何「危險」？二、就兩岸拔河的政治操作言，「一國兩區」其實是「一中各表」的另一種表達形式。中華民國政府若不視大陸為「一區」，維持住「憲法一中」的立場，則在兩岸拔河中，亦將失去主張台灣為中華民國「一區」的法理地位。法理上維持大陸「一區」，始能鞏固台灣「一區」。這個說法，對中華民國而言，縱有「風險」，卻更是「保障」。三、一國兩區是中華民國在台灣六十餘年來一貫的憲法思維，至李登輝主持修憲，在增修條文序文中設定「為因應國家統一前的需要」的憲法架構，自此「一國兩區」即成憲法所規範的明文體制；在民進黨執政八年期間，蔡英文任行政院副院長及陸委會主委，若無此部「一國兩區」的中華民國憲法可為憑恃，試問那景況會是「安全」或「危險」？這豈不又是「用一國兩區，罵一國兩區」？

台獨觀點，就是要否定中華民國憲法，扭曲之，輕蔑之，羞辱之；因此，欲譏嘲「一國兩區」，就玩弄民粹語言污辱說，「馬總統」就是「馬區長」，而完全不問法理何在，亦不問如何因應兩岸的拔河角力；硬要將在兩岸凶險情勢中，得以「維護中華民國主體」並與對岸形成「對等」的「一國兩區」架構，說成「一國兩制」，說成「消滅中華民國」。

其實，若說「危險」，任何兩岸政策皆必有一定風險；但就台灣的安全而言，還有比「台獨」更「危險」的兩岸政策嗎？至於「消滅中華民國」，這豈不正是台獨的主張？

大選後，民進黨中幾位具代表性人物，異口同聲地說：台獨已不可行，台獨已走不通了。最早是郭正亮說：不改台獨黨綱，民進黨沒有前途；接著，洪奇昌說：台灣已經沒有追求法理台獨的條件，國內和國外皆不會支持；繼之，陳明通又說：客觀形勢看來，台獨是走不通的。

此三人各有來歷，郭正亮為大選期間民進黨「ＥＣＦＡ因應小組」召集人，洪奇昌曾任扁政府的海基會董事長，陳明通則曾任扁政府的陸委會主委。三人之中，郭正亮與洪奇昌此次主張接受「一國兩區」的憲法架構。

就世局國情的大趨勢言，台獨已絕無可能。民進黨在重新調整路線之前，首先要承認台獨已不可行、走不通；如若不能在黨內建立這樣的共識，有些人接受「一國兩區」的憲法架構，有些人反對；有些人認為台獨不可行，有些人卻主張台獨不能丟，莫衷一是，則民進黨仍將找不到出路。

這二十餘年來的總結經驗是：北京不贊同台獨，美國不贊同台獨，台灣多數民眾也不贊同台獨，全球化、自由化的世界趨勢，尤其不容台獨。在這樣的全球場景中，民進黨若仍續持台獨立場，不啻就是要續持「反中／反美／反商／反民主／反全球化」的路線，這當然不可行，也走不通。

郭洪陳三人，其實共同指出了民進黨當前必須認真面對的一個前提性及根本性的課題。那就是：如果不否棄台獨路線，民進黨的一切轉型都不用談了；現在的民進黨，猶如掉進台獨大水缸的孺子，只能靠司馬光打破缸，才能重見天日。

關鍵在於：中華民國是根據《中華民國憲法》而生存發展的中華民國，而不是民進黨根據《台灣前途決議文》以「借殼上市」的中華民國。然而，民進黨的現狀卻是：明知台獨已不可行、走不通，卻不敢否棄台獨，又不願接受原汁原味的中華民國，以致陷於「借殼上市」的操作之中，台獨搞不成，中華民國又遭撕裂，兩頭落空。因而，民進黨若要轉型自救，第一步自應從否棄台獨做起，回歸中華民國憲法；有了這個前提性、根本性的抉擇，其國憲認同、兩岸政策及治國綱領的轉型易轍，始能順理成章。

否棄台獨，是民進黨智慧的開端。