Sunday, November 10, 2013

Cross-Strait Relations are not International Relations: Hsieh, Su, and Tsai Should Not Muddy the Waters

Cross-Strait Relations are not International Relations: Hsieh, Su, and Tsai Should Not Muddy the Waters
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 11, 2013


Summary: Closer examination of the DPP leaders' statements tells the story. This includes Su Tseng-chang. In fact, they know they can no longer get away with characterizing cross-Strait relations as "international relations" as they did in the past. All they can do is play word games and incite polarization in order to divide the public and win votes. Cross-Strait relations cannot turn back. The DPP must accept the currents of history. Only doing so will enable it to have a future.

Full text below:

President Ma said that "Cross-Strait relations are not international relations." Su Tseng-chang, Tsai Ing-wen and Frank Hsieh blasted him for doing so. But their so-called "state to state relations" across the Taiwan Strait equals cross-Strait conflict. Some say cross-Strait relations are international relations. Others say they are not state to state relations. Just what sort of relations are they? President Ma's premise is that they are "not international relations." If so, what are cross-Strait relations? If so, where do the DPP's concept of cross-Strait relations come in?

The question appears complicated, but is actually quite simple. Politics has made it unnecessarily complicated. Cross-Strait relations impacts the nation's future. People's national identity and whether peace or conflict will prevail across the Taiwan Strait must be clarified. To understand the nature of cross-Strait relations, one must first eliminate political ambition as a motivation. One must first tear down the Tower of Babel erected out of political motives. Only then can one set matters straight.

DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang expressed opposition to President Ma's interpretation. He argued for "two heads of state in opposition." He argues that if relations are not international, then they must be domestic. He says "Only countries have presidents." "If Ma Ying-jeou is not a president, how can he host the National Day ceremonies  on the dais?" According to Su's "two heads of state in opposition" logic, President Ma must choose between "international relations" and "domestic relations." In fact, Su Tseng-chang began arguing that "Cross-Strait relations are state to state relations" long ago. But political realities forced him to remain silent. He was forced to denounce his opponents in more roundabout fashion.

Former DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen said that the first duty of the president is to defend our sovereignty and status as an independent nation. "As for our relations with [Mainland] China, i.e., cross-Strait relations, that is a matter for 23 million people do decide via a public referendum. It is not something that can be decided by the president himself." She said the president must abide by the democratic process. He must respect the citizenry's views on this important issue. "In the absence of a national consensus, reached through the democratic process, for the president to utter those words means he has exceeded his authority. This can be regarded as derelicition of duty." Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric has always left people baffled. Yet again she has demonstrated her idiosyncratic behavior on a sensitive issue.

The Constitution of the Republic of China maintains a legal link between the Taiwan and Mainland regions of China. Both sides have this legal link. Therefore the declaration that "Cross-Strait relations are not international relations" is fully consistent with President Ma's constitutional mandate. It can hardly be characterized as "the president making decisions by himself." President Ma adhered to the spirit of the constitution when he said cross-Strait relations are not international relations. Tsai Ing-wen has attempted to obfuscate the issue by saying that it is up to 23 million people to decide. The DPP frequently invokes public opinion whenever it is convenient. In fact, it uses populist sentiment to carry out its private agenda.

Frank Hsieh's argument was even more paradoxical. He said "Ma said cross-Strait relations are not international relations. This means the two sides do not recognize each other's sovereignty. President Ma's refusal to recognize the existence of the PRC is highly provocative." Frank Hsieh was obviously playing word games in order to incite KMT vs. CCP opposition. But increased cross-Strait interactions since 2008 have all been based on the "1992 consensus." The spirit of the 1992 Consensus shelved disputes over sovereignty. It adopted the "one China, different interpretations" approach. It refrained from repudiating each other's jurisdiction. As President of the ROC, President Ma obviously cannot recognize the PRC's sovereignty. During his inaugural speech in 2008, he said "The two sides do not recognize each other's sovereignty, but do not dispute each others jurisdiction." He said "Cross-Strait relations are not international relations." How can this be characterized as provocative?

Consider Frank Hsieh's long held take on cross-Strait relations. His interpretation is that "Cross-Strait relations are not domestic relations. Rather they are special relations between territories inside and outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of China Constitution. The two sides are equal but separately governed. Neither belongs to the other." The reason the Mainland authorities can accept Hsieh's take, is that he complies with the ROC Constitution. Basically he does not depart from the one China framework. He and President Ma hold similar positions. But he refuses to pass up any opportunity to snipe at Ma.

Consider the Constitution and the current state of cross-Strait exchanges. These are obviously not international relations. Otherwise why would the two sides need the SEF and ARATS to make the relationship work? As Wu Poh-hsiung said, the two sides should recognize each others' passports. Why bother with "Taiwan Compatriat Permits" and "Taiwan Entry Permits?" Wikipedia says "Cross-Strait relations are relations between two political entities -- the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China which governs the Chinese Mainland and Hainan Island." The international community recognizes that the two sides are two political entities under a one China framework, each with their own interpretation of their sovereignty. Why can't the DPP adopt this pragmatic view of cross-Strait relations?

The Mainland and Taiwan both use "cross-Strait" to define bilateral relations. This shows that cross-Strait relations are neither international nor domestic relations. The essence of cross-Strait relations is in "different interpretations." It means that within one country, two entities respect each other's claims to sovereignty. Since 2008 cross-Strait relations have significantly improved under "different interpretations" and the principle of mutual respect.

Closer examination of the DPP leaders' statements tells the story. This includes Su Tseng-chang. In fact, they know they can no longer get away with characterizing cross-Strait relations as "international relations" as they did in the past. All they can do is play word games and incite polarization in order to divide the public and win votes. Cross-Strait relations cannot turn back. The DPP must accept the currents of history. Only doing so will enable it to have a future.

社論-兩岸不是國際關係 蘇蔡謝別再糾結
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年11月11日 04:09

馬總統說「兩岸關係不是國際關係」,遭到蘇貞昌、蔡英文與謝長廷強烈的批評,「兩岸國與國關係」卻代表兩岸衝突。如果兩岸關係不能「不是國際關係」又不能是「國與國關係」,那麼兩岸應該是什麼關係?在馬總統「不是國際關係」前提下,兩岸關係究竟是什麼關係?民進黨主張的兩岸關係又是什麼關係呢?

這個問題看起來非常複雜,其實非常簡單,是政治讓它變得複雜。兩岸關係定位事關國家前途、人民身分及兩岸的和平或衝突,必須釐清。探究兩岸關係本質,首先必須破除政治力為政治目的而設下的文字迷障,才能直觸問題核心。

民進黨主席蘇貞昌對馬總統的表述採取「雙元對立」方式處理,認定「不是國際關係」就是「國內關係」,因此他說,「有國家,才有總統」「如果馬英九不是總統,怎麼站在台上主持國慶大典?」依照蘇貞昌的「雙元對立」邏輯,馬總統必須在「國際關係」與「國內關係」間做出選擇。蘇貞昌其實早已認定「兩岸關係就是國與國關係」,但迫於政治現實又不便說出口,只得以迂迴纏繞方式指責對手。

民進黨前主席蔡英文則表示,總統最重要的就是要保衛我們主權獨立國家的地位,「至於我們跟中國的關係,也就是兩岸關係,這是全民2300萬人要來決定的事情,不是總統一個人說了算。」她並說,總統必需遵循民主程序,尊重國家人民對這個重大問題的看法,「在沒有經過民主機制凝聚國家共識之前,總統講這些話,已經超出他的權力,算是一種失格。」蔡英文的話一向讓人難懂,這次又展現了她論述敏感問題的特質。

不過,我們確知《中華民國憲法》維繫了台灣與中國的法理連結,兩岸既然具有法理連結,「兩岸非國際關係」表述當然符合憲法對馬總統的授權,不是「總統一個人說了算」。馬總統依照憲法精神界定兩岸不是國際關係,蔡英文卻含糊其詞要2300萬人來決定。民進黨動輒拿民意當金牌令箭,事實上是運用民粹遂行己意。

謝長廷的說法更弔詭,他說:「馬英九說兩岸關係不是國際關係,意思是說兩岸互不承認主權,當然不承認中華人民共和國的存在,馬總統這種說法很挑釁。」謝長廷明顯是利用文字遊戲挑起國共矛盾。但兩岸2008年擴大交流互動,就是在「九二共識」的基礎上運作,九二共識的精神就是擱置主權爭議,以「一中各表」的方式,互不否認對方的治權。馬總統身為中華民國總統,當然不能承認中華人民共和國的主權,他在2008年就職演說中就表示「兩岸互不承認主權、互不否認治權」,「兩岸不是國際關係」表述何來挑釁?

依據謝長廷長期以來的兩岸關係論述,他的原旨應該是「兩岸關係不是國內關係,而是中華民國憲法管轄下境內與境外的特殊關係,兩岸對等分治、互不隸屬。」大陸之所以還能接受謝長廷,是因為他遵守中華民國憲法,基本上沒有背離一中架構。他與馬總統立場相近,但依然不放棄藉機「打馬」。

從憲法及兩岸交流現狀來看,兩岸當然不是國際關係,否則怎麼需要透過海基會、海協會運作?就如同吳伯雄說的,雙方來往只要透過護照就好,又何必搞個台胞證和入台證?維基百科對兩岸關係的說法是,「兩岸關係指現於台灣的中華民國、與管治中國大陸及海南島的中華人民共和國,兩個政治實體的互動關係。」國際間都能體認兩岸是兩個政治實體,在一中架構下各自主張主權,為何民進黨人士不能務實看待兩岸關係?

大陸與台灣都以「兩岸」定義雙邊關係,正說明兩岸關係既不是國際也不是國內關係的本質。兩岸關係的精髓在「各表」,也就是在一個國家前提下相互尊重對方的主權表述。2008年來兩岸關係在「各表」的空間與相互尊重的原則下,已獲得長足進展。

深度解讀民進黨領導人物的談話可以理解,包括蘇貞昌在內,其實已理解兩岸關係不能重回「國際關係」的從前,只能糾結於文字遊戲和二元對立窠臼,繼續切割民眾爭取選票。兩岸關係不會回頭,民進黨必須接受歷史的改變,才能創造更大發展空間。

No comments: