Broad One China Framework: The Only Non-Two States Theory Framework

Broad One China Framework: The Only Non-Two States Theory Framework
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 30, 2014

Summary: On the morning of the 27th, Shih Ming-teh announced his "Broad One China Framework." The Broad One China Framework is a symbol of innovative thinking in cross-Strait relations. In recent years, cross-Strait policy has been torn between reality and theory. The result has been massive and rapid change.

Full Text below:

On the morning of the 27th, Shih Ming-teh announced his "Broad One China Framework." Meanwhile, the Republic of China's first flag carrier, the "Natchan Rera," the world's largest and fastest ferry boat, left Taipei harbor for Pingtan, flying the red, white and blue national flag. 

These two events are unrelated. But the Natchan Rera symbolizes the evolution on both sides of the Strait. The Broad One China Framework is a symbol of innovative thinking in cross-Strait relations. In recent years, cross-Strait policy has been torn between reality and theory. The result has been massive and rapid change.

The announcement of the Five Principles for Dealing with Cross-Strait Issues provoked cynicism among both pro-reunification and pro-independence forces. But mainstream elements within both the blue and green camps think this innovative framework was advanced in good faith. Their chief reservation was that Beijing might not agree to it. In other words, a positive response from Beijing is necessary before this framework can go forward.

Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Ma Xiaoguang responded. He said that although the two sides of the Strait have yet to be reunified, both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. The relationship between the two sides is not a state to state relationship. These facts have an unshakeable legal foundation. We hope that everyone on Taiwan is on board with the 1992 consensus, and opposed to Taiwan independence. We hope they will offer suggestions on how to maintain and promote cross-Strait relations.

Some say the State Council for Taiwan Affairs considers the Broad One China Framework beyond the pale, and has just repudiated it. But Ma Xiaoguang may have been reciting Beijing's pro forma response on cross-Strait policy. His response may not have been directed at the Broad One China Framework. When a reporter asked him whether the Broad One China Framework was consistent with the 1992 consensus and the One China Principle, Ma Xiaoguang did not reply.

The Five Principles are based on the primacy of the Republic of China. Therefore it is not an argument for Taiwan independence. Nothing suggests that the One China Principle cannot accommodate the Broad One China Framework. Therefore the Five Principles can be seen as an upgraded version of the 1992 consensus. Furthermore, it states that cross-Strait relations are not state to state relations. That means cross-Strait relations are not relations between foreign nations. That means the two sides of the Strait do no see each other as foreign nations. So why did Beijing react the way it did? Why was it afraid that the Five Principles might be another Two States Theory?

In fact, the three parties' current cross-Strait policies are already Two States Theories lacking in points of linkage. Under Beijing's One Country, Two Systems, the term "One Country" refers to the People's Republic of China. But the Republic of China is a reality. It exists. Beijing merely refuses to recognize it. This amounts to a Two States Theory. The Ma administration insists that "One China is the Republic of China." It champions "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, and no use of force." This can be considered another kind of Two States Theory. The DPP advocates "one country on each side." This is an even more clear-cut expression of the Two States Theory. Cross-Strait relations under these Two States Theories leads to a dog eat dog end game. They are an expression of the law of the jungle, and constitute a disaster for human civilization. They add another tragedy to the Chinese nation.

The Five Principles advocate divided rule under the Broad One China Framework. Under the Broad One China Framework, both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China would be considered "incomplete international legal persons." This is how they are linked. The status quo is the Two States Theory. This status quo must be changed. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China must be linked together and become part of China. They must become part of a Broad One China. In other words, the Broad One China Framework must not be viewed as a Two States Theory framework. It is the only framework that does not involve the law of the jungle, and require a dog eat dog outcome. 

The Broad One China Framework stands apart from One Country, Two Systems, from One China, Different Interpretations, and from One Country on Each Side. One Country, Two Systems clings to the Republic of China, even as it refuses to recognize the Republic of China. This will not result in identification with China or build trust in the Mainland. It will only sow suspicion and hatred. One China, Different Interpretations is merely a delaying tactic. The final outcome will be a boiled frog. One Country on Each Side does not work, Of this there is no longer any doubt. Therefore the Broad One China Framework is where the other three frameworks overlap. It can be implemented gradually, starting out with Divided Rule, and gradually assume the form of the Broad One China Framework. Issues of international space can be gradually worked out at the two sides' discretion. Shih Ming-teh said the Five Principles were a "package deal" or "full course meal." But each dish must still be served separately. Each dish is still "a la carte."

This is the first time the private sector has proposed a cross-Strait policy that transcends blue vs. green partisanship. Does the public on Taiwan want to escape blue, green, and red bound cross-Strait policy? If so, it should take a hard look at this proposal. Otherwise, all it can look forward to is a dog eat dog outcome. Beijing in particular should take a hard look at this proposal. After all, the Broad One China Framework is also a One China Framework. How can we continue to view divided rule government as warring governments? Must cross-Strait relations remain dog eat dog relations?

One China becomes a Broad One China. Warring governments become divided rule governments. The cries of apes from the shores echo endlessly. The sampan has already crossed ten thousand mountains.

大一中架構：唯一不是兩國論的架構
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.30 04:00 am

本月二十七日上午，施明德領銜發布「大一中架構」；與此同時，首艘中華民國的國籍輪「麗娜輪」，自台北港懸著青天白日滿地紅的國旗駛往平潭，這是今日世界上最大最快的渡輪。

這兩件事並無相關。但麗娜輪象徵兩岸現實的演化，「大一中架構」則象徵兩岸理念的創新。近年來的兩岸關係，正是在「現實與理念」的交互滾動中，呈現出大幅且快速的遞變。

「處理兩岸問題五原則」發布後，統派及獨派冷嘲熱諷；但藍營及綠營的主流意見大致認同這個創新架構是基於善意，其主要的保留意見皆在於認為「北京不會同意」。換言之，必須獲得北京的正面回應，這個架構始有進一步發展的條件。

國台辦發言人馬曉光對這個方案的評論是：海峽兩岸雖尚未統一，但大陸和台灣同屬一個中國，兩岸不是國與國的關係，這具有不可動搖的事實和法理基礎；希望台灣各界人士在符合「九二共識，反對台獨」之原則的基礎上，提出維護及推動兩岸關係的意見和建議。

有人說，這是國台辦認為「大一中架構」超出「紅線」，已予否定。但是，這也可能只是馬曉光就北京兩岸政策的平鋪直敘，尚未對「大一中架構」有針對性的定性。因為，有記者追著問他：「大一中架構」是否符合「九二共識」？是否符合「一中原則」？馬曉光均未答覆。

「五 原則」是以中華民國為本體，因此不是台獨論述，亦看不出「一中原則」有絕對不能容下「大一中架構」的理由，進而可視為「九二共識」的升級版。再者，兩岸 「不是國與國的關係」，應指兩岸「不是外國與外國的關係」，但未必是指兩岸不能成為「不互視為外國的關係」。然而，為何北京方面的反應，似乎透露出一種對 「兩國論」的疑慮？

其實，現行兩岸三黨的兩岸政策皆是沒有「連結點」的「兩國論」。北京的「一國兩制」，「一國」是指中華人民共和國；但 中華民國卻不是在事實「不存在」，只是在北京政治上「不承認」，這是「兩國論」。馬政府主張「一個中國是中華民國」，「不統／不獨／不武」，也可說是另一 形式的「兩國論」。民進黨主張「一邊一國」，更是旗幟鮮明的「兩國論」。兩岸關係在這些「兩國論」推進下，皆唯有以「你吃掉我，或我吃掉你」收場；那將為 人類文明再增一場弱肉強食的災難，將為中華民族又添一筆萁豆相煎的悲劇。

「五原則」主張：「在大一中架構下的分治政府」。在大一中架構 下，以「不完整國際法人」作為中華民國與中華人民共和國的「連結點」，以改變「兩國論」的現狀，使中華民國與中華人民共和國「連結」而皆成為一部分的中 國，亦即皆成為「大一中」的一部分。也就是說，「大一中架構」應被視為唯一不是兩國論的架構，也是唯一不是弱肉強食、萁豆相煎的架構，也是唯一不是你吃掉 我、我吃掉你的架構。

「大一中架構」，是在「一國兩制」、「一中各表」及「一邊一國」之外，另樹一幟。「一國兩制」若是欲以「既要中華民 國挺住／又不承認中華民國」的手法，把台灣一直「玩」下去，恐怕累積的不是認同與互信，反而是猜忌與仇恨。「一中各表」只是「拖」字訣，終究將步上冷水煮 青蛙的結局。「一邊一國」行不通，則已毋庸贅議。準此以論，「大一中架構」或可視為其他三者的最大交集，可先從「分治政府」的逐步實踐，推向「大一中架 構」的逐步形成，至於國際空間等議題則可置於循序漸進的考酌之中。施明德雖說，「這是套餐」，但還是要一道一道地上菜，每一道菜其實仍是有待個別處理的 「單點」。

這是台灣首次由民間提出跨藍綠、超藍綠的兩岸政策方案，台灣人民若欲在兩岸政策上跳脫藍綠紅三黨的捆綁，應以嚴正的心態來看待 這個方案，否則就必將面對「你吃掉我，我吃掉你」的結局。北京方面尤應以認真嚴肅的心態來看待此一呼籲，畢竟，「大一中架構」也是「一中架構」，更豈能硬 將「分治政府」視作「交戰政府」。否則，難道兩岸關係竟仍不免存在「誰強迫誰／誰吃掉誰」的問題？

一中變為大一中，交戰從此成分治；兩岸猿聲啼不住，輕舟已過萬重山。