Liberating One's Thinking: New Concept of Sovereignty and Civil War

Liberating One's Thinking: New Concept of Sovereignty and Civil War
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 29, 2014

Summary: Shih Ming-teh has announced his "Five Principles for Dealing with Cross-Strait Issues." Implementing these principles requires liberating one's thinking and becoming innovative in one's policies. The "Great One China, Two Governments Framework" must be based on a new view of sovereignty and civil war.

Full Text Below: 

Shih Ming-teh has announced his "Five Principles for Dealing with Cross-Strait Issues." Implementing these principles requires liberating one's thinking and becoming innovative in one's policies. The "Great One China, Two Governments Framework" must be based on a new view of sovereignty and civil war.

First consider the new view of sovereignty. The Great One China, Two Governments Framework is based on an innovative view of sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty only appeared in the 16th century. Before that, there was no concept of sovereignty. In other words, sovereignty is a human artifice, not a natural phenomenon.

Since sovereignty is a human artifice, it can develop, change, and evolve. For example, the earliest view of sovereignty included the "divine right of kings" and "L'etat, c'est moi." Later, Rousseau and Locke developed the "social contract" theory of popular sovereignty. Later, the socialist revolution led to the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Later the confederation was another manifestation of sovereignty. Now the European Union is a "28 + 1" concept. Twenty-eight Member States each have their own constitution. Above them all there is the EU constitution. This is the "28 + 1" concept. When the United Nations was founded, there were only 50 sovereign states. Today the UN has 194 Member States. History shows us that the concept of sovereignty is a human artifice that can develop, change, and evolve.

The third of the "Five Principles" clearly points out how "One China" cannot be narrowly viewed as a synonym for the "People's Republic of China." The Great One China, Two Governments Framework is an innovative view of sovereignty. It proclaims that under the Great One China, Two Governments Framework, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of China, that they are two governments equal in status but divided in their rule.

Now consider a new view of civil war. The cross-Strait status quo is the legacy of the 1940s era civil war. But the civil war ended long ago. All that remains today is politicians who refuse to allow the people to let go of their civil war mindset. Obviously no civil war is being waged today. Politicians who perpetuate a civil war view of history have hijacked the people, kidnapped the people, manipulated the people, and made fools of the people. Last year, over 10 million tourists crossed the Straits. Mainland visitors filled their suitcases with "Huang Fei Hong" spicy peanuts and pineapple cakes. Over the past six years the two sides signed 21 agreements, explicitly affirming "peaceful development." Are we really still in the midst of a civil war? Or more to the point, do we really want a civil war? Do we really need to continue a civil war?

What is a civil war? It is a war between two governments. It is rifles and cannons and rivers of blood. We are no longer shooting and bleeding. The two sides of the Strait now use "peaceful development" to solve their problems. The "warring governments" have become divided rule governments.

In short, as the second of the "Five Principles" notes, the warring governments on the two sides of the Strait are now divided rule governments. One. This means that the cross-Strait status quo is a legacy of the civil war. The civil war created "warring governments." It also led to the establishment of "two governments." Two. But these two governments are not currently at war. They have become two governments that signed 21 agreements on equal but divided rule. Three. The two equal, divided rule governments are a fact. Therefore they must recognize each others jurisdiction. This leads naturally to the Great One China, Two Governments Framework, which deals with the "non-repudiation of each other's sovereignty" issue.

The Great One China, Two Governments Framework deals with the issue of sovereignty. It invokes a new concept of sovereignty to deal with the existence of two countries. Linkage points ensure that they do not view each other as foreign countries. Divided rule involves jurisdiction. It is a new concept that deals with the existence of the two governments. Primacy means the two governments are equal but rule separately.

The Great One China, Two Governments Framework means that the facts are real, the recognition is real, the feelings are real, the values are real, the belief is real, the system is gradually becoming real. Divided rule is used to promote the Great One China, Two Governments Framework. Conversely, the Great One China, Two Governments Frameworks stabilizes the reality of divided rule.

How will the Great One China, Two Governments Framework create linkage points between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China ? The fourth of the "Five Principles" deals with this. It proclaims that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are each "incomplete international legal persons." The linkage points mean that the "Five Principles" are not the same as the "Two States Theory." What of the so-called "incomplete international legal person?" Consider the EU as a confederation. The confederation model and the EU model have been rejected in the past. Therefore one may wish to avoid mentioning it, But rejecting the name is not the same as rejecting the concept. The Mainland recently proposed setting up "Committee for Peaceful Development" think tanks on both sides of the Strait to serve as linkage points. One need not explore confederations, either in name or in fact.

解放思想：新的主權觀與新的內戰觀
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.29 04:22 am

施明德領銜發布《處理兩岸問題五原則》，這個方案若要進入實踐，首要條件是「解放思想／創新政策」。「大一中兩府」必須建立在「新的主權觀」與「新的內戰觀」之上：

先論新的主權觀。大一中兩府建立在「主權創新」的觀念上，而主權是十六世紀才出現的概念，在這以前根本沒有主權這個概念。亦即，主權是一個「人造物」不是「自然物」。

由 於主權是「人造物」，所以它是會發展、會變動及可以再創新的。例如，最早的主權觀，包括君權神授、朕即國家等，後來盧梭、洛克等又發展出契約論的「主權在 民」概念，再後來社會主義革命又出現「無產階級專政」的主權觀。再如，邦聯制，也是主權的另一表現形式。至於現在的歐盟，則是「二十八加一」的觀念，二十 八個會員國各有一部憲法，在上面的歐盟又有一部憲法，這就是「二十八加一」。聯合國成立時，主權國家只有五十個，今天聯合國的會員國則是一百九十四個。這 些歷史在在都證明，主權概念是「人造物」，它是可以發展、改變、創新的。

《五原則》的第三點明白指出，「一個中國」不能被窄化成「中華人民共和國」的代名詞。「大一中架構」即是創新的「主權觀」，也就是主張：在大一中架構下，中華民國和中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國，並有兩個對等的分治政府。

再 論新的內戰觀。兩岸現狀是上世紀四○年代的內戰所形成，但是「內戰」的實況早已停止，留下的只是政治人物不容許人民丟掉的「內戰思維」。在明明沒有「內 戰」的今天，若仍然主張「內戰史觀」，那就是挾持人民、綁架人民、挑撥人民，及愚弄人民。去年兩岸互訪超過千萬人次，行李中放滿那邊的「黃飛紅」麻辣花生 和這邊的鳳梨酥，且六年簽訂了二十一個協議，口口聲聲「和平發展」，請問：我們還有「內戰」嗎？或者，請問：我們還要「內戰」嗎？再請問：我們還要「繼 續」「內戰」嗎？

什麼叫做內戰？就是兩個交戰政府之間的戰爭，那是槍砲大作，血流成河；現在，不開槍了，不要流血了，兩岸要用「和平發展」的方法來解決共同的問題，事實上，「交戰政府」已經變成了兩岸對等的「分治政府」。

綜 上所論，《五原則》第二點指出，「兩岸『交戰政府』轉為『分治政府』」，堪謂甚具巧思。一、這是指兩岸現狀為內戰的遺留，因內戰而有「交戰政府」，因此亦 確立了「兩府」的事實。二、但是，這個「兩府」如今已非「交戰」政府，而已成為互簽二十一協定的「對等分治」的「兩府」。三、既有「對等分治」的「兩府」 事實，即必須「治權相互承認」，因此也就自然引發了須以「大一中架構」來處理「主權互不否認」的問題。

在這個思想體系中，「大一中架構」涉及主權，是要以新的主權觀來處理兩個國家的問題（連結點），使其成為「互不視為外國的國家」；「分治政府」涉及治權，則是要以新的內戰觀來處理兩個政府的問題（主體性），使其對等分治。

未來，「大一中兩府」的方案，應當循「事實的存在→認知的存在→情感的存在→價值的存在→信仰的存在→法律的存在→制度的存在」之步驟漸進，以底於成。亦即，以「分治政府」的實踐來帶動「大一中架構」的理念，並以「大一中架構」的理念來穩定「分治政府」的實踐。

至 於如何以「大一中架構」來建立中華民國與中華人民共和國的「連結點」？《五原則》第四點提出了「在中華民國與中華人民共和國之上共組一個『不完整的國際法 人』」的建議；既有「連結點」，即非「兩國論」。至於所謂「不完整的國際法人」，如邦聯或歐盟等均是；唯若認為邦聯或歐盟模式皆是曾被否定的名稱，而須避 忌，但名稱被否定並不等同於觀念也要被否定，大陸智囊最近提出兩岸共設「和平發展委員會」作為「連結點」，即不必探究其是否雖無邦聯之名而有邦聯之實。