Frozen Taiwan Independence = Republic of China +Taiwan

Frozen Taiwan Independence = Republic of China +Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 9, 2014

Summary: The DPP longs to complete the "final mile." But the final mile is not about returning to power. It is about publicly renouncing Taiwan independence. If the DPP returns to power but refuses to renounce Taiwan independence, internal and external pressures will prevent the DPP from governing the nation. If the DPP ever hopes to complete the "final mile," it must publicly renounce Taiwan independence. It may wish to begin with Stage Five, with the "Republic of China plus Taiwan,"

Full Text Below:

The DPP longs to complete the "final mile." But the final mile is not about returning to power. It is about publicly renouncing Taiwan independence. If the DPP returns to power but refuses to renounce Taiwan independence, internal and external pressures will prevent the DPP from governing the nation.

Beijing has explicitly voiced opposition to the DPP's Taiwan Independence Party Platform. If the DPP returns to power, it will not be able to cling to Taiwan independence. The DPP refuses to nullify its Taiwan Independence Party Platform. It insists on affirming its Resolution on Taiwan's Future. This presents two problems. One. The Taiwan Independence Party Platform and Resolution for a Normal Nation have yet to be nullified or frozen. As long as this remains the case, the Resolution on Taiwan's Future will lose all force. Two. The Resolution on Taiwan's Future asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Its current name is the Republic of China." This is "backdoor listing." This is "one nation on each side." This is the "two states theory." There is no such thing as a "Republic of Taiwan Constitution." There is no such thing as "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." Neither has any basis in fact.

No current representative of the DPP champions the Taiwan Independence Party Platform or demands the founding of a "Republic of Taiwan." The Taiwan Independence Party Platform has already been abandoned in actual practice. But when the DPP takes a detour via the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, and embraces the Republic of China, it is merely using backdoor listing as a cover for Taiwan independence. It is not citing the Constitution of the Republic of China in order to defend the Republic of China. Those who use backdoor listing as a cover for Taiwan independence say that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It's current name is the Republic of China." But genuine defenders of the Republic of China simply say, "The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation."

What is the relationship between "Taiwan" and the "Republic of China government?" Taiwan independence advocates speak of "four stages." Stage One. The Republic of China is on the Chinese mainland. The Republic of China government is founded in 1912 on the Chinese mainland. Taiwan was still under Japanese colonial occupation. 1945 marked Taiwan retrocession. Stage Two. The Republic of China comes to Taiwan. Four years after the retrocession of Taiwan, the KMT central government loses control of the Chinese mainland. It retreats to Taiwan. The Nationalist government comes to Taiwan and uses it as a "base to recover the Mainland." But talk of a "foreign regime" surfaces. Stage Three. The Republic of China on Taiwan. In the 1970s the Republic of China government pulls out of the United Nations. It resolves to defend Taiwan and "nativize" the government. Taiwan independence sentiment increases. Stage Four. The Republic of China is Taiwan. Martial law is lifted. Taiwan independence forces are cut loose. But they can find no way out. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian assert that "The Republic of China is Taiwan." This is "backdoor listing." Tsai Ing-wen asserts that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan."

The assertion that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" implies that the Republic of China is equivalent to Taiwan, by law. This is a way to create a "de-Sinicized Republic of China," i.e., a "Republic of China, but without China." It is also a way to create a "backdoor Taiwan independence Republic of China." This is why Chen Shui-bian revised the textbooks, turning Chinese history into foreign history and Sun Yat-sen into a foreigner. Tsai Ing-wen asserts that "My Republic of China has no Yangzi River, Yellow River, or Heilongjiang." But a Republic of China without Sun Yat-sen and without the Yangzi River is not the Republic of China. A Republic of China which has nothing besides Taiwan, is not the Republic of China. As long as the DPP asserts that "Taiwan equals the Republic of China," it has neither acknowledged the error of its ways, nor honestly proclaimed what nation it identifies with. 

From now on, both the blue and green camps should speak of the "Republic of China plus Taiwan." History and the global political situation constantly change. The Republic of China's relationship to Taiwan has naturally evolved to Stage Five, i.e., the "Republic of China plus Taiwan." In other words, today's Republic of China is still the Republic of China founded in 1912. It still has Sun Yat-sen. It still has the Yellow River. But today's Republic of China has also had 65 years to integrate "Taiwan Elements." This is what we mean by the "Republic of China plus Taiwan."

The term "Taiwan Elements" refers to free and democratic political and social systems, values, and lifestyles. Zhang Zhijun recently said that the Mainland respects the "Taiwan People's Choice," aka "Taiwan values" or "Taiwan consciousness." The Republic of China is infused with these "Taiwan elements." In cross-Strait relations, the term "China" provides a point of linkage. Meanwhile, the term "Republic of China" reaffirms its sovereignty. This means that the future of cross-Strait relations will continue to be determined by the Republic of China Constitution. This future will be decided by 23 million people on Taiwan. Cross-Strait relations will be directed by a rational process that leads to clearer goals.

One may opt for either process orientation or goal orientation. But whichever way one chooses, the Taiwan independence path will remain inferior to the Republic of China constitutional path. Take process orientation. Under Taiwan independence, peaceful cross-Strait relations are impossible. Take goal orientation. Taiwan independence is guaranteed to lead to military reunification. It would provide a justification for military reunification. By contrast, the Republic of China constitutional path is a rational path that ensures cross-Strait peace. It may be referred to as the "big roof concept of China," or the "grand framework for one China" that clarifies our goals. Taiwan is the water. The Republic of China is the glass. As long as the glass remains intact, the water remains contained. Destroy the glass, and the water is lost.

If the DPP ever hopes to complete the "final mile," it must publicly renounce Taiwan independence. It may wish to begin with Stage Five, with the "Republic of China plus Taiwan,"

凍獨的路徑：中華民國加台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.07.09 02:02 am

民進黨的「最後一哩」，不在重返執政，而在必須公開宣示放棄台獨路線。因為，即使民進黨重返執政，若不宣示放棄台獨路線，在內外壓力下，亦必不可能平順主政治國。

北京挑明反對《台獨黨綱》，可知民進黨若重返執政必不可能維持台獨路線。但民進黨目前所採策略，似一方面拒絕廢凍《台獨黨綱》，另一方面則欲轉移到《台灣前途決議文》的立場上。然而：一、只要《台獨黨綱》及《正常國家決議文》尚未廢凍，《台灣前途決議文》即失立場。二、《台灣前途決議文》略謂，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」，這是「借殼上市」，是「一邊一國」，是「兩國論」；何況，既無一部「台灣共和國憲法」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」之說，即無由成立。

今日，民進黨的代表人物幾已無人宣稱仍要依據《台獨黨綱》建立「台灣共和國」，可謂《台獨黨綱》其實已被棄置。但是，當民進黨繞經《台灣前途決議文》回頭擁抱「中華民國」時，其心目中，卻只有台獨意識借殼上市的「中華民國」，而不是依據《中華民國憲法》而存在的「中華民國」。其間的差異在於：借殼上市的台獨說「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」；但真正的「中華民國論述」則直稱：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家。」

「台灣」與「中華民國」的關係，台獨理論曾有「四階段說」。一、中華民國在大陸：中華民國一九一二年肇建於中國大陸，當時台灣尚在日據時代，至一九四五年始光復台灣。二、中華民國到台灣：國民黨中央政府在台灣光復後四年即失去大陸，撤遷台灣；國府以台灣為「反攻大陸的基地」，但後來出現的「外來政權」之說亦潛滋暗長。三、中華民國在台灣：上世紀七○年代退出聯合國後，革新保台的意識使本土化蔚為風氣，台獨運動亦告興起。四、中華民國是台灣：解嚴後，台獨勢力迅猛釋出，但又尋無出路，李扁二朝遂倡「中華民國是台灣」，此即「借殼上市」。蔡英文亦稱：「台灣是中華民國，中華民國是台灣。」

中華民國是台灣，有「中華民國在法理上等於台灣」之義；這是「去中國化的中華民國」，也是「台獨借殼化的中華民國」。於是，陳水扁修改課綱，以中國史為外國史，以孫中山為外國人；蔡英文則稱「我的中華民國沒有長江、黃河、黑龍江」。但是，沒有孫中山，沒有長江的中華民國，就不是中華民國；只有台灣的中華民國，也不是中華民國。因此，「台灣（等於）是中華民國，中華民國（等於）是台灣」之說，絕非民進黨在國家認同轉型上的正確落點。

今後，不論藍綠，應當以「中華民國加台灣」為共識；亦即順著歷史及世局的流變，使「中華民國與台灣的關係」，順理成章地進入「中華民國加台灣」的「五階段說」。亦即：今日的中華民國，仍是源自一九一二年的中華民國，有孫中山，也有黃河；但今日的中華民國，更是增加了經歷了六十五年「台灣元素」淬鍊的中華民國，這就是「中華民國加台灣」。

此處所稱「台灣元素」，是指民主自由的政治及社會制度、價值理念及生活方式，亦是日前張志軍所稱大陸表示尊重的「台灣人民的選擇」，也可稱作「台灣價值」或「台灣意識」。這個「浸潤了台灣元素」的「中華民國」，在兩岸關係上，一方面以「中華」為連結點，另一方面以「民國」為主體性，即能持守「兩岸關係的未來由中華民國憲法程序決定，亦即由台灣兩千三百萬人決定」的憲政戰略，設法將兩岸關係「由合理的過程導向改善之目的」。

無論從「過程論」或「目的論」來看兩岸關係，台獨路線皆不如中華民國的憲政戰略。就「過程論」看，台獨路線的兩岸關係不可能有「和平發展」；就「目的論」言，台獨恐將召喚武力統一，使武力統一有了藉口。相對而言，中華民國的憲政戰略，如今正在維持兩岸「和平發展」的「合理的過程」，也可能以「大屋頂中國」或「大一中架構」創造兩岸「改善之目的」。因為：台灣是水，中華民國是杯；杯在水在，杯破水覆。

民進黨的「最後一哩」應在公開宣示放棄台獨路線，不妨就從「中華民國加台灣」的「五階段說」入手。