Hong Kong confirms One Country, Two Systems inapplicable to Taiwan

Hong Kong confirms One Country, Two Systems inapplicable to Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2014

Summary: We hope the impasse over universal suffrage in Hong Kong can be broken by means of a "five-step program," so as not to crash and burn. It would be a shame to destroy the political legacy of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." We hope that the Beijing authorities will "free their minds and acknowledge reality." We hope they will realize that Hong Kong-style "one country, two systems" cannot be implemented on Taiwan, and that the two sides should be thinking of a new "big roof concept of China" framework.

Full Text Below:

"One Country, Two Systems" was Beijing's original plan for dealing with the Taiwan region of the ROC. Instead, it was first implemented in Hong Kong. That year, just before Hong Kong retrocession, Jiang Zemin said that the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, was for Taipei's benefit. Its purpose was "to provide an example for the reunification of the motherland." Today the Hong Kong experience has proven that "one country, two systems" cannot be applied to the Taiwan Region of the ROC.

Hong Kong's attempt to elect its Chief Executive by means of universal suffrage has reached a bottleneck. The Republic of China is about to hold its sixth direct presidential election. Could the public on Taiwan ever accept a list of candidates nominated by a "Nomination Committee?" Could they ever accept candidates not nominated by political parties or by petition? Could they ever accept chief executive elections in place of presidential elections? Impossible.

If Beijing wants Taipei to substitute chief executive elections for presidential elections, it can do so in two ways. One. It can overrun Taiwan by means of military force. Two. It can apply economic and diplomatic sanctions to bring down the ROC government. But if it resorts to either of these methods to deal with a free and democratic Republic of China government, it will become an enemy of world civilization and a pariah in the international community. It will face a problem of governance that is insoluble. Beijing could resort to force or apply economic and diplomatic sanctions, and force Taipei into submission. It is feasible. It has the power. But doing so would create a irremediable catastrophe. It would create a dilemma difficult to resolve both within and without. Therefore it is not a sensible option.

Hong Kong's "one country two systems" was intended as "an example for Taiwan." Yet Beijing has adopted a hardline attitude, provoking outrage among the public in Hong Kong. It has chiled the hearts of the public on Taiwan. Who would be willing to accept such a "one country?" Expecting the public on Taiwan to accept chief executive elections in place of presidential elections is increasingly unthinkable.

Hong Kong is not Wukan Village. Wukan Village was surrounded by a dictatorial regime. Hong Kong has been a cosmopolitan city for centuries. It has a civil society with diversity of thought. Wukan Village finds itself under "one country, one system." Hong Kong has been given a political commitment of "one country, two systems." The election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive by means of universal suffrage now appears to have reached a bottleneck. This may not have been Deng Xiaoping's original intent. It may be the result of his successors attempting to make names for themselves. The failure of the election of the Chief Executive by means of universal suffrage, is regarded as a failure of "one country, two systems." It has provoked doubts about Hong Kong's political stability.

The Taiwan Region of the ROC is not Hong Kong. As mentioned earlier, Hong Kong is fighting for genuine universal suffrage in the election of the Chief Executive. The ROC government will be holding its sixth presidential election. Hong Kong is under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. But the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent government. Otherwise, how could it be holding its sixth presidential election? Hong Kong's dispute with Beijing is over civil rights and jurisdiction. Taipei's dispute with Beijing, conversely, is over sovereignty.

The controversy in Hong Kong is over the definition of "patriotism and love of Hong Kong." Beijing can charge people with sedition and treason. But it should not create a "Nomination Committee" to screen candidates for "patriotism and love of Hong Kong." Suppose Taipei had implemented "one country, two systems?" Would a "Nomination Committee" hold candidates to "patriotism and love of Taiwan?" The public on Taiwan would then be deprived of the right to "love the Republic of China." Any criticisms of the government of the People's Republic of China would be considered "unpatriotic and deficient in love for Taiwan." Can anyone imagine how chaotic Taiwan would be under such a situation? Moreover, Taipei is currently "decriminalizing Taiwan independence." It is relying on the subtle choice between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China to mollify public opinion and cope with Taiwan independence. But if "one country, two systems" eliminated the ROC, Taiwan independence would have to deal directly with the People's Republic of China. This would make the "patriotism and love for Taiwan" controversy even more complicated.

"One country, two systems" has hit the wall in Hong Kong. It has proved that "one country, two systems" cannot be applied to the Taiwan Region of the ROC. No matter what the global situation might be, and no matter how disputatious cross-Strait relations might be, Taiwan has the ROC and direct presidential elections. It could never accept a "Nomination Committee" vetting candidates for a "chief executive." Cross-strait issues cannot be solved by means of force. They require management. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China must consider solutions that do not involve a "dog eat dog," zero sum game approach.

Beijing may find it difficult to give up its "peaceful reunification, one country, two systems" plan. But reunification must preserve the Republic of China. "One country" must include the Republic of China. In other words, the ROC and the PRC should consider a "big roof concept of China," in which the two coexist side by side. In June of this year Raymond Burghardt and Sun Yafu met for second track talks in New York. They said that the "one country" in "one country two systems" should be redefined to include the Republic of China. Beijing has kept its promise that under "one country, two systems," "horses will continue to race, people will continue to dance." But the Taiwan Region of the ROC holds presidential elections. This is the fundamental issue.

We hope the impasse over universal suffrage in Hong Kong can be broken by means of a "five-step program," so as not to crash and burn. It would be a shame to destroy the political legacy of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." We hope that the Beijing authorities will "free their minds and acknowledge reality." We hope they will realize that Hong Kong-style "one country, two systems" cannot be implemented on Taiwan, and that the two sides should be thinking of a new "big roof concept of China" framework.

香港印證：一國兩制絕無可能行諸台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.08 02:20 am

「一國兩制」最早是北京的對台方案，後來卻先行之於香港。當年香港回歸前，江澤民說過，在香港落實一國兩制，是給台灣看的，是「促成祖國統一的垂範」。而今，香港經驗卻印證：一國兩制不可能行諸台灣。

香港在「特首普選」出現瓶頸，而中華民國已是將舉行第六次總統直選的政體。試問：台灣人民如何可能接受由「提名委員會」產生候選人，而不是由政黨提名或人民連署推出？或者不再選舉總統而改選特首？這些都絕無可能！

北京若要台灣「選總統換選特首」，有兩種強制途徑。一、以武力拿下台灣；二、以經濟及外交纏垮中華民國。但是，若用這兩種方法來對付民主自由政體的中華民國，非但是與世界文明與國際輿論為敵，更將面對無法收拾的治理難題。亦即，北京若欲以武力或經濟外交糾纏來逼台灣就範，並非在實力上絕無可能，而是說這將闖下無法彌償的大禍，並將面臨內外皆難收拾的局面，故絕非明智的選項。

反過來說，如果香港的「一國兩制」是要作為「垂範台灣」之用，而北京卻用強硬的態度悍然否定香港的民意，這只會讓台灣人民看了感到心寒，有誰願意接受這樣的「一國兩制」？而若是要台灣以「選總統換選特首」，就愈發不可想像。

香港不是烏坎村，烏坎事件是被專政體制包圍的村落事件；但香港卻是百年國際都會，並且已具多元思考的公民社會。亦即，烏坎村在「一國一制」之下，但香港卻有「一國兩制」的政治承諾。因而，香港特首普選如今出現此種瓶頸，未必是原設計者鄧小平的初衷，而是後繼者無法發揚光大所致。「特首普選」的失敗，被視為「一國兩制」的失敗，亦為香港的政治穩定埋下隱憂。

何況，台灣不是香港。如前所述，香港是在爭取「特首真普選」，但中華民國將是第六次直選總統的政體。香港是在「中華人民共和國」的主權之下，但中華民國卻是一個主權獨立的政體，否則豈能第六次舉行總統直選？香港向北京爭的是「民權」與「治權」，而兩岸之間的問題卻是「主權」。

香港普選的爭議在「愛國愛港」的認定。北京其實可規定以內亂外患罪來審判叛國事件，卻不宜用「提名委員會」來進行「愛國愛港」的篩選。回過頭看，倘若台灣實施「一國兩制」，難道也將以「提名委員會」來主宰「愛國愛台」的標準？屆時，台灣人民被剝奪了「愛中華民國」的權利，若對「中華人民共和國政府」有批評即被指「不愛國／不愛台」，誰能想像台灣屆時將陷於如何不可收拾的局面？何況，台灣目前是「台獨除罪化」，唯賴在「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」的微妙抉擇之間，以社會民意的依違來處理平撫台獨問題，但「一國兩制」若使中華民國終止存在，勢將使台獨直接對上「中華人民共和國」，那又將使「愛國愛台」的爭議更形複雜。

一國兩制在香港撞牆，更印證「一國兩制」不可能在台灣複製。暫不論世局及兩岸的萬般糾葛，只因台灣有中華民國，又直選總統，就絕不可能要台灣在「提名委員會」下去選「特首」。兩岸問題不能只看力，也要看理，必須在中華民國及中華人民共和國「不是你吃掉我，也不是我吃掉你」的方針下，來思考解決方案。

北京恐怕很難放棄「和平統一／一國兩制」的兩岸方案。但是，「統一」必須考慮「保全中華民國的統一」，「一國」則應考慮「包納中華民國的一國」，也就是應當思考中華民國與中華人民共和國共存並立的「大屋頂架構」。這也正是今年六月由薄瑞光、孫亞夫領軍在紐約舉行的二軌會談中所提，應當思考將「一國兩制」中的「一國」，「以包納中華民國的方式重新定義」。因為，即使實行「一國兩制」，北京承諾香港「馬照跑／舞照跳」，但台灣卻有一個「總統照選」的問題，這才是所有問題的根本。

我們希望香港的普選僵局未來能在「五部曲」的步驟中獲得改善，以免玉石俱焚，也勿就此毀掉了鄧小平「一國兩制」的政治遺產。更希望北京當局能「解放思想／實事求是」，及早認知「港式一國兩制」不可能行諸台灣，而應在「大一中架構」下思考新的兩岸架構。