Further Evolution in One China, Different Interpretations

Further Evolution in One China, Different Interpretations
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 29, 2015

Executive Summary: One China, Same Intepretation, is not opposed to One China, Different Interprations. It is an evolution of One China, Different Interpretations. It is a more logical and intuitive understanding of the cross-Strait relationship. Hung Hsiu-chu quoted the late President Chiang Ching, who said, "The times are changing, the environment is changing, the trends are changing," The KMT must not cling to One China, Different Interpretations. The time for that is past. The 1992 Consensus helped the KMT win the presidency, twice. The time however, has come for an upgrade.

Full Text Below:

President Ma Ying-jeou used the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations to establish a "no [immediate] reunification, no Taiwan independence, and no use of force" cross-Strait framework. Over the past seven years, this has enabled the KMT government to make cross-Strait relations more peaceful than they have ever been. That said, changes have taken place inside and outside Taiwan. Mainland China's global influence has increased. The low-hanging fruit in cross-Strait relations has already been picked. The problems that remain are harder to solve. One China, Different Interpretations has reached the end of its useful life. It is no longer adequate for policy planning and implementation. Hung Hsiu-chu has made One China, Same Interpretation and a Cross-Strait Peace Agreement the theme of her 2016 KMT presidential campaign. This is an advancement over One China, Different Interpretations. If voters approve, and Hung is elected, cross-Strait relations will be stabilized, and long term peace will be assured.

The key to cross-Strait relations is the dispute over One China. Since 1949, the two sides have been separately governed. The dispute has been over who represents China as a whole. During the Cold War, Taipei's position was "good and evil cannot coexist". During the Lee Teng-hui era, cross-Strait exchanges began. Initially One China, Different Interpretations addressed the question of who represented China as a whole. Later, when Lee moved toward separatism, his Two States Theory relinquished claims to represent China as a whole.

During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power the key was One Country on Each Side. Relations between the two sides reached new lows. In 2008, when Ma Ying-jeou came to office, the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations enabled Taipei and Beijing to reach agreements and begin large scale cross-Strait exchanges.

One China, Different Interpretations served a useful historic purpose. But 172 countries around the world have diplomatic relations with Beijing, Only 22 have diplomatic relations with Taipei. Beijing has vastly more global political influence than Taipei. In the long run, One China, Different Interpretations is clearly unfavorable to Taipei. Besides, most countries accept the premise that "One China equals the People's Republic of China". We say tha the "One China" in One China, Different Interpretations means the Republic of China. But most people on Taiwan dismiss this as KMT self-delusion. Online commentary is rife with younger generation mockery. "So the other side is the ROC?, is it?" "The rest of the world considers One China to be the PRC, does it not?", "Does the Kuomintang dare make this claim on the Mainland?" "Let the CCP first recognize the ROC".

Such mockery is consistent with peoples' intuition. The Mainland has long monopolized the claim to represent China as a whole. It has limited Taiwan's participation in international activities. Claiming that "One China equals the ROC" leaves one vulnerable to youthful mockery about Ah Q. As a result, many people on Taiwan perceive "China" as opposed to "Taiwan". They perceive favoring China and being pro-China as "selling out Taiwan."

In realpolitik terms, One China, Different Interpretations is no longer enough in cross-Strait political relations. It is detrimental to the future of Taiwan. It weakens identification with the Mainland among the Taiwan public. The 1992 Consensus clearly needs an update. Hung Hsiu-chu champions One China, Same Interpretation. Specifically, this means that both sides of the Strait are part of China as a whole. Their declared sovereignty overlaps. But their constitutional rule and legal jurisdiction remain separate.

In plain language, the two sides are two constitutionally-based governments within China as a whole. Cross-Strait relations are neither international relations, nor domestic relations. They are domestic relations within China as a whole. 

One China, Same Interpretation, is clear and reasonable. It is an evolution of One China, Different Interpretations, rather than a repudiation of it. It can ensure peace and stability in cross-Strait relations. It can resolve public confusion over national identity. One China, Same Interpretation provides an answer to online skepticism over One China, Different Interpretations. It also responds to questions such as "What the highest peak in China as a whole?" The answer is "The Himalayas have the highest peaks in China as a whole. The highest peak in the region under ROC government jurisdiction on the other hand, is Yushan. By the same token, the art treasures in the National Palace Museum belong to China as a whole. They are the shared property of both Taipei and Beijing. But the National Palace Museum in Taipei is under the jurisdiction of the Taipei government. The 's Forbidden City in Beijing meanwhile, is under the jurisdiction of the Beijing government.

One China, Same Interpretation is consistent with people's gut level understanding. It alone can make the KMT's cross-Strait rhetoric convincing. It alone can enable Hung Hsiu-chu to champion her other concept -- a Cross-Strait Peace Agreement. It alone can give such an agreement the necesary legitimacy. To normalize cross-Strait relations, we must sign a peace agreement. It alone can enable Taiwan to participate in international activities. It along can improve relations between Taiwan and the Mainland vis a vis the rule of law and national policy. It alone can fully normalize the rule of law, national security, and domestic policy. A Cross-Strait Peace Agreement is actually part of Lien and Hu's Five Visions. It is their most important consensus. Yet the KMT has been cowed by the Green Camp. It is paralyzed, terrified of defending this idea. Now however, is the time to realize this vision.

One China, Same Intepretation, is not opposed to One China, Different Interprations. It is an evolution of One China, Different Interpretations. It is a more logical and intuitive understanding of the cross-Strait relationship. Hung Hsiu-chu quoted the late President Chiang Ching, who said, "The times are changing, the environment is changing, the trends are changing," The KMT must not cling to One China, Different Interpretations. The time for that is past. The 1992 Consensus helped the KMT win the presidency, twice. The time however, has come for an upgrade.

一中同表是一中各表的再進化

2015年06月29日 中國時報

馬英九總統以「九二共識、一中各表」為基礎，建立兩岸「不統、不獨、不武」關係架構，歷經7年執政，創造了國民政府遷台以來兩岸前所未有的和平巔峰。但不可諱言，隨著台灣內外環境變化、中國大陸全球影響力提高及兩岸關係進入深水區，「一中各表」已出現論述「彈性疲乏」及政策規畫執行「合理性欠缺」現象。洪秀柱以「一中同表」及「兩岸和平協定」作為國民黨競選2016總統大位兩岸政策主軸，是「一中各表」的進階，如能得到選民認同順利當選，將可為兩岸關係打下更深厚、更可長可遠的和平發展基礎。

兩岸關係的核心在如何處理「一中」爭議。自1949年兩岸分治至今，爭奪的就是「一中代表權」。冷戰時期是「漢賊不兩立」，李登輝執政兩岸開始交往，初期以「一中各表」處理「一中代表權」，後期則走向分離主義「兩國論」，放棄爭奪「一中代表權」。

陳水扁8年執政以「一邊一國」為核心，兩岸信任幾乎降到冰點。2008年馬英九執政，以「九二共識、一中各表」定位「一中」，得以與北京進行事務性協商，開啟兩岸大交流。

「一中各表」已做出歷史性、功能性的貢獻，但北京與全世界172個國家有外交關係，台北只有22個邦交國，北京的全球政治權力超過台北許多，長期下來「各表」很明顯對台北不利。而且多數國家接受「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，使得台灣半數以上民眾認為，「一中各表」定義「一中就是中華民國」，只是國民黨的「自慰詞」。PTT八卦版上充斥著年輕世代的「公式化」嘲諷：「原來對岸是中華民國哦？」「國際認知的一中是PRC吧？」「國民黨敢到大陸喊嗎？」「先請中共承認一中是ROC吧？」

這些「一句式」質疑都符合直觀。因為，大陸長期壟斷「中國代表權」，壓抑台灣國際參與空間，強說一中是中華民國，確實容易被年輕人當成阿Q式笑話。其結果是，許多台灣民眾把「中國」和「台灣」對立起來，「傾中、親中」就是「賣台」。

在政治現實上，「一中各表」已無法處理兩岸政治關係，未來對台灣將更為不利，而且也繼續惡化了台灣內部的認同關係，顯然「九二共識」需要深化。洪秀柱提出的「一中同表」，具體內容是「兩岸均是『整個中國』內的一部分，其主權宣示重疊、憲政治權分立」。

用通俗的話來說，「兩岸是整個中國內部的兩個憲政政府」，兩岸關係並不是「國際關係」，也不是哪一方的「內政事務」，而是「整個中國」的「內部關係」。

「一中同表」清晰合理，是「一中各表」的進化而非異化，它不僅可以讓兩岸關係和平穩定的前進，又可以化解台灣民眾的認同爭議。在一中同表的論述基礎下，PTT八卦版上對「一中各表」直觀式的質疑，也能提出符合直觀的回應：喜馬拉雅山是「整個中國」的最高峰，中華民國政府所管轄的最高峰是玉山。同樣，兩岸故宮博物院的文物重寶都是「整個中國」的，屬於兩岸共有的財產，但是，台北的故宮由台北政府管理，北京的故宮由北京政府管理。

當「一中同表」符合民眾的「直觀」，國民黨的兩岸論述才能在台灣內部取得說服力，也才能進一步讓洪秀柱的另一個兩岸主張「兩岸和平協定」，取得更強的正當性基礎。兩岸關係要正常化，就必須簽署「和平協定」，解決「台灣參與國際活動問題」，並有利台灣從法制與國策上改變與大陸的敵對關係，兩岸關係才能夠從法治與國安及內政政策全面正常化。「兩岸和平協定」其實是「連胡五項願景」的一部分，也是最重要共識，國民黨卻被綠營聲勢嚇唬而陷於「木雞困境」，怯於為這個理念辯護，現在是實現的時機了。

「一中同表」並不是「一中各表」的對立面，而是一中各表的進化，而且更合於邏輯、更合於直觀的兩岸論述。就如洪秀柱引故總統蔣經國的話：「時代在變、環境在變、潮流在變」，國民黨不要再死抱「一中各表」了，過去幫國民黨打下二次江山的「九二共識」，是到了改裝升級的時候了。