Taking the Lee Teng-hui Path is Changing the Status Quo

Taking the Lee Teng-hui Path is Changing the Status Quo
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation 
May 16, 2016

Executive Summary: The connections between the “Republic of China” and “China” are Taiwan's assets, not liabilities. Tsai wants the Republic of China only in name. Taiwan independence she wants in substance. But that will only lead to an eventual Mainland backlash. Cross-Strait relations will revert to wartime status. Only the Republic of China constitutional framework can ensure autonomy and a bais for consultations and interaction with the Mainland. Only that will enable the Taiwan public to reap the most benefits and gain the most breathing space. Only proactive cultural, economic, and social cooperation with the Mainland can avoid war and lead to the voluntary and peaceful reunification of the two sides.

Full Text Below:

Lee Teng-hui has spoken out on the 1992 Consensus. He has apparently predicted that the new government will revert to Lee Teng-hui's "special state to state relations” position. This should not be a surprise. Tsai Ing-wen was a member of Lee Teng-hui's late term National Security Advisory Committee. She was a member of Lee's inner circle of national security advisors. She was the chief spokesperson for Lee Teng-hui's "special state to state relationship” theory. She knows Lee's position backwards and forwards. Tsai Ing-wen has appointed Lin Pi-chao, who drafted the “two-states theory” to be her Presidential Office General Secretary. Other personnel appointments also suggest a return to the Lee Teng-hui path.

Of course, back then Tsai Ing-wen was merely a spokesperson. The ultimate decision was Lee Teng-hui's. To say that Tsai Ing-wen was the author or chief proponent of the “special state to state relationship” theory, overstates Tsai Ing-wen's influence. It also underestimates Lee Teng-hui's long-term planning.

In fact, Lee Teng-hui has long called for the “normalization of the nation" in order to promote substantive Taiwan independence. That means perceiving Taiwan as an already independent nation whose current name is the “Republic of China”. That means declaring formal independence is no longer necessary. On the contrary, demanding formal independence for Taiwan merely downgrades it, and undermines Taiwanese identity. In his view, all Taiwan needs now is the “rectification of names”, the authoring of a new constitution, the creation of a national identity, and membership in the United Nations. Compared to the violent conflict of Chen Shui-bian's "one nation on each side" approach, Lee Teng-hui's “special state to state relations” approach under the guise of the "Republic of China" is potentially even more harmful.

As Lee said, explicitly advocating Taiwan independence will only provoke a backlash from Washington and Beijing. Chen Shui-bian's blind lashing out looked fiercer than Lee Teng-hui's approach. But its lack of legitimacy paradoxically led Washington and Beijing to tighten the screws on him. Lee's path is different. It avoids touching sensitive nerves. It focuses instead on constitutionalism, gradualism, and on cultural, educational, and mass media indoctrination. Paradoxically it led to vastly greater gains in maneuvering room.

The “special state to state relations” theory has in fact provoked powerful backlashes from the Mainland. But the aftermath has been such that Lee invariably evades responsibility on Taiwan. That is why the Lee Teng-hui path has yet to suffer any major setbacks.

Consider the many things Lee Teng-hui did during his term. He pushed through six constitutional amendments pertaining to national identity. Basically he sabotaged the connection between the “Republic of China” and “China”. He implemented cultural and educational policies that led to the current alienation from the Mainland. In particular, his “concentric view of history” and “maritime nation” perspective, weakened public identification with the Mainland. Substantively speaking, the carefully planned Lee Teng-hui path led to an abundant harvest.

Now that Tsai Ing-wen is about to assume power, she can no longer resort to a strategy of deliberate ambiguity to reduce doubts about her rule. Recent actions already betray signs of a Lee Teng-hui path. Consider her personnel appointments. The Presidential Office General Secretary, and Minister of Culture and Education are key positions. She has appointed to both of them, Lee era people with deep green Taiwan independence political colors. Tsai Ing-wen insists she is maintaining the status quo, and avoiding provocationi. In fact however, she has replicated the Lee Teng-hui regime.

She defines the “status quo” the same as Lee. She asserts that Taiwan is “already a sovereign and independent state whose current name is the Republic of China”. That is why she refuses to issue a clear statement regarding the 1992 Consensus or one-China principle. Furthermore, the draft version of the Referendum Law has entered the review stage. The referendum threshold will be lowered. Preliminary consensus has been reached on a two-stage referendum for cross-Strait political agreements, and changes to the nation's territory. These create conditions necessary for de jure independence. They sound the alarm for future cross-Strait relations.

We must remind the new government, that although Lee's every step was carefully planned, overstep the bounds and Washington and Beijing will slam on the brakes. In other words, promoting Taiwan independence under the banner of the Republic of China will eventually be exposed for what it is. If Tsai Ing-wen is genuinely concerned for the well-being of Taiwan, she must abandon the Lee Teng-hui path. She must evaluate the current international situation, and the reality behind the cross-Strait balance of power. She cannot deal with cross-Strait relations merely by “avoiding provocation”. She must actively seek common ground with the Mainland and facilitate bilateral cooperation.

The connections between the “Republic of China” and “China” are Taiwan's assets, not liabilities. Tsai wants the Republic of China only in name. Taiwan independence she wants in substance. But that will only lead to an eventual Mainland backlash. Cross-Strait relations will revert to wartime status. Only the Republic of China constitutional framework can ensure autonomy and a bais for consultations and interaction with the Mainland. Only that will enable the Taiwan public to reap the most benefits and gain the most breathing space. Only proactive cultural, economic, and social cooperation with the Mainland can avoid war and lead to the voluntary and peaceful reunification of the two sides.

走李登輝路線就是改變現狀
2016年05月16日 中國時報

李登輝針對九二共識問題發表的言論，似已預告新政府將重新回到李登輝的「特殊兩國論」路線。我們的觀察並不突兀，蔡英文曾任李登輝執政末期國安會諮詢委員，深度參與李的國安小團隊，更是李登輝「特殊兩國論」報告主持人，對李登輝路線了然於胸。蔡英文選擇了當年共同參與兩國論起草的林碧炤擔任總統府祕書長，人事安排似意味李登輝路線的再起。

當然，蔡英文當年只是相關研究案的主持人，最終結論還是要李登輝本人定案，說蔡英文是特殊國與國關係的主張者或者幕後主導者，未免高估了當時蔡英文的影響力，也低估了李登輝在這一問題上的長期布局。

事實上，李登輝一直以所謂「國家正常化」來推動實質台獨路線，也就是將台灣視為已經獨立的國家，只是國號為中華民國，因此台獨不是問題，相反，主張台獨反而是讓台灣降格，傷害台灣的主體性。而在他看來，台灣現在要做的只是正名、制憲、建立國家認同以及加入聯合國等。比起陳水扁「一邊一國」的暴衝，李登輝這種在「中華民國」旗號之下的「特殊國與國」潛在危害性更大。

正如李登輝所說，主張台獨會引起美、中等國反制，陳水扁盲撞的作為表面看起來比李登輝嚴重，但因缺乏正當性而被美、中共同反對，反而限縮了自己的活動空間。李登輝的路線則不同，因為盡量避免挑動各方敏感神經，而是側重從憲政法律、文化教育以及媒體宣傳等領域循序漸進，反而為其主張贏得了巨大的迴旋空間。

事實上，特殊兩國論雖引爆大陸強烈反彈，但後續發展卻讓李登輝躲過了可能的內政危機，除此之外，李登輝的路線並沒有遭遇其他重大挫折。

檢視李登輝任內的種種作為，接連6次修憲及各類事關國家認同的法律修訂，基本已經模糊了中華民國與中國的連結；從文化和教育領域推行去中國認同政策，特別是同心圓史觀與海洋國家的理念，更是當今民眾大幅降低中國認同的濫觴。從實質促成台獨的角度來看，李登輝當年的路線確實是布局縝密而又成績豐碩的。

如今蔡英文站上執政舞台，再難用模糊策略回應外界的質疑，近來她一系列的做法，已出現李登輝路線的影子。從人事安排上說，不光總統府祕書長是李朝人馬，十分關鍵的文化部長和教育部長兩個職務，蔡英文也安排獨派色彩濃厚的得力戰將出任。蔡英文反覆強調的維持現狀和不挑釁，實現的卻是李登輝路線的翻版。

同李登輝一樣，她的現狀維持是建立在台灣已是主權獨立國家，現在名為中華民國的思維邏輯之上，因而拒絕在九二共識或者一中原則上做出明確表態。不僅如此，公投法修正草案也進入審查階段，並就下修公投門檻、兩岸政治協議兩階段公投以及將領土變更案納入公投內容等達成初步共識，這無疑為法理台獨的實施創造了條件。凡此種種，都為未來兩岸關係敲響了警鐘。

我們必須提醒新政府，李登輝的路線雖然步步為營，一旦觸及兩岸政治紅線，還是不得不在美、中壓力下急踩煞車。換句話說，在中華民國旗號下推動隱性台獨，終究還是會被揭露出真面目。蔡英文若真為台灣民眾福祉計，就應該摒棄李登輝路線，重新審視當今國際局勢和兩岸實力對比消長的現實，不能以不挑釁的被動思維處理兩岸關係，而是該積極與大陸求同存異，尋找兩岸合作的新契機。

中華民國與中國的連結，應該是台灣的資產而非負債，若只想以中華民國之殼行台灣獨立之實，必然招致大陸反制，將兩岸關係推回烽火連天的舊局。只有在中華民國完整憲政體制下維持既有的自主性，並在此基礎上與大陸協商互動，才能爭取台灣民眾最大的福利以及台灣最大的活動空間。而只有積極主動地與大陸進行文化、經濟和社會諸領域的合作融一，才能最終實現兩岸基於自主選擇權之下的和平統一。