“The Righteous and Rogues Cannot Coexist” Era is Long Past

“The Righteous and Rogues Cannot Coexist” Era is Long Past 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation 
May 9, 2016

Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen needs to understand the importance of such a strategy of ambiguity. She must not act rashly merely to appease homegrown fanatics. This incident confirms that in the long run, there is simply no way around the one China principle. Every attempt to get around it will precipitate a crisis. Tsai may as well come right out and say it: “Cross-Strait relations are not international relations”. This is especially important at the WHA, which honors the relevant United Nations resolutions. Such an action would enable other governments to understand that the ROC enjoys autonomy. It would address Beijing's concerns, and also obtain additional breathing space for ourselves. What the public least wants to see, is the “The righteous and rogues cannot coexist” rhetoric that accompanied our departure from the United Nations decades ago. The DPP government must have the wisdom and eloquence to moderate passions within its own party.

Full Text Below:

This year the World Health Organization invited the ROC to attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) under the name "Chinese Taipei". But for the first time, the invitation underscored UN Resolution 2758 and the "one China principle". This means that during the next four years, Beijing intends to make the one China principle a precondition for official relations with the DPP government. Will the DPP accept this even more rigorous "one China, different interpretations" framework? Everyone is waiting to see.

Soon to be Executive Yuan Spokesman Tong Cheng-yuan's response showed that the DPP did not expect Beijing to move so quickly. As a result it was caught off guard. All it could do was to appeal to the public to "remain non-partisan, and together defend Taiwan's rights". The future government's responses so far have been fairly sober. But the hawkish responses from green camp media and green camp opinion leaders is worrisome, and could undermine the future government's decision-making process.

The DPP's cross-Strait political stance has long included two premises. Premise One. The "1992 Consensus" means that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China. That “one China” is the People's Republic of China. Therefore the DPP rejects the 1992 Consensus. Premise Two. Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state. Its current name is the Republic of China. The Republic of China is not China, but Taiwan. This means that the DPP rejects the one China principle, and has no response to UN resolution 2758. Beijing's citation of UN Resolution 2758 and the one China principle as preconditions for participation in the WHA run directly counter to the DPP's core premises.

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP government have two options. Option One. Participate, but protest. It can hold up protest signs from its seats. It can attach “Taiwan” labels to their desk name plates. It can address the General Assembly or hold press conferences outside the venue. It can declare that as the delegation from Taiwan , it has nothing to do with China. Back home, it can play the victim card, and complain about Mainland oppression against Taiwan. Option Two. Refuse to attend the WHA, reject the Mainland's version of the one China principle, and proclaim that “The righteous and rogues cannot coexist”.

The government on Taiwan has repeatedly voiced its objection to Beijing's version of the "one China principle" before Beijing and the international community. Almost every time it participated in the annual ADB meeting, it has protested our member name and called on the ADB to remember that the ROC was a founding member. The ROC government also opposes international organizations referring to us as "China Taipei". It only accepts the name "Chinese Taipei". When the KMT was in power, the ROC government did not object to the "one China principle". It adhered to "one China, different interpretations", and insisted that the People's Republic of China is not synonymous with “China”. According to the ROC government, "one China” refers to the “Republic of China”. During DPP rule, the government has operated on the basis of “one nation on each side”. The DPP government rejects any and all connections with "China".

Will the Tsai Ing-wen government cling to past DPP thinking? Will it reenact the same song and dance at this year's WHA? Such antics are certain to backfire. They will only prove to Beijing that Tsai Ing-wen is determined to destroy the status quo, especially on the international stage. Beijing will then find it easier to persuade the world to accept its view. If Taiwan and the Mainland clash on the international stage, Taiwan will gain nothing. Given Mainland influence, many of its diplomatic allies will declare their support for the one China principle, and assert that Taiwan is part of the PRC, inflicting even greater harm upon Taiwan.

The DPP government cannot expect the United States, Japan and European Union countries to speak up for Taiwan. This time the United States and the European Union responded to appeals from our MOFA and expressed concern. But that does not mean they are willing to tolerate Taiwan creating discord during the meeting. In particular Washington, along with Beijing, are to some extent engaged in “adult supervision” over Taiwan. Washington has long stressed its hope that Taiwan can enjoy "meaningful" participation in international activities. Meaningful means more substantive participation in discussions of concrete issues. It does not mean manufacturing disputes over names and political issues. Washington has its own take on the one China principle. It rejects Beijing's definition. But it has no desire to see Taipei break out of the one China framework. Still less does it want Taipei promoting ideas different from the one China principle on the international stage.

For the DPP government, the most rational choice is to attend the conference. Any protests should focus on the issue of political interference. Protests should oppose the politicization of professional issues. Protests must not challenge the one China principle itself. Still less should they repudiate the one China principle. As long as Taipei does not proclaim “one China, one Taiwan”, and is willing to participate on the same basis as the past eight years, Beijing will not adopt tough measures in response. If Taipei's protestations are measured, and do not disrupt the proceedings of the General Assembly, other governments will not regard Taiwan as a "troublemaker". Taipei will be allowed to participate and receive the maximum benefits.

Tsai Ing-wen needs to understand the importance of such a strategy of ambiguity. She must not act rashly merely to appease homegrown fanatics. This incident confirms that in the long run, there is simply no way around the one China principle. Every attempt to get around it will precipitate a crisis. Tsai may as well come right out and say it: “Cross-Strait relations are not international relations”. This is especially important at the WHA, which honors the relevant United Nations resolutions. Such an action would enable other governments to understand that the ROC enjoys autonomy. It would address Beijing's concerns, and also obtain additional breathing space for ourselves.

What the public least wants to see, is the “The righteous and rogues cannot coexist” rhetoric that accompanied our departure from the United Nations decades ago. The DPP government must have the wisdom and eloquence to moderate passions within its own party.

漢賊不兩立時代早已過去
2016年05月09日 中國時報

世界衛生組織今年以「中華台北」（Chinese Taipei）名稱邀請我政府出席世界衛生大會（WHA），但邀請函首度加註聯合國2758號決議文及「一個中國原則」，顯示未來4年，北京將以其定義的「一中」為前提，與民進黨政府維繫兩岸關係。民進黨是否接受這個遠比「一中各表」更嚴格的框架，各方矚目。

從準行政院發言人童振源的談話可以看出，民進黨似乎沒有想到北京出牌如此迅速，因而未能預先做出研判並備妥預案，臨時只能呼籲「國人應該不分黨派，共同捍衛台灣的權利」。令人憂心的是，準政府的反應尚稱穩健，綠營媒體與意見領袖卻戰鬥意志昂揚，將造成準政府決策困境。

民進黨長期對於兩岸政治定位的論述邏輯有二：一是認為「九二共識」等於「兩岸同屬一中」，一中就是中華人民共和國，因此不接受九二共識；二是主張台灣已經是個主權獨立的國家，目前的名稱是中華民國，中華民國不是中國，而是等於台灣，因此不接受一個中國原則，對聯合國2758號決議文也沒有意見。北京以聯合國2758號決議文及「一個中國原則」做為民進黨參與WHA的連帶條件，明顯是直接挑戰民進黨的核心論述。

蔡英文政府及民進黨可以有兩個選擇，一是帶著抗議去參加，在座位的名牌上豎立起抗議牌或貼上「台灣」，在大會或會外發言，宣稱我代表團代表台灣，與中國無關，並在內部做悲情訴求，宣傳大陸打壓台灣，另一就是選擇不出席WHA，與大陸的「一中原則」誓不兩立。

對大陸堅持的「一個中國原則」，我政府確曾多次向國際社會及北京表達抗議，幾乎每年參加亞銀年會，我方都會對會員名稱問題表達抗議，並呼籲亞銀正視我為創始會員國的事實。另外，我政府也反對任何國際組織將我稱之為「中國台北」，而僅接受「中華台北」。但在國民黨執政時期，我政府抗議的理由並非不接受「一個中國原則」，而是認為在「一中各表」的基礎上，中華人民共和國並不等同於中國，我政府僅認同「一中是中華民國」的一個中國原則。民進黨時代抗議的背景則是兩岸一邊一國，民進黨政府不接受任何與「中國」的關連。

蔡英文政府如果延續過去民進黨的思路，並在今年的WHA正式場合中做類似的立場宣示，那就必然會帶來反效果，給大陸充分的證據來證明蔡英文在以實際行動破壞兩岸現狀，特別是在國際場合，大陸更容易據此來說服世界各國接受這一見解。台灣若與大陸在國際場合正面衝突，以大陸的影響力，台灣應該討不到多少便宜，許多大陸的友邦會表態支持一中原則和台灣是中國一部分的論述，那對台灣的傷害才大。

民進黨政府也不必寄望於美、日、歐盟諸國會在這一場合替台灣「仗義執言」，這次美國和歐盟雖然在我政府外交部的請託下介入關切，但並不意味著他們希望看到台灣在會議上製造衝突對立。尤其是美國，某種程度上正在實踐與大陸共管台灣的策略。美方一直強調希望台灣「有意義的」參與國際活動，所謂「有意義」是指要發揮實質作用，並參與具體問題的討論，而不要在名稱問題和政治問題製造糾紛。美方對一中原則也有自己的見解，一方面美方不會接受大陸方面的定義，但也不希望看到台灣跳脫出一中原則的框架，更不可能支持台灣在國際場合宣揚不同於一中原則的特定論述。

對民進黨政府來說，最理性的選擇還是積極與會，表達抗議的重點應放在政治干預上，即反對在WHA這種專業場合加諸有關一中原則的政治前提，但不要挑戰一中原則本身，更不能否定這一原則。只要台灣方面不採取宣示一中一台的行動，並聲明願在過去8年參與的基礎上繼續做出貢獻，大陸方面也不便採取強硬措施應對。而對其他與會國家來說，台灣適度的表達抗議也不會影響大會的進程，因而也就不會將台灣視為「麻煩製造者」，台灣由此也就獲得了未來繼續參與相關活動的最大空間。

蔡英文需要理解這種模糊策略的重要性，不能為了滿足內部激進派的需要而採取過激舉動。長遠來看，這次事件表明一中原則終究繞不過去，蔡英文與其每次做這種危機處理，不如明確說出兩岸非國與國關係，特別是藉這次WHA場合聲明對聯合國相關決議的尊重，同時讓各國了解台灣擁有自主性的事實，既照顧大陸關切，又能為自己贏得迴旋空間。

人民最不願意見到的，就是當年退出聯合國時的激情「漢賊不兩立」，民進黨政府應以智慧與溝通化解黨內激情氣氛。