Only Saying No to Independence Allows One to Say No to Reunification

Only Saying No to Independence Allows One to Say No to Reunification
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
July 20, 2016 

Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has pointed herself into a corner. She says she "honors the Constitution of the Republic of China", which rules out no independence. Yet she refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, which means she demands Taiwan independence. If the DPP persists in demanding independence, it cannot expect Beijing to relent. But since it no longer demands Taiwan independence, then why not simply accept the 1992 Consensus, then demand "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, and no use of force”?

Full Text Below:

During the DPP Seventh Party Congress, Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen addressed the General Assembly, yet failed to utter one word about cross-Strait relations.

The General Assembly assigned the matter of "a new constitution that maintains the status quo", and the question as to “whether the name Republic of China should be abolished", to the Central Executive Committee. Some party members say that assigning the matter of “a new constitution that maintains the status quo" to the Central Executive Committee, is the first step toward a new party platform. They said if it is upheld, then the matter of "whether the name Republic of China be abolished" will be also be left to the Central Executive Committee. That would be the first step toward abolishing the name “Republic of China”.

On the same day, Zhang Zhijun, Director of Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office, delivered a public message. He discussed the Taiwan issue and the Taiwan Strait issue in blunt terms. He characterized the Tsai regime in three ways. First, it has continued to promote Taiwan independence after returning to power. Second, it refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, and refuses to acknowledge it core meaning, that both sides are part of one China. Third, its policy declarations and actions are weakening the historical ties between Taiwan and the Mainland, politically, economically, and culturally. Fourth, it has interrupted communications and official negotiations, increasing cross-Strait uncertainty and risk.

Zhang Zhijun said "The one China principle is the cross-Strait compass. Depart from this principle, and the Taiwan Strait is endangered, and could be in serious trouble". Zhang Zhijun reiterated that "There is only one China. Taiwan is Chinese territory, and cannot be split off from it". He invoked the first two points of the old “Three Points”. In 2000, Qian Qichen updated the old Three Points to "There is only one China. The Mainland and Taiwan both belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no divisions". This became known as the "New Three Points". The old “Three Points” disappeared from Mainland officialdom. Yet Zhang Zhijun reverted to the wording of the old Three Points.

Zhang Zhijun's implication was clear. First, the 1992 Consensus differences remain unresolved. Second, unless they are resolved, the situation will deteriorate. Third, he concluded by emphasizing "promoting reunification". In contrast, the DPP Party Congress did not once mention cross-Strait relations even once during its General Assembly. Is this a case of “ostrich head in the sand” behavior? Or is this a case of the DPP simply being at a complete loss about what to say?

Zhang Zhijun reverted to the old Three Points language. But he invoked only the first two points. He did not mention the third point. He did not say "The Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China."

We hope Zhang Zhijun did this consciously. If he did, that means there is still room for "one China, different interpretations". From Zhang Zhijun's perspective, the 1992 Consensus means "one China". Silence regarding the “different interpretations” part is a concession, a goodwill gesture from Beijing. Without "one China, different interpretations", Beijing cannot force the 1992 Consensus on Taiwan, and Taiwan cannot accept the 1992 Consensus.

The Ma administration pondered the 1992 Consensus for many years. It took "one China, different interpretations", and gradually reframed it as "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force". Had Ma not specified "no reunifcation”, he could not have said “no independence" to voters on Taiwan. Had he not said “no independence”, he could not have said "no reunification” to the Mainland. Although Beijing has never explicitly affirmed the “different interpretations” clause, but it has implicitly accepted it.

The global scenario has changed. The Mainland is now stronger, and Taiwan is now weaker. in fact, the DPP no longer calls for de jure independence at all. During the Party Congress, Koo Kuan-min told reporters that “Frankly we have no need [for the Taiwan independence party platform]. We are already an independent nation. Why do we need to demand independence?” Actually that is what the DPP has been saying, “We are already independent. Therefore we have no need to declare independence”. This is not that far removed from Ma's “no independence”. The only difference between the two is "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation" and "The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation". In short, “already independent" is equivalent to "no independence". Once the DPP says "no independence", only then can it say "no reunification". Only then can reunification proceed slowly and cautiously.

Tsai Ing-wen vowed she would "maintain cross-Strait relations in accordance with the ROC Constitution and Regulations Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area”. The ROC Constitution was amended "in response to the needs of the nation prior to reunification". It rules out independence prior to reunification. It also rules out reunification under unreasonable conditions that fail to win peoples' hearts and minds. If Tsai Ing-wen is serious about upholding the ROC Constitution, she can say "no independence” just as easily as she can say “no reunification".

Tsai Ing-wen has pointed herself into a corner. She says she "honors the Constitution of the Republic of China", which rules out no independence. Yet she refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, which means she demands Taiwan independence. If the DPP persists in demanding independence, it cannot expect Beijing to relent. But since it no longer demands Taiwan independence, then why not simply accept the 1992 Consensus, then demand "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, and no use of force”?

Zhang Zhijun omitted the third point in the old Three Points. He left precious room in which the two sides can negotiate.

聯合／說不獨，才能說不統
2016-07-20 05:57 聯合報 社論

民進黨十七屆全代會中，黨主席蔡英文的致詞及大會宣言，竟然沒有一個字提到兩岸關係。

大會將「維持現狀新黨綱案」及「撤廢中華民國案」皆交中執會研議。有提案人說：將「維持現狀新黨綱案」交付中執會，形同宣示了訂定新黨綱的第一步；此說若成立，則將「撤廢中華民國案」交付中執會，是否也可說形同宣示了撤廢中華民國的第一步？

就在同日，北京國台辦主任張志軍在公開演說中，以尖銳的架構議論「台灣問題和台海情勢」。他將蔡政府定性：一、一個堅持台獨立場的政黨上台執政；二、拒絕承認「九二共識」和認同其兩岸同屬一中的核心意涵；三、其政策宣示和行動，從政治上、經濟上、文化上等各方面弱化和切斷台灣同大陸的歷史連結。四、導致了兩岸制度化溝通和協商談判機制的中斷，使兩岸關係增添了不確定性和風險。

張志軍說：「一個中國原則是兩岸定海神針；背離這一原則，台海就會險象環生，就可能出大亂子。」值得注意的是，張志軍恢復使用了「世界上只有一個中國，台灣是中國領土不可分割的一部分」的論述，這是久未面世的「老三句」之前兩句。自二○○○年起，老三句經錢其琛改為「世界上只有一個中國，大陸和台灣同屬一個中國，中國的主權和領土不容分割」，這是「新三句」，此後老三句即從大陸高層涉台談話中消失。張志軍這項措辭，應可視作一個翻轉。

張志軍演講的整體大意是：一、九二共識的分歧仍待解決；二、否則事態勢將惡化。三、結尾強調「促統」。相較之下，民進黨在全代會上對兩岸關係無一字著墨，這是鴕鳥心態，或根本已不知說什麼才好？

張志軍重提「老三句」，但只說了前兩句，而沒有說出第三句，那就是：「中華人民共和國政府是代表中國的唯一合法政府。」

我們希望這是張志軍有意識的保留，因為其中仍存有「一中各表」的空間。以張志軍自己的語言而論，在「九二共識」中，「一中」如果是「原則」，「各表」即是「善意」。若無「一中各表」，北京不可能強加九二共識於台灣，而台灣也不可能接受九二共識。

九二共識經馬政府多年的琢磨與推移，已從「一中各表」，逐漸伸展至「不統／不獨／不武」。馬政府若不說「不統」，就對內說不出「不獨」；若不說「不獨」，就對北京說不出「不統」。北京雖迄未正面接受，但也知道這是必須默認的論述。

由於世局丕變，兩岸消長，民進黨其實已不再倡議法理台獨。辜寬敏在全代會向記者說：「（台獨黨綱）講白一點也不必堅持，我們已經是一個獨立國家了，還要堅持什麼？」亦即，民進黨其實已說了「已獨，所以不必再獨」，那麼，離說出「不獨」亦非遙不可及。其間的差異，只須將「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」，代換成「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」，「已獨」即成「不獨」。等到民進黨可以說出「不獨」，也就取得了說「不統」的空間。因為，統一自應徐圖慎進。

蔡英文說，「依據中華民國憲法及兩岸關係條例，處理兩岸事務」，而中華民國憲法是「為因應國家統一前的需要」而增修的憲法。「統一前」規範了「不獨」，但「統一前」也規範了不接受不合情理、不能達成心靈契合的統一。蔡英文若持守中華民國憲法，她當然應說「不獨」，也當然可說「不統」。

蔡英文的困境是自陷矛盾。既稱「依據中華民國憲法」，此即是「不獨」；但否定「九二共識」，卻被解讀為主張「台獨」。其實，民進黨若仍是台獨，即不可能奢求北京鬆手；但倘不再是台獨，則又為何不全力藉九二共識以爭取「不統／不獨／不武」的話語權？

張志軍保留了第三句話，這對兩岸都是應當珍惜的空間。