Jia Qinglin: A Slip of the Tongue?

Jia Qinglin: A Slip of the Tongue?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2012

Summary: During the Cross-Strait Trade and Cultural Forum, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin said, "The core concept of the one China framework is that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." This wording is unprecedented, and has attracted considerable attention. Jia Qinglin's remarks provide an important lesson for the bickering Blue and Green camps. The Democratic Progressive Party in particular must see the light and defend the "1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations" and the Constitution of the Republic of China.

Full Text below:

During the Cross-Strait Trade and Cultural Forum, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin said, "The core concept of the one China framework is that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." This wording is unprecedented, and has attracted considerable attention.

Beijing's cross-Strait framework is changing. Beijing used to speak of the "one-China principle." Over the past few years however, cross-Strait relations have warmed. Beijing now says that it "opposes Taiwan independence, and adheres to the 1992 Consensus." In March of this year, following the Wu Hu Meeting, it suggested that "The two sides both belong to one China." Subtle changes have taken place. Beijing's cross-strait framework has become "opposition to Taiwan independence, adherence to the 1992 Consensus, and consolidation of the one China framework." This is how Jia Qinglin's wording has evolved.

The Ma administration noticed the changes and felt the pressure following the Wu Hu Meeting. But it feels the situation remains contained within the framework of "one China, different interpretations." The "two sides may belong to one China." The goal may be the "consolidation of the one China framework." But the framework remains "one China, different interpretations." The situation remains contained within the framework of the 1992 Consensus. It has also remained within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China.

Beijing may not emphasize "one China, different interpetations." But four years of cross-Strait policy have clearly been built on the tacit agreement of "one China, different interpretations, and seeking common ground while shelving differences." During a March 26, 2008 hotline conversation, Hu Jintao told George W. Bush that "the two parties (Taipei and Beijing) acknowledge that there is only one China, but acknowledge that they have different interpretations of that one China." This is "one China, different interpretations." It has also been the basis for "seeking common ground while shelving differences, and ensuring peaceful development." This is the principle that has guided the two sides over the past four years. 

Now however, Beijing says the two sides belong to one China. It has narrowed the scope for "different interpretations." It has touched upon the problem of how to define "one China." Jia Qinglin said "the two sides belong to one country." People have to wonder, what does he mean by "one country?"

Was Jia Qinglin implying that "one China means the People's Republic of China?" Or that "one country means the People's Republic of China?" We do not think so. We do not believe so. If that is what Jia meant, why did he not say so? Why did he not speak plainly? Did he have a reason not to do so? Suppose Beijing told the public on Taiwan, "one China is the People's Republic of China?" One. This would be incorrect. Two. This would be pointless. Three. This would be objectionable.

Jia Qinglin said, "the two sides belong to one country." Did he mean that "the two sides belong to the People's Republic of China?" The Hu Jintao government has invested four years of painstaking effort "seeking common ground while shelving differences, and ensuring peaceful development." If Jia Qinglin were to make such a statement, he would undoubtedly have take a destructive step backward. He would have undermined the Hu government's cross-Strait policy. Therefore, we do not think that is what Jia Qinglin meant to say. We do not believe he would make such a statement. Still less would we agree with such a statement. Perhaps Jia Qinglin made a slip of the tongue. Wang Yi, director of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, spoke yesterday. He has already cleared this up.

We believe cross-Strait peace must be predicated upon the "1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations" for some time to come. It must remain predicated upon the 2008 Bush/Hu hotline conversation. In fact, this is the Hu's government most significant contribution to cross-Strait relations. It has been consistent about this. It must not end on the wrong note. it must not give its successor an erroroneous starting point.

Does Beijing want to skip the "one China, different interpretations" stage, and go directly to the "one China framework?" If so, then it must go from "non-repudiation of sovereignty and mutual recognition of jurisdiction," to "China as a Big Roof." It must find a way to combine sovereignty on both sides of the Strait into one China. The two sides must be combined into this one China. This is the "new three part formula" proposed by this newspaper. One. There is only one China in the world. Two. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of that one China. Three. China's sovereignty and territory must not be divided.

The reaction of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to Jia Qinglin's remark revealed how delicate the political situation is on Taiwan. DPP has long denied that there ever was a "1992 consensus." It opposes "one China." It has never affirmed or repudiated "one China, different interpretations." It merely says that "Even Beijing does not recognize one China, different interpretations." This amounts to an indirect admission that if Beijing accepts "one China, different interpretations," then DPP has no excuse to oppose it. When Jia Qinglin said the "two sides belong to one country," the DPP immediately lashed out, saying this confirmed that "one China, different interpretations" was false. The DPP knows that most people on Taiwan can accept "one China, different interpretations," but they cannot accept the idea that "both sides belong to the People's Republic of China."

Jia Qinglin's remarks provide an important lesson for the bickering Blue and Green camps. Taiwan must abide by the Constitution of the Republic of China. It must adhere to the bottom line of "one China, different interpretations." The KMT must do so. The DPP in particular must do so. Taiwan must not repudiate "one China, different interpretations." It must not relinquish the "one China, different interpretations" line of defense. If it does, it will no longer have a place to stand, either in cross-Straits relations, or in the global stage. It must defend "one China, different interpretations." Most political leaders and members of the public on Taiwan oppose Taiwan independence. They support the 1992 Consensus. They support the Republic of China. They support the Constitution of the Republic of China.

The Democratic Progressive Party in particular must see the light and defend the "1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations" and the Constitution of the Republic of China.

賈慶林是否口誤？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.27

大陸政協主席賈慶林在「兩岸經貿文化論壇」說，「一個中國框架的核心是大陸和台灣同屬一個國家」；這是前所未見的修辭，引人注意。

北京的兩岸論述正在變化之中。原本言必稱「一個中國原則」，但在這幾年兩岸關係鬆緩後，改口強調「反對台獨／堅持九二共識」；又在今年三月吳胡會後，提出「兩岸同屬一個中國」的命題。經由這個微妙變化的過程，北京現今的兩岸論述已經成為：「反對台獨／堅持九二共識／鞏固一中框架」。這是指賈慶林談話以前的發展。

對於馬政府而言，雖然在吳胡會後感受到此種變化與壓力；但是認為，情勢仍然控制在「一中各表」的範圍內。因為，即使進入「兩岸同屬一個中國」及「鞏固一中框架」的命題，仍然屬於「一中各表」的範圍，也未溢出「九二共識」的範圍，亦未脫離中華民國憲法的範圍。

北京雖不強調「一中各表」，但四年來的兩岸政策無疑是建立在「一中各表，求同存異」的默契上。正如胡錦濤於二○○八年三月二十六日在熱線電話對小布希所說：「（兩岸）雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義各自表述。」這就是「一中各表」，也正是兩岸四年來「求同存異／和平發展」的主要支柱。

然而，當北京端出了「兩岸同屬一個中國」的命題，就縮小了「各表」的空間，觸及了「一個中國」如何定義的問題；而若賈慶林又說成了「兩岸同屬一個國家」，更教人不得不問這「一個國家」是什麼意思？

賈慶林是不是要說「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」？或說「一個國家就是中華人民共和國」？我們不認為是如此，也不相信是如此。倘係如此，何不直說；不能直說，是否有顧慮？因為，在當下及相當期間的未來中，北京若想對台灣人民說「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，這種說法，第一是說了不正確，第二是說了沒有用，第三是說了徒增反感。

倘若賈慶林「兩岸同屬一國」的說法，即是指「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」；此一說法對胡錦濤政府四年來苦心經營的「求同存異／和平發展」無疑是倒退與傷害，也將為胡錦濤政府的兩岸政策留下一個殘缺的句點。因此，我們不認為賈慶林該如此說，不相信他會如此說，更不認同他如此說。恐怕賈慶林只是一時口誤？國台辦主任王毅日前的發言，已見轉圜之意。

我們認為，兩岸的和平發展，在相當期間內仍宜以「九二共識／一中各表」為緩衝，亦即以二○○八年的布胡熱線為支撐；這其實是胡錦濤政府對兩岸關係的最重大貢獻，允宜一以貫之，不要畫錯了自己的句點，也不要給後繼者一個錯誤的起點。

倘若欲躍過「一中各表」的階段，進入「一中框架」的探討，亦應思考以「主權互不否認／治權相互承認」的「大屋頂中國」為解決或過渡，亦即以「兩岸主權相互含蘊及共同合成的一個中國」為解決或過渡，而「兩岸」應可「同屬」此一「中國」。這也就是本報倡議的「新新三句」：世界上只有一個中國，中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國，中國的主權和領土不容分割。

從民進黨對賈慶林談話的反應，可以看出台灣內部政局的微妙肌理。民進黨從來否認有「九二共識」這四個字，也反對「一個中國」；卻一向未曾正面否定或反對「一中各表」，只說「連北京也不承認一中各表」。其潛台詞是，北京如果接受了「一中各表」，民進黨即幾無反對的空間。但是，賈慶林的「兩岸同屬一國」一出，民進黨立即加以回擊，並稱果然證實「一中各表」是假的。這是因為，民進黨深知：台灣多數民意可以接受「一中各表」，但不會接受「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」。

賈慶林的談話，也給台灣的藍綠惡鬥帶來重要啟示。台灣必須根據中華民國憲法，固守「一中各表」的底線；國民黨必須如此，民進黨尤須如此。如果台灣自己否定「一中各表」，或放棄「一中各表」的防線，則根本無以在兩岸及世界立足。而要持守「一中各表」，台灣的主政者及主流民意就須反台獨，維持九二共識，支持中華民國，維護中華民國的憲法。

尤其是民進黨，快回頭護守「九二共識／一中各表」的憲法防線吧！