Big Roof China: Greatest Common Cross-Strait Factor

Big Roof China: Greatest Common Cross-Strait Factor
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 12, 2012

Summary: The "big roof concept of one China" is admittedly a radical proposal for cross-Strait policy. Take the Taiwan side. People on Taiwan are lost. They are alienated from "China," and from their identities as "Chinese." Can the "big roof concept of one China" and the rule of law enable the Republic of China to establish a foothold for itself as "democratic China?" If so, then the wounds can be healed. Appeals for Taiwan independence will lose their justification.

Full Text below:

Under the "big roof concept of one China," the Republic of China is democratic China, and the People's Republic of China is socialist China. Both are part of one China.

But the two sides may have considerable difficulty transforming this sort of thinking into a legal framework. Take the Taiwan side. Beijing has yet to acknowledge the Republic of China. At one time it even argued that "The Republic of China was destroyed in 1949." As a result, most people on Taiwan have become alienated from the words "China" and "Chinese." They are filled with doubts and fears about the word "China." Green Camp Taiwan independence advocates even consider "one China, different interpretations" unacceptable. They are hostile to the notion that "The two sides belong under the same big roof China." Take the Mainland side. It once maintained that "We will have one China only when it is reunified." Naturally this contradicts the notion that "The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of one China."

The "big roof concept of one China" is admittedly a radical proposal for cross-Strait policy. Take the Taiwan side. People on Taiwan are lost. They are alienated from "China," and from their identities as "Chinese." Can the "big roof concept of one China" and the rule of law enable the Republic of China to establish a foothold for itself as "democratic China?" If so, then the wounds can be healed. Appeals for Taiwan independence will lose their justification.

Consider the Mainland side. The fact remains military reunification is impossible. Who can command people on both sides to kill each other? Democratic reunification would also be difficult. It would inevitably run into all sorts of obstacles. As a result, old efforts to reunify the nation are actually prolonging the existing split. The establishment of a "big roof concept of one China," in thought and in law, would unify the nation instantly. It would transform the concept of "Although it is not yet reunified, it is still is one China," and "an in progress form of one China" into reality. 

Let us cut to the chase. What precisely is the goal of reunification? Is it to empower China and elevate China? Or is it merely to destroy the Republic of China? Under the "big roof concept of one China," the Republic of China would be democratic China. Wouldn't this be a better way to empower China and elevate China?

As previous editorials have noted, "big roof concept of one China" thinking existed from the very beginning. It is an integral part of Beijing's thinking about Taiwan. Over four years ago, the two sides signed 18 important agreements. The agreements were signed under the tacit premise of "mutual non-repudiation of sovereignty and mutual recognition of jurisdiction." One could say that the "big roof concept of one China" is already the guiding premise for cross-Strait exchanges. In recent years Beijing has repeatedly referred to "one China," the "one China principle," or the "one China framework." Most of the time its statements amount to the "big roof concept of one China." What else could "one China" mean?

The "big roof concept of one China" exists. The "big roof concept of one China" is workable. But it has long been buried under Law of the Jungle thinking. It has been prevented from spreading its wings. But once we think clearly about it, the "one China principle" can instantly morph into the "big roof concept of one China." It can become a "one China that recognizes the sovereignty of both sides while combining them into one."

The "1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations" is a remarkable invention. It turned cross-Strait confrontation into peaceful development. But the "1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations" is merely "seeking common ground while setting aside differences." It fails to "seek common ground while dissolving differences." The next step up the ladder is to transcend differences by adopting the "big roof concept of one China." Why? Because "one China, different interpretations" still excludes the other side and draws distinctions between the two. The "big roof concept of one China" includes the other side and integrates the two sides into one.

Consider "one China, different interpretations." For Taiwan, it means "one China is the Republic of China." But this is not how things really are. This political line of defense cannot hold indefinitely. Beijing realizes that "one China, different interpretations" means excluding the Mainland and drawing distinctions with the Mainland. That is why it repeatedly harps on the "one China principle," the "one China framework" and "both sides of the Strait are part of one China," or "the two sides are part of one country." But Beijing still cannot define "one China." Beijing knows that claiming that "one China is the People's Republic of China" is not a viable option. But Beijing is unsure about how to establish an inclusive and integrated "one-China." The answer is a "big roof concept of one China" that transcends the two sides' differences. This is the two sides' greatest common factor. It is also the ideal stop-loss point and stopping point.

Transform "one China, different interpretations" into the "big roof concept of one China." Do so and it may provide cross-strait relations with a road map. The term "one China, different interpretations" means "Both sides recognize only one China, but each side has its own definition of that one China." This is what Hu Jintao told George W. Bush in March, 2008 on the Beijing/Washington hotline. The term "big roof concept of one China" means "one China that recognizes the sovereignty of both sides while combining them into one." The Republic of China is democratic China. The People's Republic of China is socialist China. Both are part of one China. So far this does not differ from "one China." It is an "in progress form of one China."

The "Republic of China is a democratic China. The "People's Republic of China is socialist China." This reduces confrontation between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China over the name of the country. Using "democratic China" and "socialist China" emphasizes the value of diversity and coopetition. It empowers China. It elevates China.

To move from "one China, different interpretations" to the "big roof concept of one China" requires a shift in thinking. Hopefully the "big roof concept of one China" can inspire ethnic Chinese throughout the world. Hopefully it can inspire "The China of the common man." First, stimulate "big roof concept of one China" thinking. Then make changes in the legal arena. Effect changes in the law. Establish a framework akin to a Chinese Confederation. Incorporate "big roof concepts of one China provisions" into a peace agreement and a military confidence building mechanism. These will concretize the concepts. Future reunification can use the "big roof concept of one China" as its starting point.

Deng Xiaoping said "Reunification is not you swallowing me, or me swallowing you." But if "you don't swallow me" and "I don't swallow you," how can we reunify? If Deng were alive today he would know that the goal is to empower China and elevate China. The "big roof concept of one China" is superior to direct reunification. Only this will rule out one side ruthlessly swallowing up the other.

The "big roof concept of one China" is already in operation between Taipei and Beijing. It already exists in peoples' hearts on both sides of the Strait. Is any political party willing to turn the clock back to 1949, and order people on each side to kill the other? Must one side swallow up the other?

大屋頂中國是兩岸最大公約數
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.12

在「大屋頂中國」的概念下，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國，兩者都是一部分的中國。

欲建立這樣的思想及法制，在兩岸皆有相當的困難度。在台灣言，由於北京迄未能正視「中華民國」，甚至一度稱「中華民國在一九四九年已經滅亡」，因此多數台灣人對「中國」及「中國人」相當疏離，且對「中國」充滿疑懼。何況，綠營的台獨主張連「一中各表」都不接受，則距「兩岸同屬大屋頂中國」更是遙不可及。在北京言，原本主張「統一才是一個中國」，則與「中華民國與中華人民共和國皆是一部分的中國」，自有扞格。

然而，「大屋頂中國」正是對治兩岸此類極端心態的方策。對台灣言，在「大屋頂中國」的思想及法制下，中華民國若能以「民主中國」立足，應可逐漸修補及療癒台灣民眾在「中國」與「中國人」的失落與疏離；而中華民國若能立足於「大屋頂中國」之中，台獨的訴求亦失支撐。

對北京言，則其實「軍事統一」已絕無可能，畢竟，誰還能驅使兩岸人民相互仇殺？「民主統一」尤是路途崎嶇，不免夜長夢多。因而，以舊思維主張「統一」，其實就是延長「分裂」。若是建立「大屋頂中國」的思想與法制，即可體現「雖然尚未統一／仍是一個中國」，及「現在進行式的一個中國」。

一針見血的看法是，我們要問：兩岸的解決方案，究竟是為了成全「中國」及提升「中國」？或只是為了「消滅中華民國」而已？在「大屋頂中國」下，維持「中華民國是民主中國」，是否為「成全中國」及「提升中國」的更佳方案？

如前兩篇社論所述，「大屋頂中國」的思想其實始終存在於兩岸之間，甚至也可能存在於北京涉台系統的思忖之中。例如，四年多來兩岸簽署了十八項重要協議，究其實際，其實皆是在「主權互不否認／治權相互承認」的默契之下完成的；亦可謂「大屋頂中國」已是兩岸運作的概念。而且，北京近年來屢稱的「一個中國」、「一個中國原則」或「一中框架」，其中十之七八所言即為「大屋頂中國」概念，否則即不知「一中」係何所指？

所以，並非「大屋頂中國」的思想不存在，或「大屋頂中國」無法運作，而是始終被掩蓋在弱肉強食的思維之下，難以伸張；只要想通了，「一個中國原則」立即可成為「大屋頂中國」原則，亦即成為「兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的一個中國」。

「九二共識／一中各表」是一卓越發明，它使兩岸從針鋒相對轉向和平發展；但是，「九二共識／一中各表」只是「求同存異」，不能「求同化異」。更上層樓的階梯即是「超越差異」的「大屋頂中國」，因為「一中各表」仍有排他性及切割力，「大屋頂中國」則具包容性及整合力。

「一中各表」，對台灣而言，必須堅守「一個中國是中華民國」，但此說畢竟不實際，且此一政治防線可能終究守不住；而北京亦知「一中各表」的排他性與切割力，因此一再主張「一個中國原則」、「一中框架」、「兩岸同屬一個中國」或「兩岸同屬一國」，但始終不能為「一中」定義，因為北京亦知若稱「一個中國是中華人民共和國」並非可行方案，卻又不知如何始能建立「一個中國」的包容性與整合力。其實，答案即在「超越差異」的「大屋頂中國」；這是兩岸的最大公約數，亦為兩岸共同的最佳「停損點」與「停利點」。

於是，由「一中各表」轉入「大屋頂中國」，可能即是兩岸關係接下來可以思考的路徑圖。「一中各表」是：「雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義各自表述。」（引自胡錦濤與小布希二○○八年三月熱線電話英文版）「大屋頂中國」則是：「在兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的一個中國之中，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國，兩者皆是一部分的中國。」至此，「一個中國」已無定義不同，而是「現在進行式的一個中國」。

此處稱「中華民國是民主中國／中華人民共和國是社會主義中國」，是欲降低「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」的國號對立與阻隔，而以「民主中國」與「社會主義中國」來強調價值的多元化與競合。意在成全「中國」，提升「中國」。

由「一中各表」至「大屋頂中國」的移動，首先應是「心態的移動」，希望「大屋頂中國」此一思想，能先在全球華人「庶民中國」的胸臆心懷中激盪，建立「大屋頂中國」的心態；接著，進一步努力在法理層面，嘗試進行「法制的移動」，透過建置類似「中華邦聯」的架構，或在《和平協議》及《軍事互信機制》中設定「大屋頂條款」，以體現成績。若未來尚有「統一」的懸想，仍可藉「大屋頂中國」為平台。

鄧小平說：「統一不是你吃掉我，也不是我吃掉你。」但是，若不是「你吃掉我／我吃掉你」，如何「統一」？鄧若在今日，必知倘若真為「成全中國」、「提升中國」，則「大屋頂中國」的方案自優於直接「統一」；亦唯如此，始不致相互吞噬，塗炭生靈。

何況，「大屋頂中國」非但已是兩岸正在運作的現狀，且已然存在於許多兩岸人心之中；難道任何政黨還有可能像一九四九年那樣，驅使兩岸人民相互仇殺，非得誰把誰吃掉？