Beyond the Chinese Civil War: Cross-Strait Model for Human Civilization

Beyond the Chinese Civil War:
Cross-Strait Model for Human Civilization
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 3, 2013

Summary: Cross-Strait relations have long ago transcended the framework of the KMT vs. CCP Chinese Civil War. Instead, they have become significant events in the history of human civilization, with a palpable moral dimension. Needless to say, they are even more significant for the history of China.

Full text below:

Cross-Strait relations have long ago transcended the framework of the KMT vs. CCP Chinese Civil War. Instead, they have become significant events in the history of human civilization, with a palpable moral dimension. Needless to say, they are even more significant for the history of China.

The Chinese Civil War was a war between two armed political entities. It was a dog eat dog, life-and-death struggle. But the Republic of China has created the first liberal democracy in five thousand years of Chinese history. Should it really be eaten? Also, the People's Republic of China has become a rising power. It must bear the great responsibility that comes with great power. It must not adopt a dog eat dog approach to cross-Strait issues. This has a bearing on more than just the Chinese Civil War. It has a bearing on human history. It is a significant event in the history of Chinese civilization, with a significant moral dimension.

Cross-strait relations have evolved. People the world over have no desire to witness a dog eat dog scenario. Nor are the Chinese people eager to add another dog eat dog chapter to China's history. Consider the matter from the perspective of global civilization and Chinese history. The ultimate solution for cross-strait relations ought to be something worthy of human civilization and China's glorious history. It should not be a tragedy that leaves a black mark on global civilization and Chinese history.

In June 1983, Deng Xiaoping said "Reunification is not about me swallowing up you. Nor is it about you swallowing up me." His words divided 64 years of cross-Strait relations into three stages.

Stage One. During the three decades prior to 1983, the two sides found themselves mired within the framework of the Cold War. The two sides experienced great trouble managing their internal affairs. This was the era of "Liberate Taiwan!" vs. "Reconquer the Mainland!" This was a dog eat dog deadlock.

Stage Two. During the three decades following 1983, the sides established an atmosphere that enabled peaceful development. Deng Xiaoping articulated his "I don't swallow you, and you don't swallow me" thesis, and his "peaceful reunification, one country, two systems" thesis. In 1987, Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and enabled cross-Strait visits. In 2005, Lien Chan and Hu Jintao held their historic summit. In 2008, Ma Ying-jeou won the presidential election.

Today, in 2013, the two sides are entering Stage Three. In November 2012, Hu Jintao issued the Chinese Communist Party's 18th National Congress Report on Taiwan. Hu wrote "Although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they are nevertheless both part of one China." He wrote, "we must seek to establish political relations under special circumstances in which the nation has yet to be reunified, making fair and reasonable arrangements." This stage is characterized by a shift in the focus of cross-strait policy. It has shifted from a yearning for far off reunification, to a search for political relations under yet to be reunified conditions.

Stage Three attempts to resolve the quandary posed by Deng Xiaoping. Deng Xiaoping said "Reunification is not about me swallowing you. Nor is it about you swallowing me." But doesn't "one country, two systems" imply the "Hong Kong model?" What is that, if not "swallowing me?" Therefore, how does establish a framework in which "I do not swallow you, and you do not swallow me?"

If one wishes to establish a framework for Stage Three, that framework must be based on a "big roof concept of China." Under the big roof, the Republic of China is "democratic China." The People's Republic of China is "socialist China." Both are part of one China. Both belong under one big roof. They are both part of a one China in which sovereignty is shared. Political relations under conditions in which the two sides have yet to be reunified, ensures that "I did not swallow you, and you do not swallow me." The goal of cross-strait relations is long-term mutual adaptation, leading to the creation of a model befitting global civilization and China's glorious history, one that could proudly considered a "Renaissance for the Chinese people."

Today's Republic of China is "democratic China." This is the primary reason the Republic of China must not be swallowed up. The Republic of China is a "Republic" of "China." It is a moral legacy of Chinese civilization. It is no longer merely the civil war political opponent of the Communist Chinese Party. Cross-strait relations are no longer about the Chinese civil war. They are about man's history and Chinese civilization.

The People's Republic of China is politically and economically powerful. But even according to social democratic legal standards, the Beijing regime has yet to meet the expectations of human civilization and Chinese history. Consider the recent "Southern Weekend" and "Yan Huang Chun Qiu" incidents. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China has yet to live up to its commitments.

Therefore, only under the big roof concept of China, can the Republic of China expect greater freedom and democracy in the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China should be content, provided the Republic of China is under the big roof concept of China. This would affirm its respect for human civilization and responsibility to Chinese history.

If, on the other hand, one side swallows up the other, that would surely leave a black mark in the history of human civilization and Chinese history.

History has moved on. The two sides have moved beyond the dog eat dog framework of the Chinese Civil War. The big roof concept of China offers a reasonable process by which to advance the two sides' political and economic platform, to set an example for world civilization, and to author a glorious chapter in China's history.

超越國共內戰，兩岸共創人類文明典範
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.02.03

現在的兩岸關係，已經遠遠不只是「國共內戰」的架構；而是一個人類歷史上非常重大的文明事件與道德課題，當然更是中國歷史上重大無比的文明事件與道德課題。

「國共內戰」是兩個武裝力量之間的政權之戰，那是一個「我吃掉你，或你吃掉我」的你死我活的鬥爭。但當中華民國已然實現了中國五千年來首見的自由民主體制，它應不應當被「吃掉」？又當中華人民共和國已然成為崛起的大國與強國，它具備了包容與涵納的能力與責任，則能不能用「誰吃掉誰」的方式來處理兩岸問題？這些，皆不能僅僅視為「國共內戰」的課題，而是人類史上，尤其是中國史上非常重大的文明事件與道德課題。

兩岸關係發展至今日境地，世界文明必不願見其發展為「我吃掉你，或你吃掉我」的一頁；中國歷史必也不忍再添「我吃掉你，或你吃掉我」的一章。站在世界文明和中國歷史的高度看，未來兩岸關係的終極解決方案，應當是共創人類文明的典範與中國歷史的光榮，而萬萬不可造成人類文明的恥辱與中國歷史的悲劇。

一九八三年六月，鄧小平說：「統一不是我吃掉你，也不是你吃掉我。」這一句話，將六十四年來的兩岸關係，劃出了三個階段。

第一階段，在一九八三年以前的三十年，大體上說，兩岸陷於冷戰的框架裡，且各自的內政治理皆在十分艱難的境況中；那是一個「解放台灣vs.反攻大陸」的時代，也就是僵持在「我吃掉你，或你吃掉我」的階段。

第二階段，自一九八三年以後的三十年，仍是大體而言，起自鄧小平「不是我吃掉你，也不是你吃掉我」的「和平統一／一國兩制」，至一九八七年蔣經國的「解嚴／交流」，再至二○○五年「連胡會」到二○○八年的馬英九勝選，兩岸逐漸營造出「和平發展」的機遇和氛圍。

如今，到了二○一三年前後，兩岸儼然進入了第三階段。二○一二年十一月，胡錦濤在中共十八大總結對台工作報告指出，「雖然尚未統一／仍是一個中國」、「探討國家尚未統一特殊情況下的兩岸政治關係，作出合情合理的安排」；此一階段的特徵，是將兩岸政策的關注焦點，從遙遠難期的「統一」，轉移至「探討尚未統一的政治關係」。

第三階段儼然是在嘗試回答鄧小平的問題。鄧小平說：「統一不是我吃掉你，也不是你吃掉我。」但即使是「一國兩制」，若是指「香港模式」，仍豈不是「吃掉」？那麼，究竟怎樣始有可能「我不吃掉你，你不吃掉我」？

若欲搭建起這個「第三階段」的架構，那就必須奠基在「大屋頂中國」。在大屋頂中國之下，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國，二者皆是一部分的中國，同屬一個大屋頂中國，亦即同屬「兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的一個中國」。而此種「尚未統一的政治關係」，正是要保證「不是我吃掉你，也不是你吃掉我」，而是欲將兩岸關係的發展，經由長期的細緻磨合與精心營造，共同創造人類文明的典範與中國歷史的光榮，那始可言「中華民族的偉大復興」。

今日的中華民國是民主中國，這是中華民國不容被「吃掉」的主要理由；因為中華民國是「中華」的「民國」，亦即是「中華文明」的「道德資產」，而不再只是中共的「內戰政敵」而已；所以，兩岸關係已不是「國共內戰」那個層次的題目，而是人類歷史及中國歷史的重大文明課題。

何況，中華人民共和國的政經勢力已然崛起，但即使以「社會主義的民主法制」來衡量北京政權，它亦尚欠人類文明及中國歷史一個完整的履約踐諾；且看近日《南方周末》與《炎黃春秋》事件，問題在連《中華人民共和國憲法》亦未兌現。

因此，唯有在大屋頂中國下，中華民國可以等待中華人民共和國更加走向自由民主；而中華人民共和國則應包容涵納中華民國在大屋頂中國之下，以宣示其對人類文明的敬畏及對中國歷史的責任。

但是，如果是「誰吃掉誰」，那必將演成人類文明的恥辱與中國歷史的悲劇。

在歷史的巧妙推移下，兩岸已然超越了「我吃掉你，你吃掉我」的「國共內戰」架構，大屋頂中國將可提供「從合理的過程，到改善之目的」的政經平台，共創世界文明的典範，共譜中國歷史的光榮。