Civil War Justifications Vanish, Cross-Strait Relations Flourish

Civil War Justifications Vanish, Cross-Strait Relations Flourish
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 8, 2013

Summary: Cross-strait relations must be redefined. They were once understood as part of a KMT vs. CCP Civil War. They must now be understood as an issue of human civilization. Xi Jinping said that "One's vision determines one's horizons, one's thinking determines one's path." The civil war of 1949 determined our path. But future cross-Strait relations will be the relationship between pearls on the same string.

Full text below:

Beijing policy advisor Zheng Bijian commented on cross-strait relations. He said "One's vision determines one's horizons, one's thinking determines one's path."

Cross-strait relations must be redefined. They were once understood as part of a KMT vs. CCP Civil War. They must now be understood as an issue of human civilization.

In a previous editorial, we said the civil war was a zero sum game. It was an either/or, you or me proposition. Human civilization, on the other hand, is inclusive. Human civilization is like a string of pearls on a necklace.

There were two main reasons for the 1949 civil war. 1. The KMT government was exhausted by the War of Resistance against Japan. When the war ended, it fell prey to corruption and misgovernance. 2. The Chinese Communist Party made the Chinese people promises. It painted an ideal, it offered them a vision. In other words, the civil war was fought over "Whither China?" In this fight, the KMT lost to the CCP.

Alas, once the CCP assumed power, the Mainland fell victim to the Three Antis and Five Antis Campaigns, the Three Red Flags, and the Cultural Revolution. One might say that the CCP won the civil war, but lost its ideals. Suppose the Chinese Communist Party had proclaimed from the outset that its "idealism" required waging the Three Antis and Five Antis Campaigns, the Three Red Flags, and the Cultural Revolution? Would it still would have won the civil war? Conversely, by the time the government of the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan, it had already implemented the White Terror and martial law. These were hardly the Three Peoples Principles that it trumpeted during the civil war.

In other words, the civil war was fought over the question, "Whither China?" Leave aside the matter of which side won or lost. The civil war did not achieve the desired results. On the contrary, the civil war merely cost people on both sides more blood and tears. In particular, the Chinese mainland nearly collapsed during the 1970s.

Sixty-four years ago, in 1949, on this very day, the very first liberal democracy in China's history made its debut. The People's Republic of China, a rising great power, also made its debut that year. These debuts were not the result of the 1949 civil war. They were the result of a national rebirth that took place on both sides of the Strait in the wake of the civil war -- a rebirth paid for in blood and tears.

The Republic of China is no longer a symbol of the debacle and humiliation of 1949. The People's Republic of China is no longer the embodiment of the ideals and vision of 1949. "Whither China" remains the question. But civil war is no longer the answer. Therefore no one can say that 64 years later, the justifications for the civil war of 1949 remain.

In other words, today, 64 years later, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, can no longer use the justifications cited in 1949 to continue waging civil war. The question for both sides remains "Whither China?" But the answer is no longer civil war. Leave aside the justifications and consequences of the civil war of 1949. From today's perspective, everything above is subject to criticism. The justifications offered were deceptive and false.  The consequences were painful and bitter.

The justifications for the civil war have vanished. Cross-Strait relations should no longer be seen as a zero sum game, asn an either/or, life or death proposition. Instead, we should perceive it as a string of pearls. Today the civil war has one remaining value. It can teach. The two sides have been governed separately as a result of the civil war of 1949. A peace agreement can now be signed, with the civil war as a cautionary tale. A "democratic China/Republic of China" and a "socialist China/People's Republic of China" can now be regarded as pearls on a string. This is the answer to the question, "Whither China?" This peace agreement can be rooted in the "big roof concept of China." The relationship between the two sides need not be a zero sum game. It need not be an either/or, life or death proposition. It should be the relationship between pearls on the same string.

Today, the justification for the civil war has vanished. The substance of the civil war has vanished along with it. The children of Taiwan businessmen who attend the Dongguan Elementary School, read Republic of China textbooks. Tens of thousands of Mainland tourists return to the Mainland with pineapple cakes made on Taiwan. This pearl to pearl relationship is not a zero sum game. It is not an either/or, life or death proposition. The title of this article underscores why the justifications for the civil war have vanished, and why cross-Strait relations are flourishing. Flourishing cross-Strait relations is not merely a vision. It is a concrete reality on the streets of Taipei and Beijing.

Many nations have been divided. Such scenes were unknown in East and West Germany. They are even rarer in North and South Korea. But East and West Germany never regarded each other as a foreign country. North and South Korea are both members of the UN. The "big roof" theory works. Should cross-strait relations be an exception? Why must we cling to this either/or, life or death, zero sum game "civil war" relationship? Have we still not learned a lesson from the 1949 civil war? Do people still cling to an either/or, life or death, zero sum game relationship?

Xi Jinping said that "One's vision determines one's horizons, one's thinking determines one's path." The civil war of 1949 determined our path. But future cross-Strait relations will be the relationship between pearls on the same string.

內戰理由消失 兩岸關係昇華
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.08 02:47 am

北京智囊鄭必堅論兩岸關係說：「眼界決定境界，思路決定出路。」

兩岸關係必須從「國共內戰關係」的眼界與思路，轉向「人類文明課題」的境界與出路。

上篇社論說：「內戰關係」是有我無你、你死我活的「榔頭與珍珠」眼界，「文明課題」則是兼容並蓄、包羅涵泳的「珍珠項鍊」境界。

一九四九年國共內戰的主要原因是：一、國民黨政府抗日耗盡元氣，戰後腐敗失政。二、共產黨給中國一個許諾，描繪理想，楬櫫願景。也就是說，內戰的主題是：「中國往何處去？」在這個題目下，國民黨輸給了共產黨。

但是，中共建政後，隨而經歷了三反五反、三面紅旗、文化大革命等，可謂贏了內戰，卻輸了理想；試想，倘若中共當初是以三反五反、三面紅旗及文化大革命的「理想」來號召內戰，不知尚能贏得這場內戰的勝利否。相對而言，中華民國政府敗退台灣，亦經白色恐怖、戒嚴統治等，這當然亦非內戰時倡議的三民主義。

也就是說，內戰是因「中國往何處去」的題目而起，但不論勝敗雙方，其實皆未因內戰而作出正確答案。相反的，這場內戰反而使兩岸人民付出了更多的血淚代價，尤使中國大陸在上世紀七○年代一度陷入幾乎瀕於崩潰的慘禍。

一九四九年過後第六十四年的今日，中華民國實現了中國歷史上首見的自由民主體制，而中華人民共和國則成為蒸騰日上的崛起中大國。這與其說是一九四九年內戰的果實，不如說是吞下了內戰的惡果之後，又以兩岸人民的血淚代價換來的民族新生命。

此時的中華民國不能再視為一九四九年時中國災禍與恥辱的象徵，此時的中華人民共和國亦不能視為一九四九年時中國理想與願景的化身。「中國往何處去」的題目仍在，但那場內戰既無人對此提供正確答案，所以沒有人能說，在六十四年後，一九四九年內戰的理由迄今仍然存在。

也就是說，在六十四年後的今日，中華人民共和國與中華民國，若要延續「內戰」，已不能再用一九四九年的理由；而兩岸的題目如果仍是「中國往何處去」，但作答的方法顯然已不能再訴諸「內戰」。因為，一九四九年的內戰，不論從理由到後果，在今天看來，皆非但不是無可批評的，甚至是欺世愚民的假理由，與不堪回首的大苦果。

內戰的理由已經消失，中國不應再出現「榔頭與珍珠」的惡果，而應朝往「珍珠項鍊」的境界與出路去探索。時至今日，這場內戰所剩下的最後價值，只是在證明兩岸因一九四九年的內戰而隔海分治，並可為這場內戰議簽一紙《和平協議》；協議的主文應以一九四九年的內戰惡果為戒，並將「民主中國／中華民國」與「社會主義中國／中華人民共和國」視為珍珠與珍珠，共同為「中國往何處去」找尋答案。在這一紙基於「大屋頂中國」的《和平協議》中，希望沒有人扮演榔頭，只有珍珠與珍珠。

今天，不但內戰的理由已經消失，且內戰的實質也早已消失。東莞台商小學子弟唸著中華民國的教本，成千成萬陸客從台灣提著鳳梨酥返鄉；這是一個「珍珠與珍珠」的景象，而不是「榔頭與珍珠」的「內戰」。所以，本文標題所揭「內戰理由消失／兩岸關係昇華」，不僅是一個憧憬，其實已然是台北與北京的真實街景。

看世界上的分裂國家，東西德未曾有過這種街景，南北韓則更無論矣；但是，東西德可以互視為「不是外國的國家」，南北韓亦均為聯合國的會員國，此皆「大屋頂」使然。然而，何以唯獨兩岸街景如此，卻仍要死抱著有我無你、你死我活的「內戰」；難道四九年那場內戰的痛苦代價，仍不知記取，竟仍有人主張「榔頭主義」？

習近平說，道路決定命運。一九四九年的內戰由榔頭決定命運，但希望今後的兩岸關係能由相互珍惜的珍珠來決定。