Declaration of Freedom or Tao Te Ching?

Declaration of Freedom or Tao Te Ching?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2013

Summary: The "Free Person's Declaration" is a mutation of the Taiwan independence virus. Is there a market for it? Do the leaders of the watch really not know? Or are they merely pretending not to know? To take this path, they must repudiate three things: the "nation of Taiwan," the Republic of China, and the People 's Republic of China. Is this really the way out for the DPP?

Full Text below:

A group called "Taiwan Democracy Watch" has issued a "Free Person's Declaration." It is proposing a "Charter of Human Rights" to reframe Taiwan's relations with Mainland China. During a seminar, watch member Professor Yao Renduo said the DPP is caught in a dilemma. It is unable to offer an alternative regarding cross-Strait relations comparable to the 1992 Consensus.

He was blunt. He said the Taiwan independence movement has lost the support of mainstream society. Most people feel the era of Taiwan independence is over.

Taiwan Democracy Watch is comprised mainly of younger generation Green Camp academics. Among them are some thoughtful individuals. The Free Person's Declaration attempts to establish a "new link between Taiwan and [Mainland] China." But Yao Renduo said the Declaration contains loopholes and blind spots. Its authors should engage in self-examination and clear up the confusion as soon as possible.

Yao said the DPP is unable to offer an alternative on cross-Strait relations that can compete head to head with the 1992 Consensus. He hit the nail on the head. But why? The "One China, different Interpretations" aspect of the 1992 Consensus includes the genus "one China," as well as the differentia, "different interpretations." The DPP's Taiwan independence rhetoric repudiates the genus "one China." It even refuses to recognize the Republic of China. It refuses to recognize anything Chinese. It refuses to recognize "different interpretations." Yao said a declaration of Taiwan independence and the founding of a nation of Taiwan cannot replace "one China, different interpretations." This is the root of the DPP's cross-Strait dilemma.

The Free Person's Declaration attempts to resolve this dilemma. It moves away from a declaration of Taiwan independence, the founding of a nation of Taiwan, and a clash over national sovereignty. It moves towards a civil society-based cross-Strait "Charter of Human Rights." Its main thrust is that genuine sovereignty should be rooted in human rights, in the "sovereignty of people." Therefore the People's Republic of China cannot be regarded as a truly sovereign nation. According to watch members, the Republic of China contains discrepancies regarding Taiwan's sovereignty and the political framework of the ROC. The Constitution of the Republic of China was not authored through the democratic process by the people on Taiwan. Therefore neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China meet the conditions for sovereignty. The two countries' constitutions lack legitimacy. Watch members argue that neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China is a truly sovereign state.

This repudiates "one China, different interpretations," by arguing that neither side is a sovereign state. It repudiates the Republic of China, by drawing distinctions between "Taiwan's sovereignty" and the political framwork of the Republic of China. It argues that the Constitution of the Republic of China was not authored by the people of Taiwan in accordance with democratic procedures. It argues that the relationship between people on the two sides cannot be summed up as "the Chinese people." To watch members, the relationship is more akin to concern for the suffering of people in Southeast Asia. Watch members wonder how much of the Republic of China is left in the Republic of China. Can it still be regarded as the Republic of China?

The "Free Person's Declaration" is perhaps a surreal "Tao Te Ching" that transcends politics. It invokes "human rights" in order to deny both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China the status of sovereign nations. It invokes "civil society, freedom, human rights, democracy, social equality, and justice" and its "Charter of Human Rights." It cites them to justify the the establishment of a cross-Strait community by peaceful means. But ECFA was not signed by civil society in accordance with the watch members' "Charter of Human Rights." It was the result of across the board cross-Strait interaction. How could it have been implemented without sovereignty, without countries, and without governments?

Taiwan independence and the founding of a nation of Taiwan no longer have any takers. The authors of the "Free Person's Declaration" have apparently concluded that the Taiwan independence movement will not be able to found a "nation of Taiwan." They argue that neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China are true sovereign states. They argue that cross-Strait relations can be reduced to people to people relations. They want to use their "Charter of Human Rights" to establish cross-Strait links. The two sides should of course share a common strategy in upholding human rights. But this cannot be done by repudiating national sovereignty. Instead one must begin by improving the quality of national sovereignty, and by reducing confrontation over cross-Strait sovereignty.

Why is the DPP unable to find a substitute for the 1992 Consensus? The most important reason is that it repudiates the Republic of China. Do the authors of the "Free Person's Declaration" really believe that the Republic of China is not a sovereign state? Do they recognize only "Taiwan's sovereignty?" They are unable to found a "nation of Taiwan." Taiwan independence no longer has any takers. They refuse to accept the Republic of China. They insist it is not a sovereign state. Therefore when they interactd with the other side, they are essentially saying that they are nothing, that they are non-entities. How can they possibly resolve the DPP's cross-strait dilemma?

The "Free Person's Declaration" is a mutation of the Taiwan independence virus. Is there a market for it? Do the leaders of the watch really not know? Or are they merely pretending not to know? To take this path, they must repudiate three things: the "nation of Taiwan," the Republic of China, and the People 's Republic of China. Is this really the way out for the DPP?

是「自由宣言」或「道德經」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.29 02:55 am

「台灣守護民主平台」發表《自由人宣言──以「人權憲章」重構台灣與中國的關係》；研討會上，平台成員姚人多教授指出：民進黨的兩岸困境就是提不出能與「九二共識」等量齊觀的「替代物」。

他並直言：台獨建國已經失去主流市場，說服大多數人民相信可以獨立的時代已經過去了。

「台灣守護民主平台」主要是由青壯傾綠學者組成，其中頗有幾位好學深思的菁英。此次《自由人宣言》似在為「台灣與中國的關係」建構新的「連結」，但從姚人多的幾段敘述，已可見到宣言的缺口與盲點，應在迷途未遠之際重新自我審視或導正。

姚說，民進黨的兩岸困境就在提不出能與「九二共識」等量齊觀的「替代物」；這是一針見血之論。但何以致此？「九二共識」為「一中各表」，有「一中」的連結，亦有「各表」的區隔；但民進黨的傳統台獨理論則是欲否定一切的「中國連結」（否定「一中」），甚至亦拒絕承認「中華民國」的任何「中國因素」（否定「各表」）。然而，姚又認為「台獨建國」不能成為「一中各表」的「替代物」，於是就出現了「民進黨的兩岸困境」。

《自由人宣言》似在嘗試化解此一困境，於是從「台獨建國」的「國家主權對抗」，轉移至兩岸「公民社會」的「人權憲章連結」。其大意是：真正的「主權」應是奠基於人權的「人民主權」，因此「中華人民共和國」不能視為真正的「主權國家」；而「台灣／中華民國」，又因「台灣的主權與『中華民國』體制在客觀上存在著分歧」，且「《中華民國憲法》並非由台灣人民在民主的程序下所制定」；因此，「（中華民國和中華人民共和國）兩個國家的『人民主權』，都還沒有完全實踐；而兩個國家的憲法，正當性都不足」。這樣的推理是在論證：中華民國與中華人民共和國皆不是「真正的主權國家」。

此處顯示的是：一方面這是對於「一中各表」的進一步否定與滅絕（因為兩岸皆非主權國家）；另一方面亦是對中華民國的進一步否定與滅絕，例如，凸顯「台灣主權」與「中華民國體制」的「分歧」，又稱「中華民國憲法並非台灣人民在民主程序下所制定」，再稱兩岸人民之間的關係「無法用中華民族一語概括」，而只是如同對於「東南亞苦難人民」的關懷。演繹至此，這個「中華民國」，究竟還剩多少「中華民國」？或難道還能算是「中華民國」？

《自由人宣言》可以視為一部超現實、超政治的「道德經」，以「人權」觀點來否定中華民國與中華人民共和國為「主權國家」；然後，欲以「自由、人權、民主、社會公平正義」的「公民社會」與《人權憲章》做為兩岸「經由和平手段建立共同體的可能性」。然而，即使是兩岸的ＥＣＦＡ，亦非「公民社會」及《人權憲章》所簽，則兩岸互動的全盤實際運作，更如何經由「無主權／無國家／無政府」的途徑進行？

台獨建國已無「市場」，而《自由人宣言》似認為，台獨既建不成「國家」，即逕以否定中華民國與中華人民共和國為「真正的主權國家」，就可將兩岸關係拉低到「人民對人民」的層次，藉《人權憲章》即可建立兩岸連結。實情卻是：兩岸當然理應共策提升人權的水準與品質，但這絕無可能從否定「國家主權」去做到，反而應從改善國家主權的內涵與品質，及改善兩岸的主權對立來著手。

民進黨為何找不到「九二共識」的「替代物」？最主要是因否定及變造「中華民國」；如果《自由人宣言》仍然認為「中華民國」不是一個「真正的主權國家」，而只承認「台灣主權」；則在既不能以「台灣國」（台獨已無市場），又不願以「中華民國」（不是真正主權國家）與對岸互動之下，形同自貶為「本來無一物」，請問將如何化解「民進黨的兩岸困境」？

《自由人宣言》可能被視為「台獨變異病毒」（有無市場？），不知平台諸君是知道，或不知道，抑佯裝不知。這條路線若要成功，必須否定「台灣國／中華民國／中華人民共和國」三個「國家」，難道這會是民進黨的出路？