"Taiwan" is Not a Sovereign and Independent Nation

"Taiwan" is Not a Sovereign and Independent Nation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 5, 2013

Summary: Beijing is publicly urging the Democratic Progressive Party to forsake Taiwan independence. It is saying that if the DPP can change its position on Taiwan independence, then it can have contacts with the Mainland. Su Tseng-chang recently declared that "Taiwan is a sovereign nation, one that has long been independent. Our first priority now is to strengthen the nation, not turn the clock back and advocate Taiwan independence."

Full Text below:

Beijing is publicly urging the Democratic Progressive Party to forsake Taiwan independence. It is saying that if the DPP can change its position on Taiwan independence, then it can have contacts with the Mainland. Su Tseng-chang recently declared that "Taiwan is a sovereign nation, one that has long been independent. Our first priority now is to strengthen the nation, not turn the clock back and advocate Taiwan independence."

Su Tseng-chang's media spin was nothing new. The assertion that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation" has long been the DPP's position on national identity and constitutional allegiance. Unfortunately, it is bogus. Why? One. There is no nation in the world named "Taiwan." After all, if "Taiwan" is the "name of the nation," when why must the DPP demand the "rectification of names?" Two. If "Taiwan" is a "sovereign and independent nation," where is its constitution? Nowhere in the world can one find a "Taiwan Constitution." Therefore how can "Taiwan" be a "nation?" Why does the DPP continue calling for the "authoring of a new constitution?"

Su Tseng-chang said, "there is no need to turn the clock back and advocate Taiwan independence." How should this be interpreted? Is he advocating a moratorium on the promotion of Taiwan independence, or has he changed his position on Taiwan independence? In this regard there is room for doubt. On the other hand this might merely be Su's personal view. After all, the DPP has yet to pass a "Resolution not to Turn the Clock Back and Advocate Taiwan Independence."

Su Tseng-chang declared, "Taiwan is a sovereign nation." As we noted earlier, this assertion is flat-out false. He said his cross-Strait posture is the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," approved by the DPP All Peoples Conference in 1999. The Resolution proclaims that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation... even though it is referred to as the Republic of China under the current constitution... " This is the source of this bogus claim.

The Resolution asserts that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It asserts that "Taiwan" is a "nation." It asserts that according to the "current (Republic of China) constitution, the "Nation of Taiwan" is known as the "Republic of China." This amounts to an admission that the "Nation of Taiwan" is "currently" borrowing the Constitution of the Republic of China, and the name of the Republic of China. Therefore, the assertion that "Taiwan" is a "sovereign and independent nation" is nothing more than a game of "constitutional switch and bait." It is nothing more than the same old "backdoor listing" approach to Taiwan independence.

The "Resolution" is "backdoor listing" Taiwan independence. If it is not, then the DPP should accept in toto the Constitution of the Republic of China, which calls for "one China, different interpretations." Alas, Frank Hsieh's "different constitutional interpretations of one China" was violently attacked by others in the party. Clearly the DPP is only interested in borrowing the name "Republic of China," and nothing else. Yao Chia-wen freely admitted that apart from its electoral system, the DPP does not recognize the ROC Constitution. Chiu Yi-jen recently told Frank Hsieh that the DPP does not completely accept the ROC Constitution.

The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." It piggybacks on the Constitution of the Republic of China. Yet the DPP opposes "different constitutional interpretations of one China." It refuses to "completely accept the ROC Constitution." Meanwhile, it remains incapable of completing the "rectification of names." Therefore, the obvious question is, where can one find the logical basis for the proposition that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation?"

The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," was announced in 1999. In 2000, upon taking office, Chen Shui-bian announced his "Five Noes." This evolution is logical. But the Ah-Bian regime ruled for eight years. It engaged in the "rectification of names." It demanded a "referendum on UN membership." It asserted that there was "one country on each side," touching off a firestorm. It long ago shredded the "Resolution." But at the time, Su Tseng-chang was both the Premier and a former party chairman. Can he really wipe all that away today with an airy "My cross-Strait posture is the Resolution on Taiwan's Future?"

In 1993, Shih Ming-teh argued that Taiwan, under the name Republic of China, need not and should not declare independence. He argued that the Republic of China was already a sovereign and independent nation, one that has been independent since 1912. This argument is a very different animal from "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." The difference is that Shih argues that the "Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation."

Su Tseng-chang says he has no intention of "turning back the clock and advocating Taiwan independence." If he means it, he cannot turn the clock back and hide behind the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The "Resolution" falsely asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." Su has never "completely accepted this [one China, different interpretations] constitution." Besides, the DPP's "Taiwan Independence Party Platform" remains in force. Does the DPP intend to invoke the "Taiwan independence platform" in order to implement the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future?"

Su Tseng-chang says he has no intention of "turning back the clock and advocating Taiwan independence." If so, he should wean the DPP from the false assertion that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." He should lead them toward the reality that the "Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation." The sovereignty of the Republic of China may have been weakened. But there is no nation anywhere in the world known as "Taiwan." The Constitution of the Republic of China may have been weakened. But unless the DPP turns the clock back and engages in the "rectification of names," the world will never see a "Taiwan Constitution."

Mainland China's CPPCC Chairman Yu Zhengsheng challenged the DPP to promise "not to engage in de jure Taiwan independence." What he meant was, "Is the DPP willing to once again reaffirm the Republic of China?" What he meant was that the DPP should first reaffirm that the "Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation."

假議題：台灣是主權獨立的國家
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.05 03:57 am

北京聲聲催迫：民進黨若不搞台獨，若能改變台獨的立場，大陸即可與其交往。蘇貞昌日前表態：「台灣是主權國家，早已獨立；現在最重要的是建設國家，不是走回頭路搞台獨。」

蘇貞昌的說法並不新。「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」，這是民進黨的國憲認同主軸論述；然而，這卻是個假議題。因為：一、世界上並沒有一個以「台灣」為國號的國家；若「台灣」是「國號」，民進黨何必主張「正名」？二、「台灣」若是一個「主權獨立的國家」，請問其憲法何在？世上並無一部「台灣憲法」，則「台灣」如何會是一個「國家」？民進黨又何必主張「制憲」？

蘇貞昌說「不走回頭路搞台獨」，能不能一比一地解讀成：「不搞台獨」或「改變其台獨的立場」？這一方面還有仁智論證的餘地，另一方面這也仍僅是蘇貞昌個人的看法，畢竟民進黨尚未作成《不走回頭路搞台獨決議文》。

蘇貞昌說「台灣是主權國家」，如前文所論，這句話根本是個假議題。他說，他的兩岸立場，就是民進黨全代會在一九九九年通過的《台灣前途決議文》；此決議文說：「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家……固然依目前憲法稱為中華民國……」這正是此一假議題的原始出處。

《決議文》說：台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，但「台灣」這個「國家」，依「目前的（中華民國）憲法」，「台灣這個國家」被稱作「中華民國」。此說不啻是指：台灣這個「國家」，「目前」借用「中華民國憲法」，也借用「中華民國」這個國號，因此「台灣」成了一個「主權獨立的國家」。這是扭曲的憲政法理，其實仍是「借殼上市」的台獨。

《決議文》若非「借殼上市」的台獨，民進黨至少應當完整接受這部「一中各表」的《中華民國憲法》；但是，從謝長廷的「憲法各表」在黨內遭到狂暴的攻擊，即知民進黨只是要借「中華民國」這個「殼」而已。姚嘉文說：除了選舉制度，民進黨不承認中華民國憲法；最近邱義仁亦對謝長廷說：民進黨並未全盤接受這部憲法。

《台灣前途決議文》是將「台灣是主權獨立的國家」這個命題，建立或寄居在《中華民國憲法》之上；但民進黨卻反對「憲法各表」，反對「全盤接受中華民國憲法」，而自己又不能實現「正名制憲」；如此，試問「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」這個命題何以立足？

《台灣前途決議文》頒布於一九九九年，二○○○年陳水扁執政後又宣布「四不一沒有」，此一演化尚合邏輯；但扁政府執政八年，正名制憲、入聯公投、一邊一國鬧得沸沸揚揚，早將《決議文》撕得粉碎。而蘇貞昌當時曾任民進黨主席及行政院長，如今難道只憑一句「我的兩岸立場就是《台灣前途決議文》」即可交代？

施明德在一九九三年曾主張：台灣在中華民國這個名號下不必、也不會宣布獨立，因為中華民國原本是一個主權獨立的國家，且自一九一二年就已獨立。此一論述，與「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」大異其趣，差異在於他主張的是「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。

因此，蘇貞昌若「不走回頭路搞台獨」，就也不能回頭拿《台灣前途決議文》當防火牆。因為，《決議文》在理念上是主張「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的假議題，在操作上則一路以來皆未「全盤接受這部（一中各表的）憲法」。何況，《台獨黨綱》迄仍有效，民進黨難道要在《台獨黨綱》下操作《台灣前途決議文》？

蘇貞昌若「不走回頭路搞台獨」，就應引領民進黨從「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」之假議題，走向「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」的現實課題。儘管中華民國在主權上是受傷的國家，但世界上卻沒有以「台灣」為國號的國家；中華民國憲法雖是部受傷的憲法，但除非民進黨走回頭路搞「正名制憲」，世界上永遠不會有一部「台灣憲法」。

中國大陸政協主席俞正聲說：民進黨敢不敢說「不搞法理台獨」？其意應指：民進黨先回到「中華民國」再說，亦即先回到「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」再說。