Washington's Status Quo Approximates Beijing's One Country, Two Systems

Washington's Status Quo Approximates Beijing's One Country, Two Systems
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
December 20, 2016

Executive Summary: The East Asian and global strategic situation is changing. Relations between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei are sure to become more turbulent. Taiwan has no say in the changes that may be coming. The only thing it can do is clarify its position, drop anchor, and avoid being tossed by the waves. Taiwan must grasp two principles. Principle One. It must continue to issue goodwill gestures toward the Mainland, and improve public understanding. Two. Its diplomacy must be independent. It must not opportunistically cozy up to the United States and Japan. The status quo closely approximates one China, two systems. Therefore it must not lightly depart from the status quo.

Full Text Below:

During a year end White House press conference, President Barack Obama talked about relations between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei. He said Washington's one China policy has maintained the status quo among Washington, Beijing, and Taipei. Obama stressed that Washington's one China policy ensured stability in the Taiwan Strait. He hoped to dispel Donald Trump's doubts about the One China Policy. But Obama also blurted out the “unmentionable secret” in the three-way relationship among Washington, Beijing, and Taipei.

According to Obama, Washington's one China policy acknowledges that both sides of the Taiwan Strait insist that there is only one China, and as long as people on Taiwan enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, they will not declare independence. Since Washington and Taipei broke off diplomatic ties, Washington has been using the one China policy to control cross-Strait relations. It has urged Beijing to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully. It has also urged Taipei not to go down the road toward Taiwan independence.

Taiwan independence elements are indignant. They think Obama disrespected public opinion on Taiwan. But their criticisms selectively ignore Taiwan's political realities. During the presidential election, candidates from both parties either sent representatives to Washington to explain their cross-Strait policy stance, or went there in person. Had Washington concluded that their stance was contrary to US policy, it would have objected publicly. This could have impacted the election.

Tsai Ing-wen's defeat in 2012 was a clear example. During the 2016 election, Washington vetted Tsai Ing-wen. That was a clear example of the opposite result. In fact, if a sitting ROC president defies US policy, the US will also "manage" him or her, the way it did when Chen Shui-bian was president. In other words, no political party on Taiwan, advocating any sort of policy, can refuse to "maintain the status quo" in cross-Strait relations. The US government is committed to safeguarding the principle that "Both sides of the Strait are Chinese, both sides of the Strait are one country". It is also committed to the premise that "The two sides each have their own model of government. Taiwan has its own mode of development”.

Specifically, the US presents two-way guarantees and norms for the two sides of the Strait. For the Mainland, the US acknowledges that both sides of the Strait are part of one country. Washington may not be involved in resolving the Taiwan issue. But it clearly makes every effort to ensure that Taiwan does not move toward independence. The United States is committed to maintaining the status quo on Taiwan, without interference from the Mainland, and to ensuring that Taiwan enjoyes a high degree of autonomy.

To some extent, the One China Policy maintained by the US over the past 40 years amounts to "one country, two systems". That “both sides of the Taiwan Strait insist that there is only one China” implies “one China”, and “autonomy for Taiwan” implies “two systems”. The real dispute is merely over who represents China? The Mainland has never repudiated one country, two systems. Deng Xiaoping said that under one country, two systems, Taiwan could retain its military. Some worry that one country, two systems would reduce Taiwan to the status of Hong Kong. But Xi Jinping has said that Taiwan's one country, two systems would differ from Hong Kong and Macao's. In other words, what sort of entity would Taiwan be? The Mainland has not actually delineated this.

For the Mainland, when it comes to Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan, the key issue is sovereignty and national unity. As long these remain under the one China framework, internal differences will be respected. That is the core meaning of one country, two systems. Unfortunately, it has become Politically Incorrect on Taiwan, rendering rational evaluation and debate impossible.

Throw off the shackles of “us vs. them” thinking, and one country, two systems will not be as intolerable as people on Taiwan have imagined. One country, two systems has run into problems in Hong Kong. But it has been in effect nearly 20 years, and maintained freedom and prosperity for Hong Kong society. This shows that the system is sound. Furthermore, the Republic of China exercises sovereignty over the Taiwan Region and its nationals. Any arrangement or change involving sovereignty would require the consent of the entire population. This is entirely different from the transfer of sovereignty from Britain to the Mainland in 1997. Taipei must consider the pros and cons of one country, two systems objectively. It must establish the most favorable conditions under such a system, rather than rejecting it out of hand.

The key is the DPP government and whether it is willing to reach a consensus with the Mainland on the one China principle. According to Obama, cross-Strait relations and the Washington Taipei relationship are based on the one China framework. If the DPP government insists on rejecting the one China framework, it will lose any footing it might have had in cross-Strait relations. More troublesome still, cross-Strait relations are now riddled with uncertainty. President elect Trump has indicated his willingness to make a deal with the Mainland over the one China policy. The Mainland has two choices. One choice is to make a deal with the US. The US would abandon its one China policy. Taiwan would be forced to accept "reunification without dignity". The other choice is to issue a warning to Taiwan, or even move against Taiwan, and deprive the US of its bargaining chip.

The East Asian and global strategic situation is changing. Relations between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei are sure to become more turbulent. Taiwan has no say in the changes that may be coming. The only thing it can do is clarify its position, drop anchor, and avoid being tossed by the waves. Taiwan must grasp two principles. Principle One. It must continue to issue goodwill gestures toward the Mainland, and improve public understanding. Two. Its diplomacy must be independent. It must not opportunistically cozy up to the United States and Japan. The status quo closely approximates one China, two systems. Therefore it must not lightly depart from the status quo.

美國的維持現狀 大陸的一國兩制
2016/12/21 中國時報

歐巴馬在白宮年終記者會罕見談到美中台關係，強調是在美國一個中國政策原則下，維持了美中台之間的「不改變現狀」默契。歐巴馬的用意在強調，美國一中政策是維繫台海穩定的基礎，希望平衡川普對一中政策的質疑。不過，歐巴馬也說出了美中台三邊關係「不能說的祕密」。

依據歐巴馬的敘述，美國一中政策的核心在「認知海峽兩岸中國人均堅持一個中國」，同時「台灣人民同意，只要能在某種程度自主下持續運作，就不會宣布獨立」。自美台斷交後，美國一直藉此管控兩岸關係，不光敦促大陸應和平解決，也要求台灣不能走台獨之路。

台灣獨派對歐巴馬的說法不以為然，認為沒有尊重台灣民意，但這種批評是選擇性忽略台灣的政治現實。歷次總統大選期間，兩黨候選人都親自或派代表赴美說明兩岸政策立場，美國若認為違反美國政策，就會以某種形式表達立場，就會對選情造成一定的影響。

2012年蔡英文落選就是鮮明例子，2016年大選美國表態支持蔡英文，又是鮮明的反向例子。甚至在職總統若違反美國政策，美國也會出手「管理」，陳水扁時代事蹟昭昭。亦即台灣無論哪一黨，無論他們主張何種政策，在兩岸關係真實作為上，不會跳脫「維持現狀」框架。可以說，美國政府致力維護的是「兩岸都是中國人、兩岸一國」及「兩岸採行不同運作方式，台灣是自有發展方式的實體」。

具體而言，美國對兩岸提出雙向保證與規範，對大陸而言，美國認知兩岸同屬一國，美國雖不介入台灣問題的解決，但明確反對並極力確保台灣不會走向獨立。對台灣而言，美國致力維持台灣政治運作現狀不受大陸干預，保障台灣的高度自治。

其實，某種程度而言，美國過去40年來致力的「美國版一中政策」，某種程度就是「一國兩制」，「兩岸均堅持一個中國」就是「一國」，「獨立運作實體」就是「兩制」，爭議只是誰代表中國？大陸從未否定一國兩制台灣的實體地位，鄧小平曾經說過，台灣若施行「一國兩制」將可以保有自己的軍隊。有的人擔心實施「一國兩制」，台灣會變成香港，但習近平也說過，台灣實施的「一國兩制」，有別於香港、澳門，台灣有自己的模式，換句話說，台灣是一個什麼樣的實體，大陸並沒有劃出界線。

就大陸而言，無論是港澳問題還是台灣問題，最重要是主權完整和國家統一，只要是在一中框架之下，內部運作都會予以尊重。這是「一國兩制」的核心意涵，可惜在台灣早已成為政治不正確，失去理性評估、討論的意願與能力。

若拋開敵我意識的桎梏，應該會發現「一國兩制」並不像台灣社會想像的那麼不堪。「一國兩制」在香港的運作雖然遭遇了一些問題，但也持續運行接近20年，並延續了香港社會的生活自由與經濟繁榮，足以說明這一制度的合理性。何況台灣主權屬於中華民國及其國民，任何涉及主權的安排與改變，都須經全體國民同意，這與香港主權屬於英國，97年由英國政府移交中國完全不同。台灣應該客觀思考一國兩制的利弊得失，創造最有利的條件，而非對抗性全盤否定。

現在的關鍵在於，民進黨政府是否願意與大陸就一中原則達成共識。依據歐巴馬的陳述，兩岸關係及美台關係基礎在一中框架，民進黨政府若堅持拒絕接受一中框架，不但兩岸關係失去依附，美台關係也可能地動山搖。更麻煩的是，兩岸關係已陷入高度不確定性與一定的危險性，即將就任美國總統的川普卻表明願與大陸交易一個中國政策。大陸可能有兩個選擇，一是與美國交易，美國放棄一中政策，台灣接受「沒有尊嚴的統一」命運，一是對台灣殺雞儆猴，甚至直取台灣，讓美國失去交易籌碼。

東亞及全球戰略格局正在重新調整，美中台關係勢必劇烈動盪，台灣在這場可能地動山搖的變動中完全沒有發言權，唯一可以做的是明確自己的定位，放下船錨，不隨海潮波濤擺盪。台灣應把握兩個原則，一、持續對大陸發出善意訊號，發展民共共識，二、獨立外交，切勿趁勢倒向美日。對大陸而言，現狀距離一國兩制最近，不可輕言打破。