|
A big step in the
wrong direction
By Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎
At the annual Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
forum held in Beijing on March 24, former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) put
forward the concept of “one country, two areas” as the basis for future
cross-strait talks. This proposal appeared to come out of the clear blue sky,
and has raised eyebrows in Taiwan and overseas.
The move caused commotion in Taiwan, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
and Taiwan Solidarity Union criticizing it and promising to mobilize protests.
What is different about it? Or is it in line with existing policy, as the
administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has claimed?
Let us examine the idea and its context, and see if it helps or hurts Taiwan’s
international position.
First, we must note that the proposal was launched at the CCP-KMT forum, which
has become an annual ritual between the two parties. This is not a good
development for Taiwan, because the topic was raised in party-to-party
discussions. Experience shows that the CCP-KMT forum is not the proper place for
the development of cross-strait policy, because it does not involve legislative
oversight, accountability or transparency, which are essential elements in a
democracy.
Second, it looks suspiciously like the “one country, two systems” formula
proposed by China, first for Hong Kong, and later also as a “model” for Taiwan.
The new term is therefore a further step on the slippery slope toward the “one
country, two systems” formulation. In view of the reluctance of Beijing to give
the people of Hong Kong the freedom to choose their own leader and move toward
full suffrage, one wonders if this is a wise move.
Third, defenders of the new terminology have argued that it moves the discussion
between the two sides of the Strait forward, and that it adheres to the Republic
of China (ROC) Constitution. The problem with this argument is that it
strengthens Beijing’s hand and weakens Taiwan’s sovereignty by putting Taiwan on
the same footing as Hong Kong and Macao, as an “area” that is part of the
country called China.
To just about everyone around the world, China is synonymous with the People’s
Republic of China. Few outside a small circle of diehard ROC supporters in
Taipei still adhere to the argument that “one China” equals the ROC. This is
simply not the present-day reality, and the sooner everyone says farewell to
that anachronism, the better.
One must also wonder what implications “one country, two areas” would have for
foreign policy and defense. An “area” generally does not have a foreign ministry
to conduct foreign relations, or a military to defend its territory. Does Wu
propose merging the foreign and defense ministries of Taiwan and China?
Wu’s ideas must thus be seen as a turn in the wrong direction, which could lead
to instability and a downgrading of Taiwan’s international status.
If Taiwanese and their government want to strengthen Taiwan’s relations with the
international community, they need to emphasize — not de--emphasize — Taiwan’s
freedom, democracy and sovereignty. Making a complicated situation even more
confusing by -inventing yet another fuzzy term does not help.
As I have argued before, moves such as this one and the so-called “1992
consensus” may bring the temporary false perception of a relaxation of tensions
across the Strait, but in the longer term, they reduce Taiwan’s room for
maneuver on the international stage, leading to increased tension down the road.
Most of all, what does this move actually gain for Taiwan?
If Taiwan really wants to move toward long-term stability, it needs to work on
an internal consensus, a “Taiwan consensus,” on how Taiwanese, through a
democratic mechanism, perceive their future. For long-term stability, Taiwan
needs to strengthen its position as a key member of the regional economic
framework among East Asian nations, and for long-term stability it is also
essential to develop closer political ties with democratic neighbors such as
Japan and the Philippines, as well as faraway friends such as the EU and the US.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. The
views expressed in this article are his own.
|
