|
The coexistence of
two Chinas
By Hsiao Yatan ¿½¨ÈÃÓ
On May 20, former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) chairman Richard Bush
talked about the possibility of treating the two sides of the Taiwan Strait as
¡§two Chinas¡¨ at a seminar held by the Brookings Institution in Washington to
celebrate the centenary of China¡¦s 1911 Revolution. Given the status of the
speaker and the venue where the speech was made, this is a message to which the
Taiwanese government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) should give
further thought.
In response to the proposal, Presidential Office spokesman Fang Chiang Tai-chi
(S«¸®õ°ò) on May 22 reiterated the government¡¦s stance that Taiwan recognizes the
principle of ¡§one China, with each side having its own interpretation,¡¨ while
the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remained silent. Given the passive
attitude of both political parties, we need to look at the pros and cons of
Taiwan promoting the concept of ¡§two Chinas.¡¨
Various proposals addressing the cross-strait status have emerged over the
years, including ¡§one country, two systems,¡¨ ¡§one China, two constitutions,¡¨
¡§one China, one Taiwan,¡¨ and even the view that Taiwan should become part of the
US or revert to Japan. Unfortunately, none of the political groups in Taiwan
have ever adopted the concept of ¡§two Chinas¡¨ ¡X although that is the description
of the ¡§status quo¡¨ across the Taiwan Strait that would be easiest for the
public to understand.
What does ¡§two Chinas¡¨ mean? The Republic of China (ROC) was founded in 1912,
and an independence movement led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
successfully founded the People¡¦s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Despite the
vast difference in the population and territory that these two entities control,
two countries calling themselves ¡§China¡¨ have coexisted ever since.
Opinion polls conducted over the years on Taiwan¡¦s status have consistently
shown a majority to favor maintaining the ¡§status quo.¡¨ But what is this ¡§status
quo¡¨ that the public hopes to maintain? Perhaps maintaining the ¡§status quo¡¨
means recognizing that the PRC is a sovereign and independent country and a
rising emerging economy, while Taiwan is a sovereign state called the ROC. Isn¡¦t
that the same thing as ¡§two Chinas¡¨?
Whether we are talking about Chinese unification with the PRC as its core, or
the traditional independence view that there is one China and one Taiwan,
neither exists in reality nor is it currently an option. The situation today is
that there are two Chinas ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the
CCP.
Perhaps the ¡§two Chinas¡¨ concept would enable the three parties on the two sides
of the Taiwan Strait to find common ground for dialogue and negotiation. What
does the so-called ¡§1992 consensus¡¨ between the KMT and CCP mean? It is their
shared hope that they will live together in one country named China in the
future. What does the ¡§Taiwan consensus¡¨ between the KMT and DPP mean? It is an
agreement to compete for political power within the ROC framework. The consensus
between the DPP and the CCP would be that by gaining power, they can share the
experience of defeating the KMT, either by military force or via the ballot box.
The ¡§two Chinas¡¨ concept has no enemies. For the KMT, the concept recognizes the
legitimacy of its rule over Taiwan. For the DPP, it can be seen as paving the
way for the emergence of ¡§one China, one Taiwan.¡¨ As for the CCP, it could be
viewed as an initial stage in pursuit of peaceful unification. This concept
provides all three parties with the support and interpretations they need.
With regards to the US as a factor in the cross-strait relationship, the ¡§two
Chinas¡¨ concept was once part of US foreign policy. If MOFA chooses to use it
when lobbying, the ¡§two Chinas¡¨ concept is likely to be given a better reception
than talk about independence or Taiwan becoming a US territory, because a ¡§two
Chinas¡¨ policy would simply mean a resumption of Washington¡¦s old China policy.
The Presidential Office could have been more flexible in its response to the
¡§two Chinas¡¨ concept, possibly by saying that as long as it were in Taiwan¡¦s
interests, it would welcome a passionate and in-depth debate by all sides on how
to implement ¡§one China, with each side having its own interpretation.¡¨ With
such flexibility, the government would truly be practicing the ¡§flexible
diplomacy¡¨ it has long touted.
Hsiao Yatan is a post-doctoral fellow in the Institute of Sociology at
Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
|
