|
‘One China’ doesn’t
favor Taiwan
By Lai I-chung 賴怡忠
A Chinese professor at Tsing-hua University in Beijing, Chu Shulong (楚樹龍),
published an article entitled Communication for Better Understanding and
Improvement of Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations for the Brookings Institution on
Friday, suggesting that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait handle the Taiwan
issue based on the concepts of “one country, two governments” and “one China,
with each side having its own interpretation.”
Since China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has not yet made any negative comments about
the article, some pro-blue academics are very excited, partly because they
believe the Chinese government is showing some flexibility and partly because
they feel this is evidence that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration’s
insistence on the so-called “1992 consensus” and the principle of “one China,
with each side having its own interpretation” is acceptable to both sides.
The excitement of the pro-blue academics and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
proves one thing: The government’s policy of “one China, with each side having
its own interpretation” is based on the premise of the “one China” principle,
under which Taiwan recognizes that it is part of China.
This policy will only accelerate the erosion of Taiwan’s sovereignty, a problem
that the nation has been dealing with for the past three years.
In the 1990s, Chinese officials repeatedly denied the existence of a
cross-strait consensus on “one China, with each side having its own
interpretation.” The main reason for this rejection was that the administration
of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) interpreted “one China” from a historical
and cultural perspective, not a political one. At the time, Beijing believed the
Lee administration used the concept of “one China, two interpretations” to
divide the two sides into “two Chinas” or even “one China, one Taiwan.”
However, what China wanted was for Taiwan to admit that it was part of China,
under the “one China” principle.
Ma does recognize that Taiwan is part of China, but he emphasizes that his China
is the Republic of China (ROC), not the People’s Republic of China (PRC). That
means that his interpretation of “one China” is a retreat to the stance of
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國),
that gentlemen cannot stand together with thieves — the ROC and the PRC cannot
coexist.
However, the international community, including the US and Japan, assert that
there is only one China, and that it is represented by the PRC government. The
absurd stance of the Chiangs, which is diametrically opposed to the “one China”
consensus of the international community, has caused Taiwan to lose diplomatic
allies and to be forced to leave the UN and a number of other international
organizations.
Although Ma claims that the ROC represents China, the Chinese side can still
take advantage of the international community’s “one China” consensus to claim
that it represents Taiwan since Ma recognizes that Taiwan is part of China.
Whether the ROC government recognizes the PRC government does not really matter.
This is also why Beijing is willing to sign cross-strait agreements with the Ma
administration.
This is precisely why, after Ma’s three years in power, the Philippines, Austria
and many other countries have started to view Taiwan as a Chinese province. This
never happened during the presidency of Lee or former president Chen Shui-bian
(陳水扁). Chu’s recent article simply clarified the Chinese side’s strategy — and
there was nothing new in it.
However, it did expose how the Ma administration’s policy of “one China, with
each side having its own interpretation” is leading to a crisis as the
international consensus over the “one China” principle is growing stronger by
the day.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
|
