Editorial: Chen gives in on `two states'

Presidential hopeful Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) apparent abrogation yesterday of the DPP's long-standing claim to seek formal independence for Taiwan is outrageous.

It may be common sense to support "peaceful co-existence and prosperity" between China and Taiwan. And it surely must be the case that, as Chen said, no individual or party has the right to make choices about Taiwan's future without consulting the people by way of a plebiscite -- something that the KMT still does not formally support.

The outrage, however, comes over the main thrust of Chen's speech, that independence is not an option for Taiwan "unless China wants to use force against us and our people cannot tolerate or accept it." This shocking qualification seems to suggest that there is a level of force that Taiwanese can tolerate or accept, and from there it is a gentle slide down the slope of acceptance from "should" to "must" -- a contemptible notion indeed.

But it is on a wider issue where Chen is really at fault, in adding that there was no question of declaring independence, changing the name of the country or writing the "two-states" doctrine into the Constitution.

Since this is the same as the KMT's official policy, readers might wonder what is galling about Chen's saying it. He is only contributing to the spread of a universal timidity among Taiwan's politicians about revising the Constitution to reflect the reality that Taiwan and China are two separate states -- the gist of President Lee Teng-hui's "two-states" declaration on July 9 last year. Nevertheless, this is loathsome in itself. Only when Taiwan has firmly and legally slammed the door on the "one-China" policy and its long history of utter failure can international treatment of the cross-strait relationship break out of diplomatic myth and address the existing reality. The vast majority of politicians know this. Few have Lee's courage to express it.

Perhaps what makes it even worse in Chen's case is his extraordinarily bad timing. The statement comes only two days after China's Vice Premier, Qian Qichen (錢其琛), reminded the world about its promise to attack an independence-seeking Taiwan, and the same day as a People's Daily front-page editorial predicted dire consequences if Taiwan tried to formalize the "two-states" doctrine. The fulmination seems to have worked.

What makes it all the more difficult to digest, though, coming from Chen, is that his party is not saddled with the same ideological baggage as the KMT. Considering its history, the KMT's ambivalence over dumping its "one-China" past is understandable, even if regrettable. That Chen should be so content as to grant China this hegemony over Taiwan is bitterly disappointing.

The bottom line is that "two-states" and its incorporation into the Constitution is an internal matter for Taiwanese to decide. Yet thanks to such pre-emptive capitulation by people like Chen, supposedly the toughest among the presidential candidates on this issue, it is being effectively decided by Beijing.

But, Chen might argue that it's a smart move. After all, Taiwan has always said it seeks to avoid conflict, so why confront China? To which the answer has to be, appeasing China by saying that "two-states" will not go into the Constitution has gained nothing for Taiwan so far but the reputation of being able to be successfully bullied by China. That no presidential candidate is prepared to question the wisdom of this makes us think that not one of them is actually qualified for the leadership role he seeks.