Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) recently made an appeal to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, stressing that only through cooperation can a new political milieu be created.
Actually, the "one China" issue has found Taiwan mired in a morass of difficulties from which it longs to extricate itself. It has been overlooked, however, that in order to make progress in cross-strait relations, Taiwan needs to construct a logical theoretical framework for positioning and direction. Such a move would allow Taiwan to remove itself from its present predicament.
In terms of positioning, the substance of "one China," namely "China as a whole cannot be permanently divided," should be restored to its original meaning.
Moreover, neither side should use its national title to lay claim to the whole. China as a whole is not merely the Republic of China (ROC), nor is it only the People's Republic of China (PRC). Thus, in discussions regarding cross-strait positioning, we must construct the concept of the "three entities"(三個主體), namely the ROC, the PRC, and "China as a whole"(整個中國).
The "three entities" concept is theoretically grounded in the notion that sovereignty belongs to the people; "China as a whole" is shared by Chinese people on both sides of the Strait, and cannot be monopolized by any one party.
In strict legal terminology, cross-strait relations could be posited as "two Chinese states under China as a whole" or "two equal political entities with attributes of statehood under China as a whole." If one wishes to steer clear of shared misunderstandings and suppressed animosities, and moreover satisfy both sides' emotional and cognitive needs, using the formulation of "two equal political entities under China as a whole" would perhaps be even more appropriate to the task.
For "China as a whole," relations between the ROC and PRC are "internal." They would have what could be commonly described as a "brother-to-brother" or "special" relationship.
This kind of formulation doesn't violate the positioning used by Taiwan in the Guidelines for National Unification (國統綱領).
In addition, it doesn't run counter to China's long-held views. That is to say, the positioning of "two equal political entities under China as a whole" would basically incorporate the formulations found in the Guidelines for National Unification and "one China, two systems."
Vis-a-vis an agreement signed by both sides, "China as a whole" can legally exist as one of the "three entities." The mutual promise not to split up "China as a whole" is a necessary legal step. But at the same time that legal pledges are being made, both parties should also accept the other's existence, agreeing to coexist in international organizations. After agreeing not to remain permanently divided, the two sides, coexisting in international bodies, would not create any legal conclusions that the two have completely separated from one another.
Both sides of the Strait should work to realize "China as a whole," ensuring that it's more than just an empty concept existing only in law. For example, in international organizations, apart from each side having its own representatives, teams representing "China as a whole" or the "cross-strait community" should be jointly organized to act as observers.
Further, in accordance with gradually deepening cooperation across the Strait, the authority of this "third entity" needs to be increased. Thus, the three entities can coexist in international organizations.
RSS