Print

Mail

wiki links

Chen's 'one country, two countries'

`The greatest value of Chen's "one country, two countries" lies in that it manages to create a fundamental consensus between the different views of the cross-strait relationship held by the opposition and ruling parties.'

On Feb. 21, 1991, while the Legislative Yuan was in the middle of a general policy interpellation session, the prime minister at the time, Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) stood at the podium prepared for battle -- questioned by well armed legislator Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Chen fired off a series of sharp questions in an aggressive voice about reunification and independence, ranging from the constitutional system to a referendum.

Then he suddenly changed the subject and proposed the "one country, two countries" model (一國兩國模式). This artful theory that is neither pro-unification nor pro-independence, still caused the sternly pro-unification Hau to loose his bearings, only to reply "I don't know."

Looking back, the "one country, two countries" theory certainly is both quite inventive and quite visionary. According to Chen's thinking at the time, "one country, two countries" still remained within the "one China" framework. Two countries could co-exist, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Two independent countries would not affect the unification issue and would also satisfy independence advocates.

He also used Chinese history to butress the correctness of this way of seeing things: during the waning years of the Han dynasty, three states (三國) existed together; after the Three Kingdoms, there were the Sixteen States and the Five Tribes (五胡十六國); and after the demise of the Tang dynasty the Five Dynasties and Ten States (五代十國) appeared. The Three Kingdoms, the Ten States, and the Sixteen States could all do it, so "who says that we can't have two countries?" Chen asked in a loud voice.

Unfortunately, the "one country, two countries" theory did not create much of a stir at the time. Subsequently, however, various models for cross-strait integration have mushroomed, e.g. federation (聯邦), confederation (邦聯), commonwealth (國協), community (共同體), or a European-like Union. These models basically see the cross-strait relationship within the integration framework, and their only differences are the degree to which sovereignty is abandoned and systems integrated.

The pragmatists within the New Party, including Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), Yao Li-ming (姚立明), Chu Hui-liang (朱惠良), Li Ping-nan (李炳南), Li Hsin (李新) and Fei Hung-tai (費鴻泰) in 1998 proposed "one China, two countries" (一中兩國), which meant "one China, two Chinese countries" (一個中國,兩個中國人國家) with Chinese sovereignty belonging to all Chinese people; since China is still not completely split up, the two sides enjoy sovereign and political powers within their respective current territories.

Last year Professor Chang Ya-chung (張亞中) proposed the theory of vertical integration (垂直統合), where he postulated that there are three Chinese bodies, one being the Republic of China, the second the People's Republic of China and the third "all China" (整個中國). Taiwan and China are both parts of "all China." The opinion of the pragmatists in the New Party and Chang coincide with Chen Shui-bian's past proposal, and credit for the creation of the vertical integration theory should be attributed to him. However, people forget, and the president may not remember that he once held this view.

Maybe it is an accident of history, or a result of the trends of the times, but the prophetic vision of Legislator Chen's "one country, two countries" a decade ago can be followed all the way down to the integration dictum of President Chen ten years later, explaining it in even more detail, making it the basic framework within which the government can handle the cross-strait relationship. In particular, when faced with the thorny issue of "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" (一中各表), how should the leadership deal with "one China?" How should they interpret it? It's actually not that difficult. The president only has to bring out the "one country, two countries" model that he proposed earlier, and say that the two independent and sovereign countries of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China both exist within the one China framework, and that the two maintain a certain level of interactivity.

The greatest value of Chen's "one country, two countries" lies in that it manages to create a fundamental consensus between the different views of the cross-strait relationship held by the opposition and ruling parties. The KMT's confederation system, the PFP's EU model and the "one China, two countries" of the pragmatists in the New Party, do not fundamentally differ from the basic ideas in the "one country, two countries" model.

This plan, which most people -- apart from the two extremes of "saving Taiwan through one country, two systems" (一國兩制救台灣) or the dogmatist independence faction (台獨基本教義派) -- are able to accept, is the best way for Chen to meet the pressures of the "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" formula.

Whether the 1992 consensus exists or not, and how "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" (一中各表) should be defined, is an important point of divergence between ruling and opposition parties. If President Chen wants to create an environment conducive to cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties and an atmosphere suitable for the creation of a coalition government, he must deal with this divergence.

But he is in luck, because Legislator Chen solved this sticky problem for him a decade ago. There is therefore no need to search far and wide, he only has to reiterate the "one country, two countries" model, and the basic tune of cross-strait policies is set, beautifully.

Shen Fu-hsiung is a legislator for the Democratic Progressive Party.

Translated by Perry Svensson
This story has been viewed 3234 times.