The KMT's Su Chi discusses the viability of confederation

Taipei Times: As a key KMT national security advisor, would you elaborate on the party's position paper released Saturday that recommends a transitional confederation across the Taiwan Strait?

Su Chi (蘇起): The idea of a cross-strait confederation is an innovative revision to the National Unification Guidelines, which call for eventual unification between Taiwan and China in three stages, and which will remain the mainstay of the KMT's China policy. Under the revised framework, we suggest that the two sides resume dialogue based on the understanding reached in 1992 and then seek to work out a stable regime under which direct links and official exchanges may take place. Over time, Taipei and Beijing may strike a deal to form a confederation under which both sides are entitled to full control over their domestic and diplomatic affairs, including national defense. It will take time before such a union can be established, and opinions of different parties will be given ample weight regarding the details of the arrangement. When the differences between parties becomes negligible, unification may materialize under the principles of democracy, freedom and equitable prosperity.

The position paper represents our vision on a policy area the DPP government appears to have none. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has said that unification is not the sole solution to the cross-strait dilemma, but he has yet to point out what other choices we may have. As a responsible political party, we would like to spell out our vision and welcome any criticism.

TT: Experts have argued for the importance of creative ambiguity in addressing the sovereignty issue. Don't you agree that the Chen administration, by not clarifying its China policy, is seeking to play it safe?

Su: The strategy has apparently backfired, given the crisis in confidence shown by the public and investors in particular. The lack of clarity definitely allows the administration more room for flexibility, but the other side of the coin is that it tends to cause the administration to waver as evidenced in its indecision over whether to relax control on China-bound investment.

TT: History has demonstrated that this form of organization [confederation] has not been a very successful one. How long do you think such a confederation would last if it were to exist? How will Beijing respond to the proposal?

Su: The Switzerland Confederation lasted for 500 years (1291 to 1798) and the German Confederation held for 50 years (1815 to 1866). The life span of a confederation will depend on how it works and on the nature of cross-strait ties. The more receptive the arrangement is to people on both sides, the more viable it will be. Beijing will not accept anything other than the "one country, two systems" formula. But that's not our concern. They can state what they want, and so can we. Then the two sides may seek to bridge their differences at the negotiating table.

TT: In light of the full sovereignty guaranteed to member states of a confederation, how does it differ from the two-states model pronounced by former KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1999?

Su: The two-states model flatly rejects unification whereas the proposed confederation is only an interim settlement that allows the two sides to co-exist peacefully under "the same roof," which is an important assurance for Beijing. The two-states theory has become past tense. Even former president Lee has quit portraying cross-strait relations as a special state-to-state reletionship of late. The confederation design, if adopted by the KMT National Congress later this month, will formally become party policy, overwriting the two-states clause in the party's platform.