Mon, Oct 22, 2012 - Page 3 News List

Hsieh’s China platform has no chance: Su Huan-chih

By Lee Hsin-fang and Jake Chung  /  Staff reporter, with staff writer

Former premier Frank Hsieh’s (謝長廷) “constitutions with different interpretations” (憲法各表) will have no chance of becoming the consensus within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) because it is still within the “one China” framework, former Tainan County commissioner Su Huan-chih (蘇煥智) said yesterday.

Hsieh’s concept is to approach cross-strait issues using the parts of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution that both major political parties in Taiwan can agree on, and also tacitly implying that China and Taiwan are already two different sovereign countries because no two countries have the same constitution.

The idea was raised in hope of it replacing the so-called “1992 consensus” that there is “one China, with each side having their own interpretation” — a tacit understanding that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defines as the Republic of China on Taiwan, while Beijing would define it as the People’s Republic of China.

Having just returned from a orchid exhibition in China held from Oct. 8 through Oct. 13, Su said that while he held a positive view of Hsieh’s visit to China and acknowledged the need for it, he did not support Hsieh’s proposed “constitutions with different interpretations.”

While acknowledging need for increased DPP-China interaction, Su said in a blog post that Hsieh’s proposal had no chance of being accepted by the DPP.

Hsieh’s many proposals — the “one country, two cities (一國兩市)” from 2000, “constitutional one China” (憲法一中) in 2006, “constitutional consensus” (憲法共識) and “constitutions with different interpretations” — are in the simplest of senses only one, the “constitutional China with differing interpretations” (憲法一中各表), Su said.

The logic Hsieh follows in his various proposals is the same — he gradually eliminated “one China” from his proposals because pan-green supporters oppose the concept, Su said.

Couching his proposal as “an explanation of the politics under current circumstances,” then advocating constitutional amendments due to dissatisfaction with those circumstances, Hsieh’s problems — then and now — all boil down to the “one China” framework, Su said.

China might use Hsieh’s influence within Taiwan to achieve several objectives — as a warning to the KMT that it was not the only choice the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had and forcing President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to make more concessions to China to show China that the KMT was a better choice over the DPP, and also to encourage more DPP members to accept Hsieh’s proposal and being more amenable to accepting a “constitutional one China.”

Such a move would not only silence DPP members publicly on renunciation of the “one China” framework, but also isolate the staunch pro-independence members in the party, Su said.

Su said the simple fact of the matter was that China would not accept the concept of “constitutions with differing interpretations,” and such a concept would not have a chance of becoming the DPP’s consensus on China, Su said.

Meanwhile, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said that he was interested in meeting Hsieh, adding that aides on either sides have been communicating.

Hsien Min-chieh (謝敏捷), an academic who followed Hsieh during his travels, highly approved of Hsieh’s concept, saying the ROC Constitution — after seven amendments — already exhibited a heavy Taiwanese influence and was “infinitely better” than the KMT’s “1992 consensus.”

This story has been viewed 1635 times.
TOP top