Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Tang's clear-headed ambiguity

The first lines of the classic Taoist text of the Tao Teh Ching (道德經) begins with the seemingly incomprehensible lines: "The way that can be spoken of is not the way, the name that can be named is not the name" (道可道,非常道,名可名,非常名).

Lawmakers who began a month-long interpellation of the Cabinet yesterday may find more clarity in the Tao Teh Ching than in the responses of Premier Tang Fei (唐飛), as they pressed him on cross-strait affairs.

We have to applaud Tang. He managed to weave his way through the traps and snares laid by legislators, who are more interested in forcing him to appear willing to return to outdated modes of handling cross-strait affairs than in really hearing what the government's plans are.

Lawmakers tried to force Tang into slips of the tongue by calling into question the new government's stance on "one China" and the National Unification Council (NUC). They asked him whether the area of the Republic of China included "mainland China" as the council once stated. Tang said the definition was unrealistic and could possibly be a matter of legal dispute. "We can not abide by the Constitution in handling cross-strait affairs because the Constitution originally did not take into consideration the People's Republic of China," he said. The Constitution -- which is also ambiguous -- mentions only "existing territories" (which originally included China and Mongolia).

Lawmakers also tried to get Tang to admit that expressing acceptance of "one China" would resolve cross-strait disputes, but he refused. If the ROC is to represent "one China" it's unrealistic, and if the PRC is to represent "one China," we cannot accept this, Tang said. He added an important point, which was that "the meaning of `one China' or the `one China principle,' any opinion which doesn't have the express consensus of [Taiwan's] 23 million is incomplete."

Tang's explanation of "one China" was unclear. Neither the legislators nor the international community may have understood what he said. But his comments were the best response that could be made at this point in time, given that the opposition parties are unable to reach any consensus on a solution to cross-strait affairs and China is continually pressuring Taiwan to accept its cherished "one China" principle.

In his ambiguity Tang created much needed space for the soon to be established and hotly debated cross-strait task force. He did this by carefully showing that the NUC is outdated -- without calling for its abolishment -- and showing that in its irrelevance to Taiwan today, a new solution needs to be found.

The 1992 consensus between Taipei and Beijing to "agree to disagree" was a result of former President Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) efforts to use creative ambiguity to handle cross-strait affairs. But China continued to try and force its way of thinking on Taiwan. In the end Lee could only put forward his "special state to state" formula to define Taiwan's position and counter China's efforts to annex Taiwan's sovereignty. But such a hastily expressed and clear-cut definition of cross-strait relations gave birth to new tensions in the Strait and created instability in the region.

Tang's responses to the legislators may have seemed unclear because they failed to state clearly what Taiwan is, and focused on what Taiwan is not.

Such ambiguity cannot satisfy everyone. But Tang is very sure about what Taiwan is -- it is just that he is unable to say so at this time.

In order to avoid upsetting the stability of cross-strait relations and to keep the international community satisfied, Taiwan can do but one thing -- reach a public consensus on the issue first. In the meantime, ambiguity will have to suffice.
This story has been viewed 3445 times.