Tue, Nov 28, 2000 page3

• Scholars say group fudged `one China'

  • By Stephanie Low / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Suggestions that the ROC Constitution be used as the basis for handling cross-strait affairs is a tactic meant to delay resolution of the "one China" dispute, academics said yesterday.

  In what has been roundly called a meaningless and vague statement, the President's Advisory Group on Cross Strait Relations on Sunday suggested that President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) improve cross-strait relations, deal with cross-strait disputes and deal with China's "one China" principle "according to the ROC Constitution."

  "This basically has not resolved public differences on `one China.' This is, however, the largest compromise possible under the operational framework [of the president's advisory group]," said Andy Chang (張五岳), a professor of China studies at Tamkang University.

  Due to the fact that the relationship between "one China" and the ROC Constitution was not specified, there is room for free interpretation by both pro-unification and pro-independence supporters, Chang said.

  "We can find both unification and independence implications in the ROC Constitution," Chang noted. "The Constitution indeed contains a `one China' implication, but what the additional articles to the Constitution (憲法增修條文) reflect is a 100 percent fact of Taiwan's sovereign independence."

  The ROC Constitution, which was promulgated in 1947, states in Article 4 that "the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries (依其固有之疆域) shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly."

  This has been a phrase most frequently cited by pro-unification supporters as a source to prove that the ROC still claims the whole of China as its territory, though its jurisdiction covers only Taiwan at present.

  Also, the additional articles of the Constitution -- 11 since 1991 -- are stated to have been made "to meet the requisites of the nation prior to national unification (為因應統一前之需要)."

  Many of the new systems introduced through the additional articles, including one instituting popular presidential elections, however, imply that Taiwan is an independent country.

  Confusing matters further are articles that point to a "one country, two regions" concept. One says: "the rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area (大陸地區) and those of the free area (自由地區), and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law."

  Byron Weng (翁松燃), a professor of law at National Chi-Nan University and a research fellow to the National Unification Council, said the most important task is to encourage wide-ranging discussion in Taiwan to seek a consensus on the constitutional interpretation of the "one China" issue.

  "It is inappropriate for us to accept `one China' especially now, because it is like surrendering before any negotiations begin," Weng said.

  Yang Kai-huang (楊開煌), a professor of China studies at Chinese Culture University, said the group's conclusion has indicated pro-independence supporters' unwillingness to accept the "one China" principle, a move which he said would be unfavorable to the development of cross-strait relations.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    China to ban sales to US

  • 2

    Earthquakes exceeding magnitude 5.5 on the Richter scale hit 14-year high

  • 3

    Taiwan places military on high alert

  • 4

    China warships near Taiwan nearly doubles

  • 5

    Flights arranged for Taiwanese stranded in Okinawa