Mon, Sep 08, 2008 page3

• ANALYSIS:No easy answer on identity issue: analysts

  NEW DIRECTION After former president Lee Teng-hui lambasted President Ma on Saturday, one analyst said the administration may be looking for room to maneuver

  • By Ko Shu-ling / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) new definition of cross-strait relations has touched off a heated debate about the long-standing issue of national identity.

  In an interview with the Mexican newspaper Sol de Mexico last month, Ma said that cross-strait relations were not one between two countries, but a type of special relationship across the Taiwan Strait.

  Before both sides could resolve the dispute of Taiwan’s sovereignty, Ma proposed that Taipei and Beijing negotiate under the so-called “1992 consensus.” Under the “consensus,” Ma said each side accepted the principle of “one China” but agreed to have its own interpretation of what it meant.

  The Presidential Office later explained that the relationship between Taiwan and China was one between the “Taiwan region” and “mainland region,” as specified in the 11th amendment of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution and the Statute Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).

  The Presidential Office denied that Ma’s theory denigrated the country’s sovereignty and emphasized that the ROC is an independent sovereign state.

  Although both sides cannot recognize each other, the office said Taipei and Beijing should at least manage not to deny each other.

  LAMBASTED BY LEE

  Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who proposed the “special state-to-state” theory of relations during his presidency, criticized Ma on Saturday, saying he did not deserve to be called president. Lee argued that since the ROC Constitution was amended in 1991, the cross-strait relationship has been between two states.

  Lee slammed Ma, saying that he not only betrayed the country but also surpassed the mandate entrusted in him by Taiwanese.

  Chen Yen-hui (陳延輝), a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Political Science, said Ma was merely trying to imitate the model of German reunification, but had little knowledge about it and how it was achieved.

  “Ma’s definition of a special relationship across the Taiwan Strait is meaningless because to begin with, he does not recognize Taiwan as a country,” he said. “When Lee was president, he recognized the special relationship between Taiwan and China because both sides came from the same roots.”

  Chen, whose dissertation was on a comparison between Germany’s model of one nation, two states and the “one country, two governments” theory proposed by former premier Lien Chan (連戰), said that the conclusion of his work was that unification must be achieved via peaceful means and popular vote.”

  “That is the only way for unification for both sides,” he said. “But I doubt that Beijing is willing to do that.”

  Chen said that after East Germany’s first free elections in March 1990, negotiations between East Germany and West Germany culminated in a unification treaty, while negotiations between the two and the four occupying powers produced the so-called “Two Plus Four Treaty,” granting full sovereignty to a unified Germany state.

  West Germany also promised to renounce all means to intervene in East Germany’s domestic and foreign affairs as well as the use of military means to push reunification with its eastern counterpart, he said.

  ‘GENTLEMAN’S DEAL’

  “In other words, it is a gradual process and a gentleman’s deal,” Chen said. “West Germany recognized East Germany as an independent sovereignty and expressed the hope to develop an equal relationship with East Germany.”

  CONSTITUTION

  Wang Kao-cheng (王高成), director of the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, however, agreed with Ma that both sides of the Taiwan Strait have a special type of relationship under the Constitution, saying that he did not know on what grounds Lee based his “special state-to-state” theory.

  While the Constitution and the Statute Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area clearly define the relationship between Taiwan and “the mainland,” Wang said that they do not specify the relationship between the ROC and People’s Republic of China (PRC).

  “The relationship between the ROC and the PRC is special because they are two political entities within one country,” he said. “Ma does not denigrate the sovereignty of the ROC because he recognizes it as an independent sovereignty. Besides, under the ROC Constitution, the ‘mainland’ area is part of ROC territory.”

  Although some have criticized Ma, saying that he has backpedaled to the position held by Lee or earlier, Hsu Chih-chia (許志嘉), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of National Development and Cross-Strait Relations at Ming Chuan University, disagreed.

  Hsu said that Ma was actually attempting to create a space vague enough to allow Taiwan to maneuver.

  “Ma does not define the cross-strait relationship as one that is between two states, but neither does he say the cross-strait relationship is domestic,” he said. “He is trying to find a vague area so he does not agitate Beijing but at the same time can push his political agenda.”

  During Lee’s presidency, Hsu said he attempted to find a way out of the “one China” principle with his “special state-to-state” theory. His successor Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) further affirmed the argument when he declared Taiwan and China were two different countries.

  Wanting to see cross-strait tensions assuaged Ma has taken a very different approach, Hsu said, with the hope that both sides would temporarily put aside political differences and work on less sensitive issues such as the economy.

  Hsu admitted that the so-called “1992 consensus” was a “consensus without consensus” and was vaguely defined, but said that it remained to be seen whether it was wishful thinking or a pragmatic approach to use the “1992 consensus” as a means to ease cross-strait tension.

  Ma’s theory would not please everyone, especially pro-localization advocates, Hsu said, adding that there was, after all, no easy answer for the long-standing dispute over Taiwan’s national identity.

  How cross-strait relations have been defined under different presidents:

  Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石)

  WHEN: November 1970

  POLICY: “Gentlemen cannot stand together with thieves” (漢賊不兩立), meaning his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could not cooperate with the Chinese communists.

  Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國)

  WHEN: April 1979

  POLICY: “Three noes policy” (三不政策), meaning there would be no contact, no negotiation and no compromise with the Chinese communists.

  Lee Teng-hui (李登輝)

  WHEN: July 1999

  POLICY: “Special state-to-state” theory (特殊國與國關係): The Republic of China (ROC) is a sovereign state. Both sides of the Taiwan Strait are ruled separately and should treat each other on an equal basis. “The Republic of China has been an independent sovereignty since it was established in 1912. The cross-strait relationship is one that is special between two states since the Constitution was amended in 1991. Therefore, there is no need to declare Taiwan independence.”

  Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)

  WHEN: August 2002

  POLICY: “One country on either side of the Taiwan Strait” (一邊一國): “Taiwan is an independent sovereignty. Taiwan is Taiwan. China is China. Taiwan and China are two different countries.”

  Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九)

  WHEN: August 2008

  POLICY: “Non state-to-state special relationship” theory (非國與國特殊關係): “The relations between Taiwan and China are not one between two countries, but one that is special across the Taiwan Strait.”

  The Presidential Office, citing the 11th amendment of the Constitution and the Statute Governing the Relationships between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), said that the relations between Taiwan and China are one between the “Taiwan region” and the “mainland region.” It emphasized the ROC is an independent sovereignty.

  Also See: EDITORIAL: Ma is giving it all away
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 3

    Taiwan draws attention at World Expo

  • 4

    Wolves hold off Lakers 116-104 to take series lead

  • 5

    Argentina’s Pope Francis gets stadium and a jersey