“Respective Interpretations of the Constitution” Fuzzy and Unnecessary

Commentary

By Cheng An-kuo (co-author of “One China, Different Interpretations”)

“Respective Interpretations of the Constitution” Fuzzy and Unnecessary

Source: United Daily News

January 11, 2011

Frank Hsieh recently proposed replacing the “1992 Consensus” and “One China, Different Interpretations” with the concepts of a “Consensus on Overlapping Interpretations of the Constitution,” and “Respective Interpretations of the Constitution.”  He suggested that his proposal could become the consensus within Taiwan and the basis for consultations with the Mainland.

According to press reports, it could be sensed that Frank Hsieh was trying hard to break the possible stalemate within the DPP over objections to the “1992 Consensus,” and “One China, different interpretations.”   However, in contrast to what former Vice President Annette Lu had pointed out a couple of days earlier, that both sides of the Strait had indeed reached an informal consensus on “One China, with respective verbal interpretations,” and insisted that “the DPP could not pretend that it did not exist,” Frank Hsieh’s proposal seemed to be fuzzy.

With respect to Frank Hsieh’s “Respective Interpretations of that the Constitution” and a “Consensus on Overlapping Interpretations of the Constitution,” it would be all right if it were at the level of individual opinions of the constitution.  However, if it were at the level of law enforcement and administration, then the Council of Grand Justices is the only constitutional authority to issue interpretations.  From the standpoint of the government, there is no room for “respective interpretations.”

In the past, Frank Hsieh supported the “One China Constitution.”  Yesterday Frank Hsieh added, “If we do not recognize our Constitution, the society will not move forward. The DPP has won the Presidential election on two occasions and Chen Shui-bian was duly sworn in in accordance with the Constitution.  So it is hard for the DPP to deny the existence of the Constitution.”  This is in line with the “One China Constitution.”

Frank Hsieh, of course, knows that it would be hard to reach a consensus with respect to Article 5 in the ROC Constitution as it stipulates that the nation’s territory includes both the Mainland and Taiwan.  Why can’t we use Frank Hsieh’s proposal to allow this part to remain vague and in a dynamic equilibrium, which would eventually settle?

In addition, Frank Hsieh needs to explain exactly what parts of the Constitutional consensus of the Blue and green camp are overlapping and what parts are not. He also needs to clarify how “Respective Interpretations of the Constitution” are to be expressed.

The “1992 Consensus” and “One China, Different Interpretations” as the foundation for cross-Strait interaction andconsultations can be traced back to August 1, 1992, when former President Lee Teng-hui presided over a meeting of National Unification Council, which adopted the “8/1 Resolution on One China”. Basically the Mainland accepted our interpretation of “One China,” and that became the “1992 Consensus.”  In other words, the resolution on the meaning of “One China” adopted by National Unification Council became the true foundation and original source for cross-Strait interaction and consultations.

In fact, what we should explore is this: the “resolution on the meaning of One China,” and “One China, Different Interpretations,” have been in use for nearly two decades.  Has this caused Taiwan any harm?  Is there anything else that could serve as the basis for cross-Strait interaction and consultations?  The DPP had not been able to come up with anything better during its eight years in power.

Of course, the “1992 Consensus” may not be the only feasible foundation for cross-Strait interaction and consultations.  Frank Hsieh once proposed “One China Constitution,” which does not differ greatly from the “resolution on the meaning of One China” adopted by the National Unification Council.  However, Frank Hsieh abandoned the “One China Constitution,” and proposed the new concept of “Respective Interpretations of the Constitution.” Nobody knows exactly what he means or whether such a concept is feasible.  Although Frank Hsieh is trying hard to find a way out within the DPP, isn’t he dismissing as out of hand the obvious solution right in front of his face.

Attachment : none