A New Exploration Across the Strait: From Mutual Non-Repudiation to Mutual Recognition

A New Exploration Across the Strait: From Mutual Non-Repudiation to Mutual Recognition

United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

A Translation

March 24, 2012

A  SUMMARY

Making "the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China part of the same realm" poses enormous difficulties, both in jurisprudence and logic. But bilateral efforts and achievements in recent years prove that political ideals and political will are more powerful than jurisprudence and logic. The two sides have already recognized each others' "existing provisions." What is this, if not the recognition of "One China?" What is this, if not the recognition of each others' Constitutions?

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

See full text of the editorial below

The recent Wu/Hu Summit made major breakthroughs. But a huge blind spot remains.

First, consider the breakthroughs. According to the Xinhua News Agency, Hu Jintao said, "Beijing and Taipei have reaffirmed that the Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China. This is consistent with the two sides' existing provisions. It is something both sides consider doable." Wu Poh-hsiung said, "According to the two sides' existing systems and relevant provisions, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that both are part of one China."

As everyone knows, the "existing provisions" and "relevant provisions" that Wu and Hu referred to are the two sides' Constitutions. There are no "existing provisions" or "relevant provisions" aside from their Constitutions that support a declaration at this level. Hu Jintao expressed this view in 2005. He said, "The Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China. This fact has never changed...This is clear from Taiwan's existing provisions and documents." Hu Jintao was of course referring to the Constitution of the Republic of China. During the recent Wu/Hu Summit, the two leaders concurrently underscored "the two sides' existing provisions." They underscored the Constitution aspect and highlighted this logic.

That said, the two sides still have a blind spot. They are clearly referring to "existing Constitutions." But they demote them to the level of "existing provisions." They obviously know that cross-Strait relations must be predicated upon the two sides' Constitutions. But they refuse to recognize each others' Constitutions. They persist in demoting each others' Constitutions to the level of "existing provisions." This is the most serious blind spot in cross-Strait relations.

The "One China" principle essentially states that the Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China. This framework has two implications. One. China is a concept that transcends both the Mainland and Taiwan. Two. The Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China. Therefore, one can neither claim that the Mainland is subordinate to Taiwan, nor that Taiwan is subordinate to the Mainland. The Mainland and Taiwan are, in the end, merely geographical terms; therefore, any policy measures must be consistent with the two sides' "existing provisions." By implication, "There is only one China in the world. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of that one China." This is what UDN editorials refer to as the "Newest Three Phrases."

"Taiwan" and "the Mainland" are geographical terms. They have no legal force behind them. The names "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" are often demoted to "Taiwan" and "the Mainland." By the same token, "existing Constitutions" are often demoted to "existing provisions."

The two sides' current policy is "non-recognition of each others' sovereignty, non-repudiation of each others' jurisdiction." This is President Ma's mantra. The Mainland also adheres to this position. Therefore, the government of the Republic of China refuses to recognize the People's Republic of China and its Constitution. The government of the Peoples Republic of China does not recognize the Republic of China and its Constitution. That is why both sides insist that "The Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China," instead of "The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of one China." But as mentioned before, one fact is obvious to everyone. Both sides understand that their existing Constitutions support the "One China" principle.

Today's "one China" is no longer rooted in the "Old Three Phrases." Nor is it rooted in the assertion that "Taiwan is part of China." Today's "one China" principle has evolved. It now proclaims that "The Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China." Another "Third Concept of "China" has also emerged. It proclaims that "I will not annex you, you will not annex me." Under that "one China," the People's Republic of China will not annex the Republic of China. Nor will the Republic of China annex the People's Republic of China." This being the case, why do the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China still refuse to recognize each other?

The status quo is one in which "Neither side recognizes each other's sovereignty, but neither side repudiates each other's jurisdiction." But it is self-deception. Without sovereignty, how can one assert jurisdiction? Without jurisdiction, how can one assert sovereignty? How can the two sides implement three links? How can they implement ECFA? This is not a problem of logic. Politics has transcended logic.

Suppose the two sides accept the "One China Principle?" Then the status quo, in which "The Mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China" actually means that "The Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China are both part of one China." This "One China" is a "Transcendent Concept," or "Third Concept." It is part of a "Roof Top Theory." It represents the evolution of "mutual non-recognition" into "mutual non-repudiation" and eventually into "mutual recognition." Only then can the two sides establish a "We will not annex you, and you will not annex me" understanding of "one China."

Of course, making "the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China part of the same realm" poses enormous difficulties, both in jurisprudence and logic. But bilateral efforts and achievements in recent years prove that political ideals and political will are more powerful than jurisprudence and logic. The two sides have already recognized each others' "existing provisions." What is this, if not the recognition of "One China?" What is this, if not the recognition of each others' Constitutions?

(Courtesy of United Daily News)

Attachment : none