DPP: Defending the ROC? Or Seeking Haven behind It?

DPP: Defending the ROC? Or Seeking Haven behind It?

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

A Translation

September 15, 2015

Executive Summary:

Tsai Ing-wen said she relished the "opportunity to participate in this year's National Day." The DPP followed up with the declaration that "We have always defended the Republic of China." The truth is that the DPP expects to return to power in 2016. It realizes it needs the "Republic of China" as a shield. If the DPP fails to defend the Republic of China, it will not be able to rule the nation smoothly. Therefore, we must ask: Is the DPP defending the Republic of China, or is it seeking shelter behind the Republic of China?

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen said she relished the "opportunity to participate in this year's National Day." The DPP followed up with the declaration that "We have always defended the Republic of China." The truth is that the DPP expects to return to power in 2016. It realizes it needs the "Republic of China" as a shield. If the DPP fails to defend the Republic of China, it will not be able to rule the nation smoothly. Therefore, we must ask: Is the DPP defending the Republic of China, or is it seeking shelter behind the Republic of China?

The DPP did this before, during Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power. Chen advanced his "Five Noes" [during his inaugural address], so as to earn Beijing’s response to "listen to what he says and watch what he does.” Chen then advanced his "rectification of national titles," his "authoring of a new constitution," and his “one state on either side" arguments. Once he did so, his regime became foundering. Now, it is not the “1992 consensus under One China, Different Interpretations” that seeks Tsai Ing-wen’s recognition, but that she eventually has to seek shelter behind the “1992 consensus under One China, Different Interpretations.”

Just how does one "defend the Republic of China"? The answer is simple. One. Renounce Taiwan independence and affirm our Chinese heritage. Two. Champion democracy and defend the republic. The more we affirm our Chinese heritage, the stronger the Republic of China will be.

The recent debate over the history in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression was a case in point. The logic of the Sunflower Student Movement, the opponents of adjustment to textbook guidelines, and former president Lee Teng-hui is: One. To sever the historical links between Taiwan and [Mainland] China. Two. To deny the retrocession of Taiwan. Three. To drive out the Republic of China government back to the Mainland. Four. To promote Lee Teng-hui's "out with the old, in with the new" policy. In sum, these forces claim that Taiwan was not retroceded to the Republic of China. They advocated that Taiwan merely borrowed the name “Republic of China” and had already founded a separate, sovereign and independent country. By contrast, the Ma government confirms that the ROC government led the eight-year long War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. It recovered Taiwan from Japan. The Republic of China has been until today in firm control of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. The facts are clear. Both sides of the Strait faced up to the retrocession of Taiwan, so they must face up to the Republic of China.

Contrast the differences. One side cuts off history, and denies that the Republic of China recovered Taiwan. It argues that "The more independent Taiwan becomes, the more powerful it will be." The other side affirms the history of the Republic of China to defend the Republic of China, and understands that the more Taiwan acknowledges its Chinese heritage, the stronger the Republic of China will be. The recent debate reveals how powerful the forces of history are, and they are also the roots of Taiwan's power. If Taiwan severs its connection to history, it cuts itself off from the future.

Just how does denying that the Republic of China recovered Taiwan benefit Taiwan? Just how absurd are Green camp claims that the Republic of China is an "alien regime," especially when the Green camp uses the name "Republic of China" to engage in backdoor listing?

If Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP seek refuge behind the Republic of China and the 1992 consensus, they cannot get away with backdoor listing. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian learned that the hard way.

Rumors are that the DPP hopes to cling to the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" [of 1999] as the basis for its "[Mainland] China policy." If this is true, the DPP had better think twice. Tsai Ing-wen talks about "promoting cross-Strait relations under the Republic of China's existing constitutional order." She has not talked about "promoting cross-Strait relations based on the Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Resolution flatly contradicts the ROC Constitution in the following ways.

One. The resolution claims that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent state. But according to the ROC Constitution, and laws enacted under it, the ROC is a sovereign and independent state. Taiwan is the Free Area of the Republic of China. It is not another sovereign and independent state. Two. The resolution “abandons the claim of ‘One China.’” But under the current Constitution, "One China is under the Republic of China." In other words, “One China” is not Beijing's "One China." The ROC Constitution affirms "Constitutional One China," "one country, two areas," and "One China, Different Interpretations." Three. If the Taiwan Independence Party Platform is not frozen or abolished, the problem will persist.

In other words, if Tsai Ing-wen declares that she will "uphold the Republic of China's existing Constitutional order," she will not be able to backpedal and return to the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." She will not be able to engage in backdoor listing. That will become a dead end. After all, she did not say that she would "promote cross-Strait relations based on the Resolution on Taiwan's Future."

Taiwan has been plagued by historical disputes and real-world grievances. For Taiwan, the ROC and the ROC Constitution are assets. But they also involve responsibilities. Backdoor listing exploits these assets, but is unwilling and too cowardly to assume responsibility for them. However, if one is unwilling and too cowardly to assume responsibility for these assets, it means one will not be able to exploit them. For example, if one refuses to recognize that the Republic of China recovered Taiwan, one is bound to be interpreted as crediting the Chinese Communist Party for the victory over Japan and the recovery of Taiwan. If, on the other hand, one acknowledges that the ROC recovered Taiwan, the credit will accrue to the Republic of China government on Taiwan. In other words, if Republic of China citizens abandon their Chinese heritage, they will undermine the strength of the republic.

The more we demand Taiwan independence, the more we weaken Taiwan. When the Chen regime demanded the "rectification of national titles" and the "authoring of a new Constitution," the United States openly criticized Taiwan, saying that Taiwan independence could not enrich the content and interest of Taiwan's democracy. In fact, Taiwan independence is already impossible. Promoting Taiwan independence can only tear Taiwan apart. Taiwan independence can only make dialogue between Taiwan and 1.3 billion people on the opposite side of the Strait impossible. Conversely, the more Taiwan acknowledges its Chinese heritage, the less the United States will worry about "troublemakers". Taiwan will then be able to heal its internal wounds and maintain a modicum of goodwill with 1.3 billion people across the Strait. Recent debate over the history of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression testified to the historical facts about Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan retrocession, and the status of the Republic of China. These are the important roots of Taiwan’s strength in the deep waters of Taiwan’s cross-Strait coopetition. In cross-Strait relations, the ROC must have self-confidence: We must reject Taiwan independence and demand democracy. We must realize that the more we acknowledge our Chinese heritage, the stronger we make the republic. 

Moreover, if the DPP returns to power, it will have no alternative but to seek shelter behind the Republic of China and the 1992 Consensus.

Attachment : none