■[Philippines] Dong Bacui
On March 18, an election was held on Taiwan Island, in which the people spurned the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regime that advocates Taiwan independence. On the basis of the 1992 consensus, the exchange platform between the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) further expanded, and negotiations between the mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and the Taiwan-based Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) resumed. A new situation of peaceful development of cross-Straits relations has thus come about.
However, the separatist words and deeds?of the “two states” statement, “one country on each side” statement and “one China, one Taiwan” statement have neither been silenced nor disappeared. Due to the alterations of time and space, as well as the change of power on the island, the complicated political situation has turned old problems into new ones, and these must not be overlooked.
To oppose separatism is to fight against those trying to dismember China into two or more countries. And anti-Taiwan independence is to oppose acts seeking to detach Taiwan from the motherland. The DPP party program advocates Taiwan independence while Chen Shui-bian publicly clamored for the independence of Taiwan. Sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, both at home and abroad, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, all took aim at the same target: mercilessly exposing and denouncing the separatists for their Taiwan independence activities. It can be said that during the “rule” of the DPP, Chinese both at home and abroad came to a consensus on fighting against the “two states” statement and “one country on each side” statement and they have never faltered in their battle against the splittist forces led by Lee Teng-hui?and Chen Shui-bian.
In this new historical era when cross-Straits are undergoing positive changes, Chinese, both at home and abroad, are filled with exultation, and their anticipation of witnessing the early reunification of the motherland is becoming ever keener. However, Lee Teng-hui’s?“two states” statement and Chen Shui-bian’s “one country on each side” statement have not yet been swept into the dustbin.
Recently, Lee Teng-hui popped up again to seek to negate the 1992 consensus, publicly announcing that the cross-Straits tie is a “state-to-state relation”. Chen Shui-bian, accused of involvement in a major overseas money-laundering case and who awaits imposition of penal sanctions as a result, still “got down on all fours and crawled” all over Taiwan, inciting some popular slogans, and the placards hoisted by his supporters which appeared like a shadow following the form of a person meant nothing other than “Taiwan, China, one country on each side”. Not long ago, in order to sabotage the Taipei talks between ARATS President Chen Yunlin and SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung and to assemble for the purpose of causing mischief, the Green Camp “Legislators” from the “Legislative Yuan” also unloosed an uproar with their “Taiwan, China, one country on each side”. As such, it can be seen that such sloganeering separatist arguments by Lee Teng-hui?and Chen Shui-bian – unsupported by any basis in history or any international protocols – are still running amok in Taiwan and even spreading their poison abroad. And they still bear their distinctly deceptive?and inflammatory characters in this new situation wherein relations between both sides of the Straits have reached a new stage of peaceful development.
In my view, this renewed clamoring for the so-called “two states” statement and “one country on each side” statement represents, on the one hand, the desperate dying wail of Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian and their ilk and, on the other, is the act of a handful of diehard separatists?seeking to turn the heat up on Chinese compatriots at home and abroad, by exploiting a general psyche?which cherishes the favorable situation?and fears any dispute which might impair the current harmonious atmosphere and affect the peaceful development of relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, thus closing the hard-opened window of historical opportunity once again. They are simply making waves so as to fish in the resultingly troubled waters.
Unfortunately, as Lee Teng-hui?and Chen Shui-bian intensified their clamoring for “two states” and “one country on each side”, some people blindly chimed in with them or even became active co-advocates. Though their starting point was different or even opposite to that of Lee and Chen, the negative effects?on cross-Straits relations from this same tone and the afterburn it might leave behind can hardly be deemed different. As I see it, we can never allow any variants of the “two states” statement and “one country on each side” statement, no matter whatever forms these may come packaged in or whatever type of whitewash they may employ to mislead people.
Recently, I researched a ream of historical documents, especially those relating to major events occurring during the past two decades in connection with both sides of the Straits – at a time when Lee Teng-hui?and Chen Shui-bian were in “office” – plus some relevant major policy documents and articles. As far as I understand it, for a long time, the Chinese government and all Chinese at home and abroad, including Taiwan compatriots, have been battling separatist forces in Taiwan mainly by focusing on the fight against the “two states” and “one country on each side” initiatives on the Taiwan question, in an effort to safeguard national dignity and the wellbeing of people of both sides, as well as national unity. At the same time, by honoring the United Nations Charter and relevant international laws, the international community has recognized only one China, and that Taiwan is an integral part of the territory thereof, while the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing the nation. As a result, all such moves as “returning to the UN under the name of the ‘Republic of China’” and “applying to rejoin the UN under the name of Taiwan” counter to “one China” have all ended in failure. Though the topics on “two states” and “one country on each side” were often sensations at the UN or in the international community, these strident voices were actually very feeble and contrary to the will of the people. Any attempts to split China are in vain.
The emergence of Lee Teng-hui’s?“two states” statement and Chen Shui-bian’s “one country on each side” statement once brought the Straits to a state of high alert, and Chinese both at home and abroad and the larger international community have come to recognize ever more the danger of and harm from the splittists’ moves. The anti-independence and promotion of reunification movement?at home and abroad and the voice of justice?in international society in upholding the one-China policy have made Lee Teng-hui?and Chen Shui-bian pariahs. It was against this backdrop that the KMT once again came to “power” in Taiwan, with Ma Ying-jeou winning the “election.” I believe that anti-Taiwan independence and the quest for reunification represent the consistent stand of the KMT, as well as the mainstream?today. In betraying the KMT, advocating the “two states” statement and covertly supporting Taiwan independence forces, Lee Teng-hui caused the KMT to forfeit “power” on the island, thus leading to his eventual expulsion from the party. In recent years, when the internal policy of the KMT began to swing, or when some proposed Taiwan independence as an alternative, the mainstay within the party and its large number of supporters did not tolerate this. In the past few years, the KMT has won many elections, all due to supporters who had perceived the correctness of the KMT’s stand and line, as well as its wider coherence, a fact which public opinion polls also immediately reflected. As far as I understand it, the mainstream of public opinion favors the fight against Taiwan independence and opposes separatism. That is to say, the great majority of Taiwan residents do not accept Lee Teng-hui’s?“two states” statement and Chen Shui-bian’s “one country on each side” statement. Recently, Ma Ying-jeou utterly rejected Lee Teng-hui’s?“two states” statement, emphasizing that cross-Straits relations are not “state-to-state relations”; this helps lay a more solid foundation for promotion of mutual trust?between both sides of the Straits. However, I think that Ma Ying-jeou is in urgent need of a set of political discourses on cross-Straits relations and correct public opinion?guidance, as this will play a vital role in eradicating the pernicious influence of the “two states” statement and “one country on each side” statement and aid in safeguarding ongoing peaceful development of cross-Straits relations.
As far as I know, it is imperative for both sides to face up to reality?on the basis of a common understanding that both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one China, as this is indispensable for the resolution and development of cross-Straits relations, and realization of cross-Straits reunification. As long as both sides sit down and talk, even big problems, which appear to be deadlocked and insurmountable, cannot prove too difficult. It is an undeniable historical fact that, prior to October 1949, the government of the Republic of China represented China. That afterwards the KMT “administration” retreated to Taiwan (and is thus far still using the term “Republic of China”) is also a fact. However, the People’s Republic of China has since assumed the place of the “Republic of China.” As of now, the UN and the international community all consider the government of the PRC the sole legitimate government representing all of China, and this is even more a reality to which one cannot turn a blind eye. I think that as long as both sides stick to the one-China principle, they will surely find proper ways of resolving the Taiwan issue on the basis of a respect for history, facing up to reality and on the basis of law, theory and common sense, and I believe the day is not far off when all obstacles will vanish and reunification will come onto the agenda.
Establishing mutual trust and shelving disputes, seeking common ground while reserving differences, and creating win-win situations are the manifesto for both sides to seek common wellbeing by transcending ideological stances with true sincerity. Establishing mutual trust means both sides of the Straits meeting with each other frankly on the basis of “one China” and creating a dialog-box for the development of cross-Straits relations and regional peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits. Shelving dispute means some disputes, including the issue of “national title” and the form of government, can be temporarily shelved as both sides have the common basis of “one China.” These differences in ideology are fundamentally different from the clamoring by Lee Teng-hui?and Chen Shui-bian to split China. Shelving dispute also means that, with respect to residual historical disputes subsisting between the CPC and KMT, feelings of gratitude or enmity should not be indulged in, nor cooperation or disengagement appear in history, and minute examination of who was right or wrong should be dispensed with. At present, attempts to revive old historical scores, pick at old historical scabs, stir up feelings?of gratitude or resentment between the CPC and KMT and thereby create disputes are bound to be futile. I think that “two people smiling at each other by disregarding past gratitude or enmity” is the truest portrayal of the CPC and KMT at present. Looking ahead and marching forward is the common goal for both in seeking the common long-term wellbeing of compatriots on both sides of the Straits, and creating peace for all ages on both sides.
What overseas Chinese wish to see is reconciliation and peace between both sides of the Straits and what they care about most is whether there will be new breakthroughs in cross-Straits relations and whether these can embark on a new stage. When both sides expand exchange and cooperation, when the feelings of compatriots are harmonious, the economies enjoy common prosperity and a peaceful atmosphere descends onto the Straits, these factors will also be conducive to peace and stability in the larger Asia-Pacific region.
No matter whether Chinese citizens resident overseas are “daughters married to others” or Filipinos of Chinese descent, it is their unshirkable responsibility to fight against Taiwan independence, the “two states” statement and “one China, one Taiwan”, in order to safeguard the one-China principle and abide by the one-China policy of the Philippines, while upholding national interests and looking after their own interests. After all, everyone hopes to live and work in a peaceful and stable environment and is unwilling to see any splitting moves in any form which threaten peace and stability in the Straits and the Asia-Pacific region. The “two states” statement and “one country on each side” statement are a major source of chaos harming the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations and obstructing peace and reunification now and in the future. We must continue to fight against, expose and condemn?all splittist words and deeds, and never allow the “two states” statement and “one country on each side” statement the chance to stage a comeback.
