Beijing starts soul-search: Who lost Taiwan?

[skibo (做人要厚道)]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,244440,00.html

Beijing starts soul-search: Who lost Taiwan?
By Ching Cheong

HONG KONG - Half a century ago, the United States asked itself a soul-searching
 question: 'Who lost China?'

This was after it had thrown its full support behind the Kuomintang (KMT)
 government in China's civil war - only to see its disastrous defeat by the
 Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Today, a similar question is being asked by some CCP officials after the
re-election of the separatist-minded Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian.

But this time, the question is: 'Who lost Taiwan?'

To China, President Chen's re-election marks a watershed: For the first time
 in history, the Taiwanese independence movement enjoys majority support,
 albeit a very, very tiny one.

With his winning another four-year term and his Democratic Progressive Party
 (DPP) enjoying majority support, however slender, the odds are stacked against
 any return to the core one-China belief.

In this sense, Taiwan is lost - unless China uses force to bring it back
into the fold. But even if it does so, it could, at best, claim the territory
 but not the hearts of the Taiwanese.

Beijing now realises that there must be something fundamentally wrong in
its approach towards Taiwan such that, despite generous political concession
 (from its own point of view) and attractive economic incentives offered
in the last two decades, the island continues to drift further away politically
.

Mr Li Jiaquan, a first-generation Taiwanese affairs expert in Beijing, laments
 that, for the quarter century since China proclaimed its peaceful unification
 policy in 1979, its carrots have failed to woo Taiwanese hearts while its
 sticks have failed to discourage the separatists.

As the founder and longest-serving chief of the Taiwan Research Institute
 under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (1984-93), he played an important
 role in formulating China's policy on Taiwan.

His prescription now is deep reflection (to find out what has gone wrong)
, firm determination (to defeat separatism), great courage (to use force
if necessary) and flexibility (to compromise if that is worthwhile).

Yet none of his reflections, or those by other scholars, touches on the crux
 of the problem - the 'one country two systems' unification model it- self
.

To Beijing, this formula is a very generous concession because it gives Taiwan
 de facto independence, if and only if the island upholds the 'one China'
 principle and agrees that it is an inalienable part of China.

Yet more than 95 per cent of the Taiwanese reject the model outright because
 it relegates the Republic of China (ROC), the official name of the island
, to a provincial authority under the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Without parity, Taiwan is not going to have any unification with China at
 all.

Taiwan made several counter-proposals during the past two decades when the
 pro-unification KMT was still in power.

There was, for example, 'one China differently defined', which starts with
 the very basic fact that there exist two authorities, the PRC and the ROC
, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

This is the so-called 1992 consensus. However, Beijing rejected it because
 it could mean two Chinas.

Then KMT vice-chairman Lien Chan went one step further to propose a 'one
China Confederation' in 1999 in order to repair relations with Beijing after
 former president Lee Teng-hui expounded his 'two states theory'.

Again, Beijing rejected it on the grounds that members of a confederation
 are free to exit, there being no binding power on the participants to stick
 together.

All the KMT counter-proposals have two common features - they do not dispute
 Beijing's sacred one-China principle and they seek to secure a position
of equality for Taiwan vis-a-vis Beijing.

Since in none of these is Beijing regarded as the sole central authority,
 it rejects them all, leading to the current impasse.

But each time a counter-proposal is rejected, ill feelings towards a 'hegemonic
 China' intensify while the determination to break away hardens.

Now Beijing is reaping its own bitter harvest. With the DPP in power, not
 even lip service is being paid to the one-China principle.

Article No. 1 of its manifesto states clearly that its goal is the establishment
 of a Republic of Taiwan, which has nothing to do with China.

Ironically, while Beijing rejected the 1992 consensus proposed by the KMT
, it is now urging the DPP to return to that as the pre-condition for re-
opening dialogue.

But it is too late now. The DPP denies the very existence at all of the so
-called consensus.

China's inflexibility has therefore contributed to the gradual drifting away
 of Taiwan.

Yet a more fundamental reason lies in the lack of appeal of China's political
 system. There is no denial of the fact that individuals in Taiwan enjoy
a far greater degree of political freedom than their counterparts in China
.

Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, vice-chairman of the KMT, once said that there
 would not be unification unless the CCP reversed its erroneous verdict on
 the June 4 incident in 1989.

In that tragedy, the CCP viewed students demonstrating against rampant corruption
 as counter-revolutionaries and used tanks and troops against them.

Mayor Ma's statement highlights the gulf separating the two systems.

There is no compelling reason why a democratic Taiwan should associate itself
 with a repressive, authoritarian China.

Not all Chinese are unaware of this root cause but few dare to voice it.

A notable exception is Dr Lin Shang-li of Shanghai's Fudan University, a
scholar who had the rare opportunity to give lectures on democracy to CCP
 Politburo members in Beijing.

At a recent symposium held by the East Asia Institute, a think-tank closely
 connected to the Shanghai municipal government, he said that whether with
 Hong Kong or Taiwan, success of the 'one country two systems' model depended
 ultimately on the 'construction of the political system' in the 'one country
'. This was a euphemistic admission that the lack of political reform in
China rendered the unification model useless.

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 128.2.59.203
→ KAGI:從未擁有,何來'lost'？  呵   笑話.
→ skibo:does us own china before 1949?
→ KAGI:所以說本文一開始就類比錯誤嘛.
→ KAGI:US透過KMT而'有',但PRC透過啥而'有'? 意淫
→ yangon:內戰時期，雙方都自認對彼方有主權啊
→ KAGI:CCP跟DPP內戰？  哈
→ skibo:我怎麼覺得你邏輯混亂呢?
→ skibo:3樓說沒有,4樓又說有...
→ KAGI:加括號('')的'有'. 懂嗎？