民進黨的一中政策？DPP’s ‘one China’ policy?

民進黨的一中政策？DPP’s ‘one China’ policy?  [轉譯自:Taipei Times]

http://taiwanus.net/news/press/2015/201504091628241039.htm

[謝鎮寬]於2015-04-09 16:04:04上傳

民進黨的一中政策？

4月3日，民進黨秘書長吳釗燮過境舊金山，並與舊金山灣區台灣同鄉們餐敘。他向與會鄉親們報告，這次是身為民進黨駐美正式代表，例行定期到華府的訪問。

他指出，作為一個代表理當長駐華府，但因他同時也是民進黨秘書長的雙重身份，所以只能大約每兩個月一次，或當有特殊必要時才走訪。

他向出席餐會鄉親說，這次是一個非常有成效的訪問，按原有規劃見到想見的人，而且交換意見。

他說，民進黨有很多的中國政策，但其中就是沒有所謂的「九二共識」。

然而，一個有關中國的問題被提出：目前有三個熟知名的「一中」政策 - 1）中國說，世上只有一個中國，中華人民共和國是唯一的合法政府，台灣是中國的一部分; 2）ROC說，世上只有一個中國，中華民國是唯一的合法政府，台灣是中國的一部分; 3）美國也說，世上只有一個中國，中華人民共和國是唯一被承認的政府，但台灣不是中國的一部分，那請問民進黨的一中政策是什麼？

吳釗燮精靈地向提問者說，最近柯文哲市長有提到一中，也應該算進出，所以世上有很多很多的一中政策。

但民進黨不在乎有多少一中政策，只相信台灣人民擁有台灣主權，而且台灣已經是一個主權獨立的國家。

噯，這樣的答覆，對於一些鑽研舊金山和約多年的台美鄉親們，確實是一大困惑，為什麼吳秘書長要虧柯文哲的一中政策：承認世上只有一個中國，所以它不是一個問題。難不成還有其他的中國？顯然，吳釗燮或民進黨有其他更好的方式，來詮釋台灣現況。也許他的答覆是正確，世上有成千上萬的一中政策。但是，因有可能成為台灣的執政當局，民進黨當然有必要，公佈他們的一中政策，和對台灣現況的認知；所謂的只能做不能說，就是黑箱作業，已礙難接受。

事實上，柯市長所提的一中政策，是一個非常有建設性的觀點。當他被問到一國兩制時，他回答說，為什麼不是兩國一制，當然是指普世價值的民主制度。

當問他關於一個中國政策，他說，這不是一個問題，因為只世上有一個中國，被國際社會如美國所承認。

一個中國政策，自上海公報簽簽署後，一再被重複引述，也成為美國國務院所遵循，與中國交往的堅定外交政策。它註明，在台灣海峽兩邊的所有中國人，都承認同意世上只有一個中國，並獲得中華人民共和國與中華民國所接受，因為他們都是中國人。吳釗燮是台灣人，為什麼要反對呢？

身為一個台灣人，我們應該樂見，中華人民共和國與中華民國把手言歡，一笑泯恩仇。

中華民國自1949年，被中華人民共和國踢出中國亡命台灣，算算已經超過半個世紀。現在該是中華民國回中國老家，讓台灣自己當家作主的時候。中華民國從未擁有過台灣主權，這些年來他們長期留住台灣，那些自認為是中華民國的中國人，應該要感恩台灣人的熱情好客。

有道是嚼果子拜樹頭，嚼米飯拜田園，當知飲水思源。這些在台灣卻自認是中國人者，請高抬貴手，還給台灣人民自主的生存空間。

所以，吳釗燮沒有權利，也沒有義務去替中國背負內戰的十字架。台灣不是中國的一部分。中華民國的中國人，在1949年是以戰敗難民身份亡命台灣，現在海峽兩邊的中國人，已經像兄弟般地和好，該是讓他們回家團圓的時候。台灣不是中國的領土，台灣終久要屬於台灣人民。

那麼，民進黨兩岸對談的底線是什麼？中國國民黨是屬於中國的政黨，不是台灣，這正是為什麼他們總是要，堅持捏造的九二共識。除非民進黨也是中國的政黨，否則就不要再自欺欺人。

台灣真的不是中華民國，中華民國也不是台灣。現在該是讓我們來附議美國的中國政策時候，在美中三個聯合公報（針對中華人民共和國和中華民國），和台灣關係法（針對美國與台灣）的規範下，務實認知，世上只有一個中國，但台灣不是中國的一部分。

謝鎮寬
加州海沃

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2015/04/10/2003615558/1

Fri, Apr 10, 2015 - Page 8

DPP’s ‘one China’ policy?

On Friday last week, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Secretary-General Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) stopped over in San Francisco and had a dinner meeting with the San Francisco Bay Area Taiwanese community. He shared with the audience stories from his routine business trip to Washington as an official representative of the party.

He said that as a representative, he is supposed to stay in Washington consistently, but with his position as secretary-general, he can only visit about once every two months or whenever it is necessary.

He said it was a productive trip to meet people and exchange messages.

He said the DPP has plenty of China policies, but none of them are the so-called “1992 consensus.”

A question about China was raised: There are three known “one China” policies: First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) says there is only “one China,” it is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is part of China; second, the Republic of China (ROC) says there is only “one China,” it is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is part of China; third, the US says there is only “one China,” the PRC is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is not part of China. What is the DPP’s “one China” policy?

Wu teased the questioner saying that there is one more policy: From Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who said: There is only “one China” and it should be added — one too many.

The DPP does not care how many Chinas there are, but believes Taiwanese sovereignty is owned by its people and the nation is already independent.

So it was puzzling for those in the audience who have studied the San Francisco Peace Treaty why Wu brought up Ko’s “one China” policy. Obviously Wu or the DPP has a better way to interpret the “status quo.” Maybe he is right and there are thousands of “one China” policies. However, as a potential governing party, the DPP needs to announce its policy and define the “status quo.”

Ko provides a constructive view of the “one China” policy. When asked about the “one country, two systems” idea, he said: Why not “two counties, one system?” Of course, the system he meant was the universal value of democracy.

When he was asked about the “one China” policy, he said it is not an issue because there is only “one China” recognized by the international community.

The “one China” policy has been repeated since the Shanghai Communique was signed and respected by the US Department of State as the firm foreign policy with which to deal with China. It specifies that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only “one China,” which has been agreed to and accepted by both the ROC and the PRC, because they are Chinese. Wu is Taiwanese, so why does he oppose it?

As Taiwanese, we should be more than happy to see the two nations shaking hands and forgetting past betrayals and thoughts of revenge with a laugh.

It has been more than half a century since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was kicked out by the Chinese Communist Party and fled to Taiwan in 1949. It is time for the ROC to go home to China and leave Taiwan alone. The ROC never owned Taiwanese sovereignty and all ROC adherents should appreciate the hospitality they have been shown all the years of their long stay in the nation.

“Worship a tree while eating its fruit, worship farms while eating rice. We need to remember the source when drinking water.”

Those in Taiwan who identify as Chinese, please have a heart and leave the nation alone.

Wu does not have the right or any need to carry the cross of civil war for China. Taiwan is not part of China. The ROC is Chinese who escaped to Taiwan as refugees in 1949 because they were defeated, but now Chinese on both sides are like brothers; it is time for them to have a reunion. Taiwan is not Chinese territory, it belongs to Taiwanese.

What is the bottom line in the DPP’s cross-strait negotiations? The KMT is a political party of China, not Taiwan, that is why it always hides behind the fabricated “1992 consensus.” Unless the DPP is also a political party of China, it should stop deceiving itself.

Taiwan is not the ROC, and the ROC is not Taiwan. It is time to endorse the US’ “one China” policy under the Three Joint Communiques (for the ROC and the PRC) and the Taiwan Relations Act (for Taiwan and the US). There is only “one China” and Taiwan is not part of it.

John Hsieh

Hayward, California