Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 05/10/2005

An anonymous poem celebrating Kuomintang chairman Lien Chan’s mainland visit summarizes the huge opportunity for both sides, waiting to be grasped with a little foresight, and the risk of failing to do so.

It reads:

“We need as brothers to grasp hands… Return to the dreams of the Tang dynasty, The wild wolves lurk at our door… Any time they can break through… Destroy our family possessions.”

It seems that the mean Chen Shui-bian defeated twice in presidential elections has upstaged him. Even if Mr Lien never becomes president, he has secured a place in Chinese history. This is what Mr Chen wants too, but how can he achieve it?

While in Beijing, Mr Liean said: We are not only reliant on each other for survival; we are intertwined for our mutual benefit. Moreover, we are one plus one, being greater than two. So, the Chinese people’s modernization and strong, rich prosperity are not a far-reaching dream… What’s wrong with working together to earn the world’s money?

To take his place in history, Mr Chen must open the way for both sides to “earn the world’s money together”. If he can clear the “one-China hurdle, which is what President Hu Jintao needs to lock his place in history, then Mr Chen should bargain with Beijing for a roll-out of economic privileges and investment advantages for Taiwanese businesspeople. This will also unlock the gates to unprecedented institutional investment, which has been impaired by the nagging question of stability.

The problem remains one of language, Provided the one-China principle is accepted in form, Beijing appears willing to leave the de facto status quo, which would ostensibly create “one China, three systems”. But the mainland government fears that Mr Chen cannot talk of “one China” that easily and, therefore, insists that he accept the “1992 consensus” where both sides accepted the principle, without agreeing on its exact meaning. But it was negotiated when the KMT was in power, and has since been demonized within the ranks of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party.

So, what should Mr Chen say? Last October 10, he talked of the “1992 discussions”. When rebuffed by Beijing for not recognized the word “consensus”, he clarified matters in a speech on November 11, talking of the “fruitful results of the 1992 discussions.” This tacitly eliminated all the points on which the two sides disagreedm leaving “one China” implicitly as the only “fruitful result”. Beijing accused Mr Chen of “playing tricks”. Today, cross-strait economic integration hangs on the word.

What if Mr Chen were to talk of the “1992 recognition” or “1992 understanding”? Would that be good enough for Beijing?

There are persistent fears within the DPP that Beijing will try to impose its ‘one country, two systems” formula on Taiwan, affecting its political administration and electoral process. But it does not appear to be on the mainland’s agenda. Even during his Beijing trip, Mr Lien said: “We must maintain the status quo… If we don’t do this now, when will it be done?”

When the US talks of maintaining the status quo, it means with the “one China” issue unresolved. Mr Lien’s version infers two political systems running in parallel. For outsiders, there may appear to be no real disparity. For Beijing, the difference is enormous.

The mainland is now willing to meet any Taiwanese party, provided that it recognizes the “1992 consensus”. Arguably, there is an unstated understanding about maintaining the “status quo” under “one China”, with separate adminsitartions for the mainland and Taiwan.

In fact, “one country, three systems” will be the de facto reality and the result of Mr Chen saying “one China” in whichever way he finally chooses.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top