美台建交 此其時也
US-Taiwan Diplomatic Relations: Now Is The Time
胡平 - 2020-08-15
Hu Ping – – August 15, 2020
和聯合國193個成員國相比，無論是在政治、經濟、社會、文化哪一方面，台灣（中華民國）都可位居前列。然而，台灣卻被排除在聯合國之外。當今世界，最不公平的一件事就是，台灣得不到它應有的國際承認。
Compared with the 193 member states of the United Nations, Taiwan (the Republic of China) ranks in the forefront whether in terms of politics, economy, society or culture. However, Taiwan is excluded from United Nations’ membership. The most unfair thing in the world today is that Taiwan cannot get the international recognition it deserves.
自1979年美國和中華民國斷交，轉而和中華人民共和國建交以來，41年過去了。41年來，整個世界發生了重大的變化；台海兩岸各自都發生了重大的變化，兩岸關係也發生了重大的變化。現在是時候了，美國在維持和中華人民年共和國政府正式邦交的同時，應該和中華民國政府建立正式邦交。
Forty-one years have passed since the United States severed formal diplomatic relations with the Republic of China in 1979, and switched to establishing diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. In the past 41 years, the entire world has undergone a major transformation. Major changes have taken place on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and in cross-strait relations. Now is the time. While maintaining formal diplomatic relations with the government of the People’s Republic of China, the United States should establish formal diplomatic relations with the government of the Republic of China.
一定有人會說：如果美國和台灣建交，必然招致中共的強烈反彈。中共一定會指責美國違反了美中三個聯合公報，違反了“一個中國”原則。然而我要指出的是，在台灣維持中華民國憲政體制的法理現狀的前提下，如果美國政府決定和中華民國政府建交，那其實並沒有違反“一個中國”的原則。美國可以明確告訴中共：美國的政策是“一個中國，兩個政府”，因此仍然屬於“一個中國”。美國可以理直氣壯地反問中共：你們不是也早就修改了“一個中國”原則，不再反對“一個中國，兩個政府”了嗎？
Some will surely say: If the United States and Taiwan establish diplomatic relations, it will inevitably lead to a strong backlash from the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]. The CCP will definitely accuse the United States of violating the three US-China joint communiqués, and violating the “One China” principle. However, what I want to point out is that under the premise that Taiwan maintains the legal status quo of the Republic of China’s constitutional system, if the US government decides to establish diplomatic relations with the Republic of China government, it does not actually violate the “One China” principle. The United States can clearly tell the CCP: The United States’ policy is “One China, Two Governments,” and therefore still qualifies as “One China.” The United States can – confident it has justice on its side – ask the CCP: Didn’t you also modify the “One China” principle long ago, and no longer oppose “One China, Two Governments”?
1、中共早就不反對“一中兩府”
1. The CCP Has Long Ceased Opposing “One China, Two Governments”
是的，中共早就不反對“一中兩府”了，見之於中共領導人講話和國台辦文件。讓我感到驚訝的是，對於中共當局在兩岸關係問題上的這一微妙而重要的變化及其意涵，無論是美國還是台灣，似乎都沒什麼人注意到。
Yes, the CCP has long ceased opposing “One China, Two Governments,” as witnessed in the speeches of the CCP leaders and the documents of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council. What amazes me is that no one – not the United States nor Taiwan – seems to have noticed this subtle and important change in cross-strait relations and its implications.
中共對兩岸關係究竟是如何定位的？我以為我們不妨從解讀中共國台辦的白皮書入手。國台辦的白皮書有足夠的權威性，論述完整，條理分明，用語也較為嚴謹，是瞭解中共有關政策的理想文本。
What exactly is the CCP position on cross-strait relations? I thought we might as well start by interpreting the White Paper of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the Communist Party of China. The White Paper of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council is authoritative, complete, well-organized and rigorous in terms. It is an ideal text for understanding the relevant policies of the CCP.
國台辦前後發佈過兩份白皮書。一份發佈於1993年9月1日，標題是《台灣問題與中國統一》；另一份發佈於2000年2月1日，標題是《一個中國原則與台灣問題》。（1）兩份白皮書在某些提法上有差異。這些差異說明了什麼？以下是我的辨析。
The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council issued two White Papers. One was published on September 1, 1993 with the title “Taiwan Issue and China’s Reunification.” The other was published on February 1, 2000 with the title “One China Principle and the Taiwan Issue.” (1) The two White Papers differ in certain wording. What do these differences show? The following is my analysis.
在1993年的白皮書裡，有如下一段話：“中國政府堅決反對任何旨在分裂中國主權和領土完整的言行，反對兩個中國‘、’一中一台‘或’一國兩府‘，反對一切可能導致’台灣獨立‘的企圖和行徑。”
The 1993 White Paper contains the following paragraph: “The Chinese government firmly opposes any words or deeds aimed at splitting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, opposes ‘Two Chinas’, ‘One China, One Taiwan’, or ‘One Country, Two Governments’, and opposes all attempts and actions that may lead to ‘Taiwan independence’.”
我們知道，在1972年2月28日簽訂的《中美聯合公報》裡，寫道：“中國政府堅決反對任何旨在製造‘一中一台’、‘一個中國、兩個政府’、‘兩個中國’、‘台灣獨立’和鼓吹‘台灣地位未定’的活動。”（2）從那時起，中共當局一直都宣稱，中國政府堅決反對的，包括“台灣獨立”、“兩個中國”、“一中一台”和“一國兩府”。
We know that the “Sino-US Joint Communiqué” signed on February 28, 1972, says: “The Chinese government firmly opposes any attempt to create ‘One China, One Taiwan’, ‘One China, Two Governments’, ‘Two Governments, Two Chinas’, ‘Taiwan independence’ and activities advocating ‘undermining Taiwan’s status’.” (2) Since then, the Chinese Communist Party has consistently declared that the Chinese government firmly opposes “Taiwan independence,” “Two Chinas,” “One China, One Taiwan” and “One Country, Two Governments.”
可是，在2000年的白皮書裡寫的卻是：中國政府“反對所謂‘台灣獨立’、‘兩個中國’、‘一中一台’。”
However, what was written in the 2000 White Paper was: The Chinese government “opposes so-called ‘Taiwan Independence’, ‘Two Chinas’, and ‘One China, One Taiwan’.”
注意：在2000年的白皮書裡，在中國政府“反對”的賓語中，“一國兩府”被去掉了。換言之，從2000年起，中共當局只提反對“台灣獨立”、“兩個中國”和“一中一台”，不再提反對“一國兩府”了。
In the 2000 White Paper, “One Country, Two Governments” was removed as an object of “opposition” by the Chinese government. In other words, since 2000, the Chinese Communist Party has only raised opposition to “Taiwan Independence,” “Two Chinas” and “One China, One Taiwan,” and no longer mentions opposition to “One Country, Two Governments.”
中共當局不再提反對“一國兩府”，最早出現在1995年1月30日的江澤民講話《為促進祖國統一大業的完成而繼續奮鬥》，其中講到“堅決反對一切‘台獨’和分裂的言行”；還講到“反對台灣以搞‘兩個中國’、‘一中一台’為目的的所謂‘擴大國際生存空間’的活動”；（3）沒有再提反對“一個中國兩個政府”（即一中兩府）。
The CCP authorities no longer speaking of opposing “One Country, Two Governments” first appeared in Jiang Zemin’s speech on January 30, 1995: “Continue to Strive to Promote the Reunification of the Motherland,” in which he stated: “Resolutely oppose all ‘Taiwan independence’ and ‘Separatist words and deeds.’” It also talked about “opposing Taiwan’s so-called ‘expansion of international living space’” activities aimed at creating “Two Chinas” and “One China, One Taiwan.” (3) It contained no further mention of opposition to “One China, Two Governments.”
2、中共展現微妙的模糊
2. The CCP Shows Subtle Ambiguity
中共領導人的最新表態，習近平在2019年1月2日《告台灣同胞書》40週年紀念大會上的致詞中講的也是“堅決挫敗各種製造‘兩個中國’、‘一中一台’、‘台灣獨立’的圖謀”。（4）其中仍然沒提“一中兩府”。
The latest statement of the Communist Party leaders – Xi Jinping’s speech at the January 2, 2019 40th Anniversary “Meeting of Taiwan Compatriots” – also vowed to “Resolutely defeat all kinds of manufacturing of ‘Two Chinas’, ‘One China, One Taiwan’ and the ‘Taiwan Independence’ Plot.” (4) But “One China, Two Governments” was still not mentioned.
如上所說，中共對“一國兩府”只是不再反對了，那並不等於它接受了，但是那也不等於它不接受。這就是說，中共對“一國兩府”既沒有接受，也沒有不接受，而是刻意造成一種微妙的模糊。中共的很多奇怪表現，其實就是出於這種微妙的模糊。
As mentioned above, the CCP no longer opposes “One Country, Two Governments.” That does not mean that it accepts it, but it does not mean that it does not accept it. This means that the CCP has neither accepted nor refused “One Country, Two Governments,” but deliberately created a kind of subtle ambiguity. Many of the strange actions of the CCP are actually due to this subtle ambiguity.
兩份白皮書還有一處差異，值得辨析。
There is another difference between the two White Papers which is worthy of analysis.
在1993年的白皮書裡寫道：“中國政府歷來反對用處理德國問題、朝鮮問題的方式來處理台灣問題。”可是，在2000年的白皮書裡卻只說“兩德模式不能用於解決台灣問題”，即，仍然反對兩德模式，但沒有再提反對兩韓模式。
The 1993 White Paper said: “The Chinese government has always opposed the use of the German and North Korean models to resolve the Taiwan issue.” However, the 2000 White Paper only stated that “The Two Germanys model cannot be used to resolve the Taiwan issue.” That is, it still opposes the Two Germanys model, but states no further opposition to the Two Koreas model.
這一改動看上去令人不解。因為在一般人看來，兩德模式和兩韓模式是一樣的性質，過去人們也總是把兩者相提並論，那為什麼在2000年的白皮書中，依然反對兩德模式卻不再反對兩韓模式了呢？因為兩德模式和兩韓模式不一樣，兩德關係是兩國關係，兩韓關係是一國兩府。
This modification looks puzzling. Because in the eyes of most people, the Two Germanys model and the Two Koreas model are of the same nature, and people always compared the two in the past. Then why in the 2000 White Paper did Beijing still oppose the Two Germanys model, but no longer opposes the Two Koreas model? Because the Two Germanys model is different from the Two Koreas model, the relationship between the Two Germanys is a relationship between two countries, and the relationship between the two Koreas is one country, two governments.
先談兩德關係。兩德關係是兩個德國，是兩國關係，或曰是兩國論。
Let us first discuss the relationship between the two Germanys. The Two Germany relationship is two German countries, a two-state relationship, or as some say a two-state theory.
1949年5月，西德（德意志聯邦共和國）頒佈了基本法，作為過渡時期相當於憲法的法律。當時的西德之所以沒有制定憲法，理由之一是，德國的憲法理當由全體德國人共同制定，既然現階段東德人無法參與，所以現階段不可以制定憲法，所以只能制定一套基本法。這表明，西德堅持認為，東德是德國的一部分，只有一個德國，東德和西德都屬於德國。我們不妨把這種立場叫做一個德國原則。這就是說，西德是堅持一個德國原則的。
In May 1949, West Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany) promulgated its Basic Law, equivalent to a constitution as law during the transition period. One of the reasons why West Germany did not have a constitution at that time was that the German constitution should be formulated by all Germans. Since East Germans could not participate at that stage, the constitution could not be formulated at that stage so only a set of basic laws could be formulated. This shows clearly that West Germany considered East Germany part of Germany, that there is only one Germany, and both East Germany and West Germany belong to Germany. We might as well call this position the One Germany principle. This means that West Germany adheres to the One Germany principle.
東德則不然。東德（德意志民主共和國）一開始就制定了憲法。東德的第一部憲法公佈於1949年10月。應該說這部憲法仍然堅持一個德國，因為該憲法第1章第1條明確規定：“德國是由德國各州組建的一個不可分割的共和國。”這裡的“各州”顯然也是把西德包括在內的。1968年4月，東德頒佈了新憲法。新憲法第1章第1條，去掉了原來的“德國是由德國各州組建的一個不可分割的共和國”，這就有放棄一個德國的跡象了。不過新憲法第1章第1條寫的是：“德意志民主共和國是一個德意志民族的社會主義國家”，因為西德也是德意志民族，這就等於說西德也是德國的一部分，因此新憲法也還是保留了一個德國的意思。
East Germany held a different principle. East Germany (German Democratic Republic) enacted a constitution from the very beginning. The first constitution of East Germany was promulgated in October 1949. It should be said that this constitution still insists on one Germany. Chapter 1 Article 1 of the constitution clearly stipulates: “Germany is an indivisible republic formed by the German states.” The “states” here obviously also include West Germany. In April 1968, East Germany promulgated a new constitution. In Chapter 1, Article 1 of the new constitution, the original “Germany is an indivisible republic formed by the German states” was removed, which was a sign of giving up on a united Germany. However, Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the new constitution says: “The German Democratic Republic is a socialist country of the German ethnic nationality people.” Because West Germany is also a German nation, it is equivalent to saying that West Germany is also part of Germany, so the new constitution still retains the principle of One Germany.
1974年9月，東德通過了憲法修正案，移除了德意志民族的內容，把第1章第1條改成了“德意志民主共和國是一個工農社會主義國家”。這就表明東德已經放棄了認同東德為更大的德意志國家一部分的理念。在修正過的東德憲法中，已經沒有任何字句明示或暗示東德和西德同屬一國。這就意味著東德已經放棄了一個德國原則，確立了獨立的東德國家認同——我們可以叫做東德獨。在這時，雖然西德仍然在堅持一個德國原則，但是東德已經放棄了一個德國原則了。在這以後，東德和西德的關係就不再是一國兩府，而成了兩個德國，成了兩國關係。
In September 1974, East Germany passed a constitutional amendment removing reference to the German nation, and changed Chapter 1 Article 1 to “The German Democratic Republic is a socialist country of workers and peasants.” This shows that East Germany abandoned the idea of identifying East Germany as part of a larger German state. In the revised East German constitution, there are no clear or implied words that East Germany and West Germany belong to one nation. This meant that East Germany abandoned the One Germany principle and established an independent East German national identity. We can call it East German independence. At this time, although West Germany still upheld the One Germany principle, East Germany had already abandoned it. After this, the relationship between East Germany and West Germany ceased to be one country and two governments, and became two Germanys, a relationship between two countries.
兩德與兩韓關係的不同
The differing relations between the Two Germanys and Two Koreas
下面再看兩韓關係。
Let us look at the relationship between the two Koreas.
乍一看去，南韓和北韓的關係就是兩國關係，就是兩個韓國。難道不是嗎？南韓和北韓各有自己的國號，各有自己的土地、人民、政府與軍隊，各有自己的貨幣、海關。南韓和北韓都可以以國家的名義參加有關的國際組織和國際活動。南韓和北韓都是聯合國的會員國，都和很多國家建立了正式邦交，有150個國家（包括中國）都是既承認南韓也承認北韓，在奧運會上，南韓運動員和北韓運動員都可以各自打著自己的國旗出場，贏了金牌都可以各自奏自己的國歌，如此等等。這和兩個國家有什麼區別呢？
At first glance, the relationship between South Korea and North Korea is a relationship between two countries – two Koreas. Is it not? South Korea and North Korea each have their official country name, each has its own land, people, government and military. Each has its own currency and border control. Both South Korea and North Korea can participate in relevant international organizations and international activities under their own flag. Both South Korea and North Korea are members of the United Nations and have established formal diplomatic relations with many countries. One hundred fifty countries (including China) recognize both South Korea and North Korea. In the Olympics, both South Korean and North Korean athletes compete separately. They play their own national anthem if they win medals and raise their own national flag. How are they not two independent countries?
區別還是有的。
But there are still differences.
南韓憲法第三條規定：“大韓民國之領土，在於朝鮮半島及其附屬島嶼。”注意：這裡說的是整個朝鮮半島，而不只是朝鮮半島的南半部。
Article 3 of the South Korean Constitution stipulates: “The territory of the Republic of Korea consists of the Korean Peninsula and its affiliated islands.” Note: This is the entire Korean Peninsula, not just the southern half of the Korean Peninsula.
北韓憲法（2012年）第九條規定：“朝鮮民主主義人民共和國為在祖國北半部加強人民政權，大力開展思想、技術、文化三大革命，實現社會主義的完全勝利而奮鬥；併為按照自主、和平統一、民族大團結的原則實現祖國的統一而鬥爭。”這就是說，北韓所說的全國，是包括南半部在內的；而它目前實際管轄的地盤，只限於北半部。
Article 9 of the North Korean Constitution (2012) stipulates: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [DPRK] shall strive to strengthen the people’s power in the northern half of the motherland, vigorously carry out the three major revolutions of ideology, technology, and culture, and realize the complete victory of socialism. In accordance with the principles of Juche [self-reliance], peaceful reunification, and national unity, we will achieve the reunification of the motherland through struggle.” This means that the whole country referred to by North Korea includes the southern half; and the actual territory it currently governs is limited to the northern half.
在這裡，南北韓在講到自己的領土範圍時都講的是整個朝鮮半島，也就是說都把對方實際管轄的那半壁江山算入其內。由此可見，南北韓雙方都堅持只有一個韓國而不是有兩個韓國。但是在一個韓國之內有兩個以中央政府自居的政府，這就叫一國兩府。
Here, when South and North Korea talk about their own territories, they are talking about the entire Korean peninsula. That is to say, they both include the half of the country under the actual jurisdiction of the other side. This shows that both South and North Korea insist that there is only one Korea instead of two. However, there are two governments in one Korea, both claiming to be the central government. This is One Country, Two Governments.
但與此同時，雙方又都承認自己在現階段的治權即實際管轄權只限於自己這半壁江山，並且尊重對方對它那半壁江山的實際管轄權。上引北韓憲法講得很清楚，在現階段，北韓實際管轄權只限於北半部。南北韓雙方尊重與承認分裂分治的現實，允許對方進入聯合國等國際組織以及和外國建立正式邦交，並表明在未來和平統一的意願。
But at the same time, both parties recognize that their current actual jurisdiction is limited to their half of the country, and respect the other party’s actual jurisdiction over its half of the country. The above-quoted clause of the North Korean Constitution makes clear that at this stage North Korea’s actual jurisdiction is limited to the northern half of the peninsula. Both South and North Korea respect and recognize the reality of divided rule, allow each other to enter the United Nations and other international organizations, establish formal diplomatic relations with foreign countries, and demonstrate mutual desire for peaceful reunification in the future.
這就叫“一個韓國，兩個政府”（或曰一國兩府）。如果未來某一天，南北韓雙方（或其中一方）不再堅持只有一個韓國，在談到自己的領土時不再把對方那一部分包括在內，並對未來的統一與否不置一詞，那才叫“兩個韓國”或兩國論。
This is called “One Korea, Two Governments” (or One Country, Two Governments). If one day in the future South and North Korea (or one of them) no longer insists that there is only one Korea, and no longer claims sovereignty over the other side’s territory and does not say a word about future unification, then it should be called “Two Koreas” or a Two-State Theory.
當然，中共只是不再提反對兩韓模式，這不等於接受兩韓模式，但是也不等於不接受兩韓模式。這就意味著為接受兩韓模式留下了可能的空間，否則它就會乾脆說“兩韓模式不能用於解決台灣問題”了。我們知道，兩韓模式就是“一國兩府”。
Of course, the CCP just stopped mentioning opposition to the Two Koreas model. This does not mean accepting Two Koreas, but it does not mean not accepting Two Koreas. This means that it leaves possible space for accepting a Two Korea model, otherwise Beijing would simply say that “The Two Koreas model cannot be used to resolve the Taiwan issue.” We know that the Two Koreas model is “One Country, Two Governments.”
4、中共為何不再反對“一個中國，兩個政府”？
4. Why does the CCP no longer oppose “One China, Two Governments”?
那麼，中共當局為何不再反對“一個中國，兩個政府”，為什麼不再反對兩韓模式了呢？因為形勢變了。從1972年中美簽訂第一份聯合公報到現在，兩岸各自發生了巨大的改變，兩岸關係也發生了巨大的改變。
Then why does the Chinese Communist Party no longer oppose “One China, Two Governments,” and why do they no longer oppose the Two Koreas model? Because the situation has changed. Since the signing of the first joint communiqué between China and the United States in 1972, tremendous changes have taken place on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and cross-strait relations have also undergone tremendous changes.
早先，兩岸政府高度敵對，彼此都把對方視為偽政府，兩岸之間沒有任何經貿與人員的往來。後來，兩岸政府的敵意漸漸淡化，兩岸之間經貿與人員的往來越來越多。伴隨著兩岸人員往來和經濟、文化等各種交流的發展，衍生出種種問題。為瞭解決這些問題，兩岸已經簽署了二十幾項協議，涉及人員交流、投資與貿易、共同打擊犯罪和司法互助等諸多方面。（5）
Earlier, the governments on both sides of the strait were highly hostile, and each viewed each other as a pseudo-government, and there was no economic, trade or personnel exchanges between the two sides. Later, the hostility of the governments on both sides of the strait gradually faded, and there were more and more exchanges of economic, trade, and personnel between the two sides. With the development of cross-strait personnel, economic, and cultural exchanges, various problems have arisen. In order to resolve these problems, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have signed more than 20 agreements, involving personnel exchanges, investment and trade, joint crime fighting and mutual legal assistance.（5）
按說，簽訂這些具有法律意義的協議，當然應該由兩岸的政府出面。然而，一旦中華人民共和國政府的簽章和中華民國政府的簽章並列於同一份法律文本，那就意味 著中華人民共和國政府並不是代表全中國的唯一合法政府，而是唯二的合法政府了；那也就意味著雙方都已經接受了“一中兩府”。由於大陸當局不願意接受“一中兩府”，可是又必須和台灣方面簽訂這些協議，於是雙方就各自推出一個民間團體，大陸方面是海協會，台灣方面是海基會。海協會和海基會分別得到各自政府的授權，於是就簽訂了這一系列協議。
Ordinarily, signing these legally significant agreements should of course be made by the governments on both sides of the strait. However, once the signature of the government of the People’s Republic of China and the signature of the government of the Republic of China are listed in the same legal text, it means that the government of the People’s Republic of China is not the only legal government representing the whole of China. That also means that both parties have accepted “One China, Two Governments.” Since the mainland authorities are unwilling to accept “One China, Two Governments,” – they must sign these agreements with Taiwan – the two sides have each launched a non-governmental organization. The mainland’s is The Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Taiwan’s is the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF). ARATS and SEF were authorized by their respective governments, so they signed this series of agreements.
海協會和海基會都是白手套，但這是兩隻很奇特的白手套。一般的白手套是為了掩藏裡面的手，讓世人不知道里面是誰的手。然而海協會和海基會這兩隻白手套裡面是誰的手卻無人不知。海基會海協會這兩隻白手套是透明的。可是，既然人人都知道是誰的手，戴手套豈非多餘？這就揭示出中華人民共和國政府在兩岸關係問題上的立場：在名義上，中華人民共和國政府沒有承認中華民國政府的存在，但是在實際上，它至少是默認了中華民國政府的存在。如果說由兩岸政府出面簽署協議，就意味著雙方已經承認了對方的存在，意味著雙方已經接受了“一中兩府”；那麼現在是由海協會和海基會兩會出面簽署協議，而世上無人不知在兩會的白手套裏邊是兩府的手，那就說明雙方已經間接地承認了或者說默認了對方的存在，雙方已經間接地接受了或者說默認了“一中兩府”。這就是為什麼中共當局不再反對“一中兩府”的原因，因為它在實際上早已經默認了“一中兩府”，只不過在名義上沒接受而已。
Both the Mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits [ARATS] and Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation [SEF] are unusual “white-glove organizations.” White gloves are used to hide the wearer’s hands, so that the world does not know whose hands are inside. However, everyone knows whose hands are in the white gloves of ARATS and SEF. The white gloves are transparent. However, since everyone knows whose hands they are, isn’t wearing gloves unnecessary? This reveals the position of the government of the People’s Republic of China on the issue of cross-strait relations. The government of the People’s Republic of China has not recognized the existence of the government of the Republic of China, but it at least acknowledged the existence of the government of the Republic of China. If the governments on both sides of the strait sign the agreement, it means that the two sides have recognized the other’s existence, and that the two sides have accepted “One China, Two Governments.” Now that the Mainland's ARATS and Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation have come forward to sign the agreement, and no one in the world does not know which governments hands are in the white gloves, it means that the two sides have recognized the other’s existence and have accepted “One China, Two Governments.” This is why the Chinese Communist Party no longer opposes “One China and Two Governments,” because it has already acknowledged “One China, Two Governments,” it just has not formally accepted it.
在今天，美國若本著“一中兩府”的原則和台灣建交，對中華人民共和國政府和中華民國政府實行雙重承認，既是基於美國的國家利益和立國理念，也是基於形勢的 改變，基於兩岸關係的改變，基於中共當局自己在兩岸關係問題上的改變，基於中共當局自己在一個中國原則的內涵的改變（不再反對“一中兩府”了）。如果美國 和台灣建交，中共是沒有任何理由抗議的，因為是你中共改變在先，是兩岸關係改變在先，美國只不過是根據這些改變而做出相應的改變而已。
Today, if the United States establishes diplomatic relations with Taiwan based on the principle of “One China, Two Governments,” and implements dual recognition of the government of the People’s Republic of China and the government of the Republic of China, it will be based on the United States’ national interests, the concept of nation-building, and on the basis of changes in the situation. The change in relations is based on the CCP’s own changes in cross-strait relations, and the CCP’s own changes in the content of the One-China principle (no longer opposing “One China, Two Governments”). If the United States and Taiwan establish diplomatic relations, the CCP will have no reason to protest, because it was the CCP that changed its handling of cross-strait relations first. The United States is just making corresponding changes based on this reality.
5、北京可以既承認北韓政府又承認南韓政府，那華盛頓為什麼不可以既承認中華人民共和國政府又承認中華民國政府？
5. Beijing can recognize both the government of North Korea and the government of South Korea, so why can’t Washington recognize both the government of the People’s Republic of China and the government of the Republic of China?
在大陸，早就有官方的兩岸問題專家表達過“一中兩府”的主張了。
On the mainland, official experts on cross-strait issues have long expressed the idea of “One China, Two Governments.”
2005年4月1日，中國社科院台灣所研究員王建民在強國論壇網站與網友對話，其中有如下兩段問答：
On April 1, 2005, Wang Jianmin, a researcher from the Taiwan Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, had a conversation with netizens on the Powerful Country Forum website. There were two questions and answers as follows:
網友黃河飛流：王建民嘉賓，大陸和台灣同屬一個中國能否理解為中華人民共和國和中華民國同屬一個中國？
Netizen Huang Hefei: “Honored guest Wang Jianmin, the mainland and Taiwan belong to the same China, can it be understood that the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China belong to the same China?”
王建民：這個問題提的有水準，有觀察力，在某種程度上是可以這樣理解的。
Wang Jianmin: “This question has been raised to a high level, and has the power of observation. It can be understood this way from many angles.”
有網友老灰貓問：咱當時為什麼不和台灣討論李登輝提出的“一中兩府”方案？它的前提不也是‘一中’嗎？
Netizen Old Gray Cat asked: “Why didn’t we discuss Lee Teng-hui’s proposal of One China, Two Governments with Taiwan? Isn’t its premise also ‘One China’?
王建民答：你的觀察力不錯，大陸不少學者也提出了這種觀點，只是我們對台灣問題的認識有個過程，過去的要求可能更高一些，我覺得也有不少遺憾。但歷史不能重複，我們希望我們以後把握好歷史機遇。
Wang Jianmin replied: “Your observation is good, many mainland scholars have also put forward this point of view. It is just that we have a process of understanding the Taiwan issue. In the past, the requirements may have been higher. I feel that I have many regrets. But history cannot be repeated. We hope that we will seize this historical opportunity.”
另外，2011年6月，北京清華大學國際戰略與發展研究所教授楚樹龍在美國的布魯金斯學會發表文章，明確提出“一個中國內的兩個中央政府”概念，希望為兩岸政治架構找尋一條新的出路。楚樹龍說，無法正視兩岸間有兩個平等的政府使兩岸關係無法正常化。兩岸關係要維持長期的正常穩定發展，雙方必須承認彼此都是一個中國之下的合法政府。（6）
In addition, in June 2011, Professor Chu Shulong of the Institute of International Strategy and Development of Tsinghua University in Beijing published an article with the Brookings Institution in the United States, clearly proposing the concept of “one China and two central governments,” hoping to form a cross-strait political structure and find a new way out. Chu Shulong said that the inability to face up to the fact that there are two equal governments on both sides of the strait makes it impossible to normalize cross-strait relations. To maintain long-term normal and stable development of cross-strait relations, both sides must recognize that each other is a legitimate government under the One China principle.
王健民的回答表明，既然“一中兩府”的前提是一中，因此它並不違反一中原則。那麼按照中共領導人的表態“願意在一中框架下進行平等協商”，“一中兩府”就應該是一個選項。楚樹龍更進一步指出，要使兩岸關係正常化，必須承認“一中兩府”。儘管楚樹龍的意見還不是主流，並不代表中共官方，但是並沒有超出中共官方立場給定的那個模糊空間，因此有助於我們瞭解這種模糊的內涵，從而也就瞭解了中共的立場。
Wang Jianmin’s answer indicates that since “One China, Two Governments” is founded on the premise of One China, it does not violate the One China principle. “The PRC is willing to consult with the ROC on the basis of equality under the framework of One China,” the leader declared. “One China, Two Governments” should thus be an option. Chu Shulong further pointed out that in order to normalize cross-strait relations, “One China, Two Governments” should be recognized. Although Chu Shulong’s opinion is not mainstream, and does not represent the CCP’s official position, it does not exceed the ambiguity of Beijing’s official position, and helps us understand the implication of this ambiguity and the CCP’s position.
回到兩岸問題上來，一國兩府即一中兩府，即，一個中國，兩個政府。這就是說，在台灣維持現狀——包括維持現行憲政體制的法理現狀——的前提下，美國就是在維持和大陸邦交的同時，又和台灣正式建交，即，對大陸和台灣實行雙重承認，即，一個中國兩個政府，既然其前提仍是一個中國，因此也是不違反一個中國原則的，因此中共也無話可說：既然北京可以既承認北韓政府又承認南韓政府，那麼，華盛頓為什麼不可以既承認中華人民共和國政府又承認中華民國政府呢？
Coming back to the cross-strait issue, One Country, Two Governments means One China, Two Governments. If Taiwan maintains the status quo — including the legal status quo of the current constitutional system — the United States maintaining diplomatic relations with the mainland and at the same time formally establishing diplomatic relations with Taiwan – dual recognition – it is still One China, Two Governments and does not violate the one-China principle. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party can say nothing. Since Beijing can recognize both North Korea and South Korea, why can’t Washington recognize the government of the People’s Republic of China and the government of the Republic of China?
|
