(Text I Lan Binqiang) On September 4, the Kuomintang held a political opinion for chairman candidates. All four candidates expressed their political opinions after being elected as party chairman, and conducted questions, questioning, conclusions and other links. Some of the candidates' views have an important influence on the Kuomintang's future political arena in Taiwan, among which the views on cross-strait issues are undoubtedly the top priority. The views of the four candidates on cross-strait issues are not essentially different from the cross-strait policies of the Kuomintang before and now. Only Mr. Zhang Yazhong, the views of Mr. have been a little innovative since their views, so it has caused some heated discussions in cross-strait society in the past few days.
After the Kuomintang’s political opinion conference, the author immediately forwarded the video of Mr. Zhang Yazhong’s speech and debate on the mainland platform, which aroused widespread on the author’s WeChat video account. The number of views on my WeChat video account has exceeded 1 million, more than 280,000 forwarded, nearly 40,000 likes, and more than 800 messages. It can be seen that many people in the mainland have a positive attitude towards Mr. Zhang Yazhong’s basic views.
However, some netizens and viewers disagree with Mr. Zhang Yazhong's political views. Some readers even sent private messages or left messages on my Weibo to consult the specific content of his "Memorandum of Peace in Cross-Strait" mentioned by Mr. Zhang Yazhong at his political views.
The media and think tanks did not disclose the specific content of the "Memorandum of Peace in Cross-Strait" proposed by Mr. Zhang Yazhong this time, so the author was unable to respond and reply for the time being, and it was even more inconvenient to comment at will.
Yesterday (10th), the Hong Kong "China Review News Agency" published the full text of Mr. Zhang Yazhong's "Advisory on the Basic Agreement on the Peace Development of Cross-Strait" (hereinafter referred to as the "Peace Agreement"). Although the "China Review News Agency" stated that this "peace agreement" was published on October 10, 2008, judging from the reports of relevant media in Taiwan, the content of the "Memorandum of Cross-Strait Peace" referred to by Mr. Zhang Yazhong has no fundamental difference in the content of the "Peace Agreement".
[Hong Kong "China Review News Agency" published a screenshot of the title of Zhang Yazhong's "Agreement"]
Since this is the case, the author briefly commented on Mr. Zhang Yazhong's "peace agreement". Let us know:
What exactly is the "peace agreement" in Zhang Yazhong?
Zhang Yazhong's "peace agreement" can solve the current and even future cross-strait problems?
, Zhang Yazhong's main contents of the "peace agreement"
Zhang Yazhong's "peace agreement" In addition to the preface, the specific content of is divided into three parts, namely "this article", "nature view" and "article description".
In the first part of the "This article", the "Peace Agreement" uses seven articles to determine the cross-strait relations and future development, and serves as the text signed by both parties to the "Agreement".This part seems simple, but some of the words and phrases have deep mystery, such as:
"The two sides belong to the entire China"
"The two sides develop normal relations between each other on the basis of equality"
"Respect the other party's highest power in its field, and neither party shall represent the other party internationally"
" Both sides respect the other party's internal constitutional order and authority in foreign affairs"
"Do not use force or threaten the other party with force, completely resolve the differences between the two sides by peaceful means"
"The cross-strait decision to establish a common ground in the field agreed by both sides"
" "
In the second part "Nature View", the "Peace Agreement" uses five points to characterize the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait as a principle conceptual qualitative, namely:
"End the state of hostility"
"Respect the subjectivity of the contract parties"
In the third part "Article Explanation", the above key issues in the first and second parts are explained and characterized in detail from nine aspects, which is the most critical part of the "Peace Agreement". These contents appear to maintain China's unity on the surface, but in fact they are far from the one-China principle proposed by the mainland, or even completely opposite.
First of all, it denies the spirit of the principle of "one China" and emphasizes the concept of "whole China"
"The relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is positioned as "The two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the 'whole China'" . Claim "We can put 'whole' China) It is regarded as a roof or a combination of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. The power of the 'whole China' is currently temporarily exercised by the two sides of the Taiwan Strait governments. "
" The usage of 'one China' is easy to produce vague texts, and it is more likely to cause controversy over the two sides of the Taiwan Strait's 'who is this one'"
" the so-called 'China' ’ should refer to the combination of ‘People’s Republic of China’ and ‘Republic of China’, and sovereignty belongs to all people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Both sides of the Taiwan Strait should abandon the ‘exclusiveness’ argument of ‘one China is the Republic of China’ or ‘one China is the People’ and accept the view that ‘the mainland and Taiwan belong to China’. Therefore, in terms of the pervasiveness and objectivity of the text, replacing ‘one China’ with ‘the whole of China’ will not lose its original meaning, but also fully express its due meaning. ‘the whole of China’ also means that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must use ‘China as a whole’ in interaction (China as awhole) Think as a principle. "
" When Beijing signs a treaty on borders with other countries in the future, Taipei has the right to participate, and vice versa. The reason is very simple. The borders between the two sides of the strait are the boundaries of Chinese people on both sides of the strait, and it is not just for the two sides of the strait to say it themselves."
Secondly, it misinterprets the Anti-Secession Law, emphasizing that the "equality of status" and "unaffiliated by each other"
"Article Explanation" claims that
html l0 "Cross-strait relations are not mutually 'domestic relations', that is, Taiwan is not part of the People's Republic of China, but part of 'China'. And vice versa." Mainland "The Anti-Secession Law" is actually the same spirit, that is, opposing Taiwan's division from 'China', rather than from 'People's Republic of China'.""The governments of Beijing and Taipei only have complete jurisdiction in their own areas under their jurisdiction, but cannot be as good as the other party. If we use the term " international law , the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are only a complete international legal person in their own areas. If we look at the entire Chinese field, or the entire Chinese affairs, both sides of the Taiwan Strait are not a complete legal person."
3, Imagine following the European Community , establishing a "cross-strait community"
"Article Explanation" describes the nature, form and operation mode of European Community , and then the composition of future cross-strait relations is also used as a type, saying that
" The cross-strait community can be established, and through the operation of multiple communities, overlapping recognition will therefore be expanded. When the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, especially the people of Taiwan, will increasingly accept the view that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are both Chinese and a community with a shared future, the two sides will naturally have a solid foundation from integration to unity. "
" For the people of Taiwan, cross-strait economic and trade interactions that are purely imitated by the free trade mechanism may be beneficial to Taiwan in the short term, but in the long term, Taiwan's economy may be gradually hollowed out through free economic flow. Only through the ‘community’ mechanism can Taiwan’s interests be secured. ”
Although the "article description" slightly explains that the "cross-strait community" and the European community, from the logical relationship emphasized in its context, is obviously advocating cross-strait relations to imitate the European community.
The fourth, advocating that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait appear at the same time in international organizations html In the "Article Description", the "Provisional Description" discusses that Taiwan's participation in international organizations is blocked due to mainland reasons, and that it is not satisfied with participating in international organizations as observers and should participate as a formal member state, the concept of "Three Seats on Cross-Straits" , that is,
"in the way of "Three Seats on Cross-Straits". For example, in the participation of "WHO ", Taiwan is allowed to participate in the name of "Taipei China", and Taiwan also agreed to form a "cross-strait community" or "China Community" delegation as the third seat for cross-strait participation. "
Fifth, signing the "peace agreement" in an analogy to international methods
"Article Explanation" explains the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait different from "country to country", and on the other hand, it proposes that cross-strait interaction, international exchanges, and signing agreements should be "in accordance with international practices" ", that is, these are handled completely in accordance with the current "diplomatic model" of the Taiwan authorities. For example, the method of handling cross-strait affairs in "mutual standing representative offices" is exactly the same as that of the Taiwan authorities in countries where they do not have "diplomatic diplomatic relations". What is more funny is that in terms of signing and ratifying the two parties to sign this "peace agreement", they must also "for the relevant provisions of most international treaties or agreements."
The sixth, promised to "not use force"
"Provisional Description" In this article, it is actually trying to ask the mainland to give up the way of unification of force and leave only a so-called "peaceful reunification".
Finally, the "Provisional Description" in the "Conclusion" will "and The core view of the "Peace Agreement" is expressed, saying that
"'The whole China' must be the consensus between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and the basis of mutual trust. Although there are differences in size between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, they are currently a political entity with a constitutional order, and it is also an objective reality that must be respected. Through the establishment of a community, the gradual integration of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait into a true 'one China' may be the most ideal path. "
2. Can Zhang Yazhong's "peace agreement" solve the current and even the future cross-strait problems?
From the author's introduction above, Zhang Yazhong's "peace agreement" is essentially a "two-state theory" with the hat of "peace", so it Not only is it impossible to solve the current cross-strait problem, it also does not help China's unification.
First, we must be clear-headed. The "Republic of China" has long been destroyed.
This point has been discussed in detail in many previous articles, and I will not repeat it here.However, the basic concepts must be emphasized again, that is,
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949, the "Republic of China" has perished in the history of the Chinese nation. Now the Taiwan authorities entrenched on Taiwan Island are just separatist forces within the People's Republic of China; on October 25, 1971, Taiwan represented the so-called "Republic of China" by United Nations . At the same time, the People's Republic of China restored its legal seat in the United Nations. Whether in international law or the international community, the only one representing China is the People's Republic of China, and there is no "Republic of China"!
If you still do not recognize this fact, you will think that you are still the "Republic of China" and a legal government on the grounds that "Taiwan has its own constitution and constitutional system", etc., and you must accept this so-called "fact". This is very absurd and absolutely impossible. Because the United Nations will not recognize it, the international community will not recognize it, nor will the 179 countries that have established diplomatic relations with China.
Therefore, it is also absurd to talk to the mainland about the so-called "peace agreement" as the "Republic of China".
Second, in the process of China's unification, there is no "two regions" and "two governments" as a saying
It is a fact that China has not yet unified, and this fact also means that the Chinese War of Liberation has not ended. It is precisely because of this that the slogan proposed by the mainland for a long time since 1949 was "liberate Taiwan", and the Taiwan authorities entrenched on the island have also resisted stubbornly. In recent decades, due to the easing of cross-strait relations, especially after Ma Ying-jeou took over the Taiwan regime in 2008, he showed a reconciliation attitude with the mainland, the mainland has fully taken into account the vital interests of his Taiwanese compatriots and gradually turned "liberation" into "unification", and "peaceful reunification" was born under this atmosphere.
However, the consciousness and power of separatist "Taiwan independence" on the island has not stopped, and it has even become more and more rampant, even during the Ma Ying-jeou period, and it is still too far. Therefore, the mainland has to continue to retain the method of "unification of force" on the issue of "unification". In other words, if it is necessary to "liberate Taiwan" can continue at any time.
So, what is "necessary"? These are the three red lines drawn by the Anti-Secession Law, namely the first red line of
: the fact that the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces caused Taiwan to split from China in any name or in any way;
The second red line: a major event that will lead to the split from China;
The third red line: the possibility of peaceful reunification is completely lost.
If someone crosses any of these three red lines, it means that the war of "unification of force" is ignited.
At present, there are already people on the island trying to cross the line to play with fire. Among them, the most fully and rampant ones are the DPP and its supporters, but they are only in the sneaky stage and do not dare to make it truly public. Its biggest protective umbrella is the signboard of the "Republic of China". For a long time, although the Kuomintang has opposed "Taiwan independence" on the surface, it has not made much contribution to national unification in its actual actions. Instead, it has manipulated the "two Chinas" openly and secretly, and they are holding the "Republic of China" sign like the Democratic Progressive Party.
Although the methods of playing with the Democratic Progressive Party and the Kuomintang are different, the result is the same, that is, to split Taiwan from China, but the Democratic Progressive Party is plotting for the "Taiwan State" and the "Republic of China" planned by the Kuomintang.
It can be seen from this that the long-destroying "Republic of China" sign is the key to hindering China's unification.
Therefore, completely solving the zombie card of the "Republic of China" is the first problem that should be clarified and solved on the issue of China's unification. So there is no so-called "two regions" and "two governments" in China at all. Only how the central government implements the unified method.
Third, "peaceful reunification" does not mean recognizing the separatist regime of Taiwan
Since the mainland gradually changed "liberation" to "unification", it has always advocated peaceful reunification from the interests of Taiwan compatriots. Although the mainland knows that this road is not easy and the cost will be very high, considering the national care and the future of the country, it reflects a considerable mind and pattern.
But if the island thinks that the mainland is weak or dares to implement force unification, it is not only a misjudgment, but also will definitely miss yourself. Among them, the DPP and its "Taiwan independence" elements will surely be wiped out in the artillery fire of the People's Liberation Army, and the Kuomintang, which is still holding the "Republic of China" zombie card, will surely be crushed by the giant wheel of the Chinese nation to move forward and completely withdraw from the stage of history.
Therefore, when the mainland shows the desire for peaceful reunification, the top leaders of the Kuomintang and some politicians should seize the opportunity, fully recognize their own values and the role they should play, and be a person who has made great contributions to the reunification of the motherland and can leave a bright spot in the history of the Chinese nation, rather than the other way around.
4. The unification problem cannot be solved with various fancy nouns
Now, let’s briefly comment on Zhang Yazhong’s “peace agreement”.
Actually, after reading the above content, to be honest, it is not worth too many comments. Anyone with a little bit of national consciousness can see that this agreement with "peace" is, first, it will not work at all, whether in the mainland or in Taiwan (maybe Taiwan agrees a little more than the mainland); second, this "peace agreement" brings only chaos to the mainland and Taiwan in the future to resolve cross-strait issues and international issues ( For example, the mainland now has to prove its identity, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait appear in international organizations at the same time and are not considered "two countries", The mainland also needs to obtain permission from the Taiwan "government" to sign diplomatic agreements with other countries and other absurd views ); third, whether it is "the whole of China" or "three seats on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait" is just a replica of the "one country, three constitutions" and a trick to replace the pillars 20 years ago.
Therefore, although the "peace agreement" in Zhangya uses a lot of new terms, it is impossible to solve the problem of China's unification.
Perhaps some readers questioned, so why did the author forward the video of Zhang Yazhong's speech and debate at the Kuomintang political meeting?
1 forwarding is not equivalent to full recognition. It mainly wants to express three meanings: First, Zhang Yazhong's criticism of the Kuomintang is relatively accurate, and this should be recognized; Second, the decline of the Kuomintang can serve as a warning to the political party; Third, understanding that the tricks and doing practical things in Taiwan are two different phenomena, and the two cannot be unified.
Finally, I would like to answer the question of netizens asking me to predict who will win the final victory for the Kuomintang chairman:
Judging from the popularity of the media and society on both sides of the Taiwan Strait for Zhang Yazhong, Zhang Yazhong seems to be a dark horse this time, but this is just a manifestation. In essence, Zhang Yazhong cannot become a dark horse in the current atmosphere of the Kuomintang, especially the role that the Kuomintang can play in Taiwan society, but will only be selected among Zhu Lilun and Jiang Qichen . Among them, Jiang Qichen is more likely than Zhu Lilun.
In fact, Whether it is Jiang Qichen or Zhu Lilun, after we look at Zhang Yazhong's "peace agreement", we should have a basic judgment, that is, the Kuomintang has become increasingly marginalized. If fundamental changes cannot occur, the Kuomintang will basically have no chance in the 2024 general election, even if the Democratic Progressive Party is so abusive.
Therefore, we have to have a deeper understanding of the urgency of unity!
September 10, 2021
