2005-06-03 兩岸關係的一線曙光--刊登於六月二日亞洲華爾街日報

【亞洲華爾街日報】日前向親民黨宋楚瑜主席邀稿，希望宋主席能談一談「宋胡會」前、後，對於兩岸關係的看法。
宋主席的文章已於六月二日刊登在亞洲華爾街日報A7版，以下為中譯版，並附錄英文版於後，敬請參考
兩岸關係的一線曙光
宋楚瑜
近幾年來，由於執政黨不斷迂迴推動台獨，而大陸政府在解放軍鷹派壓力下，不得不誓言鎮壓，台海地區緊張情勢日益升高。全世界重要國家無不為此擔憂，生怕有任何意外事件發生，導致不可收拾的局面。
直到最近，烏雲密佈的地平線上，才露出一線曙光。原因就是扁宋會的「十點共識」，尤其是其中由陳總統保證在其任內不推動台獨。再加上，台灣兩個在野黨領袖，相繼接受大陸領導人中共總書記胡錦濤的邀請，用他們的破冰之旅，打破了持續五十年的僵局。
兩黨主席大陸之行剛帶動一些樂觀氣氛，陳總統與民進黨又純基於國內政治考量，迎頭大潑冷水。總統一面指責「中國熱」過當，另一面又含糊地表示仍要「追求和解」，自相矛盾，令民眾無所適從。
民進黨至今從未提出任何有力的論點，足以反駁親民黨與中國共產黨今年五月十二日會談的成果，以及當晚發表的會談公報。民進黨政府只會強調，不論連主席或我本人，無權代表台灣與北京簽訂任何協議。事實上，兩黨並未與胡總書記簽署任何書面文件。兩黨領袖先後的大陸之行，只為試圖與對方找出一些共通之點，讓海峽兩岸能為可見的未來，建立和諧共存與對話的架構而已。
去大陸之前，我與陳水扁總統於二月二十四日曾在台北會晤，並共同簽署了「十項共識」。凡不偏不倚的公正人士都會同意，「扁宋十點共識」與「五一二會談公報」之間，在下列四點上確有交集：
★雙方都期望和平，不要戰爭；
★雙方都反對台灣搞法理台獨，也反對目前以任何理由更改「中華民國」的國號；
★雙方都體認，事實是海峽兩岸存在著兩個互不隸屬的政治實體，而維持現狀才是兩岸最好的選項；
★雙方都認知只有一個中國，但各自可以自己的方式闡述其內涵。
最後一點值得特別強調。因為陳總統不斷堅持說，他在任何地方都找不到「九二共識」這個名詞。但就因為有九二共識，才促成次年在新加坡的辜汪會談，使兩岸首次達成事務性的協議。而且，九二共識是胡總書記一再強調，兩岸未來復談的前提。這就是為什麼在五一二會談公報會談公報HED: A Ray of Hope in Cross-Strait Relations
By James Soong
In recent years, a combination of surreptitious moves toward independence by the governing party in Taiwan and pressure from hawkish elements in the People’s Liberation Army to suppress any such move have led to rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Tensions have risen to a point where most major capitals in the world were worried that any accident might touch off a major conflagration in the region.
Only in the last few weeks did a ray of hope appear to dispel these darkening clouds. That came about because the leaders of both of Taiwan’s main opposition parties--the Kuomintang and the People First Party (PFP)--broke 50 years of ice by visiting mainland China separately at the invitation of Hu Jintao, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and head of state of the People’s Republic of China.
However no sooner had a brief moment of optimism been created by these visits, than President Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party sought to pour cold water over it for purely domestic political considerations. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth, Mr. Chen scolded “China fever” on the one hand, while mumbling about “pursuing conciliation” on the other.
Yet the Chen government has not raised any sensible objections to the results of the discussions I held in Beijing on May 13, and which were made public in a news communiqué that evening. It could only say that neither Dr. Lien nor I had any authority to conclude agreements with Beijing on behalf of Taiwan. But neither of us signed any paper with Mr. Hu. All we did was reach out to the other side, and attempt to find common ground over which both shores of the Taiwan Strait could build sound structures of peaceful coexistence for the foreseeable future.
Prior to my mainland visit, I had signed a 10-point statement with Mr. Chen in Taipei on Feb. 24. Anyone with an impartial mind will agree that statement was faithfully reflected in the joint communiqué issued after my May 13 meeting with Mr. Hu. In particular, the communiqué made the following four points:
★Both parties want peace, not war;
★Both parties are against de jure independence for Taiwan, and therefore against changing its official name, i.e. the Republic of China (ROC), for any reason;
★Both acknowledge that in reality, today there do exist two political entities, one on each side of the Strait, and that maintaining the status quo best suits the interests of both shores; and
★Both parties acknowledge that there is but one China, yet each may interpret this belief in its own way.
That last point is worth emphasizing, because Mr. Chen has repeatedly said there is no such thing as the “1992 consensus”--that was reached by delegations from both sides during negotiations in Hong Kong in 1992, and which led to the first ever cross-Strait contacts in Singapore the following year. However Mr. Hu has insisted that the “1992 Consensus” must be the prerequisite for any future talks. For that reason, we took some pain in the May 13 communiqué to quote from the exact wording of the original statements made by both delegations to the 1992 talks
To avoid falling into the same old trap of semantics, we also purposefully coined the phrase “two shores, one China” during my discussions in Beijing. By this new expression, we defined the substantive content of the “1992 consensus” in a way that should be acceptable to both sides across the Taiwan Strait. It marked the first time that Beijing has openly accepted, or at least tacitly acknowledged, the concept that two separate entities currently coexist side by side under the roof of “one China.” And the words “two shores” clearly indicate that these two see themselves as on an equal basis, with neither one subservient to the other.
I am very pleased that the pragmatic leadership in Beijing has come down from their previous high horse of denying altogether the existence of the ROC, and stands prepared to deal with Taiwan in a new spirit of leaving aside mutual differences while seeking a solution to more urgent issues of peace and security. As the only political leader in Taiwan who has discussed in depth all aspects of the cross-Strait problem with both Messrs. Chen and Hu, I urge our government in Taiwan not to let this golden opportunity slip through its fingers and to pick up where the opposition party leaders have left off. Only he who holds the reins of power can negotiate a settlement with those on the other shore.
Mr. Soong is chairman of the People First Party in Taiwan.