Ma proposes 'mutual non denial'

Politics Taiwan Politics
#1

gb.udn.com/gb/udn.com/NEWS/NATIO … 7604.shtml

[quote]国民党总统参选人马英九访印度，阐释他心目中的两岸关系模型，他表示，他并不要求两岸相互承认（mutual recognition），而是希望相互不否认（mutual non denial）。

马英九并警告两岸政府在态度上都必须转变，「如果双方都要割喉，这边是烽火外交，那边是寸步不让，到最后就只有不断消耗，不断制造更多困难。」

马英九在印度当地时间十二日下午六时，拜会「印度世界论坛协会」，以「台印关系：老朋友的新开端」为题发表演说。台下包含印度外交官员、美国学者、中国记者等，马英九演说后，引起与会者热行讨论。

有与会者询问马英九，是否期待中共承认台湾？马英九否认。他表示，他并不要求相互承认，而是希望相互不否认，许多与会者对此感到新鲜，表示第一次听到。

马英九退出演讲后应媒体要求，进一步阐释他的「相互不否认」。他说，当前两岸不太可能相互承认，九二共识内涵也是「一中各表」，让双方各自有解释空间，这个解释只要台海双方互不否认，就可达原来所说的共识，这是低标准的要求；根据双方宪法，也不可能正式承认对方。

马英九警告两岸政府，在态度上都应该转变，否则只会不断制造出更多困难，台湾人民无法忍受在国际上被这样打压，到最后一定会使两岸关系陷入更大困境；双方都必须在非常困难的情况下，找出妥协、解决的办法，不要走向相互对立或相互毁灭。

马英九说自己并非对中共存有幻想，所提出的是非常务实的作法。他反批民进党，如果自认为可以一步步追求法理台独，不顾一切，那才是幻想，幻想很快就会破灭。台湾人民不该再往那条路继续走下去，否则失望会更多，痛苦也会更多。

至于中国方面最近紧缩「一个中国」的定义，在国际上封杀台湾，马英九承认，的确有这种状况。他主张，两岸可先以九二共识为基础，至少让双方有协商舞台，将来再就个案一个个研商如何处理，以互相不否认为目标。 [/quote]
Speaking at a conference in India, in response to a question whether he was seeking Beijing’s recognition of “Taiwan”, Ma responded by saying he wasn’t looking for mutual recognition… but mutual non-denial. He says that this is really the essence of the 92 Consensus, allowing both sides to offer their own explanation without making it necessary to reject the opposing one. Due to constitutional constraints on both sides, not at all possible to otherwise “recognize” each other.

MYJ admits that Beijing is pressuring Taiwan internationally on the basis of “one China”. He suggests that by having both sides recognize the 92 consensus as base, this at least gives both sides a stage for negotiation.

#2

Hi,

The following is from a post of mine a couple of days ago…

[quote=“mkegruber”]…does not even imply there was an agreement to disagree.

In my view, Ma’s angle should be something along the lines of, “when KMT returns to power, a lot will have change both in Taiwan and around the world. We will need to reflect on those changes and redefine who we are. Only then will we be able to resume a dialog with China to ensure a mutually beneficial outcome”.

[/quote]

I wonder is the KMT are now outsourcing or using open source methods for their speech writing.

Regards
Michael G

#3

Michael,

You seem to be implying that Ma’s position is some how similar to yours. I, for one, don’t see it… well, except the general and rather obvious statement that “a lot will have changed both in Taiwan”. I don’t see any commitment on Ma’s side to “redefine” who the KMT are; I can define it for you right now, and it’s exactly what it’s been since Lien Chan landed in the mainland 2 (?) years ago.

#4

Actually,

I was specifically referring to this line…

Which was posted before Ma’s annoucement, then appears to be on the money in what Ma said next.

Regards
Michael G

#5

Colour me puzzled.

Constitutional issues aside, hasn’t the government here long acknowledged the legitimacy of the PRC? I don’t see the ROC going around referring to “bandit-controlled territory” anymore.

Wouldn’t the result of this policy simply be a unilateral cessation of attempts to undermine the status of Taiwan by the PRC government? Why would they agree to that?

#6

Because the KMT are considered trustworthy in comparison to the DPP.

#7

[quote=“MikeN”]Colour me puzzled.

Constitutional issues aside, hasn’t the government here long acknowledged the legitimacy of the PRC? I don’t see the ROC going around referring to “bandit-controlled territory” anymore.

Wouldn’t the result of this policy simply be a unilateral cessation of attempts to undermine the status of Taiwan by the PRC government? Why would they agree to that?[/quote]
It depends on what you mean by the “status of Taiwan”.

Under the pan-Green position, China is equivalent to the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan is equivalent to whatever this society/entity currently administered from Taipei is called. China and Taiwan are distinct elements, period.

Under the KMT position, China is not equivalent to the People’s Republic of China… it is either equivalent to the “Republic of China”, or some other ambiguous term that’s larger than the ROC (but not exclusive of it). So, what is the status of Taiwan or the Republic of China? It doesn’t matter; it is what it is. For Beijing, this is a very important concession.

#8

“Because the KMT are considered trustworthy in comparison to the DPP.”

  • gawd you do live in your own reality.
#9

“Under the KMT position, China is not equivalent to the People’s Republic of China.”
-if your head is where the sun don’t shine, anything is anything!

#10

[quote=“ccpcannonfodder”]“Because the KMT are considered trustworthy in comparison to the DPP.”

  • gawd you do live in your own reality.[/quote]
    Actually I am pretty sure you are living in my reality as well.
#11

Actually I am pretty sure you are living in my reality as well.

Actually, that’s my worst fear.
Let’s nail this down. Having mentioned that Mao is responsible
for the death of more Chinese than the Japanese I’m sure the
tanks will eat me too.
On an equally personal level ( I trust positive!) what do you expect to get
from the Communists if/when they subjugate Taiwan?
Were I you I would hold out for a Sultinate.

#12

"On an equally personal level ( I trust positive!) what do you expect to get
from the Communists if/when they subjugate Taiwan? ",
as a teacher I say this-?- means an answer!