Beijing has let it be known that they are
more than happy to be called 'the mainland' or 'the other side'. To wit:
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Yang Yi (楊毅) said that Chinese officials had seen reports of Ma’s comment on the matter and they welcomed the move wholeheartedly.
“There is only one China in the world and the mainland and Taiwan belong to China,” Yang said.
“Before the two sides are unified, the fact that the mainland and Taiwan are part of China remains unchanged.” (This is the trap set for the DPP, a trap that was set back in the early 1990s when the KMT deliberately negotiated the constitutional changes in a way that would prevent a move to de jure independence or an entirely a new constitution and set laws that would restrict the definition of Taiwan to a region of a China)
Meanwhile, Yang yesterday offered a boilerplate answer to the question by a Taiwanese reporter as to why China was pressuring Taiwan to change the name it used at the Conference of Governors of South East Asian Central Banks.
“Regarding the issue of Taiwan’s participation in international organizations or activities, our attitude and position remain clear,” Yang said. “The two sides can make perfectly logical and reasonable arrangements through pragmatic negotiations under the precondition that there are no ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China and one Taiwan.’” (One question: why should Taiwan have to negotiate its own sovereign arrangements for international participation under duress of preconditions set by a still hostile nation? Would the UK or USA agree to this?)
Our Literal Constitutionalist Administration (or local / regional government) in Taiwan defended itself by recourse again to the law:
Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) defended Ma’s call, citing Article 11 of the amendments to the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, which he said stipulates that the rights, obligations and relationship of the people of the “free area and mainland area” must be regulated by special laws. (But no article itself in this amendment expressly states the territorial definition of the free area and mainland area. This is all smoke and mirrors to conjure the pretence of a legal requirement or foundation for Ma's absurd claim that the ROC still has legal sovereignty over territory controlled by the ROC.)
Article 2 of the Act Governing Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) also defines the “mainland area” as ROC territory outside the “Taiwan area,” he said. (Ma and the KMT often refer to this Act as a part of the constitution but in fact it is absolutely not a constitutional statute - it is simply a common law that determines a relationship between two peoples and not even two governments. So Ma's entire China policy rests on two pillars: the mythical '1992 Consensus' and a literal interpretation of a statute whose central concept that the PRC still belongs to the ROC is farcically in contradiction with the lived reality of Taiwanese today and their exercised de facto independent governance. Ma has pressed the reverse button on Taiwan's democracy and status back to 1991, a date he no doubt feels marked when Taiwan's political change went terribly wrong. e.g. the time when unnecessary democratisation insultingly put the KMT's hegemony and their ROC project under the scrutiny and whim of a solely Taiwanese electorate.)
Ma has said that China is part of ROC territory, as stated in the Constitution. (Actually, the constitution does not directly mention any geographical area or territory - rather it makes a vague reference to territories mentioned in long defunct and void constitutional orders)
The DPP for their part released a statement accusing Ma of fulfilling Beijing's One China chimera:
Reacting to Beijing’s warm reception of Ma’s comments, the DPP yesterday accused Beijing of choosing sides, adding that this constituted political manipulation. (A bit weak here. I think everyone suspects Beijing have been manipulating events on the ground for a long time)
It also showed how Ma’s remarks have played “straight into Beijing’s hopes, interests and ways of thinking,” DPP spokesperson Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) told the Taipei Times last night. (That's a better critique)
“Inadvertently, perhaps, Ma has fulfilled China’s ‘one China’ policies through those remarks, shown by the comments from the Taiwan Affairs Office,” he said. (Why inadvertently? Why perhaps? Why the ambiguity? It's not a conspiracy, its a clear KMT method and goal)
