The controversy generated is the concern that CSB's move to 'creeping independence', which even the Bush administration does not "approve".
The most valid attack on CSB is that he broke his promise of "4 No's and 1 without". DPP (and its apologists) has provided various defense, including pulling out the Anti-Secession Law almost a year ago. But these are very lame explanations (e.g. NUC should "cease to function" a year earlier if so). However, if you read into the words, it is not really a breaking of promise. I guess in terms of "common interpretation" he did break his promise. But if we read into his original text of "1 without", we can only say that he deliberately misled everybody in 2000.
Here is the "1 without"
- “沒有廢除國家統一委員會或國統綱領的問題" (wiki-zh)
- "There is no question of abolishing the Guidelines for National Unification and the National Unification Council"
If one takes such reasoning (I am not saying this is logically correct, I am just trying to follow CSB's own twisted logic, which is more logically than that offered by some of the DPP apologists), it is worthwhile to re-examine the room of interpretation allowed for by the "4 No's", that CSB will NOT
- 1)不會宣佈臺灣獨立；declare Taiwan independence
- 2) 不會更改國號，(把“中華民國”改爲“臺灣共和國”)；change the name of the nation (from ROC to ROT)
- 3)不會推動‘兩國論入憲’ (把“特殊的國與國的關係”的說法包含到中華民國憲法中) or push for including the notion of "special nation-to-nation relationship" into the ROC constitution
- 4)不會推動有關統獨的公投；push for referendum regarding the issue of unification or independece
We will have to wait and see. CSB's next speech could be, "We will considering supporting, even if we will not push for..."