「國家統一」與「現代化」是清季以來中國人最關心的兩項議題，事實上 ，這兩項問題是互為因果。遠溯民初，國共兩黨因對中國現代化發展路線 的看法分歧，竟發展成意識型態的對立，最終且導致國家分裂迄今。國共 對峙，所付出的代價不僅是骨肉相殘，百姓流離；也阻礙了中國現代化進 一步發展的契機。由於人口、資源的對比懸殊，中共顯然是兩岸分合發展 的主導因素，故本文針對中共的統一立場與對臺策略， 行探討分析。中 共的統一策略歷經了幾個階段的演變，為因應冷戰結 國際現勢，以及追 求穩定環境發展經濟的戰略需要，現階段中共並無意急迫解決其所謂的「 臺灣問題」，而提出和平統一的口號，試圖以「一國兩制」的架構兼併臺 灣。作者首先參考了二次大戰國際現象中「分裂國家」雙方關係演變發展 的過程，以及德國和平統一的歷史經驗；觀察一九七九年以來臺海兩岸關 係的發展。諸如兩岸官方政策的互動、民間社經往來、接觸談判等各項交 流指標。其結論是：在中共採取由經濟到政治統一的迂迴策略效應下，兩 岸關係已逐漸和緩。但是，作者並不認為中共會達到其和平統一的目標， 事實上，作者認為中共一直否認臺灣為一政治實體的立場，已為中國統一 投下一個不可知的變數。

By the end of the twentieth century, there were many secessionist groups, but, the move towards Taiwanese secessionism has arguably been the most significant of these. It triggered the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, which resulted in a historical military confrontation between Mainland China and the US. As will be shown, from 1988 to 2000, Lee Teng-hui, as president of Taiwan, manipulated the political Cross-Straits relationship to promote what was ultimately a secessionist policy. This caused Mainland China to react strongly and triggered sharp tension between Taiwan and Mainland China. This thesis considers what motivated Lee Teng-hui to implement a secessionist Cross-Straits policy and why he supported unification while adopting a substantive secessionist policy. It looks at how he was able to instigate Taiwanese hostility towards Mainlanders, to transform the hostility into a sense of Taiwanese national identity and ultimately into Taiwanese secessionist ideology. A historical approach was used in exploring the origins of secessionism, and descriptive and analytical methods to review systematically and comprehensively political developments in the ROC and its civil war, and to study Lee Teng-hui’s life; the national identity of Taiwan and Mainland China; the implementation of Lee Teng-hui’s political Cross-Straits policy; and the reaction of Mainland China. The study showed that the main cause of Taiwanese secessionism was ethnic conflict between Taiwanese and Mainlanders. It originated from the 228 Incident of 1947, in which Mainlander-led troops slaughtered many Taiwanese. Soon after, the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan from Mainland China, and many Taiwanese (including Mainlanders) were killed during the State of Emergency in the 1950s and 1960s. Since the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan in its original central government form, the Mainlander élite occupied key positions in the government during the 1950s and 1960s. It resulted in unfair power-sharing for Taiwanese, and caused the Taiwanese élite to believe that they had to establish their own government (nation). Lee Teng-hui had participated in the CCP and had been under political surveillance by the Mainlander-led government for over twenty years. He weathered these political difficulties, but by reasonable inference, there was a close relationship between the political oppression by the Mainlander-led government and his secessionist political Cross-Straits policy. Because Taiwanese residents were indoctrinated by Chiang Ching-kuo and his father, Chiang Kai-shek’s administration for about 40 years, Chinese ideology was dominant and Lee Teng-hui initially paid lip-service to Cross-Strait unification whilst working towards secessionism as reflected in the Chingdao-Lake Incident (1994); the private dialogue between Lee Teng-hui and Shiba Ryotaro (1994); the address at Cornell University (1995); and his two-state theory (1999). However, due to strong pressure from Mainland China, he did not reach his secessionist goal during his presidential term (1988-2000). In conclusion, this thesis shows that Taiwan Island’s geopolitical importance is at the heart of the US’ support for Taiwan’s secession from the Mainland. Therefore, Lee’s secessionist Cross-Strait policy aside, US national interests lie in containing Mainland China and it has, therefore, always played an important role in the secessionist issue and always will. From the perspective of Mainland China, either in terms of nationalism or national security, Taiwan’s secession is a life-and-death issue. If Taiwanese authorities were to declare independence, the only option for Mainland China would be to launch a unification war. For the US, Taiwan is only a pawn that it uses to contain Mainland China. Therefore, in the Cross-Strait issue, the US has more options than Mainland China, namely, to use military intervention in the future to deter Chinese unification or to decide to share common peaceful international relations with Mainland China by accepting Cross-Strait unification. / Thesis (DPhil (International Relations))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Political Sciences / unrestricted