Direct Flights: Is the Door Locked on the Inside or the Outside?

Direct Flights: Is the Door Locked on the Inside or the Outside?
United Daily News
translated by Bevin Chu
June 13, 2007

Comment: An excellent editorial. Really nails Pan Green mendacity to the wall.

Why are the Pan Greens so terrified of direct links? Because direct links would undermine their ongoing attempt to indoctrinate the Chinese people on Taiwan with the notion that they are "Taiwanese, not Chinese."

Taiwan independence is rooted not in any alleged love of "freedom, democracy, and human rights," but in self-hating "Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics.

Close contact with fellow Chinese on the Chinese mainland would subvert the Pan Green attempt to promote "wen hua tai du" (culturally oriented Taiwan independence) by making boogeymen of their fellow Chinese.

Direct Flights: Is the Door Locked on the Inside or the Outside?
United Daily News
translated by Bevin Chu
June 13, 2007

The Kuomintang (KMT) has proposed a "Direct Flights Plebiscite." The Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Legislative Committee has mocked its proposal, declaring that the matter is simply "not up to us." Their argument is pretty strange, considering that the DPP is the biggest obstacle to direct flights across the Taiwan Straits.

Taiwan's economy has been in a slump. The main reason is the DPP's Closed Door Policy. This is something that both the man in the street and international rating organizations understand quite well. Now, the opposition party wants to break through the DPP's self-imposed blockade by holding a plebiscite. The DPP has responded, saying the door was locked not by the Chen regime from the inside, but by the Chinese Communist Party from the outside. Does the DPP really think it can shrug off its own responsibility like that?

Closer examination of the DPP's argument that "The Commies locked the door, not us" reveals that the DPP has fallen into its own trap. At first the DPP told people: For the political and economic security of Taiwan, we cannot allow direct flights to and from the mainland. Many people believed them. They believed that Taiwan's front door must be locked, and direct flights must not be allowed. But years later, many of these same people have realized that a perpetual state of siege is not the answer. The status quo must change. So now the DPP tells everybody: "The reason you can't get out, is that the door is locked from the outside." Does the DPP really think the public is going to swallow that argument?

In reality, Deep Green hardliners within the DPP have always opposed direct flights, and the DPP has always exaggerated the negative impact of direct flights. Yet today, the DPP is loudly proclaiming that direct flights are "not up to us," implying that "It's not that we're opposed to direct flights. It's that Beijing won't agree." Well if that truly is the case, then why does the DPP oppose a "Direct Flights Plebiscite?" Why doesn't it actively encourage the public to participate in the plebiscite, expressing the will of the people? Wouldn't that make the DPP's willingness to promote direct flights known to Beijing? The DPP insists that direct flights are "not up to us." The reality is the DPP is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of "Anti-Closed Door" public sentiment.

The direct flights issue has evolved to the point where it must be put to a vote. The saddest aspect of this controversy is not whether the door was locked from the inside or from the outside, but that a political party purporting to be "democratic" and "progressive" cares nothing about the will of the people. A political party that relentlessly trumpets the value of plebiscites as an expression of the will of the people, regards plebiscites as its exclusive franchise, and forbids its use to others. Not content to manipulate public opinion, the DPP also subverts the democratic process.

The KMT's "Direct Flights Plebiscite" may be a defensive maneuver aimed at the DPP's "KMT Party Assets Plebiscite." But at a deeper level it also has offensive significance. Besides liberating the KMT from self-imposed restrictions, it allows the KMT to turn one of the DPP's favorite weapons against itself. If direct flights are "not up to us," is "Joining the UN under the name of Taiwan" up to us? Why is it permissible to hold a plebiscite on "Joining the UN under the name of Taiwan," despite the fact that it is "not up to us," but not permissible to hold a plebiscite on "direct flights?" Are we to understand that whether the public on Taiwan is permitted to hold a plebiscite is up to the DPP?

The fact is the "Direct Flights Plebiscite" and the "Joining the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite" are different level issues that require different level solutions. Cross-Straits direct flights will of course touch upon sensitive issues such as air routes. But because they involve only the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, so long as both sides are sincere, finding a compromise at the technical level should not be too difficult. In fact, direct flights between Taiwan and Hong Kong and between Taiwan and Macau have already provided us with precedents. On this point the DPP, due to its ossified mindset, may be unable to achieve a breakthrough. The KMT on the other hand, may be able to make some progress by making an end run around the problem. Plebiscites in favor of "Joining the UN under the name of the Republic of China" or "Joining the UN under the name of Taiwan" will inevitably touch upon other nations' China policy. Those, by contrast, truly are "not up to us."

Recently, game wardens attempting to capture a "tiger" in the Linkou mountain area wound up capturing a dog instead. The 2004 "Taiwan Independence Plebiscite" became the "Guided Missiles Plebiscite." The "Guided Missiles Plebiscite" became the "Buy Guided Missiles Plebiscite." The exalted status of plebiscites under a constitutional government has been reduced to an election season farce. Today, both the Blue and Green camps are determined to "link" plebiscites to elections, as tightly as possible. Predictably, few will capture any "tigers," but many will capture dogs. Seeing plebiscites abused in such a manner is hardly something anyone wants to see.

Don't tell us how many locks have been installed on the door to the Chinese mainland. Just ask the DPP to remove the locks it has installed on the inside of the door. Otherwise, why shouldn't we demand a plebiscite?

Original Chinese below:

兩岸直航：這道鎖是掛在門裡或門外？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.06.13 04:08 am

國民黨計畫提出「直航公投」，民進黨立院黨團對此冷嘲熱諷，聲稱此事根本不是「操之在我」。這個說法真奇怪，難道民進黨政府不正是兩岸直航的最大障礙？

近幾年台灣經濟低迷，主要是受扼於民進黨的鎖國政策，這是市井小民乃至國際社會人盡皆知的事。如今，在野黨欲藉公投的民意來突破鎖國政策，民進黨卻突然狡辯說，鎖住兩岸直航大門的，不是門內的扁政府，而是門外的中共。這樣，民進黨就能賴掉自己的責任嗎？

分析民進黨這種「內鎖變外鎖」的理論，可以發現它已困陷在自己設置的牢籠之內。一開始，民進黨告訴人民：為了台灣經濟和政治的安全，不能和大陸直航；許多民眾也相信了這套說法，覺得台灣的大門必須鎖住，不能直航。但年復一年，許多民眾逐漸發現坐困圍城不是辦法，現狀必須有所改變；民進黨如今卻告訴大家：你們走不出去，因為大門是從外面被鎖住了。這種邏輯，民眾能接受嗎？

其實，民進黨內的深綠獨派一直反對直航，且民進黨亦一直渲染直航的負面影響。如今當民進黨大呼直航「不是操之在我」時，它似乎是要說：我們不是「不想」直航，而是對岸不同意。如果真是這樣，民進黨為何反對「直航公投」？其實何妨積極鼓勵民眾參與公投，展現民意，至少可將「操之在我」的直航條件展現出來。但民進黨卻說「不是操之在我」，其實就是不願面對「反對鎖國」的公投民意。

當直航問題演變到必須訴諸公投，對台灣民眾而言，最可悲的，倒不是這扇大門究竟是從門內或門外上了鎖，而是一個以民主進步為名的政黨對「民意」根本毫不在乎。一再強調「公投」的價值，卻又視之為自己獨占的工具，不許別人使用；民進黨豈止玩弄了民意，也扭曲了民主政治。

這次，國民黨計畫提出「直航公投」，雖是針對民進黨「討黨產公投」的防衛性戰術，但深一層看，似乎也具有進攻的意義。除了不再畫地自限，更可「以子之矛、攻子之盾」。如果直航不是「操之在我」，難道以「台灣名義加入聯合國」，竟然可以「操之在我」？為什麼「不是操之在我」的「以台灣名義加入聯合國」可以公投，但同樣被指為「不是操之在我」的「兩岸直航」卻不許公投？難道可不可以公投，一切標準亦皆操之在民進黨？

必須分辨的是，「直航公投」和「加入聯合國公投」畢竟是不同層次的議題，應該分別看待。以兩岸直航為例，雖不免觸及航線定位的敏感話題，但因為只涉及兩岸，只要雙方有足夠的誠意，不難在技術層面找到共同的妥協出路，事實上，台港、台澳直航早已提供了模式。在這一點上，民進黨因思維僵化而無法突破，國民黨或許可以迂迴而取得進展，倒是值得寄望。至於「以中華民國名義加入聯合國」，或「以台灣名義加入聯合國」，因為必將觸動國際維持的「中國政策」，那恐怕才皆非「操之在我」。

最近林口山區的「打虎」行動，卻以「抓狗」收場。自二○○四年的「台獨公投」變成「飛彈公投」，「反飛彈公投」又變成「買飛彈公投」以來，公投的神聖憲政地位，已然變成選季的鬧劇。如今，藍綠皆致力於「公投綁大選」，綁成像一串葷素莫辨的粽子，更可預言其中「打虎」者少，「抓狗」者多。公投制度被作踐到這般地步，真是令人不忍卒睹。

然而，不要告訴我們直航的大門外掛了幾道鎖，請民進黨先把它在門內的那把鎖解開！否則，何不訴諸公投？