Civil War, or International Conflict?

Civil War, or International Conflict?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 12, 2007

Frank Hsieh said that a "civil war over democracy" is currently raging on Taiwan. But if we examine Frank Hsieh's battle plan, we see that when he uses the expression "civil war over democracy" he really means "conflict between nations."

Frank Hsieh, who once advocated "reconciliation and coexistence" has apparently changed his mind. Who knew that the first word to pop out of his mouth would be "alien regime?" The DPP has demonstrated that it is neither democratic nor progressive, so how can any war it wages be a "civil war over democracy?" If the DPP wants to be perceived as genuinely democratic and progressive, the least it can do is refer to the political opposition as "the loyal opposition." It may have political differences with the political opposition, but it should not think of it as the enemy. When the DPP refers to the opposition party as an "alien regime," it is saying that the opposition party originates in a "foreign nation," an "enemy nation." Hsieh's "civil war over democracy" is clearly an attempt to cast the election as a war of "Taiwanese" national defense against an enemy nation, "China."

To refer to Ma Ying-jeou as the representative of an "alien regime," is to disenfranchise approximately half of the voters on Taiwan, those who support Ma Ying-jeou. It is to negate his credentials as a loyal citizen of the Republic of China. It is to cast Ma Ying-jeou as an "enemy of the people." Ma Ying-jeou is a citizen of the Republic of China. He has sworn his allegiance to the government of the Republic of China in Taipei. But as long as Frank Hsieh says "You represent an alien regime, you are not Taiwanese, you are an enemy of the Taiwanese people," then Ma Ying-jeou is disqualified from being "Taiwanese" and from swearing allegiance to the Republic of China government in Taipei. Who is Frank Hsieh that he can sit in god-like judgment over the court of public opinion on Taiwan?

In fact, for Frank Hsieh to cast doubt on Ma Ying-jeou's loyalty by referring to him as the representative of an "alien regime" is chock full of irony. Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party advocate "eventual Taiwan independence." From either a constitutional or realpolitik perspective, both the "Republic of Taiwan" and the "People's Republic of China" are enemies of the Republic of China. So why must anyone who champions the Republic of China be maligned as someone who "doesn't love Taiwan," while anyone who champions a "Republic of Taiwan" is lauded as someone who "loves Taiwan?" In fact, "loving Taiwan" is the the largest common denominator for everyone living on Taiwan. "Loving Taiwan independence" on the other hand, is merely the whim of a minority of DPP members and Frank Hsieh. Disagreement with Taiwan independence hardly equals "not loving Taiwan." Therefore, if one wishes to define this election as a war between the Republic of China and a would-be "Republic of Taiwan," then naturally it amounts to a "conflict between nations" and not a "civil war for democracy." But isn't this the DPP's tired old rhetoric? Isn't this Frank Hsieh's entire battle plan?

If Frank Hsieh wants to escalate the presidential election to this level, the result will be a showdown between an alleged "alien regime" and a corrupt pro Taiwan independence political authority. Frank Hsieh apparently wants to totally repudiate Ma Ying-jeou's right to be a presidential candidate, on the grounds that Ma Ying-jeou is "not Taiwanese, does not love Taiwan, and is betraying Taiwan." Will this argument really persuade Republic of China voters on Taiwan to support the pro Taiwan independence DPP? Should Republic of China voters on Taiwan support a thoroughly corrupt DPP?

During last Monday's debate between Frank Hsieh and Ma Ying-jeou, Frank Hsieh's strategy was "back to the past." Therefore he attacked an alleged "alien regime." Ma Ying-jeou's strategy was "back to the present." Therefore he argued that "a corrupt regime has no legitimacy." Frank Hsieh used selective footage of Taiwan's history to create an ersatz "History of the 228 Incident." He harped on how many people the KMT killed. Compensation paid to the heirs of 800 dead and missing reveal the true number of victims. He glossed over the fact that had the KMT not defended Taiwan against the CCP, several generations would have been engulfed by a Red Tide. He glossed over the fact that under the CCP's "one child per couple" policy there would not be 23 million "Taiwanese" alive today. He glossed over the fact that there would be no DPP on Taiwan today, and that Frank Hsieh would not have had the opportunity to publish his "alien regime theory." By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou's "back to the present" thesis that day was quietly understated. Ma asked whether a "nativist political authority" must be a corrupt authority such as the DPP, whether it must engage in self-deception and deception of others, and whether it must cast half of the people on Taiwan as "non-Taiwanese" agents of an "alien regime?" He asked whether casting half of the people on Taiwan as "non-Taiwanese" would provide a corrupt DPP with legitimacy, or enable the DPP to realize its dream of a "Republic of Taiwan." As soon as Ma and Hsieh clash, a showdown will begin between an alleged "alien regime" and a corrupt Taiwan independence political authority.

Frank Hsieh says he advocates "reconciliation and coexistence." He says that if he is elected, he will display "tolerance" toward Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT, and that they will defend Taiwan together. Is this his idea of "reconciliation?" Is this his idea of "coexistence?" To cast one's opponent as "non-Taiwanese" during the election, but promise to display "tolerance" toward him, providing one succeeds in thrashing him at the polls, is not only absurd, it is contemptible.

Frank Hsieh must not casually initiate a war against an alleged "alien regime." If he does, he will be escalating a "civil war over democracy" to the level of a "conflict between nations." After all, approximately half the people on Taiwan are supporters of Ma Ying-jeou. Frank Hsieh refuses to acknowledge that Ma Ying-jeou is Taiwanese. He refuses to acknowledge that approximately half the people on Taiwan are "Taiwanese," i.e., a citizen of the Republic of China living in the Taiwan Region of the Republic of China. Therefore when Frank Hsieh portrays Ma Ying-jeou as an "enemy of the Taiwanese people," he has simultaneously turned himself into an "enemy of the Taiwanese people."

Reconciliation and coexistence means that every citizen of the Republic of China must be allowed to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the Republic of China, including voting and running for office.

是「民主內戰」，還是「敵國交戰」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.12 04:10 am

謝長廷說，台灣正在進行一場「民主內戰」。然而，檢視謝長廷漸次攤開的選戰全圖，這豈是「民主內戰」，根本就是一場「敵國交戰」。

原以為主張「和解共生」的謝長廷別有新意，豈料一開口又是「外來政權」。既不民主，也不進步。若謂是「民主內戰」，至少應當相互承認對方是「忠誠的反對黨」；即使政見歧異，畢竟不能相互以「敵國」視之。然而，指對方為「外來政權」，就是說對方是「外國」，是「敵國」；這豈是「民主內戰」，根本就是要將大選打成一場「敵國交戰」。

指馬英九是「外來政權」，就是根本否定受到約半數國人支持的馬英九有作為台灣人的資格，亦是根本否定他有效忠台灣的資格，不啻即是指馬英九為台灣公敵；縱使馬英九自我認同為台灣人，且真正效忠台灣，但只要謝長廷說，你是「外來政權」，你不是「台灣人」，你是「台灣公敵」，馬英九就沒有資格作台灣人，就沒有資格效忠台灣。謝長廷是何許人也，他難道是坐在台灣政治法庭中的上帝？

謝長廷以「外來政權」質疑馬英九的政治忠貞，其實充滿弔詭。謝長廷與民進黨是主張「終極台獨」的，就憲政現實而論，「台灣共和國」和「中華人民共和國」，都是「中華民國」的「敵國」；則為何主張「中華民國」者不是愛台灣，而只有主張「台灣共和國」者才是愛台灣？其實，愛台灣是台灣人的最大公約數，主張台獨則是民進黨及謝長廷等一部分人的見解。不同意台獨，不等於不愛台灣！因而，倘若將這場選戰定位為「中華民國」與「台灣共和國」之間的戰爭，自然是一場「敵國交戰」，而非「民主內戰」。這難道不是民進黨過去一貫的選戰伎倆？又難道不正是謝長廷此次的選戰全圖？

謝長廷若將選戰提升到此一高度，恐將演成「外來政權」與「貪腐台獨政權」之間的戰爭。謝長廷似乎想從根本處即完全否定馬英九的參選資格（因為馬英九不是台灣人，不愛台灣，背叛台灣）；但是，難道如此就能誘騙台灣人去支持主張台獨的民進黨嗎？或難道如此台灣人就應支持貪腐無狀至如此地步的民進黨嗎？

看謝長廷與馬英九周一的辯論，謝長廷的戰略是「回到從前」，所以猛攻「外來政權」；馬英九的戰略則是「回歸現在」，所以他說「貪腐政府沒有正當性」。謝長廷將一部台灣史剪接成一部「泛二二八史」；例如，他又提國民黨殺了多少人（二二八死亡失蹤受補償者八百餘人），卻不說若不是國民黨「反共保台」，台灣幾代數千萬人口早已陷於中共的紅潮赤焰之中（因一胎化，台灣今日不會有二千三百萬人），台灣亦不會有民進黨，而謝長廷今日也絕無發表「外來政權論」的機會。另一方面，馬英九當日「回歸現在」的措辭比較含蓄，但是，所謂「本土政權」就應當是民進黨這種貪腐無狀的政權嗎？所謂「本土政權」，就應當是民進黨這種操弄「自欺欺人」的台獨騙局，並暴虐地將約半數「台灣人」打成「非台灣人」的政權嗎？把約一半「台灣人」打成「非台灣人」就能使民進黨的貪腐正當化嗎？將約一半的「台灣人」打成支持「外來政權」的「非台灣人」，就能實現台灣共和國嗎？馬謝交鋒，一場「貪腐台獨政權」與「外來政權」的大戰就此登場。

謝長廷主張和解共生。他說，只要他選贏了，他就會「包容」馬英九及國民黨，一起來保衛台灣。這算什麼「和解」？這又算什麼「共生」？這種在選舉時將他人打成「非台灣人」，選贏才「包容」他人為「台灣人」的惡念，非但荒謬，亦復卑鄙。

謝長廷勿再輕易挑起「外來政權」的戰火。這是將「民主內戰」，升高至「敵國交戰」。畢竟馬英九亦有約半數國人的支持者，謝長廷不承認馬英九為台灣人，即是不承認約半數國人是台灣人。如此，當謝長廷欲將馬英九塑造成「台灣公敵」的同時，謝長廷自己亦儼然已成「台灣公敵」。

和解共生：每一個台灣人都有作台灣人的權利！