How many More Times do We need to Play these Word Games?

How many More Times do We need to Play these Word Games?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2007

President Chen Shui-bian has modified the wording of the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution for a Normal Nation." On September 30, the DPP National Congress will retain Chen's version of the resolution. It will not replace it with Yu's version. In remarkably short order, the DPP has resolved its tempest in a teapot. It now has an officially sanctioned version it can present to the US, to Taiwan independence organizations, and to indicted Chairman Yu Hsi-kuen, who has been forced to resign over the Discretionary Fund case. The DPP may be committed to Taiwan independence, and it may be determined to engage in reckless brinksmanship. But how many such games must it play before it becomes a responsible ruling party?

This is reminiscent of how Chen Shui-bian got rid of the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Chen replaced the language of the resolution with radical Taiwan independence rhetoric. The new wording asserted that Taiwan was already a sovereign and independent country. It asserted that any changes required a plebiscite by the entire population of the country. This time is no different. Internal and external factors, as well as election considerations, have forced pro-independence factions to tone down Yu's version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation. The toned down version remains within the bounds established by the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. It remains within the bounds established by the DPP's document "The Founding of a Republic of Taiwan." Yu Hsi-kuen acquiesced with a smile. His response reflected the Democratic Progressive Party's recognition of reality.

The new version "acknowledges that the name Republic of China is difficult to use in international society." It does not deny that the name of the nation is the Republic of China. It advocates joining international organizations under the name of Taiwan. It advocates "swiftly completing the rectification of names, the authoring of a new new constitution, the holding of a plebiscite, demonstrating that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." It quietly avoids such sensitive topics such as "the rectification of the name of the nation to Taiwan." In the new version, the "rectification of names" is not directly linked to the "change in the name of the nation." Plebiscites are not directly linked to Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian is playing word games. He is allowing Taiwan independence zealots to imagine they had gotten what they demanded. But what they got was imaginary.

Are such imaginary victories enough for pro-independence elements? In 1999, the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" softened the rhetoric of its "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution." This allowed the DPP to win the 2000 Presidential Election. This allowed a party that repudiates the existence of the Republic of China to become the ruling party of the Republic of China, under the ageis of the Constitution of the Republic of China. Like it or not, DPP party members cannot deny that they once were, or still are, officials of the Republic of China.

The problem is the DPP is acutely aware of the impact of such variables on electoral success and failure, including changes to their Taiwan independence Party Constitution. What the DPP has never been able to come to grips with is that it is already the ruling party, that it is in charge of the nation, that it has been in power for over seven years. The DPP constantly waffles. It denies the legitimacy of the nation for which it has already officially assumed responsibility. The legitimacy of the Republic of China is treated as a punching bag. Every so often the DPP must give it a punch, usually when an election rolls around. Taiwan, as fate would have it, has no shortage of elections. This idiosyncracy means the ruling DPP government will remain forever subject to political interference.

Following regime change, the DPP, motivated by its anti-nuclear ideology, halted construction on the Number Four Nuclear Plant. This decision, unrelated to the issue of reunification vs. independence, resulted in the DPP getting off to a shaky start. This state of affairs persisted for several years. It was followed by endless "rectification of names" controversies, "authoring of a new constitution" controversies, "changing the name of the nation" controversies. Every controversy shook the market. Domestically, economic development was held hostage. Internationally, diplomatic relations became progressively more difficult. Forget Taipei/Washington relations. Even normal diplomatic relations became increasingly arduous.

Viewed positively, Chen's version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation finally acknowledges the international pressure. Chen mobilized pro-independence organizations to march in favor of the "rectification of names." But he pragmatically limited it to domestic consumption. Take the DPP's campaign theme for 2008 for example. Its "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" does not involve authoring a new constitution or changing the name of the nation.

Let's not worry about whether such concessions will mollify the US. The question is, will they mollify voters who have already endured over seven years of ideologically motivated DPP misrule? The DPP was founded 21 years ago. It has been in office for over seven years. How many more years will it be before it realizes enough is enough? Confronted with a crisis, the DPP gladly accepted Chen's version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation. This temporarily relieved the election crisis for DPP presidential and vice presidential candidates Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang. But what about after the election? Hsieh and Su are different from Chen. They announced their candidacy after Chen was already in power for over than seven years. They face more serious problems than Chen. If Hsieh and Su are elected, will Taiwan have to endure eight more years of endless amendments to the constitution; of endless threats to author a new constitution, rectify names, and change the name of the nation; of endless controversy and agitation?

Yu's version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation was a "UXB," an unexploded bomb. That Chen and Hsieh joined hands to defeat it is no doubt cause for rejoicing. But how many more UXBs remain? A responsible ruling party, a responsible leader, a political leader preparing to compete for the nation's highest office, really ought to consider the well-being the people. They really shouldn't be wasting time and energy playing meaningless but dangerous word games.

Courtesy the China Times.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.09.27
這種「決議文」的文字震盪遊戲還要玩幾回？
中時社論

　不論是對美國交代、對獨派交代、或者對因特別費遭起訴請辭的黨主席游錫？交代，民進黨在陳水扁總統出手整合並調整文字後，確認九三○全代會不再有所謂的「游版正常國家決議文」，取而代之的是「扁版正常國家決議文」，在極短時間中，化解一場民進黨茶壺裡的風暴，問題是，做為一個台獨意識如此堅定，一而再、再而三向統獨紅線挑戰的政黨，還要玩多少次這樣的把戲，才能真正成為負責任的執政黨？

　一如當年陳水扁出手調整台灣前途決議文，將激進的台獨主張，以文字微調，承認台灣已是主權獨立國家，所有有關獨立現狀的更動，都須全體住民以公民投票方式決定；這一回又是在內外形勢與選舉考量下，將獨派堅持的「游版決議文」再做文字微調，而調整之後的文字，既未超過台灣前途決議文，更未超過建黨時明確標舉「建立台灣共和國」的黨綱，游錫？最後含笑接受，反應的是民進黨認知現實的基本性格。

　在這份新版決議文中，「體認中華民國這個國號已很難在國際社會使用」，但卻未否認中華民國現有國號這個事實；進一步主張以台灣名義加入國際組織，「早日完成台灣正名，制定新憲法，在適當時機舉行公民投票，以彰顯台灣為主權獨立的國家。」但含蓄地化解了「國家（或國號）應正名為台灣」的敏感話題，在上述文字中，正名並未與改國號直接掛鉤、公投並未直接與台獨掛鉤，某種程度可以說，陳水扁又玩了一次文字遊戲，讓所有台獨的想像在此中得到滿足，但所有的想像只能是想像。

　這樣的想像對獨派人士是否就足夠了呢？一九九九年，台灣前途決議文緩和了台獨黨綱的激進本質，讓民進黨贏得二千年總統大選，讓一個否定中華民國的政黨，從而成為在中華民國憲法下宣誓就職的政府，不論民進黨人是否歡喜甘願，他們無法否認自己曾經或還是中華民國的政務官。

　麻煩的是，民進黨永遠可以敏感的知覺選舉成敗的各種變數，包括他們得微調台獨黨綱；但民進黨卻始終無法調適或相信自己已經是一個執政黨，是統籌國是的政府，執政七年多，民進黨反反覆覆地挑戰他們已經進入的這個國家：中華民國體制的正當性，就像打擺子般，時不時就得來一次，發作時間又經常性地與選舉連結，偏偏台灣就是不缺選舉，這個莫名其妙的特性，讓民進黨政府的政策永遠受到政治因素的嚴重干擾。

　政黨輪替之初，民進黨因為廢核的神主牌，硬是停建核四，這個無涉統獨的一項政策作為，已經讓民進黨執政跨出步履蹣跚的第一步，讓接續的幾年始終搖搖擺擺；再加上接下來不斷出現的正名、制憲、改國號等政治爭議，每一次爭議在內就是造成市場震盪，經濟發展始終因此受困；在外就是對外關係愈漸艱難，台美關係不用說了，連正常邦交都愈見費力。

　這一次「扁版決議文」出爐，從好的一方面看，是陳水扁終於體會到國際壓力，務實地將概括於台灣正名之下的所有社會動員，調整框限於內部消費之用：就是一個民進黨打二○○八年選戰的主軸吧，這個主軸是以入聯公投為核心，無涉制憲改國號。

　這樣的調整，能否說服美國姑且不論，問題是，已經忍受七多年意識形態治國的中間選民能被說服嗎？建黨廿一年、執政七年多的民進黨，還要搞多少年才肯罷休？刻正焦頭爛額拚搏大選的民進黨正副總統參選人謝長廷和蘇貞昌，理應欣然接受「扁版決議文」，為他們化解了暫時的選舉危機，但是，大選之後呢？謝蘇和扁不同的是，他們的參選是在扁執政七年多之後，他們會比扁面對更深一層的問題：謝蘇若當選，台灣社會是否還要再來一趟八年，反反覆覆陷入修制憲正名改國號的爭議與震盪？

　扁謝聯手拆解「游版決議文」這個未爆彈，一場風波消弭於無形固然值得慶幸，但更重要的是，台灣的未爆彈到底拆解了沒有？做為負責任的執政黨、負責任的領導人、準備競逐國家大位的政治領袖，真的要為台灣想想，在這些毫無意義卻製造緊張的文字遊戲上，還要虛耗多少時間與精力！