The August 30th Protest March: Fundamentalism vs. Revisionism

The August 30th Protest March: Fundamentalism vs. Revisionism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
September 2, 2008

Two years ago in September, Chen Shui-bian had been in office six years and four months. The Red Shirt Army was giving him the thumbs down, shouting "A Bian step down!" Last Saturday, Ma Ying-jeou had been in office 100 days. Green Camp protesters also used the thumbs down gesture, shouting "Ma Ying-jeou step down!"

The Green Camp protest march can be judged in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, large numbers of people participated. After all, the DPP received 5,440,000 votes in the presidential election. Arranging last Saturday's turnout was not difficult. What's worth pondering however, is the quality of the event. The Green Camp is  adept at camouflaging its actual agenda. The Taiwan independence movement has successfully camouflaged its agenda for several decades now. It exercised considerable restraint in its "Support A Bian!" agenda. The march may not have been a  "Support A Bian!" event, but neither was it a "Condemn A Bian!" event. The Green Camp's relationship with Chen Shui-bian has yet to be determined.  This was however, a Taiwan independence event. The Taiwan independence agenda was open and explicit.

Taiwan independence organizations and the DPP's Central Committee, led by Tsai Ing-wen, organized and carried out the march. They grappled over whether its theme should be Chen Shui-bian or Taiwan independence. They clashed over how to deal with Chen Shui-bian.

They  considered  allowing Chen Shui-bian to participate in the march. But then the money-laundering scandal erupted. Huang Chao-tang said he hoped Chen Shui-bian would "vanish from the face of the earth." Tsai Ing-wen said "So the rumors were true!" Chen Gau-tzu played along with A Bian's claim that he had established a "Taiwan independence treasury." Kao Chun-ming and others called on the public to forgive Chen Shui-bian, the same way they forgave kidnapper and serial killer Chen Chin-hsing. The DPP Central Standing Committee accused the "Kuomintang and [mainland] China of colluding to persecute A Bian and Taiwan." A public backlash ensued. Suggestions that they not support A Bian emerged from within the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan independence movement. Chen Shui-bian issued a statement, urging supporters to participate in the procession, "leading the country back in the right direction." The organizers stressed that they "weren't supporting any individual." Tsai Ing-wen said "Very few people still think Chen Shui-bian is right." Koo Kuan-min and Taiwan independence elements distanced themselves from A Bian. Chen Shui-bian responded, saying "Let them cast stones!"

These twists and turns suggest that Huang Chao-tang and Tsai Ying-wen have been trying to distance themselves from A Bian ever since the money-laundering scandal erupted. Older generation figures such as Chen Chao-tzu and Kao Chun-ming however, still want to support A Bian to the bitter end. The result has been a tug of war. In the end the march adopted a position of "no support for any individual." This was merely a stopgap measure. The "No support for A Bian" resolution merely shelved the dispute. The Green Camp and  the DPP have not decided how to define Chen Shui-bian.

By contrast, the march's pro-independence position was open and explicit.  The DPP did its utmost to camouflage the march's Taiwan independence agenda. Most of the signs displayed platitudes, adopting "filling bellies" as their theme. But most of the homemade signs demanded Taiwan independence. One sign read "Drive the Republic of China government in exile from  Taiwan." Emotions ran high. The  tone was harsh. A large number of signs attacked Ma Ying-jeou. Almost all attacked his sense of national identity. Some read "Favoring China Means Betraying Taiwan!" or "Traitors!" Needless to say, event organizer Kao Chun-ming repeatedly underscored their aim of establishing a "Nation of Taiwan."

The march had two agendas: Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence. One. Let's look at Chen Shui-bian. For Deep Green elements Taiwan independence and Chen Shui-bian cannot be delinked. The Taiwan independence movement supports A Bian because it supports independence. Chen Shui-bian supports Taiwan independence because he is corrupt. The two are inseparable. After all, over the past several decades, Chen Shui-bian has been the most representative and most effective standard-bearer for Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui has already faded from the scene. Tsai Ing-wen is not a fundamentalist. If the Taiwan independence movement is so willing to listen to Chen Shui-bian, it is done for. Chen Shui-bian has been utterly discredited. Yet Kao Chun-ming still refuses to give up on him. The Green Camp still cannot bring itself to condemn A Bian. The Green Camp is still fighting over whether to disown Chen Shui-bian.

The agenda of the march revealed Taiwan's ongoing political polarization. Taiwan  remains mired  in  such dualisms  as "betraying Taiwan vs. loving Taiwan" and "defending the Republic of China vs. establishing a Nation of Taiwan." Politics on Taiwan remains  a Gordian Knot. Admittedly, the Republic of China is finding it difficult to survive. Ma Ying-jeou's cross-strait policy must be subjected to  criticism and oversight. But the Taiwan independence movement's so-called "defense of sovereignty" has nothing  to do with defending the sovereignty of the Republic of China. On the contrary, it undermines the sovereignty of the Republic of China. It advocates its replacement by a  would-be "Nation of Taiwan." This leaves supporters of the Republic of China with no other choice. It also leaves less negotiating room for cross-Strait policy, because most people do not consider  a "Nation of Taiwan" a viable alternative. Within the Green Camp, Taiwan independence elements have long held the Democratic Progressive Party hostage. They prevented the DPP from gaining the support of centrist voters under the single constituency electoral system. The protest march has set the tone for Taiwan independence. The revisionism championed by Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP is a dead letter.

The fundamentalists and revisionists within the Green Camp are fighting over whether to condemn Chen Shui-bian. The fundamentalist will never condemn Chen Shui-bian, because they do not trust Tsai Ing-wen with their "Nation of Taiwan." Preserving the Chen Shui-bian faction allows them to check Tsai Ing-wen. If, on the other hand, the revisionists gain control, they will inevitably escalate their criticisms of Chen Shui-bian. They may even find it necessary  to disown him. If Chen Shui-bian weakens, Taiwan independence elements will lose their political icon and their political leverage. A Green Camp hijacked by Taiwan independence elements will rapidly lose power.

The Green Camp march was in fact a stage on which the two major factions within the DPP struggled to determine the party's future. The agreement not to support A Bian was merely a stopgap measure. The two sides still need to decide whether to support A Bian or to disown him.

解讀830：基本教義與修正主義的角力
【聯合報社論╱社論】
2008.09.02 03:21 am

兩年前的九月，陳水扁執政六年四個月，紅衫軍拇指朝下，高喊「阿扁下台」；上周六，馬英九執政百日，綠營遊行隊伍也出現拇指朝下的鏡頭，高喊「馬英九下台」。

綠 營這次遊行，可從量與質兩方面來看。就「量」說，人數不少；畢竟民進黨在總統大選得票五四四萬，能夠撐出上周六的場面不是難事。值得玩味的是這場遊行的 「質」：一方面，綠營仍維持善於隱忍訴求的特質（台獨時隱時現了幾十年），將「挺扁」的訴求節制至極點；不過，遊行雖未見「挺扁」，但畢竟不是「批扁」， 綠營與陳水扁的關係如何尚無定論；另一方面，由於這畢竟是台獨社團的主場，所以台獨的訴求在遊行中仍是直接、公開而且強烈。

遊行自籌辦至執行，皆顯見台獨社團與民進黨蔡英文黨中央的博弈，角力的主題亦在「陳水扁」及「台獨」兩個項目。關於如何處理陳水扁，雙方折衝曾有以下波折：

本 來不排除陳水扁參加遊行→爆洗錢案，黃昭堂叫陳水扁從世界消失→蔡英文說「過去的傳聞果然是真的」→陳昭姿宣布「台獨金庫」→高俊明等呼籲，用寬恕陳進興 的心情寬恕陳水扁→民進黨中常會指「國民黨與中國聯手迫害」→輿論譁然，民進黨及獨派漸漸浮現「不挺扁」的聲音→陳水扁發表聲明，籲支持者參加遊行，「引 領國家重新回到正確的方向」→主辦單位再申「不挺個人」→蔡英文說「現在還認為扁是對的人，已經很少了」→辜寬敏及獨派均表態「切割」→陳水扁說：「他們 用石頭砸我！」

由前述周折可見，在洗錢案爆發時，黃昭堂及蔡英文似已有趁勢「切割」的意圖；但陳昭姿及高俊明之輩卻仍想力挺，遂又形成拉鋸。遊行最後採「不挺個人」的立場，顯然只是雙方暫時的妥協；所謂「不挺扁」，其實只是擱置不論，綠營或民進黨尚未對陳水扁作出政治定讞。

相 對而言，這次遊行的台獨立場則是直接且強烈。民進黨似已極力設法掩飾遊行中台獨的訴求，因此隊伍中絕大部分的「制式」標語，皆以「顧腹肚」為主題；但是， 大部分的「自製」標語，則在訴諸台獨，例如「流亡政府中華民國滾出去」等，其思想及語氣皆甚強烈。其間又有大量針對馬英九的標語，幾乎全皆攻擊其國家認 同，例如「傾中賣台」、「賣國賊」等。當然，主辦者高俊明等也反覆強調「台灣國」，不在話下。

接下來，仍依「陳水 扁」及「台獨」兩路，來試論遊行後的局勢。先談陳水扁。對於深綠陣營而言，「台獨」與「陳水扁」是不能脫鉤的。「台獨因獨挺扁，阿扁因貪挺獨」，二者已有 難以分割的關係。畢竟，陳水扁是數十年來最具代表性及操作能力的台獨旗手，李登輝已成泡沫，蔡英文亦不似基本教義派；台獨若聽任陳水扁就此傾仆，即幾乎可 以斷言香火將熄。因此，陳水扁臭到這個地步，高俊明等仍不輕言放棄；綠營遂仍不可能「批扁」，而是否要與陳水扁「切割」亦仍將是綠營的路線鬥爭主題。

再 談台獨。此次遊行的訴求顯示，台灣的政治對抗，仍然停留在「賣台／愛台」、「中華民國／台灣國」的對立，這使得台灣政治仍是一個無解的死結。誠然，中華民 國的生存極度艱難，馬英九的兩岸政策須受監督批評；但是，台獨所謂「顧主權」，並非站在維持中華民國的立場說話，而是站在否定中華民國、建立台灣國的立場 發言。這不但使得支持中華民國者沒有第二個選擇，亦使兩岸政策損失了辯證的空間；因為，多數國人不認為「台灣國」是一條生路。另對於綠營來說，由於台獨始 終挾持民進黨，也使民進黨在「單一選區」的選制中失去了向中間開拓的空間。因而，此次遊行既被定調為台獨，蔡英文及民進黨的修正主義即變成了無意義。

未 來，綠營中「基教派」與「修正派」的角力，仍在是否批扁。一方面，「基教派」不可能批扁，因為他們不可能將「台灣國」託付給蔡英文；維持扁系，即可節制蔡 英文。另一方面，「修正派」若欲主導局面，卻必須逐漸深化批扁，甚至與扁切割；因為，扁的耗弱，將使台獨陣營失去最後一個政治象徵及政治槓桿，也就會使台 獨挾持綠營的力量迅速流失。

就此而言，這次綠營遊行，其實是內部「兩條路線」的鬥爭舞台。「不挺扁」只是暫時遮蔽了鬥爭，雙方接下來仍勢須就是否「批扁」及是否「與扁切割」做一個了斷！