The Fourth Link: A Conceptual Link

The Fourth Link: A Conceptual Link
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2008

The term "three links," as applied to cross-Strait relations, first appeared 30 years ago. Yesterday Chiang Pin-kung and Chen Yunlin finally made it a reality.

The "three links" refer to direct maritime shipping, postal, and trade links, and apply to people and goods. But all three have their origins in a fourth link, a conceptual link. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and the political opposition on Taiwan, must all be able to make this conceptual link.

Actually Chiang Ching-kuo initiated the process of direct links when he allowed military veterans to visit their relatives on the Mainland 20 years ago. Only maritime and air links were established, and the links were not direct. The agreement signed yesterday did not establish links, but rather direct links. The establishment of direct links has been unnecessarily delayed for 20 years. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and political opposition on Taiwan may have had difficulty making the necessary conceptual links, but that hardly meant they opposed direct links.

To allow flights but to disallow direct flights makes utterly no sense. For example, to fly from Taipei to Beijing, one must transit Hong Kong. This makes as little sense as transiting Penghu to fly from Taipei to Kaohsiung. It made even less sense after Hong Kong's retrocession to China in 1997, this time under the administration of Beijing. In effect direct links were allowed to only one city on Mainland China, Hong Kong, but not to other cities on Mainland China. This was the most absurd conceptual block of all. These sorts of conceptual blocks wasted a staggering amount of time and money. They defied logic and made one wonder why no one seemed to have thought the matter through.

The real author of three links was Chiang Ching-kuo. Deng Xiaoping responded constructively to Chiang's initiative. Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law. He allowed veterans to visit their relatives on the Mainland. In the name of veterans visiting their relatives, cross-Strait trade and tourism took off. Politically, Chiang Ching-kuo's lifting of martial law allowed Taiwan to breathe. Economically, Chiang Ching-kuo's cross-strait exchanges allowed both Taiwan and the Mainland to prosper. The simultaneous lifting of martial law and opening of cross-Strait exchanges allowed Taiwan to interact with the Mainland. It also forced the Mainland to acknowledge Taiwan's democratic institutions.

Over the past 20 years, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have experienced sharp conflicts. These conflicts have delayed direct flights until today. But the primary obstacle was conceptual. One. On the Taiwan side, leaders such as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian engaged in political deceit, ripping the nation apart. In terms of cross-Strait relations, they failed to lead the public in the right direction. Cross-Strait trust evaporated. Two. On the Mainland side, they failed to minimize problems. They only knew how to use force. They continued thinking of cross-Strait relations in terms of the KMT vs. CCP Civil War. They failed to respond to Taiwan's system of democracy and the public mood.

On the Mainland, Beijing defined Taiwan using "One Country, Two Systems", "One China" or "Peaceful Reunification." On Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui sent a secret envoy to the Mainland and established the National Unification Guidelines. But eventually he trotted out his short-lived "Two States Theory." Chen Shui-bian advocated a "New Centrist Path" and the "Five Noes." But eventually he engaged in self-deception and became enamoured with the "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution." Over the past 20 years, the Beijing authorities have pushed Lee and Chen from the center towards Taiwan independence. Meanwhile, the cross-Strait tensions Lee and Chen provoked have brought Beijing back to a calmer and more rational path. The two sides have finally signed a direct links agreement. Can it be they have finally thought matters through?

The two sides have been learning from their mistakes for the past 20 years. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and political opposition on Taiwan, have learned a number of painful lessons. On the Taiwan side, Lee and Chen went too far in deceiving the public. They severely undermined cross-Strait relations. This led to the second change in ruling parties. The KMT lost power in 2000. The DPP lost power in 2008. Both lost power as a result of failed cross-Strait policies. Beijing, meanwhile, has been witness to 20 years of turmoil on Taiwan, making it acutely aware of its complex politics. Today slogans such as "One Country, Two Systems" and "Peaceful Reunification" have faded from the scene. They have been replaced by "Maintain the status quo," "Uphold the 1992 consensus," (i.e., One China, Different Expressions") "Win/Win and mutual prosperity" and "Peaceful development."

Twenty years of turmoil have forced the two sides to finally think matters through. Direct flights are now a matter of course. Therefore three links was not the most significant achievement of yesterday's Chiang/Chen Meeting signing ceremony. The most significant achievement was the change in the two sides' thinking. In other words, the conceptual breakthrough was of vastly greater importance than any institutional breakthrough.

As we stand astride this historic roadmark, we see how the three major political parties on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have positioned themselves. The Democratic Progressive Party has returned to the era of "Annihilate the Communist bandits!" and a "Nation of Taiwan." The Chinese Communist Party is wondering whether Chen Yunlin ought to address Ma Ying-jeou as President Ma. The Kuomintang finds itself caught between the DPP and the CCP.

Let us return to Chiang Ching-kuo's thinking. Taiwan should conduct exchanges with the mainland, consistent with its system of democracy. It must not manipulate its system of democracy. It must not tear the nation apart. The Mainland must acknowledge Taiwan's system of democracy. It must not misapprehend the public's mood. It must not harbor notions about who will swallow up whom.

第四通：海空直通，還要「想得通」
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.05 03:39 am

「三通」這個出現在兩岸間已有三十年的名詞，昨天終於在江丙坤、陳雲林簽字後實現。

通航、通郵、通商，這是人貨及訊息的「三通」，而一切的本源皆在「第四通」：兩岸朝野在思想觀念上必須「想得通」！

其實，二十年前，自蔣經國開放「老兵探親」後，兩岸三通即已啟動；唯海空皆通，卻並未「直航」。昨日簽署，不是為了「通航」，而是為了「直航」。直航之所以蹉跎延遲了二十年，可見兩岸朝野皆有「想不通」之處，但並非「不想通」。

可通航而不准直航，確有令人想不通處。例如，從台北到北京，命其須在香港中轉；豈不正如自台北到高雄，命其須在澎湖中轉？尤其，九七香港主權轉移後，已成 中國領土；情勢遂成了只准「直航」中國的香港，而不准「直航」中國其他城市，尤其令人想不通。這種「想不通」的交通設計，虛耗了驚人的金錢與可怕的時間， 違情悖理，究竟是在何處想不通？

三通真正的發動者是蔣經國，回應人則是鄧小平。蔣經國在解嚴的大架構下，同時也開放了「老兵探親」；於是，在「老兵探親」的名目下，使得觀光貿易皆並駕漸 進。蔣經國解嚴，使台灣在政治上不致窒息，開放兩岸交流則使台灣在經濟與兩岸關係上不致窒息；而且，解嚴與交流兩手同時放開，使台灣能以民主體制與大陸交 往，亦使大陸須回應台灣的民主體制。

過去二十年，兩岸不斷發生尖銳的衝突摩擦，致使直航遲誤至今日，其中「想不通」之處正在於：一、台灣方面，主政者李登輝及陳水扁，玩弄政治權謀，撕裂國 家，在兩岸關係上未能正確引導民意，致使兩岸互信完全解構；二、大陸方面，一直不知「以大事小」，而只知「以強制弱」，仍以「國共內戰」來看兩岸關係，而 未能回應台灣民主機制下的民意感受。

其後果是：大陸方面，強以「一國兩制」、「一個中國」或「和平統一」來範限台灣。而台灣方面，則李登輝雖曾有國統綱領及密使來往，最後卻抬出了壽命只有幾 天的「兩國論」；陳水扁則先有「中間路線」及「四不一沒有」，但最後卻陷於「自欺欺人」的「正名制憲」。過去這二十年，可謂是北京當局把李扁從中道逼回到 台獨之路；而李扁引發的兩岸激盪，又將北京帶回到今日較趨平和理性之路。兩岸終於簽署了直航協議，這莫非是想通了？

錯中學，這二十年的血淚經歷，對兩岸朝野皆是痛苦教訓。台灣方面，若不是李扁二人將台灣人民欺愚太甚，又使兩岸關係扭曲太甚，即不可能有兩次政黨輪替；二 ○○○的國民黨及二○○八的民進黨，皆因兩岸政策失敗而喪失政權。相對而言，北京方面若非目睹台灣二十年來的社會翻騰，又怎能體悟台灣民主政治的微妙？如 今，「一國兩制」漸漸淡出，「和平統一」也不再是主打口號，取而代之的是「維持現狀」、「九二共識」（一中各表）及「互利雙贏」、「和平發展」。

可見，這二十年的激盪翻騰，已使兩岸漸漸「想通了」，直航遂亦順理成章。因此，昨日江陳會的簽署，三通並非最重大的成就，最大的成就應是協議達成所反映的兩岸思維的重大調整與改變。也就是說：「想得通」比「三通」的成就更大！

站在「歷史與現實」的大座標上，如今兩岸三黨的落腳點已然顯現：民進黨又回到「消滅共匪」與「台灣國」的時代，共產黨則在「陳雲林要不要稱呼馬總統」的門口徘徊，國民黨則在民進黨及共產黨的兩面壓擠之中。

讓我們回到蔣經國的思考架構：台灣應以正常的民主體制與大陸交往，不要玩弄民主，不要撕裂國家；大陸須回應台灣的民主體制，不要扭曲民意，不要有「誰吃掉誰」的念頭。