Are Tsai Ing-wen and Huang Wu-hsiung Willing to Work Toward Cross-Strait Peace?

Are Tsai Ing-wen and Huang Wu-hsiung Willing to Work Toward Cross-Strait Peace?
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
February 10, 2009

The Democratic Progressive Party is "reexamining its political path." Retired National Taiwan University math professor Huang Wu-hsiung has created his own website, and is seeking support for his "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" initiative. A comparison of the two is rather intriguing.

Wikipedia describes Huang Wu-hsiung as a mathematical researcher, educator, writer, social activist, and pioneer of educational reform. Politically speaking he is Green. He says he is unwilling to be classified as either Blue or Green. He says he merely supports democratic reforms. He says he merely supports a nativist cultural identity. He is also Yunlin County Magistrate Su Feng-chi's husband. Readers may remember him from recent news reports.

The Democratic Progressive Party's "reexamination of its political path" contains an immense hole. It talks only about taking to the streets. It evades the issue of national identity. Unless one affirms one's position on national identity, no street movement can possibly succeed. During the "dang wai" party outsider movement, the DPP's social movements and street movements made genuine gains. But Chen Shui-bian's pro-independence moves eventually precipitated to the debacle of 2008, costing the party all its prior gains. If today's DPP is merely a social movement that takes no stand on the nation's identity, it will eventually founder on the reefs of Taiwan independence. After all, a social movement cannot patch up the enormous political hole in the Taiwan independence movement. Nor can the Taiwan independence movement succeed on the basis of a street movement.

Actually, a debate over the future of the nation has been going on within the DPP for some time. But the DPP leadership has suppressed it because it is unwilling to confront the issue. For example, Chen Shui-bian's "Taiwan's Cross" advocates the founding of an independent Nation of Taiwan. Lin Cho-shui's "History's Stage -- Eight Painful Years in Power" advocates the "measured promotion of Taiwan independence." Huang Wu-hsiung's "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" provides an alternative point of view. Huang Wu-hsiung is a Pan Green scholar. He stands outside the system, and operates from the bottom up. He is nearly 60, and ranks among those intellectuals who have experienced the political changes on Taiwan over the past few decades. Huang is an open book. His unassuming manner is not something politicians can imitate. One need not search for deep secrets. His initiative merely reveals the evolution of a Pan Green scholar. Besides, only a year ago, Huang Wu-hsiung came to the aid of then notorious Secretary of Education Chuang Kuo-rong.

Huang Wu-hsiung's argument persuades people more through its emotional content than its political content. This is not the place to elaborate. But in his "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" he proposes "maintaining the status quo for fifty years, neither reunifying nor declaring independence, and demilitarizing Taiwan," and writing the above into the constitution. His proposal, involving neither reunification nor independence, the avoidance of war, interim agreements, and a peace agreement, has much in common with President Ma Ying-jeou's political views. Huang Wu-hsiung said that if President Ma's proposal can be implemented he is in favor of it. In other words, Huang agrees with Ma Ying-jeou. If anything he is even more radical than Ma, and wants to incorporate these provisions into the constitution.

For someone with Huang Wu-hsiung's background, to propose writing Ma Ying-jeou's political views into the constitution, in order to resolve the controversy over independence and reunification, is staggering in its boldness. But if one thinks about the matter more carefully, when Huang Wu-hsiung refers of writing such provisions into the constitution, he's referring to the Republic of China Constitution. The Republic of China Constitution already defines the Taiwan region as "not reunified" or "yet to be reunified" and "not independent." Any change in status is subject to the approval of all citizens of the Republic of China, in accordance with constitutional due process. In other words, even if Huang Wu-hsiung's provisions are not written into the constitution, its premises and spirit are already contained in within the constitution. The Green Camp and the Taiwan independence movement have long sought a solution to cross-Strait conflict outside the Republic of China Constitution. Huang Wu-hsiung, ironically, has sought a solution within the ROC Constitution.

Huang Wu-hsiung says his program will "shelve disputes regarding reunification and independence." But the reality on today's Taiwan is that there is no "controversy over reunification vs. independence." So-called "reunificationists" are mostly "retake the mainland" or "the Three People's Principles will unify China" advocates. Very few advocate the annexation of Taiwan by mainland China. Today most people advocate "maintaining the status quo." Therefore, the so-called "controversy over reunification vs. independence" on Taiwan is actually a controversy over "preserving the Republic of China" or "terminating the Republic of China." This applies equally to advocates of radical Taiwan independence and advocates of gradualist Taiwan independence.

After the lifting of martial law and two decades of liberalization, the Republic of China Constitution and constitutional government already contains wording characterizing the Taiwan region as "not reunified, not independent, also reunified, also independent." The only difference being that Taiwan independence advocates demand the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." This is true of both advocates of radical Taiwan independence and advocates of gradualist Taiwan independence. Huang meanwhile, has sought solutions within the constitution, in an effort to promote cross-Strait peace. His Green background probably made him think in terms of writing his "neither reunification nor independence" provisions into the constitution, and fail to notice that the Republic of China Constitution already contains such provisions. This is a textbook case of searching far and wide for something, only to find it under one's nose.

It is not necessary to bury onself in the details of Huang's proposal. It is enough to understand the evolution of his thought. The lesson of Huang Wu-hsiung's "Fifty Years of Cross-Straits Peace" is that in its search for national identity and constitutional rule, the Democratic Progressive Party must find its way. Otherwise it will end up back on the streets, attempting to use social movements as a pretext for either radical or gradualist Taiwan independence.

The tree of the Republic of China flourishes amidst tranquility. But the winds of Taiwan independence refuse to subside. Under the circumstances, Huang Wu-hsiung wonders, does Taiwan still have tomorrow?

蔡英文願與黃武雄共同尋找國家太平歲月？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.10 04:42 am



民進黨正在「檢討路線」之際，退休的台大數學教授黃武雄倡議的「尋找太平歲月──（兩岸）五十年維和方案」，正在網路上徵求連署。兩相對照，頗可玩味。

維基百科對黃武雄的介紹是：數學研究者、教育工作者、作家、社會運動參與者、台灣教育改革的先行者。若就政治光譜說，他是綠的；唯他自稱不願被歸類藍綠，只是支持民主改革，支持本土文化認同。若再點出他是雲林縣長蘇治芬的夫婿，讀者或許會憶起在不久前的新聞報導中看過他的名字。

民進黨此次的「路線檢討」出現一個大缺口，亦即：只談社會街頭運動，諱言國家定位。然而，國家認同若未確立，所有的社會街頭運動就難有歸匯與總結。過去，民進黨自黨外時期以來，在民主運動、社會運動及街頭運動上皆曾有種種努力及成績，卻終於因陳水扁的台獨操作遭致二○○八年的大失敗與大解構，即是明證；如今，民進黨倘若仍然只談社會運動，而諱言國家定位，恐怕最後仍然要在國家認同的台獨礁岩上擱淺。畢竟，社會運動無法填補台獨的政治缺口，台獨亦不可能靠街頭運動實現。

其實，民進黨內及綠營已然正在進行國家路線的辯論，只是黨中央有意壓抑，不願面對。例如，陳水扁的《台灣的十字架》，主張台獨建國；林濁水的《歷史劇場 ──痛苦執政八年》，主張「穩健台獨」；黃武雄的《尋找太平歲月──五十年維和方案》，則是另類的觀點。由於黃武雄的角色屬綠色學者、體制外、由下而上，又是年逾六旬而經歷台灣全程政治變遷的公共知識分子，其素樸與真誠更絕非政壇人物所可比擬。因此，看黃武雄的主張，不須探究其周延深密與否，而是可以觀察一名重要綠色公共知識分子的思想發展。何況，就在一年多前，黃武雄還曾聲援過在選季大出鋒頭的莊國榮。

黃武雄的論述，其情感比主張要動人，此處不暇描述；至於他所提《五十年維和方案》的具體主張是：將「五十年維持現狀，不統不獨，台灣非軍事化」入憲。此一主張中，涉及不統不獨不武、中程協議、和平協議等概念，與馬英九總統的政見頗有交集；黃武雄稱，如果馬總統的構想能夠落實，他是贊同的。換句話說，黃武雄贊同馬英九的看法，且較馬更激進，主張入憲。

以黃武雄的背景，能視「馬英九政見入憲」為解決統獨爭議的方案，其思考空間的寬闊至為驚人。不過，若仔細尋思，黃武雄所謂「入憲」，應是指「入中華民國憲法」；而中華民憲法原即「不統」，或「未統」（明定「國家未統一」之狀態），亦「不獨」（畢竟未經「正名制憲」）；故而，未來若有「統／獨」變異，當然皆須經過中華民國全體公民之憲法程序；換句話說，即使黃武雄的方案未「入憲」，其方案的規範與精神其實本已寄寓於憲法之中。也就是說，綠營及獨派一直欲在中華民國及其憲法之外尋求兩岸解決方案，黃武雄卻思考回到中華民國憲法建立方案。

黃武雄稱，他的方案可以「擱置統獨爭議」；但是，今日台灣政治的實情，卻未必真有「統獨爭議」。若謂「統派」，其實大多只是原本「反攻大陸」至「三民主義統一中國」的一脈遺緒，而絕少主張台灣應由中國大陸併吞者，何況至今已大多趨於主張「維持現狀」；因此，台灣所謂「統獨爭議」，毋寧只是「維持中華民國」與「終結中華民國」的爭議（不論是冒進台獨或穩健台獨）。

也就是說，中華民國憲法及憲政在經過解嚴二十年的民主錘鍊洗禮後，已然具備「不統／不獨／亦統／亦獨」的騰挪空間，只是台獨仍然主張要正名制憲（不論冒進或穩健）；但黃武雄卻在思考，能否在此部憲法上找到解決方案，為兩岸開展「太平歲月」。只是或許因為他綠色認知的邏輯，使他主張須將「不統不獨入憲」，而未注意中華民國及其憲法本已具備此種機制與空間。正是：眾裡尋他千百度，驀然回首，那人卻在燈火闌珊處。

前文提及，不須探究黃武雄之方案的周延深密，而應觀察其思想發展。黃武雄《五十年維和方案》的啟示是：民進黨若不在國家定位及憲法認同上找對路線，難道最後又要將所有的社會街頭運動歸結匯總到自欺欺人的冒進台獨或穩健台獨之上？

中華民國之樹欲靜，而台獨之風不止。如此內耗，借黃武雄的話問：你擔不擔心台灣沒有明天？