Throw off the Shackles of History

Throw off the Shackles of History
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2009

Can you believe it? The day before yesterday Ma Ying-jeou proposed a "new conception of geography" that bore a striking resemblance to the "blueprint for the next century" issued by the DPP 12 years ago.

President Ma held a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a US think tank. He proposed a "new conception of geography." He said his administration attaches greater importance to Taiwan's "geographical location" than to its "history." To Taiwan's east, west, south, and north are the United States, Mainland China, ASEAN, and Japan. Along with the European Union, these constitute the world's six largest economic zones. Therefore his adminstration hopes to make good use of Taiwan's status as a hub, and allow Taiwan to link these economic zones.

Twelve years ago, in 1997, the DPP issued a "blueprint for the next century -- national land development plan." It noted that Taiwan is not at the center, nor is it at the periphery. It has vitality, the ability to reflect upon its circumstances, and the ability to create a bridge between the sea and the land, and between east and west.

Ma's "new conception of geography" is remarkably similar to the DPP's.

Twelve years ago DPP Chairman Hsu Hsin-liang proposed his "boldly go west / do business in China" policy. The aforementioned "blueprint for the next century" was based precisely on such lofty sentiments and aspirations. Back then Taiwan was mired in controversy over "Taiwan's primacy." Was Taiwan at the center, or was it at the periphery? The "blueprint for the next century" was an attempt to use "Taiwan's functionality" as an "interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west," to replace or supplement "Taiwan's primacy." Taiwan's primacy emphasizes politics and history. Taiwan's functionality emphasizes economics and geography.

We on Taiwan have for too long been constrained by history and politics. To free ourselves from such constraints we must take advantage of our economic strengths and geopolitical advantages. President Ma said he attached greater importance to the Taiwan region's "geographical location" than to its "history." Actually the only way we on Taiwan can improve our political situation and open up new possibilities, is to make maximum use of our geographical advantage and economic vitality. Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party's "blueprint for the next century", said Taiwan had "vitailty, the ability to reflect upon its condition, and creativity." It too stressed adjusting one's thinking. It too stressed that Taiwan can function as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. In short, it was a harbinger of President Ma's "new conception of geography."

The DPP's "blueprint for the next century" was eventually shredded, and Hsu Hsin-liang ousted from the party. But it showed that even within the Democratic Progressive Party, one could find a "new conception of geography." It remains a latent force even today. Hsu Hsin-liang has returned to the Democratic Progressive Party. Reread this "blueprint for the next century" from 12 years ago. Had Chen Shui-bian implemented even a tiny part of this blueprint during his eight years in office, the DPP would not have led the nation down the garden path as far as it has.

President Ma's "new conception of geography" stressed Taiwan's location at the center of four major economic zones. He hopes to use economics to improve the nation's political situation. He hopes to use geography to improve the nation's historical fortunes. Twelve years ago the DPP's "blueprint for the next century - national land development plan" aspired to establish Taiwan as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. Was it not engaged in the same sort of political and economic thinking? Was it not using the same strategy for national survival?

At this point, one can't help but feel pity for the Democratic Progressive Party. One can't help but feel sad for the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to change history. But it defies global trends and remains a captive of history. It wants to improve the nation's political circumstances. But it remains bound by ideological and political constraints. The Democratic Progressive Party's "rectification of names, declaration of independence, and founding of a new nation" can only tear society apart and provoke internal conflict. How can it change history? How can it improve the nation's political situation? Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party spoke of "vitality, an ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity." Where is that "vitality, ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity" today?

We on Taiwan must liberate ourselves from the shackles of history. We must think instead in terms of geography. It matters not whether we call it a "new conception of geography," or an "interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west." The road ahead will be difficult. But it is the only road to our salvation.

To people of vision within the Democratic Progressive Party, why not revisit this courageous moment in your own history? If the shackles of history cannot save Taiwan, how can they possibly save the DPP?

解脫「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.24 05:44 am

你信不信？馬英九總統最近（就在前天）提出的「新地理思維」，竟然與民進黨十二年前發表的「跨世紀建設藍圖」有六七分神似。

前天，馬總統與美國智庫ＣＳＩＳ舉行視訊會議，提出「新地理思維」。他說：他的政府重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；台灣的東、西、南、北邊，分別是美國、中國、東協與日本等世界前五大經濟區（除了歐盟）；因此應善用台灣的樞紐地位，讓台灣串聯這些經濟區。

十二年前，一九九七年，民進黨發表「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」。大要指出：台灣不是中心，也不是邊陲；而是一個有活力、有反省力及有創造力的海陸界面與東西橋樑。

兩者皆屬「新地理思維」，豈不有六七分神似？

十二年前，許信良任民進黨主席，主張「大膽西進／經營中國」；前述「跨世紀藍圖」就是出自那般的豪情壯志。當年，台灣正陷於「台灣主體論」的爭議之中（是中心？或是邊陲？）；但「跨世紀藍圖」，則試圖以「台灣機能論」（是海陸界面與東西橋樑）來取代或補充「台灣主體論」。「主體論」的主軸，是政治的、歷史的；「機能論」的主軸，則是經濟的、地理的。

台灣久陷歷史與政治的束縛之中，但台灣欲脫離束縛的機會，卻在我們的經濟能量及地緣優勢。馬總統說，他重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；此話或可作部分補充，較周延的表達應是：台灣唯有善用其地緣優勢及經濟能量，始有改善其政治處境及開創歷史新運的可能性。在這一方面，民進黨十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，指台灣「有活力、有反省力、有創造力」，其所強調者應也是這種思維境界的調整；至於指出了台灣可以作為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，則豈不儼然可說是馬總統「新地理思維」的預言與先聲？

雖然，後來民進黨的這一張「跨世紀藍圖」淪為廢紙，許信良亦被掃地出門；但畢竟顯示，民進黨內也有此類「新地理思維」，且迄今依然潛伏存在，而許信良也又回到了民進黨。如今重閱這張十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，倘若後來陳水扁八年執政能稍存此念，民進黨大概也不會誤國殃民到今日這種地步。

看馬總統的「新地理思維」，將台灣在全球四大經濟區的中心地位點出，應可感知他想用經濟改善國家政治處境、想用地理開創歷史機運的用心。而十二年前，民進黨的「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」，欲將台灣建設為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，難道不是同樣的政經思維？又難道不是同樣的國家生存戰略？

談到這裡，不能不令人為民進黨惜，更令人為民進黨悲！民進黨想要改變歷史，卻因昧於國際潮流而被歷史束縛；想要改善國家政治處境，卻因囿於意識形態而被政治束縛。民進黨那一套「正名制憲／獨立建國」的論調，只是一場撕裂族群的民主內戰而已，如何能改變歷史？又如何能改善國家政治處境？民進黨十二年前所說的「活力、反省力、創造力」，今安在哉？

台灣必須從「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」。不論稱此為「新地理思維」，或「海陸界面／東西橋樑」。此路雖必是坎坷崎嶇，但這是台灣更生的唯一道途，捨此不能救台灣。

民進黨中的有心人，何不回視十二年前那浪漫豪壯的一頁？「歷史束縛」不能救台灣，焉能救黨？