The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides

The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2009

Summary: The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of "economics before politics." They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.

Full Text below:

The third Chiang/Chen Summit has successfully adjourned. The two sides signed agreements covering regularly scheduled cross-Strait air flights, financial cooperation, and anti-crime measures. They also achieved consensus on Mainland investments on Taiwan. According to the latest newspaper poll 53% of the public is in favor of allowing Mainland investments on Taiwan. Public satisfaction with President Ma Ying-jeou's policies rose slightly, to 45%. Public satisfaction with the Ma administration's cross-Strait policies rose to 49%. This shows that since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, its emphasis on cross-Strait exchanges are beginning to pay off, and have met with public approval.

Public opinion diverged considerably on whether the third Chiang/Chen Summit was convened on a peer-to-peer basis, and whether it undermined the Republic of China's sovereignty. Thirty-five percent felt it did not undermine our sovereignty. Another 35% felt it did undermine our sovereignty. Approximately 30% had no opinion. Compared to the second Chiang/Chen Summit, the proportion that felt it undermined our sovereignty increased. The proportion that felt it did not undermine our sovereignty declined. The poll figures explain to some extent why the opposition DPP invariably resorts to criticism of the Ma administration as the basis of its cross-Strait policy. Because by doing so it need not put forth any concrete data or evidence. One-third of the public will always oppose cross-Strait exchanges.

For the Ma administration this is a poll number about which it must remain vigilant. Ever since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, it has been unable to open a window of dialogue with opposition party leaders. Will the "two Yings" (Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen) meet? Every time the question is raised the two sides end up shouting at each from a distance. They never make real progress. Society desperately needs a consensus on cross-Strait policy. But without the participation of the opposition DPP, the public will remain divided between Blue and Green. The fracture between the two parties will never be healed. A democratic society should accomodate different views. Opinions both pro and con should be heard. Only then can we arrive at the broadest possible consensus. Only then can the policies implemented maintain social harmony. Those in authority must bear the greatest responsibilty and expend the greatest effort.

The Democratic Progressive Party is the largest opposition party. It must not ignore reality. It must not be content to embrace 30% of the public. It must not be content to bask in the approval of a minority. It must not be content to succumb to the pressure exerted by that minority. It must not Ignore the demands of the majority. Otherwise we will never be able to achieve a consensus among the majority. After all, if the DPP wishes to once again assume office, it can hardly rely on the support of only 30% of the public.

The Democratic Progressive Party is asking the public to take to the streets on May 17 to protest the Ma administration. This is understandable. But what connection is there between combating unemployment and accusing the Ma administration of undermining our sovereignty? DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's harshest criticism is that the extension requested by the opposition DPP was "never even touched upon." Therefore they consider the Chiang/Chen Summit a total failure. Tsai Ing-wen was once Chairperson of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Vice-President of the Executive Yuan. During her term she rejected any and all calls for cross-Strait negotiations. Perhaps she does not understand. Just because the opposition DPP tosses out an issue prior to negotiations, that does not mean the ruling administration must discuss it or successfully negotiate it. Ma Ying-jeou also expressed a desire for an extension prior to the Chiang/Chen Summit. But the Ma administration has been in office less than a year. The institutionalization of the two sides' proxies, the SEF and the ARATS, appears to be on track. During the three years remaining in the Ma administration's first term, it will surely have a chance to raise this issue of such concern to the opposition DPP. The only question is, when the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party still consider this a "significant advance" in cross-Strait relations and policy?

Chen Po-chih was a Chairman of the CEPD and a Chairman of the Taiwan Think Tank under the DPP administration. Chen offered an even-handed evaluation of the Chiang/Chen Summit. He said it was good that they only signed a broad financial cooperation agreement, not a memorandum of understanding. He said "It must be properly laid out before signing." According to the Ma administration, a memorandum of understanding will be signed in about two months. Most important of all, the signing will be completed by officials from the two sides in direct, face-to-face talks, rather than through proxies. This amounts to significant progress in the negotiation process.

In fact, in less than a year, the three Chiang/Chen Summits have already established a precedent for cross-Strait talks. The three agreements signed this time were all finalized after secret talks by senior officials from the two sides, and signed by officials of MAC and ARATS. The Chiang/Chen Summits in Taipei and Nanjing signed cross-Strait airline services agreements and supplemental agreements. They incorporated the terms "the two sides" into the text. Their structure and content followed the same model many nations use for bilateral agreements. The cross-Strait joint anti-crime and mutual legal assistance agreement avoided the use of the term "extradition treaty." But it too applied all the relevant legal norms, further confirming cross-Strait cooperation among criminal investigation agencies. It too involved a giant step forward.

The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of "economics before politics." They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.04.29
社論－兩黨距離不應大於兩岸距離
本報訊

三次江陳會順利落幕，兩岸簽署包括定期航班、金融合作、共同打擊犯罪等三項協議，以及開放陸資來台的一項共識。根據本報最新民調顯示，有五成三的民眾贊成陸資來台，而馬英九總統的施政滿意度微幅上揚到四成五，至於民眾對馬政府的兩岸政策滿意度則達到四成九。顯示馬政府就任近一年來，以兩岸交流為主軸的施政漸獲成果，也得到民意的認可。

但值得注意的是，對於三次江陳會是否符合對等協商、是否傷害台灣主權，民眾看法相當紛歧，認為無損主權者有三成五，認為損及主權者也有三成五，沒意見的也達到三成左右。對比二次江陳會，認為損及主權者比例上升，認為未損及主權者比例卻下降，這個民調數字，某種程度可說明，為什麼在野黨始終可以負面批評馬政府的任何兩岸政策作為，因為不必提出什麼實際數據或事證，總會有三分之一的民意反對兩岸交流。

對馬政府而言，這是一個必須時時自我警惕的民調數字，馬政府自就任以來近一年時間，始終無法與在野黨領袖有正常對話的窗口，雙英為了見不見面、辯不辯論總是隔空喊話，卻無實質進展，最需要社會最大共識的兩岸政策，因此失去取得在野黨的參與，民意依舊陷入藍綠壁壘之爭，對立裂痕無法有效撫平。民主社會本來就有贊成與反對的不同意見，正反兩方的民意都要傾聽，並從中取得最大的共識，才能在施政的同時，維繫社會的和諧，這一點無論如何執政者要負較大的責任，盡更多心力。

對最大在野黨的民進黨而言，同樣不能枉顧現實，慣性地擁抱三成民意自得自滿，耽溺於少數民意的喝采和壓力，忽視社會真正多數的聲音和需求，否則就永遠不可能取得多數中間選民的認可，畢竟重返執政之途不可能僅僅依賴三成民意。

民進黨為了嗆馬，號召民眾五一七上街頭，可以理解，但是，從救失業到嗆馬談判失了主權，就有點莫名其妙了。民進黨主席蔡英文批評力度最大的是：在野要求的延遠權「碰都沒碰」，江陳會談判完全失敗，蔡英文曾任陸委會主委、行政院副院長，在她任內拒絕任何兩岸政策談判協商的可能，或許因此不理解任何談判都不是在野黨突如其來在談判出發前拋出一個議題，就非談不可，遑論非談成不可。馬英九在江陳會行前也曾表達延遠權確要爭取，但馬政府就任不滿一年，以兩岸兩會制度化協商愈來愈上軌道的情況看來，至少在馬政府第一任的未來三年多時間中，總會有機會將這個在野黨最在乎的議題端上檯面，就不知道屆時民進黨會不會認為這是兩岸關係和政策的「重大進展」？

曾任民進黨政府經建會主委的台灣智庫董事長陳博志持平地評價這次江陳會，他說，只簽一個「籠統」的金融合作協議，沒簽ＭＯＵ，這是好的，「本來就該規畫完善才能簽。」根據馬政府的規畫，ＭＯＵ大概兩個月後就能簽成，最重要的，接下來的簽署工作將由兩岸官方機構直接面對面商談，而不再透過兩會白手套代行，這當然是對等談判的重大進展。

事實上，一年不到時間中，三次江陳會已經讓兩岸官員上桌形成「慣例」。以這次會談簽署的三項協議，無一不是兩岸主管官員密商敲定文稿後，再由兩會人員簽署。台北與南京兩次江陳會的兩岸航空協議和補充協議，除了冠之以「兩岸」的文字，其架構和內涵均等同於各國簽署雙邊協定的模式；至於兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議及司法互助協議，唯未到援用「引渡條約」的法律用詞，卻也套用相關法律規範，且進一步確認了兩岸司法調查單位的合作，同是邁出了一大步。

兩岸分隔六十年，自廿年前開放交流後，兩岸關係有潛礁、有暗流，但潮流趨勢不可逆，兩岸不可能再回到那個彼此封鎖、敵意相抗的年代，兩岸既已取得「先經濟後政治」的共識，擱下政治爭議，以民眾利益為優先考量，政府責無旁貸，寄望有過八年執政經驗的反對黨，同樣回歸台灣優先、民利為重的初衷，正視現實、回應民意。