Cross-Strait Relations: Time for Problem Solving

Cross-Strait Relations: Time for Problem Solving
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 11, 2009

The one year anniversary of the Ma administration's inauguration is approaching. Although the broad outlines remain unclear, President Ma's cross-Strait concepts and policies have increasingly diverged from the Green Camp's. These differences show up in the opening of cross-Strait transportation, tourism, finance, culture, and education. More importantly, the thinking behind Ma's policies is entirely different. President Ma's public declarations since April have made this abundantly clear. His rhetoric has two themes. One is that "geography trumps history." The other is "first economics, then politics." At first glance these two themes are nothing new. But in the context of cross-Straits relations over the past several decades, the differences are quite striking.

His emphasis on "geography over history" stresses Taiwan's geographical location, and not historical disputes. He hopes to take maximum advantage of the world's top five economic regions, including the US to the east, Japan to the north, the Mainland to the west, and ASEAN to the south. He hopes to make Taiwan the hub of these economic zones. Frankly, this is nothing new. Lee Teng-hui's so-called "Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center" plan and Chen Shui-bian's "global operations center" were also based on Taiwan's unique geographical location. Since this is nothing new, why has it remained stuck in the slogan stage over the past decade, regardless of how many "Such and Such Center" concepts have been floated? The key lies in not thinking in terms of historical disputes.

For a long time the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and politics on Taiwan have remained mired in historical enmities. Countless contradictions and tensions prevented normal interaction and dialogue. This made it impossible for cross-Strait relations to fully enter a post-Cold War, post-Civil War era. By the same token, the historical tragedy has prevented society on Taiwan from fully entering a post-authoritarian, post-colonial era. Japan's Representative to Taipei Masaki Saito said "Taiwan's status is undetermined." This Immediately triggered different reactions and suspicions. It makes no difference whether Saito made these remarks intentionally or accidentally. If the incident escalates, it will surely have serious political consequences. The Ma administration chose to cool matters immediately, The dispute ended quickly. If not for its "geography trumps history" thinking, it could have generated plenty of political hay.

If we want geography to trump history and maximize our marginal utility, we must of course think "first economics, then politics." Ma's public statements have repeatedly stressed that he will only deal with cross-Strait economic issues. After all, current cross-Strait economic issues, such as the signing of a MOU, which affects financial interaction, or ECFA, which affects broader economic cooperation, are complex and difficult enough. They cannot be rushed. They will require considerable consultation and communication. They will require the gradual establishment of relevant mechanisms. Perhaps this is why President Ma told the media in Singapore that he would consider discussing cross-Strait political issues only if he was re-elected in 2012. Perhaps this explains why so far President Ma has not made any high level reponse to the highly political "Hu's Six Points."

Ma's "first economics, then politics" thinking is also not novel or original. But it is an important reversal in the handling of cross-Strait issues. When politics trumped economics, cross-Strait relations remained mired in confrontation and demagoguery, rather than the solving of concrete problems. When the two sides could only engage in confrontation and demagoguery, cross-Strait relations could only remain hostile and trapped in a vicious circle of conflict. The same was true on Taiwan. It could never shake off mutual suspicion and mutual recriminations. A perfect example is the cross-Strait stalemate, which has extended to confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan over the past few years.

Once economics trumps politics, then cross-Strait relations ceases to be a tool for politicians to manipulate. It becomes a means of solving practical problems, one after another. Taiwan is no longer being manipulated by means of such political issues as plebiscites, the authoring of a new constitution, and the founding of a new nation. Such issues intensify cross-Strait conflict and increase confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties. Consultations on cross-Strait shipping, tourism, investment, academic credentials involve only rational calculation, not the manipulation of negative emotions. More importantly, it forces politicians who would plunge the world into chaos to withdraw from the political stage. It permits professionals with specific problem solving abilities to make their debut.

Of course, no one would be so obtuse as set aside all historical disputes on the basis that "geography trumps history." Nor would anyone deliberately ignore political factors because he advocated "first economics, then politics." Indeed many problems are difficult to de-politicize. A leader demonstrates his political wisdom by how he handles such difficulties.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.05.11
社論－讓兩岸邁入「解決實際問題」的循環
本報訊

距離就任滿周年的前夕，儘管輪廓還不是非常清晰，但馬總統有關兩岸政策的理念與作為，已經與綠營執政年代的差別越來越大，這種差別不僅僅是表現在通航、觀光、金融、文教等的鬆綁與開放上，更關鍵的還是政策背後的整個思維邏輯全都變了。檢視馬總統從四月以來的幾次公開發言，明眼人都看得出來，論述修辭中存在著兩個主軸，一個是「地理重於歷史」，一個是「經濟先於政治」，初乍看這兩組主軸其實並無任何出奇新穎之處，但若是放在過去幾十年兩岸關係史的脈絡上看，讓人可以想像的空間，就非常大了。

所謂「地理重於歷史」，強調的重點是台灣的「地理位置」，而不復再是它的歷史糾葛。即是希望能善用台灣東邊的美國，北邊的日本，西邊的大陸與南邊的東協等世界前五大的幾個經濟體，讓台灣成為串聯這些經濟區的樞紐中心。很坦白的說，這其實算不上什麼新思維，李登輝年代所謂「亞太營運中心」的規畫，陳水扁年代曾倡議的「全球運籌中心」構想，所設想的基礎不就是台灣特殊的地理位置嗎？既然這根本不是什麼「新發現」，為什麼過去十數年間不論提出多少「ＸＸ中心」的構想，都只能停留在口號的階段呢？關鍵就在歷史思維的糾葛。

過往很長的一段期間，歷史記憶其實持續著糾纏著兩岸之間與台灣內部，無數的矛盾與張力阻擋了正常的互動與對話，造成兩岸關係一直未能完全邁入後冷戰與後內戰的階段，同樣的也因為執著歷史悲情，讓台灣社會內部一直未曾完全擺脫後威權與後殖民的心靈。這一點從日本駐台代表齊藤正樹一席「台灣地位未定論」的發言，立即引發各方反應與猜忌即可見一班。誰都知道齊藤這番發言不論是有心還是無意，如果無限上綱的牽扯下去，絕對可以引發很大的後續政治效應，但馬政府選擇立即而主動的降溫，讓爭議迅速落幕，如果不是因為「地理重於歷史」的思維引導，還可以做的政治文章其實非常多。

而如果期待「地理」凌駕「歷史」的思維能夠發揮最大的邊際效用，當然就必須再配合「經濟先於政治」的思維邏輯。馬總統最近的幾次公開發言曾一再強調在他第一個任期內，只會處理兩岸的經濟議題。畢竟僅就當下兩岸經濟議題所涉層面，不論是簽訂涉及金融互動的ＭＯＵ，或是更廣泛經濟合作的ＥCＦＡ，其實都相當繁雜難解，操作上根本急不來，還需要相當長的時間去協商溝通，也需要各自逐步建立相關的配套機制。或許也因為這樣，馬總統才會對新加坡媒體說假如他在二○一二年獲得連任，才會讓兩岸協商「不排除觸及」政治議題。這一點或許也可以說明，何以迄今為止馬總統都未針對政治意涵甚高的「胡六點」，做出任何高規格的回應。

「先經濟後政治」的提法，同樣未予人新奇或創意之感，但卻是處理兩岸問題相當重要的翻轉。在政治思維全面凌駕經濟思維的年代，兩岸關係一直沉溺擴大對立的「議題操作」上，而非落實在具體的「問題解決」上。當兩岸間只存在爭議性議題的炒作，那麼兩岸關係當然也就只能陷入敵對與衝突的惡性循環，台灣內部同樣也就永遠擺脫不了彼此猜忌與詆毀的深淵，過去幾年台灣持續陷入的兩岸僵持與朝野對立，其實就是最鮮明的寫照。

一旦經濟思維先於政治操作，兩岸關係也就不再是政客操弄的工具，而是尋求解決一樁樁、一件件實際問題的平台。換言之，台灣不再藉由操作類如公投、制憲、建國等政治議題去激化兩岸衝突與朝野對立，而是務實的針對兩岸航運、觀光、投資、學歷認證等課題進行協商，這個過程只會有理性的利益算計，不會再有負面情緒的渲染與撩撥。更重要的是，它將讓那些惟恐天下不亂的政客們從舞台上撤出，讓更多有能力解決具體問題的專業人士有機會登場表現。

當然，沒有人會笨到主張只要「地理重於歷史」，所有的歷史糾葛就可擺在一旁，更不會因為有了「經濟先於政治」的前提，就可以刻意忽略政治因素的干擾，許多問題確實不容易切割，但領導者政治智慧的發揮，不正就是該表現在這些層面上！