Is There Such a Thing as "Non-Utopian Taiwan Independence?"

Is There Such a Thing as "Non-Utopian Taiwan Independence?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 31, 2009

Lin Cho-shui is known as the "master theoretician of the Taiwan independence movement." Lin recently coined a new term, "utopian Taiwan independence."
Lin Cho-shui once called Chen Shui-bian a traitor to Taiwan independence, because the type of Taiwan independence Ah-Bian advocated was "radical Taiwan independence," "rash Taiwan independence," and "populist nationalism." Lin Cho-shui said he advocated "measured Taiwan independence," and "moderate Taiwan independence." The problem is, Lin Cho-shui is very clear about what Chen Shui-bian's "aggressive Taiwan independence" is. But he has never been terribly clear about the principles and details of his own "measured Taiwan independence."

Lin's newly minted term, "utopian Taiwan independence" has the same problem. Lin says there are two kinds of "utopian Taiwan independence." The first is faith in the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory." The second is faith in a "tripartite alliance between Taiwan independence, Tibetan independence, and Xinjiang independence." Lin Cho-shui considers both kinds of Taiwan independence utopian dreams that will come to naught. But he has yet to explain what he considers "non-utopian Taiwan independence," and whether any form of Taiwan independence can be considered non-utopian?

After 20 odd years of intense three way struggles between Taipei, Washington, and Beijing, the definition of Taiwan independence has been distilled down to "de jure Taiwan independence." In other words, the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" equals Taiwan independence. Any failure to rectify names and eliminate the Republic of China amounts to a failure to achieve Taiwan independence. If one looks at the big picture, domestically and internationally, those who advocate the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" are engaged in "utopian Taiwan independence." But on the other hand, can any form of "measured Taiwan independence" or "moderate Taiwan independence" which does not demand the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" honestly be considered "Taiwan Independence?"

Trong Chai accused Ma Ying-jeou of treason. His charge demonstrates the plight of the Taiwan independence movement. Trong Chai is a Deep Green Taiwan independence extremist. He repudiates outright the legitimacy of the Republic of China. If he is accusing Ma Ying-jeou of betraying the Republic of China, then Trong Chai himself is a traitor. Trong Chai is a champion of "utopian Taiwan independence." He is also a champion of a "virtual Republic of China." He is unable to achieve Taiwan independence, but at the same time his actions are throttling the Republic of China.

In fact the big picture, domestically and internationally has ensured that "utopian Taiwan independence" will remain just that, utopian. Today, according to Lin Cho-shui, the Taiwan independence movement has been reduced to the role of lackeys for the Tibetan and Xinjiang independence movements, How sad is that?

The DPP's arguments for Taiwan independence are embodied in three major documents. Their "Taiwan Independence Party Platform" calls for the founding of a new and independent nation. Their "Resolution for a Normal Nation" calls for the early rectification of names of the authoring of a new constitution. It may be classified as "aggressive Taiwan independence." Their "Resolution on the Nation's Future" argues that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Its current name is the Republic of China." This is Lin Cho-shui's last refuge for "measured Taiwan independence." But if "aggressive Taiwan independence" is utopian, then the implication that "Taiwan is currently known as the Republic of China. But in the future will no longer be known as the Republic of China" is also utopian. The practical effect of such arguments is that Taiwan independence cannot be achieved, but neither can the Republic of China be reaffirmed. This is a realistic depiction of Taiwan today.

The DPP must decide whether it wishes to participate in Taiwan's political and economic development under the name the "Republic of China" or the "Nation of Taiwan." The bigger picture suggests there is no longer any real difference between utopian Taiwan independence and non-utopian Taiwan independence, between radical Taiwan independence and non-radical Taiwan independence. The Republic of China is the Republic of China. Taiwan independence is Taiwan independence. If the DPP fails to establish a clear benchmark, it will remain trapped in a quagmire. It will not be able to achieve Taiwan independence, nor will it be able to reaffirm the Republic of China. Consider the Dalai Lama and Rebiyah Kadeer. Here the thinking of the Republic of China differs from the thinking of the Taiwan independence movement. The Republic of China and the Taiwan independence movement have very different benchmarks by which they deal with ECFA. They have very different ways of dealing with Chen Shui-bian's corruption trial, with relations between ethnic groups, with relations with Washington and Tokyo, and with relations with Beijing across the Taiwan Strait. These all require consistent standards. The public on Taiwan will trust the DPP only if it believes the DPP is operating under the premise that our nation is the Republic of China, and not some non-existent "Nation of Taiwan." Only then will it receive the trust and support of mainstream society. The Democratic Progressive Party has long relied on supporters of Taiwan independence to win Republic of China political office. The record shows this approach is a self-contradictory dead end. Chen Shui-bian's eight years in office was a fiasco. Does the DPP intend to keep believing in utopia?

As noted earlier, any scenario not involving the "rectification of names and the authoring of new constitution" is not "de jure Taiwan independence." It is not Taiwan independence, period. On the other hand, if the DPP ceases championing the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," it is swinging from one form of utopianism to another form of utopianism. In which case, why not amend its three major Taiwan independence documents, and reaffirm the Republic of China? As a UDN editorial noted earlier, the DPP must not treat the Republic of China as a "backdoor listing." It must grant it full recognition and invest its energy into ensuring its well-being and prosperity.

Otherwise, can the DPP really tell the public that there is such a thing as "non-utopian Taiwan independence?"

還有不是空想的台獨嗎？
【聯合報 ╱社論】
2009.10.31

有「台獨理論大師」稱號的林濁水，最近又創了個新詞彙：空想台獨主義。

林濁水原本聲稱，陳水扁是台獨的罪人，因為扁所主張的台獨是「激進台獨」、「冒進台獨」，是「民粹的民族主義」；而他林濁水所主張者，則是「穩健台獨」、「溫和台獨」。問題是：林濁水對陳水扁的「冒進台獨」刻畫得十分清晰，但對他自己主張的所謂「穩健台獨」的內涵與規格，卻從未交代清楚。

新詞彙「空想的台獨」也有同樣的問題。他說，空想主義有兩種：一是台灣地位未定論，二是台藏疆三獨合流。林濁水認為這二者皆是不能成事的「空想」，但他卻亦未交代什麼是「非空想的台獨」，以及究竟還有沒有「不是空想的台獨」？

經台美中三方二十餘年來的強烈激盪，台獨的定義已經化約至「法理台獨」。也就是說，「正名制憲」就是台獨，「不正名制憲／維持中華民國」就不是台獨。如今從內外大局大勢來看，凡主張「正名制憲」的台獨，其實皆是「空想的台獨」；反過來說，所謂的「穩健台獨」、「溫和台獨」，若不主張「正名制憲」，則難道還能叫做「台獨」嗎？

蔡同榮指馬英九叛國，正顯示台獨的困境。蔡同榮是深綠極獨，根本否認中華民國；他若指馬英九背叛中華民國，則蔡同榮自己其實才是大叛國者。如蔡同榮者，非但是「空想的台獨」，且也是「空想的中華民國維護者」；他們不可能實現台獨，且其所作所為亦在扼殺中華民國。

「空想的台獨」，其實是因內外大局大勢已使「台獨成為空想」。如今的台獨，居然如林濁水所指已經淪為只是藏獨及疆獨的轎夫，何其可悲？

民進黨的台獨論述有三大章典。《台獨黨綱》主張建立新而獨立的國家，《正常國家決議文》則主張及早正名制憲，皆可劃入「冒進台獨」的範疇；至於《國家前途決議文》主張「台灣是主權獨立的國家／現在名叫中華民國」，則是林濁水等人的所謂「穩健台獨」的最後依附。問題是：「冒進台獨」若是「空想」，則「現在名叫中華民國／未來可以不叫中華民國」的潛台詞，恐怕仍是「空想」；而此類論述的現實效應是「台獨不能實現／中華民國也不能鞏固」，這正是今日台灣社會的真實寫照。

民進黨必須決定，今後究竟是以「中華民國」或「台灣國」的基準，來參與台灣的政經發展。其實，大局大勢演化至今，台獨已無空想、非空想之別，亦無激進、穩健之別。中華民國就是中華民國，台獨就是台獨；若不建立一個明確的基準，民進黨仍將陷於「台獨不能實現／中華民國也不能鞏固」的泥淖中。例如：如何思考達賴與熱比婭的問題，中華民國的思考與台獨的思考就存有差異；如何處理ＥＣＦＡ的問題，中華民國與台獨亦是兩個截然不同的判斷基準。甚至民進黨如何處理與陳水扁的關係，如何處理族群關係，如何處理美日關係與兩岸關係，皆應先建立其一致的基準。只有在台灣的主流民意相信民進黨是從中華民國的基準上問政，而不是站在台灣國的「空想」上問政之時，始能獲得主流社會的信任與支持。民進黨向來欲以號召台獨群眾來贏取中華民國的政權，事實證明，這是自相矛盾的死路。陳水扁八年執政已經慘敗一次，民進黨難道仍將「空想」？

如前所述，只要不是「正名制憲」，不是「法理台獨」，就不是台獨；而民進黨若不再主張「正名制憲」，也就不必再從一種「空想」擺盪至另一種「空想」，則何不修改三大台獨章典，回歸中華民國？正如本報社論日前所說：民進黨對中華民國，勿「借殼上市」，應「認股共營」。

否則，民進黨能否告訴國人：何謂「不是空想的台獨」？