Taiwan Independence "Castles in the Air," Revisited

Taiwan Independence "Castles in the Air," Revisited
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2009

Yesterday Lin Cho-shui responded to our October 31 editorial, "Is There any Form of Taiwan independence that doesn't erect Castles in the Air?" He said "The paradox is that Taiwan independence has protected the Republic of China. It would be unwise to eliminate it."
Lin Cho-shui said that "As long as the Taiwan independence movement remains in existence, it will be the common enemy of both the Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China. But once the Taiwan independence movement has been eliminated, the Republic of China will become the Peoples Republic of China's number one enemy." This is the logic behind his argument that "Taiwan independence has protected the Republic of China."

Unfortunately, Lin Cho-shui misunderstood the meaning of our editorial. We did not advocate "eliminating the Taiwan independence movement." Within the larger framework of cross-Strait relations, Taiwan independence cannot be eliminated. Taiwan independence has long played a role in cross-Strait interaction. One reason Taiwan has become more and more cohesive, is the Taiwan independence movement. Furthermore, Taiwan independence rhetoric has long played the role of "bad cop" in a game of "good cop/bad cop." It has also been an important factor in guiding Taipei and Beijng toward the middle path. Cross-Strait reconciliation and coexistence can be considered a reaction to Taiwan independence moves by Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. Therefore when Lin Cho-shui says that "Taiwan independence has protected the Republic of China," he has a point. But our question was whether the DPP, as a major political party on Taiwan, intends to wave the banner of Taiwan independence in perpetuity? Either "impulsive Taiwan independence" or "measured Taiwan independence" makes no difference.

The Democratic Progressive Party's advocacy of Taiwan independence can indeed play a "good cop/bad cop" role. Taiwan independence can to some extent protect the Republic of China. But it has also thrown party politics on Taiwan out of balance, preventing it from functioning normally. It has ripped society apart along the lines of national and ethnic identity. It has left society incapable of extricating itself from this trap. Can the Democratic Progressive Party rule the nation on such a basis? What sort of future will this sort of Taiwan have?

Our editorial did not advocate "the elimination of Taiwan independence." On the contrary, it acknowledged that Taiwan independence has protected the Republic of China. But the primary force responsible for protecting the Republic of China for the past sixty years has been the Republic of China. Even "measured Taiwan independence" does not forsake the rectification of names, and the authoring of a new constitution, or de jure Taiwan independence. So-called "measured Taiwan independence" is merely Taiwan independence, Postponed. In other words "measured Taiwan independence," still calls for the eradication of the Republic of China. Otherwise, it is not Taiwan independence. Or is Lin Cho-shui advocating Taiwan independence merely to protect the Republic of China in perpetuity?

The Taiwan independence movement cannot be eliminated on Taiwan. The issue is whether the Democratic Progressive Party's continued advocacy of Taiwan independence will perpetuate an imbalance in party politics on Taiwan, and contribute to the degeneration of its democracy? In recent years, elements within the DPP, including Lin Cho-shui, have been contemplating these issues, searching for a way out for Taiwan independence. But "measured Taiwan independence" and other disguised forms of Taiwan independence were the cause of today's dilemma. They were responsible for our current plight, under which "Taiwan independence cannot be achieved, but the Republic of China cannot be reaffirmed?" Besides, "measured Taiwan independence" is not prevailing orthodoxy within the DPP. Nor is it representive of Taiwan independence at the grass roots. We do not deny the creativity behind "measured Taiwan independence." But we don't think it constitutes a feasible policy for a Democratic Progressive Party that aspires to rule.

In his letter, Lin Cho-shui apparently confuse the roots of Taiwan independence with the issue of whether Taiwan independence could resolve cross-Strait issues. Lin revisited our withdrawal from the United Nations. But at the time mainland China was still mired in the Cultural Revolution. The Cold War between the East and the West was still going on. Lin also revisited the martial law era. But the Republic of China has undergone four presidential elections and a second change in ruling parties since then. The Taiwan independence movement insists on dredging up our withdrawal from the United Nations and the lack of democracy during the martial law era as justifications for Taiwan independence. But is that any different than dredging up the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory" or the 2-28 Incident as justifications for Taiwan independence? After all, six decades have passed. The world has changed. Significant changes have occurred throughout the world, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and on Taiwan. The Taiwan independence movement rejects the notion that "both Taipei and Beijing claim to be the sole legitimate government of China." It rejects the notion that the "1992 Consensus / One China, Different Interpretations" constitutes a breakthrough. Can it really argue that these are instances in which "Taiwan independence has protected the Republic of China?" The tragedy of history was responsible for the rise of the Taiwan independence movement. But the Taiwan independence movement refuses to recognize new opportunities that have emerged as a result of historic changes. This is why the Taiwan independence movement remains incapable of providing leadership for democracy on Taiwan, or for relations across the Taiwan Strait. This may be the inevitable fate of the Taiwan independence movement. But is it to the benefit of the DPP to assume this role? Does it meet with the aspirations of the public on Taiwan?

As we see it, we cannot "eliminate Taiwan independence." But the DPP must unburden itself of the albatross of Taiwan independence. It must not continue advocating Taiwan independence under different guises. Otherwise, democracy on Taiwan and relations across the Taiwan Strait can never be normalized.

Our editorial and Lin Cho-shui's reply share a common vision. No cross-Strait policy, including "maintaining the status quo," "One China, Different Interpretations," or "Taiwan independence" is going to be easy. But our position differs from Lin Cho-shui's. Lin believes that "measured Taiwan independence" is the better alternative. We believe that "using the Republic of China to defend the Republic of China" is the better alternative. The Taiwan independence movement still has a role to play as "bad cop." The question is whether this is a role the DPP still wishes to play.

再論「還有不是空想的台獨嗎？」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.05 04:11 am

十月三十一日社論〈還有不是空想的台獨嗎？〉，承林濁水先生昨日在民意論壇作出回應。他說：「吊詭的是，台獨反而對中華民國形成了保護作用，若必去之而後快，並不明智。」

林濁水說：「當台獨存在時，中華民國是（中共的）聯合對象；當台獨消滅了，中華民國必成頭號敵人。」這是他「台獨保護中華民國」的立論邏輯。

這一點卻正是林濁水對社論的主要誤解，因為社論向未主張「欲去台獨而後快」。其實，在兩岸的大結構中，台獨是「去」不掉的；且台獨在兩岸互動中一直有其角色及功能。今日台灣的「主體性」愈來愈堅實，主要的原因之一，即是台獨運動的影響所致；再者，台獨論述亦始終扮演「黑臉／白臉」的角色，這也是近年來引導兩岸主流思維趨向中道的重要因素。眾所共見，今日兩岸關係之所以能趨向和解共生，其實可說是出自對李登輝及陳水扁兩朝台獨操作的反省。所以，林濁水說「台獨保護中華民國」，其實有其見地；但我們的問題是：作為台灣最重要政黨之一的民進黨，要不要永遠擎著台獨的大旗？不論是「冒進台獨」，或「穩健台獨」。

民進黨主張台獨，確可發生「黑臉／白臉」的作用，在某種程度上也能發生「台獨保護中華民國」的效應。但是，這卻也使得台灣的政黨政治失衡，不能正常地進行民主運作，而使社會陷於國家及族群的撕裂之中，不能自拔。這樣的民進黨如何執政？這樣的台灣有什麼前途？

所以，社論並未「欲去台獨而後快」，反而一向對「台獨保護中華民國」亦有認知。但是，六十年來保護「中華民國」的主力，畢竟仍是「中華民國」本身；而台獨論述即使縮減至「穩健台獨」，亦不會放棄「正名制憲」與「法理台獨」（台獨，但不是今天）；也就是說，「穩健台獨」最後仍「應」主張「消滅中華民國」，否則即不成「台獨」。如若不然，難道林濁水是在主張「永遠以保護中華民國為宗旨」的「台獨」？

台灣不可能沒有「台獨」，問題在民進黨若仍承負台獨的角色，是否會使台灣的政黨政治失衡、民主政治變質？近年來，民進黨內如林濁水等勤學深思之士對此多所思考，皆在為台獨探尋出路；但所謂「穩健台獨」等變相的台獨論述，難道不正是造成今日「台獨不能實現／中華民國也不能鞏固」的主要原因？何況，「穩健台獨」並非民進黨內的顯學，在台獨基層中其實不具代表性。我們不否定「穩健台獨」的創意，但不認為這是仍想執政的民進黨的可行政策。

林濁水在投書中，似仍對「台獨因何發生」與「台獨能否解決兩岸問題」，略有混淆。林文又回溯到「退出聯合國時期」，但那時中國大陸仍陷於文化大革命，亦是東西冷戰方熾的年代；林文也又回顧到「戒嚴時期」，但如今中華民國業已經歷四次總統直選及兩度政黨輪替。台獨論述如果一直要以「退出聯合國」、「戒嚴時期的不民主」為立論基礎，則與回復到「台灣地位未定論」何異？又與「因為二二八／所以要台獨」何異？畢竟，六十年來的時空變遷極大，今日的世界、兩岸及台灣皆有重大變化；台獨若仍要堅持「海峽兩岸皆宣稱自己是中國唯一合法政府」，而不認為「九二共識／一中各表」可能存有某種程度的突破空間，難道這也是「台獨保護中華民國」的作為？歷史的悲情，是台獨發生的原因；但台獨不願面對今日歷史巨變出現的新機遇，卻亦使台獨不能成為引導台灣民主政治及兩岸關係發展的主流。這也許是台獨的必然宿命及應然使命，但如果是由民進黨來承負這個角色，是否不成比例？是否對得起台灣主流民意的期待？

我們的看法是：不可能「去台獨而後快」，但民進黨卻應蛻去台獨，而不宜再用任何化名化身來玩弄台獨；否則，台灣民主及兩岸關係皆不可能趨於正常與平衡。

社論與林濁水有一共同見解：任何兩岸方案，包括「維持現狀」、「一中各表」或「台獨」，無一容易。但是，社論與林濁水相左之處則在：林文認為「穩健台獨仍屬『比較不壞』的選擇」，而我們認為，「以中華民國來保護中華民國」，始是「比較不壞」的選擇。「台獨」仍有「黑臉」的角色可扮，問題在要不要由民進黨來扮演。