The Chiang/Chen Meeting: Do Not Create a Lose-Lose Situation

The Chiang/Chen Meeting: Do Not Create a Lose-Lose Situation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 21, 2009

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in bitterly cold winds. But the crowd held contradictory goals. On the one hand, the Democratic Progressive Party has relentlessly incited mob sentiment. Green Camp pundits even coined such incendiary slogans as "Capture Chen Yunlin Alive!" On the other hand, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly urged protestors to be "peaceful, rational and non-violent," and assured the public that they would be. Unfortunately in November 2008, the situation got out of hand. Bloody clashes took place between protestors and police. Memories are still fresh, and make many uneasy. Is the DPP serious about wanting their supporters to "gather peacefully and scatter peacefully?"
In this same wintry weather, thousands of police officers have been assigned to the streets. They too labor under an "Impossible Mission." On the one hand, they represent the authority of the state, and have a duty to maintain public safety. They must act swiftly, resolving any problems that might lead to social unrest. They also have an albatross around their neck. If they are cursed at, they may not curse back. If they are struck, they many not strike back. This is true for central and local governments alike. The government has assured the public that police will not use excessive force. Taichung Mayor Jason Hu even bet on his own job on it. But during 2008, police in Taipei enforced the law in a Draconian manner. Many people remain skeptical of the attitude of the police, and their ability to deal with problems that arise. Have they actually considered the many possible scenarios? Will police on the front lines lose control when push comes to shove?

The same thing happened last year. The Chiang/Chen Meeting became a ritual for the airing of public sentiment. On the surface it appeared to be a confrontation between rival political parties. In fact it was an expression of collective anxiety. The Chiang/Chen Meeting is not really about differences between Blue and Green, or differences between social groups (erroneously referred to as "ethnic groups") , or differences between northern Taiwan and southern Taiwan. It is about a feeling of gradually being marginalized as a country. Under the impact of globalization, the Republic of China has lost its sense of direction. It is afraid it may cease to exist. Its industrial competitiveness and the livelihood of its farmers and fishermen are at risk. This is not a question of political ideology. This is a question of economic pressures on domestic industries. This is question of winners and losers. Whoever is in office must answer the same questions. Should we integrate our economy with the rest of eastern Asia? How can we protect farmers, fishermen, and traditional industries from the impact of globalization?

The problems must be dealt with. On the one hand how they are dealt with will reflect the competence and wisdom of those in office. On the other hand, it will affect how voters cast their ballots. Under democracy every vote is equal. But the votes of industry sectors whose survival is at risk are a little more equal than others. The middle class is complacent. Industry sectors whose survival is at stake value their votes more than the middle class, which remains secure amidst globalization. This is one of the few things that may change their lives. They are taking to the streets because they believe otherwise they will remain invisible. They have protested violently. They have not hesitated to make trouble. They believe that only then will they be included in decisions affecting their futures. They believe that only then can they avoid being sacrificed as part of some package deal. The most direct and often most effective way of making themselves heard is through the ballot box. The recent three in one elections are in part a showdown between the economic winners and the economic losers. Such showdowns have taken place in many countries. But cross-Strait relations are unique. Add to this an extremely high degree of economic dependence, and the problem is compounded.

Such confrontation and internal conflict has motivated too many to spend too much time and energy rejecting ECFA. They forget that ECFA may enable us to sign more FTAs. They forget that the best and often most effective way to resist pressure from Beijing is to enter the Mainland. Taiwan businesses on the Mainland can reach out and touch the outside world from the Mainland. The same is true of the Republic of China government in Taipei. Too much confrontation has blinded the public to ECFA's upside.

The Republic of China feels as if it is being suffocated, both economically and politically. The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. But the only thing it knew how to do was to withdraw from the world. The Ma administration has little to offer apart from its Mainland policy. It too has contributed to widespread anxiety. Beijing has excluded Taipei from the international arena, and made the public on Taiwan feel deprived, dominated, and undermined. For the public on Taiwan, the Chiang/Chen Meeting has become a means by which they can vent their frustrations. What we see is a zero-sum game between DPP Chairman Tsai Ying-wen and KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou. Their supporters hurl accusations of "bao li xiao ying" (a violence prone Tsai Ying-wen) and "mai tai xiao ma" (a Ma Ying-jeou who is selling out Taiwan) at each other. This is truly unfortunate. The Chiang/Chen Meeting must not be reduced to this. The opposition DPP is able to persuade hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets. Yet it is unable to tell them just exactly what sort of cross-Strait policy it would have instead. The ruling KMT is able to order overwhelming police force to prevent blood in the streets. Yet it is unable to persuade the public that any agreement signed with the Mainland will not reduce Taiwan to tears.

The conduct of both the ruling and opposition parties during the previous Chiang/Chen Meeting was disappointing. Intelligent and conscientious political leaders should be able to win their supporters' hearts and their opponents' respect. We hope the leaders of both parties will see the Chiang/Chen Meeting as an opportunity for the public to better understand our situation. We hope they will find a better way to survive in a globalized environment. Ensuring the Republic of China's survival requires hard-headed realism, not emotionalism and enmity.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.12.21
社論－反江陳會 別讓朝野雙輸憾事重演
本報訊

颼颼冷風中，數萬人走上街頭，這群人被賦予了矛盾的期望：一方面，遊行的主事者，民進黨不斷升高對立的情緒，甚至有綠營名嘴用了「活捉陳雲林」這樣煽情的口號；另一方面，在這樣的氛圍下，民進黨主席蔡英文卻又不斷呼籲並且保證遊行會「和平、理性與非暴力」。只是，二○○八年十一月江陳會警民流血衝突的失控場面，記憶猶新，讓許多人仍免不了感到不安──民進黨真的能夠、真的打從心裡是想要讓民眾「好好的來，平平安安的去」嗎？

同樣的寒冬天氣裡，數千警力也在街頭上，這群人，同樣揹負著某種不可能的任務：一方面，他們代表公權力維護公共安全，必須當機立斷化解任何造成社會不安與危險的場面和舉動；另一方面，他們有著不能說的秘密，就是罵不還口，加上打不還手。從中央到地方，政府再三保證警察絕對不會執法過當，台中市長胡志強甚至賭上自己的官位；然而，同樣的，二○○八年警察在台北的激動執法，讓很多人對警方的心理素質與現場處理問題的能力，感到憂心──執政黨真的有辦法、真的周延地沙盤推演過，讓第一線在與抗議民眾短兵相接的警方人員不會亂了方寸、不會壞了分寸？

與去年完全一樣，江陳會彷彿成了社會情緒大操演的某種儀式：表面看來是不同政黨的政治對立，骨子裡其實是台灣集體的焦慮；江陳會所涉及的核心議題，其實不是藍綠，不是族群，當然更不是南北差異，而是做為一個逐漸被邊緣化的國家、台灣，在全球化衝擊下失去方向，甚至於逐漸失去存在感的恐懼 ──從產業競爭到農漁民生計，都不是政治立場問題，而是國內生產部門此消彼漲的壓力，不論誰執政，都一樣要面對一個殘酷的挑戰：那就是要不要因應東亞區域整合？以及如何保護無力因應全球化而遭到生存威脅的農漁業或傳統產業部門？

問題非要好好因應不可，因為這一方面反映出執政者的能力與智慧，另一方面，當然也關係著選票。民主政治不但票票等值，生存遭到威脅的產業部門，他們的票有時還更值錢些，因為他們可能比安逸的中產階級、在全球化浪朝中較有機會安身立命的那些人，更重視手上的選票，畢竟這可能是他們改變生命的少數依恃；他們走上街頭，是因為他們認為，不這樣，他們永遠不會被看見；他們激烈抗爭、不惜鬧事，是因為，他們相信這是能夠阻止在某些他們無力參與的決策裡，被包裹交易以及被犧牲的悲慘命運；當然，最直接也往往最有效的是用選票表達意見。最近三合一選舉的結果，部分也反應了受惠多者與受惠少者之間的對決；這種對決，其實很多國家都在上演，只是，由於兩岸特殊的關係，再加上經濟上的超高度依存度，使得問題變得更複雜。

這種對抗與內耗，使得不少人花了過多的心思去排斥ＥＣＦＡ，卻忘了如何透過ＥＣＦＡ去爭取更多ＦＴＡ的可能性；忘了要抗拒中國，最好也最有效的辦法，其實是走進中國，台商從中國走向世界，台灣也是如此。太多的對立，使台灣看不到機會。

台灣今天在經濟和政治上有窒息之感，八年執政只知不斷內縮的民進黨固然難辭其咎，自從上任後除了中國政策之外，幾乎看不到其他太多主張的馬政府，也是造成許多民眾疑慮叢生的原因。再加上，在各種國際舞台緊緊勒住台灣的對岸，讓台灣人不斷複習著被剝奪、被宰制、被架空的痛苦。江陳會因此被走不出去的台灣，窄化成了一個發洩情緒的管道，我們看到的是暴力小英與賣台小馬間的互控與零合遊戲，這實在是非常可惜的事，畢竟江陳會不該只是如此──為什麼，在野黨可發動十萬人上街，卻說不清楚他們究竟要什麼樣的兩岸政策；為什麼，執政黨可以用優勢警力保證街頭不流血，卻始終無法說服人民與大陸簽訂的任何協議，絕對不會讓某些台灣人流淚。

朝野兩黨在上次江陳會的表現，都是讓人失望的。有智慧有良心的政黨與政治人物，不但應該要讓支持者安心，也要讓反對者願意尊重。期許兩黨領導人，把這次江陳會當做一個好機會，讓更多台灣人清楚地認識台灣處境、理性地尋找在全球化架構下，台灣的生存發展之路；這是個現實問題，不是情緒、好惡問題。