Maintaining the Status Quo: The Happy Medium for Taipei and Beijing

Maintaining the Status Quo: The Happy Medium for Taipei and Beijing
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2009

As Beijing interacts with Taipei, two factions have emerged, "reunification hawks" and "reunification doves."
Recent examples of doves include Zhang Nianchi, head of the Shanghai East Asia Research Institute. In an article in the "China Review" Zhang said, "Peaceful development ... will take a long time ... the mainland must not think in terms of quick fixes. It must not oversimplify matters or become impatient. It must not perform a few good deeds and expect an immediate reward. That would be a failure to understand the meaning of peaceful development." Zhang Nianchi said, "We must ... alter certain attitudes formed over the past six decades or even the past century." This is a "dove" speaking. Recent examples of hawks include PLA Major General Luo Yuan. Luo publicly stated that upon election Ma Ying-jeou has "sacrificed reunification for the sake of gradual secession." Luo said Ma's "no unification / no independence / no use of force" is in fact "peaceful secession." This is a "hawk" speaking. This shows that the other side has indeed held "certain attitudes" for the past sixty years.

The two may have their differences. But they appear to share the same opinion of President Ma Ying-jeou. As noted above, Luo Yuan interprets President Ma's "three no's" as "peaceful secession." His remarks expressed dissatisfaction. Actually, dove spokesman Zhang Nianchi was even more explicit. Zhang referred to Ma Ying-jeou as "Chiang Ching-kuo Redux." He concluded therefore that Ma would neither "sell out Taiwan" nor "achieve reunification."

Zhang and Luo shared the same assessment of public sentiment on Taiwan. Luo Yuan pointed out that the KMT may be in power, but that the DPP still has about 40% public support. The mainland has demonstrated a great deal of goodwill towards Taiwan. But support for reunification has not increased, and support for independence has not decreased. He said "Permanently maintaining the status quo amounts to peaceful secession." Zhang Nian-chi's view of public sentiment on Taiwan was that "Although rapid changes (in cross-Strait relations) is an historical necessity, it is perceived as happening too fast ... therefore those hoping to achieve independence feel despair, and those hoping to preserve the status quo feel panic."

Zhang and Luo have similar assessments of public sentiment on Taiwan. So why have two schools of thought emerged, the "hawks" and the "doves?" To borrow a phrase from Zhang Nianchi, it is because the hawks remain trapped in the "crisis management" mentality of the past. For them non-reunification constitutes a crisis. The doves on the other hand, have adopted an "opportunity management" mentality. For them peaceful development constitutes an opportunity.

Zhang says President Ma will not "achieve reunification." Luo says President Ma's "three noes" amounts to "peaceful secession." These are their assessments of President Ma. Based on their assessments of public sentiment on Taiwan, we know they understand President Ma's policies and thinking. In fact, given the system of democracy on Taiwan at this stage, such a position is unavoidable. No Republic of China leader can possibly ignore public opinion. Public sentiment makes the reappearance of another Taiwan independence demagogue such as Lee Teng-hui or Chen Shui-bian in the ROC impossible. Crisis Management has seen to that. On the other hand, the appearance of a president who advocates immediate reunification is also impossible. Opportunity Management on Taiwan has seen to that. Therefore, Beijing must realize that whether one is talking about "crisis management" or "opportunity management," the final arbiter of cross-Strait policy on Taiwan is mainstream public opinion. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian lost power when they lost popular support. Ma Ying-jeou too must march in lockstep with public opinion. If Beijing is able to realize that the final say rests in the hands of the public on Taiwan, it will arrive at its own conclusions about whether it should support the hawks or the doves.

Zhang Nianchi's statement reminds one of former ARATS chairman Wang Daohan. Twelve years ago, in 1997, Wang proclaimed that "we are now moving towards One China." He said "One China does not mean the People's Republic of China. Nor does it mean the Republic of China. It means a One China created by compatriots on both sides of the Strait." He pointed out that "This so-called one China, is a yet to be reunified China, but one which both sides are moving toward." Wang's reasoning was published the year after the missile crisis and presidential election. Today his "crisis management" would be referred to as "opportunity management." Today his so-called "China that has yet to be reunified, but which is still One China," or his "1992 Consensus / One China, Different Interpretations," or "maintaining the status quo," also represent different ways of transforming "crises" into "opportunities." That is why the United Daily News has long advocated "replacing goal orientation with process orientation." Doves want to change crises into opportunities. Hawks on the other hand, want to change opportunities into crises.

Cross-Strait relations have traveled a bumpy road with many detours. There have been gains and setbacks. Maintaining the status quo means maintaining opportunities and avoiding crises. As Zhang Nianchi noted, Taipei and Beijing must not oversimplify matters or act impetuously. They must not retreat in the face of setbacks. They must have the wisdom to "know when to hold," and the vigilance to "know when to fold."

維持現狀是兩岸最佳停利停損點
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.26 03:49 am

大陸方面對兩岸政治互動的進程，似乎出現了「主急派」與「主緩派」的分歧。

最近的事例是：一、上海東亞研究所所長章念馳在《中國評論》發表專文指出：「和平發展……這是很長的階段……大陸不可有急功好利的思想，不可簡單化和急躁化，做了幾天善事就要回報，那就是對和平發展的膚淺認識。」章念馳說：「要……改變過去六十年乃至一百年形成的某種意識。」這是「主緩派」。二、解放軍少將羅援公開演講則表示，馬英九當選後，「以犧牲統一為代價／以細微分裂為目的」，所提「不統／不獨／不武」，其實是「和平分裂」。這是「主急派」，言下所顯露的可謂正是對岸六十年來一直存在的「某種意識」。

二人雖有歧見，但對馬英九總統的評論似有交集。正如前述，主急派羅援將馬總統的「三不」解釋為「和平分裂」，而語透不耐；其實，主緩派章念馳在文中對馬總統的相關評論，則較羅援更露骨。章說：馬英九是「蔣經國第二」，因此注定不會「出賣台灣」，也注定不會「成就統一」。

除此，章羅二人對台灣的社會民情亦有相似的評估。羅援指出：國民黨主政，但民進黨仍有四成左右的支持率。大陸雖然釋放許多善意，但支持統一的未上升，支持獨立的也沒有下降。他又說：「永久維持現狀就是和平分裂。」章念馳對台灣社會民情的觀察則是：「（兩岸關係）迅速的改變雖是歷史的必然，但似乎來得太快……讓嚮往台獨者感到絕望，讓要求維持現狀者感到慌張。」

章羅二人對台灣的主政者及社會民情既有相似的評量，卻何以會出現「主急／主緩」的不同主張？借用章念馳的語彙來說，這是因為主急派仍自陷於過去那種「危機管理」（不統一就是危機）的心態，而主緩派則已將心態調整為「機遇管理」（和平發展就是機遇）。

章指馬總統不可能「成就統一」，羅指馬總統的「三不」是「和平分裂」。這是他們對馬總統的評量；但由前述他們對台灣社會民情的見解，可知他們也明白馬總統的政策與思維，其實是在台灣民主體制中現階段的必然立場，任何中華民國的主政者皆沒有脫離民意的可能性。由於民意的彰顯與影響，中華民國已不可能反覆到再出現如李登輝、陳水扁那般操作台獨的總統（「危機管理」已經做到），但也不可能在現階段出現一個主張立即統一的總統（台灣也有台灣的「機遇管理」）。所以，北京方面應當知道，不論是「危機管理」或「機遇管理」，在台灣主導兩岸關係的主體始終是主流民意；李登輝、陳水扁因失去民意支持而失勢，馬英九也必須與民意並肩而行。倘若北京能認清最後的話語權是掌握在台灣人民手中，自會對主急派或主緩派作出高下軒輊的評量。

章念馳的發言，令人想到前海協會長汪道涵。汪在十二年前（一九九七年）就發表「現在進行式的一個中國」。他說：「一個中國並不等於中華人民共和國，也不等於中華民國，而是兩岸同胞共同締造的一個中國。」並指出：「所謂一個中國，應是一個尚未統一的中國，共同邁向統一的中國。」汪道涵的此一論述，發表在總統大選飛彈危機的次一年，從今天的角度看，可謂當年已將「危機管理」調整為「機遇管理」；而如今所謂「雖然尚未統一／仍是一個中國」、「九二共識／一中各表」，或「維持現狀」，皆亦可說是將「危機」轉化成「機遇」的不同途徑。這也就是本報歷來主張的「以過程論取代目的論」。準此以論，主緩派是主張化危機為機遇，而主急派則不啻是反其道而行，欲化機遇為危機了！

兩岸關係確實是曲折反覆，損益互見。維持現狀，就是維持機遇、避免危機。再借用章念馳的話：兩岸皆不要簡單化躁進化，要有「停利」的理智；亦不要一遇矛盾就埋怨後退，須有「停損」的警覺。