Making Room for the Rational Discussion of Cross-Strait Issues

Making Room for the Rational Discussion of Cross-Strait Issues
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2009

Yesterday, on the eve of the fourth Chiang/Chen Meeting, Robert Tsao, Honorary Chairman of the UMC Corporation, took out two half-page ads on the front pages of three different newpapers. He called on President Ma Ying-jeou to extricate himself from his "no unification, no independence, no use of force" framework. He called on him to make a courageous decision by actively promoting a law ensuring peaceful cross-Strait relations. Whether Robert Tsao's suggestion is sound is debatable. How the Ma administration will respond is also unclear. But we think such positive and proactive approaches to cross-Strait interaction and cross-Strait policy deserve recognition.

Cross-Strait debate has long been deadlocked, mired in a simplistic dualism. The leaders of the ruling and opposition camps have devoted most of their intellect and energy challenging their opponent's positions. Public debate is dominated by simplistic slogans and emotional rhetoric. This vicious cycle has gone on for at least a dozen years. It has led to escalating confrontation between the government and the opposition. Neither camp has been able to convert the other. This was true in the past, and will remain true in the future. Who is in office makes no difference. Whoever is in office will find himself mired in the same quagmire, spinning his wheels, and unable to extricate himself.

What is the point of ruling party change on Taiwan, if the only change is that a different camp will take to the streets to protest? How will enhance our competitiveness? Robert Tsao's main point was that we must attempt to find a way out of our deadlock when discussing cross-Strait relations. We must find a new way to debate these issues. A new way of debating such issues would offer many benefits. One would no longer be mired in disputes for which there will never be any final conclusion. In short, one must not engage in debates which can only bring disaster upon Taiwan. Instead, one must consider options that may provide Taiwan with benefits and opportunities. The issue would no longer be "reunification vs. independence." The issue would be how to build cross-Strait trust under conditions of peace and democracy. Robert Tsao's "cross-Strait peaceful coexistence Law" is one possibility. Such discussions would of course give priority to the interests of the public on Taiwan. They would involve the democratic process. They would involve a rational calculation of the interests of a majority of the public on Taiwan. They would prevent anyone from hurling accusations about "Who is selling out Taiwan." That is why Robert Tsao said that if the DPP figures this out, the KMT could soon be out of power.

We certainly agree that given the current political atmosphere on Taiwan, even if one could initiate such a debate, it would soon descend into name-calling. Name-calling involves a very simple logic. Anyone who offers any constructive suggestions for cross-Straits interaction, regardless of what their substance might be, will be labeled "a traitor selling out Taiwan," who is "pandering to [Mainland] China," and who is "pro-reunification." He will be reduced to a straw man, to be blasted to smithereens with every weapon in one's arsenal. Any debate that descends to such depths will never lead anywhere. The debate will essentially be over. In recent years it has been impossible to openly and rationally discuss cross-Strait issues. This is the result of ad hominem name-calling. Put bluntly, the DPP has yet to hold a real debate on [Mainland] China policy. DPP leaders are too afraid of being labeled "traitors selling out Taiwan." The Ma administration's cross-Strait policy since assuming office has been timid and fearful, largely because it too is terrified of such accusations.

So the question is, is there nothing one can do, merely because one is afraid of being labeled? When it comes to [Mainland] China, the Democratic Progressive Party has its sacred cows. It is also the political opposition. Its inability to offer new policies and proposals is understandable. But this is not true of the KMT. A majority of the public on Taiwan voted for the KMT. They gave it a nearly three-quarters supermajority in the Legislative Yuan. They gave President Ma Ying-jeou an absolute majority. Why? So President Ma and the KMT could wallow in their current indecisiveness, constantly looking over their shoulder and second-guessing themselves? So President Ma and the KMT could spin their wheels and mark time? What we see today is a KMT legislative caucus with an absolute majority, able to do nothing, paralyzed by an opposition DPP with an absolute minority. Faced with opposition DPP criticism, the only thing President Ma knows how to do is apologize repeatedly. He has nothing positive to offer. Robert Tsao offered a criticism worth pondering. He thinks that since President Ma assumed office, he has adopted an "avoid controversy" style of decision-making. But to avoid controversy is tantamount to forsaking one's responsibility to govern. When national leaders are unwilling to stick to their guns, when they fail to set goals, their subordinates will find themselves adrift. The result will be "a plate of loose sand."

Everyone knows that amidst the current wave of globalization, our future is not bright. To escape our predicament, we must adopt a more aggressive attitude when it comes to cross-Strait relations. We can be proud of our baptism in democracy. We are able to accommodate a diversity of opinions. We have adopted such an attitude regarding Green Camp supporters when they protest against the Chiang/Chen Meeting. We must adopt the same attitude regarding all cross-Strait discussions and proposals.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.12.22
社論－為兩岸議題的討論打開更多理性的空間
本報訊

選在第四次江陳會登場前夕，聯電榮譽董事長曹興誠於昨日在三家報紙頭版，刊登了兩個半版的文字廣告，呼籲總統馬英九能走出「不統不獨不武」的框架，做出有膽識的決策，積極推動制定兩岸和平共處法。曹興誠的建言是否允當容或有討論的空間，馬政府將會如何回應目前也不清楚，但我們以為，類似這種以正面、積極的態度為兩岸未來互動提供思維方向與政策方案的做法，是值得肯定的。

長久以來，台灣內部對兩岸議題的討論，一直都沉溺在二元對立的僵局中打轉。朝野陣營的領導精英，持續將其大部分的智慧與心力，耗費在質疑對手的觀點與立場上，公共討論空間則充斥著鮮明的口號與情緒的修辭。這種惡性循環，十幾年下來除了持續升高朝野對立，誰也沒能把誰說服。長此以往，台灣未來不論換那個政黨執政，恐怕都一樣陷在無窮的內耗中無法自拔。

嘗試想想，如果政黨輪替在台灣的意義，就只是更換不同的群眾上街頭抗爭，那還何必奢談什麼提升競爭力？曹興誠在其建言中所訴求的最主要論點，就是嘗試將所有有關兩岸關係的討論，從爭論終局選項的死胡同中跳出來，置換成程序與手段的討論。這種置換的好處是：不必再沉溺於那些永遠沒結論，也不可能有共識的「終局」爭執上。換言之，不要再去爭執哪個選項會為台灣帶來災難，而是去討論哪個方案會給台灣提供好處與機會，「統/獨」不再是論爭焦點，而是轉換到兩岸在「和平」與「民主」的前提下，循何種方案或模式可以建立彼此的互信與互助？曹興誠所提示的「兩岸和平共處法」或許是其中的模式之一。這種討論當然永遠是以台灣的利益為優先，以民主的程序為首要，它著重的是對最大多數台灣人利益的理性計算，而不復再是「誰在賣台」的情緒質疑。這也就是為什麼曹興誠會說如果民進黨真的想通了這一點，國民黨可能很快就會失去政權。

我們當然同意，在當前台灣的政治氛圍中，即便是啟動這種形式的討論，也很快就會掉入標籤化指控的陷阱中。這種指控的邏輯很簡單：即只要對兩岸未來的互動模式提出任何積極的主張，不論你實質的主張究竟是什麼，都一律先扣上「賣台」、「傾中」、「統派」…等大帽子，然後再卯盡全力轟擊這個被塑造出來的稻草人，任何議題的討論只要陷入到這種境地，其實也就等於討論不下去了。台灣這幾年有關兩岸議題的討論，一直沒法打開理性的公共空間，就是這種標籤化指控支配一切的結果。講再直接一點，民進黨內部迄今為止有關中國政策的辯論一直打不開格局，就是任何一方都怕被貼標籤；同樣的，馬政府執政以來在兩岸政策開放上一再瞻前顧後，很大一部分也是畏懼被貼標籤的結果。

問題是：難道因為畏懼被貼標籤，所以就可以無所作為嗎？民進黨在中國政策上有它「神主牌」的信仰堅持，再加上角色是在野黨，在政策主張上打不開格局還情有可原；但國民黨就不一樣了，至少當初台灣多數民意透過選票讓國民黨在立法院取得近四分之三的席次優勢，讓馬英九以絕對過半多數的優勢進入總統府，並不是期待其以今天這種瞻前顧後，甚至原地踏步的表現來執政的。而我們今天所看到的實況是：擁有席次絕對多數的國民黨黨團，在立法院面對少數在野黨的杯葛與癱瘓，表現的卻是一籌莫展！馬總統面對在野人士的批判，除了一再道歉，也不曾表現出更多積極的作為。曹興誠在他建言中有句批評頗值得深思，他認為馬總統就任以來在決策治理上處處都呈現「避免爭議」的風格，然而避免爭議的結果卻等於是「放棄管理」，亦就是等於「放棄承擔」。當國家領導人吝於堅持立場、不訂目標，底下就無所適從，最後必然是一片散沙！

誰都知道，在全球化的浪潮中，台灣的角色與處境並不樂觀，要打開這種困局不能不以更積極的態度去面對兩岸關係。同樣的，台灣最值得驕傲的地方，正在於它已經歷過民主的洗禮，能夠容納多元的聲音。我們用這樣的態度看待綠營民眾對江陳會的嗆聲，當然也該用同樣的態度對待所有對兩岸未來前景的討論與主張。