Hoping for a Rational Debate on Cross-Strait Peace

Hoping for a Rational Debate on Cross-Strait Peace
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 28, 2010

The Wang Wang Group and the China Times Media Group sponsored a "We demand peace! We demand a Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law." Yesterday the multimedia debate took place without incident. The participants included honorary UMC chairman Robert Tsao, Chinese Integration Association Director Chang Ya-chung, and former DPP legislator Lin Cho-shui. The debate explored the feasibility of a "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law." The participants presented their positions, took part in a Question and Answer period, and debated the issues. Sparks flew. Sensitive issues were dealt with by means of constructive dialogue. The participants did not reach any consensus. But their differences were not as great as imagined. Most importantly the debate established a model for rational discussion of this sensitive topic.

The debate originated with UMC Chairman Robert Tsao several months ago, when he purchased newspaper ads promoting a "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law." Tsao thinks that such a law could defuse internal disputes over reunification and independence, and might enable long term peaceful cross-Strait coexistence. But as his proposal immediately triggered a wide range of reactions, pro and con. Some consider his proposal highly creative. Others disagree. For example, Chinese Integration Association director Chang Ya-chung expressed skepticism about Tsao's proposal five times. The Green Camp argued that Tsao's version of a "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law" excluded any referendum on independence, making it unacceptable to them. This suggests that considerable differences remain over the advantages and disadvantages and feasibility of the "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law." Will we continue to sit back and watch as both sides talk past each other? Or will we try to allow parties holding different views to engage in dialogue? The answer shjuld be clear. The Republic of China has undergone two changes in ruling parties. It should be mature enough to permit the rational discussion of sensitive issues. It should not remain permantly trapped in feeble-minded name-calling.

During yesterday's debate the participants disagreed. It was inevitable that they would challenge each other and engage in a war of words. But both the live audience and readers who pored over the transcript of the debate afterwards, would probably agree. All three parties were pursuing the best interests of the public on Taiwan and attempting to maintain cross-Strait peace. The only real disagreements between the three parties were over the feasibility and consequences of Tsao's initiative.

For example, Robert Tsao's "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law" emphasizes "procedural justice." It allows the public on Taiwan to decide whether to reunify. It allows the public on Taiwan to decide whether it wants reunification or independence, instead of allowing Blue and Green camp politicians to demagogue the issue. Chang Ya-chung however, thought that if the two sides failed to reach a certain degree of mutual trust, the "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law" would probably be subject to political manipulation. It would ultimately become a "Cross-Strait Peaceful Secession Law." The so-called "Referendum on Reunification" might well turn into a "Referendum against Reunification." Lin Cho-shui considered the "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law" well intentioned but infeasible. It might well turn into another "Defensive Referendum," originally intended to diminish acute identity issues on Taiwan, but actually counter-productive.

Regardless which of the three parties' views was most persuasive, we can at least agree that sensitive cross-Strait issues should be discussed in just such a manner. Honorary UMC Chairman Robert Tsao is attempting to engage in rational thinking about cross-Strait disputes. He put forth his "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law." He believes it can resolve internal disputes on Taiwan and cross-Strait disputes between Taipei and Beijing. But both Chinese Integration Society Director Chang Ya-chung and former DPP legislator Lin Cho-shui opposed his initiative, albeit from different perspectives. They felt his intitiative was not particularly feasible. Just how feasible is the "Cross-Strait Peaceful Coexistence Law?" Which of the three parties' take on this controversial initiative is the most reasonable? The best way to clarify controversial issues is to debate them, and see whose ideas are the most feasible. We may not arrive at a final consensus. But at least the initiative has undergone rational debate. At least we have had an opportunity to point out the advantages and disadvantages,s as well as the blind spots. Any cross-strait initiative can be subjected to the same such dialogue. Blue and Green camp politicians will no longer hold a monopoly on the discussion of cross-Strait issues. Everyone will be able to participate in the discussion of public issues.

More importantly, this debate can ensure a rational atmosphere for future discussions. No one used harsh language to defame others during this debate. No one resorted to name-calling or conspiracy theories. We have long looked forward to the advent of rational dialogue. This debate was a real life example of rational dialogue.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.01.28
社論－理性辯論 樂見兩岸和平成公共議題
本報訊

由旺旺中時媒體集團所主辦的「一定要和平！兩岸和平共處法」跨媒體辯論會，已於昨天下午順利舉行。出席這場辯論的主角，分別為聯電榮譽董事長曹興誠、兩岸統合學會理事長張亞中以及前民進黨立委林濁水，主要是針對「兩岸和平共處法」的可行性等問題公開辯論。三方透過陳述與詢答程序的各抒已見，辯論過程雖有些許火花，但在許多敏感的焦點上也進行了建設性的對話，儘管最終並未達成太多共識，但其實三方的分歧亦無想像中那麼大。而我們以為這其中最值得珍視的，還是促成此一敏感議題終於可以在台灣循理性對話的模式來進行。

此一辯論會的緣起，主要係聯電榮譽董事長曹興誠月前在報端登廣告積極倡議制定「兩岸和平共處法」，認為此舉不但可化解台灣內部的統獨爭端，也能為兩岸關係找到可長可久的和平共處方法。然而此一構想經提出後，隨後也立即引發正反不同的反應。有人認為很有創意，但也有不少論者表達不同的見解，例如統合會會長張亞中即五度為文提出質疑；綠營方面也有論者認為曹版「兩岸和平共處法」排除獨立公投，令他們無法接受。這意味「兩岸和平共處法」的利弊得失與可行性究竟如何，確實存有頗大的討論空間，我們是該持續坐視各方毫無交集的各說各話？還是努力促成讓不同意見的各方進行對話？這個問題的答案其實很清楚，畢竟台灣已經經歷過兩次政黨輪替，應該已經成熟到可以理性的討論任何敏感的議題，而非永遠還停留在那個「扣帽子」的弱智年代。

昨天這場辯論中，儘管因為參與辯論的三方立場互異，難免因為相互質疑而彼此脣槍舌劍，但相信不論是在現場聆聽的聽眾，或是在事後細心閱讀辯論全文的讀者，都會同意參與這場辯論會中，三方在「追求台灣人民的最大利益」上根本沒有歧見，在「維持兩岸和平」的立場上更是未見對立，三方真正的分歧，主要還是在可行性與後果評估上。

例如，曹興誠認為他所倡議的「兩岸和平共處法」，主旨在強調「程序正義」，讓「統一」交由台灣民意來把關，他認為這樣可以讓台灣百姓自己來決定未來統獨與否，而非任由藍綠政客來操弄這個議題。但張亞中卻認為兩岸若是未能達成一定程度的互信，則「兩岸和平共處法」很可能會遭到政客玩弄，最終導致其變成「兩岸和平分裂法」，甚至所謂「統一公投」也很可能變成了「不統一公投」。而林濁水認為「兩岸和平共處法」雖然立意良善，但可行性卻不高，很可能變成另類的防禦性公投，原本旨在降低台灣內部尖銳的認同問題，但結果卻很可能適得其反。

姑不論證辯三方的論點究竟是誰比誰更有理，至少我們都會承認，兩岸間的所有敏感議題，不就是應該這樣談嗎？聯電榮譽董事長曹興誠理性的思索兩岸爭議，提出了「兩岸和平共處法」的公開倡議，他認為此舉可以有效解決台灣內部與兩岸間的爭議，但兩岸統合學會理事長張亞中以及前民進黨立委林濁水，各自從不同的立場反對這種倡議，且都認為可行性不高，那麼究竟「兩岸和平共處法」有沒有可行性呢？究竟這爭議三方誰的倡議更合理呢？讓問題爭議澄清最好的方式，不就是讓他們一同來辯論，看看誰的倡議最有可行性？或許最終我們還是不能獲致最後結論，但至少此一倡議方案，經過理性辯論後，所有的優缺點乃至可能的盲點，都有機會被指出來。如果任何有關兩岸的倡議，都可能循這樣的方式進行對話，那麼兩岸議題就不復再是藍綠政客壟斷的議題，而是全民都可以參與討論的公共議題。

更重要的是，這場辯論也證明，類似這種討論可以保證是在理性的氛圍下進行討論，我們不曾看到有任何人以情緒的字眼抹黑對方，更未見任何「扣帽子」、「陰謀論」的語言出現，我們長期以來一直期待台灣能出現所謂「理性的對話空間」，這場辯論，不正就是一場「理性對話」具體實現！