DPP Must Dialogue, Not Merely Shout Slogans

DPP Must Dialogue, Not Merely Shout Slogans
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 28, 2010

The Democratic Progressive Party held an anti-ECFA protest march this weekend. It made clear that some on Taiwan hold different views of ECFA. This is perfectly normal in a democracy. But if the DPP hopes to assume greater responsibility for the nation's future, it must be able to engage in responsible dialogue, and not merely shout empty slogans.

Some people have long been opposed to ECFA. In part this has to do with Green Camp electioneering. But this also has to do with some peoples' fears about cross-Strait economic integration. Agriculture and other traditional industries in particular are sensitive to competitive pressures. They lack confidence in the government's willingness to protect vulnerable segments of the economy. Therefore they are resistant. Their feelings are understandable, and should be dealt with sympathetically. But the reality is that Taiwan faces intense international competition. The Democratic Progressive Party has led its supporters onto the streets. It must now face the difficult challenges confronting Taiwan.

First, the DPP must be able to dialogue with the public on Taiwan, not just its core supporters. ECFA is a new beginning for cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation. Cooperation and exchanges are taking place with a depth, breadth, and pace that are unprecedented. Positive cross-Strait interactions have gained public support. The Green Camp may attempt to incite fear and loathing. It may engage in rhetoric utterly divorced from reality. Some may be frightened to death. Others may scoff. Neither is conducive to a rational discussion of the issues. This also diminishes the DPP's capacity to debate cross-Strait policy. It enables the KMT to monopolize the discussion of cross-Strait issues.

ECFA or any other government policy must be subject to public oversight. Other options may be discussed. After all, the highest priority is to seek opportunities for economic development. The Green Camp's rallying cries depict ECFA as the scourge of god. Once it's signed, they warn, Taiwan is finished. Yet local DPP leaders are only too happy to use the opportunity to sell more fruit and produce to the mainland. On the one hand they insist on shouting slogans. On the other hand they insist on reaping profits. What is this, if not a clear case of hypocrisy?

Whether in office or out, political parties have their ideals. But they must also respond to real world problems. The foremost concerns of the public on Taiwan are physical survival, economic prosperity, personal dignity, and individual well-being. How these should be achieved may be debated. The DPP should be able to engage the general public in dialogue. The DPP says it doesn't want ECFA. So how does it intend to promote prosperity and prevent marginalization? How does it intend to look after the interests of all people? Blind opposition and sloganeering is not an option.

Secondly, the DPP should also be able to dialogue with Beijing. Mainland China is the most significant factor in Taiwan's development, diplomatically, economically, and militarily. In particular, the mainland's rapid increase in economic power has made it the most important player in the world, and diminished Taiwan's value as a counterforce. Upholding the sovereignty and dignity of the Republic of China means refusing to yield to threats or inducements from Beijing. But it doees not mean provoking cross-Strait confrontations, squandering precious resources, and even denying oneself breathing room.

A responsible political party must offer a practicable cross-Strait policy. Deep Green elements may not trust Beijing. But cross-Strait civil exchanges are close, and involve a wide range of interests. The DPP must also consider how it wishes to handle relations with Beijing, how to dialogue with Beijing, how to find common ground, or at least establish channels of communication. Only then can it negotiate on behalf of the public on Taiwan. How the DPP can develop a theoretical framework by which it can dialogue with Beijing will be a major challenge. But a political party without a practicable cross-Strait policy cannot meet Taiwan's needs.

The DPP must also be able to dialogue with the world. It must learn to accurately grasp the international situation, to conduct multilateral exchanges, to participate in exchanges concerning economics, trade, science and technology, investments, culture, academia, and NGOs. It must learn to promote the Republic of China's diplomatic relations. The Republic of China's international status is unique. The DPP must learn how to communicate this to the international community.

For example, the Ma administration's "cross-Strait reconciliation" and "diplomatic truce" moves enabled Taipei to attend the WHA. The DPP insists that such policies harm Taipei's interests. The DPP may suggest different options. But it must not depart from reality, and it must be able to persuade the international community. Some DPP leaders point to other countries. They say these countries have signed FTAs with the EU, the U.S., and ASEAN. They conveniently fail to mention that the Republic of China has only 20 or so allies. Its situation is very different from other countries.

Finally, and most importantly, the DPP must learn to dialogue with the future. If it continues hiding insides its shell, it will eventually lose its courage and fritter away its dreams. It will forsake a valuable but fleeting opportunity. A political party capable only of living in the past, and capable only of looking inward, can never meet the needs of a public that hopes for a better future.

The Republic of China is a reality. It encompasses a commitment to a common past, it confronts a common reality, and it shares a common responsibility to create a better tomorrow. Any political party, Blue or Green, pro-reunification or pro-independence, must have the capacity to respond to public opinion, to reality, and to the future. While it opposes ECFA, the Democratic Progressive Party ought to contemplate what it can do for the people, besides shouting slogans.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.06.28
民進黨不要只喊話也要能對話
本報訊

民進黨發起的反ＥＣＦＡ遊行在街頭發出了反對之聲，清楚表達出台灣內部不同的意見。在一個民主社會，這本是常態，但民進黨如果要對台灣的未來承擔起更多責任，除了喊話，也要能夠對話。

台灣內部始終有反對ＥＣＦＡ的聲浪，這固然與綠營選舉炒作有關，但也反映出部分民眾對兩岸經濟更加緊密結合的疑懼。尤其是農業等傳統產業，對競爭壓力十分敏感，對政府保護弱勢的信心也不足，因此心存抗拒。這樣的心情可以理解，也應該得到理解。但是，台灣的現實環境與國際競爭擺在眼前，民進黨在帶領群眾上街之後，仍然必須正視台灣所面對的艱難挑戰。

首先，民進黨要能夠與整個台灣社會對話。ＥＣＦＡ是兩岸開展經貿合作的一個新開始，各項合作交流將邁入前所未有的深度、廣度與速度，而良好的兩岸互動，受到大多數民眾支持。綠營如果一味以聳動甚至驚悚的言詞煽動恐懼感，或者作出完全脫離現實的論述，一部分民眾被嚇得要死，其他民眾則嗤之以鼻。這無助於議題的理性討論，也削減自己論辯兩岸政策的空間與能力，讓兩岸問題成了國民黨的獨門生意。

ＥＣＦＡ和政府任何施政一樣，必須接受民意的檢驗和監督，是不是還有其他選項，可以討論看看，畢竟最重要的是替台灣尋找發展機會。綠營如果在振臂疾呼時把ＥＣＦＡ講得像洪水猛獸，一簽下去台灣就完蛋了，但地方首長卻又願意搭順風車多銷些農產水果到大陸，口號要喊好處也要拿，就顯得言行不一了。

無論執政或在野，政黨固然有其理想，卻仍然必須回答現實所提出的問題。對於台灣老百姓而言，最重要的是生存、繁榮、尊嚴與幸福，用什麼方法做到，大家可以一起來討論。而民進黨要能夠和一般民眾對話，如果不要ＥＣＦＡ，那要怎樣促進繁榮避免台灣被邊緣化？各層面民眾的利益能不能盡量得到照顧？一味反對的喊話不足以成為選項。

其次，民進黨也要能夠與中國對話。無論在外交、經濟、軍事方面，中國都是影響台灣發展的最大因素。尤其大陸經濟力量迅速崛起，如今已成為全球舉足輕重的要角，讓台灣過去的抗衡籌碼更加萎縮。堅持主權尊嚴的台灣民眾，不會因威脅利誘而向中共屈膝，但是不是非要激烈衝撞兩岸關係，甚至投擲寶貴資源折損活路空間也在所不惜？

一個負責任的政黨，必須要對兩岸關係有一套可行的政策，即使深綠不信任中國，但以目前兩岸民間往來之密切、牽涉利益之廣泛，民進黨也必須思考如何處理與中國的關係，如何與中國對話，如何試圖尋找共同的交集，或至少建立起基本的溝通模式，才能在需要時為台灣民眾的利益交涉。如何開發出一套能據以和中國對話的理論架構與策略進程，對民進黨是一大挑戰，但一個沒有可行兩岸政策的政黨，已經無法滿足台灣的需要了。

此外，民進黨也需要有與國際對話的能力。這包括精準掌握國際情勢、開展多方接觸交流、尋求參與機會，從經貿、科技、投資、文化、學術乃至ＮＧＯ活動，全方位推動台灣的對外關係。然而，台灣的國際地位與處境都非常特殊，民進黨的主張必須讓國際社會聽得進去。

例如馬政府的「兩岸和解」與「外交休兵」促成了台灣能夠出席世衛大會，民進黨如果認為這樣的政策傷害台灣利益，大可提出不同的方案，但如果想法脫離現實，卻是無法向國際行銷的。就像有人聲稱別的國家都是先和歐盟、美國、東協簽自由貿易協定，卻不提只有廿幾個邦交國的台灣，情況和其他國家完全不同。

最後，也是最重要的，民進黨還要能夠與未來對話。繼續讓台灣束手無策地瑟縮在殼裡，會剝奪掉自己的勇氣與夢想，也將流失稍縱即逝的寶貴機會。一個只會往回看、往內看的政黨，不符合希望開創更好未來的民意需求。

台灣是一個整體，承擔著共同的過去，面對著共同的現實，也有責任一起開創美好明天。不管藍綠、無論統獨，任何政黨都必須能回應民意、現實與未來。在反對ＥＣＦＡ的同時，民進黨必須思考，除了喊話之外，自己還能給人民什麼。