Ten Year War of Resistance? Is It Really that Serious?

Ten Year War of Resistance? Is It Really that Serious?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 15, 2010

Taipei and Beijng reached a consensus during the third working session of the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Meanwhile an ECFA referendum proposal submitted to the Referendum Commission was shot down. Its sponsors, the DPP, TSU, and nativist pressure groups vowed to wage a "ten year war of resistance" against the agreement. They declared their intent to closely oversee the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy. Government policies have always needed close oversight. In the event of a third change in ruling parties, the target of the nativist pressure groups' ten year war of resistance may well change. These pressure groups may demand that the DPP abolish ECFA. The KMT's position on cross-Strait policy is clear and firm. The KMT believes expanded exchanges are essential. Ironically, the DPP is the party that must justify its position. It can no longer sow dissension between North and South in an effort to cloud the issue or fool the voters.

The DPP is the largest opposition party. It is the one nativist pressure groups have pinned their hopes on. The DPP must bear in mind that it was once in power for eight years. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party enforced the "avoid haste, be patient" cross-Strait edict handed down by Lee Teng-hui late in his administration. The Ah-Bian administration's "active management" imposed limits on direct cross-Strait transportation links and the influx of mainland capital, But it was never able to extricate itself from its dilemma. This was one of the main reasons for the second change in ruling parties.

The Ma administration has been in office two years. Regardless of how effective its other policies may be, its cross-Strait policy is a significant improvement. Direct cross-Strait flights have continuously increased. The number of flights between Songshang Airport and Hongqiao Airport has increased by multiples. Songshan Airport had fallen into a state of semi-stagnation during the eight years of the Chen administration. The Ma administration's cross-Strait policy has brought Songshan Airport back to life. Li Ying-yuan and Frank Hsieh, two DPP candidates for Taipei Mayor, both advocated moving Songshan Airport and converting it into a Central Park for the nation's capital. From an urban development and environmental perspective, this is a tempting option. Especially if Songshan Airport had no potential for development. But the situation has changed dramatically. Songshan Airport has become the most popular airport for direct cross-Strait flights. Su Tseng-chang is the Democratic Progressive Party candidate for Taipei Mayor. This change has embarrassed him in particular. The vast majority of air travelers are accustomed to flying directly to the mainland from Songshan Airport. They prefer it. Moving Songshan Airport is not a policy that would curry favor with them. For political candidates, policy proposals must change as the situation demands. But for the DPP Songshan Airport is no ordinary direct flight airport. It involves subtle issues of cross-Strait relations and national development. The DPP's biggest problem is how to frame an argument that will satisfy its fundamentalist supporters but also the far more numerous moderate voters who will determine whether the DPP returns to power.

Songshan Airport is a simple issue. Yet it constitutes a complex dilemma for the DPP. From this we can see why the Cross-Strait Economic Framework Agreement is such an intractable problem for the DPP. The Democratic Progressive Party opposes ECFA. But it is impotent to prevent closer cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. It opposes a cross-Strait agreement. But the greatest harm the DPP's obstructionism has done, is to Taiwan businesses and Taiwan's vast economic interests. No bilateral agreement is going to have only an upside and no downside. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen accuses the Ma administration of wishful thinking, of seeing only the benefits and ignoring the risks. But the Democratic Progressive Party has fallen prey to the other extreme. It sees only the risks and ignores the benefits. The DPP has exaggerated the cross-Strait policy risk for eight years. The majority of the public does not buy its arguments. The Ma administration has expanded exchanges, conveyed goodwill, and sought victory amidst danger. Over the past two years, it has achieved impressive results. The public has witnessed the Ma administration's policy achievements. It sees results. Hypothetical, virtual risks are merely a Procrustean Bed into which the DPP continues to force fit its cross-Strait policy.

For example, while the Democratic Progressive Party was shrilly voicing its opposition to ECFA, local DPP county and municipal chiefs were visiting the mainland. They were visiting the Shanghai World Expo, or promoting their cities. Democratic Progressive Party officials on the mainland were afraid to voice opposition to ECFA. DPP legislators even heaped abuse on a contestant who participated in a beauty pageant on the mainland, blasting her for "demeaning the nation's dignity." To their dismay, the contestant turned out to be the girl friend of a DPP legislator's son. They were forced to offer an abject apology. In the end, their knee-jerk political response hurt only themselves. Similar incidents have occurred. Attorney Chen Chang-wen wrote an open letter to the Referendum Commission. He found himself denounced as the "KMT's hatchetman" by the Democratic Progressive Party, the Taiwan Solidarity Union, and the Liberty Times. Some critics even drew parallels between the Chen family's shortcomings and Chen's political stance. But according to their logic, wouldn't that make any academic who stood up and publicly criticized the Referendum Commission a "hatchetman for the DPP, TSU, Deep Green, and Taiwan independence elements?" Under a democratic political system, no act of oversight or opposition should subject a person to personal attacks or artificial political labeling.

The ruling Democratic Progressive Party governed for eight years. The spiritual leader of the Taiwan Solidarity Union and other nativist pressure groups served as Republic of China President for 12 years. Both have enjoyed the fruits of our democracy. They should be capable of discussing policy rationally. They can begin with the mayoral elections for the five directly administered municipalities. The DPP and KMT must have the courage to declare their stand on ECFA, and allow voters to vote their consciences. Their ballots will impact not just the year end five municipalities election. They will impact the 2012 presidential election. Most importantly, they will impact the coming decade.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.06.15
社論－十年抗戰？有這麼嚴重嗎！
本報訊

兩岸經濟合作架構協議「ＥＣＦＡ」第三次工作會商漸次取得共識，在此同時，包括民進黨、台聯在內的本土社團在ＥＣＦＡ公投遭公投審議委員會否決後，宣示將展開十年長期運動，強力監督馬政府的兩岸政策。政府政策本來就需全民監督，如果政黨三輪替，本土社團的「十年抗戰」，標靶可能就得轉向，衝著民進黨會不會廢ＥＣＦＡ而來。國民黨秉持兩岸政策必須開放的立場明確而堅定，反倒是民進黨必須負責任地說明政黨立場，不可再用南北切割的方式，企圖模糊焦點，甚至唬弄選民。

做為本土社團寄望最殷的最大在野黨，民進黨必須謹記自己曾經執政八年的事實，而民進黨執政八年的兩岸政策，從延續李登輝執政後期的戒急用忍，到扁政府的積極管理，包括兩岸三通直航、開放赴大陸投資上限等重大政策，都受限於此而陷入形式開放，卻無法有效開展窘境，因此也成為政黨再輪替的重大原因之一。

馬政府執政兩年，不論其他政策效能如何，就兩岸政策而言，卻是明顯改善。顯而易見的，兩岸直航班機不斷增加，最近松山?虹橋對飛班次亦倍數成長，讓扁政府八年幾乎陷入半停滯狀態的松山機場復生，事實上，從李應元到謝長廷，民進黨兩任台北市長候選人都主張松山機場遷建，將松山機場原址改建為首都中央公園。從都市發展環境的角度，此一政見不可謂不吸引人，特別是如果松山機場再無發展性，但如今形勢丕變，松山機場已經成為兩岸直航點中最熱門的機場，這個轉變，讓今年民進黨台北市長候選人蘇貞昌格外尷尬。對絕大多數習慣、甚至歡迎松山機場直飛大陸的民眾而言，遷廢松山機場顯然不會是個討好的政見；對候選人而言，政見當然要隨著形勢改變而更易，但是，對民進黨而言，松山機場畢竟不只是普通直航機場的問題，還牽涉到兩岸關係和國家發展的幽微立場，民進黨該如何找出一套說詞滿足基本支持群眾，還有更多數且關係能否再執政的中間選民，才是最大難題。

松山機場這麼簡單的問題，都能如此尷尬，可以想見，兩岸經濟架構協議是民進黨更難處理的困境。民進黨反對ＥＣＦＡ，卻無法阻止兩岸愈來愈密的經貿交流，反對兩岸簽署類似協議，耽誤的其實是台商和台灣更巨大的經貿利益。無可諱言，任何雙邊協議都不可能只取利而無弊，民進黨主席蔡英文質疑馬政府太過一廂情願，只看到利益卻忽略風險；民進黨卻陷入兩極的另一端，只看到風險卻忽視利益。民進黨擴大風險論述的兩岸政策已經八年實驗，不為多數民眾接受，馬政府擴大交流、傳達善意、險中求勝的兩岸政策，在這兩年已取得相當成果。民意監督或檢驗政府政策績效，看得就是成果，虛擬的風險前提，只會成為框架民進黨兩岸政策論述的束縛。

隨便舉例，當民進黨反ＥＣＦＡ的同時，民進黨部分縣市首長登陸，或參觀上海世博、或進行城市行銷，人在大陸的民進黨人，不敢聲言反對兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ；甚至民進黨立委惡言批判出國參加選美比賽的小姐矮化國格，結果一棒打到立委同僚兒子的女友，竟前倨而後恭地道歉；類似膝射式反應的政治語言，最終傷害的還是自己。同樣狀況也發生在最近，陳長文律師因為撰文給公投審議委員會的公開信，竟遭民進黨、台聯、《自由時報》等惡意批評為「國民黨的打手」，甚至還有人以陳家人的缺憾，對照陳的政治立場；照此邏輯，站出來公開批判公審會否決ＥＣＦＡ公投的學者，難不成都成了「民進黨或台聯或深綠或獨派的打手」？在民主政治有機運轉的制度下，任何監督或反對政策之舉，都沒有必要用近乎人身攻擊或扣帽子式的政治語言，徒逞一時之快。

曾經執政八年的民進黨，或精神領袖曾經擔任過十二年中華民國總統的台聯等本土社團，都享受過台灣民主的果實，理性討論政策應該是再簡單不過的道理，就從五都選舉開始，請民進黨和國民黨勇敢且負責任地拿出對ＥＣＦＡ的政黨立場，讓選民慎重地面對手中一票。這一票，不只攸關年底五都、未來的二 ○一二、最重要的，還有台灣未來十年！