Is the DPP helping Taiwan, or the CCP?

Is the DPP helping Taiwan, or the CCP? 
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 7, 2010

The Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy contains a glaring paradox. It shrilly proclaims that the Chinese Communist Party is its main enemy, but in practice it confines its battles to the island of Taiwan. It has never demonstrated any intention of confronting its ostensible opponent on the opposite shore of the Taiwan Strait.

The DPP has obstructed cross-Strait exchanges, the recognition of Mainland academic credentials, and the exchange of personnel. On the surface, its goal is to safeguard Taiwan's interests. In practice however, it has merely bound Taiwan hand and foot, without touching a hair on the CCP's head. In fact the target of the DPP's attacks has always been the KMT. Long ago, it locked onto this "surrogate enemy." This spares it from the necessity of direct clashes with the CCP. No longer content to lash out at its "pseudo enemy," the Green Camp is now advancing the absurd argument that "to strike a blow against the KMT is to strike a blow against the CCP."

The DPP's obstruction of ECFA has brought the problem into clear relief. The DPP opposes the expansion of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. It speaks of a "One China Market," and characterizes it as an evil transaction harmful to Taiwan. But the question is, if one jettisons ECFA, will that help Taiwan, or harm Taiwan? The answer is clear. Without the Mainland as its hinterland, Taiwan will have a hard time finding alternative financing and markets. Without Taiwan however, the impact on the Mainland will be extremely limited. In other words, the DPP's obstruction of ECFA will only harm Taiwan. It will not harm Mainland China. The DPP has engaged in endless obstructionism. First they say they are doing it to help vulnerable industries. Then they say they are doing it to oppose a "One China Market." Just exactly why are they doing it?

The DPP knows perfectly well what it is doing it. As far as the DPP is concerned, ECFA is an island-based battle, unrelated to cross-Strait competition and confrontation. It is merely a struggle over short-term political interests, unrelated to Taiwan's survival or long term interests. The DPP waves a borrowed "anti-China" banner, to add a little excitement, to make the DPP's political charade appear high-minded. But with a little thought, the public should have little difficulty discerning the glaring contradiction between the DPP's words and deeds. The DPP is systematically weakening and hobbling Taiwan, while aiding its ostensible "evil enemy." As it hides behind its deceptive mask, the DPP fills the air with shrill proclamations about how much it "loves Taiwan."

The DPP may argue that as an opposition party it is merely providing checks and balances against the ruling party. But the DPP ruled for eight years, during which it imprisoned Taiwan behind locked doors. It played an endless string of games involving the "rectification of names," the "changing of names," and the removal and destruction of road signs. All of these were part of a hollow charade for internal consumption. None of these games ever struck a blow against the opposite shore. None of these games ever harmed a hair on Beijing's head. Instead, the DPP relentlessly attempted to instill fear in people's hearts. It insisted that an giant boogeyman lived on the other side of the strait. But it never crossed the sea to challenge this monster. It merely sat at home shouting "Oh how frightening!" The DPP never kicked the football toward the opponent's goal. It merely kicked the ball back and forth in front of its own goal. It never scored a goal. What's worse, it frequently mistook its own goal for the opponent's goal, and gave the opponent extra points.

The DPP's obstructionism undeniably provided the government with a little additional leverage during negotiations with the other side. It lent the government a few more bargaining chips. But when the DPP equates obstructionism with a philosophy of life, and a reason for living, then the results can only be counterproductive. The DPP's obstructionism will not help contain the CCP. It can only bind Taiwan, hand and foot. Therefore the DPP must redefine is cross-Strait policy. Its strategy and tactics are full of flaws, and require major changes.

The DPP behaves belligerently with the KMT. But when confronted with the CCP, it is "fierce of mien but faint of heart." Furthermore, its empty expressions of "love for Taiwan" contradict its rhetoric about bolstering Taiwan's economy. The DPP is about to unveil its "Platform for the Coming Decade." The DPP should think long and hard about what it intends to say and do. It should acknowledge its self-contradictory, bigoted attitudes. It should find within itself the wisdom and courage to confront its real opponent on the opposite shore.

The DPP has long pretended that by "striking a blow against the Blue Camp," it was "striking a blow against the Red Camp." But that game is getting old. The DPP needs to find a new game.

Su Chih-fen made has just returned from a trip to the mainland. She confessed that the more she saw how skillfully Mainland businesses were being managed, the more depressed she became. Chen Chu admitted that ECFA would be help Kaohsiung's fish farming industry. Su Huan-chih cast doubt on his own party's ambiguous stand on ECFA. He said "We should enter any market in which we can make a profit." The DPP opposes cross-Strait trade. Actually, that's fine. What matters is to be clear about Taiwan's future direction. The DPP can no longer point to the opposite shore and prattle on about boogeymen. It can no longer hide at home and demonstrate its bravado by engaging in internecine warfare. The DPP's behavior has reached the height of absurdity.

The DPP must find a way to bridge the yawning chasm between its "nativist" rhetoric and a sensible cross-Strait policy. At the very least, it must offer a convincing argument. The DPP lacks a strategy for Taiwan's economic growth. The DPP lacks the courage to confront the CCP directly. Unless the DPP can overcome these deficiencies, it will never be anything more than a gang of political refugees and thugs, whose only trick is to surround the podium in the Legislative Yuan.

民進黨在幫台灣，還是在幫中共？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.07.09 03:26 am

民進黨的兩岸政策，存在一個極大的悖論是：它聲稱中共是主要敵人，但在操作上卻把戰場完全侷限在台灣島內，根本無意也無法碰觸到彼岸的敵手。

亦即，民進黨杯葛兩岸經貿流通、學歷承認、人員交流等，表面上說是為了維護台灣的利益，實際上只是限制了台灣手腳的伸展，卻絲毫傷不了對岸的中共。以民進黨的打法，其纏鬥對象一向只是國民黨，鎖定這個「替代敵人」，即可不必親身和中共交手過招。諷刺的是，不僅綠營以打擊「假敵」為滿足；連藍營對其「打國民黨就等於打中共」的邏輯似也逐漸習以為常，這真是嚴重的錯亂。

看民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ的杯葛，此一問題便格外清楚。民進黨反對兩岸經貿擴大交流，指控「一中市場」是危害台灣的邪惡貿易；問題是，如果推翻ＥＣＦＡ，那是在幫台灣，還是在害台灣？答案很清楚：少掉大陸這個腹地，台灣很難找到可資替代的經貿市場；但大陸少掉台灣這一隅，影響卻極其有限。換句話說，民進黨力阻ＥＣＦＡ只會傷害台灣，卻傷不到中國。那麼，民進黨在台灣對此進行無休無止的杯葛，忽而說為了弱勢產業，忽而說為了反一中市場，到底目的何在？

民進黨其實心知肚明，對它而言，ＥＣＦＡ徹頭徹尾只是一場島內戰役，與兩岸的競爭或對峙無關。本質上，這也只是政治利益的短期爭奪，而無關台灣生存發展的長程思考。這樣的政治盤算，藉著「反中」大旗的助興，好像也唱出了一番高調；但民眾只要稍微認真思考，不難發現其言行間的偌大矛盾：民進黨正一步步在削弱、阻滯台灣，而助長他口中的「邪惡敵人」。掩蓋此一矛盾假象的，正是喊得漫天價響的「愛台灣」口號。

民進黨可能會辯稱：作為在野黨，當然只能對執政黨進行制衡。問題是，民進黨執政的八年，緊閉台灣大門，不斷玩弄正名、改名、拆銜牌等的花招，完全皆是供內部消費用的「假動作」，而從未真正出手觸及對岸，何曾動到北京一根汗毛？矛盾的是，民進黨不斷恐嚇台灣人民，說海峽對岸住著一個大妖魔；自己卻從來不跨海去挑戰怪物，只會坐在家裡高喊「恐怖喔」！這就好像足球比賽，不把球帶向對方的半場進攻，只在自己的球門前踢來踢去，不僅未曾得分，且常常誤進烏龍球給對手加分。這道理不是很明顯嗎？

不可否認，民進黨的政治杯葛，對馬政府與對岸的談判確能產生若干槓桿作用，可使我方爭取到更多籌碼。然而，當民進黨誤將杯葛當成自己全部的生命哲學及存在樂趣，其結果必然適得其反，不僅無助於牽制中共，反而只是羈絆了台灣自己的腳步。從這點看，民進黨不僅兩岸政策需要重新定位，其戰略及戰術運用也已破綻百出，有待大幅調整。

簡言之，民進黨對付國民黨，表現得好勇鬥狠；但面對中共，卻是色厲內荏。而且，它對落實建設台灣的力氣，也和它喊愛台灣的虛假熱情背道而馳。在即將公布「十年政綱」之際，民進黨必須先思考如何平衡所言與所行，誠實面對自己的矛盾和褊狹，並運用智慧和勇敢去面對彼岸真正的對手。

至少，民進黨以「打藍軍」偽裝成「打紅軍」的手法，已經招式用老，必須另起爐灶了。

蘇治芬去了一趟大陸，對於大陸企業經營手法的精幹自承「愈看愈沉重」；陳菊則承認，簽ＥＣＦＡ對高雄石斑魚業者很有幫助；蘇煥智則質疑黨的ＥＣＦＡ政策模糊，並說「賺得到錢的市場都要去」。民進黨反對兩岸貿易，其實無所謂；重要的是，它要想清楚台灣的出路何在，不能指著對岸說外頭有惡魔，卻又一味躲在家裡以打自己人顯威風。荒唐離譜，莫此為甚。

民進黨必須在本土論述和兩岸政策的偌大鴻溝間搭起跨度夠強的橋梁，至少要說出自己能信服的道理。否則，發展台灣無謀，對付中共又無勇，民進黨永遠只是一群包圍立法院主席台的政治遊民與暴徒而已。