Peace is Essential, Reunification is Optional

Peace is Essential, Reunification is OptionalUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 30, 2010

Yang Chiu-hsing has resigned from the DPP and is running as an independent. He has proposed a novel perspective on cross-Strait relations. He said we should realize that the relationship between Taipei and Beijing is no longer a hostile relationship.

Why were relations across the Strait hostile? Reason One. Some on Taiwan wanted to promote de jure Taiwan independence. Beijing was opposed. Hence the hostility. Reason Two. Beijing wanted to reunify the nation by "gobbling up Taipei." Taipei resisted. Hence the hostility. Reason Three. Reasons One and Two could well lead to war. Hence the hostility.

Therefore, if the two sides wish to change their relationship from one of hostility to one of harmony, the solution is "no [short term] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." The reasoning behind this solution is sound. The fact that it is President Ma Ying-jeou's proposal ought to be irrelevant. In fact, if Ma had not been the one to propose it, some opponents might not feel so compelled to oppose it. People might better be able to appreciate its soundness. One might just as easily rephrase it as "confront reality, ensure peaceful development."

In recent years, "opposition to [short term] reunification" has gained ground. Taipei, Washington, and Beijing have reached a tacit agreement to "maintain the status quo." This has not ruled out reunification. But it has significantly relaxed pressures and tensions associated with reunification. Furthermore, the Ma administration's explicit policy of "no [short term] reunification" as an explicit policy is an unprecedented breakthrough. A precondition of Ma's policy is of course, opposition to independence as well. "One China, different interpretations" can be regarded as "no reunification, no independence." It can also be regarded as "both reunification and independence." Beijing has made an international commitment not to "unilaterally change the status quo." It has argued that "although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they are nevertheless inseparable parts of one China." It has argued that "although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they can reexamine their special relationship from a pragmatic perspective." It is even willing to "discuss the status of the Republic of China." Beijing's arguments show that the definition of reunification is open to interpretation. They show that pressure to reunify has eased.

The main cause of hostile cross-Strait relations was Taiwan independence. The global scenario has evolved to where Taiwan independence is no longer a feasible solution to cross-Strait problems. All Taiwan independence can do is generate cross-Strait hostility. Taiwan independence cannot solve Taiwan's internal problems. Its primary purpose is to generate internal divisions on Taiwan for the sake of short term political advantage. Taiwan independence has generated cross-Strait hostility, but has not harmed a hair on Beijing's head. It has fostered internal divisions on Taiwan, and ripped apart its society. Isn't this hostility precisely what Yang Chiu-hsing characterized as "unnecessary conflict?"

"No reunification, no independence" are relative and complimentary concepts. If Taiwan does not move toward independence, Beijing can relax its pressures for reunification. If Beijing relaxes its pressures for reunification, that may weaken, moderate, and transform pressures for independence. They key for the ruling government of the Republic of China is to preclude Taiwan independence. Only by precluding Taiwan independence, can it maintain a situation with "no reunification, no war." Only then can it promote ECFA as the basis for cross-Strait peaceful development.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Progressive Party cannot bring itself to forsake Taiwan independence. It remains committed to perpetuating hostile relations, both in cross-Strait and internal affairs. It is being held hostage by Taiwan independence elements, unable to break free. Regarding ECFA, the DPP may wish to resolve cross-Strait hostilities. But as long as the DPP remains committed to Taiwan independence, it must insist on hostile relations. How can it possibly express approval of ECFA? As long as it wishes to abolish ECFA if and when it returns to power, it must incite increased cross-Strait hostility. It is convinced that only by rejecting ECFA, can it achieve Taiwan independence and found a new nation.

The Democratic Progressive Party continues to see Taiwan independence as the opposite of reunification. It seems to think that if it fails to advocate Taiwan independence, then it is "pandering to Beijing and selling out Taiwan," and "endorsing reunification." But years of agitation have made clear that political struggles on Taiwan involve mainly "Taiwan independence vs. opposition to Taiwan independence," rather than "Taiwan independence vs. reunification." As mentioned earlier, President Ma also advocates "no reunification, no independence." Even President Hu Jintao has diluted "peaceful reunification," reframing it as "peaceful development." One might say that the main goal of the authorities on both sides, as well as the majority of the public, is peace rather than [short term] reunification.

Yang Chiu-hsing says the relationship between Taipei and Beijing is no longer a hostile one. This ought to be the greatest common denominator in cross-Strait relations, as well as in local politics. Even the DPP knows better than to publicly advocate hostile cross-Strait relations. The DPP's political Achilles Heel is not its opposition to reunification, but rather its demands for Taiwan independence. It is possible to maintain peace if the two sides do not reunify, at least for the time being. But if the government on Taiwan demands independence, only hostile relations are possible. When it comes to cross-Strait relations, Taiwan independence is the antonym of peace.

Cross-Strait relations must be based on peace. Peaceful development is possible even if one "opposes reunification." It is possible even if one insists that the two sides "have yet to be reunified." It is possible even if one advocates "temporarily delaying reunification." It is possible even if one "wonders whether reunification is feasible."

Peacefully promoting development, and promoting the development of peace is possible only if one maintains cross-Strait peaceful development. Only then can one establish the conditions necessary for long term, beneficial, democratic development. Only then can one achieve a permanent cross-Strait peace.

可以不統一 不能不和平
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.30 01:44 am

楊秋興宣布退黨競選，對兩岸關係發表新論。他說：應當體認兩岸關係不再是「敵對的關係」。

兩岸為何會有「敵對關係」？一、台灣欲推動法理台獨，北京反對，因而敵對。二、北京欲推動「誰吃掉誰」的統一，台灣抗拒，因而敵對。三、以上二者，皆可能引爆戰爭，因而敵對。

所以，兩岸若欲改變「敵對關係」，方法就是「不統／不獨／不武」。此一觀點，即使不是馬英九總統說的，也是正確的；甚至，倘若不是馬說的，撇開逢馬必反的炒作，更能體會其正確。換句話說，就是：「正視現實／和平發展」。

近幾年來，「不統」的觀念略有進展。台美中三方面「維持現狀」的默契與實踐，雖然並未消除「統一」的議題，但已明顯放鬆放緩其壓力與張力。再者，馬政府以「不統」為明文政策，這也是前所未見的重大突破（當然是以「不獨」為支撐條件）；「一中各表」即可視為「不統／不獨」（或許也可視為「亦統／亦獨」）。至於北京方面，除了接受「不片面改變現狀」的國際承諾，也提出「雖然尚未統一／仍是一個中國」，或「兩岸可就國家尚未統一的特殊情況下的政治關係展開務實探討」，甚至放出「討論中華民國定位問題」的試探等等；這些皆顯示「統一」的內涵或許有調整演化的空間，更顯示「統一」的壓力已放鬆放緩。

所以，如今可能造成兩岸「敵對關係」的主要因素就在「台獨」。全球情勢演化至今日地步，台獨已不可能解決兩岸問題，唯一的作用就是造成兩岸「敵對」；台獨亦不可能解決台灣內部的問題，主要的作用就是造成內部「敵對」。台獨造成了兩岸「敵對」，但不能動到北京一根汗毛；造成了台灣內部「敵對」，卻能撕裂國家社會。這樣的「敵對」，豈不正如楊秋興所說的「無謂的抗爭」？

「不統／不獨」是相因相成的概念。台灣不獨，可放鬆放緩北京促統的壓力；北京放鬆放緩促統的壓力，可淡化、柔化、轉化台獨的氛圍。因而，對於中華民國執政者的兩岸戰略而言，關鍵是在「不獨」；「不獨」始有可能維持「不統／不武」的局面，也始有可能以推動ECFA等作為來維持兩岸的「和平發展」。

相對以觀，民進黨迄仍不能否棄台獨的主張，除了使兩岸及台灣內部皆陷於「敵對關係」，亦使它自己被台獨挾持而不能施展。以ECFA而論，就是欲化解「敵對關係」的重大工程；但民進黨若主張台獨，就必須堅持「敵對」，則豈能贊同ECFA？而若欲在執政後廢止ECFA，更必將使兩岸陷入「敵對」。尤其，沒有 ECFA就能台獨建國嗎？

民進黨迄今仍將「台獨」視為「統一」的對立詞。好像不主張台獨，就是傾中賣台，就是贊同統一。但是，經歷多年激盪澄清，台灣的政爭其實主要是在「台獨／非台獨」的爭議，而非「台獨／統一」的爭議。如前所述，馬總統也說「不統／不獨」；而連胡錦濤也放淡了「和平統一」，轉為強調「和平發展」。可以這麼說：兩岸當局及主流民意如今努力的主要目標是「和平」，而不是「統一」。

楊秋興說「兩岸關係不再是敵對關係」，這應是兩岸之間及台灣內部的最大公約數。即使民進黨，也不至於公開主張兩岸應當陷於「敵對關係」。民進黨的政治罩門不在主張「反統」，而是主張「台獨」。兩岸不統一或暫不統一，皆有可能維持和平；但主張台獨，卻只有「敵對關係」一條路可走。在兩岸關係上，「台獨」是「和平」的對立詞。

因此，若將兩岸關係化約到「和平」二字，就知道，即使「反對統一」、「尚未統一」、「暫緩統一」或「不知能否統一」，仍應當並可以維持「和平發展」。

和平促進發展，發展促進和平。唯有維持兩岸「和平發展」，始有可能從長期的、善意的、民主的「發展」中，蓄積條件，找到兩岸永久「和平」的終極方案。