Will the DPP Really Continue the Previous Administration's Cross-Strait Policy?

Will the DPP Really Continue the Previous Administration's Cross-Strait Policy?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 4, 2010

Tsai Ing-wen has declared that "If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it will continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policies."

Her declaration is truly baffling. The DPP says that if it returns to power, it will continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy. If that is the case, why not declare today that "The DPP may not be the ruling party. Nevertheless it supports the current administration's cross-Strait policy." The reason it refuses to do so is simple. If upon returning to power, the DPP were to continue the current administration's policy, then what reason does it have to oppose those policies now? Conversely, if it opposes those policies now, while it is in the opposition, what reason does it have to continue them if it returns to power?

First, Tsai Ing-wen's declaration shows that the DPP is trapped on the horns of a dilemma, and can neither advance nor retreat. Secondly, the DPP is utterly indifferent to right or wrong and black or white. It is concerned only with political gamesmanship, nothing else. Otherwise, why the vast difference between the ruling and opposition parties?

The DPP has declared that if it returns to power, it will continue the Ma administration's cross-Strait policies. But which policies? Do these policies include direct links, allowing Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, abiding by ECFA, recognizing Mainland academic credentials, continuing to participate in the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Committee? The DPP shed blood, on the streets and in the legislature, opposing most of these "previous administration's cross-Strait policies." If the DPP returns to power, does it really intend to "continue all these policies?" When the DPP issues such ringing assurances, does it feel no shame? Can Tsai Ing-wen, all by herself, really make such promises? Can she alone enable the DPP to evade responsibility for its complete about face on cross-Strait policy?

If the DPP were to return to power, it could not possibly continue these cross-Strait policies. The majority of the public supports these policies. They cannot be discontinued. If they were discontinued, the DPP would be unable to return to power. Therefore, when Tsai Ing-wen refers to "the former administration's cross-Strait policy," she is probably referring to direct links, allowing Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, and lower level policies such as ECFA. But are the "previous administration's cross-Strait policies " limited to direct flights and ECFA? The Ma administration's cross-Strait policy also includes meta level policy positions. These affirm "the framework of the ROC Constitution." They affirm that "The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation founded in 1912." They affirm the "1992 Consensus," "One China, Different Expressions," and "No unification, no independence, no use of force." So the question is, if the DPP returns to power, will it really continue these meta level policy positions?

Two other questions arise. First, if the DPP does not continue these meta level policy positions, will Beijing allow the DPP to continue the lower level policies? Secondly, even if the Democratic Progressive Party were to declare that it would continue these meta level policy positions, would the public on Taiwan believe them? Would Beijing play along? Based on the DPP's record of utter untrustworthiness, will a single verbal assurance from Tsai Ing-wen promising to continue the policies do the trick? For example, Beijing understands why the Ma administration says "no reunification." But can it tolerate the DPP returning to power and saying "no reunification?"

The DPP has a shaky record, established by Chen Shui-bian. His "Five Noes" were tantamount to a "continuation of the previous administration's cross-Strait policy." Later on however, the DPP engaged in appallingly irresponsible antics painful to recall. Presumably Tsai Ing-wen represents the DPP. But she was the author of the "two states theory." She has gone on record in repudiating the 1992 Consensus and voicing her opposition to ECFA. How can she proclaim with conviction that "If the DPP returns to power it will continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy?" Besides, Tsai Ing-wen does not necessarily represent the DPP. Before she can issue such a bold proclamation, she must repeal the Taiwan independence party platform, the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, the Resolution For a Normal State, and receive the blessing of Taiwan independence elements. Only then can she gain the trust of the public on Taiwan and the authorities in Beijing.

Tsai Ing-wen's vow to continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy after taking office proves that the DPP's overwhelming opposition to the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy is utterly irrational. The DPP insists that Ma Ying-jeou's policies are "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." How can Tsai Ing-wen possibly declare that if the DPP returns to power, it will continue these policies?

By now we can see a lethal crisis confronting everyone on Taiwan. On the one hand, the DPP characterizes the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." It uses it as an excuse to rail against Beijing. On the other hand, It declares that if it returns to power it will continue this very same policy. The question is, can the DPP continue such a policy merely because it says it will? What price will Beijing exact from the DPP before it allows the DPP to continue it? Will it be a price that Taiwan can afford to pay? What is this, if not a lethal crisis?

Tsai Ing-wen says that if the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it will continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy. In that case, she ought act responsibly, and declare that "The DPP may be in the opposition, but it supports the current administration's cross-Strait policy." If the DPP continues the previous administration's cross-Strait policy only after it returns to power, it will be sticking its head into Beijing's noose. It will be allowing Beijing to loosen or tighten the noose. It will be allowing Beijing to decide whether it will live or die.

Tsai Ing-wen has revealed the DPP's hand. The DPP wants the current administration to pave the way for the DPP. It wants the current administration to strew the DPP's path with flowers. When the DPP "resumes power" it will be sitting pretty. It will enjoy the privilege of "continuing" the very policy it currently condemns as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan."

民進黨要「延續前朝」兩岸政策？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.10.04 03:29 am


蔡英文宣示：「如果民進黨重新執政，會延續前朝兩岸政策。」

這句話真是莫名其妙。倘若「重新執政會延續前朝兩岸政策」，則何以不現在就宣示，「民進黨雖未執政，但支持現政府的兩岸政策」？道理很簡單：若重新執政會延續，豈有理由在野就反對？反之，在野時若反對，又豈有理由重新執政時卻要延續？

蔡英文的說法顯示：一、民進黨的兩岸政策已陷進退維谷、左支右絀的絕境。二、民進黨操弄兩岸政策，根本不問是非黑白，只是為操弄而操弄；否則豈能有執政與在野之不同，且是天差地別的大不同？

就算民進黨若重新執政將延續馬政府的兩岸政策，試問包括什麼政策？是否包括直航、陸客來台、ＥＣＦＡ、認證大陸學歷、兩岸經濟合作委員會……。這些大多皆是民進黨在街頭及立院打得頭破血流而反對的「前朝兩岸政策」，難道民進黨「如果重新執政」竟然就要「全部延續」？說這種話還有無廉恥？而難道就憑蔡英文一張嘴巴，竟能將「兩岸政策」顛倒反覆至此地步？

依我們看，民進黨若重新「執政」，恐怕也不能不「延續」這些「兩岸政策」，因為多數民意支持，也因為根本已切不斷；若切斷，民進黨即無可能「執政」。所以，蔡英文所指「前朝兩岸政策」，大概也就是指直航、陸客來台、ＥＣＦＡ之類的「下位政策」。然而，所謂的「前朝兩岸政策」，只是直航、ＥＣＦＡ嗎？馬政府「兩岸政策」的「上位政策」包括：「在中華民國憲法架構下」、「中華民國是創自一九一二年的主權獨立國家」、「九二共識、一中各表」、「不統、不獨、不武」……。試問：民進黨若「重新執政」，這些「上位政策」要不要一併「延續」？

這裡又會衍生兩個問題：一、如果民進黨不延續這些「上位政策」，北京豈能容民進黨「延續」其他「下位政策」？二、即使民進黨宣示「延續」這些「上位政策」，台灣主流社會相不相信？北京答不答應？以民進黨無誠無信的不良紀錄，豈是蔡英文口頭上說「延續」就能「延續」？例如，北京能理解馬政府說「不統」，但也能忍受「重新執政」的民進黨說「不統」嗎？

民進黨的前科紀錄是陳水扁，他宣示「四不一沒有」，不啻就是「延續前朝兩岸政策」；但是，後來胡鬧到何等地步，現今已是不堪回首。回到當下，蔡英文若能代表民進黨，但她也有「兩國論」、「否定九二共識」及「反ＥＣＦＡ」的前科，豈是宣示「如果重新執政會延續前朝兩岸政策」的適當人選？何況，蔡英文也未必能代表民進黨，她發出此等豪語，至少要做到廢除台獨黨綱、台灣前途決議文（借殼上市），及正常國家決議文，並取得獨派的背書，才有取信於台灣主流社會及北京的可能性。

蔡英文「執政後延續前朝兩岸政策」的說法不啻證實：民進黨如今鋪天蓋地反對馬政府的「兩岸政策」，根本不具正當性。否則，難道蔡英文是在說：民進黨重新執政後，將「延續」馬英九的「傾中賣台」？

說到此處，懸在台灣眼前的一大致命危機已經浮現。一方面，民進黨將馬政府的「兩岸政策」指為「傾中賣台」，對北京嗆聲；但另一方面，又竟然宣稱在「重新執政」後將予以「延續」。試問：屆時，難道民進黨說「延續」就能「延續」？北京將要民進黨付出何等重大的「代價」，才可能容民進黨「延續」？那樣的「代價」台灣承受得起嗎？這豈不正是台灣致命性的危機？

所以，蔡英文既然說：「如果民進黨重新執政會延續前朝兩岸政策。」現在就應負責任地也說：「民進黨雖然在野，也支持現政府的兩岸政策。」否則，若要等到民進黨「重新執政」，才「延續前朝兩岸政策」，民進黨屆時就形同將自己的脖子送進北京的索套，鬆緊由人，生死聽人。

蔡英文洩漏了民進黨的陽謀：居然是想坐等「前朝兩岸政策」為它架好花轎，待民進黨「重新執政」坐入大轎，一路享受吹鼓手引領「延續」那美妙的所謂「傾中賣台」之旅。