Cross-Strait Coopetition Must Not Recapitulate the Koxinga Era

Cross-Strait Coopetition Must Not Recapitulate the Koxinga Era
United Daily News editorial editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2010

The Tainan City Government is sponsoring the building of an ancient Koxinga era merchantman warship, to be named the "Taiwan Koxinga." Next year it will travel north to Koxinga's birthplace -- Nagasaki, Japan.

Tainan City can be described as the "City of Koxinga." The ongoing ship construction project and scheduled ocean voyage trumpets this "political trade mark." But it also exposes an embarrassing reality behind Pan Green political rhetoric. The ship is a "junk," the Portuguese term for a Chinese sailing vessel. Yet it is being referred to by organizers as a "Taiwanese sailing vessel." Instead of traveling first to Koxinga's homeland in nearby Quanzhou, Fujian, just across the Taiwan Strait, it is traveling to Nagasaki, Japan. Organizers stressed that their motive for building the Koxinga Memorial Ship was to "strengthen native identity and heighten consciousness regarding [Taiwan's] primacy." But if they play up Taiwan's relationship to Japan, and play down Taiwan's relationship to Mainland China, what kind of face are they putting on Koxinga? The Tainan City fathers hoped to market Koxinga. Instead they merely highlighted the inadequacies of evasive Pan Green political rhetoric.

Koxinga's life work was "fan Qin fu Ming" i.e., "toppling the Qing, restoring the Ming." Nanming Long Wu Emperor gave him his surname. Yongli Emperor bestowed upon him the title of Yanping King. When he failed to fulfill his mission of recovering the Chinese Mainland, he lamented, "I cannot face my emperor in the underworld." He then tore at his own face and died. [ 四方赤良 ] , a Japanese, wrote a eulogy to Koxinga. He said "Koxinga's loyalty and integrity were in vain. In the end, the Tartars conquered China." As we can see from Koxinga's own proclamations and the consensus of historians the world over, Koxinga considered himself a champion of China, in fact, a hardcore champion of China. After Qing Emperor Kangxi took Taiwan, he said "Koxinga was a last ditch defender of the Ming Court. He was not a traitor or a brigand." He also wrote a couplet. "[Koxinga] dared to fight for the South East. A solitary patriot held out overseas." Later the Qing Court built a Koxinga Temple in Tainan. The couplets authored by Shen Baozhen are still on display in the main hall. "Never has antiquity witnessed a comparable achievement. The wilderness bequeathed to us mountains and streams, providing a realm for immigrants. During his life, he was not the master of his own fate. He regretted being unable to recover heaven and earth. But the life he lived was exemplary." As we can see, even Koxinga's political enemies considered him as a man of destiny, and a paragon for the Chinese people.

This is Koxinga's historical background. Yet Pan Green spin doctors could relabel Chinese sailing vessels "Taiwanese sailing vessels." They could boast that they were "strengthening native identity and heightening consciousness of [Taiwan's] primacy." They could ignore the historical consensus that "Koxinga's loyalty and integrity were in vain. In the end, the Tartars conquered China." Pan Green spin doctors have clearly added way too much green pigment to the mix. They have tampered with historical facts. They have distorted Koxinga completely beyond recognition.

The "Taiwan Koxinga" will put to sea. This will force people to rethink the meaning of Taiwan independence rhetoric. Do they want "de-Sinicization?" Do they want to "purge all traces of the Republic of China from Taiwan?" Do they want to sever all relations with Mainland China? Or do they want to establish a more advantageous status for Taiwan and the Republic of China under the umbrella term "China?" Where is cross-Strait relations headed? Towards a repetition of the mistakes committed by Koxinga? Or, in contrast with Koxinga, towards opportunities for "peaceful development?"

In fact, CCP authorities have long attached great importance to political rhetoric about Koxinga. They have long affirmed Koxinga's recovery of Taiwan. When Jiang Zemin vacated his position as General Secretary of the PRC, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, he presented leaders of the State Council and the Central Military Commission with a statue of Koxinga. The theme was "Koxinga recovers Taiwan." The intention was self-evident. Also, people from Taiwan have made tens of millions of visits to Xiamen. They have seen with their own eyes the great statue of Koxinga, wielding a sword and gazing eastward in silence. Tainan City officials are attempting to make political hay out of Koxinga. But have they ever considered co-hosting an essay contest with Beijing?

Pan Green spin doctors are attempting to "de-Sinicize" Koxinga, and to "Taiwanize" him. But they are merely exposing their own shortcomings. During Koxinga's own lifetime, Koxinga "was not the master of his own fate." As we contemplate this fact, should we be attempting to draw a line between Taiwan and Mainland China? Should we be attempting to avoid Mainland China? Or, as mentioned previously, shouldn't we be endeavoring to establish a more advantageous status for Taiwan and the Republic of China, under the umbrella of "China?" Shouldn't we be thinking about how to avoid Koxinga's plight.

Koxinga's situation 300 years ago was different from our situation today. For example, as a result of economic factors, Koxinga could not draw a line between Taiwan and Mainland China. Instead, the Qing Court issued a "border shift edict." It ordered everyone along China's eastern seaboard, from Shandong to Guangdong, to relocate 20 miles inland. It declared that "not one solitary sampan may take to the sea." It severed all trade between the Ming Koxinga government and the inland regions. This was one reason the Ming Koxinga government endured repeated defeats. Our situation today is just the opposite of the cross-Strait standoff between the Qing Court and the Ming Koxinga government. The Mainland has not declared that "not one solitary sampan may take to the sea." Just the opposite. Mainland China has become the main source of Taiwan's economic prosperity. Today, the two sides are economically inseparable. So too are cultural, social and political connections, including diplomatic breathing space. Koxinga longed for cross-Strait exchanges, but they were denied to him. Our situation is entirely different. Therefore we must manage cross-Strait relations today and tomorrow differently than Koxinga did in his era. We must not repeat the mistakes Koxinga made back then.

Political rhetoric regarding Taiwan's future has long been mired in Blue vs. Green political opposition. Suppose the Blue Camp ruled Tainan City, and attempted to exploit Koxinga. The Green Camp would scoff at the Blue Camp as "losers who failed to retake the Mainland." It would mock them as people who "would rather be Chinese ghosts than living Taiwanese." But the Green Camp is the one exploiting Koxinga. The Green Camp is distorting history, trumpeting a "nativized identity" and "Taiwan's primacy." The Green Camp is parroting "de-Sinicization." The Green Camp is attempting to "purge all vestiges of the Republic of China from Taiwan." The "Koxinga Taiwan" may resemble an ancient junk on the outside. But on the inside it includes modern engines and navigational instruments. Consider the ship a metaphor for cross-Strait relations. How can the Green Camp not view the ship from a contemporary perspective? How can the Green Camp not realize the need to create a new Green cross-Strait framework?

The dispute between the Qing Court and the Ming Koxinga government was a showdown between absolute monarchies. But today's cross-Strait dispute is a dispute between democracy and authoritarianism. It is a dispute consistent with humanitarianism and the will of the people. Taiwan's economy lacks the wherewithal to de-Sinicize. The Ming Koxinga government was de-Sinicized against its will. Taiwan under Green rule has reenacted that experience. Meanwhile, under the umbrella of "China," Taiwan has achieved the conditions necessary for civilization, culture, humanity, nationalism, people's livelihood, and democracy. De-Sinicization, or forced de-Sinicization was the main reason for Ming Koxinga government failure. The way out for Taiwan is to seek advantages under the umbrella of "China."

Rebranding Koxinga as "Taiwanese" will not validate Pan Green political spin. By the same token, it will not turn Matsu into a "Taiwanese." To honor Koxinga we must ask ourselves whether de-Sinicization and purging all vestiges of the Republic of China from Taiwan are possible. We must ask ourselves whether we wouldn't be better off seeking opportunities to thrive under the umbrella of "China."

When the Taiwan Koxinga visits Xiamen or Quanzhou, the two sides must think about how they can transcend the Koxinga era, and avoid retracing a 300 year old path.

兩岸競合關係不應踏上鄭成功時代的覆轍
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.12.07 02:14 am

台南市政府主持打造鄭成功古商戰船，取名「台灣成功號」，將於明年北航造訪鄭成功出生地日本長崎。

台南市可謂「鄭成功市」，此次造船遠航即是在標榜這個「政治商標」；然而卻也反而凸顯了綠色政治論述的尷尬。此船是仿「戎克船」（葡語，中國帆船）打造，卻稱作「台灣船」；不先就近訪問隔海的鄭成功祖籍福建泉州，卻要先遠赴日本長崎；主辦單位更強調，造船紀念鄭成功，主要是在「加強本土認同／提升主體意識」。但是，談鄭成功，若強調台灣與日本，卻淡化中國，那將是何種面貌的鄭成功？台南市要行銷鄭成功，卻反而凸顯了綠色政治論述的避重就輕、左支右絀。

鄭成功一生人格的核心主題是「反清復明」。南明隆武帝賜其國姓，永曆帝封其為延平王；至其齎志以終，猶痛呼「我無面目見先帝於地下」，抓破面顏而死。日人四方赤良悼曰：「忠義空傳國姓爺，終看韃靼奪中華。」可見，以鄭成功的自許，及國際史家的蓋棺之論，非但皆認其代表「中國」，且是中國的「正統」。康熙併台之後，謂「朱成功明室遺臣，非吾亂臣賊子」；又作楹聯曰：「……敢為東南爭半壁……方知海外有孤忠。」後來，清廷並在台南建延平郡王祠，沈葆禎所題楹聯今日仍刻在正殿：「開萬古未曾有之奇，洪荒留此山川，作遺民世界；極一生無可如何之遇，缺憾還諸天地，是創格完人。」亦即，縱使鄭成功的政敵滿清，也將之視為「創格完人」的中國典範。

在這樣的「大歷史」之下，綠色政治論述卻欲將「中國帆船」改稱「台灣船」，並強調「加強本土認同／提升主體意識」，卻漠視「忠義空傳國姓爺，終看韃靼奪中華」的蓋棺之論；這樣的看法似乎加入了過多的綠色政治顏料，已然篡改了歷史的真相，更扭曲了鄭成功的面貌。

「台灣成功號」下海出航之舉，不啻又引人思考「台灣論述」的出路。台灣是要「去中國化」、「去中華民國化」，一刀兩斷？還是要在「中國」的大概念中，設法創造台灣及中華民國的優勝利基？兩岸關係是要走向鄭成功與清廷兵戎相見的覆轍，還是不同於鄭成功而能創造「和平發展」的機遇？

其實，中共政權也一直十分重視「鄭成功論述」，其中心思想是肯定鄭氏「收復台灣」。江澤民在卸任國家主席及中央軍委會主席時，將一座鄭成功像的瓷雕贈送國務院及軍委會諸領導人，主題是「鄭成功收復台灣」，其用心不言可喻。此外，可能有上千萬人次的台灣人到過廈門，皆曾親見目睹鼓浪嶼的巨大鄭成功石像，握劍東眺，一切盡在不言中。台南市拿鄭成功作文章，有沒有想過要與北京進行作文比賽？

綠色政治論述若要將鄭成功「去中國化」，要將鄭成功「台灣化」，這恐怕反而是自暴其短。其實，以今日的台灣，思考鄭成功「一生無可如何之遇」，不是要切割中國，逃避中國；而是有如前述，要思考如何在「中國」的大概念下創造台灣的優勝利基，更要避免走上鄭成功的覆車之轍。

三百多年前鄭成功時代與今日兩岸情勢大不相同。例如，為了經濟因素，鄭成功不能與中國切割；反而是清廷，實施「遷界令」，將山東至廣東全線沿海廿里的人丁完全撤離，嚴令「寸板不得下海」，完全切斷鄭氏與內陸的經貿關係，成為明鄭覆敗的主因之一。相對以觀，今日兩岸情勢與「清廷／明鄭」的對峙完全相反；非但沒有「寸板不得下海」的遷界令，大陸且成為台灣經貿的主要支撐力。何況，今日兩岸不僅經貿領域不可分割，在人文、社會及政治（如外交空間）的關聯也已難分難割。這與鄭成功欲要兩岸交流而不可得的情勢迥然而異，所以今日兩岸關係的治理與未來兩岸關係的發展，皆可與鄭成功時代不同，更不應蹈入鄭氏的覆轍。

台灣的兩岸論述久陷藍綠鬥爭的泥淖中。假設今日台南市由藍營執政，而欲行銷鄭成功；可想綠營必將鄭奚落成「反攻大陸的失敗者」、「寧作中國鬼／不作台灣人」等等；如今綠營行銷鄭成功，卻不惜扭曲歷史，強調「本土性」及「主體性」，不啻又欲套入「去中國化」、「去中華民國化」的綠營兩岸公式。但是，畢竟這艘「台灣成功號」，外形也許肖似當年的戎克船，但已配置了現代引擎及航海儀表，故若以此船來引申闡釋兩岸關係，又豈能不賦以時代觀點，來重建一套綠色兩岸論述？

明鄭與清廷之爭，是兩個專制朝廷孰勝孰敗之爭。但今日兩岸之爭，則是「民主」與「專制」何者符合人性與民意之爭。台灣在經濟領域沒有「去中國化」的條件（明鄭因在經濟上「被去中國化」而覆敗），但台灣在體制的領域上，卻有在「中國」的大概念下，爭取在文明、文化、人性、民族、民生及民主上的優勝地位之條件。去中國化（或被去中國化）是明鄭覆敗的主因，台灣的生路則應在「中國」的大概念下尋求優勝。

把鄭成功變成「台灣人」，並無法建立綠色政治論述；正如無法把媽祖變成「台灣人」。紀念鄭成功，反而是要思考，在沒有可能「去中國化」、「去中華民國化」的大情勢下，如何為台灣爭取在「中國」這個大概念中的優勝地位與生機活路。

當「台灣成功號」訪問廈門或泉州之日，兩岸皆應思考，必須超越鄭成功時代，不要踏上三百多年前的覆轍。