Tsai Ing-wen Has Painted Herself into a Corner

Tsai Ing-wen Has Painted Herself into a Corner
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 29, 2010

During an interview with the media, President Ma Ying-jeou demanded that DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen come clean. "Does she recognize the 1992 Consensus or not?" The DPP's response was swift. "The DPP has never recognized the 1992 Consensus."

We urge the DPP to think twice before speaking, The DPP should refrain from making such a sweeping statement. Because without the 1992 Consensus, there can be no "peaceful development" between Taipei and Beijing.

Without the 1992 Consensus, the two sides cannot possibly enjoy "peaceful development." Everyone knows this. The DPP cannot possibly be unaware of this. Nor can Tsai Ing-wen. The main reason the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus, is intra-party power struggles.

The political situation on Taiwan has undergone changes since the five cities elections. In particular, power relations within the DPP have undergone massive changes. Two major trends have appeared. One. Tsai Ing-wen has gained political momentum. She may relegate Su Tseng-chang's generation to the dustbin of history -- in one fell swoop. Two. Chen Shui-bian scored an election victory on the shoulders of the "one country on each side connection." As a result, he may become a "party within the party." These two trends, including Tsai Ing-wen eliminating Su Tseng-chang as a player, will only benefit Chen Shui-bian. They leave the impression that Tsai Ing-wen is at loggerheads with Chen Shui-bian over his advocacy of "one country each side." Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. One reason is her fear of Chen Shui-bian.

Let us begin at the beginning. In May 2000, President Chen Shui-bian began his first term as president. In June, he met with officials from the US. He accepted "One China, Different Interpretations," and the 1992 Consensus. The next day, as a result of intervention by then Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Tsai Ing-wen, Chen Shui-bian repudiated his previous statement. Not only that, Chen Shui-bian even contemplated abolishing the National Unification Council. He followed the example set by Lee Teng-hui. He personally assumed the chairmanship of the National Unification Council. He failed to follow through as a result of Tsai Ing-wen's opposition. In other words, the demise of Chen Shui-bian's "new centrist path" was primarily Tsai Ing-wen's responsibility. Tsai has a history of opposition to the 1992 Consensus. How can she possibly fail to oppose it now? Suppose Tsai endorses the 1992 Consensus? Won't Chen Shui-bian, who is leading the charge on "one country each side" insist on settling an old score with Tsai Ing-wen?

This is a paradox of history. To the general public and DPP reformers, Tsai Ing-wen is the person most likely to lead the DPP toward a new era. The key to the DPP's transformation is recognizing the ROC Constitution and changing the DPP's cross-Strait policy accordingly. The 1992 Consensus is the key within the key. Besides, the 1992 Consensus was a key first turned by the KMT. The DPP can simply say it is "continuing the cross-Strait policies of the previous administration." It can merely go with the flow, and stabilize the situation. But who knew that Tsai Ing-wen, the person most likely to lead the DPP into a new era, would find herself stuck? She is stuck over "reality vs. development," "attack vs. defense," and the "1992 Consensus, and one China, different interpretations." Years ago Tsai Ing-wen prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. Now, years later, she must suffer the consequences of her own actions. Karmic payback has resulted in a tragic absurdity.

We have repeatedly stressed the importance of the 1992 Consensus. Therefore this article will not harp on the matter now. In sum, the "peaceful development" enjoyed by the two sides today is rooted entirely in the above mentioned 1992 Consensus. Repudiating the 1992 Consensus means repudiating "peaceful development." For example, if one repudiates the 1992 Consensus, how can one possibly uphold ECFA? Is this really what the DPP advocates? Is this really Tsai Ing-wen's proposal? Is this really how the DPP intends to rule the nation in the event it returns to power in 2012?

Besides, why has Tsai Ing-wen repudiated the 1992 Consensus? Has she done so out of concern for the nation's current and future survival? Or did she do so merely out of concern for her personal political survival? Did she do so merely because Chen Shui-bian made it known that she once blocked the 1992 Consensus? Did she do so merely because she now finds it impossible to change her tune? On this, the DPP must be clear. Tsai Ing-wen herself must be even clearer. Therefore, we urge the DPP to think twice before speaking, and to refrain from making such a sweeping statement. After all, if it repudiates the 1992 Consensus, what sort of "Political Platform for the Coming Decade" can it possibly offer?

In June 2000, Tsai Ing-wen first prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. As a result, the DPP spun its wheels over "one country each side," for the next eight years. Now Tsai Ing-wen is the Democratic Progressive Party's 2012 presidential candidate. Does she really intend to repudiate the 1992 Consensus a second time? Does she really intend to launch a coordinated attack against the 1992 Consensus in lockstep with Chen Shui-bian?

Tsai Ing-wen finds herself caught on the horns of a dilemma. If she recognizes the 1992 Consensus, how can she answer to Chen Shui-bian and her Deep Green supporters? If she repudiates the 1992 Consensus, how can she answer to the majority of the public? How should she approach the 2012 presidential election? Will the DPP move toward a scenario in which Tsai Ing-wen eliminates Su Tseng-chang, while Chen Shui-bian coopts Tsai Ing-wen?

Who would have guessed that the paint Tsai Ing-wen laid down in June 2000, would paint her into a corner years later?

蔡英文被自己十年前的油漆刷到牆角
【聯合報╱聯合報】 2010.12.29


馬英九總統透過媒體專訪，要民進黨主席蔡英文說清楚：「承認九二共識嗎？」民進黨方面立刻回應：「民進黨從來就不承認九二共識。」

我們建議民進黨：不要把話說得太早，也不要把話說得太死。因為，沒有「九二共識」，兩岸就沒有「和平發展」。

沒有「九二共識」，兩岸就沒有「和平發展」；這其實是任人皆知之事，民進黨不會不知，蔡英文更不會不知；但民進黨及蔡英文否認「九二共識」，主要是出自黨內鬥爭的因素，不得不然。

五都選舉後，台灣整個政情發生變化，而民進黨內的權力關係尤生巨變。其主要發展動線呈現兩大走向：一、蔡英文聲勢看漲，可能將蘇貞昌等老一輩人物一次洗乾淨；二、相對而言，陳水扁因「一邊一國連線」選舉獲勝，可能成為「黨中之黨」。在兩大走向中，蔡英文洗掉了蘇貞昌等，其實也對陳水扁有利；因此形成了蔡英文已然在黨內與陳水扁的「一邊一國」直接針鋒相對的情勢。蔡英文若反對「九二共識」，主要原因之一即在對陳水扁有顧慮。

話說從頭。二○○○年五月，陳水扁首任總統；六月，在接見美賓時表示，可接受「一個中國／各自表述」的「九二共識」；隔日，即因時任陸委會主委的蔡英文介入，陳水扁又否認此說。不僅如此，陳水扁當時並擬開啟「國統會」的運作，且循李登輝例，由總統自兼國統會主任委員；亦因蔡英文的反對而告吹。也就是說，陳水扁的「新中間路線」，可謂主要是毀於蔡英文之手；蔡既有此紀錄，她現在能不反對「九二共識」嗎？而蔡若贊同「九二共識」，領導「一邊一國」的陳水扁會不與蔡英文算這筆舊帳嗎？

這真是一個歷史大弔詭。在一般國人及民進黨內改革派的想像中，蔡英文是最有可能帶領民進黨轉型的人物；至於轉型的關鍵，則在國家憲政認同與兩岸政策，而「九二共識」更是關鍵中的關鍵；何況，「九二共識」是國民黨打開的鎖鑰，民進黨只要「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」，即可順水推舟，穩住大局。然而，誰會想到：最有可能帶領民進黨轉型的蔡英文，竟會卡在最具創意，且「現實／發展」、「攻擊／防禦」兼具的「九二共識／一中各表」上面；而卡住的原因，竟是在當年她曾阻擋陳水扁承認「九二共識」，如今遂不能不自食其果。如此昭彰的「因果循環」，在慘烈中透露著無比的荒謬。

我們曾反覆申論「九二共識」的重要，本文略而不贅。總而言之，兩岸今日的「和平發展」，全是建立在「九二共識」上面的；否認「九二共識」，就是要否認這一切「和平發展」。例如：若反對「九二共識」，還能維持ＥＣＦＡ嗎？這難道就是民進黨的主張？就是蔡英文的主張？就是民進黨若在二○一二執政後的治國政策？

何況，蔡英文否認九二共識，究竟是出自對國家當前及未來生存發展的可行方案之考慮？或只是緣於她曾阻擋陳水扁承認「九二共識」致如今已不便改口的「個人因素」？這一點，民進黨要搞清楚，蔡英文自己更要搞清楚。因此，我們建議民進黨，不要把話說得太快，說得太死。問題在於：若否認「九二共識」，將寫出怎樣一部「十年政綱」？

二○○○年六月，蔡英文第一次阻擋陳水扁承認「九二共識」，使民進黨在「一邊一國」的操作中內耗空轉了八年；如今，蔡英文儼然將是民進黨二○一二的總統候選人，難道她又將第二次否認「九二共識」，而與陳水扁的「一邊一國」「分進合擊」？

蔡英文進退兩難。她若承認「九二共識」，如何向陳水扁及深綠交代？若反對，則又如何向多數國人交代？更如何迎對二○一二總統大選？民進黨會不會就此走向「蔡英文洗掉蘇貞昌／陳水扁收拾蔡英文」的下場？

誰會料到：蔡英文在二○○○年六月刷的油漆，在十年後將她自己刷到牆角。