Mainland Affairs Council: Two Decades of Change

Mainland Affairs Council: Two Decades of Change
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 28, 2011

The Executive Yuan Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) is about to celebrate its 20th birthday. The past two decades have been filled with intrigue, and wracked by vicissitudes. Twenty years is not that long. But the changes are too numerous to count. During that time, clashes have brought us to the brink of war. Cross-Strait relations have gone from indeterminate to inseparable. We should review our journey, reflect on the errors in our thinking, in order to formulate a better cross-Strait policy for the future.

The MAC did not appear out of nowhere. It was Taipei's reaction to the end of the Cold War. The Cold War officially ended when the Soviet Union imploded. The year was 1991. The Mainland Affairs Council was established early that year. The MAC was born amidst the Tiananmen Incident, the collapse of Eastern Europe, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The ice which had covered nearly half the earth melted, almost instantaneously.

The period was about democratization and reconciliation. The original mission of the Mainland Affairs Council was promoting reconciliation. But when Beijing cracked down on the pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square, promoting democratization in the Mainland Region became the MAC's added responsibility.

The MAC was part of Chiang Ching-kuo's strategy for opening up the Mainland Region during his own lifetime. It was born after his death. It was his posthumous child. In 1987 Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and the ban on family visits. Thus began the resumption of cross-Strait interaction. He died early the following year. But seven months later, the predecessor of the Mainland Affairs Council was established. This was the Executive Yuan Mainland Working Committee (?). It was crammed into the annex of the Executive Yuan on Peking East Road, on the second floor. Executive Secretary Ma Ying-jeou, along with several coworkers, reported to the Executive Yuan Mainland Working Committee for work, half a day each week. Two years later, the MAC was born.

Consider when and where the Mainland Affairs Council was born, and that will tell you much about its original nature. The goal of the MAC, established under Lee Teng-hui, was to promote cross-Strait reconciliation, and to pursue cross-Strait unification under democracy. One month after the MAC was established, the National Unification Guidelines were approved by the National Unification Council, with the participation of DPP members. The National Unification Guidelines outlined the path for China's reunification. It established certain institutional preconditions as its highest priority, including democracy, freedom, and the equitable distribution of wealth. It transcended nationalist stereotypes. It championed universal values. It did not posit reunification as an unconditional goal. It gave priority to the pursuit of happiness. It was a national guideline that addressed the problems of the nation, both root and branch. We traveled down the path toward democracy and unity, in step with the rest of the world, for three to five years. But the Taiwan Region suddenly found itself inundated by a wave of reaction, and began marching in the opposite direction.

That opposite direction was Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence exploited the Republic of China's democratization. It turned democracy into its hostage. Its political moves reached extremes under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. During this period, the MAC abandoned its original goal of reconciliation, and instead incited hatred and hostility. It contravened the spirit of the council. Over much of the following two decades, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian viewed cross-Strait relations as playthings of authority. They incited divisions on Taiwan, and antipathy toward the Mainland. They clung to power by exploiting populism. Lee Teng-hui trotted out his "be patient, avoid haste policy" and his "two-states theory." Chen Shui-bian trotted out his "one country on each side theory," and demanded the repeal of the National Unification Guidelines. He called for the "rectification of names" and the "authoring of a new constitution." He led the nation to the brink of disaster. He turned the nation upside down. That said, the CCP bears the heaviest responsibility for the wave of Taiwan independence sentiment that swept over the island. Its dogmatic One China rhetoric loudly proclaimed that the "Republic of China has been destroyed." It relentlessly threatened the use of force. It imposed authoritarian rule in the Mainland Region. These provided fertile soil for Taiwan independence agitation. Taiwan independence frenzy originated with Lee and Chen demagoguery. But Beijing bears the greatest responsibility for public skepticism towards reunification.

Cross-strait relations have been thoroughly undermined. Like a crumpled piece of paper, it will be difficult to restore to its original condition. Ma Ying-jeou gave birth to the MAC. He is now in office. Nevertheless the MAC cannot be restored to its original condition. The National Unification Guidelines have been replaced by the "1992 Consensus," "One China, Different Interpretations," and "no reunification, no independence, no use of force." Romantic aspirations and lofty sentiments may have been dampened. But realistic cross-Strait exchanges are proceeding by leaps and bounds.

The past two decades were a process of trial and error. These two decades saw the Taiwan independence movement take the Taiwan Region on a drunken joy ride, only to crash it into a wall. The past two decades tell us that Taiwan must not adopt a negative, shrinking attitude. It must adopt a positive, forward looking attitude. The National Unification Guidelines have been moved to the back burner. But bilateral political and economic links have already progressed passed the point of no return. Authorities on the Taiwan side have provided inspiration over the past two decades. Without this inspiration, Beijing would not have adopted its current "symbiotic win-win" thinking.

Twenty years ago, we had the Mainland Affairs Council and the National Unification Council. Today we have the "1992 Consensus," "One China, Different Interpretations," and "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." This may look like regression. But at this stage, "no [immediate] reunification, and no independence" is the pragmatic path that both sides must take. It is the path that will lead the two sides onto the high road of "peaceful development."

陸委會20載：從國統綱領到不統不獨不武
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.28

二十載忽焉而過，行政院大陸委員會就要度過二十歲生日。這二十年風詭雲譎、滄桑多變，雖是短短二十年，卻堆疊了目不暇給的流變，其間衝撞跌宕，且曾瀕臨戰爭邊緣，而兩岸關係如今畢竟已從懵然走向深炙。我們或應檢視這段走過的路程，濾清思維上的誤區，俾能走出兩岸關係更正確的未來。

陸委會不是憑空而生，它其實是台灣對世界冷戰結束的領先反應。東西冷戰在蘇聯解體後正式告終，這一年是一九九一年，陸委會就在這年的年初成立。陸委會誕生時的背景拼貼是：六四天安門事件、東歐劇變、柏林圍牆倒塌與蘇聯解體，覆蓋半個世界長達近半世紀的嚴冰瞬間消融。

民主化與和解，是這段歷史時期的顯著主題。和解自然是陸委會的原始性格，而在見證六四民運遭到鎮壓的狀況下，促使大陸民主化更是當年陸委會的擔當。

陸委會亦是蔣經國生前開放戰略的遺腹子，一九八七年蔣經國宣布解嚴並開放老兵返鄉探親，成為兩岸重新互動的濫觴，隔年年初他卻與世長辭；但七個月後陸委會的前身行政院大陸工作會報成立，擠在北平東路邊上的行政院後棟二樓，擔任會報執行秘書的馬英九帶著幾位夥伴每周工作半天，二年多後陸委會呱呱墜地。

將陸委會成立時空稍作剪影，即可替陸委會找到最初的面容。李登輝設置的陸委會是為兩岸和解而生，以追尋兩岸的民主統一為目標。陸委會成立一個月內，《國家統一綱領》即由民進黨人亦參加其中的國統會通過。國統綱領繪出中國統一的路徑，以民主、自由、均富的制度前提為最終關懷，它超越了民族主義的窠臼，標舉了普世的價值，亦即不以統一為不附條件的追求，而以人民生活的幸福美好做為統一的上位方針；持平而論，此不能不算得上是一部可攻可守、標本兼治的國家綱領。然而，沿著民主統一路徑，跟著世界脈搏共同湧動了大約僅僅三、五年，台灣卻突地由一股逆潮引領，而走向了反面。

這個反面即是台獨，它以台灣自身的民主化為推力，將台獨扣緊民主，而在李登輝及陳水扁的政治操作下達到了最高潮；這一段歷史過程，陸委會不單離棄了和解的初衷，反倒走上仇視與敵對，竟與立會之精神背道而馳。二十年的大半歲月，是李登輝與陳水扁皆將兩岸關係當成權力的玩物，以祭起反中、分裂的大纛操作民粹而攫取權力；李登輝拋出戒急用忍、兩國論，陳水扁提一邊一國、廢除《國統綱領》、操作正名制憲，率全民在危境之中往復衝撞，陷國家於傾覆邊緣。然而，台獨反潮的發生，中共更應承擔最重的責任，它那僵化的一個中國論述、口口聲聲「中華民國已經滅亡」、毫不鬆動的武力威脅，以及內部專制統治，都成了這股逆潮的論述土壤。台獨的狂飆，出自李扁操作的因素較大；而統一的不入人心及擱淺，則北京要負更大的責任。

兩岸關係被蹂躪至此，已如揉皺的紙，難以復平。如今一手催生陸委會的馬英九執政，陸委會卻已不能回到最初的面目。《國統綱領》已由「九二共識／一中各表」及「不統／不獨／不武」取代；雖似失去了幾分浪漫及豪情壯志，卻使得在現實上兩岸的交流磨合突飛猛進。

二十年或是一趟試誤的歷程。這二十年正映現了台獨的飆車與撞壁；而二十年經驗亦告訴我們，台灣與其消極逃避退縮，不如正面進取，《國統綱領》雖束諸高閣，但兩岸的政經連結已然跨過了不可折返點。至於若無這廿年對彼岸當局的啟示，北京亦不會有「共生雙贏」的思考。

因而，「九二共識／一中各表」及「不統／不獨／不武」看似已從廿年前的陸委會及國統會倒退，但在這個階段看來，「不統／不獨」對兩岸卻皆是一個實事求是的路徑，將兩岸帶上了「和平發展」的大道。