No Need for New and Unconventional Cross-Strait Policy

No Need for New and Unconventional Cross-Strait Policy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 1, 2011

Either Tsai Ing-wen or Su Tseng-chang will represent the DPP in the 2012 presidential election. The two candidates made glowing promises during the party primaries. But neither adequately addressed cross-Strait policy. As a result, the two candidates' primary platforms were all flash and no substance.

The primary platforms issued by Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen were similar to those issued by presidential candidates all over the world. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric about students studying under dim lanterns, and college girls afraid of losing their jobs could easily have been incorporated into the campaign speeches of any nation's presidential candidate, But such rhetoric is clearly inadequate for a candidate seeking the Republic of China presidency. Failure to address cross-Strait policy reduces the entire speech to empty boasting.

Tsai Ing-wen's primary platform barely mentioned cross-Strait policy. Su Tseng-chang mentioned it merely in passing. He said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen spoke of "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." Su Tseng-chang's "Survival above all, democracy as a foundation" did not appear in his primary platform. Clearly the two candidates were deliberately avoiding, even hiding, from cross-Strait issues. This is the DPP's Achilles Heel. This is also Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's political Achilles Heel.

Cross-Strait issues are admittedly not the sum total of the ROC's political and economic problems. But they are undoubtedly its most important component. For the ROC, cross-Strait policy must be addressed. Otherwise it is impossible to speak about a vision for the future. If no remedies can be found for cross-Strait ills, then no remedies will be found for our political and economic ills. The Ma administration has laid out its cross-Strait policy, including ECFA. The DPP on the other hand, has failed to offer any comprehensive or substantial proposals in its stead. It even averred that "If elected, it would continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." At the same time, it persists in hurling vague allegations about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Tsai Ing-wen even made a fuss about the headstones and funerary urns of candidates' ancestors. On one side of her mouth, she condemned the incumbent for "pandering to [Mainland] China" and "selling out Taiwan." On the other side of her mouth she assured us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." How can she possibly win on a platform like this? And if elected, how could she possibly govern the nation?

It is now over 20 years since martial law was lifted. The Democratic Progressive Party underwent a considerable period during which it experimented with all manner of "new and unconventional" cross-Strait policies. These include the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, the rectification of names, one nation on each side, the Second Republic, de-Sinicization, the referendum to join the UN, the resolution for a normal nation, and other Taiwan independence oriented proposals. These amounted to a history of the DPP's cross-Strait relations counterproposals. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen know perfectly well that these policies are utterly infeasible. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are running for elective office. On the one hand, they cannot admit their proposals are infeasible. Doing so would mean losing the support of Green Camp zealots. On the other hand, they cannot avoid the realization that their proposals are infeasible. Otherwise, why would they assure us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the preceding administration?"

The DPP is trapped within a "now you see it, now you don't, now you see it again" paradox. Su Tseng-chang says "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." He says this because the DPP's new and unconventional proposals have all turned out to be infeasible. He says this because the DPP has run out of new and unconventional proposals to offer.

Almost every one of the Democratic Progressive Party's new and unconventional cross-Strait policy proposals were rooted in Taiwan independence thought. The fundamental premise of Taiwan independence thought has long been "Resistance against the PRC necessitates the overthrow of the ROC." This eventually degenerated into "Resistance against the ROC equals resistance against the PRC." But the domestic and international situation has changed. Gradually the public is seeing things more clearly. It realizes that if it overthrows the ROC, it will be even more difficult to resist the PRC. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are well aware of this fact. That is why they realize there is no room for "new and unconventional" proposals.

Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional. We have long felt this way. We need only return to the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Future cross-Strait relations will be determined in accordance with the ROC Constitution. The constitutional process must be a democratic process. This naturally implies that "Taiwan's future must be decided by 23 million people." If we can reach such a consenus, we can return to the constitution. We need not concoct anything new and unconventional.

Su Tseng-chang said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, avoided the question altogether, This shows that the Democratic Progressive Party has reached the end of its rope. It has nothing new or unconventional to offer. Hsu Hsing-liang has entered the party primaries, Compared to Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen, he comes across as "new and unconventional." But in fact Hsu is merely returning to the mainstream. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are unable to offer anything "new and unconventional" in cross-Strait policy, Yet they want to run for ROC president. As Annette Lu asked of the DPP: Are you ready? Can you be counted on? Do you have the ability?

談兩岸，不必標新立異
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.01 03:46 am

蔡英文與蘇貞昌二人之一可望代表民進黨競選二○一二總統。二人的初選宣言均極盡詞藻華麗之能事，卻因皆未對兩岸議題作出應有的申論，遂使二篇初選宣言皆顯得華而不實。

蘇蔡兩篇初選宣言，大部分內容其實與舉世各國所有總統候選人的競選宣言大同小異；換一個國家的總統候選人，也可以拿著蘇蔡這兩篇講稿，從昏燈下的學童或害怕失業的大學女生講起。但是，這顯然不夠格作為中華民國總統參選人的競選宣言，不談兩岸政策，可使通篇演說變成假、大、空話。

蔡英文的初選宣言對兩岸政策幾乎未置一詞，蘇貞昌則點到為止，甚至稱「談兩岸不必標新立異」。蔡英文的「和而不同，和而求同」，與蘇貞昌的「生存是王道，民主是基礎」也均未見諸初選宣言；顯見二人對兩岸議題皆蓄意迴避，甚至在藏拙。這正是民進黨的阿基里斯腱，亦即是蘇蔡二人的政治罩門。

兩岸問題誠然不是台灣政經問題的全部，卻無疑是最重要的部分。對台灣而言，沒有平衡的兩岸政策，即不可能有未來憧憬可言；若不能在兩岸問題上找到應對方法，則整個政經問題就無從治理。然而，民進黨如今對馬政府的兩岸政策，如ＥＣＦＡ等，其實完全提不出對其全盤否定或作重大修正的建議，甚至還有「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」的說法；但是，另一方面民進黨卻又不斷操弄「傾中賣台」的情緒性空泛指摘，蔡英文甚至拿先人的墓碑及骨灰罈作文章。這種又罵「傾中賣台」，又要「延續前朝兩岸政策」的兩面手法，豈有可能贏得總統大選？或縱使當選豈有可能治國？

解嚴後二十餘年，民進黨在兩岸關係上，確實經過好一陣子「標新立異」的操作，曾經出現過台灣前途決議文、正名制憲、一邊一國、第二共和、去中國化、入聯公投、正常國家等等「標新立異」的台獨副牌及變體，可謂皆是民進黨就兩岸關係提出的對策試驗。但蘇蔡二人當然皆知，這些政策在今日呈現的實驗結果是全無可行。然而，蘇蔡面臨的選舉情境卻使他們既不能承認其不可行，否則即會失去了綠營支持者的熱情；卻又不能不承認其不可行，否則怎會說「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」？

在這種「見山是山／見山不是山／見山又是山」的吊詭過程中，蘇貞昌提出「談兩岸不必標新立異」的說法，其實一方面是因民進黨過去的「標新立異」皆告失敗，另一方面也因如今已是無新可標、無異可立了。

民進黨幾乎嘗試過所有的「標新立異」的兩岸政策，主軸皆是台獨路線。原始的台獨思維是「為了對抗中華人民共和國，所以要顛覆中華民國」，但其後漸漸變質為「把對抗中華民國，當作對抗中華人民共和國」；但是，隨著國內外情勢丕變，國人漸漸感知，若顛覆中華民國，更無以對抗中華人民共和國，蘇蔡二人自然亦深知此理。因而，即無「標新立異」的餘地。

談兩岸，不要標新立異。以我們一貫的看法來說，就是一切皆回歸到中華民國憲法的架構下，未來的兩岸關係亦由中華民國的憲法程序決定；由於憲法程序必然是民主程序，所以其中當然包含了「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」。如果能夠建立這樣的共識，即可返璞歸真於憲法，不必再標新立異。

蘇貞昌所謂的「談兩岸不必標新立異」，及蔡英文的乾脆避而不談，皆顯示民進黨在兩岸政策上的僵固與枯竭，已無新可標，無異可立；許信良的投入初選，相對於於蘇蔡二人，反而是一種「標新立異」，但許其實是回歸主流而已。蘇蔡二人若不能提出「新與異」的兩岸政策，卻想選中華民國總統，借呂秀蓮的話問民進黨：你準備好了嗎？你靠得住嗎？你有這個本事嗎？