By What Right Does the DPP Demand Ruling Party Change?

By What Right Does the DPP Demand Ruling Party Change?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 8, 2011

Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu wrote a letter to Zhao Xing, a young girl from Beijing, inviting her to visit Kaohsiung and to travel about the city at will. Pingtung County Chief Tsao Chi-hung meanwhile, just returned from Beijing on a trip to sell pineapples.

As the presidential election looms, these two moves were visible indicators of DPP political calculation. Just before the 2009 World Games in Kaohsiung, Chen Chu flew to the Mainland and put on a show. The idea was to show the Beijing authorities and the public on Taiwan that "If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it will continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policies."

These two moves suggest that cross-Strait relations, as suggested by the Free and Independent Travel Policy and ECFA, have passed the point of no return. The DPP can no longer overturn them. It too must hop on the bandwagon. But two years ago, the Free and Independent Travel Policy and ECFA were part of the DPP's scorched earth policy. The DPP denounced them as "Trojan horses." It said they "forfeited our sovereignty and demeaned our nation." Compare the behavior of Chen and Cao then, with their behavior now. The contrast reveals how short-sighted the DPP was back then. A mere two years later, they have been forced to do an about face. The contrast also reveals the absurd degree to which DPP policy has flip-flopped repeatedly.

Are these two moves enough to show the Beijing authorities and the public on Taiwan that "If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it will continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policies?" Hardly. Chen Chu and Tsao Chi-hung are local government heads. Their cross-Strait movements, dependence upon on the Free and Independent Travel Policy, and trips to Beijing to sell pineapples, are possible only due to the KMT/Ma administration's stand on the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, and No [immediate] Reunification, No Independence, and No Use of Force. If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, then abandons the KMT's stand on the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, and No [immediate] Reunification, No Independence, and No Use of Force, will there still be an ECFA? Will there still be a Free and Independent Travel Policy?

The key remains the 1992 Consensus, and One China, Different Interpretations. If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, but repudiates the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. how can it possibly "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policies?" Suppose the Democratic Progressive Party finds itself held hostage by Beijing, under pressure to give in? The two sides would have a falling out. Beijing would return to the era of "listening to what they say and watching what they do." Knowing this, ruling party change would clearly lead to a deadly cross-Strait crisis.

Consider the DPP's cross-Strait policy plank in its presidential campaign platform: "With the exception of the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations, all other cross-Strait policies of the previous administration will be continued." The DPP can of course repudiate the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations if it wishes. But it must offer an alternative. Without the 1992 Consensus, it simply cannot ensure the "continuation of the former administration's cross-Strait policies." Beijing will not allow itself to be hijacked. Quite the contrary. The DPP would find itself snared on the Beijing authorities' hook. Knowing this, why should voters go along with the DPP's calls for ruling party change?

Suppose the DPP returns to power but retains ECFA and other allegedly "humiliating" mechanisms? Suppose it upholds the Free and Independent Travel Policy and other "Trojan Horse" mechanisms? Suppose it does an about face and recognizes the KMT's stand on the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations? Suppose it reverses itself on all these positions, which it not long ago denounced as "pandering to [Mainland] China, and selling out Taiwan?" Suppose it "continues the former administration's cross-Strait policies," across the board? If so, the KMT/Ma administration was the initiator of these policies. Since "change has begun, and reform must not be interrupted," where is the need for a change in ruling parties? Do we really need the DPP to replace the KMT, only "continue the KMT's cross-Strait policies?"

These moves by Chen and Tsao, reflect the DPP's dilemma. They can no longer oppose the Ma administration's cross-Strait policies, which have passed the point of no return. On the other hand, if they hop on the bandwagon, they must swallow their words. They must take back their myopic, ignorant, and vicious charges about "Trojan Horses," about "pandering to [Mainland] China, about "selling out Taiwan," and about "forfeiting our sovereignty and humiliating the nation." The public is watching. Can the DPP formulate a better cross-Strait policy than the Ma administration?

Chen Chu and Tsao Chi-hung can do what they do, only because they are local government heads. They are under the protection of the central government, which recognizes the 1992 Consensus. In fact, the greatest benefit conferred upon the two sides by the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations, is not free and independent travel or the sale of pineapples, but a peaceful, win/win political atmosphere. If the Democratic Progressive Party cannot offer the public such assurances in the event it returns to power, why should voters go along with the DPP's calls for ruling party change?

As we all know, cross-Strait policy is the backbone of Republic of China national policy. Can Taiwan independence leaders "do ECFA?" Can Taiwan independence leaders "do the Free and Independent Travel Policy?" Take Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui, Frank Hsieh, and Koo Kwan-min, for example. Not one of them recognizes the 1992 Consensus. This is even more true of Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai Ing-wen may try to weasel her way through. She may try to get elected, then await the outcome of a life and death struggle between Taiwan independence leaders Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui, Frank Hsieh, and Koo Kwan-min, the Beijing authorities, and the public on Taiwan. We repeatedly suffered the consequences of such outrageous political gambles under Chen Shui-bian. Does Tsai Ing-wen really intend to bet the nation on the outcome of the presidential election? Knowing this, why should voters go along with the DPP's calls for ruling party change?

Without the 1992 Consensus, there can be no ECFA. There can be no One China, Different Interpretations. There can be no Free and Independent Travel Policy. The DPP, Tsai Ing-wen, Chen Chu, Tsao Chi-hung, Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui, Frank Hsieh, Koo Kwan-min and the Taiwan independence leadership can refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. But they cannot refuse to assume responsibility. They must tell the people their alternative. Otherwise, why should voters go along with DPP calls for ruling party change?

民進黨憑什麼政黨輪替？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.06.08

高雄市長陳菊函邀北京女孩趙星赴高雄自由行，屏東縣長曹啟鴻則剛從北京賣鳳梨回來。

在總統大選前，這兩個動作可視為民進黨的設計事件，猶如二○○九高雄世界運動會前，陳菊親赴大陸示好，用意在向北京當局及台灣民眾演示「民進黨若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」。

這兩個動作亦顯示，兩岸的交流情勢，不論是自由行或ＥＣＦＡ，皆已跨過了不可折返點；民進黨非但不可能推翻，且反而必須回頭搶搭巴士。但自由行與ＥＣＦＡ卻是民進黨兩年多前焦土反對的議題，斥為「木馬屠城」、「喪權辱國」；對比於陳曹二人今日的動作，一方面顯示民進黨的政策眼光竟短視至看不到兩年後，另一方面更顯示民進黨政策的反覆已至莫名其妙的地步。

然而，只憑這兩個動作就能向北京當局及台灣民眾演示「民進黨若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」嗎？問題沒有那麼簡單。如今，陳菊及曹啟鴻皆是地方政府首長，二人的兩岸動作，歡迎自由行及赴北京賣鳳梨，皆是在國民黨馬政府「九二共識，一中各表」及「不統、不獨、不武」的兩岸政策支撐下始能成立。倘若民進黨再執政而否棄了「九二共識」、「不統、不獨、不武」，則還會有ＥＣＦＡ嗎？還會有自由行嗎？

關鍵仍在「九二共識，一中各表」。如果民進黨再執政，則既否認「九二共識，一中各表」，卻將如何「延續前朝兩岸政策」？屆時，若不是民進黨受北京挾持而在壓力下讓步，就是兩岸翻臉，再度回到「聽其言，觀其行」的年代。倘係如此，政黨輪替即成兩岸的致命危機。

民進黨現今的總統大選兩岸政策似乎是：「除了九二共識、一中各表之外，其他一切都可延續前朝兩岸政策。」民進黨當然可以否認「九二共識，一中各表」，但必須拿出一個替代方案，要在「沒有九二共識」下，也保證能夠「延續前朝兩岸政策」。不可屆時竟被北京挾持，反而成為北京當局的俎上魚肉；倘係如此，豈可政黨輪替？

反過來說，民進黨若再執政，倘仍維護ＥＣＦＡ等所謂「喪權辱國」的機制，且仍招徠所謂「木馬屠城」的自由行，更居然回頭承認了所謂「傾中賣台」的「九二共識，一中各表」，一概皆「延續前朝兩岸政策」；那麼，國民黨馬政府既是這套政策的開創者，「改變已經開始，改革不能中斷」，又何必政黨輪替，讓民進黨來「延續國民黨的兩岸政策」？

陳曹二人的動作，充分反映了民進黨的進退維谷。若要繼續反對馬政府的兩岸政策，卻已過了不可折返點；但若要拿香跟拜，則要如何收回「木馬屠城」、「傾中賣台」、「喪權辱國」那些無知無遠見的惡毒詛咒？國人皆在注目：且看民進黨能否提出一個超越馬政府的兩岸政策。

陳菊與曹啟鴻今日可以有此演出，皆因都是地方政府首長，也皆在「九二共識」的中央政府庇護下行事；何況，在「九二共識，一中各表」下，兩岸的最大利益，其實不在自由行與賣鳳梨，而在維繫了和平雙贏的大氛圍。如果民進黨再執政而不能對此一利益作出保證，何必政黨輪替？

眾所皆知，兩岸政策是國政的脊樑。台獨能ＥＣＦＡ嗎？台獨能自由行嗎？「扁李謝辜獨」，沒有一個人承認「九二共識」，蔡英文尤然。蔡英文心中若想先打個馬虎眼，待選上總統再在「扁李謝辜獨」、北京當局與台灣民眾之間決一生死勝負，這種荒唐的政治賭博在陳水扁時已一再發生，難道蔡英文還想把國家放上她的大選賭桌上？倘係如此，豈可政黨輪替？

沒有「九二共識」就沒有ＥＣＦＡ；沒有「一中各表」，就沒有自由行。民進黨、蔡英文、陳菊、曹啟鴻、扁李謝辜獨，皆可反對「九二共識，一中各表」；但是，也應當負責地告訴國人，什麼是替代方案？否則，豈可政黨輪替？