Look Beyond the Election, Consider Taiwan's Future

Look Beyond the Election, Consider Taiwan's Future
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 27s, 2011

Summary: President Ma's proposal for a cross-Strait peace agreement has provoked intense controversy between the ruling and opposition parties. Yesterday, during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting, Ma reiterated that his cross-Strait peace agreement would write the status quo into law, thereby precluding the use of force. He wondered why the opposition Democratic Progressive Party opposed the two sides moving towards peaceful development. He noted in particular how former President Chen Shui-bian and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen made similar proposals. He said the DPP should not attempt to paint his proposal red, and accuse him of "selling out Taiwan." President Ma has turned the peace agreement into the central theme of this election. He has enabled the public to vote not just for the candidate of its choice, but also for the cross-Strait policy of its choice.

Full Text Below:

President Ma's proposal for a cross-Strait peace agreement has provoked intense controversy between the ruling and opposition parties. Yesterday, during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting, Ma reiterated that his cross-Strait peace agreement would write the status quo into law, thereby precluding the use of force. He wondered why the opposition Democratic Progressive Party opposed the two sides moving towards peaceful development. He noted in particular how former President Chen Shui-bian and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen made similar proposals. He said the DPP should not attempt to paint his proposal red, and accuse him of "selling out Taiwan." President Ma has turned the peace agreement into the central theme of this election. He has enabled the public to vote not just for the candidate of its choice, but also for the cross-Strait policy of its choice.

President Ma has proposed a public referendum. Perhaps he hopes to emphasize that any cross-Strait peace agreement will be decided by the people. Perhaps he hopes to neutralize any concerns and accusations. Whether his initiative has had a positive or negative impact on the election is hard to say. Some think he foolishly poked a stick into a hornet's nest. Others think that turning the election into a debate over cross-Strait issues will work to Ma Ying-jeou's advantage.

The KMT once feared accusations it was "selling out Taiwan." Political negotiations or political agreements with the Chinese mainland were seen as box office poison. But President Ma has defied the Conventional Wisdom. He has put himself to the test. He hopes to see whether a president, elected by a democratic republic via the democratic process, can withstand allegations of "selling out Taiwan" based on provincial origin. He wants to see whether members of the public on Taiwan have sufficient confidence in themselves, as masters of their own country.

Actually Ma Ying-jeou made it clear from the very beginning that any peace agreement would be subject to three prerequisites: national need, public support, and legislative oversight. If any of the three were missing, if the time was not ripe, no peace agreement would be signed, even if the golden decade was up. The government would not sign merely for the sake of signing. It had no timetable. Nor was it the government's highest priority.

Nevertheless, as expected, the proposed peace agreement was greeted by wave upon wave of DPP attacks. DPP spokesmen accused him of having a timetable for reunification. Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen even said that Ma's peace agreement would subject the public on Taiwan to four dangers. One. It would sacrifice "Taiwan's sovereignty," because sovereignty was not a prerequisite. It would push Taiwan into Beijing's "peaceful reunification" framework. Two. It would change the status quo. A cross-Strait political agreement would require clearly defining the two sides' position on sovereignty. That would inevitably change the half-century long cross-Strait status quo, under which neither side asserts its sovereignty over the other. Three. It would threaten democratic values. President Ma is turning the issue into a political football. He does not respect the public will, and is inciting controversy and confrontation. Four. It would reduce strategic depth. He clearly stated he would like the matter settled within ten years. This is tantamount to setting a timetable for political negotiations. This would reduce the bargaining chips Taiwan has during cross-Strait negotiations.

But a chasm looms between this and what Ma Ying-jeou actually said. One. Ma did not equate a peace agreement with reunification. He said that if any of his three prerequisites were missing, or if the time was not ripe, there would be no rush to sign. Therefore allegations about timetables are utterly baseless. A peace agreement has yet to be drawn up. Not even a rough draft exists. How can anyone say that "Sovereignty was not a prerequisite?" Where is the evidence that it is certain to change the cross-Strait status quo? Ma made clear that any peace agreement would require public approval. How can it possibly endanger democratic values? Nor did he say it must be signed within ten years. If the public does not support it, it can drag on well past ten years.

Let us review the past. Tsai Ing-wen said that if she is elected president, she would establish a "Taiwan consensus." She would solicit public opinion, while adhering to democratic processes. She said this would ensure peaceful and stable cross-Strait interaction. She said her "Taiwan consensus would not rule out any possibility." As long as the public on Taiwan supported it, any relationship with the Chinese mainland was possible.

Ma Ying-jeou said a public referendum would determine whether or not to sign a peace agreement. Tsai Ing-wen said a "Taiwan consensus" was a precondition for a cross-Strait peace agreement, She said that as long as the public on Taiwan supports it, the DPP is open to closer relations with the Chinese mainland. Both stressed that cross-Strait policy must be determined by the democratic process. So why is Ma Ying-jeou's proposal being singled out for attack as "pro reunification?" Even when he has repeatedly said, "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force?" Meanwhile Tsai Ing-wen has adopted a "nothing is being ruled out" posture toward Chinese reunification. Why is she not being challenged regarding her position?

President Ma has gone a step further and proposed a public referendum. It is a renewed commitment to democratic institutions. It is not easy to pass a public referendum. The threshold is extremely high. But a peace agreement has yet to be drafted. Not a single word has been committed to paper. For the ruling and opposition parties to squabble over a public referendum at this moment is utterly pointless.

Reality tells us the world is constantly changing. But most politicians on Taiwan have no vision. They stare at the present, and assume that is how it will be in the future. They extrapolate the future based on the present. But that is not the way the world works. Today's Taiwan is different from Taiwan ten years ago. Ten years from now, it will undergo even more changes. The same is true for the Chinese Mainland. Today's cross-Strait relations will not be cross-Strait relations a decade from now. The question is, can we make changing cross-Strait relations work to our advantage in the coming decade and beyond? Ensuring opportunities for ourselves tomorrow, requires hard work and planning today.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2011.10.27
社論－跳開選舉思維 放眼台灣未來發展
本報訊

馬總統自提出兩岸和平協議，連日來引發朝野爭論，日昨他在國民黨行動中常會中再次強調，和平協議是把兩岸不武的現狀制度化，他質疑在野的民進黨，難道不希望見到兩岸邁向和平發展？特別是包括前總統陳水扁和民進黨主席蔡英文都提出過類似構想，民進黨不應該把他的主張抹紅、抹煞為賣台。可以說馬總統已經將這次選戰的主軸議題，設定在和平協議上，讓民眾不只是要選總統個人，還要選擇兩岸關係的走向。

馬總統拋出公投，也許是為了強調兩岸和平協議一定會交由人民決定，藉此破除外界的疑慮並反擊指控，此一倡議對選情的影響是正是負，還很難說，有人認為沒必要冒險捅這個馬蜂窩，但也有人認為主打兩岸政策對馬英九有利。

往昔國民黨總怕被扣上「賣台」的紅帽子，和大陸進行政治談判或簽政治協議都被視為票房毒藥，但現在馬總統顯然想挑戰政治人物對台灣社會的既定想像，也讓自己接受試煉，看一個民主國家經由民主機制產生的總統，是不是可以不會因為其省籍背景而必須承擔出賣台灣的指控，也看台灣人民是不是對自己作為國家主人的地位有足夠自信。

其實，馬英九一開始話就講得很清楚，簽署和平協議有「國家需要、民意支持、國會監督」三大前提，其中任何一項不具備、不成熟，即使黃金十年到了，擺著也沒關係，不會簽署。政府不會為簽而簽，也沒時間表，更不是目前最優先的項目。

不過一如預料，和平協議的提出引來了民進黨的連番抨擊，不但被指為是統一時間表，黨主席蔡英文更表示它將使台灣人民面臨四個危險：一、犧牲台灣主權，沒有以主權堅持為前提，形同將台灣推入中國設定的「和平統一」政治框架中。二、改變台海現狀：簽署兩岸政治協議的前提，必須先明確認定兩岸雙方的主權定位，這必然將改變過去半世紀兩岸主權互不隸屬的現狀。三、危及民主價值：馬總統將此操弄成為選舉的議題，不尊重民意且製造社會的爭議和對立。四、破壞戰略縱深：言明要在十年內處理，無異設定了政治談判的時間表。讓台灣失去了兩岸折衝時所需要的籌碼。

但這似乎和馬英九說的話有一段差距。首先，沒有證據顯示和平協議可以和統一畫上等號。如果三前提有一項不成熟就不急著簽，所以指這就是統一時間表也說不過去。現在協議連個影子都沒有，哪裡知道它「沒有以主權堅持為前提」了？又有什麼證據說它必然改變兩岸主權互不隸屬的現狀？何況講明了要民意支持，又怎麼會危及民主價值？而且也不是說十年內一定要簽，如果民意不支持，再多個十年都可以繼續拖。

回過頭看看，蔡英文之前曾經表示當選總統後，會透過透明政治作為與民主程序，匯集朝野與社會意見形成「台灣共識」，成為兩岸建立和平穩定互動關係時最關鍵性的條件，「台灣共識不會排除任何可能性」，只要台灣人民支持，跟中國的關係都是可以開放的。

馬英九說公投決定要不要和平協議，蔡英文說匯集「台灣共識」成為兩岸和平的條件，而只要台灣人民支持，民進黨對未來與中國的關係態度開放，二者都強調兩岸政策要由民主機制決定，為什麼馬英九的主張被指控為統一，儘管他早已再三說過任內「不統不獨不武」，而蔡英文對統一採取「不排除」的開放態度，卻不會遭到質疑？

現在馬總統進一步提出公投，是對民主機制的再度承諾。以現行公投過關難度之高，其實這是相當嚴格的門檻。不過眼前和平協議真的八字都還沒一撇，朝野爭執如何公投，沒有太大實質意義。

儘管事實告訴我們，世事不斷變化，但台灣的政治人物經常缺乏想像力，往往看到眼前的狀況，就認定未來也是如此，用現況來推想未來，但世事並非如此。現在的台灣和十年前不同，十年後也會有新的變化，中國大陸亦然，今天的兩岸關係，不會是十年後的兩岸關係，問題是，我們能不能在未來十年、廿年乃至更長久的時間裡，讓兩岸關係朝向有利於台灣的方向發展。台灣未來的發展機會，必須今天就開始規劃耕耘。