Three Principles of the Peace Agreement: Tsai's Internal Contradictions

Three Principles of the Peace Agreement: Tsai's Internal Contradictions
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 25, 2011

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP oppose Ma Ying-jeou's peace agreement. They are adopting the same approach toward it that they adopted against ECFA. Can Taiwan independence advocates sign a peace agreement? Tsai Ing-wen is running for president on behalf of the Taiwan independence movement. She asserts that "The Republic of China is Taiwan." In fact, she is merely engaging in "backdoor listing." She is attempting to claim that "The Republic of China is the Nation of Taiwan." Tsai and the DPP need to reflect on the past. Their high-minded rhetoric about "sovereignty, democracy, and peace" is nothing more than self-delusion. How can such a fraudulent concept of "sovereignty" possibly represent democracy? How can it possibly bring peace?

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP oppose Ma Ying-jeou's peace agreement. They are adopting the same approach toward it that they adopted against ECFA.

One. Substantively speaking, Tsai and the DPP oppose ECFA. They denounce ECFA as a "candy-coated poison pill," as "demeaning," as "forfeiting our national sovereignty" and as "a sellout of Taiwan." They say they intend to lead four million unemployed people onto the streets to oppose any peace agreement. They denounce Ma Ying-jeou's peace agreement as a "one China peace agreement." They say "It will begin the reunification process" and introduce "four major dangers." Two. procedurally speaking, Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP oppose ECFA. They say "A referendum is also an option." Tsai opposes a peace agreement. She echoes President Ma's call for a referendum. But she raised the ante by demanding an amendment to the referendum law. She wants "all cross-strait political negotiations subject to public referenda."

Tsai Ing-wen led the Democratic Progressive Party onto the streets and opposed ECFA by throwing Molotov cocktails. Now however, she no longer denounces ECFA as "humiliating." Now she seems happy to swallow that "candy-coated poison pill." Now she declares that "If the DPP returns to power it will carry on the previous administration's cross-Strait policy." Now she declares that if the DPP returns to power it will march in lockstep with Ma Ying-jeou. It will support ECFA. It will "become chummy with [Mainland] China." It will "sell out Taiwan." Tsai even warned Beijing against unilaterally suspending ECFA.

Such flip-flopping demonstrates Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP's ignorance. Otherwise, why were they so critical of ECFA earlier? It demonstrates Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP's shamelessness. Otherwise, why warn Beijing against unilaterally suspending ECFA? Actually such ignorant and shameless flip-flopping has been standard operating procedure for the DPP for at least a decade. With the peace agreement, it has merely revealed its ignorance and shamelessness yet again.

In February Tsai Ing-wen announced that her cross-Strait policy was "peace with differences, peace while seeking agreement." She referred to Ma Ing-jeou's cross-Strait policy as "peace while seeking reunification, peace that demands reunification." She flagrantly created a straw man. Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policy calls for "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." When did he ever say "peace while seeking reunification, peace that demands reunification?" If Tsai and the DPP did not know this, then they were ignorant. If they knew this, but deliberately put words in Ma's mouth, then they were shameless. Ignorance is inexcusable. Shamelessness is even more inexcusable.

Ma Ying-jeou's peace agreement is not based on Beijing's "one China" scenario, It is based on "one China, different interpretations." It is based on the Constitution of the Republic of China. It is not "the beginning of the reunification process." It is an effort to stabilize cross-Strait relations by writing "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force" into law. In sum, Ma's Peace Agreement does not talk about reunification. For Taipei, it is a firewall standing in the way of forcible reunification by Beijing, For Beijing, it is a face-saving measure that enables Beijing to shelve the issue of reunification until later. Its main function is to reduce the pressure to reunify and to reduce the need to address issues of reunification. If Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP do not know this, then they are ignorant, If they know this but deliberately conflate a peace agreement with forcible reunification by Beijing, then they are shameless.

Tsai Ing-wen says cross-Strait negotiations must be based on "sovereignty, peace, and democracy." Ma Ying-jeou's peace agreement is based on one China, different interpretations. Therefore, it upholds the principle of sovereignty. It attempts to stabliize cross-Strait relations by writing "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force" into law. Therefore it upholds the principle of peace. It is subject to a public referendum. Therefore it upholds the principle of democracy. What reason do Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have to accuse Ma's peace agreement of violating the principles of sovereignty, peace, and democracy?

The Democratic Progressive Party wants to amend the referendum law. It wants to make all cross-Strait political negotiations subject to public referenda. Ma's peace agreement would be subject to a referendum. According to the current referendum law, if the two major parties have reached a consensus, then a bill in the legislature can begin the referendum process. What need is there to amend the law? The DPP wants all cross-Strait political negotiations to be subject to public referenda. Wasn't ECFA political in nature? Why is the DPP no longer demanding that ECFA be subject to a public referendum, in the event the DPP returns to power? If the DPP's interest is undiminished, why not subject "flexible diplomacy," or "wartime diplomacy" to public referenda? For that matter, why not reintroduce the DPP's Taiwan independence referendum?

The fact is Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou differ little on the three principles of the peace agreement. They differ little on the principles of peace and democracy. Their differ mainly on the principle of sovereignty. Ma Ying-jeou upholds the 1992 consensus, and one China, different interpretations. Tsai Ing-wen repudiates the 1992 consensus, and one China, different interpretations. The two also have differences at a deeper level. Ma Ying-jeou upholds "one China, different interpretations." He upholds the Constitution of the Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen is running for president on behalf of Taiwan independence. She says she opposes "one China, different interpretations." But in fact she has been hijacked by the Taiwan Independence movement. Taiwan independence is at the heart of all DPP rhetoric. Therefore when the DPP says "sovereignty" it actually means "Taiwan independence." Naturally this makes cross-Strait peace impossible, A tiny number of Taiwan independence zealots have hijacked the Republic of China's constitutional framework. As a result, democracy is suffering a slow death at the hands of Taiwan independence.

Can Taiwan independence advocates sign a peace agreement? Tsai Ing-wen is running for president on behalf of the Taiwan independence movement. She asserts that "The Republic of China is Taiwan." In fact, she is merely engaging in "backdoor listing." She is attempting to claim that "The Republic of China is the Nation of Taiwan." Tsai and the DPP need to reflect on the past. Their high-minded rhetoric about "sovereignty, democracy, and peace" is nothing more than self-delusion. How can such a fraudulent concept of "sovereignty" possibly represent democracy? How can it possibly bring peace?

和平協議三原則：以蔡之矛，攻蔡之盾
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.25 03:03 am

蔡英文及民進黨反對「和平協議」，用的仍是與反對ＥＣＦＡ一模一樣的公式。

一、就實體面言：蔡英文及民進黨反ＥＣＦＡ，指ＥＣＦＡ是「糖衣毒藥」、「喪權辱國」、「傾中賣台」，會帶來四百萬人失業；反「和平協議」，則稱馬英九要簽的是「一個中國」的「和平協議」，是「啟動統一進程」，會帶來「四大危險」。二、就程序面言，蔡英文及民進黨反對ＥＣＦＡ，主張「公投也是一個選項」；她反「和平協議」，則非但呼應馬總統所主張的付諸公投，又加碼稱應修「公投法」，規定「一切兩岸政治協商皆須公投」。

蔡英文曾帶民進黨上街用汽油彈反ＥＣＦＡ，如今卻不再指ＥＣＦＡ「喪權辱國」，反而似乎已經甘之如飴地吞下了那顆「糖衣毒藥」，謂「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」；也就是宣告，「若再執政」，將步武馬英九「支持ＥＣＦＡ／傾中賣台」的路線，甚至警告北京「屆時不得片面中止ＥＣＦＡ」。

這樣的反覆，非但證實蔡英文及民進黨的無知（否則當初為何如此批判ＥＣＦＡ？），更彰顯了蔡英文及民進黨的無羞恥心（否則為何警告北京不得片面中止？）。其實，無知無恥的反覆變化，正是民進黨幾十年來兩岸論述的一貫公式；如今在「和平協議」上，其論述之無知無恥依然故我。

二月間，蔡英文宣示她的兩岸綱領是「和而不同／和而求同」；竟指馬英九的兩岸政策是「和而要統／和而必統」，即完全是構陷栽贓的手法。因為，馬英九的兩岸政策主軸是「不統／不獨／不武」，何嘗說過「和而要統／和而必統」？蔡與民進黨若不知，是無知；若明知卻還要故意玩這種先射箭再畫靶的手法，即是無恥。無知已不可恕，無恥更是等而下之。

馬英九的「和平協議」，絕非根據北京的「一個中國」設想，而是基於「一中各表」的中華民國憲法原則；亦非「啟動統一進程」，而是欲將「不統／不獨／不武」的兩岸關係法制化固定化。總而言之，「和平協議」非但不是談「統一」，且在台灣是統一的「防火牆」，在北京是統一的「下台階」，其主要功能即在降低統一壓力及轉移統一的議題。蔡英文及民進黨若不知，是無知；若明知，卻竟故意將「和平協議」操作成等同「統一」，那就是無恥。

蔡英文說，兩岸協商應當基於「主權／和平／民主」三原則。據此以論馬英九「和平協議」的構想，因基於「一中各表」，故無違「主權」原則；鞏固「不統／不獨／不武」，則正是「和平」原則；並主張付諸公投，即是「民主」原則。蔡英文及民進黨，有何理由指馬英九的「和平協議」違反主權、和平、民主？

至於民進黨主張公投法修法，規定「一切兩岸政治協商皆須公投」；則以「和平協議」言，既然將付諸公投，只要兩大黨有此共識，依現行「公投法」，立院提案即可進入公投程序，又何必修法？而謂「一切兩岸政治協商均付公投」，則ＥＣＦＡ豈無政治性質？民進黨如今何以不再主張若執政將對ＥＣＦＡ付諸公投？如果興致不減，也何妨將「活路外交」或「烽火外交」付諸公投？更何不乾脆恢復台獨公投？

其實，說穿了，蔡英文與馬英九，在所謂「和平協議三原則」上，於「和平」與「民主」二項並無太大歧異，主要的區別是在對「主權」的認知。馬英九主張「九二共識／一中各表」，蔡英文則否認「九二共識／一中各表」；二人更深一層的差異則在於，馬英九持守「一中各表」的憲法戰略，蔡英文則是代表台獨參選總統，表面上只說反對「一中各表」，其實是被台獨挾持。由於台獨是民進黨一切論述的根源，則在「主權」的概念既是「台獨」，則兩岸「和平」自難維持，而以少數台獨挾持了中華民國的憲政正常化，則「民主」亦受台獨凌遲。

台獨能簽和平協議嗎？蔡英文代表台獨參選總統，主張「中華民國就是台灣」，其實是「借殼上市」，是在說「中華民國就是台灣國」。蔡英文及民進黨應回頭反省：其「主權／民主／和平」三原則其實是自欺欺人；以此種「主權」概念，是否代表「民主」？能否帶來「和平」？