The DPP Must Reaffirm the Republic of China

The DPP Must Reaffirm the Republic of China
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 24, 2012

Summary: The DPP faces a fundamental dilemma. Taiwan independence is impossible. But reaffirming the Republic of China is unthinkable. If the DPP cannot find a way to deal with the Republic of China, then it cannot find a way to deal with Mainland China. The DPP wants to go the final mile. But if not a single Republic of China flag can be seen at DPP rallies, then the DPP's dream of returning to power will remain an ever receding pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Full Text below:

Why did the Democratic Progressive Party lose the presidential election? The DPP's review of the reasons for its defeat at the polls contains an unspoken but obvious truth. The DPP lost because it clings for dear life to its narrowly divisive concept of "Taiwan," and hands the expansive and broadly unifying concept of the "Republic of China" over to the KMT.

The Democratic Progressive Party's slogan during election campaign was "uphold the sovereignty of Taiwan." Consider the DPP's review of the reasons for its defeat at the polls. The wording was changed to read, "The DPP is a political party that upholds the sovereignty of the nation." Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT, by contrast, said that they "uphold the sovereignty of the Republic of China."

So the question is, what is the difference between upholding "the sovereignty of Taiwan," "the sovereignty of the nation," and "the sovereignty of the Republic of China?" Do they overlap? Are they mutually exclusive?

When the DPP uses the term "Taiwan," it generally means "tai wan guo," i.e,, a future "Nation of Taiwan" or "Republic of Taiwan." That is why its slogans read, "upholding the sovereignty of Taiwan," instead of "upholding the sovereignty of the Republic of China." This is how it differentiates itself politically from the KMT. These conscious DPP distinctions have made "Taiwan" and the "Republic of China" a mutually exclusive, friend or foe proposition. Today the dreams of Taiwan independence and of founding a Nation of Taiwan have faded into nothingness. The primary challenge facing the DPP is how to reaffirm the Republic of China.

The world and the nation are undergoing massive changes. Martial law was lifted over two decades ago. The constitution has been amended repeatedly. The inescapable conclusion is that Taiwan independence has failed to overthrow the Republic of China. Instead the Republic of China has accommodated, moderated, and mollified the Taiwan independence movement. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian were unable to overthrow the Republic of China and realize Taiwan independence. Nor will anyone else be able to do so in the future.

The first reason the DPP review should have cited for its defeat at the polls should have been: Taiwan independence is simply impossible. Based on this premise, the DPP should have inferred what path the party ought to follow and what reforms the party ought to implement. Instead, the DPP lacked the courage to honestly state this truth. That is why all the arguments that followed were irrelevant and beside the point.

The 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, and "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, not use of force" all reject de jure Taiwan independence, and uphold the sovereignty of the Republic of China. The 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations are accepted on the international stage. For example, Washington and Beijing endorsed One China, Different Interpretations when they were on the Bush/Hu Hotline. When Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT reaffirm One China, Different Interpretations, they stand on solid ground. The 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations have enabled Taipei and Beijing to clear the way for political and economic exchanges amidst cross-Strait deadlock.

By contrast, the DPP remains a prisoner of its Sinophobia and insularity. Its attitude is, if we want Taiwan independence, how can we not be Sinophobes? If we want Taiwan independence, how can we not padlock the door to our island? But Taiwan independence is impossible. Therefore what choice does the DPP have? DPP must reaffirm the Republic of China Constitution. It must uphold One China, Different Interpretations. It must uphold the sovereignty of the Republic of China. Can any other political logic convince the DPP to forsake its Sinophobia and insularity? The DPP is unable to implement Taiwan independence. It rejects the Republic of China. This leaves it with nowhere to go.

The DPP review of the reasons for its defeat at the polls states that the DPP must rid itself of its Sinophobic and insular image. This is a tacit admission that Taiwan independence is impossible. The DPP however, refuses to admit this openly and explicitly. After all, how can one possibly promote Taiwan independence unless one is rabidly Sinophobic and stubbornly insular? The DPP already knows that Taiwan independence is impossible. But it refuses to openly and explicitly reaffirm One China, Different Interpretations, the Republic of China Constitution, and the sovereignty of the Republic of China. Instead it relinquishes this vast political and economic realm, turning it over to the KMT. As a result, the DPP has left itself with no leg to stand on.

The DPP review says the DPP must understand [Mainland] China when interacting with [Mainland] China. It says this will enable it to "discover new ways to deal with [Mainland] China." But the DPP was in power for eight years. Did it really learn nothing from its interactions with [Mainland] China in all that time? Other than forsaking Taiwan independence, reaffirming One China, Different Interpretations and the Republic of China, and upholding the sovereignty of the Republic of China, how else can the DPP "discover new ways to deal with [Mainland] China?"

The DPP has long imprisoned itself in an either/or mindset: either Taiwan, or the Republic of China. Never both. During the election campaign, Tsai Ing-wen said that "Taiwan is the Republic of China. The Republic of China is Taiwan." But Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" is the Republic of China in name only. Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" is a shell company for Tsai Ing-wen's narrowly defined, division riddled "Taiwan."

The DPP faces a fundamental dilemma. Taiwan independence is impossible. But reaffirming the Republic of China is unthinkable. If the DPP cannot find a way to deal with the Republic of China, then it cannot find a way to deal with Mainland China. The DPP wants to go the final mile. But if not a single Republic of China flag can be seen at DPP rallies, then the DPP's dream of returning to power will remain an ever receding pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

民進黨應先找到面對中華民國的新方法
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.02.24

民進黨為何敗選，其檢討報告透露了一個沒有明說卻一目了然的訊息，那就是敗在：民進黨死抱被它窄化、分化的「台灣」，卻把「中華民國」這個廣大的政經空間送給了國民黨。

民進黨在大選期間的關鍵詞是「堅持台灣主權」；如今在檢討報告中，修辭則變化成「民進黨作為一個堅持國家主權的政黨」。此一論述與馬英九及國民黨的差異在於，馬英九說的是：「堅持中華民國的主權。」

問題在於：「台灣主權」、「國家主權」及「中華民國主權」三者，有何交集、有何排擠？

民進黨在使用「台灣」這個名詞之時，其潛台詞往往即是指「台灣國」；因而標舉「堅持台灣主權」，而不談「堅持中華民國主權」，藉此與國民黨作出政治區隔。民進黨此種刻意建構的政治區隔，一貫將「台灣」與「中華民國」操作成敵對關係；因而，在今日台獨建國已然全盤幻滅的現實下，民進黨面臨的主要難題即是：它該如何回到中華民國？

在世局國情巨變中，解嚴二十餘年來憲政變遷的結論是：台獨未能推翻、顛覆中華民國，而是中華民國包容、緩和、化解了台獨。李登輝、陳水扁皆未能以台獨篡奪中華民國得逞，未來也無人能作得到。

其實，民進黨敗選報告理當標舉的第一個前提應是：台獨已絕無可能。然後，再依據這個前提去演繹推論民進黨路線及政策的興革。但是，如今民進黨卻不敢誠實標舉這個前提，遂使其餘議論都點不出真正的痛處。

「九二共識」的「一中各表」，及「不統／不獨／不武」，即是不採「法理台獨」路線，而「堅持中華民國的主權」。且「九二共識／一中各表」，在國際上即是「布胡熱線／一中各表」。馬英九及國民黨站穩了「一中各表」的立場，在兩岸僵局中清理出政經脈絡。

反觀民進黨何以予人「反中／鎖國」的印象？實情是：要台獨，豈能不反中？要台獨，豈能不鎖國？試問：台獨既絕不可能，民進黨除了回到中華民國憲法，持守「一中各表」，「堅持中華民國主權」之外，豈有其他的政治邏輯，可以使民進黨撤守「反中鎖國」的陣地？否則，不能台獨，又不要中華民國，如何立足？

敗選檢討報告稱，要使民進黨擺脫「反中鎖國」的刻板印象，這應即是對「台獨已絕無可能」作出了結論，只是不敢明說。因為，不反中、不鎖國，如何台獨？但是，民進黨若明知台獨已不可能，又不明明白白地回到「一中各表」的中華民國憲法，「堅持中華民國主權」，卻將此一廣大政經空間全部送給了國民黨，試問民進黨將寄身何處？

敗選報告說：民進黨必須在互動中了解中國，以找出「面對中國的新方法」。問題是，民進黨甚至曾執政八年，難道仍未能「從互動中了解中國」？而除了放棄台獨路線，回到「一中各表」的中華民國，「堅持中華民國主權」之外，民進黨還能想出什麼「面對中國的新方法」？

長久以來，民進黨皆自陷於「將台灣與中華民國敵對」的困境，即使蔡英文在選季說「台灣就是中華民國／中華民國就是台灣」，那也只是一個被「分化、窄化的台灣」所掏空的「中華民國」，已非「一中各表」的中華民國憲法上的中華民國。

民進黨的根本困局，在於既不能台獨，又不肯誠實回到中華民國；實際上，民進黨若不能找到「面對中華民國新方法」，即不能找到「面對中國的新方法」。在民進黨的「最後一哩路」上，如果在造勢場合仍然看不到一面中華民國的國旗，這虛擬的一哩路將看不到實體的終點與歸宿。