Frank Hsieh Crosses Taiwan Strait, Honors Forefathers: Republic of China Reintegrated

Frank Hsieh Crosses Taiwan Strait, Honors Forefathers: Republic of China Reintegrated
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 2, 2012

Summary: Frank Hsieh has offered his own estimation of the consequences of his trip. He says the route may be impassable. Or the route may be a majestic, tree-lined boulevard. But it has been there in front of the DPP all the time. The problem was the DPP refused to stop and look. Frank Hsieh is now willing to take the first step. The public should encourage him. The public should remain optimistic.

Full Text below:

Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland has been approved. He is calling his visit a "trailblazing journey." He explained the reason for his visit. He said "If the KMT and CCP joining forces to counter the DPP becomes the norm, I worry that a Democratic Progressive Party return to power will become the stuff of fantasy." That reason is not good enough. Frank Hsieh should take this journey because 23 million citizens of the Republic of China on Taiwan have ripped the nation apart at the seams. The nation must stitched back together. This is the first step in that process. From now on, cross-Strait interactions must return to coopetition between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China.

The core of the Taiwan problem, is that the Democratic Progressive Party refuses to recognize the Republic of China. It merely uses for the purpose of "backdoor listing." But as long as the Republic of China remains divided, even the Democratic Progressive Party's return to power will not solve its problems. Frank Hsieh recognizes the "one China Constitution." Therefore the first thing he must do is stitch the Republic of China together again. Whether the DPP can return to power is of secondary importance.

Frank Hsieh's first stop is Xiamen, to honor his forefathers. His voyage has a number of implications. One. Twelve years ago his trip to Xiamen was blocked. Today he is dusting himself off and continuing on his way. Two. He is crossing the Strait and arriving on the Mainland. The first thing he will do upon arrival will be to visit his ancestors' graves and pay homage to his forefathers. How are we to interpret this action? Is the "China" in Frank Hsieh's heart the "China" from whence his forefathers came? Frank Hsieh's point of departure during this journey, is the "Republic of China." The Republic of China is where Frank Hsieh was born. Taiwan's retrocession to the Republic of China occurred in 1945.  Hsieh was born in 1946. The "Republic of China" Hsieh refers to when discussing cross-Strait issues, is the "Republic of China" that has been engaged in coopetition with the "People's Republic of China" for the past 60 years.

Frank Hsieh will pay his respects to his ancestors. Does he intend to express a viewpoint or a establish a framework? During yesterday's press conference, he was asked about the "one country, two cities" remark he made 12 years ago. He said that according to our respective constitutions, the two cities, Kaohsiung and Xiamen, are both cities within the same country. The only difference is "I'm referring to the Republic of China. They (the other side) are referring to another country." Recently rumors emerged that Frank Hsieh repudiated the "one China Constitution." But yesterday he said his intent was "to use the Constitution of the Republic of China to respond to one particular issue." This is the main thrust of Frank Hsieh's rhetoric. It matters not what terminology he invents. Frank Hsieh remains firmly within the framework of the "one China Constitution," "one China, different interpretations," "one country, two regions," or "two sides of the Strait, one China."

The day before yesterday this newspaper published an editorial. We offered a recommendation to Frank Hsieh. We said if he wants to break through the current impasse, he must "clear the air, once and for all." He must not leave things half said. If he does, he will be blasted by Taiwan independence elements, and Beijing will not buy what you have to sell. He will be a pariah on both sides. It is widely believed that Beijing's Taiwan-related agencies expect Frank Hsieh to reiterate his "opposition to Taiwan independence" and "adherence to the 1992 consensus." This is the proposition that the two sides have firmly supported in recent years. Frank Hsieh will probably be unable to use new formulations such as "constitutional consensus" and "one constitution, different interpretations," in place of existing formulations. He must not waste time talking to himself. If he does, he will find himself trapped in place. Beijing will demand that he "oppose Taiwan independence" and "adhere to the 1992 consensus." Frank Hsieh risks galloping over the precipice. He cannot afford to be careless. Does Frank Hsieh still wish to use the "one China Constitution" and "the spirit of consensus in 1992" as a foothold? Perhaps he can consolidate his position. In other words, perhaps he can rid himself of all the "backdoor listing" rhetoric. Perhaps he can get back to the "Republic of China."

Frank Hsieh has announced his itinerary. Su Tseng-chang and the DPP have yet to make their views on Hsieh's known. The DPP leadership says Frank Hsieh is "merely attending a bartending convention." For the time being, the party leadership is distancing itself from Frank Hsieh. This is understandable. Suppose their assertion is true: If so, what is Frank Hsieh's trip about? What is his personal stand, if not a joke? Will Frank Hsieh's trip score some small victory? Will he be able to reach some agreement with the DPP's basic tenets upon his return? For example, will Hsieh be appointed China Affairs Committee Chairman? That has become necessary to implement the outcome. In a September 11 editorial we pointed out that such agreement would require close agreement between Su Tseng-chang, Tsai Ing-wen, and Frank Hsieh.

The DPP's cross-Strait policy transformation is intertwined with Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's 2016 presidential election rivalry. This rivalry hobbles the party's transformation. Can Frank Hsieh successfully fulfill the role of lever for transformation? Su and Tsai should try to set aside their preoccupation with the general election. They should work with Frank Hsieh to get through the storm. Party transformation will surely provoke internecine struggle. They should not see this as on opportunity to "lick blood from the knife." In particular they should not see each other as a stepping stone amidst the chaos. Consider only what is politically advantageous for the moment. If the DPP can successfully transform its cross-Strait policy, any DPP candidate who seeks the presidency in 2016 will benefit. If they hold each other back, the party's transformation will come to nothing.

Returning to our point, Frank Hsieh expressed fear that the DPP's return to power was becoming "the stuff of fantasy." That is why he advocated the transformation of DPP cross-Strait policy.

This remark confirms two things. One. Taiwan's problems are the result of the DPP's yearning for power but resistance to transformation. Two. Conversely, they are the result of the DPP's resistance to transformation because it is out of power. It matters not whether the Democratic Progressive Party is in power. Taiwan remains a victim of the DPP's refusal to transform itself. The DPP's refusal to transform itself is tearing the Republic of China apart. Let us consider the global picture. Suppose the Republic of China is stitched back together. Taiwan may still fail to overcome its international and cross-Strait challenges. The Republic of China has been divided for some time. As our article points out Frank Hsieh stitching the Republic of China back together again is a precondition. Whether the DPP can return to power is secondary.

Frank Hsieh is crossing the Strait to pay his respects to his forebears. He appears to be creating a specific climate. When Chen Shui-bian first assumed the presidency, he too paid lip service to honoring his ancestors. At the time his remarks were regarded as "an acknowledgement of his heritage." But we later learned it was nothing of the sort. Frank Hsieh is currently testing the waters. He must not follow in Chen Shui-bian's footsteps. The DPP has remained trapped on the wheel of samsara, reliving its fate repeatedly. Hsieh must not fall into the same trap. After all, the only thing he is being asked to do is stitch the Republic of China back together. Why must the DPP balk at this?

Frank Hsieh has offered his own estimation of the consequences of his trip. He says the route may be impassable. Or the route may be a majestic, tree-lined boulevard. But it has been there in front of the DPP all the time. The problem was the DPP refused to stop and look. Frank Hsieh is now willing to take the first step. The public should encourage him. The public should remain optimistic.

謝長廷渡海祭祖：撕裂的中華民國應縫合了
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.02

謝長廷敲定訪陸，取名「開展之旅」。他解釋此行的理由說，「如果國共聯手對付民進黨成為常態，我擔心民進黨重新執政會變成一個傳說」；我們認為，這個理由的高度不夠，謝長廷應以此行做為兩千三百萬台灣人將「撕裂的中華民國」，重新「縫合」的第一個針腳，並從今以後將兩岸的互動，回歸到中華民國與中華人民共和國的競合關係。

台灣問題的核心，在於民進黨不接受中華民國，只想要「借殼上市」。如果中華民國繼續撕裂，即使民進黨重新執政，也解決不了問題；所以，謝長廷既有「憲法一中」的認知，實應以「縫合」中華民國為前提，民進黨能否執政其實是次一個階位的命題。

謝長廷首站將到廈門祭祖。第一個意義是：十二年前，他的廈門行受阻；今天，則是「在哪裡跌倒，從哪裡站起」。第二個意義是：渡海登陸，進門就先祭祖，也許可解讀為，謝長廷心中的「中國」是他祖先來自的「中國」，謝長廷此行啟程處的「中華民國」是謝長廷誕生地的「中華民國」（台灣在一九四五年光復，謝一九四六年出生），而謝在兩岸論述中指稱的「中華民國」，即是六十餘年來與「中華人民共和國」競合互動的「中華民國」。

謝長廷祭祖，是否欲藉此表達他此行的論述架構？在昨日記者會中，被問及十二年前他所稱的「一國兩市」；他說，十二年前他就說過，依照本國憲法，兩個城市（高雄與廈門）還是一個國家，只是「我講的是中華民國，他們（對岸）講的是另一國」；至於近日傳出謝長廷已否定「憲法一中」，但他昨日說，他的原意是「用中華民國憲法回應一中問題」。倘若此即謝長廷的論述主體，不論他使用了什麼自創的詞彙，謝長廷應當仍是在「一中憲法」、「一中各表」、「一國兩區」或「兩岸一中」的範疇之內。

本報前天社論建議謝長廷，若欲突破當前僵局，應當設法「把話一次講清楚」；不可話說一半，最後落得獨派轟擊、北京不買帳，那將是裡外不是人的下場。一般認為，北京涉台系統面對謝長廷，仍將重申「反對台獨／堅持九二共識」的準據，而這其實已是近年來獲得兩岸穩固支撐的命題；謝長廷不太可能以「憲法共識／憲法各表」的新表述，來代換這些既存且有效的準據。倘若自說自話半天，仍被北京困在「反對台獨／堅持九二共識」的原處，謝長廷即有半渡墜馬的風險，不可不慎。因此，我們認為，謝長廷仍宜以「憲法一中」及「九二年的精神共識」為立足點，或可取得進退攻守的較佳勢位。也就是說，擺脫所有「借殼上市」的論調，回到原汁原味的「中華民國」。

謝長廷已宣布行程，但蘇貞昌及民進黨對此行的立場與評價迄今未明。民進黨中央說，謝長廷「只是去參加調酒大會」；誠然，此際黨中央須與謝作技術上的切割，當可理解；但此說若真，則謝長廷此行竟然成了他個人對北京的表態，豈不是笑話？因此，謝長廷此行，若能取得一些成績，如何在其返來後與民進黨的體制接軌，例如由謝出任「中國事務委員會」主委等，即成了落實成果的必要作為。我們曾在九月十一日社論指出，這個接軌的動作，取決於蘇貞昌、蔡英文及謝長廷三人的合作無間。

此際，民進黨兩岸政策的轉型，與蘇蔡二○一六年總統大選角力糾纏在一起，使得轉型工程頗受牽制。如今，謝長廷若能成功扮演轉型的槓桿角色，蘇蔡二人應相互拋開大選角力，與謝長廷一起撐過難關；不但不應在轉型的內鬨上刀口舔血，尤不可在亂局中以他人為踏腳石。畢竟，即使就政治利益言，民進黨若在兩岸政策上轉型成功，對任何有意競逐二○一六總統者皆有利；若相互牽制，轉型即告落空。

話說回頭，謝長廷稱，為了不使民進黨重新執政「變成傳說」，因而主張兩岸政策轉型；此話印證了兩件事：一、台灣今日問題，不但是困於民進黨「想執政」，卻不肯「轉型」；二、且也是困於民進黨「未執政」，因而不肯「轉型」。所以，不論民進黨執政不執政，台灣的問題同樣是困於民進黨不轉型，致撕裂了中華民國。其實，縱目世局，即使「縫合」了中華民國，台灣也未必能贏得國際與兩岸的挑戰，何況中華民國長久撕裂如此。因此，我們在文首指出，謝長廷應當以「縫合」中華民國為前提，而將民進黨能否執政置於次一階位。

謝長廷渡海祭祖的動作似乎是在鋪陳一種氛圍；然而，陳水扁初任總統時，亦曾遙祭黃陵，當時被視為「認祖歸宗」的表態，但後來的發展卻完全不是那回事。我們希望謝長廷此次的試探，勿再步上陳水扁後塵，亦即勿再陷於民進黨屢次轉型失敗的宿命。說到底，只是縫合中華民國而已，為何民進黨就是做不到？

謝長廷自己預估此行的後果說，這一步也許走不出去，也許是康莊大道；然而，這條路多年皆在眼前，只是民進黨始終不肯走走看。現在，謝長廷願意踏出第一步，國人應給予鼓勵與期待。