Any DPP Cross-Strait Policy that Positions Taiwan Outside of China is in Vain

Any DPP Cross-Strait Policy that Positions Taiwan Outside of China is in Vain
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 27, 2013

Summary: The KMT-CCP Civil War led to a divided nation. Taiwan was under the control of others for long periods of time. The Mainland's national defense was threatened. Today, cross-Strait peace has finally established a basis for exchanges. But the DPP seems determined to depart from the straight and narrow, and go its own way, As long as the DPP classifies Taiwan as not part of China, as long as it persists in painting Mainland China as the enemy, then any of its "China Policy" declarations trumpeting "universal values" will be in vain.

Full Text below:

The DPP has lost two general elections in a row. It is acutely aware that cross-Strait relations is its Achilles Heel. Therefore it is eager to remedy its plight. It is eager to pave the way for another presidential bid in 2016. Younger generation DPP leaders have recently exerted pressure on the DPP party leadership. Recently, during the party's All Peoples Conference, they called for a "Resolution on Human Rights in the Taiwan Straits." They demanded that cross-Strait relations be based on a "foundation of universal human rights." On the one hand, they called for "supporting the Chinese people in their adoption of democracy." On the other hand, they insisted that any agreement between the two sides "must be consistent with the principles of democracy, equality, and dignity." They said they hoped that "the Chinese people could establish a government based on democracy and universal suffrage, that the two sides could develop a relationship of trust and friendship rooted in human rights and democracy." Obviously, they were using "universal values" as stalking horse for a "relationship of trust and friendship." Needless to say, this was the same old "China, Taiwan, one country on each side" wine in a not so new bottle.

Su Tseng-chang addressed this topic when he first announced the China Affairs Committee Plan on June 20. He convened nine "Hua Shan Conferences on China Policy." He then said the All Peoples Conference was short on time, and used it as an excuse to pass the "Resolution on Taiwan Straits Human Rights" on to the Central Executive Committee. The resolution was apparently shelved. But rumor has it the DPP's long-awaited "Great China Policy Debate" will soon convene.

Let us review the DPP's so-called "China Policy," beginning with the founding of the party. In 1991, the DPP passed its "Taiwan Independence Party Platform." In 1999, the DPP passed its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." In 2007, the DPP passed its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." Now the DPP has passed its "Resolution on Human Rights in the Taiwan Straits." Every last one of them was predicated upon Taiwan independence. The DPP constantly replaces the bottles. But inside it always serves up the same old Taiwan independence wine. The DPP seems to think that it need only concoct a glib rationale to camouflage the underlying premise of "Taiwan, China, one country on each side." The party will then magically surmount the difficulties it has encountered in cross-Strait relations. As we have solemnly underscored, such self-deception will have no effect whatsoever. If the DPP is truly seeking a way out of its dilemma, it must make a fresh start. It must revisit the historical roots of cross-Strait relations, and rethink its position.

The DPP loves to point out how the two sides have long been separately ruled. It loves to cite this "historical fact." But it is unwilling to face another historical fact. Mainland Chinese governments have long valued a very different historical fact. Beginning with the Emperor Kangxi, Mainland governments have considered Taiwan of vital importance. For starters, the island is important for the defense of Mainland China. Three hundred years ago, the Qing court annihilated the Koxinga regime. It originally intended to relocate the population to the Mainland, and leave the island unoccupied. But in the 22nd year of Kangxi's reign, Shi Lang wrote "The Pros and Cons of Abandoning Taiwan." He pointed out that "Taiwan's location was strategic. Jiangsu was to the north. Guangdong was to the south. It protected the flanks of four provinces, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong. Abandoning it will lead to disaster. Retaining it will permanently protect our flank." As a result Kangxi included Taiwan in China's territory based on national defense considerations. Ten years later, Yu Yonghe traveled to Taiwan. Recalling earlier arguments for abandoning Taiwan. he said "Those who advocate abandoning Taiwan do not realize that if we abandon it, others will surely seize it. I was able to travel here. I know it would not be difficult to implement immigration. The example of Koxinga is fresh in our memory. Why demolish our own fences? Why provide Japanese pirates with a nest? This is something a wise person would not do!" Henceforth Qing dynasty defense policy always gave national defense the highest priority. It ceded Taiwan only under duress, after being militarily defeated in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.

Taiwan independence advocates love to talk about how since 1895,  Taiwan and Mainland China have been under the same government for only four years. Therefore, they argue, for the two sides to be governed separately is "normal." But from the Mainland perspective, during the past century, those four years were the only years in which Taiwan was not a threat to the Mainland's national defense. Japan once referred to Taiwan as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." Prior to Japan's defeat, it built over 60 military airbases on Taiwan. It took full advantage of Taiwan's geographical location as a base for aggression against the Chinese mainland and Southeast Asia. During the Cold War, the KMT drew the U.S. into the Chinese Civil War. It became a willing pawn of the United States' effort to contain the Chinese mainland. It constantly harassed, invaded, investigated both the Mainland coastal and inland regions. These "historical facts" tell anyone who cares about the future of China what Kangxi knew, long ago. Abandoning Taiwan "will lead to disaster. Retaining it will permanently protect our flank."

Taiwan independence advocates' perception of history lumps Chinese governments such as the Koxinga regime, the Qing Dynasty, and the Republic of China, in the same category as Dutch, Spanish, and Japanese colonialists, as "foreign regimes." This is the result of their own identity confusion. As the late sociologist Chen Shao-hsing noted, "The rapid increase in Chinese population on Taiwan began during the late Kangxi era." Its "basis for growth began during the Ming dynasty Koxinga era." "In particular, the larger population required political organization. This political organization, and its sovereignty, played a decisive role in increasing the size of the population. The Dutch may have welcomed the Han Chinese coming to Taiwan to live. But their purpose was mercantilist. As soon as the Han Chinese population increased sufficiently to threaten their interests, they resorted to suppression, and even mass slaughter. Under such conditions, the Han Chinese population would have remained quite small. Koxinga expelled the Dutch. He successfully restored sovereignty to the Chinese people. From a demographic perspective, this Is an important fact." Similarly, without Kangxi to continue Koxinga's restoration of Taiwan to China, the Han Chinese population on the island of Taiwan would never have become so large. Most Taiwan independence advocates are Han Chinese. Their ancestors were able to come to Taiwan, to multiply and prosper, only because they were the beneficiaries of Koxinga and the Qing dynasty. Yet today they look down their noses at these Chinese governments as "outsiders." From any perspective, emotional or rational, their attitude is simply untenable.

The KMT-CCP Civil War led to a divided nation. Taiwan was under the control of others for long periods of time. The Mainland's national defense was threatened. Today, cross-Strait peace has finally established a basis for exchanges. But the DPP seems determined to depart from the straight and narrow, and go its own way, As long as the DPP classifies Taiwan as not part of China, as long as it persists in painting Mainland China as the enemy, then any of its "China Policy" declarations trumpeting "universal values" will be in vain.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.05.27
社論－民進黨何去何從 系列2 自外於中國 任何兩岸政策都徒然
本報訊

    　輸掉兩次大選的民進黨，深知兩岸關係是其罩門，因此亟思有所作為，以為二○一六年鋪路。最近民進黨中生代為向黨中央施壓，於日前的全代會中提出「台海人 權決議文」，希望將兩岸關係「建立在人權的普世價值上」，一方面「支持中國人民推進民主化工程」，另一方面堅持兩岸任何協議「均應符合『民主、對等、尊 嚴』原則」，期許「中國人民得以民主普選方式產生政府，雙方以人權與民主的價值為基礎，發展信睦關係」。很顯然，這種用「普世價值」的新瓶包裝起來的「信 睦關係」，還是「一邊一國」的舊酒。

    　蘇貞昌針對此議題，先提出由中國事務部規畫從六月二十日起召開九場「對中政策華山會議」，再於全代會中藉口時間不夠，將「台海人權決議文」移交中執會續議。看來，此一決議雖遭擱置，但傳說已久的「中國政策大辯論」卻將上場。

    　回顧民進黨建黨以來的「中國政策」，從一九九一年「台獨黨綱」、一九九九年「台灣前途決議文」、二○○七年「正常國家決議文」，直到此次「台海人權決議 文」，無一不是由台獨立場出發。酒瓶不斷換新，內容還是獨酒。民進黨人似乎以為：只要能找到某種「論述」，可以把「一邊一國」包裝成面目模糊，就能突破該 黨在兩岸關係上的困境。我們嚴正指出：這種自欺欺人的作法，不會有任何作用。民進黨如真要找到出路，就須改弦更張，回歸兩岸關係的歷史原點重新考察。

    　長期以來，民進黨喜談兩岸長期分治的「歷史事實」，但卻不願面對中國大陸執政者所看重的另一「歷史事實」。從清康熙皇帝開始，大陸的治國者對台灣的重 視，首先就是這個島嶼對中國大陸的國防重要性。三百多年前，清朝剿滅鄭氏政權後，原打算遷其民、棄其地。施琅便在康熙二十二年底上奏〈恭陳台灣棄留疏〉， 指出「台灣地方，北連吳會，南接粵嶠，…乃江、浙、閩、粵四省之左護」，「棄之必釀成大禍，留之誠永固邊圉」。於是康熙乃基於國防考慮，將台灣納入版圖。 十餘年後，郁永河來台遊歷，回顧當時的棄台論，謂：「議者…不知我棄之，人必取之；我能徙之，彼不難移民以實之。…鄭鑒不遠，何異自壞藩籬，以資寇巢？是 智者所不為也！」其後清朝的治台政策便始終是國防掛帥，直至甲午戰敗、乙未割台。

    　獨派人士喜言台灣自一八九五年後，只有四年時間與大陸屬同一政府，因此兩岸分治似是「常態」。但從大陸觀點看來，這一百多年間也只有那四年時間台灣不是 中國大陸潛在的或現實的國防威脅。日本曾將台灣稱為「不沉之空母（航母）」，在戰敗前於台各地修建六十多座軍用機場，充分利用其地緣位置作為侵略中國和南 洋的基地。冷戰期間，國民黨為將美國捲入國共內戰，又甘為美國圍堵中國大陸的馬前卒，不斷騷擾、進犯、偵查大陸沿海和內陸。這些史實，都告訴任何關心中國 未來者一個康熙早已參透的至理：台灣「棄之必釀成大禍，留之誠永固邊圉」。

    　在台獨的史觀中，將鄭氏、清朝、中華民國這些中國政權，與荷、西、日並列為「外來政權」。這是認同錯亂的表現。已故社會學者陳紹馨指出：「台灣華人人口 之急遽增加，始於康熙末年」，而其「增長之基礎，實肇始於明鄭時代」，因為「較大之人口，尤須有政治組織，而此政治組織之性質與其主權所在，對人口能增至 何種規模，具有決定性之作用。荷人雖歡迎漢人來住，但其目的在於推行重商主義；漢人人口增至足以威脅其利益時，輒被壓制，甚至遭受屠殺。在此情形下，漢人 人口實難增至偌大規模。鄭成功驅逐荷人，收回主權於國人手中，以人口觀點而言，為一重要事實」。同理，若無康熙繼鄭氏之後將台灣收入版圖，今日台灣島上的 漢人人口絕不可能如斯之盛。獨派人士多為漢人之後，其祖先能來台墾殖，實受惠於鄭氏和清朝，如今卻醜詆這些中國政權為外來者，於情於理皆站不住腳。

    　國共內戰導致國家分裂，不僅台灣長期受制於人，大陸國防也備受威脅。如今兩岸好不容易建立了和平交流的基礎，民進黨卻始終想偏離正軌，另闢蹊徑。只要民進黨自外於中國、把對岸當敵人的心態不改變，任何「中國政策」、各色宣言、「普世價值」都徒勞無功。