Inter-Party Cooperation, Orderly Development of cross-Strait Relations

Inter-Party Cooperation, Orderly Development of cross-Strait Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 3, 2013

Summary: Beijing is not aggressively demanding talks or forcing reunification upon Taipei. In which case, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan should make good use of the opportunity. They should take full advantage of the strategic opportunities afforded by current peaceful development. They sould seek a positive response, and adopt an orderly, progressive, and responsible approach to cross-Strait relations.

Full Text below:

Over the past five years, cross-Strait relations have been turned upside down. They have become healthier and more stable. This is beneficial to Taiwan, conducive to regional security, and beneficial to the Chinese mainland. It provides the two sides with a respite, with strategic opportunities for peaceful development. No wonder all parties look favorably upon the situation. They look forward to the healthy development of cross-Strait relations, to further reductions in tensions, and to the resolution of disputes through dialogue. The ruling authorities on both sides have made important and worthwhile contributions. We believe that even if Taiwan undergoes another ruling party change, the new regime will face new circumstances. It will be difficult for them to single-handedly, willfully reverse the macro-level trend for cross-Strait relations. The currents of history are Irresistible.

The DPP has been busy lately. It has established a "China [sic] Affairs Committee." It has invited different factions holding different ideas to participate. It is about to initiate a major "China policy debate." Green-oriented academics say Taiwan independence no longer has a market. They say the party should advocate the establishment of diplomatic relations, rather than the founding of a new nation. They recommend the establishment of a cross-Strait human rights group. They call for the passage of a "Human Rights in the Taiwan Strait Resolution." Su Tseng-chang said the Democratic Progressive Party and the Communist Party can engage in exchanges. Dialogue can take place at any level. But he insists that as party chairman, his China policy stance remains the one adopted by the DPP All Peoples Conference, i.e., "The Resolution on Taiwan's Future." He says he thinks that Taiwan's highest priority is to avoid democratic retrogression, the loss of human rights, and the hollowing out of the nation. His remarks left listeners bewildered.

In the plus column, the DPP held high the banner of democracy and human rights. It highlighted cross-Strait differences. It called on the Mainland authorities to promote political reform, as soon as possible. It encouraged the development of democracy. This was undeniably proactive. After all, future cross-Strait reunification or integration will require narrowing the differences in values between the two sides. In the minus column, we must remain objective, and point out that the DPP's strategic adjustments are motivated by electoral pressures, rather than any fundamental change in core values. For example, the DPP persists in referring to "China" this, and "China" that. It persists in defining Taiwan as "not part of China," as mutually exclusive entities. It may no longer explicitly advocate Taiwan independence. But it persists in referring to "Taiwan, a sovereign independent country," rather than "The Republic of China, a sovereign and independent country." It wants the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two sides predicated upon the assumption that they are separate countries. This shows that the DPP has not forsaken its separatism. The problem persists.

On the surface, DPP and KMT proposals have temporarily converged. Some say this reflects a consensus on Taiwan. For Taiwan, this is not a bad thing. It reflects a gradual qualititative transformation, something to be encouraged. But KMT and DPP proposals only appear similar. They differ fundamentally in substance. For example, for the KMT, maintaining the status quo does not preclude eventual reunification, How matters evolve may not be to everyones' liking. No one can offer any guarantees. But the DPP clings to the illusory goal of independence and the founding of a new nation, while maintaining the status quo. To term it "evil intent" may be a bit strong. But it is not far from the truth. Democratic Progressive Party rhetoric may change. But it will always have trouble winning the trust of the public on Taiwan, the international community, and the Mainland authorities.

Based on our understanding of the CCP's policy toward Taiwan, Beijing is currently being quite rational and pragmatic. It harbors few illusions. It understands cross-Strait political negotiations. It would like to sign a peace agreement. It knows that achieving the goal of reunification in the short term is unrealistic. It now hopes merely that the Taiwan Region will abide by its own existing regulations, i.e., constitution, and adhere to the one China policy. Under the one China framework, the two sides can begin where they currently stand. They can tackle the easier and more urgent issues first. They can shelve disputes, and step-by-step, through exchanges and cooperation, increase mutual trust, and solidify bilateral relations. The CCP wants to explore the possibility of political relations under special circumstances in which the nation has yet to be reunified. It wants to define the two sides' political status, and arrive at a fair and reasonable arrangement. Beijing is merely hoping to create the conditions necessary for the future resolution of problems, rather than attempting to immediately deal with or resolve those problems.

Beijing is not aggressively demanding talks or forcing reunification upon Taipei. In which case, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan should make good use of the opportunity. They should take full advantage of the strategic opportunities afforded by current peaceful development. They sould seek a positive response, and adopt an orderly, progressive, and responsible approach to cross-Strait relations. In particular, the DPP should change their attitude. They should become more open-minded. They can insist on democracy and human rights. They can help the Mainland move in a more civilized and rational direction. But they should not use it as a pretext to pursue separatism. The KMT on the other hand, should adopt a bolder, more proactive policy toward the Mainland. It should consider signing an interim cross-Strait agreement. Such a cross-Strait agreement would be primarily cultural and educational in nature. The KMT should be less passive and more active. It should make good use of Taiwan's advantages. It should use interparty cooperation to strengthen Taiwan. It should use cross-Strait win/win policies to rejuvenate the Chinese nation. This should be our common goal.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.06.03
社論－朝野合作 有序、漸進發展兩岸關係
本報訊

    　過去五年，兩岸關係已有天翻地覆的改變，變的更為健康，更為穩定。這不但對台灣有利，對區域安全有利，也對中國大陸有利，為彼此提供了一個休養生息、和平發展的戰略機遇時期。難怪相關各方都對此持正面鼓勵的態度，樂見兩岸關係的良性發展，緊張的進一步降低，期望雙方能夠透過對話解決紛爭。兩岸執政當局都為此做出了重要的努力與貢獻，值得肯定。我們有理由相信，今後即使台灣再度出現政黨輪替，新的執政當局也將面臨一個嶄新，而且難以憑一己、一黨主觀意志全盤扭轉的兩岸關係。歷史潮流不可抗拒。

    　爾來，民進黨動作頻仍，一方面成立中國事務委員會，廣邀黨內不同派系與不同主張者與會，一方面又說要進行中國政策大辯論。親綠學者先說台獨主張已無市場，提出兩岸應該建交而非建國的主張，建議成立台海人權交流小組，提案要求通過台海人權決議文。蘇貞昌說，民進黨與共產黨的交流，任何層次的對話軌道都可進行。但他仍然堅持，做為黨主席，他的中國政策立場就是民進黨全代會通過的「台灣前途決議文」。他認為台灣當前最重要的是不要讓民主倒退、人權流失，國家不能虛無化。讓人眼花繚亂。

    　先從正面來看，民進黨高舉民主人權的大纛，希望用價值來凸顯兩岸的差異，期許中共當局早日推動政治改革，鼓勵北京的民主發展，這不能不說是個比較積極的觀點，畢竟未來兩岸不管是走向統一或融合，總得縮小雙方在價值和生活層面的種種差異。但是若由負面的角度觀察，我們也不得不客觀的指出，民進黨當前的主張恐怕仍然只是迫於選舉壓力的策略性調整而非核心價值的根本轉變。比如說，民進黨仍然口口聲聲中國如何如何，把台灣與中國置於二元對立的局面，雖然它不再主張台獨，但仍然強調台灣（而非中華民國）是個主權獨立的國家，主張兩岸建交，這一切都顯示出民進黨分離主義的本質並未改變。問題仍在。

    　表面上看來，民進黨當前的某些主張和國民黨似有暫時趨同的現象，有人認為這是反映或爭取台灣整體民意的一種必然結果，對台灣而言並非壞事，至少這總是一個漸進發展、質量互變的過程，應該給予鼓勵，但國、民兩黨的主張即使表面相似，實質上仍有根本的差異。舉例來說，國民黨的維持現狀仍然含有追求或並不排斥國家統一的願景，雖然最後結果可能未必盡如人意，如何發展也沒人敢打包票，但民進黨的主張則基本上仍然是在維持現狀的假象之下，追求最後的獨立建國。用包藏禍心這個字眼或嫌過重，但實情應與此相去不遠。此之所以不論民進黨如何改變說辭，卻總是很難取信於台灣民眾、國際社會與中國大陸的原因。

    　根據我們對中共對台政策的理解，北京目前已經表現的相當理性務實，幾乎沒有任何幻想，它已了解兩岸政治談判、簽署和平協議，短期內達成統一的目標不切實際，現在只希望台灣能夠依照自己的現行規定（憲法），堅持一個中國的立場，然後在一中的框架之下，雙方都能由實際的情況出發，仍然本著先易後難、先急後緩、擱置爭議、循序漸進的方式，透過交流合作來增加互信、鞏固深化雙邊的關係。具體的說，中共目前只是想要透過雙方共同努力、務實的「探討」在國家尚未統一之前的特殊情況下，如何為雙方的政治定位做出比較合情合理的安排，北京只是卑微的希望為將來解決問題「創造條件」，而非要立刻處理或解決問題。

    　既然如此，在暫時沒有北京積極促談或逼統的壓力之下，台灣朝野更應該善用這段可以預期，能夠延續一段時間的和平發展戰略機遇時期，好好找出因應之道，以有序、漸進、負責任的方式來發展兩岸關係。對此，我們認為，民進黨尤其應該調整心態、開放思想，既堅持自己對於民主人權價值的主張，主動積極的協助中國大陸往更文明理性的方向發展，但又不是以此做為追求分離主義的藉口，而國民黨則應該考慮採取更為前瞻進取的大陸政策，重新思考簽署兩岸各種中程協議的可能，而這其中又以兩岸文化教育協議應為首要。化被動為主動，善用台灣的優勢，以朝野合作來壯大台灣，用兩岸雙贏來振興中華這才是我們應該共同努力的目標。