The DPP Must Not Play Taiwan Independence Tricks

The DPP Must Not Play Taiwan Independence Tricks
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
January 10, 2014

Summary: Circuses often offer the spinning plate trick. Jugglers spin a number of plates on top of bamboo poles. The trick requires a great deal of practice. The Democratic Progressive Party has its own spinning plate trick. It is a dangerous trick, rife with perils. Yesterday the DPP was supposed to issue a "Cross-Strait Policy Summary Report." Instead, the report was demoted to a "Cross-Strait Policy Review Minutes." In other words, the DPP's spinning plates came crashing to the floor.

Full text below:

Circuses often offer the spinning plate trick. Jugglers spin a number of plates on top of bamboo poles. The trick requires a great deal of practice. The Democratic Progressive Party has its own spinning plate trick. It is a dangerous trick, rife with perils. Yesterday the DPP was supposed to issue a "Cross-Strait Policy Summary Report." Instead, the report was demoted to a "Cross-Strait Policy Review Minutes." In other words, the DPP's spinning plates came crashing to the floor.

The DPP's Taiwan independence spinning plates trick used three plates. The first plate was "freezing Taiwan independence." Ker Chien-ming proposed "freezing Taiwan independence." Lin Cho-shui speculates that Ker Chien-ming coordinated with Beijing and the DPP before making the proposal. Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office heaped high praise on Ker Chien-ming, saying that "someone in the know issued an urgent message." Su Tseng-chang said "Freezing the Taiwan independence party platform is not on the agenda." Tsai Ing-wen said "I am unaware of its source." Lin said Su's remarks and Tsai's remarks were evidence of advance coordination. Ker Chien-ming has never been a standard-bearer for DPP ideology. He is a pragmatist whose first concern is making political deals. His "freeze Taiwan independence" showed Beijing the DPP's asking cross-strait policy asking price. From this day forward, the DPP's cross-strait policy asking price can never be any higher. "Freezing Taiwan independence" is its most recent asking price. The asking price can only fall. It can never again rise.

The second plate was yesterday's newly issued "Cross-Strait Policy Review Minutes." The original draft of this [Mainland] China Policy called for "DPP dialogue with the CCP based on a constitutional consensus." But Beijing's State Council Taiwan Affairs Office said beforehand that "The term constitutional consensus blurs Taiwan independence advocacy, therefore it is unacceptable." In other words, a Mainland policy involving a "constitutional consensus" was clearly unacceptable to Beijing. The DPP deliberately ran headlong into a brick wall. Is this sort of call to arms really the DPP's Mainland policy? Such a Mainland policy cannot compete with Ker Chien-ming's "freezing Taiwan independence" proposal. Nor can it compete with Frank Hsieh's "constitutional one China" proposal. As a result, the term "constitutional consensus" vanished without a trace from the minutes, leaving only the "next phase discussions."

The third plate was the trade in services agreement. In cross-strait policy, political and economic considerations must be coordinated. Put bluntly, advocating Taiwan independence means opposition to the trade in services agreement. If one has decided that one "cannot turn the clock back and promote Taiwan independence," then there is no reason to oppose this version of the trade in services agreement. Yet Ker Chien-ming has obstructed passage of the trade in services agreement in the legislature, even as he called for freezing Taiwan independence outside the legislature. Ker Chien-ming contradicts himself on cross-strait policy. He reflects the contradictions in the DPP's cross-strait policy.

The DPP currently advocates a cross-strait policy that Beijing openly refers to as "fuzzy Taiwan independence." Some insiders advocate "freezing Taiwan independence" even as the party maliciously obstructs a win/win cross-Strait trade in services agreement. The DPP failed at its spinning plates trick. It is sure to end up picking broken plates off the floor in panic.

Ker Chien-ming has already announced a low asking price. If the DPP wants to join the cross-strait bidding war, the minimum bid must be "Freezing Taiwan independence." The DPP can no longer trot out its 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." It has already replaced the 1991 "Taiwan independence party platform." According to the DPP's own logic, the 2007 "Resolution for a Normal Nation" has already replaced the 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Chen government's Taiwan independence antics between 2000 and 2008 already shredded the " Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" expressly advocates "abandoning the one China principle," or what is currently referred to as the "one China framework." It was rejected by Beijing long ago. That path is a dead end. The "constitutional consensus" remains a "fuzzy concept." Its sole purpose was to enable the DPP to dodge the "different constitutional interpretations" and "constitutional one China" concepts. The "Review of the Minutes" proposed exchanges with local governments and think tanks. In fact, Chen Chu, Su Chih-fen, Lai Ching-teh have already visited the Mainland or Hong Kong. This proposal is already behind the curve, politically speaking. On the one hand the DPP insists it wants to create a "friendly environment" for Mainland spouses, Mainland students, and Mainland tourists. On the other hand, it maliciously obstructs the trade in services agreement. Is this not a contradiction? As we can see, the "Review of the Minutes" is nothing more than an unpresentable pile of broken plates.

As the above shows, Ker Chien-ming's call for "freezing Taiwan independence" is now the DPP's cross-strait asking price. Lin Cho-shui already realizes what has happened. He warned Ker Chien-ming that the next step after "Freezing Taiwan independence" will the "one China framework." Lin Cho-shui is right. The DPP is afraid to advocate Taiwan independence. (It makes no difference whether the DPP says it has replaced Taiwan independence with something else, or has "frozen" it. The DPP is also unwilling to return to the "one China framework." But it must return to the "one China framework under a one China Constitution." It cannot repudiate the "one China Constitution." It must uphold in the dignity and interests of the Republic of China's "one China framework."

The DPP must not attempt the Taiwan independence plate spinning trick. It must eventually return to the "one China framework under the ROC Constitution." This must be the DPP's next step. It has no other way out.
 
民進黨不可在台獨議題上耍盤子
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.01.10 04:25 am

馬戲團裡數隻竹枝耍起幾個盤子的功夫，那是叔叔有練過。現在，民進黨在台獨議題上也玩起耍盤子的戲法，卻是險象環生，危機四伏；原定昨日發布的《兩岸政策總結報告》，降格為《兩岸政策檢討紀要》，正是一隻盤子乒乓落地。

這場台獨戲法有三隻盤子，第一隻是凍獨。林濁水推測，柯建銘在提出凍獨方案前，已與北京和黨內要角套過招。證諸國台辦以「有識之士的積極信號」盛譽柯建銘，及蘇貞昌的「沒有凍不凍的問題」，與蔡英文的「尚不清楚其脈絡」，皆露出套招的痕跡。柯建銘從來不是民進黨內意識形態的旗手，而是主持政治交易的實務派；如今，他以「凍獨」喊出了民進黨兩岸政策的「破盤價」，此後民進黨在兩岸政策上的價碼已不可能高過這個標準，「凍獨」已是最新的公告牌價。價錢只會再跌，無可能回漲。

第二隻盤子是昨天發表的《兩岸政策檢討紀要》。「對中政策」的原來稿本主張，「以憲政共識為民進黨與共產黨對話基礎」；但是，國台辦已有言在先：「憲政共識是模糊的台獨主張，不可能接受。」也就是說，這樣的「對中政策」，儼然是明明頂著「中國不能接受」的「憲政共識」，擺明了偏偏就是要「推車撞壁」，這種宣戰檄文難道真的就是民進黨的「對中政策」嗎？這種「對中政策」不但價碼較柯建銘的凍獨案沒有競爭力，賣相也不如謝長廷的「憲法各表」；因此，「憲政共識」四字遂從《檢討紀要》中消失，留待「下一階段討論」。

第三隻盤子是《服貿協議》。在兩岸政策上，必須政治與經濟協調。直白而言，若主張台獨，就應反對或杯葛服貿協議；若是「不再回頭搞台獨」，就沒有理由反對現在這個版本的服貿協議。但是，如今柯建銘一面在立法院內封殺服貿協議，另一方面卻又在立法院外倡議凍獨；柯建銘在兩岸政策上的矛盾，正是反映了整個民進黨在兩岸政策上的矛盾。

此時此刻的民進黨，在兩岸政策上，擎著北京明指其為「模糊台獨」的「對中政策」大旗，內部則演出「凍獨」的跳樓大拍賣，卻又惡劣抵制促成兩岸經貿雙贏的服貿協議。叔叔沒練過，這個耍盤子戲法，勢必要演成滿地撿破盤子的狼狽下場。

柯建銘已喊出破「盤」價，民進黨要加入兩岸弈局，基本消費額就是「凍獨」。民進黨不能說一九九九年的《台灣前途決議文》已經「取代」了一九九一的《台獨黨綱》，因為，若依此說，二○○七的《正常國家決議文》也已「取代」了一九九九的《台灣前途決議文》，何況二○○○至二○○八扁政府的台獨操作已經完全撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》。尤其，《台灣前途決議文》明文主張「揚棄一中原則」（今日語彙稱「一中架構」），早為北京所拒絕，已然宣告此路不通。至於「憲政共識」，更是一個「模糊的概念」，只是徒然益加彰顯了民進黨是在迴避「憲法各表」與「憲法一中」。再者，《檢討紀要》主張地方政府交流及智庫交流，其實陳菊、蘇治芬、賴清德皆已訪陸或訪港，可見此一主張已遠遠落在政治現實之後；而一方面謂將營造對於陸配、陸生、陸客的「友善環境」，另一方面卻又在《服貿協議》死纏惡鬥，這豈不是自相矛盾？在在可見，這一本《檢討紀要》，其實是滿地的碎盤子，端不上檯面。

前文已論，柯建銘喊出「凍獨」，這是民進黨在兩岸餐桌上的基本消費額。林濁水已看出底細，警告柯建銘，「凍獨」的「下一步」就是「一中架構」。林濁水沒錯，因為，民進黨不可能一方面不敢主張台獨（無論說是被取代或凍結），另一方面卻又不願回到「一中架構」。如今若是主張「台獨被取代」或「台獨被凍結」，即須回到「一中憲法下的一中架構」；亦即，不可否定「一中憲法」，但應堅持中華民國在「一中架構」中的尊嚴與利益。

民進黨在台獨議題上不可耍盤子，終究必須回到「中華民國憲法的一中架構」之下。這必然是民進黨的「下一步」，捨此無路可走。