Student Movement Anti-Climax: Mere Taiwan Independence After All

Student Movement Anti-Climax: Mere Taiwan Independence After All
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 10, 2014

Summary: The student movement's "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight: Peoples Edition" has turned out to be nothing more than an "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight: Taiwan Independence Edition." This has to be the biggest anticlimax of the 3/18 student movement. So all the fuss was about Taiwan independence after all.

Full text below:

The student movement's "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight: Peoples Edition" has turned out to be nothing more than an "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight: Taiwan Independence Edition." This has to be the biggest anticlimax of the 3/18 student movement. So all the fuss was about Taiwan independence after all.

The student movement proposes to "legislate first, review last." The "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight: Peoples Edition" has been renamed the "Articles Defining Cross-Strait Agreements." It adopts a "two states theory" framework. Its purpose is to make future cross-strait agreements impossible. It attempts to nullify agreements already signed. This "Peoples Edition" is the student movement's political manifesto. It is the student movement's "Taiwan independence with a different label."

Why must Taiwan independence advocates torment the public on Taiwan so? The DPP need only declare that if it returns to power, it will rescind Article 16 of ECFA. Everything will revert to zero. Why even bother promoting this "Articles to Prevent Cross-Strait Agreements" bill?

The mass psychology informing the student movement is not Taiwan independence, per se. Rather it is younger generation anxiety and discontent. It is fear and suspicion of cross-strait exchanges, rooted in indecision and anxiety about the future. Several student movement members revealed long-repressed emotions. They inadvertently showed everyone why they reverted to the promotion of Taiwan independence. This was a disappointing anticlimax.

Fear and suspicion of cross-strait exchanges is ubiquitous among the Taiwan public. Many who support the CSSTA are as wary as those who oppose it. The difference is not whether they are wary. The difference is in their responses. Supporters of the CSSTA welcome the challenges of globalization. They seek to use globalization to control cross-strait relations. Opponents of the CSSTA meanwhile, run from the Mainland, avoid the Mainland, run from globalization, run from globalization. Eventually this leads them to a Closed Door Policy and Taiwan independence. Hence the "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreemen Oversight: Taiwan Independence Edition."

Speaking from Ketegelan Boulevard, Lin Fei-fan said, "Our actions have redefined relations between Taiwan and [Mainland] China." What was his "redefinition?" Was it "avoid haste, exercise restraint?" Was it the "rectification of names?" Was it "one country on each side?" Was it seeking a high two-thirds supermajority threshold to prevent the passage of any cross-strait agreements? This provision was concealed in the "Peoples Edition" of his "redefinition." Has any "redefinition" proved to be anything other than an "old and unworkable definition?" How are they in any way "new?"

The student movement has opened up a can of worms. Movement instigators mistakenly believed or led others to believe that "Taiwan independence under a different label" somehow amounts to a problem solving "redefinition." But the real problem facing Taiwan is globalization. Cross-strait relations make Taiwan's globalization more complex. But refusing to confront the reality of the Mainland will only make globalization impossible. Without globalization, Taiwan will have nothing by which to restrain the Mainland. Therefore Taiwan must choose. It must decide whether to meet the challenges or to retreat. Close observation reveals that the student movement's anti-Ma sentiment is merely disguised anti-[Mainland] China sentiment. Sinophobia is in fact widespread among the public on Taiwan. But a Sinophobic mindset is a defeatist mindset. It is impossible to accomplish anything constructive from a defeatist mindset. It is impossible to "redefine" cross-strait relations, or formulate a global survival strategy from a defeatist mindset. Embark on the path towards Taiwan independence, and one is lost.

The student movement has not offered any new countermeasures by which to oppose the Mainland or resist the Mainland. It has merely spun anti-Ma sentiment as countermeasures against Mainland influence. It has merely spun anti-KMT sentiment as countermeasures against the CCP. It has merely transformed the same tired Sinophobia into brutal infighting. The student movement has merely reverted to the promotion of Taiwan independence. The student movement was highly dramatic. But it merely reenacted the same tired Taiwan independence dog and pony show. It failed to offer anything new.

The movement made media stars of two twenty something student leaders. But if that is all it did, the price was too high. If student movement participants and observers look back, they will find that the student movement merely trotted out the same old Taiwan independence phobia and defeatism. At best the experience deepended everyone's political understanding.

The student movement wants to make the "Articles Defining Cross-Strait Agreements" the legal imprimateur of the Sunflower student movement. Whether this is possible will depend on the persistence of key student movement players. The legislature may engage in Blue vs. Green battles over the proposed legislation. Nevertheless it is probably a non-starter. If key student movement players demand legislative passage, the conflict will be even more difficult to resolve.

The "globalist generation" faces a hard road ahead. Spain has no cross-strait issues. Yet youth unemployment has reached 57.7%. For the Eurozone the figure is 24.2%. Therefore young people on Taiwan must realize that globalization and cross-strait issues are not the creation of Ma Ying-jeou. Blaming him will not solve difficult cross-strait and globalization problems. Failure to confront the challenge of globalization will make it difficult to control cross-strait relations. Therefore, the younger generation on Taiwan must not adopt a defeatist Sinophobic, anti-globalist mentality. It must realize cross-strait and global coopetition requires a determination to fight. It is not that one must think of winning. It is that losing is unthinkable.

學運反高潮：原來還是台獨
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.10 03:54 am

學運提出的《兩岸協議監督條例民間版》，儼然是《兩岸協議監督條例台獨版》。這是三一八學運最大的反高潮，原來，搞來搞去還是台獨那一套。

學運主張「先立法／後審查」，這個《監督條例民間版》（現改稱《兩岸協定締結條例》）以「兩國論」為架構，其極盡刁難又以幾乎能使未來兩岸任何協議皆簽不成為目標，更欲對已簽成的所有協議翻案否決；倘若此一「民間版」即是這場學運的政治宣言，則這場學運其實是「換一塊路牌的台獨」。

其實，台獨何必如此折騰台灣人？只須宣布民進黨若再執政，即啟動ＥＣＦＡ第十六條的終止條款，讓一切歸零即可，何須訂此《兩岸協議簽不成條例》？

這場學運的基礎群眾心理不是台獨，而是新世代對國情的憂慮與不滿，對兩岸關係的恐懼與猜疑，及對己身前途的徬徨與焦慮等等；幾名學運發動者引爆了積澱已久的情緒，不料卻給了大家一個「重新回過頭去搞台獨」的答案，這難道不是令人錯愕的反高潮？

對兩岸關係的恐懼與猜疑，確實普遍存在於台灣民間；許多支持服貿的民眾，對兩岸關係的警覺也不下於反服貿者。雙方的差別不在有無警覺，而在所主張的對策不同。挺服貿者主張迎向全球化的挑戰，用全球化的成果來節制兩岸關係；反服貿者則是「逃中／避中」，進而「逃全球化／避全球化」，最後遁入「鎖國／台獨」，才會出現這種《兩岸協議監督條例台獨版》。

林飛帆在凱道談話指出，「我們的行動，在台灣與中國的關係之間，也做了新的定義」。然而，什麼是他的「新定義」？是「戒急用忍」嗎？是「正名制憲」嗎？是「一邊一國」嗎？是「用三分之二的高門檻阻禁兩岸一切協議」嗎？這些若就是隱藏在「民間版」下的「新定義」，則其中哪一種「新定義」不是已經被驗證為根本行不通的「老辦法」？那又何新之有？

這場學運掀開了大家都深覺憂慮的問題，主事者卻誤認為或誤導為「換一塊路牌的台獨」就是能解決問題的「新定義」。全球化才是台灣面對的真正問題，兩岸關係固使台灣的全球化課題更形複雜；但不面對大陸，就不可能全球化；不全球化，就無以節制大陸。因此，台灣必須選擇「迎對」或「退卻」。仔細觀察可知：這場學運在「反馬」的剽悍表象中，內藏的卻是「逃中」的失敗主義。其實，「恐中／懼中」是台灣人的共同心理，「反中／抗中」亦是台灣人的共同警覺，但「逃中／避中」卻是「失敗主義」；在失敗主義之上，不可能構築任何有建設性、有發展性的「兩岸新定義」及「全球化生存戰略」。若走上台獨的回頭路，更是必敗無疑。

因而，這場學運並未對「反中／抗中」提出任何新對策；只是將「反馬」炒作成「抗中」，將「反國民黨」炒作成「反共產黨」，亦即又把空泛八股的「抗中」轉移為殘暴的「內鬥」而已。倘若這場學運的政治宣言就是「再回頭去搞台獨」，則這場學運的戲劇性雖然很高，其實只是複製了台灣不斷上演的「老戲碼」，看不出任何新意。

這場運動若只是捧紅了兩名二十多歲的學運領袖，這個社會承付的代價未免太大了。但如果學運的參與者與觀察者驀然回首，能發現這場學運其實只是恐懼心理及失敗主義的台獨鎖國老梗，則這個「見山又是山」的過程，也算是讓大家又增長了一些政治見識。

學運欲以《兩岸協定締結條例》作為這場太陽花學運的法律印記，這要看學運要角的堅持程度如何。即使聽任立法院以藍綠惡鬥來面對這個版本，恐怕已不可開交；倘若學運要角堅持立院非通過此一版本，那就更難以收拾。

這一代「全球化世代」的生涯確實十分辛苦，西班牙沒有「兩岸問題」，青年失業率達五十七‧七％，整個歐元區亦達二十四‧二％。因此，台灣青年應認知，「全球化」及「兩岸問題」不是馬英九一個人造成的，且不解決兩岸問題就很難解決全球化問題，而不贏得全球化的挑戰即難以節制兩岸關係。因此，台灣新世代絕對不能有「逃中／避中／逃全球化／避全球化」的失敗主義心理，而應知無論對兩岸競合或全球競合而言，皆須有「不要想著贏／要想不能輸」的迎戰決志。