Sunflower Student Movement: Leftist Taiwan Independence

Sunflower Student Movement: Leftist Taiwan Independence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 28, 2014

Summary: Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path. But if the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.

Full text below:

Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path.

Taiwan independence and social reform were once the DPP's two pillars. In recent years, a new generation has assumed the mantle of "leftist Taiwan independence" and attempted to formulate a theoretical rationale for their belief system. During the 2012 election, Tsai Ing-wen advocated "approaching [Mainland] China via the world," and "globalization without [Mainland] China." She also advocated a "high degree of social welfare" and a "local economy." She advocated a "leftist Taiwan independence" theoretical framework. We labeled her path "Taiwan independence welfare statism."

But Tsai's leftist socio-economic path is fundamentally at odds with her Taiwan independence political path. Taiwan independence cannot coexist alongside cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Therefore it rejects globalization a survival strategy. But such a political and economic framework cannot afford the high cost of environmental protection and social welfare. Still less can it afford to reduce wealth inequality.

One cannot implement Taiwan independence without a Closed Door Policy. That is why Taiwan independence must oppose globalization. Taiwan independence rooted in a Closed Door Policy will never be able to afford the cost of a welfare state. Leftist commitment to the welfare state, conversely, can only lead to loss of support for Taiwan independence. The two are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. Therefore this check is one that must eventually bounce.

Consider the Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence. Most members of the Sunflower Student Movement are not Taiwan independence advocates. It is merely their leaders who have declared their support for Taiwan independence. Their leaders support the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." Basically they hope to hijack the government in order to implement a Taiwan independence oriented cross-Strait policy. 

The Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence apparently does not seek to establish a "Republic of Taiwan." Instead it attempts to implement "one nation on each side," by "backdoor listing" the ROC. Taiwan independence opposition to the STA is hardly surprising. The STA improves cross-Strait economic and trade relations. It pushes Taiwan closer to globalization. This is detrimental to Taiwan independence. Conversely, those who are genuine about the ROC political path, tend to support cross-Strait economic exchanges. They support using the outcome of globalization to control cross-Strait relations. The anti-STA protests led to the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." This made it abundantly clear that the protests were actually Taiwan independence protests led by the oligarchs of the student movement.

Now consider the Sunflower Student Movement's leftism. The central figures in the recent student movement were all familiar faces, invariably in attendence during recent social movements. They opposed Guoguang Petrochemical. They opposed the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. They opposed Wenlin Yuan. They opposed Ta Pu, they opposed the relocation of the Tainan railway. They opposed the STA. They opposed globalization. They stressed generational deprivation and inequality. Such are the leftist elements in their agenda. On the one hand they have used draconian environmental standards to challenge the economic model. To wit, the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. On the other hand they have stressed individual rights over community aspirations, To wit, Wenlin Yuan. Will this leftist political protest against STA, against liberalization, and against globalization, prevent Taipei from joining the TPP and RCEP? Will it force Taiwan to pay 5 to 10% more in tariffs than 90% of its competitors in the export market? This is a question these leftists have no desire to confront and answer. Leftists don't care if Taiwan businesses are unable to compete with Korea in ramen noodle sales in Britain.

Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may oppose the STA. They may use the Articles Pertaining to the Concludiing of Cross-Strait Agreements to repudiate ECFA in toto. But leftist advocates of Taiwan independence must not prevent Taipei from joining the TPP, RCEP and other major FTAs. Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may reject globalization. But they cannot prevent globalization. When 90% of Taiwan's exports are subject to 10% tariffs, when Taiwan is totally marginalized by globalization, how will Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence pay for high environmental protection standards, high-wage standards, and Taiwan independence welfare statism? The fact is, when Taiwan is marginalized by globalization, it will be even more dependent on trade with Mainland China.

Therefore, "leftist Taiwan independence" is merely a political patchwork quilt, one that attempts to add a moral sheen to Taiwan independence. In fact, it is a self-refuting paradox. The more leftist it is, the less it will be able to afford Taiwan independence. The more committed to Taiwan independence it is, the less it will be able to afford leftist policies. In reality, a Taiwan independence welfare state is an impossible utopia.

The more fundamental problem is that leftism and Taiwan independence are usually nothing more than political bargaining chips. The person holding them knows they are no solution to the problems. They merely use them to incite mob sentiment. In 2008, when Tsai Ing-wen led the anti-ECFA protests, she was engaging in classic "leftist Taiwan independence." But by the time of the 2012 election, she was forced to eat her words, and adopt unconditionally the very same Ma administration "crapper" policies she previously denounced as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," and "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation." Tsai thought she could create a "local economy" out of nothing. But take a look at the Mainland tourists at the night market in Kaohsiung. What part of that represents is a "local economy," and what part of that represents "cross-Strait economic and trade relations?" Students can play trendy "leftist Taiwan independence" games. But can Tsai Ing-wen pretend not to know better?

If the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.

評太陽花的「左派台獨」
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.28 03:04 am

幾名太陽花學運領袖公開宣示「我主張台灣獨立」，並自稱是「左派台獨」。其中，「台獨」是政治路線，「左派」是社經路線。

「台獨」加「社運」，原本即是民進黨的兩大支柱；近年，新世代將之冠上「左派台獨」的封號，並嘗試將之理論化。蔡英文在二○一二年大選時，一方面主張「由世界走向中國」、「擺脫中國的全球化」，另一方面又主張「高社會福利」、「在地經濟」，即是呈現「左派台獨」的理論架構，當時我們稱之為「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」。

然而，「左派」的社經路線與「台獨」的政治路線，卻存在著基本的矛盾。因為，台獨主張壓抑兩岸經貿關係，因而亦形同否決了台灣的全球化生存戰略；這樣的政經架構，如何能夠支撐其高環保、高社會福利的社經承諾，更如何改善貧富不均的分配問題？

可以斷言，鎖國的台獨（不鎖國，就不能台獨，所以台獨必須反全球化）不可能具有撐持福利國家的社經實力；因為，「左派」的高福利國家承諾只會使「台獨」更失去支撐條件，二者只會相剋，不能相成，因而此承諾終究必成虛妄。

先看太陽花的「台獨」。太陽花學運的多數群眾皆不是台獨，但領袖階層多自我表白為台獨，至提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》，不啻要挾制政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。

太陽花的台獨，應當不是「建立台灣共和國」的台獨，而是「一邊一國」，以中華民國來「借殼上市」的台獨。台獨反服貿是合於邏輯的，因為服貿會使兩岸經貿關係更緊密，亦進一步把台灣推向全球化，不利台獨。反之，若在政治上主張「真正中華民國路線」，則傾向支持兩岸經貿交流，並進而以全球化的成果來節制兩岸關係。所以，這場「反服貿風暴」，從《兩岸協定締結條例》的提出，可以清楚看見這其實是一場學運寡頭操作的台獨風暴。

再看太陽花的「左派」。這場學運的核心人物皆是近年社運場合無役不與的面孔，反國光石化、反核四、反文林苑、反大埔、反台南鐵路東移、反服貿、反全球化，強調世代剝奪及貧富差距；這些都是「左派」的元素，一方面以高環保來質疑經濟模式（核四），另一方面又以凸出個人權益來壓制社區發展的期待（文林苑）。如果這場反服貿的反自由化、反全球化的「左派風暴」破滅了台灣加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ的憧憬，實則將迫使台灣在九成以上的出口市場中較競爭者多付五％至十％的關稅；然而，這似乎不是「左派」想要面對及回答的問題。「左派」當然也不在意台灣的泡麵在英國賣不過韓國！

「左派台獨」可以抵制服貿協議，甚至可以用《兩岸協定締結條例》否決整個ＥＣＦＡ架構；但是「左派台獨」不可能讓ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ等巨型ＦＴＡ簽不成。也就是「左派台獨」可以拒絕全球化，但絕無可能阻擋全球化。那麼，當台灣在九成出口市場要多付十％關稅，當台灣因全球化而被徹底邊緣化後，「左派台獨」用什麼條件來支撐它所承諾的高環保、高工資、高社會福利的「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」？其實，當台灣在全球化中被邊緣化後，結果必然是在經貿上更依賴中國大陸。

所以，「左派台獨」只是一個政治上的技術性拼湊，試圖為「台獨」抹上一層道德胭脂，其實卻是一個相互自噬的悖論：亦即，愈「左派」愈支撐不起「台獨」；愈「台獨」也愈支撐不起「左派」。在現實中，恐無可能出現「社會主義台獨福利國家」這樣的烏托邦。

更根本的問題是：「左派」與「台獨」往往只是政治運動的「籌碼」；操作者明知這不是解決問題的方法，卻用它來煽動仇恨鬥爭的情緒。蔡英文在二○○八年領導反ＥＣＦＡ，即是「左派台獨」的經典之作；但到了二○一二年大選，她卻概括承受了這套「傾中賣台／喪權辱國」的「馬桶政策」。至於蔡英文認為「在地經濟」似乎可以「無中生有」，但看看高雄六合夜市的陸客，那該叫做「在地經濟」或「兩岸經貿」？學生可以玩弄「左派台獨」的時髦，但蔡英文豈能不知其中的虛無？

如果學運領袖能夠領略「真正的中華民國路線」是台灣唯一的生路，則發動一場催促立法院通過「不動產實價課稅」的大遊行，那也許才真有幾分「左派」的丰采。