Tsai Ing-wen: Final Mile, or Back to the Starting Line?

Tsai Ing-wen: Final Mile, or Back to the Starting Line?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 22, 2014

Summary: The ECFA controversy six years ago resembles the STA controversy six years later. They are similar but different. How different is Tsai Ing-wen six years later from Tsai Ing-wen six years earlier? Will she provide different answers to the same exam questions? Will this be Tsai Ing-wen's "final mile?" Or will she return to the starting line?

Full text below:

Tsai Ing-wen is about to become DPP Chairman a second time. Will she complete the final mile? Or will she return to the starting line?

Will history repeat itself? Tsai Ing-wen's situation today is virtually identical to her situation in 2008, when she first became party chairman. In 2008, confronted with ECFA, Tsai denounced ECFA as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," as "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation." Today, Tsai Ing-wen is confronted with the STA, the MTA, and the "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight." In 2008, Tsai Ing-wen led mobs onto the streets around the hotel where ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin stayed on his first visit to Taiwan. The mobs greeted Chen with Molotov cocktails. How will Tsai Ing-wen greet Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun on his first visit to Taiwan?

Will this be Tsai Ing-wen's final mile? Or will she be returning to the starting line?

These two scenarios, six years apart, appear identical. But they are also different in fundamental ways. One. Six years ago the issue was ECFA. It was largely a cross-Strait relations issue. But six years later, the controversy over the STA has underscored issues such as the TPP, RCEP, and globalization. Tsai may still be turning a blind eye to the facts. She may still be trying to convince herself that the STA "panders to [Mainland] China and sells out Taiwan." But can she get away with demanding that Taiwan reject globalization? Two. Six years ago, mulish opposition to ECFA led to a DPP debacle that eventually motivated the DPP to consider reform, in order to win presidential elections. In order to complete what Tsai termed the "Final Mile." But six years later, the DPP is still waffling, still hesitant about reform. The Sunflower Student Movement has erupted. The Taiwan independence movement has passed the baton to a younger generation. This development could force Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP back to the starting line.

Six years ago, Tsai Ing-wen and older generation Taiwan independence advocates opposed ECFA and the 1992 consensus. Six years later younger generation Taiwan independence advocates oppose the STA and globalization. If Tsai goes along with them, she will not be completing the final mile. She will be returning to the starting line.

Tsai Ing-wen's "Final Mile" actually spans thousands of miles. One. Take the intractable issue of globalization. We must be competitive with other countries. We must ensure that we are on an equal footing with our international competitors. Vulnerable industries have no chance of survival. Try to protect them, and the entire country will be marginalized. Currently we do not even have the courage to enter the overseas market, let alone stimulate domestic transformation. Two. Take the issue of national identity. Using the "two states theory" to establish a Republic of China identity is backdoor listing. It does not address the problem. Taiwan must become more Chinese. Taiwan must become more closely identified with the Republic of China. That is Taiwan's only way out of its dilemma. Yet DPP opposition to [Mainland] China has become terror of [Mainland] China. The DPP lacks the courage to fight Beijing inside the "Greater One China Framework." Take the the Sunflower Student Movement's stubborn opposition to globalization and its abject terror of [Mainland] China. How can this possibly represent a "Final Mile?" Isn't this more like "thousands of miles away?"

Does Tsai Ing-wen really think the "Final Mile" involves only the presidential election? Tsai may attempt to take advantage of the Sunflower Student Movement's opposition to globalization. Does Tsai Ing-wen think the "Final Mile" will begin only after she is elected president? Only when she attempts to save Taiwan from social division and economic decline? Tsai must attempt to lead the public in the right direction -- now. She must attempt to lead the public toward globalization and the proper national identity -- now. She must not wait until after the election to "unconditionally accept" the policy positions of her predecessor.

Tsai Ing-wen still retains some credibility among the public, mainly because people still believe in her promise of a "Final Mile." But the influence of the younger generation Sunflower Student Movement has been considerable. If the tail begins wagging the dog, Tsai Ing-wen is likely to become the movement's political hostage, and find herself back at the starting line, just as she did six years ago.

The past and present political circumstances are similar. In 2012, just before the election, Douglas Paal expressed distrust in the DPP. His remark was directed at Tsai Ing-wen. David Brown and Daniel Russel recently issued strongly worded criticisms of the DPP, just as Tsai Ing-wen is about to resume her role as party chairman. From beginning to end, U.S. government distrust of the DPP has remained unchanged. Over the past six years, Washington, Beijing, and the public on Taiwan have had their eye on Tsai Ing-wen. They are familiar with all her tricks. Tsai Ing-wen has much less maneuvering room than she had before. Therefore when Tsai Ing-wen resumes her role as party chairman, she will no longer be able to play the same old political games. She will no longer be able to accuse her opponents of "pandering to [Mainland] China, selling out Taiwan." She will no longer be able to hide behind declarations that "I unconditionally accept the policies of my predecessor." This will be true for the DPP, for Washington, for Beijing, and for the public on Taiwan. Instead she will have to accept the necessity of globalization and a Chinese national identity. If she flip flops and refuses to commit, she will merely paint herself into a corner, the way she did in 2012.

Su Tseng-chang retreated in the face of swift currents. One reason was his reluctance to reconcile DPP policy reform with Sunflower Student Movement political pressure. He left the decision of choosing between the "Final Mile" and "returning to the starting line" to Tsai. He seized the opportunity to counterattack as Tsai Ing-wen deals with these problems. Will Tsai Ing-wen see the Sunflower Student Movement and the resurgence of Taiwan independence as good news, and return to the starting line? Will she realize that the DPP must deal with the Sunflower Student Movement before it implements policy reform? Will she realize she must complete that "final mile?"

The ECFA controversy six years ago resembles the STA controversy six years later. They are similar but different. How different is Tsai Ing-wen six years later from Tsai Ing-wen six years earlier? Will she provide different answers to the same exam questions? Will this be Tsai Ing-wen's "final mile?" Or will she return to the starting line?

蔡英文的最後一哩或回頭路
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.22 02:10 am

蔡英文將第二度出任民進黨主席，她究竟將走上她的最後一哩，或其實卻將走上回頭路？

歷史不知會不會重演，但今日蔡英文的處境，竟然與二○○八年她首度出任黨主席時恍若複製般一模一樣。二○○八年，面對ＥＣＦＡ，蔡英文祭起「傾中賣台／喪權辱國」的大旗；今天，蔡英文又面對兩岸服貿協議、貨貿協議及「兩岸協議監督條例」。二○○八年，蔡英文以群眾包圍酒店及在街頭丟汽油彈來接待首位訪台的海協會會長陳雲林；今天，蔡英文又將如何迎接首位訪台的國台辦主任張志軍？

這是蔡英文的最後一哩？或回頭路？

六年前後的兩個場景，看似一模一樣，卻也有根本的不同。一、六年前的ＥＣＦＡ主題，大致上只在兩岸關係的範圍內；但六年後的服貿風暴，卻帶出了ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ等全球化的問題。蔡英文或許仍可閉著眼睛說服貿協議是「傾中賣台」，但她能不能主張「台灣拒絕全球化」？二、六年前反ＥＣＦＡ一路下來的失敗，好不容易激起民進黨內對蔡英文所提「最後一哩」的轉型思考；但六年後當民進黨尚在轉型津口猶豫之際，爆出了太陽花的「台獨世代交替」，卻有可能逼使蔡英文及民進黨又走上回頭路。

六年前蔡英文與「舊世代台獨」走向反ＥＣＦＡ、反九二共識，六年後她如果又與「台獨新世代」走向反服貿、反全球化，這就不是最後一哩，而是走回頭路。

蔡英文的「最後一哩」，其實是迢迢千里。一、全球化的難題：若不能為有競爭力者在國際上找到與他國競爭者平等的立足點，最後弱勢產業也無倖存機會，整個國家亦告邊緣化；現在是連境外市場都沒有勇氣進入，遑論國內開放以刺激轉型。二、國家認同的難題：用「兩國論」來建立中華民國的認同，只是借殼上市，不能解決問題，必須讓台灣社會領悟「愈『中華』，『民國』愈有力量」，始是台灣的生路；現在卻是「反中」變成「恐中」，遑論有在「大一中架構」下分庭抗禮的膽識。看今日太陽花所反映的「反全球化」及「恐中台獨」氛圍，這豈是「最後一哩」？又豈不是「迢迢千里」？

倘若蔡英文認為其「最後一哩」僅在選上總統，即儘管可趁太陽花運動反全球化之勢，僥倖一試；但蔡英文如果認為她的「最後一哩」應在一旦當選總統後解救台灣免於撕裂衰亡，她應該現在即開始嘗試將整個社會導向正確認知全球化及國家認同的方向，不能到了大選再來玩「概括承受」的把戲。

蔡英文迄今在社會上尚有一些分量，主要是因民眾對其「最後一哩」仍存有一些想像。但這一場太陽花新世代運動的聲勢浩大，一旦形成「尾巴搖狗」的態勢，蔡英文極有可能成為其政治俘虜，而走上六年前的回頭路。

論及今昔政治場景雷同，二○一二年包道格在大選前發表對民進黨不信任的言論，與蔡英文直接有關；如今，卜道維及羅素等人發表了對民進黨更強烈的批評之後，又逢蔡英文將接黨主席。一路走來，顯示美國政府對民進黨的不信任及負面評價迄未改變。六年來，美國、北京、台灣民眾皆在觀察蔡英文，如今花樣看盡，蔡英文能夠繞圈子的空間已小得多；因此，不論對黨內、華府、北京或對台灣民眾，蔡英文此次再接任黨主席，不能再玩「傾中賣台／概括承受」的老梗，而應以誠實開朗的態度面對「全球化」及「國家認同」兩大問題。如果再玩首鼠兩端繞圈子的花樣，最後必又將自己刷油漆刷到牆角，如二○一二年。

蘇貞昌急流勇退，原因之一應是不願面對「民進黨轉型」及「太陽花擋路」的兩難之局；同時，他也給蔡英文留下了一個「最後一哩」與「回頭路」的兩難困境，並等待蔡英文遭遇困境時伺機反撲。蔡英文若將太陽花運動視為台獨回潮的喜訊，那麼就走回頭路；但若認知太陽花可能是使民進黨轉型工程前功盡棄的警訊，即應繼續她的「最後一哩」。

六年前的ＥＣＦＡ風暴與六年後的服貿風暴何其相似，但又何其不同；六年後的蔡英文與六年前又有何異同？一樣的考卷，會不會有不同的答案；這將是蔡英文的最後一哩，或回頭路？