Taiwan Independence Street Violence: Resurgence or Countercurrent

Taiwan Independence Street Violence: Resurgence or Countercurrent
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 7, 2014

Summary: Street violence, hunger strikes, and reversion to promoting Taiwan independence will never solve Taiwan's problems. They are nothing more than political blackmail. They do not represent democracy and the will of the people. This resurgence of Taiwan independence and street violence has been destructive of democracy. They are part of a countercurrent that will destroy Taiwan through internecine struggle.

Full Text Below:

The Sunflower Student Movement exploded on March 18. On April 30, Lin Yi-hsiung ended his fast against the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, aka NPP4. Taiwan independence rhetoric has returned. Street protests have returned. Mob violence has returned. Has the tide turned in the affairs of men?

Most of those who participated in the Sunflower Student Movement were not advocates of Taiwan independence. But the mob leaders were. They were unquestionably Taiwan independence zealots. The Sunflower Student Movement demanded a "Cross-Strait Agreements Oversight Bill."
Its purpose? To force the government to change its cross-Strait policy to one consistent with Taiwan independence. The nuclear power plant controversy obviously involved anti-nuclear demands. But Lin Yi-hsiung's declaration reveals that the amended referendum law, opposition to the free trade zones, the "Peoples Constitutional Convention," and the constitutional amendment constituted their real political agenda. Their real goal was a nuclear-free Taiwan independence homeland. Such a homeland would not tolerate cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Hence their opposition to the STA. They would demand an even more isolationist policy. Hence their opposition to free trade zones.

Ever since the protests erupted, the STA dispute has ostensibly been over generational deprivation. The NPP4 dispute has ostensibly been over nuclear safety. These concerns are of course real. Today the protests have temporarily died down. What is the Sunflower Student Movement's solution to these problems? Is it a Taiwan independence closed door policy? What is Lin Yi-hsiung's solution to exorbitant electricity rates?
Is it an independent, nuclear free "Nation of Taiwan." Are these the proper solutions to Taiwan's problems?

Many attribute the current controversy over the STA and the NPP4
to "poor communications." But is Taiwan independence the panacea for all that ails Taiwan? That is hardly a matter of "poor communications."
The Sunflower Student Movement may have scored a victory in the political arena. But it failed to score a victory in the moral arena. Its victory consisted of forcibly occupying the Legislative Yuan and using it as a bargaining chip for political blackmail. By the same token, Lin Yi-hsiung may have scored a political victory with his hunger strike. But he too failed to score a victory in the moral arena. His victory used his own death by starvation to blackmail the Ma administration. Therefore, they may have gained the upper hand on the STA and the NPP4. But is Taiwan independence really the solution to these problems?

Consider the global perspective, cross-Strait fluctuations, and internal changes. Lin Yi-hsiung threatened to starve himself to death in response to the NPP4. The Sunflower Student Movement forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan in response to STA. It smashed windows, blocked off streets, and threatened to assassinate a local precinct police chief. It stooped to brute force extortion to achieve short term goals. But it failed to reach just and reasonable solutions. This was true for the STA. This was true for the NPP4. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung cannot achieve Taiwan independence by forcibly occupying the Legislative Yuan, conducting hunger strikes, and lying in the street in front of cars.  The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung
hope that by opposing the STA, the NPP4, and free trade zones, they can promote a constitutional amendment to achieve Taiwan independence. But that is a pipe dream. They will not achieve Taiwan independence. But they will destroy Taiwan.

Taiwan independence, street protests, and mob violence have temporarily receded. Over the past two years, DPP insiders have even talked about "freezing the Taiwan independence party platform" and promoting a "Resolution on the Republic of China." So far however, no progress has been made toward reform. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung have once again raised the banner of Taiwan independence. Doing so could put DPP reformation on indefinite hold. The DPP may not be able to complete the "final mile." It could be compelled to revert to Taiwan independence. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung may be delighted at the reversion to Taiwan independence. But the Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen hope to return to power in 2016. For them this amounts to an intolerable setback. .

Chen Shui-bian assumed power in 2000. He was forced to accept the 1992 consensus and political reintegration. But Lee Teng-hui founded the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which bound Chen Shui-bian hand and foot. Lee eventually forced Chen to endure defeat as a result of Lee's cross-Strait policy. Today, Lin Yi-hsiung's "Taiwan Citizen Union," clearly identifies with Taiwan independence. Is the Taiwan Citizen Union a successor to the TSU? Will Lin Yi-hsiung hobble Tsai Ing-wen the way Lee Teng-hui hobbled Chen Shui-bian? The Lee Teng-hui tail wagged the Chen Shui-bian dog. Will the Lin Yi-hsiung tail wag the Tsai Ing-wen dog in the same fashion?

The storm has temporarily subsided. Some may harbor doubts about the STA. But does anyone really think Taiwan independence and isolationism are the answer? Some may harbor doubts about the NPP4. But do people really approve of usingnuclear power as a bargaining chip on behalf of Taiwan independence?

Taiwan's most serious problem is Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence advocates turn almost every public issue and social movement into political chips. This includes opposition to Guoguang Petrochemical, to Wenlin Yuan, to Ta Pu, to school curricula, to the STA, and to the NPP4. All reveal the heavy hand of "Nation of Taiwan civil disobedience toward the ROC" and the promotion of Taiwan independence by means of social movements. Public issues are no longer debated fairly and rationally. This type of "social movement" uses public issues as pretexts to take over the government and implement Taiwan independence. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung have forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan and conducted hunger strikes. They have blocked off streets, caused traffic jams, and engaged in street violence. Their political blackmail has not won them any genuine victories. Quite the contrary, victims of their political blackmail who were forced to make concessions did not really lose. Taiwan was the loser. No one was a winner.

Street violence, hunger strikes, and reversion to promoting Taiwan independence will never solve Taiwan's problems. They are nothing more than political blackmail. They do not represent democracy and the will of the people. This resurgence of Taiwan independence and street violence has been destructive of democracy. They are part of a countercurrent that will destroy Taiwan through internecine struggle.

台獨‧街頭‧暴力：是回潮還是逆流
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.07 02:14 am

自三一八太陽花學運爆發，至四三○林義雄結束禁食及核四事件落幕，台獨論述回來了，街頭運動回來了，群眾暴力也回來了。這究竟是歷史的回潮，或時代的逆流？

這場風暴中出現的群眾，絕大多數未必是台獨主張者，但這場風暴的主導者無疑是持台獨立場。太陽花最後提出的《兩岸協定締結條例》，即是欲逼令政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。至於核四爭議，固然有反核訴求，但從林義雄的聲明可知，補正公投法、反對自由經濟示範區、促成人民憲政會議，及推動修憲，始是更高層次的政治目標。其標舉的遠景是一個非核的台獨家園，非但不容兩岸經貿交流（反服貿協議），並主張更廣泛的鎖國政策（反自由經濟示範區）。

風暴之起，服貿爭議是因世代剝奪，核四則是因核安疑慮，這些皆是真實存在的社會氛圍。如今風暴暫歇，倘若太陽花給的解答是台獨鎖國，而林義雄給的答案亦是高電價的非核鎖國台獨，這算不算是為台灣未來找到了正確的答案？

這場風暴，無論服貿或核四，眾人皆謂是因「溝通不足」所致；但是，台獨能否成為台灣的終極解決方案，恐怕更是一個「溝通不足」的議題。太陽花看似在這場角力中獲勝，但未必贏在論理，而是勝在以霸占立院為其政治勒索的「籌碼」；同理，林義雄看似在此役獲勝，其實亦未必贏在論理，而是勝在以死相逼的政治勒索。因而，即使他們在服貿及核四爭議中占了上風，但能否以台獨為台灣的終極解決方案，卻仍是個大問號。

從整個世局、兩岸消長及台灣內部的情勢變遷來看，欲以霸占立院來解答服貿問題，或欲以禁食尋死來解答核四問題，或欲以砸窗破門、圍堵街道、乃至恐嚇分局長「被暗殺」來解答問題，即或能在暴力勒索下暫時得到一個扭曲的答案，但那絕非正當合理的答案。服貿問題如此，核四問題如此，因而也不可能用霸占立院、絕食尋死、趴車堵路來實現台獨。因此，若想由反服貿、反核四、反自由經濟示範區，及推動修憲來實現台獨，這些恐怕都是想入非非。只恐台獨不成，台灣已毀。

但是，經此風暴，台獨、街頭、暴力皆已回潮。在過去兩年，民進黨內甚至出現論及「凍結台獨黨綱」及《中華民國決議文》層次的轉型呼籲；如今，轉型未見進展，太陽花及林義雄卻已再度擎起台獨大旗。這可能使民進黨的轉型工程就此「封存」，「最後一哩」也被迫不得不走上「回頭路」。太陽花及林義雄，或許以台獨回潮而沾沾自得；但對目標懸於二○一六而想要重返執政的民進黨及蔡英文而言，這卻是一個不可承受的大逆流。

陳水扁在二○○○年初執政權，曾有接受「九二共識」及研議「政治統合」的構想；卻因李登輝組成台聯，扼制了陳水扁，使陳水扁終於敗在兩岸政策。如今，林義雄的「公民組合」呼之欲出，且明顯是以台獨號召為政治認同。然則，「公民組合」會不會是民進黨的下一個「台聯」？林義雄會不會是蔡英文的下一個「李登輝」？李扁關係是「尾巴搖狗」的關係，未來林蔡關係是否亦復如此？

風暴暫歇，即使是對「服貿協議」有疑慮，但國人贊不贊成以「台獨鎖國」為解答？即使是對「核四／核電」有疑慮，但國人同不同意以反核做為台獨運動推波助瀾的籌碼？

台灣的問題癥結在台獨。當台獨主張者幾乎將所有的公共議題及「社運」皆視為「政治籌碼」，從反國光石化、反文林苑、反大埔、反課綱，到反服貿、反核四，皆可見「台灣國對中華民國公民不服從」、「以社運推動台獨」的陰影，公共議題即失去了公平理性的辯論平台。這種性質的「社運」，是在藉公共議題推翻政權，而欲在取得政權後操作台獨。如今再加上霸占立院、禁食尋死、圍路堵車等街頭及暴力手段；遂使因政治勒索而得逞者不是真勝，因被政治勒索而讓步者不是真輸。如此，台灣只剩內耗相殘，沒有贏家。

以街頭、暴力及禁食而回頭的台獨，不可能成為台灣的終極解決方案；因為，這在本質上是政治勒索，而不是民主公論。這場台獨、街頭及暴力的大回潮，其實是對民主的大摧殘，也是一股將使台灣內耗相殘的大逆流。