Tsai Ing-wen Puts the Elephant in the Refrigerator

Tsai Ing-wen Puts the Elephant in the Refrigerator
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 17, 2015

Executive Summary: A riddle that has been circulating asks "How does one put an elephant in a refrigerator?" The answer comes in four parts. First, one opens the refrigerator door. Next, one finds an elephant. Next, one puts the elephant in the refrigerator. And lastly, one closes the refrigerator door. This may be a joke. But it is an apt metaphor for Tsai Ing-wen's new mantra about "maintaining the status quo".

Full Text Below:

A riddle that has been circulating asks "How does one put an elephant in a refrigerator?" The answer comes in four parts. First, one opens the refrigerator door. Next, one finds an elephant. Next, one puts the elephant in the refrigerator. And lastly, one closes the refrigerator door. This may be a joke. But it is an apt metaphor for Tsai Ing-wen's new mantra about "maintaining the status quo".

Cross-Strait disagreement is an elephant that can trample cross-Strait peace. The first concern of leaders on both sides must be to shelve disputes, seek a win-win solution, and put the elephant in the refrigerator. The DPP has long allowed the elephant to run amok and undermine cross-Strait harmony. Tsai Ing-wen recently proposed "maintaining the status quo". She has opened the refrigerator door. But this is merely the first step in shelving disputes. Resolving cross-Strait disagreements requires three more steps. Defining the elephant, putting the elephant in the refrigerator, and closing the refrigerator door. The last three steps are more difficult than the first.

The 2016 election is fast approaching. Tsai Ing-wen will soon have less and less room for ambiguity in cross-Strait policy. Everyone on Taiwan, including those inside the DPP, will be asking questions. The United States will express concern. The Mainland will look on with a cold eye, as the United States, the Mainland, and even the public on Taiwan increase the pressure. Tsai Ing-wen recently declared that "maintaining the cross-Strait status quo is the DPP's basic principle for handling cross-Strait relations". This is indeed an improvement over the hollow statements of the past. It is indeed more concrete and more constructive. But DPP cross-Strait policy has long been capricious. The United States, the Mainland, and the public on Taiwan, are still wary of the DPP's attachment to Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen's declaration merely sprinkled a few drops of water on the cracked earth. It was not enough to relieve the drought.

A substantial impact requires taking the second step. One must define the elephant. Tsai Ing-wen must define the status quo. Just what is it? In May 2004, when Tsai Ing-wen was Chairperson for the Mainland Affairs Council, she said "Taiwan, the US, and the Mainland each have a different understanding of the status quo. This determines whether one feels compelled to define the status quo." Her remark was dead on. If the various parties still cling to their own definition of the "status quo", disputes will never end, and Tsai Ing-wen will never be able to resolve the doubts in the minds of people on Taiwan, the Mainland and the US. The refrigerator door will never even open.

The status quo has already been successfully defined. One example is "no [immediate] reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force." Ma Ying-jeou's three noes is imperfect. It lacks aggressiveness. It may not be enough to cope with cross-Strait relations under Eric Chu's KMT. But for the past eight years, it was a compromise that most on Taiwan could accept. Even the United States accepted it. The Mainland was willing to remain silent about it and not voice open opposition. Tsai Ing-wen has no objections to "no reunification" and "no use of force," Her only objection is to "no Taiwan independence". On this, Tsai Ing-wen is subject to Taiwan independence pressure. But "no Taiwan independence" can be redefined to give her some wriggle room. For example, Hung Chi-chang has proposed defining "no Taiwan independence" as "no pursuit of de jure Taiwan independence". This would put Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou on the same footing regarding the "three noes". It would continue Ma Ying-jeou's established definition of the status quo.

These two interpretations of the three noes even differ in substance, especially when it comes to "no Taiwan independence". The three noes are old wine in new bottles. But they at least show that Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to take a step in the direction of cross-Strait peace. The blue camp agrees. The US is optimistic. The Mainland remains silent. The only obstacle Tsai faces is a deep green Taiwan independence backlash. She can however, still win the support of Hung Chi-chang and other green camp moderates. She would not be alone. If she lacks the courage to make a concession this small, how can she possibly lead Taiwan? How can she maintain the status quo? How can she maintain cross-Strait relations and ensure steady growth? Can she bring herself to utter these words? If not, she must tell us how her "maintaining the status quo" differs from Ma's "no reunification, no independence, no use of force".

Once the elephant has been found, the third step is to move the elephant into the refrigerator, thereby shelving controversy. Tsai Ing-wen should incorporate "maintaining the status quo" into her campaign literature and even the DPP party platform. On this, she must do more than talk the talk. She must walk the walk. Tsai Ing-wen must show that she has the elevated perspective befitting a ruler. She must encourage cooperation between DPP and KMT legislators. She must enable the "cross-strait agreement oversight regulations" and other bills currently blocked by the DPP to pass as soon as possible. She must allow stalled cross-Strait negotiations to continue. She must allow Taiwan to cease spinning its wheels.

The final step is to close the refrigerator door, and freeze the the status quo, so that the two sides can shelve disputes long term. This means that Tsai Ing-wen must break with Lin Yi-hsiung, Chen Shui-bian, Huang Kuo-chang, Lin Fei-fan, and other idealistic or opportunistic Taiwan independence advocates. She must not allow them to hijack the party and turn back the clock. Only this consitutes a meaningful, sustainable understanding of "maintaining the status quo."

The easiest of the four steps is opening the refrigerator door. But the second, third, and fourth steps are the key. For Tsai Ing-wen future steps will be increasingly difficult. This is a test of Tsai Ing-wen's leadership. We are happy to see Tsai Ing-wen propose "maintaining the status quo". But if she thinks that once the refrigerator door is open, the elephant will automatically walk in, then she is either stupid or naive.

社論－蔡英文把大象關進冰箱
2015年04月17日 04:10 主筆室

有個腦筋急轉彎的笑話，「如何把大象關到冰箱裡？」答案有4個步驟，一是打開冰箱門；二是找到大象；三是把大象放進冰箱；四是把冰箱門關起來。雖然是笑話，但拿來比喻蔡英文拋出的「維持現狀說」，倒也有神妙之處。

如果我們把兩岸之間的爭議，視為可能踩壞兩岸和平的大象，如何擱置爭議、尋求雙贏，把這隻大象關進冰箱裡，無疑是兩岸主政者的首要，但民進黨長期放任大象亂竄，破壞兩岸關係。現在蔡英文拋出「維持現狀」，可謂打開了冰箱門，但這只是擱置爭議的第一步，兩岸連鎖題還有三道功：定義大象、把大象放進冰箱、把冰箱門關起來，這三道功一道比一道難。

隨著2016大選的接近，蔡英文兩岸政策模糊的空間將愈來愈小，將面對包括民進黨本身在內的台灣內部眾聲質疑、美國關心、中共冷觀的「美中台」三方壓力。蔡英文最新的宣示:「維持兩岸現狀是民進黨處理兩岸關係的基本原則」，較諸過去空洞的表述，確實相對較具體、有建設性，是一種進步。但民進黨兩岸政策長期不穩定，美中及台灣內部對民進黨台獨黨綱仍然充滿疑慮，蔡英文的宣示只能說是乾涸大地裂土稍潤，不足以解旱。

要發揮實質效用，第二步，蔡英文必須定義大象，說清楚「維持現狀」是什麼？2004年5月時任陸委會主委的蔡英文曾說，「台美中三方對『維持現狀』的認知有落差，對於現狀認知的落差，在於我們是否有必要對現狀做定義。」這句話一針見血地道出了關鍵，如果各方仍然流於各說各話的「維持現狀」，爭議不會休止，蔡英文也無法化解台中美各方的疑慮，那麼冰箱門開了等於沒開。

現狀的定義，有成功的基準可參，就是「不統、不獨、不武」。馬英九的三不，雖不完美，積極性有缺，對朱立倫時代的國民黨可能不足以應對兩岸關係之所需，但在過去8年，毫無疑問是台灣最具妥協性的最大公約數，也是美國可以接受，大陸沉默不反對的最大可能。從字面論，「不統不獨不武」，不統與不武蔡英文不會反對，唯一要解的是「不獨」，即便蔡英文背負著獨派壓力，但「不獨」可以透過定義取得空間，例如參考洪奇昌建議，把「不獨」定義為「不追求法理台獨」，如此，蔡英文至少在字面上建立與馬英九完全等化的「三不」，也就可以藉以延續馬英九已經建立的「現狀定義」。

即便實質上，兩者認知的三不，尤其「不獨」的實質意涵仍有歧異，但這個舊瓶裝新酒的三不，至少展現蔡英文為兩岸和平有勇氣跨出腳步，藍營只能贊同，美國樂觀其成，大陸無話可說。蔡英文唯一要面對的是深綠獨派的反彈，但她仍能得到如洪奇昌等綠營溫和派的奧援，並非孤立，若連這一點為大局退讓的肩膀也無，如何讓人相信她領導的台灣，有能力維持「兩岸關係穩定發展的現狀」？如果蔡英文真的說不出口，就要負責任地告訴大家，她的維持現狀與馬英九的「不統、不獨、不武」差別何在？

找出大象後，第三步把大象移進冰箱，完成爭議的擱置。蔡英文應把定義後的「維持現狀」文件化，納入競選政見，乃至於民進黨的政綱。而這一點，不只是形式上的，也必須是行動上的，亦即，接下來蔡英文要展現準執政者的大格局，促使民進黨立委與國民黨合作，讓被民進黨阻撓擱置的「兩岸協議監督條例」等法案盡速通過，讓幾乎陷入停擺的兩岸協商可以繼續進行，不要再繼續讓台灣陷入空轉危機。

最後一步，則是把冰箱門關上，讓維持現狀的主張結凍固著，這樣兩岸爭議的擱置才可以長續維持。這也意謂，蔡英文要向林義雄、陳水扁、黃國昌、林飛帆等等不同的獨派世代，不管是理想獨派或投機獨派的群眾，發出不受綁架、不走回頭路的明確訊息，這才是有實質意義、可長可久的「維持現狀」。

關大象四步驟中，最簡單的一步就是把冰箱門打開，但第二步、第三步與第四步才是重點。當然，對蔡英文來說，愈後面的步驟愈難，但這正是考驗蔡英文處理難題的領導能力。我們樂見蔡英文拋出「維持現狀」，但如果認為把冰箱門打開，大象就會自動走進冰箱，那不是太傻，就是太天真。