Tsai Ing-wen will Affirm Historical Significance of Ma Xi Summit

Tsai Ing-wen will Affirm Historical Significance of Ma Xi Summit
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2015 

Executive Summary:  Tsai Ing-wen will affirm the historical significance of the Ma Xi summit. If Tsai takes her cue from the Ma Xi summit, if she upholds the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations, she will affirm the historical significance of the summit. Conversely, if she refuses to accept the summit framework, the "vessel of peace” will founder. The consequences will also affirm the importance of the Ma Xi summit.

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen argues that the Ma Xi summit “boxed in” the public on Taiwan and limited their options for the future. Since Tsai Ing-wen is likely to become the next president of the Republic of China, she should reconsider the wisdom of her words.

Under democracy no power should limit the right of the people to choose their future. The Ma Xi summit is not likely to either. The Ma Xi summit erected a pulpit on which leaders from the two sides could state their case. It may limit the cross-Strait policy options of the next president of the Republic of China. But it did not limit the ability of people on Taiwan to choose their future. Rather, it limited the cross-Strait policy options of Tsai Ing-wen, who may become the next president of the Republic of China.  

Tsai Ing-wen attempted to shift attention away from her personal agenda to the "people's right to choose". For a presidential candidate, this amounted to mental evasion and  escape from responsibility. First of all, what is current "public opinion", other than a distorted view of history resulting from political indoctrination? Is it really a "natural phenomenon"? Next, does current “public opinion” actually oppose the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations? And lastly, just suppose opposition to the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations represents current public opinion. Does that mean Tsai Ing-wen intends to adopt that as her national policy in the event she becomes president of the Republic of China? 

This shows that if the public is free to choose, its options are unlimited. If the public is subjected to political manipulation on the other hand, it may be temporarily deceived by political circumstances. But those in power cannot rule the nation through deception or manipulating the "public right to choose". They must consider global integration, cross-Strait relations, and national power. All of these factors constrain national policy.

Tsai Ing-wen has yet to tell us what she thinks the people's choices are. Does opposition to the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations really represent the people's choice? If Tsai Ing-wen becomes president of the Republic of China, will she implement this "people's choice"? Tsai Ing-wen cannot create an illusory "people's choice". Even less can she create a "president's choice".  

Tsai is likely to win the election. The Ma Xi summit may limit Tsai Ing-wen's choices, but it will also lead her in the right direction. As Xi Jinping put it, the 1992 consensus is the compass. Without it, the vessel of cross-Strait peace will founder. As Ma Ying-jeou put it, the Ma Xi summit builds a cross-Strait bridge. The 1992 consensus supplies the rules of the road. Put simply, Taiwan independence is not an option. One China, different interpretations however, is. 

Tsai Ing-wen knows that given global conditions, Taiwan independence is impossible. She hardly needs the Ma Xi summit to “limit her choices”. Besides, the ROC Constitution limits the president of the Republic of China. It denies her the choice of Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen must look not only at how the Ma Xi summit “limits her choices”. She must also look at how the summit leads to the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations. We cannot say that the Ma Xi summit established a one China, different interpretations framework. But the Ma Xi summit protocols promoted the one China, different interpretations framework. The two men referred to each other as leaders. The summit was held in a third location. Each side paid its own way. For the first time leaders from the two sides agreed that the definition of one China was in dispute. 

The Ma Xi summit slammed the door shut on Taiwan independence. But it half-opened the door for one China, different interpretations. The Ma government has struggled on behalf of "One China, different interpretations" for over seven years. During the Ma Xi summit, the Mainland referred to Ma as “the leader of the Taiwan side”. This does not mean that one China, different interpretations has been firmly established as the cross-Strait political framework. But it does mean that significant progress has been made. The door has been opened part way. Tsai Ing-wen should take advantage of this half-opened door. If she loses the 1992 consensus, how can she possibly revert to the strategic framework of one China, different interpretations?

Xi Jinping of course has reservations about one China, different interpretations. But as the Ma Xi summit shows, he knows that without one China, different interpretations, the 1992 consensus would be unacceptable on Taiwan. Also, to resolve the problem of Taiwan independence, the DPP should be allowed to reaffirm the Republic of China, and to revert to supporting the Republic of China. This would enable the DPP to use one China, different interpretations as a foothold. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen need not choose between Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification. She can choose between Taiwan independence and one China, different interpretations.

Tsai Ing-wen will affirm the historical significance of the Ma Xi summit. If Tsai takes her cue from the Ma Xi summit, if she upholds the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations, she will affirm the historical significance of the summit. Conversely, if she refuses to accept the summit framework, the "vessel of peace” will founder. The consequences will also affirm the importance of the Ma Xi summit.

Whether Tsai chooses to feel “boxed in”, or realizes she has been handed a golden opportunity, depends on herself. That is a choice she must make on behalf of the public on Taiwan. By then, the people's choice must become President Tsai Ing-wen's choice. Tsai Ing-wen must not pass the buck back the people. She must make a choice as President, on behalf of the public on Taiwan.

Either way, Tsai Ing-wen's choice, yea or nay, will confirm the historical significance of the Ma Xi summit.

蔡英文將印證馬習會的歷史地位

2015-11-26 聯合報

蔡英文說，馬習會框限了台灣人民對未來的選擇權。這對於可能成為中華民國下屆總統的蔡英文來說，此話須再斟酌。

因為，就民主政治言，沒有任何勢力應當或能夠框限人民對未來的選擇權，馬習會大概也無法「框限」。但是，在馬習會這個面對世界發言的平台上，其所呈現的兩岸情勢，卻不無可能「框限」下屆中華民國總統對兩岸政策的「選擇權」。所以，與其說馬習會「框限」了台灣人民的選擇權，不如說「框限」了可能成為中華民國總統的蔡英文在兩岸政策上的選擇空間。

蔡英文將焦點轉移至「人民的選擇權」，若是站在未來總統的立場發言，這是避實就虛，也是避重就輕的逃避責任之言。一、現今的「民意」，究竟是扭曲的政治操作所造成的？抑或「天然成分」？二、這樣的民意，是否真正反對「九二共識／一中各表」？三、如果反對「九二共識／一中各表」是真正的民意，但請問，蔡英文若成為中華民國總統，她是否也能貫徹「反對九二共識／一中各表」為堅定不移的國策？

以上所論，是要指出：「人民的選擇」若是出於自由，大可海闊天空；若是出自政治操作，亦可能因一時受到政治情境蒙蔽所致。然而，主政者不能只靠蒙蔽或玩弄「人民選擇權」來統治國家，而必須在世界、兩岸及綜合國力的綜合考量下，行使其受各方制約的國策選擇權。

但是，蔡英文迄未明說她認知的「人民的選擇」是什麼。如果「反對九二共識／一中各表」真是人民的選擇，蔡英文若成為中華民國總統，她也能夠實現這個「人民的選擇」嗎？蔡英文不可操弄出一個海市蜃樓的「人民選擇」，卻無力以「總統的選擇」加以實現。

其實，馬習會對可能勝選執政的蔡英文雖有「框限」，也有「引領」。框限，以習近平的語言來說：九二共識是定海神針，失此，「兩岸和平之舟」就會徹底傾覆。引領，用馬英九的語言來說：馬習會為兩岸築起一座跨海大橋，九二共識則是必須遵守的交通規則。簡單而言：框限，就是不能「台獨」；引領，就是「一中各表」。

蔡英文應當十分清楚，就世局國情言，台獨已絕無可能，因而不必等到馬習會來框限。何況，中華民國憲法，也給了中華民國總統「不可台獨」的框限。正因如此，蔡英文不能只看到馬習會「框限」的部分，而應當重視此會在「九二共識／一中各表」的引領作用。當然，絕不能說馬習會已確立「一中各表」的架構；但從馬習會的儀式（互稱對岸領導人／第三地舉行／帳單自理等），到論述（首度在兩岸最高領導人之間呈現「一中定義」是「爭議狀態」），皆是更進一步地給了「一中各表」以出口，這就是引領。

馬習會關上台獨之門，但也半開了一中各表之門。「一中各表」是馬政府努力了七年多的政策，此番能在馬習會上以「台灣方面領導人」的地位當面對習近平提出，雖尚不能視此為論述已告確立，但必須視為已取得重大進展，所以說這是「半開之門」。蔡英文必須高度珍惜此扇半開之門，如果她丟掉了「九二共識」，試問將如何再站回「一中各表」的戰略架構？

至於習近平方面，對一中各表當然仍有保留。但從馬習會可看出，他亦深知，一方面，若無一中各表，九二共識在台灣即不能存在；另一方面，要化解台獨，應先讓民進黨回到「中華民國」，而回到中華民國，即應給民進黨「一中各表」的立足點。也就是說，對蔡英文來說，她不必在「台獨」與「統一」之間作選擇，但要先在「台獨」與「一中各表」之間作一選擇。

蔡英文將印證馬習會的歷史地位。如果蔡英文接受「引領」，承續並發展「九二共識／一中各表」的路線，馬習會即可確立其歷史地位。反之，倘若蔡英文不接受「框限」，一旦導致「和平之舟徹底傾覆」的後果，當然亦能印證馬習會的分量。

無論是框限或引領，皆要看若成為總統的蔡英文之選擇，那也是她必須代全體台灣人作出的選擇。屆時，「台灣人民的選擇」若非受蔡英文「總統之選擇」的啟導，即是受其挾持；亦即，從國家政策的高度言，蔡英文不能將「選擇權」推給台灣人民，而必須以總統的地位為台灣人民作出選擇。

屆時，蔡英文的選擇，無論正反，皆將印證馬習會的歷史地位。