United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
November 9, 2015
Executive Summary: The world watched as the Ma Xi summit turned a new leaf for cross-Strait peace. Yet Tsai Ing-wen appears determined to find fault. She denounces the summit as an attempt to impose a political framework that limits the people's options. She accused President Ma of surrendering Taiwan's dignity and rights. Alas, Tsai Ing-wen's fit of apoplexy merely reveals that green camp efforts to demonize Mainland China and Ma Ying-jeou are losing their effectiveness.
Full Text Below:
The world watched as the Ma Xi summit turned a new leaf for cross-Strait peace. Yet Tsai Ing-wen appears determined to find fault. She denounces the summit as an attempt to impose a political framework that limits the people's options. She accused President Ma of surrendering Taiwan's dignity and rights. Alas, Tsai Ing-wen's fit of apoplexy merely reveals that green camp efforts to demonize Mainland China and Ma Ying-jeou are losing their effectiveness.
Over the years, the DPP has conveniently demonized Mainland China and Ma Ying-jeou, to great political effect. The Sunflower Student Movement was its most rewarding victory. But closer scrutiny reveals that its demonization of Mainland China and Ma Ying-jeou have become ends in themselves, rather than means. In other words, the DPP, at no cost to itself, has used anti-Mainland sentiment to demonize the Ma government. But when asked how they would handle cross-Strait relations and defend Taiwan's interests, Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have no answer. If a Tsai Xi summit is ever convened, will Tsai Ing-wen do a better job of defending the rights of the people than Ma Ying-jeou? We already know the answer to that.
The green camp's demonization of Mainland China and Ma Ying-jeou have become ends rather than means. This has led to a paradox. The harm it inflicts upon Taiwan is even greater than the rift across the Taiwan Strait. This is a worrying phenomenon. Is the Chinese Communist regime the chief threat to Taiwan's survival? If so, long term DPP policy has not harmed a hair on its head. But DPP policy has made blue and green camp political parties and individuals to hate each other. It has make peace impossible. It has incited internal strife and promoted Taiwan's self-destruction.
The Ma government's handling of cross-Strait relations acknowledges the two sides' international status in the real world. It uses leverage and the balance of power to ensure Taiwan's rights and dignity. The Ma Xi summit attracted world wide attention precisely because it was motivated by a yearning for peace. It reduces the potential for cross-strait conflict, and maintains Taiwan's stability. It is consistent with the aspirations of most people on Taiwan.
By contrast, DPP strategy exploits anti-Mainland sentiment. It distorts cross-Strait relations, and turns it into a triangular relationship. It creates a triangle with the pro-independence green camp at one corner, and the pro-reunification, pro-peace blue camp at a second corner. From the perspective of partisan politics, this triangular relationship is highly useful. It creates an enemy and wins voter identification. But from the perspective of the national interest, it paints the ruling KMT as “fellow travelers” of the Chinese Communist Party. Such demonization is more than ugly. It also runs counter to our national interests. Worse still, it creates political differences greater even than those separating Taipei from Beijing. Was this the DPP's intent? Whether it was or not, the DPP must bear responsibility for dividing the people on Taiwan in this manner.
Take the Ma Xi summit. Leaders the world over were delighted to see the two sides shake hands in a gesture of goodwill. Ma and Xi exchanged views on a variety of topics. They firmed up cross-Strait peace. Only the DPP badmouthed the summit. It suddenly expressed a willingness to participate in a Tsai Xi summit, even as it poo-pooed the Ma Xi summit as meaningless. The DPP revealed its inner panic. Their denunciations failed to compensate for their anxiety. Polls conducted following the Ma Xi summit tell a very different story. As many as 46% of the public approves of the Ma Xi summit. As many as 48% think it will help cross-Strait peace. It is not obvious how the public feels?
President Ma pledged to report to the Legislative Yuan after the Ma Xi summit. This set a precedent for presidential deference to the legislature. Who knew that during consultations between the ruling KMT and opposition DPP, the latter would demand that President Ma submit to an interrogation? Who knew that the DPP would deliberately attempt to exceed the legislature's constitutional authority? Needless to say, this led to a total impasse. If President Ma were to allow himself to be interrogated by legislators during a situation report, he would undermine the constitutional framework. The Democratic Progressive Party accuses the Ma government of "black box operations". Yet it refuses to listen to his report. Are their words and deeds not poles apart?
No matter how much the DPP belittles the Ma Xi summit, the public believes "The KMT is more capable than the DPP when handling cross-Strait relations". During the current campaign Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly stressed the need to "maintain the status quo". But she contradicts herself. She repeatedly demeans the peaceful cross-strait exchanges the Ma government made possible during its seven years in office, even as she vows to maintain the status quo. Just exactly whose status quo is she promising to maintain? Or does she intend to return cross-Strait relations to the tensions and chaos of the Chen Shui-bian era?
The public seeks merely to live contented lives free from war and other man-made disasters. Does Tsai Ing-wen understand their wishes? If she does, she should realize that cross-Strait policy must not push people over a precipice. The DPP must forsake its strategy of demonizing Ma Ying-jeou for political advantage. The reason for this should be abundantly clear. The chasm within Taiwan is even wider than the chasm separating the two sides of the Strait. The DPP's strategy for achieving power is utterly immoral.
馬習會唯一的效果， 是企圖用政治框架框限人民在兩岸關係上的選擇； 她並指責馬總統未做到對等尊嚴原則，沒有捍衛台灣的權利。 蔡英文的氣急敗壞，顯示綠營一向操作「反中」來「打馬」的策略， 已到了捉襟見肘的地步。
到了太陽花學運更是一場空前豐收。然而， 仔細分析其間的質變和量變，「反中」漸漸由目的變成了手段，「 反馬」則成為其主要目的。換句話說，民進黨藉著毫無成本、 不須接觸的「反中」，達到了醜化馬政府的目的； 但如果質問蔡英文有何處理兩岸關係卻不傷及台灣利益的更佳策略， 民進黨恐怕回答不出來。如果未來真有「蔡習會」， 蔡英文是否比馬英九更能捍衛台灣人的權利， 答案恐怕你我皆心中有數。
主要是這已造成了一種矛盾的自傷局面：它在台灣內部造成的撕裂， 已遠大於海峽兩岸對立的裂痕，這不能不說是一個令人憂慮的現象。 試想，中共政權是構成台灣生存威脅的主要敵人， 而民進黨長期以來的策略，不僅傷不到對手任何皮毛， 卻弄到島內藍綠政黨與民眾互相厭憎、毫無寧日；這對台灣而言， 難道不是可怕的自殘與內耗？
是在兩岸國際地位不對等的現實中， 極力運用迂迴借力使力的平衡技巧，追求台灣的權利與尊嚴。 馬習會之所以能在舉世矚目下舉行，即是基於這樣的和平思維， 企圖降低兩岸潛在的敵意因素，從而維持台灣更大可能的安定， 那也符合多數台灣民眾的期待。
把兩岸關係扭曲成一個三角關係， 將這個三角關係描繪成主張獨立的綠營獨力對抗主張統一的中國和主 張兩岸和平共存的藍營。從政黨競爭的角度看， 這種敵我關係的塑造，或有助於選民的認同識別； 但從國家整體利益的角度看，把執政黨抹黑成中共的「同路人」， 則不僅是惡劣的醜化手法，且完全不利於台灣國家利益的追求。 更嚴重的是，這在國內製造出嚴重的政治歧見， 鴻溝之深遠甚於兩岸的分歧。這或許不是民進黨的初衷， 但島內人民因此而分化對立至此，它絕不能無動於衷。
互釋善意，馬習雙方也都能就各種議題暢談交換意見， 這就是鞏固兩岸和平的莫大收獲。但唯獨民進黨的態度幾番轉折， 突而聲稱願意比照辦理「蔡習會」，又突而將「馬習會」 說得一文不值，只是徒然自曝心虛；彷彿非要如此強烈貶抑， 不足以平衡其心中之焦慮。觀察馬習會後的民調， 有四成六民眾贊成馬習會，有四成八認為有助兩岸和平， 這不是很清楚淺顯的民情嗎？
此舉也可創下總統尊重國會之先例；不料在朝野協商中， 民進黨堅持馬總統必須「即問即答」，故意踰越憲法分際， 最後當然只能宣告破局。如果馬總統答應在國會的「國情報告」 接受立委質詢，他就破壞了憲法體制；反過來看， 民進黨指控馬政府「黑箱作業」，卻又自甘放棄聽取報告的機會， 其言行難道不是南轅北轍？
國民黨更有能力處理兩岸關係」，應已是確定的評價。事實上， 蔡英文在大選中一再強調要「維持現狀」， 就是一項自我矛盾的敘述： 她一再否定馬政府執政七年多所推動的兩岸和平交流成果， 卻又堅稱要維持現狀，那到底是誰想像的現狀？ 她難道能把兩岸關係帶回陳水扁時代的緊繃和混亂？
免於戰亂與人禍的紛擾。如果蔡英文理解這樣的期待， 她就應該清楚其兩岸政策不能有「驅民於淵」的冒進選項， 而民進黨目前利用「反中打馬」作為其獲利模式的戰略也必須調整。 理由很清楚：讓台灣內部的鴻溝深於兩岸間的歧見， 完全是不道德的操作。