Maintaining the Status Quo: No Easy Matter

Maintaining the Status Quo: No Easy Matter
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 23, 2016

Executive Summary: For the DPP, July 17 is a red letter day. That is when it holds its Party Congress. The Tsai government must cease lying to itself and to the nation. Tsai Ing-wen pledged to "maintain cross-Strait relations under the current ROC constitutional framework”. She must be honest and admit that abiding by the ROC Constitutional framework means recognizing the 1992 Consensus.

Full Text Below:

The Tsai government has been in office for only one month. But it has already reneged on its pledge to "maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations".  Before the election, Tsai Ing-wen vowed to "maintain very good relations with the Mainland". She said, "When I say I will maintain the status quo, it means I will maintain the status quo". She said "I said I can do it, and I will".

Alas, the current situation has already departed from the status quo. The two cross-Strait associations' official channels of communication have already been shut down. The status quo there no longer exists. Premier Lin Chuan says he has not ruled out a second channel of communications. But that is impossible. The status quo there no longer exists. Even the SEF chairman candidates have yet to be chosen, providing even more evidence that the status quo no longer exists.

Rumors that Wang Jin-pyng or James Soong may head the SEF have provoked controversy. Meanwhile  Wu Chi-chia and Kuo Cheng-liang have issued a proposal. They want the DPP to approve a “New Status Quo Maintenence Party Platform” during next month's Party Congress. They want to appoint someone to the SEF who can stabilize the situation. They want to change the party platform to rescue Taiwan from her current plight. The two men have issued a warning: the new government has already failed to maintain the status quo.

The "Wu Guo Party Platform" states that the Taiwan Independence Party Platform, the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, and the Resolution for a Normal Nation, are antithetical to maintaining the status quo. As long as these three provisions remain, the status quo cannot be maintained. Instead, the party must replace them with a “New Status Quo Maintenence Party Platform”, that "highlights the party's new mission in a new era of cross-Strait and international relations".

Virtually the same DPP officials proposed freezing the Taiwan Independence Party Platform before the election. At the moment they are avoiding any mention of “freezing the Taiwan independence party platform”. Instead they are saying that “advocacy of the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions is superfluous".

Will the party freeze the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions? Or will it simply decide that “advocacy is superfluous”? Either way, everyone in the party agrees that Taiwan independence is already "outdated". Nevertheless, jettisoning either is more difficult than accepting the 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations.

If the DPP can no longer advocate Taiwan independence, then why not accept the 1992 Consensus? Because the 1992 Consensus includes “one China, different interpretations”. The party has yet to deal directly with the Taiwan Independence Party Platform. This leaves some room to maneuver.

Will the party freeze the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions? Or will it simply decide that their “advocacy is superfluous”? Either way, all agree that Taiwan independence is at odds with maintaining the status quo. Therefore in the absence of a shared cross-Strait political framework, expecting an SEF appointment to turn the tide and maintain the status quo, is utterly futile.

James Soong may be the DPP's intended SEF appointee. But the PFP insists that "policy is its first priority, personnel appointments are secondary". The PFP has its own priorities. It is also pragmatic. Beijing has said it will not accept the Straits Exchange Foundation recognizing the 1992 Consensus on behalf of the Tsai government. It has said the words must come from Tsai Ing-wen herself.

Therefore, if the Tsai government can accept the 1992 Consensus, it does not need James Soong, Wang Jin-pyng, or anyone else to head the SEF. After all, the two men have their own priorities, and concerns about their public image. As long as the Tsai government changes its policy, the appointment of any qualified person is acceptable. As long as the Tsai government's policy is clear, who it appoints will be secondary, and the appointment process will be simple. Besides, if the Tsai government accepts the 1992 Consensus, it will not be under as much pressure to eliminate the Taiwan independence party platform.

To sum up, the Wu Kuo Party Platform and rumors that James Soong or Wang Jin-pyng will be appointed SEF Chief, confirm one thing. The status quo has already been violated. But as previously mentioned, the Wu Kuo Party Platform actually goes beyond the 1992 Consensus. If the Tsai government has yet to recognize the 1992 consensus, why bother appointing James Soong or Wang Jin-pyng, and provoke an uproar within the DPP?

Now let us return to "maintaining the status quo". The 1992 Consensus is an integral part of the status quo. It is the shared political framework for the status quo. The Tsai government refuses to accept the 1992 Consensus. It also asserts that "If I say I'm going to maintain the status quo, then I'm going to maintain the status quo". This is a clear self-contradiction. The 1992 Consensus is an evolving concept. It is the means by which Taiwan sought to maintain "one China, different interpretations”, "no [immediate] reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use force", and peaceful, mutually beneficial cross-strait economic and trade exchanges. If this framework is shattered, the trade and diplomatic repercussions will do more than destroy the status quo. They will jeopardize Taiwan's survival. Therefore, if the Tsai government cannot maintain the status quo, it may well jeopardize Taiwan's future.

The Wu Kuo Party Platform may be risky, but it makes the hard choices. The SEF appointment political theater on the other hand, fails to see the forest for the trees. If the Tsai government wishes to avoid repeating the cross-Strait policy blunders of the past, it must find some way to recognize the 1992 Consensus.

For the DPP, July 17 is a red letter day. That is when it holds its Party Congress. The Tsai government must cease lying to itself and to the nation. Tsai Ing-wen pledged to "maintain cross-Strait relations under the current ROC constitutional framework”. She must be honest and admit that abiding by the ROC Constitutional framework means recognizing the 1992 Consensus.

聯合／維持現狀 困難重重
2016-06-23 02:45 聯合報 聯合報社論

蔡政府彌月，「兩岸關係維持現狀」的政治承諾已告跳票。
選前，蔡英文信誓旦旦：「我一定會與大陸維持非常良好的關係」、「我說維持現狀，就是維持現狀」、「我說得到，就做得到」。

但是，現狀其實已非現狀。兩會兩辦的制度化溝通管道已告封閉，現狀不再；閣揆林全聲稱不排除「二軌管道」亦不可得，也是現狀不再；甚至連海基會董事長人選也舉棋不定，這更是現狀無以維持的印證。

最近，以宋楚瑜或王金平出掌海基會引起熱議；與此同時，吳子嘉與郭正亮提案，希望在下月民進黨全代會通過《維持現狀新黨綱》。海基會人選，是想藉人事來穩定情勢；變更黨綱，則是欲藉政策來扭轉局面。二者皆在警示：現狀已不能維持。

「吳郭黨綱」旨在指出：台獨黨綱、台灣前途決議文及正常國家決議文，皆與「維持現狀」的宗旨相違；有此三者，就不能維持現狀，而應代以與時俱進的《維持現狀新黨綱》，「凸顯本黨強化處理兩岸事務和國際事務的新時代使命」。

幾乎是同一批民進黨人，大選前也曾提出「凍結台獨黨綱」之議。此時，他們則迴避了「凍獨」的說法，而稱台獨黨綱及二決議文「實無再予標舉的必要」。

無論是「凍獨」或「實無再予標舉的必要」，皆係認為台獨已「不合時宜」；但凍獨或不再標舉，其實已經超逾了「九二共識／一中各表」的要求與難度。

民進黨若真能不再標舉台獨，則何以不能接納並發展「九二共識」？因為，九二共識畢竟存有一中各表的契機，且亦暫未直接進逼至台獨黨綱之處理，留有緩衝空間。

不過，無論是凍獨或不再標舉，皆在指出台獨的主張與「維持現狀」的宗旨相違。亦由此可見，若不在兩岸共同政治基礎上有所確立，並藉以維持現狀，卻奢望以海基會人事來扭轉局面，恐是緣木求魚。

於是，再說海基會人事。宋楚瑜可能是目標人選，但親民黨方面已稱「政策是第一優先，人事是第二順位」，可謂知所先後，亦算是知機務實。且北京方面已稱，不會接受「海基會代蔡政府接受九二共識」的手法，而必須出自蔡英文本人之口。

因此，蔡政府若能將政策立場轉向九二共識，即無須以宋楚瑜、王金平等出掌海基會，畢竟二人皆有齊大非偶的顧慮。只要政策轉向，任用一篤實可靠之人，政策清朗，人事樸實，當可省去許多橫生枝節之事。而且，蔡政府若接納九二共識，或可暫免處理《台獨黨綱》的壓力。

綜上所論，「吳郭黨綱」及宋楚瑜、王金平的人事傳言，皆印證了「維持現狀」已告跳票。但如前所述，「吳郭黨綱」的要求其實超出了「九二共識」，而倘若接納了九二共識，又何必任用宋楚瑜、王金平，徒惹民進黨內陣陣譁然？

問題回到「維持現狀」四字。九二共識是現狀的一部分，又是一切現狀的共同政治基礎。因此，蔡政府不接納九二共識，卻稱「我說維持現狀，就是維持現狀」，邏輯難以自圓。九二共識是一發展性的概念，台灣努力爭取的「現狀」是「一中各表」及「不統／不獨／不武」，以及兩岸經貿互利與和平交流。萬一失去這個平衡的架構，自經貿面及外交面發生的衝擊，非但會毀了「現狀」，且可能使台灣的生存體質發生無可回逆的致命變化。故而，蔡政府若不能維持現狀，亦可能因此失去了將來。

「吳郭黨綱」雖是操危慮患，卻是捨易就難；海基人事的反覆盤算，則是捨本逐末。蔡政府若不願見兩岸和平發展之舟重蹈覆轍，仍應設法在九二共識上找出路。

七月十七日的全代會又是一個重大節點，蔡政府切勿再自誤誤國。蔡英文既說：「在中華民國現行憲政體制下，維持兩岸關係。」當然亦可理直氣壯地說：「在中華民國憲法架構下，理解並發展九二共識。」