Hung Hsiu-chu Must Achieve Three Goals

Hung Hsiu-chu Must Achieve Three Goals
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
October 18, 2016

Executive Summary: Disputes over political path may provoke short term controversy. In the long run, the KMT must reflect on any biases in its political path. It must reflect upon course adjustments it must make to remain up to date and relevant. Disputes must not be the by product of personal animosities. They must not be the instruments of internecine struggle. Hung Hsiu-chu must have the courage to make a commitment on behalf of the KMT. She must obtain conditions beneficial to the KMT and Taiwan from Xi Jinping. Disputes over the KMT political path can be resolved. This is the challenge Hung faces. This is her chance to make history.

Full Text Below:

On November 2 and November 3, the KMT and CCP will hold a forum on cross-Strait peace and development in Beijing, and decide whether to convene a Hung Xi Summit. The DPP has yet to cast stones, but Hung's KMT comrades are already sharpening their axes. KMT legislators are complaining that Hung Hsiu-chu failed to inform the party beforehand. They are demanding that Hung Hsiu-chu coordinate with the party before her visit, and are voicing doubts about Hung's "one China, same interpretation" premise. They want Hung Hsiu-chu to inform Xi Jinping that the Kuomintang insists on the 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations.

Former Vice President Wu Dunyi visited the United States a few days ago and criticized Hung Hsiu-chu's "different from us" remark. The clash within the KMT over its political path is now out in the open. Disputes over political path within political parties are common, and not necessarily a bad thing. But the current dispute over political path has degenerated into a battle of wills, even a battle of personalities. The criticisms directed against the upcoming Hung Xi Summit are clearly without merit, either procedurally or substantively.

From a procedural perspective, the KMT legislative caucus complained that it was not informed about the Hung Xi Summit beforehand. Hung Hsiu-chu responded. She said, "Consider the Lien Hu Summit, the Ma Xi Summit, the Chu Xi Summit. When have KMT chairmen ever notified the KMT legislative caucus in advance? Many details are still being negotiated. Not every detail can be included in a report. Even announcements must be made by the two sides at the same time.” Her perfectly reasonable answer left critics speechless. After all, when critics fail to apply the same procedural standards to all, it is obvious their attack is personal in nature.

The KMT legislative caucus made the same mistaken when it demanded that Hung Hsiu-chu publicly reaffirm "one China, different interpretations" during the Hung Xi Summit. But with the sole exception of the Ma Xi Summit, past KMT CCP summits never included any such public affirmations. This demand was clearly unreasonable.

The KMT legislators' selective indignation arouses the suspicion that Hung Hsiu-chu was being personally attacked. Doubts about the party's political path may be real. But unfair targeting of Hung has turned the debate into a power struggle.

From a practical perspective, it is unwise for the KMT to make political hay out of the Hung Xi Summit. Instead, the KMT should ask itself, if the Hung Xi Summit fails to gel, the Tenth Annual KMT CCP Forum will be canceled. How will that be interpreted? Everyone will conclude that the KMT has been marginalized. They will conclude that even cross-Strait dialogue has come to an end, and that the Mainland authorities no longer have any desire to deal with the KMT. Will such an interpretation benefit the KMT? The interests of the KMT as a party and the interests of the Republic of China as a nation, demand the convening of the KMT CCP Forum and the Hung Xi Summit. That ought to be a consensus within the KMT.

Of even greater importance of course, are Taiwan's interests. Continuation of the KMT CCP ​​Forum will stabilize cross-Strait relations, which are currently in jeopardy. The KMT CCP Forum will keep official cross-Strait political communication channels open. It will prevent misunderstandings that could lead to a shooting war. The KMT CCP Forum ensures that the KMT and CCP will remain committed to peace. Such a guarantee will help contain the DPP. It will prevent it from becoming too radical in its advocacy of Taiwan independence. It can prevent it from going too far, from crossing a line in the sand and endangering cross-Strait peace. This is the substantive merit of the KMT CCP Forum and the Hung Xi Summit.

That does not mean that the KMT or others cannot raise doubts about the Hung Xi Summit. But such doubts should be constructive. In fact, Hung Hsiu-chu's participation in a Hung Xi Summit could yield considerable benefits.

A change in ruling parties and cross-Strait relations has taken place. Hung Hsiu-chu must seek to achieve at least three goals:

First, she should reaffirm the path of cross-Strait peace. She should ensure that cross-Strait relations under DPP rule remain stable. She should declare that the KMT will actively ensure KMT CCP cooperation, and grant swing voters on Taiwan peace of mind.

Second, the KMT is no longer the ruling party. The DPP is likely to move toward Taiwan independence. Political dialogue will be extremely important. The KMT and the CCP must ensure mutual trust. They must enable the two sides to engage in peaceful political dialogue. They must begin with economics, trade, and culture, and end with politics. They must enable the opposition KMT to lead Taiwan's political development.

Thirdly, at the core of any political dialogue is Hung and Xi's affirmation. They must affirm that although two sides of the Strait are separately governed, they are not moving away from each other. The KMT must stress that although the two sides are divided, they are not on a separatist path. Hung Hsiu-chu must urge Xi Jinping to accept separate governance. That means the Mainland must accept the Republic of China's constitutional framework. Only then can the political relationship between the two sides be further clarified. Only then can the two sides move toward reunification.

Disputes over political path may provoke short term controversy. In the long run, the KMT must reflect on any biases in its political path. It must reflect upon course adjustments it must make to remain up to date and relevant. Disputes must not be the by product of personal animosities. They must not be the instruments of internecine struggle. Hung Hsiu-chu must have the courage to make a commitment on behalf of the KMT. She must obtain conditions beneficial to the KMT and Taiwan from Xi Jinping. Disputes over the KMT political path can be resolved. This is the challenge Hung faces. This is her chance to make history.

洪秀柱必須達成的三個目標
2016/10/19 中國時報

國共兩黨將於11月2日至3日在北京舉行兩岸和平發展論壇，並確定循例舉行「洪習會」，民進黨還未丟石頭，國民黨內已刀光劍影。國民黨立法院黨團埋怨洪習會沒有事前告知黨團，要求洪秀柱在出訪前先與黨團溝通，並表達對洪「一中同表」主張的疑慮，希望洪秀柱在洪習會中，大聲表達國民黨堅持九二共識、一中各表。

前副總統吳敦義日前訪美，就針對一中各表問題批評洪秀柱「跟我們不一樣」，國民黨內的路線之爭已經檯面化。基本上，政黨有路線之爭極為平常，也未必是壞事。然而，國民黨這一波的爭執，卻隱然從「路線之爭」變為「意氣之爭」，甚至變質為「人事鬥爭」。以這次對即將登場的「洪習會」所發出的批評質疑，就顯然失焦，不管在「程序面」或「實質面」，質疑方都顯得欠缺正當性。

從程序面言，國民黨立院黨團抱怨事前未被告知「洪習會」。洪秀柱說：「請問哪一次連胡會或者馬習會、朱習會，有事先跟黨團做報告嗎？很多細節問題兩方面在協調，不可能說每個細節都跟大家說明報告，甚至於連發布時間都是要雙方（國共）一起同時。」這一番在情在理的回答，讓質疑者啞然。因為當質疑者沒有以同樣的程序標準公平檢驗時，就會顯得是「針對個人」。

同樣的謬誤，亦發生在黨團要求洪秀柱在「洪習會」上大聲表達「一中各表」，然而之前的國共高層會面，除了馬習會時，馬英九在與習近平的閉門會中提及一中各表，其他包括歷次國共論壇在內的領導人會談，都沒有公開提及，這又是一種不公平。

程序上的針對性，難免讓人有「黨團舞『表』，志在『秀柱』」對人意氣的解讀。即便其中存有路線的疑慮，也因為這種不公平的針對性，變質為權力鬥爭。

從實質面而言，國民黨黨團挑「洪習會」作文章，並不明智。不妨反過來模擬一個情境，如果「洪習會」沒有成局，舉辦10年的國共論壇中斷了，外界會如何解讀這樣的訊息？各界只會認為，國民黨已經邊緣化到連兩岸的話語權都淪失，解讀為大陸當局已無意與國民黨打交道。這樣的解讀，對國民黨會是加分嗎？從國民黨的「一黨利益」、從中華民國的整體利益，國共論壇都必須延續、「洪習會」不能不辦，理應是國民黨的全黨共識。

更重要的是「台灣利益」，國共論壇的延續，對低迷不振、危機四伏的兩岸關係來說，尤有安定的功能。國共論壇不但可以讓兩岸保留政治對話的窗口，在官方溝通機制中斷的此時，可具有避免擦槍走火的保險功能，國共論壇也是國共二方堅持兩岸和平發展路線的一種形式保證，這樣的形式保證可以牽制民進黨，不要在台獨問題上太過激進、走得太遠而越過了紅線，造成兩岸和平立即性的危險。凡此，都是國共論壇與「洪習會」所具有的實質、積極的功能。

當然，這並不意謂，國民黨黨團或其他人士，不能提出其對「洪習會」的關心乃至於疑慮。但這樣的關心，仍宜立於「建設性基調」。而事實上，對於洪秀柱在「洪習會」中的角色，不是沒有可積極期待的空間。

在政黨輪替、兩岸處在變局的此刻，洪秀柱至少應該在「洪習會」上，達成3個目標：

第一，確認兩岸和平發展路線，讓兩岸關係在民進黨造成的變局中仍能走穩，宣示國共將積極合作，讓台灣中間選民心安。

第二，國民黨已不是執政黨，在民進黨可能往台獨方向前進的此時，政治對話就非常重要。國共應建立互信，讓雙方得以安心地大開大闔進入政治對話階段，從經貿、文化議題，跨入政治議題，讓在野的國民黨反而可以引領台灣政治發展。

第三，政治對話的核心是洪、習確認兩岸分治不分裂的關係。國民黨力主現在是分治，但不走分裂路線。洪秀柱也要積極爭取習近平接受分治的關係。分治，就是大陸要正視與接受中華民國的憲政體制。在分治關係下，兩岸的政治關係與政治安排才能進一步釐清。兩岸才有機會走向融一到統一的道路。

路線之爭可能帶來短期紛擾，長期來說，也是一面映照路線有無偏誤，是否該調整的鏡子，是讓政黨與時俱進、體質更強健的機制。前提是，不能出於個人意氣，也不應做為黨爭的工具。洪秀柱應有膽識對黨內承諾，向習近平爭取到對國民黨有利、對台灣有利的最佳條件，路線之爭必可化解。這是洪秀柱的挑戰，也是成就歷史地位的機會。