Use the Taiwan Experience, Reclaim Our National Identity

Use the Taiwan Experience, Reclaim Our National Identity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 12, 2012

Summary: President Ma's first term brought order out of chaos. It established cross-Strait peace. His second term should be devoted to the rebirth of the nation as well as the consolidation of peace. The consolidation of peace, the promotion of mutual trust, and the restoration of our national identity require a cross-Strait joint effort. But most of all we hope the President will offer a new vision on New Year's Day. We hope he will offer concrete reasons and take concrete actions. With peaceful cross-strait relations as a premise, we hope he will help the nation reach a consensus concerning our national identity, and thereby offer new prospects for cross-Strait relations. Achieving these would ensure President Ma's legacy and his place in history.

Full Text below:

Between the 10th and the 11th of this month, the Chinese Integration Association and other organizations held a series of seminars in Taipei. Prominent scholars from both sides of the Strait, from both the Blue and Green political camps, gathered in one location. To some extent this was merely a martial arts "exhibition match." It provided representatives from different camps to read aloud their wish lists. The different camps reached no consensus. But it was a positive development and a worthwhile experiment. It promoted communication and sharing. It deserves affirmation.

During the seminars, academics from both sides of the Strait made little mention of how to promote peaceful cross-Strait relations. But there was little disagreement regarding this premise. Regional security and sound cross-Strait relations require it. People on Taiwan need political and economic hope. People on the Mainland need domestic and international stability. Peaceful development is a win-win-win scenario. It is consistent with the interests of all parties.

Many scholars addressed the issue of identity. Some spoke of values-based identity. Some spoke of feeling-based identity. Some addressed real world interests. Some addressed the differences in the two sides' historical and international development. Needless to say each of them addressed the KMT's anti-Communist education, of Beijing's pressure on Taiwan, of Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and the DPP's de-Sinicization education, from their own perspective..

Academia has long recognized that national identity is an extremely complex issue. It involves many facets and levels. It involves biological descent, political systems, culture, emotions, values, rational considerations, real world interests, national origin, and ethnicity. These may be dealt with using progressive methods. Political socialization, education, and publicity can reshape these attitudes. Advocates with different perspectives must not resort to one-sided, biased, and selective arguments to promote their ideological and political agendas.

The public on Taiwan agrees. Biological descent, life styles, religion, and culture never really posed a problem for national identity. But a narrower sense of national identity emerged. The Nationalist government's anti-communist education succeeded too well. The two sides have been separated for a long time. The Mainland authorities have persuaded the international community that they are the legal representatives of China. The disparity between the two sides' strength has increased. On top of this, politicians on Taiwan have successfully incited hatred toward the Mainland. The result is that many on Taiwan have become alienated from their national identity.

Each of the preceding viewpoints have some basis in fact. Beijing should review some of its practices and change some of its attitudes. But none of these are convincing reasons for people on Taiwan to jettison their identity as Chinese. Anti-Communist education was far more strident in the past than it is today. We oppose the Chinese Communist regime. That does not mean we must deny that we are Chinese. Everyone still feels that China belongs to us. We on Taiwan still have a right to the Mainland, and a responsibility for China's future. The government of the Republic of China has never relinquished its hopes and dreams for the Chinese mainland.

Many people cite democracy, the rule of law, and political reform. They use it to underscore the gap between the two sides of the Strait. Some even demand that the Mainland authorities sell us on reunification by upgrading the Mainland's cultural standards. But consider the problems pragmatically. Consider issues such as responsibility, fairness, justice, the rule of law, efficiency, checks and balances, good governance, and policy transparency. The Chinese Communist Party is pursuing these modern standards as well. But this pursuit requires a process. People on Taiwan can underscore their own successful development. Their success can contribute to the modernization of the Chinese nation.

To cut through the fog, many of these issues are merely a matter of attitude. The public on Taiwan is afraid of reunification. People understand this. They refuse to be reunified under the Chinese Communist Party. But does the public have the ability to turn its thinking around? We on Taiwan boast that we are the saviors of Chinese civilization. We boast that we are its innovators. We feel a sense of superiority. Since that is the case, why can't we turn passivity into activity? Why can't we reclaim the ideological high ground? It matters not whether we advocate one China, different interpetations, one China, two regions, or argue that the two sides of the Strait are one people. The fact remains we all claim to be "Sons of the Dragon." We all advocate the modernization of our nation and our people. Why not let the two sides work hand in hand? Why not work together to achieve democracy and prosperity for the Chinese nation as a whole?

China's history is long. The currents of China's history are turbulent. Relative to China's long history, the two sides have been separated only briefly. They have had different political systems only briefly. Their differing political symbols should not constitute a long-term obstacle to a shared national identity. Chinese culture is inclusive, self-correcting, and infinitely adaptable. This trait has earned the world's admiration. Two CCP General Secretaries in a row, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, have said that the two sides must work together to rejuvenate Chinese civilization. President Ma Ying-jeou said we must strengthen Taiwan so that we may rejuvenate the Chinese nation. The two sides should begin here. They should realize that rejuvenating Chinese civilization and seeking a new future together, is their common destiny.

President Ma's first term brought order out of chaos. It established cross-Strait peace. His second term should be devoted to the rebirth of the nation as well as the consolidation of peace. The consolidation of peace, the promotion of mutual trust, and the restoration of our national identity require a cross-Strait joint effort. But most of all we hope the President will offer a new vision on New Year's Day. We hope he will offer concrete reasons and take concrete actions. With peaceful cross-strait relations as a premise, we hope he will help the nation reach a consensus concerning our national identity, and thereby offer new prospects for cross-Strait relations. Achieving these would ensure President Ma's legacy and his place in history.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2012.12.12
社論－貢獻台灣經驗 重建民族認同
本報訊

    　本月十日到十一日，由兩岸統合學會及其他相關機構合作，

在台北舉辦研討會，兩岸及藍綠重要學者齊聚一堂。雖然在很大程度上，這仍然是一場武林論劍，盍各言爾志的情形所在多有，雙方、多方並無共識，但這總是一種正面的發展和嘗試，起了促進溝通和提供意見平台的作用，仍然值得肯定。

    　會議中，兩岸學者似乎對於如何深化和平發展兩岸關係討論較少，但大家對於此一原則的本身看來倒是並沒有太大爭議。畢竟不論從區域安全或兩岸關係，從台灣的政經發展前景到大陸需要一個安定的國內、國際環境，顯然和平發展是一個雙贏、多贏的最佳選擇，合乎所有各方的共同利益。

    　眾多學者爭辯的重點在於認同問題。有人談價值認同，有人講情感認同，還有人著重利益的因素，有人從歷史、國際、兩岸不同的發展經驗角度切入，當然也免不了有人討論國民黨的反共教育，北京對台灣的打壓，和李登輝、陳水扁及民進黨的去中國化教育等等，各有論點。

    　學界研究早已證實，認同是一個極其複雜的問題，其中包含許多不同的面向和層次，有血源、制度、文化、情感、價值、理性、利害、國家、民族等等不同的認同，可以用漸進的方式，透過政治社會化的過程，以及教育和宣傳來加以形塑。論者不能、也不應片面、偏頗、選擇性的加以強調，只凸顯特定的面向，來滿足自己的特定意識型態和政治主張。

    　在血緣、生活、宗教、文化及民族認同各方面，台灣民眾的中國認同，原本並無太大問題，但在狹義的國家認同方面，由於國民政府成功的反共教育、兩岸長期分治的事實、中共在國際社會已經取得絕對性的中國法理代表權，再加上兩岸的強弱易勢，和台灣政治人物的操弄，終於使得許多台灣民眾在認同上產生了異化。

    　即使前面的各種論點都有部分事實，北京的某些作法和主張也有可以檢討改善的地方，但這些都不應成為台灣放棄中華認同的全部理由。比如說，過去的反共教育絕對遠勝於今日，但大家反對的只是中共政權，並沒有自外於中國。心態上，大家仍然覺得中國也是我們的，台灣對於中國的未來仍有一份權利和責任，當年的中華民國政府也從來沒有放棄經略中原的理想和抱負。

    　再說，許多人常用民主法治、政治改革等問題來凸顯兩岸之間的差距，有人甚至要求中共用文明來說服我們。但大家如果能夠理性務實地來看待問題，負責、公平、正義、法治、效率、監督制衡、良善治理與政策透明化，這些現代化的標準同樣是中共當前及未來追求的目標，但這需要一個過程，台灣其實可以發揮自身成功發展的經驗，為中華民族的現代化做出貢獻。

    　說穿了，很多事都是心態和立場問題。一般人或能理解，台灣民眾怕被統一，拒絕中共的統一條件，但大家是否能夠反過來思考，台灣既然自詡為中華文明的保存者和創新者，有自己的優越性，為什麼台灣不能化被動為主動，重新掌握戰略的高度與深度，不管是在一中各表、一國兩區或兩岸同屬中華民族，我們都是炎黃子孫的信念與堅持下，提出自己對國家、民族現代化的主張，讓兩岸共同實現整個中華民族的自由、民主與均富？

    　在浩瀚的歷史長河中，兩岸短期間政治體制的不同、政治符號的差異，其實不應成為長期分裂兩岸國家與民族認同的障礙。中華文化包容、自癒、調適的能力舉世欽羨，江澤民、胡錦濤前後兩位中共總書記都說過，兩岸應該共同努力，為中華文明的偉大復興而努力，而馬英九總統也講過，要壯大台灣、振興中華；兩岸何不由此出發，建構共同振興中華文明的認同，為彼此找到新的出路？

    　如果說馬總統的第一任期是在兩岸之間撥亂反正、創造和平，第二任期就應該是脫胎換骨、鞏固和平。鞏固和平，促進互信，重建認同，固然需要兩岸共同努力，但我們更期待也盼望總統的元旦文告能夠展現更新的視野，提出具體的論述與作為，在有助於維持兩岸關係持續和平發展的前提下，凝聚國人正確的認同與共識，為兩岸關係打開新的局面。這才將會是馬總統真正建立歷史定位的政治遺產。