Taiwan Independence: DPP Successes and Failures

Taiwan Independence: DPP Successes and Failures
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 29, 2013

Summary: When human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng met with Su Tseng-chang, he told Su bluntly, "The idea of Taiwan independence is outdated." The DPP is currently debating whether to issue a public statement on Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures. In fact, it should be debating whether to issue a public statement on the DPP's successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. If the DPP can arrive at a balanced evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence, then Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures will be self-evident.

Full Text below:

When human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng met with Su Tseng-chang, he told Su bluntly, "The idea of Taiwan independence is outdated." The DPP is currently debating whether to issue a public statement on Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures. In fact, it should be debating whether to issue a public statement on the DPP's successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. If the DPP can arrive at a balanced evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence, then Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures will be self-evident.

Su Tseng-chang said the party "must turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." His remark carries with it three implications. One. In the past the DPP promoted Taiwan independence; Two. In the future, the DPP will no longer promote Taiwan independence. Three. Promoting Taiwan independence is an outdated effort to turn back the clock. Over the past six decades, the Taiwan independence movement and the pro-democracy movement have worked hand in hand. The promotion of Taiwan independence has often been characterized as the promotion of democracy. AT other times, the pro-democracy movement has relied on Taiwan independence as its driving force. Is the DPP willing to engage in an honest evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence? If it is not, then talk of "not turning the clock back and promoting Taiwan independence" is mere lip service.

First consider the DPP's successes. One. It succeeded in increasing the momentum of the pro-democracy movement. Two. Its promotion of a  "Taiwan independence consciousness" succeeded in inspiring a "Taiwanese consciousness" and establishing "Taiwan's primacy." Three. It succeeded in its role as "bad cop" in cross-Strait relations. Four. In cross-Strait relations, it succeeded in providing our side with greater in-depth defense. Five. It succeeded in its effort to undermine the nation and incite social divisions, and mischaracterize this effort as "the promotion of democracy."

Consider the DPP's failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. One. It failed to promote democracy. Instead it incited a "democratic civil war" that tore Taiwan apart. Two. As the record shows, it failed to counter the PRC's strategic moves. Three. It failed to "defend Taiwan." Its fanatical attempts to "de-Sinicize" Taiwan and to "purge all traces of the Republic of China" weakened the Republic of China and left Taiwan more vulnerable. Four. It failed to "raise Taiwan's international profile." Instead, it merely turned Taiwan into an international "troublemaker," and undermined Taiwan's international status. Five. Lee Teng-hui's repeated flip-flopping and Chen Shui-bian's unbridled corruption failed Taiwan independence. Their conduct undermined the credibility of Taiwan independence and deprived it of the moral high ground.

The Taiwan independence movement seeks the overthrow of the Republic of China. It sees this as the pro-democracy movement's highest end. It sees this as a means of countering the CCP's strategic moves. But it has failed on both count. Consider its attempt to overthrow the Republic of China. The Taiwan independence movement's greatest achievement was winning the right to rule the Republic of China in 2000, under the guise of the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." In 2004, it prolonged its rule for another four years, via the "Two Bullets Assassination Attempt," a false flag operation. It unsuccessfully promoted the "rectification of names," the "referendum to join the UN," the concept of "one nation on each side," and other forms of street violence. In 2008, having failed to achieve its goal of overthrowing the Republic of China, it lost power and was forced to step down. As we can see, the ROC may undergo ruling party changes. But that does not mean the DPP can use them to overthrow the Republic of China and establish a "Republic of Taiwan."

Now consider the DPP's attempt to counter the Peoples Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. He found himself in a standoff, during which Beijing "listened to what he said, and watched what he did." Tsai Ing-wen's stubborn opposition to ECFA made her the butt of jokes. As we can see, Taiwan independence efforts to counter strategic moves by the Peoples Republic of China have failed. These are all reasons why Su Tseng-chang vowed that the DPP "would not turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence."

In the early years, when Taiwan independence got its start, at home and abroad, Taiwan was under martial law. Mainland China was caught up in the Cultural Revolution. It was understandable that many young people would dedicate themselves to Taiwan independence. The Taiwan independence movement did indeed provide democracy on Taiwan with added momentum. But today's Republic of China already is a democracy. The Taiwan independence movement may be able to effect ruling party changes. But it will not be able to implement the "rectification of names." The hot topic on Mainland China today is the "Chinese Dream" and a "Renaissance of the Chinese People." The public on Taiwan must adopt a more mature, more strategically minded perspective on national and constitutional allegiance. The Taiwan independence movement has unwittingly taken a stand antithetical to democracy on Taiwan. It has even become a threat to Taiwan's security and economic growth.

Taiwan independence advocacy within today's DPP falls into two categories. The first is old style Taiwan independence. Exemplars include Koo Kuan-min and Lee Teng-hui. They are either lifelong advocates of Taiwan independence, or individuals whose place in history precludes retreat. They cannot alter course. The other category is instrumental style Taiwan independence. Exemplars include Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen. On the one hand, they argue that the DPP "must not turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." On the other hand they persist in promoting "backdoor listing" style Taiwan independence. The old style Taiwan independence advocates inspire pity. Forsaking Taiwan independence for them means forsaking values they have held all their lives. But instrumental style Taiwan independence advocates inspire merely contempt. They are constantly checking the wind direction. They are constantly hedging their bets. For them, the Republic of China and Taiwan are political tools. They feel no loyalty to either. They feel no responsibility to either.

Today, "Taiwan's primacy" rests on the Republic of China. The Republic of China has become a model democracy. It was tolerant enough to allow a political party that advocates Taiwan independence to rule for eight years. The Republic of China has a constitutional framework that must be upheld when dealing with the Mainland. During democratization, the Taiwan independence movement attempted to disparage the Republic of China. Instead, it inadvertently underscored the political value of the Republic of China, and the moral legitimacy of the Republic of China. Over the past six decades, Taiwan's relationship with the Mainland, the international community, and its internal circumstances have all changed dramatically. Taiwan truly cannot "turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence."

Taiwan has long been mired in self-pity. The emergence of a Taiwan independence mindset 30 years ago was perfectly understandable. Taiwan's plight today remains difficult. But that is precisely why it is inconceivable anyone could still believe that Taiwan independence is the answer. Over the past six decades, Taiwan independence ideology played a part in Taiwan's evolution. But Taiwan independence has reached the end of its rope. It can go no further. Taiwan independence is an ideological rut. We cannot turn back the clock. We cannot permit Taiwan independence to obstruct and harass the Republic of China, which still faces a difficult future.

Taiwan independence will not vanish from Taiwan. But the DPP is one of Taiwan's major political parties. It simply cannot "turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." Was "love of Taiwan" really it original motive for Taiwan independence? If it was, then it is time to allow et both Taiwan and the Republic of China to survive.

民進黨應為台獨功罪作出評價
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.29 03:46 am

維權律師陳光誠拜會蘇貞昌，直言：「台獨概念已經過時」。民進黨正在議論要不要為陳水扁的功罪進行評價，其實，應先為該黨台獨操作的功罪作出評價。只要能對台獨的功罪作出平允的評價，陳水扁的功罪亦不辯自明。

蘇貞昌說：「不要回過頭去搞台獨。」此話有三層意義：一、民進黨過去是搞台獨的；二、以後不要搞台獨了；三、搞台獨是倒退落伍的回頭路。過去一甲子，台獨運動與民主運動在現實政治上交纏如麻花；有時台獨以民主為包裝，有時民主以台獨為驅力。若不能對台獨的功罪作出評價，「不要回過頭去搞台獨」恐怕只是空言。

先略論台獨之功：一、為台灣的民主運動增添動能；二、「台獨意識」激發了「台灣意識」，協助建立了台灣的「主體性」；三、在兩岸關係中扮演「黑臉」；四、拉長了兩岸關係的縱深；五、顛覆國家、撕裂族群成為日常的民主議題。

再略論台獨之過：一、造成民主內戰，撕裂了台灣；二、作為對抗中華人民共和國的戰略，已證明失敗；三、「去中國化」及「去中華民國化」的狂飆運動，使中華民國受傷慘重；四、成為國際上的「麻煩製造者」，傷害了台灣的國際處境；五、李登輝的顛倒反覆與陳水扁的貪腐無狀，降低了台獨的說服力，也摧毀了台獨的道德性。

台獨主張顛覆中華民國，以此作為民主運動的最高目標，及對抗中共的戰略手段；但兩者皆已失敗。以顛覆中華民國而言，台獨運動的最大成就是，在《台灣前途決議文》的化妝下，在兩千年贏得了中華民國的統治權，又在二○○四年藉「兩顆子彈」續任四年。但經正名制憲、入聯公投、一邊一國等狂暴操作後，又在○八年失去政權，並未實現其顛覆中華民國之目的。可見，中華民國可以政黨輪替，但不易推翻而改立「台灣國」。

再就對抗中華人民共和國言，陳水扁主政八年，陷於「聽其言，觀其行」的僵局中，蔡英文的反ＥＣＦＡ如今亦成笑柄。可見，台獨作為對抗中華人民共和國的戰略手段已告失敗。這些，皆應是蘇貞昌說「不要回過頭去搞台獨」的原因。

早年台獨意識在海內外開展時，台灣處於戒嚴統治，大陸則陷於文化大革命；在那樣的背景中，許多人將自己的青春投入台獨運動，是可以理解的。台獨運動也確為台灣民主運動增添了動能。但今天的中華民國已是民主體制，台獨運動者即使可以政黨輪替也不能「正名制憲」；而今天中國大陸的熱門議題，則是中國夢與中華民族的偉大復興。在此背景下，台灣民意對國憲認同與兩岸戰略皆有了更成熟的思考，而台獨運動則在不知不覺中站到了台灣民主的對立面，甚至威脅到台灣的安全與發展。

現今民進黨內的台獨可分為兩類：一類是老台獨，如辜寬敏、李登輝，他們或是一輩子主張台獨，或是在歷史定位上已無退路，所以難有轉彎餘地；另一類是工具性台獨，如蘇貞昌、蔡英文等，他們一方面說「不要回過頭去搞台獨」，另一方面又繼續操弄「借殼上市」的台獨。那些老台獨是值得同情的，因為要他們放棄台獨，即形同要他們放棄自己一輩子的價值；但那些工具性台獨卻是應當鄙視的，他們左顧右盼，言詞閃爍，把中華民國和台灣視為其政治投機的工具，對兩者皆無忠誠，對兩者皆不負責任。

今天台灣的主體性唯賴中華民國支撐，中華民國亦已成民主典範，包括包容了台獨政黨執政八年。且中華民國更是台灣在與中華人民共和國交往折衝時，必須持守的憲政架構。台獨曾在民主化過程中打擊了中華民國，卻反彰顯了中華民國的意義，亦增強了中華民國的正當性。六十餘年來，兩岸、國際及台灣內部的情勢皆告丕變，台灣真的不能再「回過頭去搞台獨」了。

以台灣之悲情，三十年前會出現台獨思想事屬當然；但亦正因台灣的艱難處境，今天若仍認為台獨是台灣的出路，則不可思議。在過去六十餘年中，台獨已留下了階段性的意義與功能；但台灣要再走下去，台獨既是「不能再回頭」的覆車之轍，也請勿再騷擾阻擋中華民國備極艱辛之前程。

台獨在台灣不會絕跡，但民進黨作為台灣的主要政黨，卻絕不可「再回過頭去搞台獨」。如果台獨的初衷真的是「愛台灣」，則今天也到了應當放台灣與中華民國一條生路的時候了。