We Look Forward to Ma and Tsai Restoring the Political Culture
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2008
The advantage of democracy is that it includes diverse views. The disadvantage of democracy is that compromise and consensus take time. One cannot expect quick results. But for the sake of social harmony communication and dialogue are essential. Unfortunately, six months after the Ma administration took office, interaction between the ruling and opposition parties leaves much to be desired. The ruling and opposition party caucuses in the Legislative Yuan hold daily press conferences, during which party cadres take turns denouncing each other. From the Chen case to cross-Strait issues, everything is divided along party lines. Nothing is determined by reference to right or wrong. Nothing is determined by rational debate. Society on Taiwan has become mired in endless Blue vs. Green enmity and polarization.
Before and after President Ma Ying-jeou took office, he repeatedly stressed that he was an all peoples president. Six months later, he has yet to dialogue with leaders of the opposition parties. Ma Ying-jeou said his requests for dialoque were turned down. Since taking office, Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly stressed that the DPP would be rational and peace-loving opposition party. Six months later, in order to protest Chiang Ping-kuen's meeting with Chen Yunlin, the Democratic Progressive Party took to the streets and wreaked havoc. Tsai Yin-wen even boasted that the DPP would resume street violence as a matter of policy. As polarization in society intensified, and confrontation increased between the ruling and opposition parties, Tsai Ing-wen finally appealed for improved dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. Ma Ying-jeou responded immediately. The offers put forth by Ma and Tsai are still in the initial stages. But the nation requires unity. As the ruling and opposition political leaders, Ma and Tsai are duty-bound to resolve their conflicts.
Comparing successors with their predecessors may not be fair. But President Lee Teng-hui was once the head of a Kuomintang wary of political liberalization. On the surface, he used his power to settle disputes within the party. Beneath the surface, he had his own channels of communication. When the opposition DPP protested, demanding that the 100 Articles of the Criminal Code be amended, scholars, experts, and KMT Secretary-General James Soong stood on the front lines seeking consensus and compromise. When the Democratic Progressive Party was short of funds, Lee Teng-hui amended the laws or used his personal influence to provide financing for the Democratic Progressive Party.
The Ma administration may despise Chen Shui-bian. But during Chen's first term he arranged to meet with opposition party leaders Lien Chan and James Soong meeting within five months. He later halted construction on the fourth nuclear power plant, and created a chill between the ruling and opposition parties. But at least he took the initiative and went through the motions. Leaders of the opposition DPP may not be satisfied with the result of the elections. But nevertheless they must maintain their composure. They should accept Ma's invitation to the presidential palace. KMT Chairman Lien Chan was so angry he ignored Chen Shui-bian. Nevertheless People First Party Chairman James Soong boldly met with him. Chen Shui-bian later accused Soong of taking part in a "secret meeting" for which he was sued.
Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, James Soong, and Chen Shui-bian are political figures who belong to the past. Rehashing the past is unseemly and depressing. When these people were in office, they all knew what they had to do, even if the results were unsatisfactory. They may have been involved only in isolated cases that never established a political precedent, or permanently shaped the political culture. But when the president knows enough to take the initiative to contact the opposition party, no matter how reluctant opposition party leaders may be to accept the election results, they must engage in rational dialogue with the president. Why? Very simple. Because the nation belongs to everyone. The national interest is everyone's interest. All political leaders have a responsibility and a duty to represent the interests of the people as a whole, to maximize harmony, in the interest of national unity.
Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen have never been hard-liners within their respective political camps. Their political language is the language of moderation, of the middle way, without any spicy seasonings. They have never been good at inciting the masses. The waves created by Chen Yunlin's trip to Taiwan have opened the door to dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. A high price has been paid for this opportunity. Neither Ma nor Tsai can afford to let this opportunity to slip from their grasp. Ignore ruling and opposition legislators' daily press conferences. Ignore quarrels about whether Ma or Tsai should apologize, about who is responsible for the failure to amend the Assembly and Parade Laws, about who is responsible for changing the electoral system and making one vote unequal to another. Everyone knows the political consequences are the co-creation of both the ruling and opposition parties.
The Democratic Progressive Party is criticizing the police for treating the Red Shirt Army better than the DPP. The DPP has apparently forgotten that the Red Shirt Army applied for and obtain legal permits for their activities. And when the Red Shirt Army exceeded its time limit, it was driven from the streets by then Taipei City Mayor Ma Ying-jeou. Lien Chan, James Soong and Blue Camp legislators did not forgive Ma Ying-jeou for doing so. When certain DPP county and municipal officials refused to issue permits to the Red Shirt Army, Shih Ming-teh, former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, took the initiative and proposed that the Assembly and Parade Law be amended. The KMT supported his initiative, and even put a bill in motion. Since nobody opposes it, why delay its passage? Why use the "public mood" as an excuse for inaction? Is the public mood created by the Chiang/Chen Meeting more amenable to its passage?
Issues such as cross-strait policy, the global financial crisis, and major relief programs to revive the economy, require communication between the ruling and opposition parties. Just before the presidential election, the US passed a relief program involving hundreds of billions of dollars. The bill had to win the approval of both the Senate and House of Representatives, of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Do not think that because the Democratic Progressive Party has only 27 seats in the Legislative Yuan, that it can be ignored. These 27 seats represent 40 percent of the public on Taiwan. As a president for all people, Ma Ying-jeou has an inescapable responsibility to establish a dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. We solemnly hope that a "Ma/Tsai Meeting" will be the first step in reestablishing political and cultural dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.11.11
期待「馬蔡會」重建政治文化
中時社論
民主的好處是包容多元意見；民主的難處是妥協尋求共識需要時間和過程，很難講究速效，但基於社會最大和諧，溝通與對話是不可或缺的元素。很遺憾，馬政府就 任半年，朝野互動始終不良，立法院朝野黨團，行禮如儀每日必舉行記者會，每日記者會必由黨團幹部輪番罵人，從扁案到兩岸，藍歸藍、綠歸綠，無一事能論是 非，無一事能講道理，台灣社會硬生生陷入藍綠無止境的仇恨怨懟之中。
馬英九總統就任前後，反覆強調他是全民總統，半年過去了，未見他與在野政黨領袖真正的對話，馬英九的說法是要求溝通遭婉謝；民進黨主席蔡英文就任以來，不 斷強調要做一個理性和平的在野黨，半年過去了，民進黨卻因為抗議江陳台北會談，演出街頭失序戲碼，甚至聲言要重回街頭路線。眼看著，社會激化、朝野對立氣 氛升高，蔡英文終於挺身呼籲應強化朝野對話機制，馬英九旋即回應，儘管「兩英」的善意尚在隔空喊話階段，但基於國家內部團結的必要，身為朝野政治領袖，責 無旁貸必須扛起化解對立的重擔。
拿前任比後任，未盡公平，但是，想想當年的李登輝總統，領導一個對政治開放猶有戒心的國民黨，檯面上，他以權力擺平黨內爭議；檯面下，他總是有自己的溝通 管道。在野黨為刑法一百條修正案抗爭時，除了學者專家，國民黨秘書長宋楚瑜直接在協調溝通的第一線，尋求妥協共識之道。甚至當民進黨缺錢孔急的時候，不論 是修法或找私人關係，李登輝還要為民進黨找財源。
就算馬政府最看不起的陳水扁，在第一任總統時期，五個月就安排了與在野政黨領袖連戰和宋楚瑜會面，雖然事後鬧出核四停建，讓朝野對話氣氛更僵，但至少形式 上扁主動邀約，在野政黨領袖再對選舉結果不滿，都還得維持表面風度，應邀前往總統府。接下來，國民黨主席連戰氣到不理陳水扁，但親民黨主席宋楚瑜還是大著 膽子和陳水扁第二次對話，雖然後來陳水扁又搞一個「宋陳密會」，讓自己吃上敗訴官司。
李、連、宋、扁都是過去的人物了，重提往事，既不堪又讓人無限唏噓。這些人物在位的時候，都知道自己該做什麼，即使做的結果不盡如人意；儘管他們當年所為 都只是偶一為之的個案，既未形成政治慣例，遑論政治文化。然而，當總統的就知道要主動彎腰與在野政黨連絡，在野政黨領袖再不情願，也知道得接受選舉結果， 與總統理性對話。為什麼？很簡單，台灣是大家的，國家利益是全民的，任何一位政治領袖都有責任、義務，站在全民利益、國家團結的立場，為國家政策走向尋找 最大和諧的可能。
馬英九和蔡英文，從來不是藍綠陣營中走極端的政治人物；他們的政治語言是溫和的、中道的、不加辛香料的，煽動群眾情緒從來不是他們所擅長。此時此刻，因為 陳雲林來台的波折紛擾，打開朝野對話的機會，馬、蔡兩人都不能讓這個付出慘痛代價的機會流失，不要再理會朝野立委每日一記者會的彼此指責，互吵馬、蔡誰應 該先道歉；認為誰該為集遊法迄未修正負責；認為誰該為選制改變造成票票不等值的後果負責；因為所有眼前看得到的政治後遺症，都是朝野兩黨的共業。
民進黨批評警政單位對紅衫軍特好，對民進黨群眾特不好，民進黨忘了：紅衫軍合法申請集會時間超過，下達執法驅離者是當時的台北市長馬英九；為此，馬英九還 不得連宋與藍營立委的諒解，而當時部分民進黨執政縣市甚至連過路權都不給紅衫軍；集遊法是由民進黨前主席施明德率先倡議修正，國民黨呼應，甚至已經提出修 法案，既是應為之事，何須一拖再拖，拿社會氣氛不對當盾牌？江陳台北會談的社會氣氛又對了嗎？
從兩岸政策到因應全球金融風暴的重大紓困與振興經濟方案，都是執政者必須與在野溝通的議題。美國大選前通過數千億紓困方案，同樣要經過參眾兩院民主、共和 兩黨的溝通，不要認為民進黨在立法院只有廿七席，可以不理會，這廿七席代表的是台灣四成民意。身為全民總統，建立朝野對話的機制是馬英九躲都躲不了的責 任，我們誠懇呼籲也嚴肅期待，「馬蔡會」能成為重建台灣政治文化和朝野對話的政治慣例的第一步。
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Lee Teng-hui's Money-Laundering Must Be Exposed
Lee Teng-hui's Money-Laundering Must Be Exposed
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2008
Prosecutors are investigating the Chen family for corruption and money-laundering. Five former Presidential staffers have been forbidden to leave the country. The reason relates to the flow of money in the money-laundering cases. The five people include Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen. Chen Shui-bian has accused the two of being part of Lee Teng-hui's retinue, and of being the heads of Lee Teng-hui's overseas dummy accounts. But Lee Teng-hui says the two are the heads of Chen Shui-bian's dummy accounts. Ever since this information was disclosed, the case has been quiet. Developments are being followed closely.
According to Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui used Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen to transfer funds overseas. Lee Teng-hui has categorically denied Chen Shui-bian's allegations. He says Chen Shui-bian is a habitual liar, and therefore unreliable. Prosecutors have forbidden Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen to leave the country. Prosecutors have confirmed that during the Zanadu scandal, prosecutors engaged in serious covering ups and official wrongdoing.
The Zanadu case is a major scandal that has rocked the nation. The main culprits in the Kaohsiung Zanadu Development scandal bribed government officials in an attempt to obtain illegal financing. Former Kaohsiung County Magistrate Yu Chen Ying and Lee Teng-hui confidant Liu Tai-ying have already been convicted and sentenced. Lee Teng-hui was implicated when investigators discovered that company heads had made huge political contributions to him. The names of Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen popped up as the heads of dummy corporations. These secret contributions, to be used as campaign funds, were swept under the rug. Years later, Chen Shui-bian accused Lee Teng-hui of using dummy accounts to transfer political contributions overseas, providing new evidence in the case.
Chen Shui-bian also accused Lee Teng-hui of transfering 300,000,000 NT in public funds into the TRI. But that was old news, part of the State Affairs Fund scandal. President Lee Teng-hui ordered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to transfer secret money from the State Affairs Fund into the TRI's accounts. The money was used to purchase new buildings, to be used as Lee Teng-hui's offices. This was a flagrant violation of the law. Yet investigators and prosecutors swept it under the rug. When the public accused investigators and prosecutors of covering up, Chen Shui-bian attempted to evade criminal prosecution by using his knowledge of the case as a bargaining chip.
Did Lee Teng-hui accept illegal political donations? Did he use dummy accounts to transfer money overseas? Did he transfer public funds from the State Affairs Fund into the accounts of the TRI? Prosecutors should have done their duty, and conducted a thorough investigation of such cases. Instead, they repeatedly swept them under the rug, undermining the credibility of the justice system. Chen Shui-bian has made this information public, only because he himself is currently under investigation and facing prosecution. On the one hand, he has exposed Lee Teng-hui. On the other hand, he has exposed the extent to which the justice system covered up offical wrongdoing.
When Chen Shui-bian uncovered Lee Teng-hui's secrets and threatened to expose the State Affairs Fund scandal, he was "sitting on 75 unexploded bombs." In other words, more scandals are on the way. President Chen Shui-bian abused his privilege as chief executive to suppress these scandals. Now, in order to destroy his political opponents, he may set off these bombshells, at any moment. Chen Shui-bian's revelations have allowed the public to understand why he gathered so much private information before he left office. They have allowed the public to understand how he was able to decide which scandals would be investigated. They have allowed the public to understand just how derelict criminal prosecutors have been in the performance of their duties. Without so many Yeh Sheng-mao style prosecutors and investigators covering up for him, how could Chen Shui-bian decide which cases would and would not be investigated?
Chen Shui-bian's corruption and money-laundering must be thoroughly investigated and dealt with. The scandals Chen referred to, including Lee Teng-hui's use of dummy accounts to transfer money overseas, the aforementioned State Affairs Fund scandal, and the TRI building fund scandal must also be investigated and dealt with. Chen Shui-bian has his own motives for dragging others down with him. He is attempting to confuse the public. But Prosecutors and the Bureau of Investigation have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute suspects in accordance with the law.
Prosecutors may have covered up official wrongdong in the past, and "done things the law does not allow." But now they must remedy the situation. They must begin to investigate in earnest, becoming accountable to the public and to themselves. The investigation of Chen Shui-bian's scandals is well on its way. The investigation of Lee Teng-hui's money-laundering may now begin.
李登輝洗錢疑案亦應向社會交代
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.10 02:47 am
檢方偵辦扁家貪腐洗錢案件，將五名前總統隨扈人員限制出境，原因與洗錢案的金錢流向有關。這五人之中，陳國勝和李忠仁兩人，陳水扁指為李登輝的隨扈，且李登輝利用他們作人頭匯款海外；但李登輝卻說，二人其實是陳水扁的人頭。本案消息披露後已沉寂多時，發展頗受矚目。
據陳水扁的指控，李登輝是在「新瑞都弊案」中利用陳國勝和李忠仁作人頭匯款海外；李登輝對此則是全盤否認。陳水扁說謊成習，他說的話未必可靠；但如今檢方既有限制出境的處置，不啻證實當年在「新瑞都弊案」中，確有承辦檢察官嚴重吃案放水。
「新瑞都弊案」是一件轟動社會的大案。案件的大要是：高雄新瑞都開發案的主事者，為了取得融資而行賄，許多政治人物牽涉其中，前高雄縣長余陳月瑛、李登輝 的親信劉泰英等皆是，且分別判了刑。而本案扯上李登輝，是因為在調查過程中，發現有企業主秘密提供巨額政治獻金，且以人頭戶（陳國勝、李忠仁的名字當時即 已出現）交付李登輝作為競選經費云云。新瑞都案牽出來的政治獻金案，後來不了了之；但陳水扁在多年後指稱李登輝利用人頭將該案中取得的政治獻金匯往海外， 可謂本案的新發現。
另外，陳水扁也指控李登輝將三億餘元公款流入台綜院。這個部分並非新鮮事，早在國安密帳案爆發時，即已查出李登輝利用總統特權強命外交部歸墊的國安密帳的 錢，後來到了台綜院手中，用來買大樓，充作李登輝的辦公室。這是非常明顯的犯法行為，但檢調卻吃案未辦；當年社會輿論一再指責承辦檢調放水，沒想到如今竟 成了身陷弊案的陳水扁用來做為對抗司法的政治籌碼。
李登輝有沒有非法收受政治獻金、利用人頭匯往海外，或者將國安密帳的公款流入台綜院，其實都是檢察官依職責早就該徹底調查的案情。當時的檢察官一再對重大 案件吃案放水，傷害了檢察體系的信譽；如今陳水扁因案遭檢方偵辦，他將手中所掌握的吃案資料公諸社會，一方面用以攻擊李登輝，另一方面卻也揭露了檢調吃案 的醜態。
陳水扁在大爆李登輝的秘密時，且揚言國安密帳案之外，他還「壓了七十五顆未爆彈」；這就是說，恐怕有更多弊案，遭陳水扁以總統特權暗中封殺，但如今陳水扁 隨時有可能拿出來炸掉政敵。陳水扁的談話，讓社會大眾瞭解了他卸任前為什麼要大量私藏資料；更讓社會大眾知道了總統可以私自控制多少弊案的偵辦，而職司追 訴不法的檢調機關又是多麼地失職。若非有許多「葉盛茂型」的檢察官和調查人員吃案放水，陳水扁能夠這麼隨心所欲地操控案件偵辦嗎？
陳水扁貪腐洗錢必須徹底查辦，至於他所指李登輝利用人頭匯款海外，以及當年已經曝光的國安密帳案、台綜院買大樓資金等等，也應該一體查辦。陳水扁的動機或許是拖人下水，企圖混淆視聽；但就檢察官和調查局的職責而言，這仍然是犯罪嫌疑，依法有調查的責任。
檢調人員當年或許吃案放水，違反職責「做了法律不允許的事」；如今自應亡羊補牢，認真展開偵辦，給社會大眾一個交代，也給自己一個交代。陳水扁案將告一段落，李登輝洗錢疑案的偵辦工作也該密鑼緊鼓展開了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2008
Prosecutors are investigating the Chen family for corruption and money-laundering. Five former Presidential staffers have been forbidden to leave the country. The reason relates to the flow of money in the money-laundering cases. The five people include Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen. Chen Shui-bian has accused the two of being part of Lee Teng-hui's retinue, and of being the heads of Lee Teng-hui's overseas dummy accounts. But Lee Teng-hui says the two are the heads of Chen Shui-bian's dummy accounts. Ever since this information was disclosed, the case has been quiet. Developments are being followed closely.
According to Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui used Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen to transfer funds overseas. Lee Teng-hui has categorically denied Chen Shui-bian's allegations. He says Chen Shui-bian is a habitual liar, and therefore unreliable. Prosecutors have forbidden Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen to leave the country. Prosecutors have confirmed that during the Zanadu scandal, prosecutors engaged in serious covering ups and official wrongdoing.
The Zanadu case is a major scandal that has rocked the nation. The main culprits in the Kaohsiung Zanadu Development scandal bribed government officials in an attempt to obtain illegal financing. Former Kaohsiung County Magistrate Yu Chen Ying and Lee Teng-hui confidant Liu Tai-ying have already been convicted and sentenced. Lee Teng-hui was implicated when investigators discovered that company heads had made huge political contributions to him. The names of Chen Kuo-sheng and Lee Chung-jen popped up as the heads of dummy corporations. These secret contributions, to be used as campaign funds, were swept under the rug. Years later, Chen Shui-bian accused Lee Teng-hui of using dummy accounts to transfer political contributions overseas, providing new evidence in the case.
Chen Shui-bian also accused Lee Teng-hui of transfering 300,000,000 NT in public funds into the TRI. But that was old news, part of the State Affairs Fund scandal. President Lee Teng-hui ordered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to transfer secret money from the State Affairs Fund into the TRI's accounts. The money was used to purchase new buildings, to be used as Lee Teng-hui's offices. This was a flagrant violation of the law. Yet investigators and prosecutors swept it under the rug. When the public accused investigators and prosecutors of covering up, Chen Shui-bian attempted to evade criminal prosecution by using his knowledge of the case as a bargaining chip.
Did Lee Teng-hui accept illegal political donations? Did he use dummy accounts to transfer money overseas? Did he transfer public funds from the State Affairs Fund into the accounts of the TRI? Prosecutors should have done their duty, and conducted a thorough investigation of such cases. Instead, they repeatedly swept them under the rug, undermining the credibility of the justice system. Chen Shui-bian has made this information public, only because he himself is currently under investigation and facing prosecution. On the one hand, he has exposed Lee Teng-hui. On the other hand, he has exposed the extent to which the justice system covered up offical wrongdoing.
When Chen Shui-bian uncovered Lee Teng-hui's secrets and threatened to expose the State Affairs Fund scandal, he was "sitting on 75 unexploded bombs." In other words, more scandals are on the way. President Chen Shui-bian abused his privilege as chief executive to suppress these scandals. Now, in order to destroy his political opponents, he may set off these bombshells, at any moment. Chen Shui-bian's revelations have allowed the public to understand why he gathered so much private information before he left office. They have allowed the public to understand how he was able to decide which scandals would be investigated. They have allowed the public to understand just how derelict criminal prosecutors have been in the performance of their duties. Without so many Yeh Sheng-mao style prosecutors and investigators covering up for him, how could Chen Shui-bian decide which cases would and would not be investigated?
Chen Shui-bian's corruption and money-laundering must be thoroughly investigated and dealt with. The scandals Chen referred to, including Lee Teng-hui's use of dummy accounts to transfer money overseas, the aforementioned State Affairs Fund scandal, and the TRI building fund scandal must also be investigated and dealt with. Chen Shui-bian has his own motives for dragging others down with him. He is attempting to confuse the public. But Prosecutors and the Bureau of Investigation have a responsibility to investigate and prosecute suspects in accordance with the law.
Prosecutors may have covered up official wrongdong in the past, and "done things the law does not allow." But now they must remedy the situation. They must begin to investigate in earnest, becoming accountable to the public and to themselves. The investigation of Chen Shui-bian's scandals is well on its way. The investigation of Lee Teng-hui's money-laundering may now begin.
李登輝洗錢疑案亦應向社會交代
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.10 02:47 am
檢方偵辦扁家貪腐洗錢案件，將五名前總統隨扈人員限制出境，原因與洗錢案的金錢流向有關。這五人之中，陳國勝和李忠仁兩人，陳水扁指為李登輝的隨扈，且李登輝利用他們作人頭匯款海外；但李登輝卻說，二人其實是陳水扁的人頭。本案消息披露後已沉寂多時，發展頗受矚目。
據陳水扁的指控，李登輝是在「新瑞都弊案」中利用陳國勝和李忠仁作人頭匯款海外；李登輝對此則是全盤否認。陳水扁說謊成習，他說的話未必可靠；但如今檢方既有限制出境的處置，不啻證實當年在「新瑞都弊案」中，確有承辦檢察官嚴重吃案放水。
「新瑞都弊案」是一件轟動社會的大案。案件的大要是：高雄新瑞都開發案的主事者，為了取得融資而行賄，許多政治人物牽涉其中，前高雄縣長余陳月瑛、李登輝 的親信劉泰英等皆是，且分別判了刑。而本案扯上李登輝，是因為在調查過程中，發現有企業主秘密提供巨額政治獻金，且以人頭戶（陳國勝、李忠仁的名字當時即 已出現）交付李登輝作為競選經費云云。新瑞都案牽出來的政治獻金案，後來不了了之；但陳水扁在多年後指稱李登輝利用人頭將該案中取得的政治獻金匯往海外， 可謂本案的新發現。
另外，陳水扁也指控李登輝將三億餘元公款流入台綜院。這個部分並非新鮮事，早在國安密帳案爆發時，即已查出李登輝利用總統特權強命外交部歸墊的國安密帳的 錢，後來到了台綜院手中，用來買大樓，充作李登輝的辦公室。這是非常明顯的犯法行為，但檢調卻吃案未辦；當年社會輿論一再指責承辦檢調放水，沒想到如今竟 成了身陷弊案的陳水扁用來做為對抗司法的政治籌碼。
李登輝有沒有非法收受政治獻金、利用人頭匯往海外，或者將國安密帳的公款流入台綜院，其實都是檢察官依職責早就該徹底調查的案情。當時的檢察官一再對重大 案件吃案放水，傷害了檢察體系的信譽；如今陳水扁因案遭檢方偵辦，他將手中所掌握的吃案資料公諸社會，一方面用以攻擊李登輝，另一方面卻也揭露了檢調吃案 的醜態。
陳水扁在大爆李登輝的秘密時，且揚言國安密帳案之外，他還「壓了七十五顆未爆彈」；這就是說，恐怕有更多弊案，遭陳水扁以總統特權暗中封殺，但如今陳水扁 隨時有可能拿出來炸掉政敵。陳水扁的談話，讓社會大眾瞭解了他卸任前為什麼要大量私藏資料；更讓社會大眾知道了總統可以私自控制多少弊案的偵辦，而職司追 訴不法的檢調機關又是多麼地失職。若非有許多「葉盛茂型」的檢察官和調查人員吃案放水，陳水扁能夠這麼隨心所欲地操控案件偵辦嗎？
陳水扁貪腐洗錢必須徹底查辦，至於他所指李登輝利用人頭匯款海外，以及當年已經曝光的國安密帳案、台綜院買大樓資金等等，也應該一體查辦。陳水扁的動機或許是拖人下水，企圖混淆視聽；但就檢察官和調查局的職責而言，這仍然是犯罪嫌疑，依法有調查的責任。
檢調人員當年或許吃案放水，違反職責「做了法律不允許的事」；如今自應亡羊補牢，認真展開偵辦，給社會大眾一個交代，也給自己一個交代。陳水扁案將告一段落，李登輝洗錢疑案的偵辦工作也該密鑼緊鼓展開了。
Friday, November 7, 2008
Taiwan's Problem: The DPP and CCP Refuse to Recognize the ROC
Taiwan's Problem: The DPP and CCP Refuse to Recognize the ROC
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 7, 2008
The Ma/Chen Meeting lasted only seven minutes. One. The time was moved up to 11am to avoid clashing head on with the DPP's "siege of the city" protest. This ensured the dignity of the meeting, provided a buffer for the Democratic Progressive Party, and avoided even greater harm to society. Two. The "meeting with Chen Yunlin" turned into "consoling Chen Yunlin," and neatly sidestepped a difficult Q&A session. It also avoided issues that might have arisen had Chen Yunlin made a lengthy statement. This may not have been the conclusion to the Five Day Chiang/Chen Meeting the two sides hoped for. But changing the time and the nature of the meeting was certainly an interesting turn of events.
Let's sum up our impressions of the Five Day Chiang/Chen Meeting. One. It established three direct links. There is now no going back on cross-Strait exchanges. Two. The Ma administration's dilemma, caught between Beijing and the Democratic Progressive Party, is now clear to see. Three. Beijing's forbearance in the face of the assault against Zhang Mingqing and the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei hotel incident deserves affirmation. Four. During the past five days the Democratic Progressive Party has regressed. It is now a Taiwan independence party that abets corruption and incites violence.
Chen Yunlin's five day visit further confirms a perspective we have stressed, over and over again. The crux of the Taiwan problem is that both the Communist Party and the Democratic Progressive Party refuse to recognize the Republic of China.
After five days of clashes, we hope that Beijing's Taiwan policy will become more open-minded and pragmatic. Beijing must not return to the unilateralism of old. Beijing has abandoned "Liberate Taiwan!" as a slogan. The August 23 Artillery Battle was half a century ago. Beijing has found that "One Country, Two Systems" may be applicable to Hong Kong, but not to Taiwan. This has led to "maintaining the status quo," the "1992 consensus" (One China, Different Expressions), "mutual prosperity and win-win," and "peaceful development." Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan has hopefully made clear that reaffirming the Republic of China is the only way to maintain cross-Strait relations. Beijing may not recognize the Republic of China, but it must not repudiate the Republic of China. Through intermediaries, it can sign three links agreements with the Government of the Republic of China. Because without the Republic of China, the two sides cannot maintain the "peaceful and stable development framework" that Beijing advocates.
We have repeatedly stressed that sustainable cross-Strait relations hinge upon two major issues. First, self interest, i.e., the three direct links. Second, dignity, i.e., sovereignty, national status, the national flag, and the national title. Over the past five days issues of self interest have been swallowed up by issues of dignity. All because Beijing has not accorded the Republic of China sufficient dignity. This has given Taiwan independence elements an opportunity to issue demands. Chen Yunlin said on several occasions, "The public on Taiwan still does not understand us." But the Beijing authorities should also ask themselves whether they understand the public on Taiwan.
A nation can be divided into East and West Germany, or South and North Korea, as long as it maintains an overarching "Big Roof." The Chinese Mainland has a advantage over Taiwan. Since it knows the Republic of China is the key to stable cross-Strait relations, why can't it gradually implement some form of "One China, Different Expressions?" Taiwan is an island torn apart by conflicts over the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan." One of the reasons for Taiwan independence is that Beijing's attitude toward the Republic of China implies disrepect for the public on Taiwan.
Chen Yunlin said, "Some people on Taiwan are unhappy because the two sides have issues that must be resolved, but have yet to be resolved." The "issues that must be resolved, but have yet to be resolved" include the aforementioned issue of dignity. Indeed, as Chen Yunlin said, "If cross-Strait relations fail to advance, they will retreat." It is our hope that after five days of conflict, the Beijing authorities' choice will not be to retreat, but to boldly and wisely resolve those issues that must resolved as soon as possible.
The Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence is ersatz Taiwan independence. The real problem is that ersatz Taiwan independence has been already been demagogued to its current intensity. Even the most fanatical Taiwan independence elders know that Taiwan independence is self-deception. Are latecomers such as Tsai Ing-wen truly unaware that Taiwan independence is a blind alley? Tsai Ing-wen has taken the Democratic Progressive Party to the extreme, to where it is physically assaulting Mainland Chinese envoys. If the Democratic Progressive Party were to regain power, how could it possibly maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait? How can the public on Taiwan possibly return the Democratic Progressive Party to office, and allow it to destroy cross-Strait relations? Tsai Ing-wen lost control of last night's "seige of the city" at the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei hotel. In truth, she has become the female counterpart to Wang Ting-yu.
The Democratic Progressive Party's core goal is a "Nation of Taiwan." The Democratic Progressive Party uses its "Nation of Taiwan" premise to confront the People's Republic of China. Over the past five days it has gone so far as to repudiate all cross-Strait exchanges. In the eyes of the Democratic Progressive Party the other side is "Communist bandits." The DPP has gone so far as to physically assault the other side's envoys. The Democratic Progressive Party uses its "Nation of Taiwan" premise to confront the Republic of China. It has repudiated the Republic of China. It has repudiated the cross-Strait consultations presided over by the duly elected government of the Republic of China. It has used accusations of "traitors to Taiwan" and "treason against Taiwan" to smear police officers struggling to maintain order, and to incite mob violence. Invoking its "Nation of Taiwan" premise, the Democratic Progressive Party has invented a "crime" called "treason against Taiwan." It has authorized itself to physically attack visiting envoys. It has arrogated to itself the right to decide how much latitude the police must give them. This is the sort of justice the DPP's imaginary "Nation of Taiwan" dispenses while it hides behind the good name of the Republic of China. This is the sort of rule the virtual "Nation of Taiwan" can be expected to manifest in the real world.
In five short days, the Democratic Progressive Party has become a Taiwan independence party that abets corruption and incites violence. The Democratic Progressive Party's assault on Zhang Mingqing, and its seige of Chen Yunlin have done nothing to advance the cause of Taiwan independence. If anything, they have made Taiwan independence and the DPP the sworn enemy of 1.3 billion compatriots on the other side of the Strait. The Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence proclivities and escalating violence have made mainstream society on Taiwan even more dubious and fearful about the party.
Over the past five days the public on Taiwan has been deafened by the Democratic Progressive Party calls to "Eradicate the Communist bandits!" Translation: "Eradicate the Republic of China!" That's because their slogans will never "Eradicate the Communist bandits." They will merely tear the nation apart. They will merely "Eradicate the Republic of China!"
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait are held together by the Republic of China. The past five days will hopefull encourage Beijing to contemplate the meaning of Hu Jintao's "confront reality, acknowledge each other." Cross-Strait relations since March 22 have in fact been moving in this direction. We must not retreat in the face of setbacks experienced over the past five days. The problem is the Democratic Progressive Party. On the one hand it wants to "Eradicate the Communist bandits!" and destroy cross-Strait relations. On the other hand it wants to repudiate the Republic of China by shouting "treason against Taiwan" and "traitors to Taiwan." The DPP has mired itself in a self-delusional "Nation of Taiwan." Unable to extricate itself, it has chosen to tear Taiwan apart.
台灣癥結：民進黨及共產黨皆否定中華民國
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.07 03:15 am
馬陳會只有七分鐘。一、時間提前至早上十一點舉行，避過與圍城正面交鋒，一方面維護了會面的尊嚴，另一方面也可謂為民進黨作了緩衝，再一方面也避免了可能 發生更大的社會傷害。二、由「會見」改成「慰勉」，則避過了陳雲林對答的稱謂難題，也省去陳若發言可能引發的枝節。這雖未必是兩岸各自對「五日江陳會」原 本期望的句點，但改時間及改為慰勉，亦有峰迴路轉的意趣。
五日江陳會，總結的印象是：一、實現三通，兩岸交流已是不可逆轉之局；二、馬政府在北京與民進黨的夾擊下，形勢之艱難有目共睹；三、北京在張銘清事件及晶華酒店事件中表現的隱忍，應可肯定；四、民進黨經此五天已完全倒退到護貪逞暴的台獨黨。
陳雲林來訪五日，更可證實我們反覆申論的一個觀點：台灣問題的癥結，是在於共產黨及民進黨皆否定中華民國。
經歷五日衝擊，我們希望北京當局的對台政策應當更趨開明與務實，不要走回「單邊主義」的老路。北京早已放棄「解放台灣」的論調，八二三砲戰已是半世紀前的 事；後來，又發現「一國兩制」雖可用諸香港，卻不能用於台灣；於是，遂有「維持現狀」、「九二共識」（一中各表）、「互利雙贏」、「和平發展」等思維架 構。此次陳雲林來台的經歷，更應已經體會，「中華民國」是維繫兩岸關係的唯一平台；北京雖不承認中華民國，但亦不能否認中華民國，而認可由白手套與中華民 國政府簽約三通。因為，沒有「中華民國」，兩岸就沒有北京近年所主張的「和平穩定發展架構」。
我們屢次強調，兩岸關係繫於兩大議題。一、利益議題（如直航三通）；二、尊嚴議題（如主權、國格、國旗、國號）。但這五天來，利益議題的進展，卻幾乎被尊 嚴議題的異化所吞噬。原因無他，因為「中華民國」與北京交往未獲足夠尊嚴，所以使台獨訴求有了空間。陳雲林幾次說，「台灣民眾對我們還有很多不理解」，但 北京當局亦應自問：「我們對台灣民眾的心理，是否亦有很多不理解？」
分裂分治的國家，可以有東西德，可以有南北韓，但皆能維持「屋頂理論」；中國大陸以相對的優勢面對台灣，既知「中華民國」是維繫兩岸關係的唯一平台，卻何 以不能循序漸進地做到一定程度的「一中各表」？台灣已是被「中華民國」與「台灣國」撕裂之島，而台獨的主因之一，正源於北京對「中華民國」的態度不能滿足 台灣人的自尊。
陳雲林說：「有些台灣人民因為兩岸今後必須解決而未解決的事情而導致他們心中的不滿。」一般猜測，所謂「今後必須解決而未解決的事情」，應當包括前述「尊 嚴議題」。的確，亦如陳雲林所說：「兩岸關係不進則退。」我們希望，經歷五日衝擊，北京當局的抉擇不是緊縮後退，而是以大膽高識來早日大幅解決那些「必須 解決」的事情。
民進黨則是假台獨，更嚴重的問題是已經把假台獨操作到如此亢奮的地步。即使是最狂熱的老輩台獨，現在亦應已知台獨是「自欺欺人」；至於如蔡英文這類後起 者，更難道不知台獨是死路一條？何況，蔡英文現在將民進黨帶到向對岸來使進行人身侵害的程度，民進黨若再執政，豈可能維持兩岸和平？而台灣人民又如何敢把 政權再交回民進黨而撕裂兩岸關係？前晚在晶華酒店及昨日圍城失控的蔡英文，其實已淪落成一個「女版王定宇」。
民進黨的中心思維是「台灣國」。民進黨用「台灣國」的思維來對抗「中華人民共和國」，因此，這五天已至全盤否定任何兩岸交流協商的地步；對岸在民進黨眼中 已化約至「共匪」二字，甚至瘋狂攻擊來使。民進黨亦用「台灣國」的思維來對抗「中華民國」，既已根本否定中華民國，則亦否定中華民國的民選政府所主持的兩 岸協商，而謂為「台奸」、「賣台」，又否定維安的警察而發動暴民攻擊。正是出於「台灣國」的前提，民進黨自定「台奸」、「賣台」的罪名，又自授侵害來使的 權力，更要自行來決定警察維安的鬆緊輕重尺度。這是在「中華民國」中，幻想「台灣國」的正義，虛擬「台灣國」的統治，而且竟然真正付諸實踐。
經過這五天，民進黨已成了既護貪腐又逞暴力的台獨黨。但是，對外而言，民進黨僅憑撂倒張銘清、圍堵陳雲林這兩招，非但不可能完成台獨，更已使台獨及民進黨 成為對岸十三億人口的死敵；對內而言，民進黨的台獨外露、暴力升高，將使台灣主流社會對其更形疑懼，亦將使台獨更難獲人心。
這五天裡，國人耳裡聽到民進黨所喊的每一句「消滅共匪」，其實皆可還原譯讀為「消滅中華民國」。因為，這些口號的實質效應，絕不可能「消滅共匪」，而只是要撕裂國家，「消滅中華民國」而已！
兩岸的維繫全在「中華民國」。現在的情勢是：北京經此五日，應可仔細咀嚼「正視現實／互不否認」的寓意，且兩岸關係在三二二後確實亦漸朝此方向發展，唯希 望勿因這五日的挫折而退縮；問題卻在民進黨，一方面要「消滅共匪」撕裂兩岸關係，又以「賣台」、「台奸」否定中華民國，以致陷於自欺欺人的「台灣國」，既 不能自拔，又撕裂台灣。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 7, 2008
The Ma/Chen Meeting lasted only seven minutes. One. The time was moved up to 11am to avoid clashing head on with the DPP's "siege of the city" protest. This ensured the dignity of the meeting, provided a buffer for the Democratic Progressive Party, and avoided even greater harm to society. Two. The "meeting with Chen Yunlin" turned into "consoling Chen Yunlin," and neatly sidestepped a difficult Q&A session. It also avoided issues that might have arisen had Chen Yunlin made a lengthy statement. This may not have been the conclusion to the Five Day Chiang/Chen Meeting the two sides hoped for. But changing the time and the nature of the meeting was certainly an interesting turn of events.
Let's sum up our impressions of the Five Day Chiang/Chen Meeting. One. It established three direct links. There is now no going back on cross-Strait exchanges. Two. The Ma administration's dilemma, caught between Beijing and the Democratic Progressive Party, is now clear to see. Three. Beijing's forbearance in the face of the assault against Zhang Mingqing and the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei hotel incident deserves affirmation. Four. During the past five days the Democratic Progressive Party has regressed. It is now a Taiwan independence party that abets corruption and incites violence.
Chen Yunlin's five day visit further confirms a perspective we have stressed, over and over again. The crux of the Taiwan problem is that both the Communist Party and the Democratic Progressive Party refuse to recognize the Republic of China.
After five days of clashes, we hope that Beijing's Taiwan policy will become more open-minded and pragmatic. Beijing must not return to the unilateralism of old. Beijing has abandoned "Liberate Taiwan!" as a slogan. The August 23 Artillery Battle was half a century ago. Beijing has found that "One Country, Two Systems" may be applicable to Hong Kong, but not to Taiwan. This has led to "maintaining the status quo," the "1992 consensus" (One China, Different Expressions), "mutual prosperity and win-win," and "peaceful development." Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan has hopefully made clear that reaffirming the Republic of China is the only way to maintain cross-Strait relations. Beijing may not recognize the Republic of China, but it must not repudiate the Republic of China. Through intermediaries, it can sign three links agreements with the Government of the Republic of China. Because without the Republic of China, the two sides cannot maintain the "peaceful and stable development framework" that Beijing advocates.
We have repeatedly stressed that sustainable cross-Strait relations hinge upon two major issues. First, self interest, i.e., the three direct links. Second, dignity, i.e., sovereignty, national status, the national flag, and the national title. Over the past five days issues of self interest have been swallowed up by issues of dignity. All because Beijing has not accorded the Republic of China sufficient dignity. This has given Taiwan independence elements an opportunity to issue demands. Chen Yunlin said on several occasions, "The public on Taiwan still does not understand us." But the Beijing authorities should also ask themselves whether they understand the public on Taiwan.
A nation can be divided into East and West Germany, or South and North Korea, as long as it maintains an overarching "Big Roof." The Chinese Mainland has a advantage over Taiwan. Since it knows the Republic of China is the key to stable cross-Strait relations, why can't it gradually implement some form of "One China, Different Expressions?" Taiwan is an island torn apart by conflicts over the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan." One of the reasons for Taiwan independence is that Beijing's attitude toward the Republic of China implies disrepect for the public on Taiwan.
Chen Yunlin said, "Some people on Taiwan are unhappy because the two sides have issues that must be resolved, but have yet to be resolved." The "issues that must be resolved, but have yet to be resolved" include the aforementioned issue of dignity. Indeed, as Chen Yunlin said, "If cross-Strait relations fail to advance, they will retreat." It is our hope that after five days of conflict, the Beijing authorities' choice will not be to retreat, but to boldly and wisely resolve those issues that must resolved as soon as possible.
The Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence is ersatz Taiwan independence. The real problem is that ersatz Taiwan independence has been already been demagogued to its current intensity. Even the most fanatical Taiwan independence elders know that Taiwan independence is self-deception. Are latecomers such as Tsai Ing-wen truly unaware that Taiwan independence is a blind alley? Tsai Ing-wen has taken the Democratic Progressive Party to the extreme, to where it is physically assaulting Mainland Chinese envoys. If the Democratic Progressive Party were to regain power, how could it possibly maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait? How can the public on Taiwan possibly return the Democratic Progressive Party to office, and allow it to destroy cross-Strait relations? Tsai Ing-wen lost control of last night's "seige of the city" at the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei hotel. In truth, she has become the female counterpart to Wang Ting-yu.
The Democratic Progressive Party's core goal is a "Nation of Taiwan." The Democratic Progressive Party uses its "Nation of Taiwan" premise to confront the People's Republic of China. Over the past five days it has gone so far as to repudiate all cross-Strait exchanges. In the eyes of the Democratic Progressive Party the other side is "Communist bandits." The DPP has gone so far as to physically assault the other side's envoys. The Democratic Progressive Party uses its "Nation of Taiwan" premise to confront the Republic of China. It has repudiated the Republic of China. It has repudiated the cross-Strait consultations presided over by the duly elected government of the Republic of China. It has used accusations of "traitors to Taiwan" and "treason against Taiwan" to smear police officers struggling to maintain order, and to incite mob violence. Invoking its "Nation of Taiwan" premise, the Democratic Progressive Party has invented a "crime" called "treason against Taiwan." It has authorized itself to physically attack visiting envoys. It has arrogated to itself the right to decide how much latitude the police must give them. This is the sort of justice the DPP's imaginary "Nation of Taiwan" dispenses while it hides behind the good name of the Republic of China. This is the sort of rule the virtual "Nation of Taiwan" can be expected to manifest in the real world.
In five short days, the Democratic Progressive Party has become a Taiwan independence party that abets corruption and incites violence. The Democratic Progressive Party's assault on Zhang Mingqing, and its seige of Chen Yunlin have done nothing to advance the cause of Taiwan independence. If anything, they have made Taiwan independence and the DPP the sworn enemy of 1.3 billion compatriots on the other side of the Strait. The Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence proclivities and escalating violence have made mainstream society on Taiwan even more dubious and fearful about the party.
Over the past five days the public on Taiwan has been deafened by the Democratic Progressive Party calls to "Eradicate the Communist bandits!" Translation: "Eradicate the Republic of China!" That's because their slogans will never "Eradicate the Communist bandits." They will merely tear the nation apart. They will merely "Eradicate the Republic of China!"
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait are held together by the Republic of China. The past five days will hopefull encourage Beijing to contemplate the meaning of Hu Jintao's "confront reality, acknowledge each other." Cross-Strait relations since March 22 have in fact been moving in this direction. We must not retreat in the face of setbacks experienced over the past five days. The problem is the Democratic Progressive Party. On the one hand it wants to "Eradicate the Communist bandits!" and destroy cross-Strait relations. On the other hand it wants to repudiate the Republic of China by shouting "treason against Taiwan" and "traitors to Taiwan." The DPP has mired itself in a self-delusional "Nation of Taiwan." Unable to extricate itself, it has chosen to tear Taiwan apart.
台灣癥結：民進黨及共產黨皆否定中華民國
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.07 03:15 am
馬陳會只有七分鐘。一、時間提前至早上十一點舉行，避過與圍城正面交鋒，一方面維護了會面的尊嚴，另一方面也可謂為民進黨作了緩衝，再一方面也避免了可能 發生更大的社會傷害。二、由「會見」改成「慰勉」，則避過了陳雲林對答的稱謂難題，也省去陳若發言可能引發的枝節。這雖未必是兩岸各自對「五日江陳會」原 本期望的句點，但改時間及改為慰勉，亦有峰迴路轉的意趣。
五日江陳會，總結的印象是：一、實現三通，兩岸交流已是不可逆轉之局；二、馬政府在北京與民進黨的夾擊下，形勢之艱難有目共睹；三、北京在張銘清事件及晶華酒店事件中表現的隱忍，應可肯定；四、民進黨經此五天已完全倒退到護貪逞暴的台獨黨。
陳雲林來訪五日，更可證實我們反覆申論的一個觀點：台灣問題的癥結，是在於共產黨及民進黨皆否定中華民國。
經歷五日衝擊，我們希望北京當局的對台政策應當更趨開明與務實，不要走回「單邊主義」的老路。北京早已放棄「解放台灣」的論調，八二三砲戰已是半世紀前的 事；後來，又發現「一國兩制」雖可用諸香港，卻不能用於台灣；於是，遂有「維持現狀」、「九二共識」（一中各表）、「互利雙贏」、「和平發展」等思維架 構。此次陳雲林來台的經歷，更應已經體會，「中華民國」是維繫兩岸關係的唯一平台；北京雖不承認中華民國，但亦不能否認中華民國，而認可由白手套與中華民 國政府簽約三通。因為，沒有「中華民國」，兩岸就沒有北京近年所主張的「和平穩定發展架構」。
我們屢次強調，兩岸關係繫於兩大議題。一、利益議題（如直航三通）；二、尊嚴議題（如主權、國格、國旗、國號）。但這五天來，利益議題的進展，卻幾乎被尊 嚴議題的異化所吞噬。原因無他，因為「中華民國」與北京交往未獲足夠尊嚴，所以使台獨訴求有了空間。陳雲林幾次說，「台灣民眾對我們還有很多不理解」，但 北京當局亦應自問：「我們對台灣民眾的心理，是否亦有很多不理解？」
分裂分治的國家，可以有東西德，可以有南北韓，但皆能維持「屋頂理論」；中國大陸以相對的優勢面對台灣，既知「中華民國」是維繫兩岸關係的唯一平台，卻何 以不能循序漸進地做到一定程度的「一中各表」？台灣已是被「中華民國」與「台灣國」撕裂之島，而台獨的主因之一，正源於北京對「中華民國」的態度不能滿足 台灣人的自尊。
陳雲林說：「有些台灣人民因為兩岸今後必須解決而未解決的事情而導致他們心中的不滿。」一般猜測，所謂「今後必須解決而未解決的事情」，應當包括前述「尊 嚴議題」。的確，亦如陳雲林所說：「兩岸關係不進則退。」我們希望，經歷五日衝擊，北京當局的抉擇不是緊縮後退，而是以大膽高識來早日大幅解決那些「必須 解決」的事情。
民進黨則是假台獨，更嚴重的問題是已經把假台獨操作到如此亢奮的地步。即使是最狂熱的老輩台獨，現在亦應已知台獨是「自欺欺人」；至於如蔡英文這類後起 者，更難道不知台獨是死路一條？何況，蔡英文現在將民進黨帶到向對岸來使進行人身侵害的程度，民進黨若再執政，豈可能維持兩岸和平？而台灣人民又如何敢把 政權再交回民進黨而撕裂兩岸關係？前晚在晶華酒店及昨日圍城失控的蔡英文，其實已淪落成一個「女版王定宇」。
民進黨的中心思維是「台灣國」。民進黨用「台灣國」的思維來對抗「中華人民共和國」，因此，這五天已至全盤否定任何兩岸交流協商的地步；對岸在民進黨眼中 已化約至「共匪」二字，甚至瘋狂攻擊來使。民進黨亦用「台灣國」的思維來對抗「中華民國」，既已根本否定中華民國，則亦否定中華民國的民選政府所主持的兩 岸協商，而謂為「台奸」、「賣台」，又否定維安的警察而發動暴民攻擊。正是出於「台灣國」的前提，民進黨自定「台奸」、「賣台」的罪名，又自授侵害來使的 權力，更要自行來決定警察維安的鬆緊輕重尺度。這是在「中華民國」中，幻想「台灣國」的正義，虛擬「台灣國」的統治，而且竟然真正付諸實踐。
經過這五天，民進黨已成了既護貪腐又逞暴力的台獨黨。但是，對外而言，民進黨僅憑撂倒張銘清、圍堵陳雲林這兩招，非但不可能完成台獨，更已使台獨及民進黨 成為對岸十三億人口的死敵；對內而言，民進黨的台獨外露、暴力升高，將使台灣主流社會對其更形疑懼，亦將使台獨更難獲人心。
這五天裡，國人耳裡聽到民進黨所喊的每一句「消滅共匪」，其實皆可還原譯讀為「消滅中華民國」。因為，這些口號的實質效應，絕不可能「消滅共匪」，而只是要撕裂國家，「消滅中華民國」而已！
兩岸的維繫全在「中華民國」。現在的情勢是：北京經此五日，應可仔細咀嚼「正視現實／互不否認」的寓意，且兩岸關係在三二二後確實亦漸朝此方向發展，唯希 望勿因這五日的挫折而退縮；問題卻在民進黨，一方面要「消滅共匪」撕裂兩岸關係，又以「賣台」、「台奸」否定中華民國，以致陷於自欺欺人的「台灣國」，既 不能自拔，又撕裂台灣。
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama's Revelation: Yes, We Must Change
Obama's Revelation: Yes, We Must Change
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 6, 2008
The outcome of the United States presidential election was no surprise. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama won by a landslide. Moreover, his party found itself far ahead in the House of Representatives by-election. In a stunning victory, the Democratic Party swept the Republican Party away like leaves before the autumn wind. The results of the election were a repudiation of the Bush administration's dismal eight year record. They mark the beginning of a new era -- the arrival of new candidates and a new political climate. The Obama whirlwind has only just begun. The new president faces difficult challenges in the years ahead. When the need arises, the hero appears. Only such trying times could give rise to someone like Obama.
Obama's election as President of the United States has several implications. First of course is that America has taken a big step towards racial equality. The Civil War ended over a century ago. But genuine equality between black and white has required a long period of evolution and adaptation. It could not be achieved overnight. Over 40 years ago, during President John F. Kennedy's administration, the National Guard had to escort students to school to overcome Jim Crow. Twenty years ago, during the California state elections, the so-called Bradley Effect revealed the racial prejudice hidden in people's hearts underneath the universal lip service to racial equality. Right up til the eve of the vote, many people dared not believe Obama's lead in the polls. For the first time in history, an African-American was elected President of the United States. This shows how far America has come in terms of racial equality and racial tolerance.
Obama was able to win despite his status as an ethnic minority, in part because of the global economic crisis. Leave aside the ideologies of America's two major parties for the moment. This presidential election was about one thing, the economy. The Democratic and Republican parties have "big government" vs. "small government" philosophical differences. Obama and McCain have different prescriptions for current economic problems. But when people have difficulty determining the merits of the candidates' arguments, they naturally ask "Who is responsible for the current mess?" For the past eight years, the Bush administration has favored the wealthy. It has increased the deficit. It has expanded credit. Naturally it became the target of public criticism. McCain had trouble distancing himself from Bush. As a result, the largest financial crisis in a century became the Obama campaign's biggest booster.
The Democratic Party has a different attitude toward disadvantaged groups than the Republican Party. The Democratic Party advocates increased welfare. The Republican Party advocates respect for market mechanisms. This difference in attitude between the two parties is not limited to domestic affairs. Under Bush administration rule, it extended to the international arena. Basically, the international community sees Iraq and Afghanistan as a weak Third World countries. And when Bush could not find "weapons of mass destruction," he resorted to force against Iraq. Despite claims he was engaged in "anti-terrorism," he gave other countries around the world the impression that the strong were bullying the weak, the many were bullying the few. During the election campaign, McCain's foreign policy remained persuasive. But Obama's political views evinced greater respect for disadvantaged groups. That is why most countries around the world lean toward the Democratic Party. How Obama changes US policy toward the Middle East and Europe will affect the rise and fall of the United States. It will also affect the economic prospects of the world. This is something worth watching and anticipating.
Even with the US economy in the doldrums, the US military mired in foreign quagmires, and racial discrimination on the wane, it was no easy matter for an African-American to win the presidential election. Obama is young and inexperienced. He was a long shot all the way. Yet he defeated an old hand like Hillary. He swept aside McCain and the Republican Party. He revealed extraordinarly ability and charisma. Obama is probably the world's most adept user of internet marketing. He is the politician who best understands the Internet era. He used small scale fund-raising methods. He used YouTube to broadcast his personal speeches. Traditional politicians are not familiar with these "new-generation weapons." These weapons have proven to be invincible. They certainly are effective against traditional politicians. Obama's charisma has been demonstrated during his numerous speeches. From his classic "Yes we can!" speech, to the emotional appeal of his Berlin speech declaring himself a citizen of the world, to his speech clarifying his relationship with his church pastor. Time and again, Obama has been able to turn crises into opportunities, and losses into wins. If such charisma can be maintained after he assumes office, it will provide a much-needed boost to consumers, and will be of great help for investor confidence,
In short, Obama's election represents the advent of a new era of racial equality. It means the international situation will change. It means the world financial and economic order will enjoy new opportunities. Obama's election is not merely his individual victory or the Democratic Party's victory. Many citizens of the world are looking forward to the beginning of "change."
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.11.06
歐巴馬啟示錄：是的，我們要改變
中時社論
美 國總統大選的投票結果，一如預期，民主黨候選人歐巴馬獲得大勝。不只如此，該黨在參眾兩院的補選亦遙遙領先，使得民主黨以秋風掃落葉之勢獲得全面性的勝 利。這樣的選舉結果，固然是對布希政府八年慘澹執政的否定，但也凸顯出新時代、新人選、新氣象的來臨。簡單地說，歐巴馬旋風才正要開始。雖然美國新總統未 來數年面對的挑戰極其艱困，但所謂「時代考驗人才，人才創造時代」，也唯有在這種劇變艱難時代，才能有歐巴馬這麼一號人物冒出頭來。
歐氏 當選美國總統的第一重意義，當然是美國社會往種族平等方向跨了一大步。雖然美國南北戰爭已經結束一百多年，但黑白種族之間的真正平等，還是要經過長時間的 演進與磨合，絕非一蹴可幾。在四十多年前甘迺迪總統時代，都還要動用國民兵護送學生上學，才能避免種族隔離的民間措施。在廿年前加州選舉，都還有所謂布萊 德雷效應，顯示即使族群平等已成為人人口中的目標，但歧視卻仍是不少人心底的祕密。直到此次投票前夕，許多人都還不敢盡信歐巴馬民調的領先。這次美國總統 首次選出非裔美國總統，足見美國社會族群平等的包容力確實有長足的進步。
此次歐巴馬以少數族群的背景能夠勝出，當然也與世界經濟情勢等客 觀環境有關。拋開美國兩黨些微的意識形態不談，此次美國大選的關鍵話題就只有「經濟」二字。民主黨與共和黨當然有大政府與小政府的哲學辯論，而歐巴馬與麥 肯亦對解決當前經濟問題有不同藥方。但是，當人民無從分辨孰優孰劣時，很自然會問：「現在的爛攤子是誰造成的？」問到這裡，布希政府八年來一路偏袒富人、 大幅擴張赤字、放任信用擴張的政策，當然就成為眾矢之的。由於麥肯難以與布希切割，因此這百年來難得一見的金融海嘯與超大經濟蕭條，當然就成為歐巴馬助選 的最大功臣。
此外，民主黨與共和黨原本對「弱勢」團體的態度即有不同─民主黨主張較多較廣的福利政策，但共和黨則主張尊重市場機能。這兩 黨的態度差異原本只是針對國內事務，但在布希執政之下，卻又延伸到國際舞台。基本上，國際間普遍將伊拉克、阿富汗視為第三世界的弱勢國家，而布希在尋不著 「大規模毀滅性武器」的情況下，強勢地對伊拉克動武，即使以「反恐」為號召，也給全世界其他國家一種大欺小、強凌弱、眾暴寡的惡劣印象。在競選期間，麥肯 的外交政策大抵仍然強勢，但歐巴馬的政見則較貼近對弱勢群體的尊重。這也是為什麼全世界大多數國家都傾向挺民主黨的原因。未來歐巴馬政權會如何調整其中東 與歐洲政策，不但影響到美國的興衰，也與世界前景息息相關，值得關注與期待。
最後，縱使美國有經濟景氣不佳、國際戰事泥淖、種族歧視淡化 等客觀環境，一位非裔美國人要贏得總統大選還是極為不易。歐巴馬能夠以這麼年輕、這麼資淺、這麼不被看好的情況下一路過關斬將，撂倒希拉蕊等老政客，橫掃 共和黨麥肯，絕對也展現出他超級的能力與魅力。首先，歐氏恐怕是全世界最能善用網路行銷，最了解網路時代特性的政治人物。他積沙成塔的小額募款方式，他用 YOUTUBE廣為宣傳的個人演講，都是傳統政客所不熟悉的「新世代兵器」。這些兵器現在已經被證明是無堅不摧，至少對傳統政客幾乎是有摧枯拉朽的威力。 此外，歐氏的個人魅力也在歷次演講中展露無遺。從「YES WE CAN」的經典演說，到柏林演講中感性訴求自己是世界公民，到澄清自己與教會牧師之間的關係，歐氏都能一次次化危機為轉機，變失分為得分。這樣的領袖魅力 若能延續到執政之後，應該是對於亟需提振的消費者、投資信心，會有極大的助益。
總之，歐巴馬當選，代表一個族群平等新時代的來臨，代表國際情勢將會有所改變，也代表世界金融與經濟秩序將有嶄新的契機。歐氏當選，不只是他個人與民主黨的勝利，更是許多世界公民期待「改變」的開始。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 6, 2008
The outcome of the United States presidential election was no surprise. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama won by a landslide. Moreover, his party found itself far ahead in the House of Representatives by-election. In a stunning victory, the Democratic Party swept the Republican Party away like leaves before the autumn wind. The results of the election were a repudiation of the Bush administration's dismal eight year record. They mark the beginning of a new era -- the arrival of new candidates and a new political climate. The Obama whirlwind has only just begun. The new president faces difficult challenges in the years ahead. When the need arises, the hero appears. Only such trying times could give rise to someone like Obama.
Obama's election as President of the United States has several implications. First of course is that America has taken a big step towards racial equality. The Civil War ended over a century ago. But genuine equality between black and white has required a long period of evolution and adaptation. It could not be achieved overnight. Over 40 years ago, during President John F. Kennedy's administration, the National Guard had to escort students to school to overcome Jim Crow. Twenty years ago, during the California state elections, the so-called Bradley Effect revealed the racial prejudice hidden in people's hearts underneath the universal lip service to racial equality. Right up til the eve of the vote, many people dared not believe Obama's lead in the polls. For the first time in history, an African-American was elected President of the United States. This shows how far America has come in terms of racial equality and racial tolerance.
Obama was able to win despite his status as an ethnic minority, in part because of the global economic crisis. Leave aside the ideologies of America's two major parties for the moment. This presidential election was about one thing, the economy. The Democratic and Republican parties have "big government" vs. "small government" philosophical differences. Obama and McCain have different prescriptions for current economic problems. But when people have difficulty determining the merits of the candidates' arguments, they naturally ask "Who is responsible for the current mess?" For the past eight years, the Bush administration has favored the wealthy. It has increased the deficit. It has expanded credit. Naturally it became the target of public criticism. McCain had trouble distancing himself from Bush. As a result, the largest financial crisis in a century became the Obama campaign's biggest booster.
The Democratic Party has a different attitude toward disadvantaged groups than the Republican Party. The Democratic Party advocates increased welfare. The Republican Party advocates respect for market mechanisms. This difference in attitude between the two parties is not limited to domestic affairs. Under Bush administration rule, it extended to the international arena. Basically, the international community sees Iraq and Afghanistan as a weak Third World countries. And when Bush could not find "weapons of mass destruction," he resorted to force against Iraq. Despite claims he was engaged in "anti-terrorism," he gave other countries around the world the impression that the strong were bullying the weak, the many were bullying the few. During the election campaign, McCain's foreign policy remained persuasive. But Obama's political views evinced greater respect for disadvantaged groups. That is why most countries around the world lean toward the Democratic Party. How Obama changes US policy toward the Middle East and Europe will affect the rise and fall of the United States. It will also affect the economic prospects of the world. This is something worth watching and anticipating.
Even with the US economy in the doldrums, the US military mired in foreign quagmires, and racial discrimination on the wane, it was no easy matter for an African-American to win the presidential election. Obama is young and inexperienced. He was a long shot all the way. Yet he defeated an old hand like Hillary. He swept aside McCain and the Republican Party. He revealed extraordinarly ability and charisma. Obama is probably the world's most adept user of internet marketing. He is the politician who best understands the Internet era. He used small scale fund-raising methods. He used YouTube to broadcast his personal speeches. Traditional politicians are not familiar with these "new-generation weapons." These weapons have proven to be invincible. They certainly are effective against traditional politicians. Obama's charisma has been demonstrated during his numerous speeches. From his classic "Yes we can!" speech, to the emotional appeal of his Berlin speech declaring himself a citizen of the world, to his speech clarifying his relationship with his church pastor. Time and again, Obama has been able to turn crises into opportunities, and losses into wins. If such charisma can be maintained after he assumes office, it will provide a much-needed boost to consumers, and will be of great help for investor confidence,
In short, Obama's election represents the advent of a new era of racial equality. It means the international situation will change. It means the world financial and economic order will enjoy new opportunities. Obama's election is not merely his individual victory or the Democratic Party's victory. Many citizens of the world are looking forward to the beginning of "change."
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.11.06
歐巴馬啟示錄：是的，我們要改變
中時社論
美 國總統大選的投票結果，一如預期，民主黨候選人歐巴馬獲得大勝。不只如此，該黨在參眾兩院的補選亦遙遙領先，使得民主黨以秋風掃落葉之勢獲得全面性的勝 利。這樣的選舉結果，固然是對布希政府八年慘澹執政的否定，但也凸顯出新時代、新人選、新氣象的來臨。簡單地說，歐巴馬旋風才正要開始。雖然美國新總統未 來數年面對的挑戰極其艱困，但所謂「時代考驗人才，人才創造時代」，也唯有在這種劇變艱難時代，才能有歐巴馬這麼一號人物冒出頭來。
歐氏 當選美國總統的第一重意義，當然是美國社會往種族平等方向跨了一大步。雖然美國南北戰爭已經結束一百多年，但黑白種族之間的真正平等，還是要經過長時間的 演進與磨合，絕非一蹴可幾。在四十多年前甘迺迪總統時代，都還要動用國民兵護送學生上學，才能避免種族隔離的民間措施。在廿年前加州選舉，都還有所謂布萊 德雷效應，顯示即使族群平等已成為人人口中的目標，但歧視卻仍是不少人心底的祕密。直到此次投票前夕，許多人都還不敢盡信歐巴馬民調的領先。這次美國總統 首次選出非裔美國總統，足見美國社會族群平等的包容力確實有長足的進步。
此次歐巴馬以少數族群的背景能夠勝出，當然也與世界經濟情勢等客 觀環境有關。拋開美國兩黨些微的意識形態不談，此次美國大選的關鍵話題就只有「經濟」二字。民主黨與共和黨當然有大政府與小政府的哲學辯論，而歐巴馬與麥 肯亦對解決當前經濟問題有不同藥方。但是，當人民無從分辨孰優孰劣時，很自然會問：「現在的爛攤子是誰造成的？」問到這裡，布希政府八年來一路偏袒富人、 大幅擴張赤字、放任信用擴張的政策，當然就成為眾矢之的。由於麥肯難以與布希切割，因此這百年來難得一見的金融海嘯與超大經濟蕭條，當然就成為歐巴馬助選 的最大功臣。
此外，民主黨與共和黨原本對「弱勢」團體的態度即有不同─民主黨主張較多較廣的福利政策，但共和黨則主張尊重市場機能。這兩 黨的態度差異原本只是針對國內事務，但在布希執政之下，卻又延伸到國際舞台。基本上，國際間普遍將伊拉克、阿富汗視為第三世界的弱勢國家，而布希在尋不著 「大規模毀滅性武器」的情況下，強勢地對伊拉克動武，即使以「反恐」為號召，也給全世界其他國家一種大欺小、強凌弱、眾暴寡的惡劣印象。在競選期間，麥肯 的外交政策大抵仍然強勢，但歐巴馬的政見則較貼近對弱勢群體的尊重。這也是為什麼全世界大多數國家都傾向挺民主黨的原因。未來歐巴馬政權會如何調整其中東 與歐洲政策，不但影響到美國的興衰，也與世界前景息息相關，值得關注與期待。
最後，縱使美國有經濟景氣不佳、國際戰事泥淖、種族歧視淡化 等客觀環境，一位非裔美國人要贏得總統大選還是極為不易。歐巴馬能夠以這麼年輕、這麼資淺、這麼不被看好的情況下一路過關斬將，撂倒希拉蕊等老政客，橫掃 共和黨麥肯，絕對也展現出他超級的能力與魅力。首先，歐氏恐怕是全世界最能善用網路行銷，最了解網路時代特性的政治人物。他積沙成塔的小額募款方式，他用 YOUTUBE廣為宣傳的個人演講，都是傳統政客所不熟悉的「新世代兵器」。這些兵器現在已經被證明是無堅不摧，至少對傳統政客幾乎是有摧枯拉朽的威力。 此外，歐氏的個人魅力也在歷次演講中展露無遺。從「YES WE CAN」的經典演說，到柏林演講中感性訴求自己是世界公民，到澄清自己與教會牧師之間的關係，歐氏都能一次次化危機為轉機，變失分為得分。這樣的領袖魅力 若能延續到執政之後，應該是對於亟需提振的消費者、投資信心，會有極大的助益。
總之，歐巴馬當選，代表一個族群平等新時代的來臨，代表國際情勢將會有所改變，也代表世界金融與經濟秩序將有嶄新的契機。歐氏當選，不只是他個人與民主黨的勝利，更是許多世界公民期待「改變」的開始。
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Fourth Link: A Conceptual Link
The Fourth Link: A Conceptual Link
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2008
The term "three links," as applied to cross-Strait relations, first appeared 30 years ago. Yesterday Chiang Pin-kung and Chen Yunlin finally made it a reality.
The "three links" refer to direct maritime shipping, postal, and trade links, and apply to people and goods. But all three have their origins in a fourth link, a conceptual link. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and the political opposition on Taiwan, must all be able to make this conceptual link.
Actually Chiang Ching-kuo initiated the process of direct links when he allowed military veterans to visit their relatives on the Mainland 20 years ago. Only maritime and air links were established, and the links were not direct. The agreement signed yesterday did not establish links, but rather direct links. The establishment of direct links has been unnecessarily delayed for 20 years. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and political opposition on Taiwan may have had difficulty making the necessary conceptual links, but that hardly meant they opposed direct links.
To allow flights but to disallow direct flights makes utterly no sense. For example, to fly from Taipei to Beijing, one must transit Hong Kong. This makes as little sense as transiting Penghu to fly from Taipei to Kaohsiung. It made even less sense after Hong Kong's retrocession to China in 1997, this time under the administration of Beijing. In effect direct links were allowed to only one city on Mainland China, Hong Kong, but not to other cities on Mainland China. This was the most absurd conceptual block of all. These sorts of conceptual blocks wasted a staggering amount of time and money. They defied logic and made one wonder why no one seemed to have thought the matter through.
The real author of three links was Chiang Ching-kuo. Deng Xiaoping responded constructively to Chiang's initiative. Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law. He allowed veterans to visit their relatives on the Mainland. In the name of veterans visiting their relatives, cross-Strait trade and tourism took off. Politically, Chiang Ching-kuo's lifting of martial law allowed Taiwan to breathe. Economically, Chiang Ching-kuo's cross-strait exchanges allowed both Taiwan and the Mainland to prosper. The simultaneous lifting of martial law and opening of cross-Strait exchanges allowed Taiwan to interact with the Mainland. It also forced the Mainland to acknowledge Taiwan's democratic institutions.
Over the past 20 years, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have experienced sharp conflicts. These conflicts have delayed direct flights until today. But the primary obstacle was conceptual. One. On the Taiwan side, leaders such as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian engaged in political deceit, ripping the nation apart. In terms of cross-Strait relations, they failed to lead the public in the right direction. Cross-Strait trust evaporated. Two. On the Mainland side, they failed to minimize problems. They only knew how to use force. They continued thinking of cross-Strait relations in terms of the KMT vs. CCP Civil War. They failed to respond to Taiwan's system of democracy and the public mood.
On the Mainland, Beijing defined Taiwan using "One Country, Two Systems", "One China" or "Peaceful Reunification." On Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui sent a secret envoy to the Mainland and established the National Unification Guidelines. But eventually he trotted out his short-lived "Two States Theory." Chen Shui-bian advocated a "New Centrist Path" and the "Five Noes." But eventually he engaged in self-deception and became enamoured with the "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution." Over the past 20 years, the Beijing authorities have pushed Lee and Chen from the center towards Taiwan independence. Meanwhile, the cross-Strait tensions Lee and Chen provoked have brought Beijing back to a calmer and more rational path. The two sides have finally signed a direct links agreement. Can it be they have finally thought matters through?
The two sides have been learning from their mistakes for the past 20 years. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and political opposition on Taiwan, have learned a number of painful lessons. On the Taiwan side, Lee and Chen went too far in deceiving the public. They severely undermined cross-Strait relations. This led to the second change in ruling parties. The KMT lost power in 2000. The DPP lost power in 2008. Both lost power as a result of failed cross-Strait policies. Beijing, meanwhile, has been witness to 20 years of turmoil on Taiwan, making it acutely aware of its complex politics. Today slogans such as "One Country, Two Systems" and "Peaceful Reunification" have faded from the scene. They have been replaced by "Maintain the status quo," "Uphold the 1992 consensus," (i.e., One China, Different Expressions") "Win/Win and mutual prosperity" and "Peaceful development."
Twenty years of turmoil have forced the two sides to finally think matters through. Direct flights are now a matter of course. Therefore three links was not the most significant achievement of yesterday's Chiang/Chen Meeting signing ceremony. The most significant achievement was the change in the two sides' thinking. In other words, the conceptual breakthrough was of vastly greater importance than any institutional breakthrough.
As we stand astride this historic roadmark, we see how the three major political parties on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have positioned themselves. The Democratic Progressive Party has returned to the era of "Annihilate the Communist bandits!" and a "Nation of Taiwan." The Chinese Communist Party is wondering whether Chen Yunlin ought to address Ma Ying-jeou as President Ma. The Kuomintang finds itself caught between the DPP and the CCP.
Let us return to Chiang Ching-kuo's thinking. Taiwan should conduct exchanges with the mainland, consistent with its system of democracy. It must not manipulate its system of democracy. It must not tear the nation apart. The Mainland must acknowledge Taiwan's system of democracy. It must not misapprehend the public's mood. It must not harbor notions about who will swallow up whom.
第四通：海空直通，還要「想得通」
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.05 03:39 am
「三通」這個出現在兩岸間已有三十年的名詞，昨天終於在江丙坤、陳雲林簽字後實現。
通航、通郵、通商，這是人貨及訊息的「三通」，而一切的本源皆在「第四通」：兩岸朝野在思想觀念上必須「想得通」！
其實，二十年前，自蔣經國開放「老兵探親」後，兩岸三通即已啟動；唯海空皆通，卻並未「直航」。昨日簽署，不是為了「通航」，而是為了「直航」。直航之所以蹉跎延遲了二十年，可見兩岸朝野皆有「想不通」之處，但並非「不想通」。
可通航而不准直航，確有令人想不通處。例如，從台北到北京，命其須在香港中轉；豈不正如自台北到高雄，命其須在澎湖中轉？尤其，九七香港主權轉移後，已成 中國領土；情勢遂成了只准「直航」中國的香港，而不准「直航」中國其他城市，尤其令人想不通。這種「想不通」的交通設計，虛耗了驚人的金錢與可怕的時間， 違情悖理，究竟是在何處想不通？
三通真正的發動者是蔣經國，回應人則是鄧小平。蔣經國在解嚴的大架構下，同時也開放了「老兵探親」；於是，在「老兵探親」的名目下，使得觀光貿易皆並駕漸 進。蔣經國解嚴，使台灣在政治上不致窒息，開放兩岸交流則使台灣在經濟與兩岸關係上不致窒息；而且，解嚴與交流兩手同時放開，使台灣能以民主體制與大陸交 往，亦使大陸須回應台灣的民主體制。
過去二十年，兩岸不斷發生尖銳的衝突摩擦，致使直航遲誤至今日，其中「想不通」之處正在於：一、台灣方面，主政者李登輝及陳水扁，玩弄政治權謀，撕裂國 家，在兩岸關係上未能正確引導民意，致使兩岸互信完全解構；二、大陸方面，一直不知「以大事小」，而只知「以強制弱」，仍以「國共內戰」來看兩岸關係，而 未能回應台灣民主機制下的民意感受。
其後果是：大陸方面，強以「一國兩制」、「一個中國」或「和平統一」來範限台灣。而台灣方面，則李登輝雖曾有國統綱領及密使來往，最後卻抬出了壽命只有幾 天的「兩國論」；陳水扁則先有「中間路線」及「四不一沒有」，但最後卻陷於「自欺欺人」的「正名制憲」。過去這二十年，可謂是北京當局把李扁從中道逼回到 台獨之路；而李扁引發的兩岸激盪，又將北京帶回到今日較趨平和理性之路。兩岸終於簽署了直航協議，這莫非是想通了？
錯中學，這二十年的血淚經歷，對兩岸朝野皆是痛苦教訓。台灣方面，若不是李扁二人將台灣人民欺愚太甚，又使兩岸關係扭曲太甚，即不可能有兩次政黨輪替；二 ○○○的國民黨及二○○八的民進黨，皆因兩岸政策失敗而喪失政權。相對而言，北京方面若非目睹台灣二十年來的社會翻騰，又怎能體悟台灣民主政治的微妙？如 今，「一國兩制」漸漸淡出，「和平統一」也不再是主打口號，取而代之的是「維持現狀」、「九二共識」（一中各表）及「互利雙贏」、「和平發展」。
可見，這二十年的激盪翻騰，已使兩岸漸漸「想通了」，直航遂亦順理成章。因此，昨日江陳會的簽署，三通並非最重大的成就，最大的成就應是協議達成所反映的兩岸思維的重大調整與改變。也就是說：「想得通」比「三通」的成就更大！
站在「歷史與現實」的大座標上，如今兩岸三黨的落腳點已然顯現：民進黨又回到「消滅共匪」與「台灣國」的時代，共產黨則在「陳雲林要不要稱呼馬總統」的門口徘徊，國民黨則在民進黨及共產黨的兩面壓擠之中。
讓我們回到蔣經國的思考架構：台灣應以正常的民主體制與大陸交往，不要玩弄民主，不要撕裂國家；大陸須回應台灣的民主體制，不要扭曲民意，不要有「誰吃掉誰」的念頭。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2008
The term "three links," as applied to cross-Strait relations, first appeared 30 years ago. Yesterday Chiang Pin-kung and Chen Yunlin finally made it a reality.
The "three links" refer to direct maritime shipping, postal, and trade links, and apply to people and goods. But all three have their origins in a fourth link, a conceptual link. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and the political opposition on Taiwan, must all be able to make this conceptual link.
Actually Chiang Ching-kuo initiated the process of direct links when he allowed military veterans to visit their relatives on the Mainland 20 years ago. Only maritime and air links were established, and the links were not direct. The agreement signed yesterday did not establish links, but rather direct links. The establishment of direct links has been unnecessarily delayed for 20 years. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and political opposition on Taiwan may have had difficulty making the necessary conceptual links, but that hardly meant they opposed direct links.
To allow flights but to disallow direct flights makes utterly no sense. For example, to fly from Taipei to Beijing, one must transit Hong Kong. This makes as little sense as transiting Penghu to fly from Taipei to Kaohsiung. It made even less sense after Hong Kong's retrocession to China in 1997, this time under the administration of Beijing. In effect direct links were allowed to only one city on Mainland China, Hong Kong, but not to other cities on Mainland China. This was the most absurd conceptual block of all. These sorts of conceptual blocks wasted a staggering amount of time and money. They defied logic and made one wonder why no one seemed to have thought the matter through.
The real author of three links was Chiang Ching-kuo. Deng Xiaoping responded constructively to Chiang's initiative. Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law. He allowed veterans to visit their relatives on the Mainland. In the name of veterans visiting their relatives, cross-Strait trade and tourism took off. Politically, Chiang Ching-kuo's lifting of martial law allowed Taiwan to breathe. Economically, Chiang Ching-kuo's cross-strait exchanges allowed both Taiwan and the Mainland to prosper. The simultaneous lifting of martial law and opening of cross-Strait exchanges allowed Taiwan to interact with the Mainland. It also forced the Mainland to acknowledge Taiwan's democratic institutions.
Over the past 20 years, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have experienced sharp conflicts. These conflicts have delayed direct flights until today. But the primary obstacle was conceptual. One. On the Taiwan side, leaders such as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian engaged in political deceit, ripping the nation apart. In terms of cross-Strait relations, they failed to lead the public in the right direction. Cross-Strait trust evaporated. Two. On the Mainland side, they failed to minimize problems. They only knew how to use force. They continued thinking of cross-Strait relations in terms of the KMT vs. CCP Civil War. They failed to respond to Taiwan's system of democracy and the public mood.
On the Mainland, Beijing defined Taiwan using "One Country, Two Systems", "One China" or "Peaceful Reunification." On Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui sent a secret envoy to the Mainland and established the National Unification Guidelines. But eventually he trotted out his short-lived "Two States Theory." Chen Shui-bian advocated a "New Centrist Path" and the "Five Noes." But eventually he engaged in self-deception and became enamoured with the "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution." Over the past 20 years, the Beijing authorities have pushed Lee and Chen from the center towards Taiwan independence. Meanwhile, the cross-Strait tensions Lee and Chen provoked have brought Beijing back to a calmer and more rational path. The two sides have finally signed a direct links agreement. Can it be they have finally thought matters through?
The two sides have been learning from their mistakes for the past 20 years. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the ruling administration and political opposition on Taiwan, have learned a number of painful lessons. On the Taiwan side, Lee and Chen went too far in deceiving the public. They severely undermined cross-Strait relations. This led to the second change in ruling parties. The KMT lost power in 2000. The DPP lost power in 2008. Both lost power as a result of failed cross-Strait policies. Beijing, meanwhile, has been witness to 20 years of turmoil on Taiwan, making it acutely aware of its complex politics. Today slogans such as "One Country, Two Systems" and "Peaceful Reunification" have faded from the scene. They have been replaced by "Maintain the status quo," "Uphold the 1992 consensus," (i.e., One China, Different Expressions") "Win/Win and mutual prosperity" and "Peaceful development."
Twenty years of turmoil have forced the two sides to finally think matters through. Direct flights are now a matter of course. Therefore three links was not the most significant achievement of yesterday's Chiang/Chen Meeting signing ceremony. The most significant achievement was the change in the two sides' thinking. In other words, the conceptual breakthrough was of vastly greater importance than any institutional breakthrough.
As we stand astride this historic roadmark, we see how the three major political parties on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have positioned themselves. The Democratic Progressive Party has returned to the era of "Annihilate the Communist bandits!" and a "Nation of Taiwan." The Chinese Communist Party is wondering whether Chen Yunlin ought to address Ma Ying-jeou as President Ma. The Kuomintang finds itself caught between the DPP and the CCP.
Let us return to Chiang Ching-kuo's thinking. Taiwan should conduct exchanges with the mainland, consistent with its system of democracy. It must not manipulate its system of democracy. It must not tear the nation apart. The Mainland must acknowledge Taiwan's system of democracy. It must not misapprehend the public's mood. It must not harbor notions about who will swallow up whom.
第四通：海空直通，還要「想得通」
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.05 03:39 am
「三通」這個出現在兩岸間已有三十年的名詞，昨天終於在江丙坤、陳雲林簽字後實現。
通航、通郵、通商，這是人貨及訊息的「三通」，而一切的本源皆在「第四通」：兩岸朝野在思想觀念上必須「想得通」！
其實，二十年前，自蔣經國開放「老兵探親」後，兩岸三通即已啟動；唯海空皆通，卻並未「直航」。昨日簽署，不是為了「通航」，而是為了「直航」。直航之所以蹉跎延遲了二十年，可見兩岸朝野皆有「想不通」之處，但並非「不想通」。
可通航而不准直航，確有令人想不通處。例如，從台北到北京，命其須在香港中轉；豈不正如自台北到高雄，命其須在澎湖中轉？尤其，九七香港主權轉移後，已成 中國領土；情勢遂成了只准「直航」中國的香港，而不准「直航」中國其他城市，尤其令人想不通。這種「想不通」的交通設計，虛耗了驚人的金錢與可怕的時間， 違情悖理，究竟是在何處想不通？
三通真正的發動者是蔣經國，回應人則是鄧小平。蔣經國在解嚴的大架構下，同時也開放了「老兵探親」；於是，在「老兵探親」的名目下，使得觀光貿易皆並駕漸 進。蔣經國解嚴，使台灣在政治上不致窒息，開放兩岸交流則使台灣在經濟與兩岸關係上不致窒息；而且，解嚴與交流兩手同時放開，使台灣能以民主體制與大陸交 往，亦使大陸須回應台灣的民主體制。
過去二十年，兩岸不斷發生尖銳的衝突摩擦，致使直航遲誤至今日，其中「想不通」之處正在於：一、台灣方面，主政者李登輝及陳水扁，玩弄政治權謀，撕裂國 家，在兩岸關係上未能正確引導民意，致使兩岸互信完全解構；二、大陸方面，一直不知「以大事小」，而只知「以強制弱」，仍以「國共內戰」來看兩岸關係，而 未能回應台灣民主機制下的民意感受。
其後果是：大陸方面，強以「一國兩制」、「一個中國」或「和平統一」來範限台灣。而台灣方面，則李登輝雖曾有國統綱領及密使來往，最後卻抬出了壽命只有幾 天的「兩國論」；陳水扁則先有「中間路線」及「四不一沒有」，但最後卻陷於「自欺欺人」的「正名制憲」。過去這二十年，可謂是北京當局把李扁從中道逼回到 台獨之路；而李扁引發的兩岸激盪，又將北京帶回到今日較趨平和理性之路。兩岸終於簽署了直航協議，這莫非是想通了？
錯中學，這二十年的血淚經歷，對兩岸朝野皆是痛苦教訓。台灣方面，若不是李扁二人將台灣人民欺愚太甚，又使兩岸關係扭曲太甚，即不可能有兩次政黨輪替；二 ○○○的國民黨及二○○八的民進黨，皆因兩岸政策失敗而喪失政權。相對而言，北京方面若非目睹台灣二十年來的社會翻騰，又怎能體悟台灣民主政治的微妙？如 今，「一國兩制」漸漸淡出，「和平統一」也不再是主打口號，取而代之的是「維持現狀」、「九二共識」（一中各表）及「互利雙贏」、「和平發展」。
可見，這二十年的激盪翻騰，已使兩岸漸漸「想通了」，直航遂亦順理成章。因此，昨日江陳會的簽署，三通並非最重大的成就，最大的成就應是協議達成所反映的兩岸思維的重大調整與改變。也就是說：「想得通」比「三通」的成就更大！
站在「歷史與現實」的大座標上，如今兩岸三黨的落腳點已然顯現：民進黨又回到「消滅共匪」與「台灣國」的時代，共產黨則在「陳雲林要不要稱呼馬總統」的門口徘徊，國民黨則在民進黨及共產黨的兩面壓擠之中。
讓我們回到蔣經國的思考架構：台灣應以正常的民主體制與大陸交往，不要玩弄民主，不要撕裂國家；大陸須回應台灣的民主體制，不要扭曲民意，不要有「誰吃掉誰」的念頭。
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Democratic Progressive Party: Five Days for Its Future
The Democratic Progressive Party: Five Days for Its Future
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2008
Chen Yunlin's five-day visit may have a critical impact on the long term future of the Democratic Progressive Party. The DPP has mobilized all sorts of protests intended to harass Chen Yunlin or disrupt the Chiang/Chen Meeting. In fact, such activities are more likely to inflict serious injury upon the Democratic Progressive Party itself.
Chen Yunlin's visit became a source of contention within the Democratic Progressive Party some time ago. Wang Ting-yu assaulted Zhang Mingqiing and became a Taiwan independence "hero." Chen Shui-bian was welcomed at Jingfu Men on October 25 by cheering masses. They have become the biggest beneficiaries of Chen Yunlin's visit. The resulting leadership crisis has forced Tsai Ing-wen to walk a tightrope. If during Chen Yunlin's five-day visit, the Democratic Progressive Party's protests fail to transcend its "Nation of Taiwan" agenda, if party leaders perpetrate even more unseemly acts, it is unlikely to win the approval of mainstream society. It may even hurt the DPP's long term future.
Cross-Strait relations is one of the most important factors affecting Taiwan's fate. Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan is the key to the timing and tone of the DPP's current cross-Strait policy. The Democratic Progressive Party continues to demand a "Nation of Taiwan" and has returned to its old habits of verbal threats and physical violence. The public on Taiwan must be wondering how the DPP can possibly maintain peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations if it ever returns to office? Conversely, if the Democratic Progressive Party still advocates a "Nation of Taiwan" and mob violence, how could mainstream society on Taiwan possibly support its return to power? If the Democratic Progressive Party does not approach cross-Strait relations rationally, and assumes power again one day, won't that be the day the two sides come to blows? Will the public be comfortable with Taiwan falling into the hands of the DPP, once again?
Loss of political power has not induced the DPP to modify its path of Taiwan independence and physical violence. Just the opposite. In recent months, as a result of Chen Yunlin's visit, Taiwan independence forces within the Democratic Progressive Party have acquired unprecedented strength. Their violent proclivities are reflected in the applause Wang Ting-yu has received. The Democratic Progressive Party was not this decadent 20 years ago, during the 12 years before it assumed power. During the first five years of Chen Shui-bian and Democratic Progressive Party rule, it exercised comparative self-restraint. For example, it advocated a "New Centrist Path" and "Five Noes." Until the last three years, when corruption ran rampant, the party still made an occasional effort to redeem itself. But now that Chen Yunlin has come to visit, the Democratic Progressive Party has been hijacked by the likes of Chen Shui-bian, Wang Ting-yu, and the most violent elements within the Taiwan independence movement. Tsai Ing-wen is afraid to disown Chen Shui-bian, and unable to control him. She has allowed herself to be swept along by the mob. The Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy has been set by Wang Ting-yu, Chen Shui-bian, and their ilk, not by Tsai Ing-wen.
Their cross-Strait policy amounts to a DPP declaration of war against Mainland China. It amounts to the DPP thumbing its nose at the United States and the international community. It amounts to the DPP defying mainstream opinion on Taiwan. After the dust settles, will the Democratic Progressive Party have enjoyed a five-day lark, at the expense of their reason and their long term future?
A surfeit of emotion, a deficit of reason. That is today's Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party must of course express an opinion about Chen Yunlin's visit. On the one hand, it is its right. It is an opposition party. It reflects public opinion. Amidst bilateral negotiations, no one can deny the utilty of a "Good Cop/Bad Cop" strategy. But the current Chiang/Chen Meeting addresses administrative matters. The Democratic Progressive Party has said nothing about the four major issues. Meanwhile, regarding the political implications of the Chiang/Chen Meeting, the SEF and ARATS have operated by the same rules for nearly 20 years. During the Democratic Progressive Party's eight years in office, it operated by these same rules. Regarding the contaminated powdered milk incident, the public on Taiwan demanded an apology, and ARATS has apologized. The Democratic Progressive Party has yet to change the wording on its protest banners, which continue to demand an apology. What impression has the DPP left the public on Taiwan and the international community during the two months leading up to Chen Yunlin's visit? Chen Shui-bian being cheered in front of Jingfu Men? Wang Ting-yu and his mob assaulting a defenseless Zhang Mingqing? Shrill demands to "Arrest the Communist Bandits?" Streets filled with "Nation of Taiwan" banners?
DPP needs to realize that the public on Taiwan has different views regarding Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan. The American, Japanese, and European Chambers of Commerce approve of the Chiang/Chen Meeting. The seven major industrial and commercial organizations have looked forward to the Chiang/Chen Meeting. Even friends of Chen Yunlin from Chiayi County, who happened to run into Chen in Fujian, wanted him to share a bowl of chicken flavored rice with them. In short, it is unlikely that a majority of the public on Taiwan approves of a cross-Strait policy that demands a "Nation of Taiwan." It is unlikely that a majority of the public on Taiwan approves of uncivilized assaults against mainland guests. While Democratic Progressive Party leaders fought over the chance to humiliate visitors, it forgot that the international community was watching, and judging. It forgot that the public on Taiwan was also watching, and judging.
Indulging one's passions for five days is so tempting, so easy. But like a bubble, it quickly fades. The Democratic Progressive Party's long term future still requires the voice of reason.
民進黨的這五天與大未來
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.04 03:18 am
陳雲林到訪這五天，對民進黨的大未來，可能發生關鍵性的影響。從表面上看，民進黨的種種抗議動員，皆是想對陳雲林本人或「江陳會」造成干擾，但在實質上卻更可能反而形成民進黨的嚴重自殘自傷。
我 們曾經指出，陳雲林到訪早已成為民進黨的內鬥題材。王定宇因撂倒張銘清成為台獨英雄，及一○二五陳水扁在景福門接受群眾歡呼，已成為陳雲林來訪的最大受益 者；蔡英文則不得不為其領導危機尋求走鋼索的平衡。倘若陳雲林到訪這五天，民進黨抗議的訴求不能跳出「台灣國」的挾持，甚至演出難以入目的不理性場景，就 恐怕未必能贏得台灣主流社會的掌聲，甚至可能傷害了民進黨的大未來。
兩岸關係無論如何皆是攸關台灣吉凶福禍的重中之重；陳雲林來台，則是 民進黨對其兩岸政策定調及定性的關鍵時機。台灣人民將會思考：持「台灣國」訴求的民進黨若再度執政，或持語文及肢體暴力路線的民進黨若再度執政，將如何維 繫一個「和平穩定」的兩岸關係？反過來說，民進黨若仍持「台灣國」及暴力路線，又如何能獲得台灣主流社會的支持而重新執政？民進黨如此不理智地處理兩岸關 係，則民進黨再執政之日，豈非可能成了兩岸全面撕裂之日？然則，難道國人會同意或放心將台灣再交回民進黨的手中？
如今必須正視的是：現在 的民進黨非但未因失去政權而稍加調整其台獨及暴力路線；卻是反其道而行，近幾個月來，在陳雲林到訪的題材下，民進黨內的台獨勢力已經佔據空前的強勢，而其 暴力內涵則充分表現在王定宇所獲的喝采聲中。過去二十年，即使在民進黨未執政的前十二年中，民進黨的體質與氣質並未惡化至此；而在民進黨執政的後八年中， 陳水扁及民進黨至少在前五年多亦多所節制，例如「新中間路線」及「四不一沒有」；甚至到了貪案頻爆的最後三年，黨內亦仍時有思謀挽救的努力。但是，就在此 刻陳雲林來訪之時，卻是民進黨被陳水扁、王定宇之類台獨及暴力分子挾持的最顛峰時段。蔡英文對此不敢切割，又無力節制，只是隨波逐流；如今為民進黨兩岸政 策定調及定性者，是陳水扁及王定宇之輩，而絕不是蔡英文。
這種兩岸政策的定調或定性，倘若就是民進黨向中國下的戰檄，就是民進黨對美國等國際主流架構的表態，以及就是民進黨向台灣主流社會的挑戰；則事情過後，民進黨會不會徒留這充滿情緒的短暫五天，而失去了必須以理智為憑的大未來？
充 滿情緒，理智失焦，這正是今天的民進黨。民進黨在陳雲林來訪時當然必須發聲，這一方面是民權，一方面是在野黨的角色，另一方面無疑也反映民意；因為，在兩 岸交涉之際，任何人皆可看出「黑臉白臉」的互補效益。但是，就此次「江陳會」的事務性議題言，民進黨未曾對四大議題說出半個「不」字；另就「江陳會」的政 治定位而言，海基會海協會的交涉是已近二十年的規制，民進黨執政八年亦仍維持並運作；甚至連毒奶粉事件，台灣民間要求道歉而海協會已經道歉，民進黨則連要 求道歉的抗議標語都還來不及調換。那麼，這兩個多月來因陳雲林到訪，民進黨將在國人及國際留下的印象難道只是：陳水扁在景福門前接受歡呼，王定宇圍毆落單 的張銘清，盈耳「抓共匪」的口號，及湧現街頭的「台灣國」旗幟？
民進黨必須認清，台灣社會對陳雲林來訪，畢竟仍有與民進黨不同的評價。 美、日、歐商會支持江陳會，七大工商團體期待江陳會，甚至曾與陳雲林在福建土樓巧遇的嘉義鄉親，也盼望陳雲林去吃一碗雞肉飯；亦即，恐非多數的台灣人會同 意以「台灣國」為兩岸政策，亦恐非多數的台灣人會贊同用不文明的暴力及羞辱手法來對待大陸來賓。民進黨內部在搶佔羞辱來客的政治舞台時，別忘了國際社會對 民進黨的論定，也別忘了台灣主流社會對民進黨的評價。
五天的放縱激情，何其容易，卻會像啵一聲泡沫般快速消逝；但民進黨的大未來，仍須以理智為憑。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2008
Chen Yunlin's five-day visit may have a critical impact on the long term future of the Democratic Progressive Party. The DPP has mobilized all sorts of protests intended to harass Chen Yunlin or disrupt the Chiang/Chen Meeting. In fact, such activities are more likely to inflict serious injury upon the Democratic Progressive Party itself.
Chen Yunlin's visit became a source of contention within the Democratic Progressive Party some time ago. Wang Ting-yu assaulted Zhang Mingqiing and became a Taiwan independence "hero." Chen Shui-bian was welcomed at Jingfu Men on October 25 by cheering masses. They have become the biggest beneficiaries of Chen Yunlin's visit. The resulting leadership crisis has forced Tsai Ing-wen to walk a tightrope. If during Chen Yunlin's five-day visit, the Democratic Progressive Party's protests fail to transcend its "Nation of Taiwan" agenda, if party leaders perpetrate even more unseemly acts, it is unlikely to win the approval of mainstream society. It may even hurt the DPP's long term future.
Cross-Strait relations is one of the most important factors affecting Taiwan's fate. Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan is the key to the timing and tone of the DPP's current cross-Strait policy. The Democratic Progressive Party continues to demand a "Nation of Taiwan" and has returned to its old habits of verbal threats and physical violence. The public on Taiwan must be wondering how the DPP can possibly maintain peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations if it ever returns to office? Conversely, if the Democratic Progressive Party still advocates a "Nation of Taiwan" and mob violence, how could mainstream society on Taiwan possibly support its return to power? If the Democratic Progressive Party does not approach cross-Strait relations rationally, and assumes power again one day, won't that be the day the two sides come to blows? Will the public be comfortable with Taiwan falling into the hands of the DPP, once again?
Loss of political power has not induced the DPP to modify its path of Taiwan independence and physical violence. Just the opposite. In recent months, as a result of Chen Yunlin's visit, Taiwan independence forces within the Democratic Progressive Party have acquired unprecedented strength. Their violent proclivities are reflected in the applause Wang Ting-yu has received. The Democratic Progressive Party was not this decadent 20 years ago, during the 12 years before it assumed power. During the first five years of Chen Shui-bian and Democratic Progressive Party rule, it exercised comparative self-restraint. For example, it advocated a "New Centrist Path" and "Five Noes." Until the last three years, when corruption ran rampant, the party still made an occasional effort to redeem itself. But now that Chen Yunlin has come to visit, the Democratic Progressive Party has been hijacked by the likes of Chen Shui-bian, Wang Ting-yu, and the most violent elements within the Taiwan independence movement. Tsai Ing-wen is afraid to disown Chen Shui-bian, and unable to control him. She has allowed herself to be swept along by the mob. The Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy has been set by Wang Ting-yu, Chen Shui-bian, and their ilk, not by Tsai Ing-wen.
Their cross-Strait policy amounts to a DPP declaration of war against Mainland China. It amounts to the DPP thumbing its nose at the United States and the international community. It amounts to the DPP defying mainstream opinion on Taiwan. After the dust settles, will the Democratic Progressive Party have enjoyed a five-day lark, at the expense of their reason and their long term future?
A surfeit of emotion, a deficit of reason. That is today's Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party must of course express an opinion about Chen Yunlin's visit. On the one hand, it is its right. It is an opposition party. It reflects public opinion. Amidst bilateral negotiations, no one can deny the utilty of a "Good Cop/Bad Cop" strategy. But the current Chiang/Chen Meeting addresses administrative matters. The Democratic Progressive Party has said nothing about the four major issues. Meanwhile, regarding the political implications of the Chiang/Chen Meeting, the SEF and ARATS have operated by the same rules for nearly 20 years. During the Democratic Progressive Party's eight years in office, it operated by these same rules. Regarding the contaminated powdered milk incident, the public on Taiwan demanded an apology, and ARATS has apologized. The Democratic Progressive Party has yet to change the wording on its protest banners, which continue to demand an apology. What impression has the DPP left the public on Taiwan and the international community during the two months leading up to Chen Yunlin's visit? Chen Shui-bian being cheered in front of Jingfu Men? Wang Ting-yu and his mob assaulting a defenseless Zhang Mingqing? Shrill demands to "Arrest the Communist Bandits?" Streets filled with "Nation of Taiwan" banners?
DPP needs to realize that the public on Taiwan has different views regarding Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan. The American, Japanese, and European Chambers of Commerce approve of the Chiang/Chen Meeting. The seven major industrial and commercial organizations have looked forward to the Chiang/Chen Meeting. Even friends of Chen Yunlin from Chiayi County, who happened to run into Chen in Fujian, wanted him to share a bowl of chicken flavored rice with them. In short, it is unlikely that a majority of the public on Taiwan approves of a cross-Strait policy that demands a "Nation of Taiwan." It is unlikely that a majority of the public on Taiwan approves of uncivilized assaults against mainland guests. While Democratic Progressive Party leaders fought over the chance to humiliate visitors, it forgot that the international community was watching, and judging. It forgot that the public on Taiwan was also watching, and judging.
Indulging one's passions for five days is so tempting, so easy. But like a bubble, it quickly fades. The Democratic Progressive Party's long term future still requires the voice of reason.
民進黨的這五天與大未來
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.04 03:18 am
陳雲林到訪這五天，對民進黨的大未來，可能發生關鍵性的影響。從表面上看，民進黨的種種抗議動員，皆是想對陳雲林本人或「江陳會」造成干擾，但在實質上卻更可能反而形成民進黨的嚴重自殘自傷。
我 們曾經指出，陳雲林到訪早已成為民進黨的內鬥題材。王定宇因撂倒張銘清成為台獨英雄，及一○二五陳水扁在景福門接受群眾歡呼，已成為陳雲林來訪的最大受益 者；蔡英文則不得不為其領導危機尋求走鋼索的平衡。倘若陳雲林到訪這五天，民進黨抗議的訴求不能跳出「台灣國」的挾持，甚至演出難以入目的不理性場景，就 恐怕未必能贏得台灣主流社會的掌聲，甚至可能傷害了民進黨的大未來。
兩岸關係無論如何皆是攸關台灣吉凶福禍的重中之重；陳雲林來台，則是 民進黨對其兩岸政策定調及定性的關鍵時機。台灣人民將會思考：持「台灣國」訴求的民進黨若再度執政，或持語文及肢體暴力路線的民進黨若再度執政，將如何維 繫一個「和平穩定」的兩岸關係？反過來說，民進黨若仍持「台灣國」及暴力路線，又如何能獲得台灣主流社會的支持而重新執政？民進黨如此不理智地處理兩岸關 係，則民進黨再執政之日，豈非可能成了兩岸全面撕裂之日？然則，難道國人會同意或放心將台灣再交回民進黨的手中？
如今必須正視的是：現在 的民進黨非但未因失去政權而稍加調整其台獨及暴力路線；卻是反其道而行，近幾個月來，在陳雲林到訪的題材下，民進黨內的台獨勢力已經佔據空前的強勢，而其 暴力內涵則充分表現在王定宇所獲的喝采聲中。過去二十年，即使在民進黨未執政的前十二年中，民進黨的體質與氣質並未惡化至此；而在民進黨執政的後八年中， 陳水扁及民進黨至少在前五年多亦多所節制，例如「新中間路線」及「四不一沒有」；甚至到了貪案頻爆的最後三年，黨內亦仍時有思謀挽救的努力。但是，就在此 刻陳雲林來訪之時，卻是民進黨被陳水扁、王定宇之類台獨及暴力分子挾持的最顛峰時段。蔡英文對此不敢切割，又無力節制，只是隨波逐流；如今為民進黨兩岸政 策定調及定性者，是陳水扁及王定宇之輩，而絕不是蔡英文。
這種兩岸政策的定調或定性，倘若就是民進黨向中國下的戰檄，就是民進黨對美國等國際主流架構的表態，以及就是民進黨向台灣主流社會的挑戰；則事情過後，民進黨會不會徒留這充滿情緒的短暫五天，而失去了必須以理智為憑的大未來？
充 滿情緒，理智失焦，這正是今天的民進黨。民進黨在陳雲林來訪時當然必須發聲，這一方面是民權，一方面是在野黨的角色，另一方面無疑也反映民意；因為，在兩 岸交涉之際，任何人皆可看出「黑臉白臉」的互補效益。但是，就此次「江陳會」的事務性議題言，民進黨未曾對四大議題說出半個「不」字；另就「江陳會」的政 治定位而言，海基會海協會的交涉是已近二十年的規制，民進黨執政八年亦仍維持並運作；甚至連毒奶粉事件，台灣民間要求道歉而海協會已經道歉，民進黨則連要 求道歉的抗議標語都還來不及調換。那麼，這兩個多月來因陳雲林到訪，民進黨將在國人及國際留下的印象難道只是：陳水扁在景福門前接受歡呼，王定宇圍毆落單 的張銘清，盈耳「抓共匪」的口號，及湧現街頭的「台灣國」旗幟？
民進黨必須認清，台灣社會對陳雲林來訪，畢竟仍有與民進黨不同的評價。 美、日、歐商會支持江陳會，七大工商團體期待江陳會，甚至曾與陳雲林在福建土樓巧遇的嘉義鄉親，也盼望陳雲林去吃一碗雞肉飯；亦即，恐非多數的台灣人會同 意以「台灣國」為兩岸政策，亦恐非多數的台灣人會贊同用不文明的暴力及羞辱手法來對待大陸來賓。民進黨內部在搶佔羞辱來客的政治舞台時，別忘了國際社會對 民進黨的論定，也別忘了台灣主流社會對民進黨的評價。
五天的放縱激情，何其容易，卻會像啵一聲泡沫般快速消逝；但民進黨的大未來，仍須以理智為憑。
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei: Peace and Prosperity
The Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei: Peace and Prosperity
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 3, 2008
Today ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin led a delegation to Taiwan. This constitutes a major milestone during 60 years of cross-Strait relations.
Anyone focused exclusively on the disturbances in the streets during Chen Yunlin's visit will not see the forest for the trees. On the other hand, anyone who views events through a longer lens, through 60 years of history, will appreciate the historical significance of the Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei.
Last Thursday in Beijing, Chen Yunlin said that as the Chairman of the State Council for Taiwan Affairs and the Chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Strait, he "found himself situated at critical point in history and reality." Therefore he hoped he could contribute something to cross-Strait relations. Chen Yunlin was born in 1941. That means he was once a Republic of China citizen. He joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1961, the year the Cultural Revolution was launched. During last Thursday's press conference, he said that in preparation for his visit to Taiwan, he devoted considerable energy to learning the Minnan dialect. He said he regretted not being able to visit central and southern Taiwan. He became so choked with emotion he could no longer speak. His reaction was the result of 60 years of setbacks. Today Chen Yunlin stands at the crossroads of his personal history and reality.
But let's look beyond Chen Yunlin individually, and examine matters from a higher perspective. Sixty years of history and reality have led us to today. The two sides became separated because China's poverty and weakness led to chaos. Once the two sides were separated, in 1949, each side adopted a different philosophy and approach in its attempt to solve the problem of poverty and weakness. The Mainland was led by Mao Zedong. Deng Xiaoping's reforms and liberalization in the late 70's, reversed Mao's direction. Without them the Mainland would still be the victim of man-made disasters caused by Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four. Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and established exchanges with the mainland. Without these changes, Taiwan would have been strangled long ago, both politically and economically. That is why both the Mainland and Taiwan experienced breakthroughs in their political and economic development. That is why cross-Strait relations have transcended obsolete catechisms such as "Liberate Taiwan" or "Counterattack the Mainland." That is why Chen Yunlin, who joined the Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution, can now arrive on Taiwan as a special envoy and engage in peaceful consultations.
Even if one shrinks one's timeframe to the past 20 years, to the lifting of martial law on Taiwan, the convergence of history and reality is mind-boggling. In 1993, Koo Chen-fu met with Wang Daohan in Singapore. The players on Taiwan were Lee Teng-hui and Koo Chen-fu. On the Mainland they were Jiang Zemin and Wang Daohan. In 1999, a Second Koo-Wang Talk was planned for Taipei, but negotiations broke down. This was followed by by the eight year long embarrassment known as Chen Shui-bian. Nine years later, on May 20, cross-Strait exchanges were restored. The Mainland's players are Hu Jintao and Chen Yunlin. Taiwan's players are Ma Ying-jeou and Chiang Pin-kung. Times have changed. The nine year hiatus seemed to put history on hold. But because the mountain wouldn't come to Mohammed, Mohammed went to the mountain. And the currents of history are flowing again.
The Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei is a 60 year historical landmark, Cross-Strait interaction is an invisible but perceptible thread. It represents the people's longing for peace. The Chinese Mainland endured class struggle under Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four. Deng Xiaoping's reforms and liberalization were responses to the people's hopes and dreams. Deng's reforms and liberalization changed the relationship between the government and the political opposition on the Chinese Mainland. It changed the theme of cross-Strait relations to a longing for peace. Otherwise, today's regime in Beijing would be little different from the regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the lifting of martial law on Taiwan made the will of the public abundantly clear. Cross-Strait relations became a subject of public debate. Lee Teng-hui's flip-flopping opportunism, and Chen Shui-bian's self-deceptive "Rectification of Names and Authoring of a New Constitution," can be seen as a painful process Taiwan's cross-Strait policy had to undergo. Agreement is not yet complete, but mainstream public opinion on Taiwan demands peace. Demand for peace was a fundamental force behind the 2008 election. In other words, As long as Mainland China continues its political liberalization and economic reforms; as long as as Taiwan's democracy and rule of law is not subverted, the cross-Strait consensus will be peace and mutual prosperity. It will also constitute the larger current of history.
People yearn for peace. The two sides must respond to their wishes. As long as the two sides adhere to peace as their highest principle, cross-Strait interaction is likely to fulfill the public's demand for a win-win relationship and mutual prosperity. As long as the two sides invest increased energy into fulfilling the public's demand for a win-win relationship and mutual prosperity, cross-Strait peace is sustainable.
The two sides have endured 60 years of of blood and tears to get to where they are today. Before Chen Yunlin departed for Taiwan, he openly praised Taiwan's economic miracle and status as one of the Four Asian Tigers. By contrast, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan usually hesitate to affirm or to praise "The Rise of China." In any event the success enjoyed by both sides is not due to luck. Had mainland China not been the beneficiary of Deng Xiaoping's tutulage, had Chiang Ching-kuo not helped Taiwan emerge from its cocoon, lifting restrictions and opening up new possibilities, neither Taiwan nor the mainland would be where they are today. As long as the dominant figures were Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping, and the path correct, i.e., lifting martial law, exchanges, reforms, and liberalization, both sides could govern successfully. Their successes would result in a cross-Strait policy of peace and mutual prosperity.
But time never stands still. The world never stops turning. Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping have gone to their rewards. Their cross-Strait thinking may not be of much help to current cross-Strait relations; What Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao are doing, and must continue doing, is already far beyond anything Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping ever imagined.
Let's review 20 years of often stormy cross-Strait interaction. Lee Teng-hui once had his "National Unification Guidelines" and even a secret envoy engaged in shuttle diplomacy. But the two sides lost confidence in each other. Today, Lee Teng-hui, the "Godfather of Taiwan independence," openly refers to Taiwan independence as "outdated and dangerous." Chen Shui-bian once had his "New Centrist Path" and "Five Noes." He even referred to the "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution" as "self-deception." Later however, Chen supported independence and abetted corruption. Twenty years of cross-Strait interaction shows us that if mainland China does not respect the Republic of China, and does not allow it sufficient latitude, turmoil on Taiwan and a cross-Strait crisis will persist. Twenty years ago the Beijing authorities' perspective was, "The Republic of China is dead." Today it is "Maintain the status quo" and "Defend the 1992 consensus," and by implication, "One China, Different Interpretations." We have lived through 50 to 60 years of "Liberate Taiwan!" and "Counterattack the Mainland!" We have endured 20 years of infighting over reunification vs. independence. Have we learned our lesson? Have we woken up?
Chen Yunlin stands at the crossroads of history and reality. He is demonstrating remarkable forbearance over the attack on Zhang Mingqing. He is apologizing for the contaminated powdered milk scandal. He was choked with emotion as he spoke. He bit his tongue and swallowed his pride. The public on Taiwan either welcomes or opposes Chen Yunlin's visit. But the relationship between the two sides is not sufficiently equal for Taiwan. Lack of dignity may provoke resentment. But 50 or 60 years ago we were using guns to "Liberate Taiwan" or "Counterattack the Mainland." For 20 years we fought over over independence vs. reunification. Today the Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei stands astride history and reality. It is unquestionably a positive and progressive development, one that ought to be celebrated and affirmed. As we can see, after endless friction and collision, we have finally found the right direction. That direction is peace and mutual prosperity.
We hope Ma Ying-jeou, Hu Jintao, and the leaders of both sides will surpass Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping 's achievements and thinking. Their achievements and thinking about cross-Strait relations, if correct, will ensure peace and mutual prosperity.
台北江陳會：和平共榮是歷史的方向
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.03 02:15 am
海協會長陳雲林今日率團來台，這是六十年來深具里程碑意義的兩岸大事。
倘各方目光僅投注在陳雲林來訪時的台北街頭擾攘，恐怕只是見樹不見林；若能將視野拉高放大至一甲子以來的宏觀時空架構，始能看出台北「江陳會」在大歷史中的奇峰突起。
陳雲林上周四在北京開記者會，他說：他自國台辦至海協會，「置身歷史和現實的座標點上」，希望為兩岸多做點事。以陳雲林的年歲，一九四一年生，曾是中華民 國國民；一九六六年入中國共產黨，正是文革發動之年；然而，在上周四的記者會中，他說為了訪問台灣，勤學閩南話；又說，這次他不能到中南部，遺憾之餘，竟 致哽咽失聲。這六十多年的滄桑，交匯在陳雲林今日個人生命的「歷史與現實」的座標點上。
跳開陳雲林個人，拉高放大來看，今日兩岸關係的「歷史與現實」，更是交匯在一甲子以來更宏觀的一個大歷史座標點上。兩岸的分離，是因中國窮弱造成的動亂所 致；一九四九年兩岸分離後，各自以不同的理念與方法，去各自設法解決窮與弱的問題。大陸由毛澤東主導，倘若沒有鄧小平在七○年代後期開端的改革開放，扭轉 了發展方向，大陸恐怕迄今仍陷於毛澤東及四人幫所製造的禍亂之中；相對而言，台灣若無蔣經國的解除戒嚴及開放與大陸交流，台灣也恐怕在政治或經濟上早已窒 息。正因大陸及台灣各自在政經發展上分別突破了自困的瓶頸，所以兩岸關係也才可能跳脫「解放台灣」或「反攻大陸」的符咒，今日也才會見到文革年代加入共產 黨的陳雲林，以和平協商特使的角色來到台灣。
即使將時空緊縮至台灣解嚴後的最近二十年，這種「歷史與現實」的交匯衝擊，也是驚心動魄的。一九九三年，「辜汪會」在新加坡舉行，當年台灣的卡司是「李登 輝／辜振甫」，大陸的卡司是「江澤民／汪道涵」；至一九九九年，「辜汪二次會談」幾乎就將在台北舉行，卻臨陣破局，接著就是陳水扁的尷尬八年；現在，九年 後，今年五二○兩岸恢復交流機制，大陸的卡司已換成了「胡錦濤／陳雲林」，台灣的卡司則換成了「馬英九／江丙坤」。可見，人事斗轉星移，甚至歷史江河彷彿 也被截流斷流了九年；但是路不轉人轉，江河之水如今儼然又是滔滔滾滾。
將台北「江陳會」置於六十年來「歷史與現實」的座標點上，可以看出兩岸互動有一條由隱而顯、由微而著的主軸線，那就是「民意與和平」。中國大陸擺脫了毛澤 東及四人幫的階級鬥爭論，改行鄧小平的改革開放，主要是因必須回應民意；而改革開放變化了中國大陸的朝野體質與思維，也才會改以「和平」為兩岸關係的主軸 路線；否則，今日的北京政權恐怕猶如平壤政權。相對而言，台灣方面在解嚴後，民意獲得快速釋放，兩岸關係立即成了民意激盪的重要題材，而李登輝左右搖擺的 機會主義及陳水扁「自欺欺人」的「正名制憲」，則可視為台灣在兩岸政策上必然應當經歷的民主辯證過程；至今，台灣民意雖未達到圓融整合，但「和平」無疑是 台灣主流民意的共同主張，這也是二○○八政黨輪替的基本動力。換句話說，只要中國大陸在內政上繼續深化放大政治與經濟的改革開放，只要台灣的民主法治也能 勿受汙染，兩岸「和平共榮」應是民意的共同歸趨，也必是歷史的方向。
民意嚮往和平，兩岸均須回應民意。兩岸當局只要堅持「和平」的最高原則，兩岸的互動即可能滿足「共榮雙贏」的民意；而兩岸當局只要多置心力於「共榮雙贏」的民意，兩岸的「和平」即得以維繫。
六十年來，兩岸皆是歷經血淚艱辛而走至今日境地，陳雲林行前公開誇讚台灣創造了「亞洲四小龍」的經濟奇蹟，而台灣朝野亦常不吝對「中國崛起」給予肯定及讚 譽。但兩岸今日成就，亦絕非倖致；如前所述，倘大陸無鄧小平之扶傾廈、挽狂瀾，台灣無蔣經國之脫繭、鬆綁、開新局；則台灣及大陸的內部治理不可能有今日境 界，而兩岸關係也不可能出現如今這般柳暗花明的氛圍。由此可知：只要主導人物對了（蔣經國／鄧小平），路線對了（解嚴交流／改革開放），兩岸的內部治理就 會有成績，而這些成績就會反映到趨向「和平共榮」的兩岸關係上。
然而，歲月不居，地球不停，今日即使起蔣經國與鄧小平於地下，他們當年的兩岸思維，也恐怕無濟於現今的兩岸關係；今天，馬英九及胡錦濤正在做的事及所應當做的事，實已不同於並超越了蔣經國與鄧小平當年的想像。
再回顧二十年來兩岸的慘烈互動。李登輝曾有「國統綱領」，甚至密使穿梭，但因兩岸當局失去誠信，李登輝現在成了公開指「台獨過時又危險」的「台獨教父」； 陳水扁曾有「中間路線」及「四不一沒有」，甚至稱「正名制憲自欺欺人」，後來卻「挺獨護貪」走到今日境地。這二十年的兩岸互動顯示，中國大陸若不能尊重 「中華民國」有足夠的空間，台灣的動盪及兩岸的危機將始終存在。北京當局從二十年前「中華民國已死」的政策觀點，走到今日「維持現狀」及「九二共識」（潛 台詞是「一中各表」）；這非但是因穿越了五、六十年前「解放／反攻」的歷史硝煙，也是因深受過去二十年統獨惡鬥之痛，而有所體驗及省悟吧？
陳雲林站在「歷史與現實」的座標點上，為張銘清事件隱忍，為毒奶粉事件道歉，語帶哽咽，心中必有打脫牙和血吞的感慨；而台灣民眾在反對或期待陳雲林來訪 時，亦皆對台灣在兩岸關係上不夠對等、有失尊嚴的處境而心存遺憾或憤懣。但是，較諸五、六十年前「解放／反攻」用槍?相互殘殺，及較諸二十年來的統獨惡 鬥，今日台北「江陳會」所站的「歷史與現實」的座標點，卻無疑是正面的、進取的，也是足可慶幸與肯定的。可見，愈是經歷摩擦衝撞，愈能淬礪探索出正確的方 向，這個方向就是「和平共榮」。
我們期盼，馬英九、胡錦濤及今後的兩岸領導人，在內部治理的思維及方法上能有超越蔣經國及鄧小平的境界及成就，而這類思維、方法及境界、成就，亦必可反映在「和平共榮」的兩岸關係上。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 3, 2008
Today ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin led a delegation to Taiwan. This constitutes a major milestone during 60 years of cross-Strait relations.
Anyone focused exclusively on the disturbances in the streets during Chen Yunlin's visit will not see the forest for the trees. On the other hand, anyone who views events through a longer lens, through 60 years of history, will appreciate the historical significance of the Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei.
Last Thursday in Beijing, Chen Yunlin said that as the Chairman of the State Council for Taiwan Affairs and the Chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Strait, he "found himself situated at critical point in history and reality." Therefore he hoped he could contribute something to cross-Strait relations. Chen Yunlin was born in 1941. That means he was once a Republic of China citizen. He joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1961, the year the Cultural Revolution was launched. During last Thursday's press conference, he said that in preparation for his visit to Taiwan, he devoted considerable energy to learning the Minnan dialect. He said he regretted not being able to visit central and southern Taiwan. He became so choked with emotion he could no longer speak. His reaction was the result of 60 years of setbacks. Today Chen Yunlin stands at the crossroads of his personal history and reality.
But let's look beyond Chen Yunlin individually, and examine matters from a higher perspective. Sixty years of history and reality have led us to today. The two sides became separated because China's poverty and weakness led to chaos. Once the two sides were separated, in 1949, each side adopted a different philosophy and approach in its attempt to solve the problem of poverty and weakness. The Mainland was led by Mao Zedong. Deng Xiaoping's reforms and liberalization in the late 70's, reversed Mao's direction. Without them the Mainland would still be the victim of man-made disasters caused by Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four. Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and established exchanges with the mainland. Without these changes, Taiwan would have been strangled long ago, both politically and economically. That is why both the Mainland and Taiwan experienced breakthroughs in their political and economic development. That is why cross-Strait relations have transcended obsolete catechisms such as "Liberate Taiwan" or "Counterattack the Mainland." That is why Chen Yunlin, who joined the Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution, can now arrive on Taiwan as a special envoy and engage in peaceful consultations.
Even if one shrinks one's timeframe to the past 20 years, to the lifting of martial law on Taiwan, the convergence of history and reality is mind-boggling. In 1993, Koo Chen-fu met with Wang Daohan in Singapore. The players on Taiwan were Lee Teng-hui and Koo Chen-fu. On the Mainland they were Jiang Zemin and Wang Daohan. In 1999, a Second Koo-Wang Talk was planned for Taipei, but negotiations broke down. This was followed by by the eight year long embarrassment known as Chen Shui-bian. Nine years later, on May 20, cross-Strait exchanges were restored. The Mainland's players are Hu Jintao and Chen Yunlin. Taiwan's players are Ma Ying-jeou and Chiang Pin-kung. Times have changed. The nine year hiatus seemed to put history on hold. But because the mountain wouldn't come to Mohammed, Mohammed went to the mountain. And the currents of history are flowing again.
The Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei is a 60 year historical landmark, Cross-Strait interaction is an invisible but perceptible thread. It represents the people's longing for peace. The Chinese Mainland endured class struggle under Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four. Deng Xiaoping's reforms and liberalization were responses to the people's hopes and dreams. Deng's reforms and liberalization changed the relationship between the government and the political opposition on the Chinese Mainland. It changed the theme of cross-Strait relations to a longing for peace. Otherwise, today's regime in Beijing would be little different from the regime in Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the lifting of martial law on Taiwan made the will of the public abundantly clear. Cross-Strait relations became a subject of public debate. Lee Teng-hui's flip-flopping opportunism, and Chen Shui-bian's self-deceptive "Rectification of Names and Authoring of a New Constitution," can be seen as a painful process Taiwan's cross-Strait policy had to undergo. Agreement is not yet complete, but mainstream public opinion on Taiwan demands peace. Demand for peace was a fundamental force behind the 2008 election. In other words, As long as Mainland China continues its political liberalization and economic reforms; as long as as Taiwan's democracy and rule of law is not subverted, the cross-Strait consensus will be peace and mutual prosperity. It will also constitute the larger current of history.
People yearn for peace. The two sides must respond to their wishes. As long as the two sides adhere to peace as their highest principle, cross-Strait interaction is likely to fulfill the public's demand for a win-win relationship and mutual prosperity. As long as the two sides invest increased energy into fulfilling the public's demand for a win-win relationship and mutual prosperity, cross-Strait peace is sustainable.
The two sides have endured 60 years of of blood and tears to get to where they are today. Before Chen Yunlin departed for Taiwan, he openly praised Taiwan's economic miracle and status as one of the Four Asian Tigers. By contrast, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan usually hesitate to affirm or to praise "The Rise of China." In any event the success enjoyed by both sides is not due to luck. Had mainland China not been the beneficiary of Deng Xiaoping's tutulage, had Chiang Ching-kuo not helped Taiwan emerge from its cocoon, lifting restrictions and opening up new possibilities, neither Taiwan nor the mainland would be where they are today. As long as the dominant figures were Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping, and the path correct, i.e., lifting martial law, exchanges, reforms, and liberalization, both sides could govern successfully. Their successes would result in a cross-Strait policy of peace and mutual prosperity.
But time never stands still. The world never stops turning. Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping have gone to their rewards. Their cross-Strait thinking may not be of much help to current cross-Strait relations; What Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao are doing, and must continue doing, is already far beyond anything Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping ever imagined.
Let's review 20 years of often stormy cross-Strait interaction. Lee Teng-hui once had his "National Unification Guidelines" and even a secret envoy engaged in shuttle diplomacy. But the two sides lost confidence in each other. Today, Lee Teng-hui, the "Godfather of Taiwan independence," openly refers to Taiwan independence as "outdated and dangerous." Chen Shui-bian once had his "New Centrist Path" and "Five Noes." He even referred to the "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution" as "self-deception." Later however, Chen supported independence and abetted corruption. Twenty years of cross-Strait interaction shows us that if mainland China does not respect the Republic of China, and does not allow it sufficient latitude, turmoil on Taiwan and a cross-Strait crisis will persist. Twenty years ago the Beijing authorities' perspective was, "The Republic of China is dead." Today it is "Maintain the status quo" and "Defend the 1992 consensus," and by implication, "One China, Different Interpretations." We have lived through 50 to 60 years of "Liberate Taiwan!" and "Counterattack the Mainland!" We have endured 20 years of infighting over reunification vs. independence. Have we learned our lesson? Have we woken up?
Chen Yunlin stands at the crossroads of history and reality. He is demonstrating remarkable forbearance over the attack on Zhang Mingqing. He is apologizing for the contaminated powdered milk scandal. He was choked with emotion as he spoke. He bit his tongue and swallowed his pride. The public on Taiwan either welcomes or opposes Chen Yunlin's visit. But the relationship between the two sides is not sufficiently equal for Taiwan. Lack of dignity may provoke resentment. But 50 or 60 years ago we were using guns to "Liberate Taiwan" or "Counterattack the Mainland." For 20 years we fought over over independence vs. reunification. Today the Chiang/Chen Meeting in Taipei stands astride history and reality. It is unquestionably a positive and progressive development, one that ought to be celebrated and affirmed. As we can see, after endless friction and collision, we have finally found the right direction. That direction is peace and mutual prosperity.
We hope Ma Ying-jeou, Hu Jintao, and the leaders of both sides will surpass Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping 's achievements and thinking. Their achievements and thinking about cross-Strait relations, if correct, will ensure peace and mutual prosperity.
台北江陳會：和平共榮是歷史的方向
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.03 02:15 am
海協會長陳雲林今日率團來台，這是六十年來深具里程碑意義的兩岸大事。
倘各方目光僅投注在陳雲林來訪時的台北街頭擾攘，恐怕只是見樹不見林；若能將視野拉高放大至一甲子以來的宏觀時空架構，始能看出台北「江陳會」在大歷史中的奇峰突起。
陳雲林上周四在北京開記者會，他說：他自國台辦至海協會，「置身歷史和現實的座標點上」，希望為兩岸多做點事。以陳雲林的年歲，一九四一年生，曾是中華民 國國民；一九六六年入中國共產黨，正是文革發動之年；然而，在上周四的記者會中，他說為了訪問台灣，勤學閩南話；又說，這次他不能到中南部，遺憾之餘，竟 致哽咽失聲。這六十多年的滄桑，交匯在陳雲林今日個人生命的「歷史與現實」的座標點上。
跳開陳雲林個人，拉高放大來看，今日兩岸關係的「歷史與現實」，更是交匯在一甲子以來更宏觀的一個大歷史座標點上。兩岸的分離，是因中國窮弱造成的動亂所 致；一九四九年兩岸分離後，各自以不同的理念與方法，去各自設法解決窮與弱的問題。大陸由毛澤東主導，倘若沒有鄧小平在七○年代後期開端的改革開放，扭轉 了發展方向，大陸恐怕迄今仍陷於毛澤東及四人幫所製造的禍亂之中；相對而言，台灣若無蔣經國的解除戒嚴及開放與大陸交流，台灣也恐怕在政治或經濟上早已窒 息。正因大陸及台灣各自在政經發展上分別突破了自困的瓶頸，所以兩岸關係也才可能跳脫「解放台灣」或「反攻大陸」的符咒，今日也才會見到文革年代加入共產 黨的陳雲林，以和平協商特使的角色來到台灣。
即使將時空緊縮至台灣解嚴後的最近二十年，這種「歷史與現實」的交匯衝擊，也是驚心動魄的。一九九三年，「辜汪會」在新加坡舉行，當年台灣的卡司是「李登 輝／辜振甫」，大陸的卡司是「江澤民／汪道涵」；至一九九九年，「辜汪二次會談」幾乎就將在台北舉行，卻臨陣破局，接著就是陳水扁的尷尬八年；現在，九年 後，今年五二○兩岸恢復交流機制，大陸的卡司已換成了「胡錦濤／陳雲林」，台灣的卡司則換成了「馬英九／江丙坤」。可見，人事斗轉星移，甚至歷史江河彷彿 也被截流斷流了九年；但是路不轉人轉，江河之水如今儼然又是滔滔滾滾。
將台北「江陳會」置於六十年來「歷史與現實」的座標點上，可以看出兩岸互動有一條由隱而顯、由微而著的主軸線，那就是「民意與和平」。中國大陸擺脫了毛澤 東及四人幫的階級鬥爭論，改行鄧小平的改革開放，主要是因必須回應民意；而改革開放變化了中國大陸的朝野體質與思維，也才會改以「和平」為兩岸關係的主軸 路線；否則，今日的北京政權恐怕猶如平壤政權。相對而言，台灣方面在解嚴後，民意獲得快速釋放，兩岸關係立即成了民意激盪的重要題材，而李登輝左右搖擺的 機會主義及陳水扁「自欺欺人」的「正名制憲」，則可視為台灣在兩岸政策上必然應當經歷的民主辯證過程；至今，台灣民意雖未達到圓融整合，但「和平」無疑是 台灣主流民意的共同主張，這也是二○○八政黨輪替的基本動力。換句話說，只要中國大陸在內政上繼續深化放大政治與經濟的改革開放，只要台灣的民主法治也能 勿受汙染，兩岸「和平共榮」應是民意的共同歸趨，也必是歷史的方向。
民意嚮往和平，兩岸均須回應民意。兩岸當局只要堅持「和平」的最高原則，兩岸的互動即可能滿足「共榮雙贏」的民意；而兩岸當局只要多置心力於「共榮雙贏」的民意，兩岸的「和平」即得以維繫。
六十年來，兩岸皆是歷經血淚艱辛而走至今日境地，陳雲林行前公開誇讚台灣創造了「亞洲四小龍」的經濟奇蹟，而台灣朝野亦常不吝對「中國崛起」給予肯定及讚 譽。但兩岸今日成就，亦絕非倖致；如前所述，倘大陸無鄧小平之扶傾廈、挽狂瀾，台灣無蔣經國之脫繭、鬆綁、開新局；則台灣及大陸的內部治理不可能有今日境 界，而兩岸關係也不可能出現如今這般柳暗花明的氛圍。由此可知：只要主導人物對了（蔣經國／鄧小平），路線對了（解嚴交流／改革開放），兩岸的內部治理就 會有成績，而這些成績就會反映到趨向「和平共榮」的兩岸關係上。
然而，歲月不居，地球不停，今日即使起蔣經國與鄧小平於地下，他們當年的兩岸思維，也恐怕無濟於現今的兩岸關係；今天，馬英九及胡錦濤正在做的事及所應當做的事，實已不同於並超越了蔣經國與鄧小平當年的想像。
再回顧二十年來兩岸的慘烈互動。李登輝曾有「國統綱領」，甚至密使穿梭，但因兩岸當局失去誠信，李登輝現在成了公開指「台獨過時又危險」的「台獨教父」； 陳水扁曾有「中間路線」及「四不一沒有」，甚至稱「正名制憲自欺欺人」，後來卻「挺獨護貪」走到今日境地。這二十年的兩岸互動顯示，中國大陸若不能尊重 「中華民國」有足夠的空間，台灣的動盪及兩岸的危機將始終存在。北京當局從二十年前「中華民國已死」的政策觀點，走到今日「維持現狀」及「九二共識」（潛 台詞是「一中各表」）；這非但是因穿越了五、六十年前「解放／反攻」的歷史硝煙，也是因深受過去二十年統獨惡鬥之痛，而有所體驗及省悟吧？
陳雲林站在「歷史與現實」的座標點上，為張銘清事件隱忍，為毒奶粉事件道歉，語帶哽咽，心中必有打脫牙和血吞的感慨；而台灣民眾在反對或期待陳雲林來訪 時，亦皆對台灣在兩岸關係上不夠對等、有失尊嚴的處境而心存遺憾或憤懣。但是，較諸五、六十年前「解放／反攻」用槍?相互殘殺，及較諸二十年來的統獨惡 鬥，今日台北「江陳會」所站的「歷史與現實」的座標點，卻無疑是正面的、進取的，也是足可慶幸與肯定的。可見，愈是經歷摩擦衝撞，愈能淬礪探索出正確的方 向，這個方向就是「和平共榮」。
我們期盼，馬英九、胡錦濤及今後的兩岸領導人，在內部治理的思維及方法上能有超越蔣經國及鄧小平的境界及成就，而這類思維、方法及境界、成就，亦必可反映在「和平共榮」的兩岸關係上。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)