United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
May 26, 2015
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen departed for the United States on Friday for her "job interview" with Washington. Recently everyone has been vying for the position of job interviewer. During questioning Tsai Ing-wen found herself stretched to the limit. Let us hope that this time her job interview with Washington was successful.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen departed for the United States on Friday for her "job interview" with Washington. Recently everyone has been vying for the position of job interviewer. During questioning Tsai Ing-wen found herself stretched to the limit. Let us hope that this time her job interview with Washington was successful.
The job interview questions Washington asked Tsai Ing-wen were the same questions others have been asking as well. No prizes for guessing the questions asked on cross-Strait relations. Those can be found in any reference book. Some of Tsai Ing-wen's answers have already been made public. One. Maintain the cross-Strait status quo. Two. Reject the 1992 consensus. Yet during her interview Tsai Ing-wen all of a sudden said her position on maintaining the status quo was the same as that of the United States. She said that maintaining the status quo was consistent with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. She rambled aimlessly while stretching the truth. Is the US position really consistent with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future?
When Tsai Ing-wen answered Washington's interview questions, she simultaneously answered other peoples' questions. On cross-Strait relations, everyone is a job interviewer. Every job interviewer has his own preferred answer. But every job interviewer is also concerned about the opinions of other job interviewers. For example, the US and the PRC need each other. But they are also fearful of each other. They co-govern the Taiwan Strait. Therefore the US position will be influenced by the Mainland position. In some respects, it may even coincide with the Mainland position. By contrast, radical Taiwan independence forces have nothing to lose. They do not care about other job interviewers' concerns. Therefore they are the most vehemently opposed to any compromise on Tsai Ing-wen's part. Tsai Ing-wen is finding it difficult to please everyone. That is why so far she has responded feebly, saying she will "maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations". This response is witless. It is a response that will not pass muster with any of her job interviewers.
Lin Yi-hsiung and Shih Ming-teh represent two ends of the Green Camp spectrum. Lin Yi-hsiung is competing against Tsai Ing-wen for "third force" legislative seats. He is differentiating his Taiwan independence stance from the DPP's. He asked Tsai: What is the status quo? We are electing a president. Can we really afford to blur our plans for the future of the nation? If not, then proclaim that "Taiwan and China are different countries", that "Taiwan is sovereign and independent". Dig out the Resolution on Taiwan's Future and repeat it. That is how one runs for president. "How can one run for president without making one's position clear?"
Lin Yi-hsiung drafted the Basic Law of the Republic of Taiwan. He was also the DPP Chairman who promoted the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. He may demand that Tsai Ing-wen endorse his positions. But can Tsai Ing-wen respond to Wahington, Beijing, and ROC voters this way? Never mind the rest. Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly attempted backdoor listing of the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Beijing dismissed these attempts as "one country on each side". As a result, she ceases mentioning it for some time. Who knew Lin Yi-hsiung would pressure her to reaffirm it? Tsai Ying-wen invoked the Resolution on Taiwan's Future in defense. This revealed that she was utterly stumped, both rhetorically and technically.
Shih Ming-teh has affirmed the 1992 consensus. He advocates the Broad One China Framework. Therefore he cannot reject the 1992 consensus. Unless one begins with one China, different interpretations, one cannot possibly advocate the Broad One China Framework. Some DPP leaders want to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform and author a Resolution on the Republic of China. They are positioned at the same end of the spectrum. Chen Ming-tong, Hung Chi-chang, et al, endorse the Broad One China Framework. Clearly some DPP leaders seek policy reform. Can Tsai Ing-wen satisfy both the DPP reformists and the Sunflower Student Movement?
Susan A. Thornton is U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. She said the key was that no one on either side of the Strait should unilaterally change the status quo. At this point, people suddenly realized why Tsai Ing-wen insisted that her position on maintaining the status quo was the same as that of the United States. But the United States supports the "one China policy". Is Tsai Ing-wen's position really the same? Thornton told Tsai Ing-wen to her face that cross-Strait interaction and dialogue already has a solid foundation. The United States hopes to continue these interactions because they are beneficial not only to Taiwan, but also to the United States and Mainland China. One reporter asked Thornton whether the "foundation" she referred to was the 1992 consensus. Thornton said the name given to the "foundation" was up to Taiwan and the Mainland to decide. Clearly the US job interviewer was looking to the Mainland job interviewer for agreement. She said she hoped all parties would continue to maintain close communication, and a no-surprises, low-key approach.
Thornton did not say "1992 consensus". She said "solid foundation". Was her "foundation" the same as Xi Jinping's "foundation"? Did she say whether the Taiwan and the Mainland should agree that the 1992 consensus was that "foundation"? Tsai Ing-wen may deny it. But Beijing likes the term. So who will blink first? Finally, if Tsai Ing-wen insists on repudiating the 1992 consensus, will the United States consider this a close communication, and a no-surprises, low-key approach?
Tsai Ing-wen must also respond to job interview questions from the blue camp and swing voters. President Ma said that the status quo Tsai Ing-wen wants to maintain, is the same status quo that she previously denounced as "pandering to the Mainland and selling out Taiwan". This status quo took seven years to establish. If she finds it so intolerable, why does she want to maintain it? Ma said, "On the one hand, it makes me very happy. On the other hand, it leaves me deeply puzzled." Tsai Ing-wen called Ma a "leader out of touch with public opinion". But this was clearly no answer. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to make herself clear. She now advocates "maintaining the status quo". Before she denounced the status quo as "pandering to the Mainland and selling out Taiwan". One wonders, is this the same status quo that made Ma Ying-jeou "very happy and deeply puzzled"?
Finally, Xi Jinping said "If the foundation is not solid, the earth will move and the mountains will shake". Tsai Ing-wen still has no idea how to respond.
且可翻書作答，蔡英文的部分答案也已透露：一、維持兩岸現狀。 二、否定九二共識。但是，蔡英文在回答考卷時，一下子說「 維持現狀與美國立場相同」，一下子又說「維持現狀與《 台灣前途決議文》沒有不一致的地方」，東拉西扯卻是捉襟見肘， 難道「美國立場」也與《台灣前途決議文》相同？
各方皆是考官，每一位考官都有自己傾向的答案； 但各個考官在兩岸關係中的角色地位不同， 因而每一位考官也會在意其他考官對答案的見解。例如， 美中兩大的關係是互有需求也互有警戒，且共同治理台灣海峽， 因此「美國立場」會受「中國立場」的影響， 甚至在某些方面與中國同一立場。相對而言， 台獨激進勢力作的是無本生意，對其他考官最不在乎， 因此也最反對蔡英文作出示弱的答案。 眾口難調是蔡英文之所以迄今只作出「維持兩岸關係現狀」 這個沒頭沒腦的答案之原因， 但這樣的答案卻在每一位考官前都不能通過。
林義雄向蔡英文爭「第三勢力」的立委席次， 也同時欲以傾獨路線與民進黨作出區隔。他問蔡英文：現狀是什麼？ 要選總統的人，國家前途可以模糊嗎？ 不然要說台灣與中國是不同的國家、台灣主權獨立， 把台灣前途決議文拿出來複述一遍，要不怎麼選總統，「 這個事情模糊還能選總統嗎？」
台灣前途決議文》的民進黨主席；他出題可以要求蔡英文這樣作答， 但蔡英文能把這個答案交給華府、北京及台灣選民等別的考官嗎？ 莫說其他，蔡英文過去幾次欲以借殼上市的《台灣前途決議文》 敷衍情勢，皆被北京指為「一邊一國」，以致許久未見她再提。 不料，如今被林義雄一逼，蔡又拿「決議文」來抵擋， 足見詞窮亦是技窮了。
九二共識」，因為不從「一中各表」談起，即不可能有「 大一中架構」。民進黨內主張「凍結《台獨黨綱》」「提出《 中華民國決議文》」者，均可視為光譜的同一端；而陳明通、 洪奇昌等曾為「大一中架構」背書，更可見民進黨內亦有轉型因子。 在兩岸考題上， 蔡英文如何作出讓民進黨內轉型派與太陽花同感滿意的答案？
兩岸任何一方都不應片面改變現狀」。至此， 使人恍然大悟為何蔡英文會說「維持現狀與美國立場相同」。 但美國主張「一個中國政策」，蔡英文與之立場相同嗎？ 董雲裳為蔡英文留了顏面說：兩岸互動與對話已經確立堅實的基礎， 美國希望這些互動繼續下去，因為「這不僅對台灣有利， 也對美國及區域內的中國等國有利」。記者明知故問：所謂「 堅實的基礎」是否指九二共識？董雲裳說，把這個「基礎」 叫做什麼名稱，「要由台灣和中國大陸商定」。 可見美國考官把眼光投向了中國考官。她又說： 希望各方在兩岸事務上繼續「維持密切溝通、低調、零意外」。
是否與習近平所稱的「基礎」相同？至於她說是否稱為「九二共識」 ，「要由台灣和中國大陸商定」，係指蔡英文可以否定， 但北京亦可堅持此一名稱，看誰挺得住？最後，倘若蔡英文堅持「 否定九二共識」，美國會認為這是「密切溝通、低調、零意外」 的答案嗎？
蔡英文主張維持現狀，就是她曾指的「傾中賣台」的現狀， 也是我們七年來建造的現狀；現狀若是那麼不堪，她為何還要維持？ 「這使我一方面感到很欣慰，二方面也感到很納悶」。對此， 蔡英文顧左右而言他諉稱「領導人與民意脫節」， 這卻是文不對題的答案。蔡英文仍未說清楚：她現在所說的「 維持現狀」，與她以前說的「傾中賣台的現狀」， 及馬英九此刻說的「欣慰與納悶的現狀」是否同一現狀？