字體:小 中 大 | |
|
|
2007/07/02 00:36:24瀏覽937|回應0|推薦9 | |
國統綱領是突破關鍵 By 陳長文 Guidelines are key to breakthrough
By C. V. Chen 陳長文
Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫), Taiwan's top negotiator with China and chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF), died on Jan. 3. With his passing, the government has begun to concern itself with Koo's potential successor and public opinion has begun to reflect on whether to retain or abolish the foundation. Regarding the former, I am sure that there is no comparable candidate for the post, for Koo had a gracious, generous and erudite personality with deep insight into cross-strait relations. Furthermore, with his insistence on keeping faith and the fact that he did not give his word lightly, Koo enjoyed the trust of the governments on both sides of the Koo's existence was a coincidence of history, and such people are not easily found. As to the fate of the SEF, it is really quite ironic, for it is possible that Koo's greatest regret was that the foundation was not abolished during his term there. If we speak of the SEF in military terms, using the words "strategy" and "tactics" to describe cross-strait relations, the establishment of the SEF in 1991 was a product of "tactical" considerations. As for the strategic element, the SEF's policies were shaped by the Guidelines for National Unification (國統綱領), established in the same year. According to the guidelines, the development of cross-strait relations is conditional, with the goal of achieving unification one step at a time: a short-term phase of exchanges and reciprocal benefits, a medium-term phase of mutual trust and cooperation, and a long-term phase of consultation and unification. The SEF is an organization to meet the needs of the short-term phase. Its founding served to lubricate the machinery that could lead to government-to-government contact. Thus, the primary goal of the medium-term phase is to "set up channels of official communications between the two sides on the basis of parity." When I was SEF secretary-general, I told all staff members that the SEF's greatest task was to complete its mission in the shortest time possible. Over 13 years have passed and the SEF still has not completed its mission, its vitality strangled by the political situation. The foundation has not even achieved its goals of establishing exchanges and reciprocal benefits, to say nothing of bringing cross-strait relations into an era of "official communications." Cross-strait relations now, after 13 years of development, are even less advanced in certain aspects than during the early period of the SEF's existence. Does all this sound absurd? It seems that I am running down the SEF, but if so, how can I, at the same time, hold Koo in such high esteem? Things may seem absurd at first, but in reality, they are not if explored in depth. If government leaders over the past 13 years had merely lacked ability, Koo is certain to have achieved much. Unfortunately, the government has not so much been incompetent, as it has lacked a motive to take action. We can still remember the great success achieved in the early days of the SEF, due to Koo's charismatic leadership and also the eagerness for cross-strait exchanges on both sides. When former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) decided to sideline the Guidelines for National Unification promulgated during his administrative term, his decision was motivated by hostility to China. With the strategic element (the guidelines) removed, what more could be achieved at a tactical level (SEF)? Koo was an ideal candidate for promoting cross-strait exchanges, and if the government had truly wanted to develop such exchanges, he would have been in a position to exceed their expectations. But if the government had no motivation, there was little Koo could achieve. To elaborate, the SEF is only a "dependent variable" without the ability to decide its functions for itself; the "independent variable" that decides its functions is controlled by high-ranking government officials. Assuming that leaders on both sides are enthusiastic in their attitude toward cross-strait exchanges, the new chairman of the SEF can still achieve much, even if he is not Koo's equal. By following the Guidelines for National Unification, the two sides of the If we read the contents of the guidelines carefully, we can find that they resemble a superior blueprint closely woven for the benefit of all Taiwanese people. What the Guidelines for National Unification outline is a conditional, phased unification process reaching into the future. Even from the perspective of pro-independence advocates there is little to be anxious about. It is simply the word "unification" that disturbs them. First, the unification specified in the guidelines is not to happen immediately. Second, the unification is conditional on Third, if Our government officials do not have the patience to wait until the right time, and in turn, they choose to confront Koo has passed away, but rather than discussing who will succeed him, it would be better if President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) were to exercise his political wisdom and restore the guidelines to a more prominent role. This is the key to creating a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. C.V. Chen was the first secretary-general of the SEF. He is a senior partner at the law firm Lee and Li and president of the Red Cross Society. TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI 哲人已逝,兩岸關係何去何從
海基會董事長辜振甫先生辭世,政府隨即關切「繼任人選」,並引起輿論對海基會存廢的討論。對於前者,筆者很確定,不會再有比辜先生更好的人選,辜先生的哲人氣質、雍容大度、深富學養以及對兩岸的高矚洞見,重誠信不輕諾的性格也深得兩岸政府的信任,辜先生的存在,可說是「歷史的偶然」,這樣的人物是可遇而不可求的。而第二個問題,才是最弔詭的問題。如果說辜先生還有什麼遺憾,恐怕最大的遺憾就是,海基會沒有「廢」在辜先生任內。 大家可能忘了,若用軍事術語區分戰略、戰術二個層次來比喻兩岸關係的話,海基會在民國八十年成立當時,是戰術層次的產物,用來指導海基會的行動方針的「戰略」思想,則是在同年制定的國家統一綱領。按照國統綱領規畫,兩岸關係的推展,是有條件、階段式的邁向統一,即區分近程(交流互惠)、中程(互信合作)、遠程(協商統一)三個階段,而海基會屬近程組織,其成立,是因為政府對政府的接觸需要一個先行的潤滑,其使命,則在於創造中程階段的互信氛圍,讓兩岸政府終能直接面對面談判,因此國統綱領中程階段的第一目標即明定為:「兩岸應建立對等的官方溝通管道。」筆者在擔任海基會秘書長時,即曾對會內同仁表示:「海基會最大的使命就是,在最短時間內完成其任務。」 十三年過去了,海基會並沒有風風光光的「完成使命」,卻被政治局勢所冷凍。不但沒有把兩岸關係帶進國統綱領所規畫的「官方溝通」時代,連「交流互惠」都做不到,十三年後的兩岸關係,在某些方面(如敵視度、軍備對峙度)實際上比當初海基會當初成立的時候還倒退。 看到這裡,是否會覺得「荒誕」?筆者好像在貶抑海基會,若然,又怎能同時備加推崇擔任海基會董事長的辜先生呢?套句捷克的文學家前總統哈維爾的話:「真正的意義只能從荒誕中看到。」表面上的荒誕,實際上一點都不荒誕。筆者拿二個歷史的人物來比喻。 諸葛 這十三年來的主政者,若只是「能力不足」的話,辜先生以其德智賢望,也仍必大有作為。可惜主政者並非「無能」,而是「無心」。猶記得,海基會草創時期,由於辜先生的卓能領導,加以兩岸人民與政府均熱切期待交流,使得當時的海基會,交出了亮麗的成績單。然而,當主政的李登輝總統決定冷凍在他任內所制定的國統綱領,以「仇視中國」為思想中心時。戰略(國統綱領)既蕪,對戰術(海基會)焉有期待?兩岸交流,辜先生是第一流、最好的人才,若主政者有心做十分,有辜先生相佐,可做到二十分。倘若主政者一分也不想做,甚至想做負分,辜先生再有其能,也是一籌莫展。 詳言之,海基會只是一個「應變數」,它並不能決定自己的功能,決定其功能的「自變數」,在政府最高領導人身上。設若,領導人對兩岸交流態度是積極的,繼任者就算不如辜先生,亦堪以任。 兩岸本可走向和平、攜手共創繁榮,如果,我們願意按照國統綱領所設計的步驟去做的話。可惜,國統綱領被李前總統棄如敝屣。如果大家好好看一下國統綱領的內容,會發現,那是為台灣利益設想萬全,可攻可守的卓越大綱。 國統綱領揭示的是「有條件的、未來的、階段式的統一」。就算從台獨支持者角度來看,除了「統一」二字在詞彙上礙眼外,也無須擔心。第一,這樣的統一絕非現在;第二,因為是有條件的(大陸民主化、兩岸政經制度相容),如果大陸真像台獨主張者想的永遠糟糕,那麼這個條件就永不成就,則台灣獨立建國的目標,只不過是現在不能實現而已;第三,倘若大陸做到了這個條件,政治民主、經濟自由了,到時候,統或獨,根本不會是問題,何必反對統一?或換過來說大陸又何必反對台灣獨立呢? 但政府領導人卻沒有等待的耐心,硬是要和中國大陸對撞,這是最令人遺憾的事。哲人已遠,辜先生已逝,與其討論誰適於繼任,不如期待現在主政的陳水扁總統能夠展現大智回到國統綱領,那才是使兩岸關係有所突破的最大關鍵。 2005.01.05中國時報 |
|
( 時事評論|兩岸 ) |