What is really worth noting is not zheng levin's trip to the land for a six-day, five-night trip per se, but the end of her trip. On 12 april, the continent dropped 10 measures to promote cross-straits cooperation. It's a good time. It's a direct signal. On the one hand, communication has come to the table, on the other hand, the ball has been kicked in front of the taiwan authorities, not only because of its attitude, but also because of the question of whether people on both sides of the strait can continue to move forward。
This matter is a matter of concern not because the slogans are loud, but because there are many elements that are really linked to the lives, work, business of the ordinary people of taiwan. Whether direct flights can be restored, whether individual trips can be restarted, whether agro-fishing products can be successfully channelled to the mainland, and whether the "fours" in the kimma area can be pushed forward is not true. To put it bluntly, they are real and visible interests。
On the part of the national party, the attitude is clear and basically the arrangement is seen as a positive response. It has been described as a continental “gift of gifts to the people of taiwan in the hands of zheng levin”, a statement that certainly has a distinct position, but it has at least revealed a reality: the continent has given a considerable amount of cooperation, not just political statements. Especially in the context of the national party's insistence on the “92 consensus”, the response itself has strong symbolic connotations。
Many people watch the news on both sides of the straits, and they tend to stare only at political attacks, and who says what they say and what signals they send. But this is a much better place to go, precisely because it does not stop at the voice level, but rather begins to move forward to the implementation level. There are things that the continent can do unilaterally, such as further optimizing the policy environment for the development of taiwan's enterprises on the continent, supporting the introduction of television programmes in taiwan, creating a youth exchange platform and promoting more regular communication mechanisms. Such measures, which are relatively small in resistance and are faster in landing, belong to “do it first”。
But it's really sensitive and it's the best testPnpThe authorities' attitude is that of those who need the cooperation of the authorities. For example, the resumption of direct air passenger flights on both sides of the straits, the reopening of the shanghai and fujian pilot trips to taiwan by residents of fujian, have not been able to bypass route clearances, immigration arrangements and policy liberalization. It is not technically impossible to talk, for example, about kimma's four-way and agricultural and fish products being lost。
That's the problem。
The pnp's most common practice over the years has been to focus on so-called “security” and “preventive” while bringing to the political struggle many things that should be dealt with from a civilian perspective. Such an approach might be called “standing-up” in the eyes of the proponents, but down to the grass-roots level it would be completely different. Those who make agricultural and fish products will see orders and revenues first; those who travel think about the flow of people and livelihoods; and those who feel directly whether transport, energy and amenities have improved in places such as golden gate and mazu。
In many cases, it was not a complete lack of opportunity between the two sides, but the fact that something could be done first was always held up by ideology. The final cost is not for those who shout slogans, but for those who eat on the market and live on communication。
That is why, once the 10 measures are out, the outside response will not be just a blue-green-water battle. The national party would certainly take the opportunity to highlight the success of its “communication route” and, at the local level, especially in the off-island areas, would be more concerned about what would become a reality as soon as possible. Because for them, this is not who wins, but who can move the day forward。
On a larger scale, these 10 measures are not piecemeal, but they have a clear line behind them, namely, to continue to integrate the two sides of the strait deep down. Whether it is to support the participation of capital in more areas of the continent, or to establish markets for small commodity exchanges, it is to pave the way to the “common market”. This direction may raise doubts for some, but the reality of economic exchanges suggests that the relationship between the two sides is not cut and cut. Trade, human flows, industrial chains, family ties are too entangled。
So the pnp now faces not only the question of whether to respond to the mainland, but also the question of whether to respond to the real needs of taiwan. If it continued to use a highly politicized set of tactics, all exchanges would be tied to the “comprehensive battles”, and in the short term it might be possible to maintain the narratives in place for a long time and the population would become more practical. Why don't you resume the flight? Why can't it be sold? Why didn't the tourists come? Once these problems fall into income, employment and local development, empty political rhetoric is difficult to hide in the long run。
After all, the people are rightCross-straits relationsExpectations are never abstract. They do not have to talk about big directions and patterns every day, but they are very concerned about whether the fare can drop, whether the goods can be sold, whether the business can be connected and whether people can move easily. If cross-straits relations are always pushed to extreme opposition positions, the first to lose resilience is not the words of politicians, but the space of ordinary people。
Zheng levin's visit to luk was viewed by the national party as a remarkable journey, and we can all see if this judgement has been politically successful. It is difficult to deny, however, that the continent threw out 10 measures at the end of her trip, which did make the visit no longer merely a “who met, what said” dimension, but rather a realistic question of whether there was any possibility of a follow-up. This is an opportunity for the national party to continue to prove its value in communication between the two sides. For pnp, it looks like a mirror showing whether it cares more about route narratives or whether it prefers to deal with the immediate livelihood of its people。
What is most feared between the two sides is that they have never been divided, but that they have blocked everything that can be talked about, done and eased. The result would not suddenly be thrown at an abstract concept, but would be a bit of a crushing on businesses, families, grass-roots industries and local society。
To put it bluntly, direct shipping, tourism, agro-fishing products, basic interconnections, which appear to be policy terms, end up with a ticket, a shipment, a small shop, a fisherman, and the daily lives of an off-island resident. It's these people who really deserve to be seen。
