以台之名：海西邊界中的兩岸關係

為了「推進兩岸交流合作」的「海峽西岸經濟區」（簡稱海西）透過一連串對台優惠政策試驗，意圖打造一個特殊邊界領域，讓兩岸共同家園的生活情境可以在海西被想像與經驗。問題是，當台灣人已遍及內地，怎需要在海西塑造共同生活場景？當中國已是特區遍地，再一個特區又如何能增進兩岸一家親？利用海西對台，似乎反而突顯了大陸對於台灣如何看待自身的不理解，以及大陸對台關係經營與自身發展議程之間的矛盾。所以說，難道海西只不過是一場徒具對台之名的錯誤騙局？這是企圖重新理解大陸對台空間形式、互動與轉化的研究，探討對台為何需要特區？跨界而來的人們何以為家？何謂共同？我試圖對於海西肩負對台任務與自身發展之間的關聯、矛盾及其「失敗」提出解釋，理解兩岸關係如何可能在海西邊界中再造。循著國家與邊界之「雙重視角」，本研究針對在海西的邊界跨越（快速通道）、再領域化（共同家園）及去領域化（同等待遇）之社會互動意義進行詮譯論證。我認為海西是基於突破「一個中國」名份問題，而對台「治管退讓」的試驗空間：化身為台灣，以台灣為方法牽引台灣以中國為方法，使兩岸身份認同相互交融。然而，如何既有台灣共同治管之實而去其國家之名，同時又符合當地發展所需，為海西試驗之困難所在。跨界而來的台灣人為了安身當地，於日常生活之駕車、就醫和生養育照顧，分別選擇性地利用「台灣因素」之不同質地，保持在空間與社會邊界進入／退出的彈性；亦即，跨界台灣人憑藉多重彈性的身份角色落地為家，卻未必是兩岸認同交融。值得注意的是，海西尋求地方發展的渴望，亦不一定有利於對台任務。海西不僅想要發展成為台灣對大陸的中介，甚至企圖取代台灣成為中國與世界的窗口。隨著中國的崛起，反映至海西對台策略由「自反台灣」轉變為「現身世界」。此時，對台思路亦從提供優惠轉變為強調「同等待遇」，進而將台灣「青年化」──使台灣青年學習並參與中國發展道路，亦已被視為惠台。既然對台強調同等，那麼海西作為對台「特區」亦不復必要。曾具反身性之海西時刻，或為大陸自認對台所能展現的最大善意所在，然而在它未能被彼此清楚認識之際，已經成為歷史。其實在海西，無論是自反台灣或現身世界，都有從一國（one nation）向兩國（two nations）滑移的傾向。海西政策效果的自我背反，並不在於欺騙或執行不力，而是政策本身存在對於國家與邊界相互不確定的忽視與誤解，並徒勞於隱藏state與nation在邊界中的相互糾纏。因此政策執行愈成功，反而可能讓海西愈不成功。雙重視角下的海西案例，讓我們看見國家（nation/state）的去／再邊界化，空間社會邊界的相互關聯，展現特區作為角色身份與發展想像對應偶合（coupling）之場域。海西之未竟，表示開展具包容性兩岸關係需要一個雙向邊界視角，對差異與多重有所體察，而非視而不見。

關鍵字

海峽西岸經濟區；雙重視角；邊界；國家；特區；兩岸關係

並列摘要

The study aims to explain the seemly inappropriate and inopportune spatial rationalities of “The Western Taiwan Straits Economic Zone (Haixi SEZ)” in Southeastern China. The SEZ was claimed to be the co-living hometown for Taiwanese where the daily life of cross-strait integration could be imagined and experienced. This act looked almost meaningless, however, because hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese people have made their livings in the Mainland China for decades. In contrast to seeing the SEZ as only the real estate speculation in the name of Taiwan, I proposes a double gaze－both seeing border like state and seeing state like border－to reinterpret Haixi as a site for the re/de-bordering of crorss-strait relations. I argue that Haixi, in terms of cross-strait relations, is an experimental site for concessions more in political governance than in economic development. In performing the togetherness, Haixi must transform itself to represent the “Taiwaneseness”. At the same time, some kind of “Chineseness” should also be discernible in the performance. In other words, Haixi took Taiwan as method to invite Taiwan's taking China as method, thus to cultivate a sense of integration. Nevertheless, the reflexivity of Haixi－seeing from Taiwan's angle of view to identify itself－was undermining, as the daily practices in Haixi would not be completely cramped by state borders. On the one hand, the Taiwanese in the Mainland could take advantage of the multifaceted nature of “Taiwanese element” to selectively cross or close borders under different circumstances without transforming their identities. On the other hand, the local people in Haixi were not only eager to become a hub between the Mainland and Taiwan but were even ambitious in replacing Taiwan as an interface of China to the world, which might contradict with their mission to create a co-living atmosphere. In fact, with the rise of China, Taiwan's role in “bringing the world in” was no longer needed. China emphasizes now the need to provide “equal treatment” to Taiwanese, rather than past concessions. Since it is already the greatest kindness to guide Taiwanese youth to embark on the “China's road to the world”, the necessity to maintain Haixi as a SEZ seems to be losing its foundation. My contend is that the setbacks in Haixi SEZ does not lie in deception or ineffective implementation. Instead, it is because the multiplicity and uncertainty of entanglement between the nation and the state in re/debordering is ignored. Therefore, the more successful the policy implementation, the more likely it is that Haixi will not succeed. From the perspective of “double gaze”, the Haixi case shows us the de/re-territorializing of the nation/state and allowed us to see the SEZ as a site where the willingness to improve and the identity are in coupling. The incomplete Haixi further urges us to reimagine a more inclusive cross-strait relationship, while an interactive border perspective might help.