傳播「芬蘭化」的爭議：從「兩岸關係」說起

The Controversy Over Promoting“Finnishization”: Starting with“Cross-Strait Relations”?

本文得到卜睿哲啓發，雖然深知芬蘭與蘇聯（俄羅斯）的關係，迥異兩岸，但仍然考察兩國關係的由來，研判其經驗是否有益於兩岸共謀和諧。帝俄提升芬蘭地位數十年，卻不敵民族主義浪潮而有芬蘭獨立並隨卽造成紅白內戰。再過20餘年另因地緣戰略，芬蘭兩度跟隨納粹德國而與蘇聯兵戎相見。兩國議和後有芬蘭化之說，遭西方鄙視而我國未必全然否定，芬蘭人則實踐且成效良好，近日更以這個親身經驗，建言烏克蘭或可參考。最後，本文從憲法、法律的規範，汲取前參謀總長李喜明與中研院院士楊儒賓的觀點，再行發揮；作者主張現狀並不合理，必須改變。我們從獨立至統一的主張具有正當性，對岸主張和平統一同樣具有正當性，兩種正當性相遇，不戰而通過政治和談就能取得共識是上策，較佳成果是彼此不干涉對方內政，外交與國防則可協調；若是先暴力衝突乃至戰爭而最後仍然必須談判才能彼此共存，就是下下策。

This article was inspired by Richard Bush. While fully aware that the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union (Russia) differs markedly from that across the Taiwan Strait, it nonetheless examines the origins of that bilateral relationship to assess whether their experience offers any lessons for pursuing cross-strait harmony.
Imperial Russia elevated Finland’s status for decades, yet could not withstand the tide of nationalism, which led to Finnish independence and immediately triggered a civil war between the Reds and the Whites. More than twenty years later, Finland twice aligned with Nazi Germany and went to war against the Soviet Union. After the two countries made peace, the concept of ''Finlandization'' emerged—scorned by the West, though not necessarily rejected outright by people in Taiwan. The Finns themselves practiced it and did so with considerable success; more recently, drawing on that firsthand experience, they have suggested that Ukraine might consider a similar approach.
Finally, this article draws on constitutional and legal frameworks, incorporates the perspectives of former Chief of the General Staff Lee Hsiming and Academia Sinica Academician Yang Ru-bin, and develops their ideas further. It argues that the status quo is unreasonable and must change. Positions ranging from independence to unification all carry legitimacy on Taiwan’s side, just as the Mainland’s pursuit of peaceful unification carries its own legitimacy. When two legitimate claims meet, the wisest course is to reach consensus through political negotiation without resorting to war—with the ideal outcome being mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, while coordinating on diplomacy and defense. If violent conflict—or even war—must ultimately give way to negotiation in order to coexist, then that is the worst possible course of action.