The War between Hsieh and Chen

The War between Hsieh and Chen
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 31, 2007

Frank Hsieh has returned from his visit to the US. According to his public statements he is waging a “Two Stage Struggle” with Chen Shui-bian, with March of next year as the line of demarcation between the two stages.

According to Frank Hsieh: First, any fallout from the “Join the UN Plebsicite” is Chen Shui-bian’s responsibility, because “diplomatic policy is the president’s prerogative.” Second, he hopes the US will distinguish between him and Chen Shui-bian, and that US opposition to Chen will not cost him the election. Third, the purpose of the “Join the UN Plebsicite” is not to join the UN. Its only purpose is to stir up popular discontent. It is merely an election ploy. Fourth, the Democratic Progressive Party is currently under Chen Shui-bian’s control, he cannot prevent the “Join the UN Plebsicite” from being held, otherwise the DPP might be split. Fifth, all these concerns will evaporate after he is elected in March next year. Chen Shui-bian will no longer be able to direct the course of events. The political deck will be reshuffled. As Hsieh put it: “All this nonsense will end in March of next year.”

This is Frank Hsieh’s “Two Stage Struggle Thesis.” It defies normal political logic. Normal political logic declares: A presidential candidate during election season promotes his own political platform full force. His political party supports him whole heartedly. But it is not always possible to fulfill one’s promises after one is elected. Frank Hsieh’s political campaign is the antithesis of this. During election season he cannot freely promote his own political platform and his own vision for the future. If he does, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP will publicly contradict him, bringing him to his knees. Frank Hsieh’s attitude is: “Let Chen Shui-bian make trouble up to March next year. After March next year, I will be in charge.” During election season, Chen Shui-bian will command the spotlight. After the election, it will be Frank Hsieh’s turn on stage. This is not conventional political logic. Still less is it normal political logic.

Hsieh’s “Two Stage Struggle Thesis” says that during election season Frank Hsieh must patiently endure Chen’s oppression. He cannot promote his own ideas or assert his own will. If he is elected however, he will boldly enter the arena, defeat Chen Shui-bian, and not allow Chen Shui-bian to continue controlling the post-March political scene. In effect, during the election there will be a covert Hsieh vs. Chen struggle. Following the election, there will be an overt Hsieh vs. Chen struggle. As we can see, the Hsieh vs. Chen struggle has already dominated and distorted the presidential election.

Unfortunately this “Two Stage Struggle” cannot possibly play itself out according to Frank Hsieh’s convenient little script. If Hsieh follows Chen’s lead, and resorts to such political gimmicks as a “Plebiscite on Taiwan’s Future” or a “Join the UN Plebiscite” to win the election, or if Frank Hsieh wins the election due to Chen Shui-bian’s endorsement, how will Frank Hsieh jettison Chen Shui-bian after March? Conversely, if Chen Shui-bian overplays his hand pushing a Taiwan independence agenda, and undermines Frank Hsieh’s election prospects, will Hsieh really have the courage to break with Chen Shui-bian during the election in order to shield himself from the political fallout?

Besides, what we are witnessing is not merely a Two Stage Struggle between Hsieh and Chen. The DPP is currently under the control of the radical Yu Hsi-kuen. Deep Green party insiders also favor Chen Shui-bian. Therefore this struggle is actually a “Two Stage Struggle” between Frank Hsieh and Deep Green party insiders who support the ruling Chen regime. Deep Green ruling Chen regime supporters will not let off Frank Hsieh off the hook on election day. Even assuming they help him win the presidency, does that mean they are going to give Frank Hsieh carte blanche? Can Frank Hsieh shrug them off? Isn’t Frank Hsieh’s convenient little script, in which he “first holds back, then charges forward, first feigns weakness, then asserts strength, first defers, then dominates” nothing more than self deception?

The DPP has used its political infighting skills to seize the initiative in the upcoming presidential election. The Hsieh vs. Chen struggle is more vicious than the average person can imagine. Hsieh wants to defend the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” to declare his opposition to a “Taiwan independence Plebiscite,” to declare his opposition to the Taiwan independence movement, to declare his opposition to any future “Declaration of Taiwan independence,” as expressed in his “Hsieh’s Three Noes.” Chen Shui-bian has lashed back, saying “Taiwan’s future and cross straits relations must be decided by means of a plebiscite.” Yu Hsi-kuen has been even more blunt, and advocated a “Taiwan Independence Plebiscite.” Frank Hsieh responded by saying that “There is no need for a Taiwan independence plebiscite, only for a unification plebiscite.” If this kind of confrontation were merely a game of “good cop, bad cop,” that would be one thing. If on the other hand, this is the main theme of the Democratic Progressive Party’s Two Stage Pre Election/Post Election Power Struggle, then it is actually a fight to the bitter end. Frank Hsieh may have some room for bobbing and weaving during the election, but if Chen Shui-bian and Yu Hsi-kuen are the ones credited with getting him elected, the national nightmare will not end in March next year, it will just be beginning.

Frank Hsieh has divided this struggle into “two stages.” He hopes the US government and middle of the road voters will sympathize with the fact that he cannot call the shots during election season, and will pin their hopes on him calling the shots after seizing power. That is why Frank Hsieh assured the US: “Let Chen Shui-bian make trouble up to March of next year. After March of next year, I will be in charge.” But even an idiot is not going to buy this rosy scenario. How is the US going to buy it? How are a majority of voters? How is Chen Shui-bian?

March is Frank Hsieh’s line in the sand, not the DPP’s, and not Chen Shui-bian’s.

三月界線：長扁之間的「兩階段鬥爭」
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.31 03:45 am

謝長廷訪美歸來。總結其相關言論，不啻公開指出：他與陳水扁之間正在進行一場「兩階段鬥爭」，以明年三月為界線。

謝長廷的說法是這樣的：一、「入聯公投」的帳應算在陳水扁頭上，因為「外交權是總統權」；二、希望美國能將我與陳水扁區隔，勿因美國反扁而使我落選；三、入聯公投並非追求實際成效，只是為了煽動民氣，亦即只是選舉操作而已；四、民進黨現在是在陳水扁的操控之下，我不能阻止入聯公投，否則民進黨會分裂；五、但是，這一切紛擾，待明年三月我當選後，陳水扁將失去主導權，即可全盤改觀，「一切只鬧到明年三月為止」。

這就是謝長廷的「兩階段鬥爭論」，完全違反了一般正常的政治邏輯。正常的邏輯是：總統候選人在選季全力宣揚自己的政治路線與願景，所屬政黨亦全力配合支持其論述，唯有時未必在當選後能做得到；但是，謝長廷如今卻是反向操作，在選季不能自由闡發其路線與願景，陳水扁及民進黨且公開與他牴觸，迫使謝長廷不啻在告饒：「就讓他陳水扁鬧到明年三月為止吧，三月過後就看我謝長廷的了。」選季中一切看陳水扁演出，若當選才看謝長廷表演。這不是一般的政治邏輯，更不是正常的政治邏輯。

「兩階段鬥爭論」指出：在選季，謝長廷必須以隱忍面對長扁鬥爭，不能伸張自己的理念與意志；若當選後，謝長廷則將改以強勢面對鬥爭，必能鬥倒陳水扁，不容陳水扁繼續操控「三月以後的情勢」。亦即，選舉時有選舉時的長扁鬥爭，選後又有選後的長扁鬥爭；眼下所見，長扁內鬥儼然已凌駕並扭曲了總統大選。

然而，這場「兩階段鬥爭」絕無可能按謝長廷一廂情願的劇本演出。假如，選舉時謝聽扁的，且以「公投入聯」及「台灣前途公投」等麻辣議題炒熱選情，並因此當選；則謝長廷在陳水扁抬轎當選後，豈有可能命陳水扁「只可鬧到三月為止」？反過來說，倘若陳水扁以傾獨路線操控大選過了頭，致重傷了謝長廷的選情，謝又如何可能不自衛求生，而與陳在選季即告翻臉？

何況，眼前所見尚絕不僅是「長扁之間」的「兩階段鬥爭」而已；因為，民進黨此時掌控在激進的游錫?之手，而黨內深綠亦傾向陳水扁，則這場鬥爭其實是「謝長廷VS.黨內深綠挺扁當權派」的「兩階段鬥爭」。深綠挺扁當權派，在選舉時尚不肯放過謝長廷；則若把謝拱上了總統寶座，他們就會放過謝長廷嗎？或謝長廷就能甩掉他們嗎？這樣看來，謝長廷「先退後進、先弱後強、先賓後主」的「兩階段鬥爭論」，難道不是「自欺欺人」？

民進黨的內鬥襲奪並佔用了總統大選為戰場，扁謝鬥爭的慘烈超過一般人的想像。謝欲退守《台灣前途決議文》，宣示「反對台獨公投、反對台獨運動、反對宣布台獨」的「謝三不」；陳水扁竟立即回嗆「台灣前途及兩岸關係應由公投決定」，游錫?更直接主張「統獨公投」，而謝長廷又回稱「不必台獨公投，只有統一公投」。這類一來一回的唇槍舌劍，倘若只是分扮黑白臉也就罷了；否則即是民進黨內「由大選鬥到選後」的鬥爭主軸，在形式上分成「兩階段」，在實質上卻是一路鬥到底。對謝長廷而言，在選舉時或許尚有閃躲騰挪的空間，但若他一旦由陳水扁、游錫?等人主導輔選而當選，謝長廷及整個國家的噩夢就絕不會「到明年三月為止」，而是正要從明年三月才剛剛開始。

謝長廷將這場鬥爭分成「兩階段」，藉此希望美國及中間選民能同情他在第一階段選季的隱忍及身不由己，並對他在選後的第二階段即可奪回主導權寄予希望。因而，謝長廷對美國說：就讓陳水扁鬧到三月為止吧，三月我當選後就能將他制伏了！但是，白癡恐亦不會相信這種說法，美國會相信嗎？多數選民會相信嗎？陳水扁會相信嗎？

三月，是謝長廷畫的界線，不是民進黨畫的，更不是陳水扁畫的。

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 30, 2007

While visiting the US, Frank Hsieh talked about the nation’s plight. He said the public should have a sense of national consciousness and national identity. They must not refuse to acknowledge that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation”.

His comments touched a sore spot in Taiwan’s political discourse. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains fixated on the premise that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” and refuses to publicly acknowledge, in accordance with the constitution, that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

If the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to a non-existent and fictitious “Republic of Taiwan,” how can they expect people to identify with it? If on the other hand, the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to the Republic of China, why not simply and honestly state that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?”

The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood has undergone two transformations. One. The Taiwan independence movement originally referred to the Republic of China as an “illegitimate political authority,” demanded its overthrow, and demanded the establishment of a separate and independent Republic of Taiwan. Two. Ever since the DPP announced its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP has asserted that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” Eventually the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood will probably have to undergo a third transformation: “The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, and amounts to the realization of Taiwan independence.” These three transformations are not based on any individual’s whims, but reflect acquiescence to irresistible forces.

Today’s Taiwan independence rhetoric remains stuck in the second stage: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” This sort of political rhetoric has the power to persuade some swing voters. But it has no legal standing whatsoever, because in the world we live in there is no “Taiwan Constitution” or “Republic of Taiwan Constitution.” Therefore “Taiwan” has never been the name of a nation with any constitutional foundation. The assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” is meaningless. Actually, it’s worse than meaningless, as it can easily degenerate into self-deception. In the nomenclature of the Taiwan independence movement, “Taiwan” refers to a “Nation of Taiwan,” as in “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” In fact, this assertion is nothing more than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Current assertions that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” are constructed upon the Republic of China’s constitutional law foundation. If the Taiwan independence movement repudiates the Republic of China, then the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” immediately loses its legal foundation.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement spares no effort undermining the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It yearns to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” and to abolish the Republic of China. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s allegation that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” has no basis in fact. Not only is there no nation named the “Republic of Taiwan,” there is no “Constitution of Republic of Taiwan.” That of course is precisely why the Taiwan independence movement demands the so-called “rectification of names,” and the “authoring of a new constitution.” As a result, when the Taiwan independence movement bandies about its concept of nationhood, Taiwan independence fundamentalists deny that they are Republic of China citizens. They refuse to consider anyone who identifies with the Republic of China as “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of “nationhood” contradicts itself both externally and internally, both in name and in fact. Basically it fails the test of nationhood altogether.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood struggles to undermine the Republic of China. On the other hand, it creates a fictitious “Republic of Taiwan.” On the one hand it denies the reality of a Republic of China. On the other hand it fabricates a non-existent “Republic of Taiwan” Fantasyland. The Democratic Progressive Party needs to realize that its current concept of nationhood has created a Gordian Knot for itself. It will remain incapable of establishing a “Republic of Taiwan” because fundamentally speaking, it is nothing more than self-deception. The most they can do is undermine the Republic of China.

Frank Hsieh said that “Taiwan has already held presidential elections. Of course it is independent.” This is political sophistry, not constitutional law. In the real world we live in no nation named “Taiwan” ever elected a “President of Taiwan.” Only a nation named the Republic of China, founded upon the Republic of China Constitution, has ever elected presidents of the Republic of China. If Frank Hsieh is elected, he will be a president of the Republic of China, not a president of “Taiwan.” Therefore what Frank Hsieh ought to say, loudly and with pride, is that the “Republic of China has already held presidential elections, therefore the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

Taiwan independence rhetoric must acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Otherwise the disingenuous assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” will have even less basis in fact. From a Taiwan independence standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the Republic of China. But from the Republic of China’s standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are traitors to the Republic of China, who are betraying their nation. Do not mock the Republic of China. Do not engage in self-deception in order to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” or undermine the Republic of China. Only by reaffirming the nationhood of the Republic of China, by reaffirming one’s national identity as a Republic of China citizen, can one avoid tearing the Republic of China apart and unite the Republic of China against foreign influences.

Do not use a fictitious “Nation of Taiwan” to repudiate a real life Republic of China. Do not use party labels to create divisions between an alleged “native political regime” and an alleged “alien political regime.” Do not divide people into enemy camps consisting of “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “non-Taiwanese” on the other. This is what Frank Hsieh as a presidential candidate must do to strengthen the concept of nationhood and national identity. Since Frank Hsieh is about to run for Republic of China president, how can he refuse to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?

與謝長廷談國家觀念
社論
【2007-07-28/聯合報/A2版/焦點】

謝長廷在美國談到國家處境；他認為國人應有國家觀念與國家認同，不要不承認「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」。

這段話觸及了台灣政局的痛處，但問題的癥結卻正是在民進黨的國家觀念始終停留在「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」的階段，未能遵照憲法公開認同「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」。

台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指子虛烏有的「台灣共和國」，如何教國人皆認同？台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指「中華民國」，則何不乾脆直說「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」？

台獨運動的「國家觀念」，歷經了兩個階段的遞嬗轉型。一、台獨早先指中華民國為非法政權，必欲推翻之，另建台灣共和國；二、至民進黨發表《台灣前途決議文》，則稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」。未來台獨論述的「國家觀念」恐須再經第三階段轉型，成為：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，這即是台灣獨立的實現。」這三階段的轉型，不隨個人意志為轉移，而是一必趨必至的遞嬗過程。

現今的台獨論述，仍停留在第二階段，亦即：「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國。」這樣的論述，作為政治語言，確實較具騰挪游移的空間，但這種說法畢竟不具法律意義；因為，世界上並無一部「台灣憲法」或「台灣共和國憲法」，因此「台灣」從來不是具有憲法意義的國號，則自稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實沒有憲政意義，反而極易淪為一種「自欺欺人」的政治操作。在台獨詞彙中，「台灣」就是指「台灣國」；稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實是在諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。但是，如今稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，卻是建立在「中華民國」的架構之上；倘若台獨否定了「中華民國」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的論述，亦立即失去憑藉。

一方面，台獨不遺餘力地否定「中華民國」的合法正當性，而欲以正名制憲等手段去終結中華民國；但是，另一方面，所謂「台灣是一主權獨立國家」的台獨論述又根本沒有憑據，既無「台灣共和國之國號」、又無「台灣共和國之憲法」（當然，這正是台獨主張正名制憲的理由）。於是，在台獨操作的「國家觀念」中，台獨基本教義派否認自己是「中華民國國民」，且又否認其他認同中華民國者為「台灣人」；這樣的「國家觀念」，表裡衝突，名實撕裂，也就根本不成其為「國家」了。

台獨的國家觀念，一方面摧毀「中華民國」的正當性，另一方面虛構「台灣共和國」的正當性；一方面否定「中華民國」的現實，另一方面偽造「台灣共和國」的幻境。民進黨應知：當前「國家觀念」的癥結，不在未能建立「台灣共和國」（因為那根本是「自欺欺人」），而在你們要毀滅中華民國。

謝長廷說：「台灣已經選舉總統了，當然已經獨立。」這仍是政治語言，而非憲法語言。因為，世界上並無一個稱為「台灣」的國家曾選舉過「台灣總統」；只有一個名為「中華民國」的國家、依「中華民國憲法」，選舉產生「中華民國總統」。謝長廷如果當選，他也是中華民國的總統，而不是台灣（國）的總統。那麼，照謝長廷的話說：「中華民國已經選舉總統，即應大聲說出中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家。」

台獨論述必須承認「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，否則連「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」亦無所寄託。從台獨本位來看，台獨是主張推翻中華民國的革命者；但是從中華民國本位來看，台獨卻是背叛中華民國的竊國賊。勿再對中華民國冷嘲熱諷，亦勿再以「自欺欺人」的正名制憲欲置中華民國於死地；唯有建立這樣的「國家觀念」與「國家認同」，台灣才不會撕裂，也才能凝聚一致對外的力量。

不要用虛構的「台灣國」來否定實存的「中華民國」，也不要將政黨標籤化成「本土政權」或「外來（國）政權」，更不要將國人分成「台灣人」與「非台灣人」兩種仇敵；這是謝長廷以總統候選人對強化國家觀念與國家認同可為之努力，既然謝長廷都要選中華民國總統了，難道還能諱言中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家？

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 30, 2007

While visiting the US, Frank Hsieh talked about the nation’s plight. He said the public should have a sense of national consciousness and national identity. They must not refuse to acknowledge that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation”.

His comments touched a sore spot in Taiwan’s political discourse. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains fixated on the premise that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” and refuses to publicly acknowledge, in accordance with the constitution, that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

If the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to a non-existent and fictitious “Republic of Taiwan,” how can they expect people to identify with it? If on the other hand, the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to the Republic of China, why not simply and honestly state that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?”

The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood has undergone two transformations. One. The Taiwan independence movement originally referred to the Republic of China as an “illegitimate political authority,” demanded its overthrow, and demanded the establishment of a separate and independent Republic of Taiwan. Two. Ever since the DPP announced its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP has asserted that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” Eventually the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood will probably have to undergo a third transformation: “The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, and amounts to the realization of Taiwan independence.” These three transformations are not based on any individual’s whims, but reflect acquiescence to irresistible forces.

Today’s Taiwan independence rhetoric remains stuck in the second stage: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” This sort of political rhetoric has the power to persuade some swing voters. But it has no legal standing whatsoever, because in the world we live in there is no “Taiwan Constitution” or “Republic of Taiwan Constitution.” Therefore “Taiwan” has never been the name of a nation with any constitutional foundation. The assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” is meaningless. Actually, it’s worse than meaningless, as it can easily degenerate into self-deception. In the nomenclature of the Taiwan independence movement, “Taiwan” refers to a “Nation of Taiwan,” as in “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” In fact, this assertion is nothing more than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Current assertions that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” are constructed upon the Republic of China’s constitutional law foundation. If the Taiwan independence movement repudiates the Republic of China, then the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” immediately loses its legal foundation.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement spares no effort undermining the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It yearns to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” and to abolish the Republic of China. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s allegation that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” has no basis in fact. Not only is there no nation named the “Republic of Taiwan,” there is no “Constitution of Republic of Taiwan.” That of course is precisely why the Taiwan independence movement demands the so-called “rectification of names,” and the “authoring of a new constitution.” As a result, when the Taiwan independence movement bandies about its concept of nationhood, Taiwan independence fundamentalists deny that they are Republic of China citizens. They refuse to consider anyone who identifies with the Republic of China as “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of “nationhood” contradicts itself both externally and internally, both in name and in fact. Basically it fails the test of nationhood altogether.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood struggles to undermine the Republic of China. On the other hand, it creates a fictitious “Republic of Taiwan.” On the one hand it denies the reality of a Republic of China. On the other hand it fabricates a non-existent “Republic of Taiwan” Fantasyland. The Democratic Progressive Party needs to realize that its current concept of nationhood has created a Gordian Knot for itself. It will remain incapable of establishing a “Republic of Taiwan” because fundamentally speaking, it is nothing more than self-deception. The most they can do is undermine the Republic of China.

Frank Hsieh said that “Taiwan has already held presidential elections. Of course it is independent.” This is political sophistry, not constitutional law. In the real world we live in no nation named “Taiwan” ever elected a “President of Taiwan.” Only a nation named the Republic of China, founded upon the Republic of China Constitution, has ever elected presidents of the Republic of China. If Frank Hsieh is elected, he will be a president of the Republic of China, not a president of “Taiwan.” Therefore what Frank Hsieh ought to say, loudly and with pride, is that the “Republic of China has already held presidential elections, therefore the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

Taiwan independence rhetoric must acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Otherwise the disingenuous assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” will have even less basis in fact. From a Taiwan independence standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the Republic of China. But from the Republic of China’s standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are traitors to the Republic of China, who are betraying their nation. Do not mock the Republic of China. Do not engage in self-deception in order to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” or undermine the Republic of China. Only by reaffirming the nationhood of the Republic of China, by reaffirming one’s national identity as a Republic of China citizen, can one avoid tearing the Republic of China apart and unite the Republic of China against foreign influences.

Do not use a fictitious “Nation of Taiwan” to repudiate a real life Republic of China. Do not use party labels to create divisions between an alleged “native political regime” and an alleged “alien political regime.” Do not divide people into enemy camps consisting of “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “non-Taiwanese” on the other. This is what Frank Hsieh as a presidential candidate must do to strengthen the concept of nationhood and national identity. Since Frank Hsieh is about to run for Republic of China president, how can he refuse to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?

與謝長廷談國家觀念
社論
【2007-07-28/聯合報/A2版/焦點】

謝長廷在美國談到國家處境；他認為國人應有國家觀念與國家認同，不要不承認「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」。

這段話觸及了台灣政局的痛處，但問題的癥結卻正是在民進黨的國家觀念始終停留在「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」的階段，未能遵照憲法公開認同「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」。

台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指子虛烏有的「台灣共和國」，如何教國人皆認同？台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指「中華民國」，則何不乾脆直說「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」？

台獨運動的「國家觀念」，歷經了兩個階段的遞嬗轉型。一、台獨早先指中華民國為非法政權，必欲推翻之，另建台灣共和國；二、至民進黨發表《台灣前途決議文》，則稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」。未來台獨論述的「國家觀念」恐須再經第三階段轉型，成為：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，這即是台灣獨立的實現。」這三階段的轉型，不隨個人意志為轉移，而是一必趨必至的遞嬗過程。

現今的台獨論述，仍停留在第二階段，亦即：「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國。」這樣的論述，作為政治語言，確實較具騰挪游移的空間，但這種說法畢竟不具法律意義；因為，世界上並無一部「台灣憲法」或「台灣共和國憲法」，因此「台灣」從來不是具有憲法意義的國號，則自稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實沒有憲政意義，反而極易淪為一種「自欺欺人」的政治操作。在台獨詞彙中，「台灣」就是指「台灣國」；稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實是在諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。但是，如今稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，卻是建立在「中華民國」的架構之上；倘若台獨否定了「中華民國」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的論述，亦立即失去憑藉。

一方面，台獨不遺餘力地否定「中華民國」的合法正當性，而欲以正名制憲等手段去終結中華民國；但是，另一方面，所謂「台灣是一主權獨立國家」的台獨論述又根本沒有憑據，既無「台灣共和國之國號」、又無「台灣共和國之憲法」（當然，這正是台獨主張正名制憲的理由）。於是，在台獨操作的「國家觀念」中，台獨基本教義派否認自己是「中華民國國民」，且又否認其他認同中華民國者為「台灣人」；這樣的「國家觀念」，表裡衝突，名實撕裂，也就根本不成其為「國家」了。

台獨的國家觀念，一方面摧毀「中華民國」的正當性，另一方面虛構「台灣共和國」的正當性；一方面否定「中華民國」的現實，另一方面偽造「台灣共和國」的幻境。民進黨應知：當前「國家觀念」的癥結，不在未能建立「台灣共和國」（因為那根本是「自欺欺人」），而在你們要毀滅中華民國。

謝長廷說：「台灣已經選舉總統了，當然已經獨立。」這仍是政治語言，而非憲法語言。因為，世界上並無一個稱為「台灣」的國家曾選舉過「台灣總統」；只有一個名為「中華民國」的國家、依「中華民國憲法」，選舉產生「中華民國總統」。謝長廷如果當選，他也是中華民國的總統，而不是台灣（國）的總統。那麼，照謝長廷的話說：「中華民國已經選舉總統，即應大聲說出中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家。」

台獨論述必須承認「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，否則連「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」亦無所寄託。從台獨本位來看，台獨是主張推翻中華民國的革命者；但是從中華民國本位來看，台獨卻是背叛中華民國的竊國賊。勿再對中華民國冷嘲熱諷，亦勿再以「自欺欺人」的正名制憲欲置中華民國於死地；唯有建立這樣的「國家觀念」與「國家認同」，台灣才不會撕裂，也才能凝聚一致對外的力量。

不要用虛構的「台灣國」來否定實存的「中華民國」，也不要將政黨標籤化成「本土政權」或「外來（國）政權」，更不要將國人分成「台灣人」與「非台灣人」兩種仇敵；這是謝長廷以總統候選人對強化國家觀念與國家認同可為之努力，既然謝長廷都要選中華民國總統了，難道還能諱言中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家？

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 30, 2007

While visiting the US, Frank Hsieh talked about the nation’s plight. He said the public should have a sense of national consciousness and national identity. They must not refuse to acknowledge that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation”.

His comments touched a sore spot in Taiwan’s political discourse. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains fixated on the premise that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” and refuses to publicly acknowledge, in accordance with the constitution, that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

If the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to a non-existent and fictitious “Republic of Taiwan,” how can they expect people to identify with it? If on the other hand, the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to the Republic of China, why not simply and honestly state that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?”

The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood has undergone two transformations. One. The Taiwan independence movement originally referred to the Republic of China as an “illegitimate political authority,” demanded its overthrow, and demanded the establishment of a separate and independent Republic of Taiwan. Two. Ever since the DPP announced its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP has asserted that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” Eventually the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood will probably have to undergo a third transformation: “The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, and amounts to the realization of Taiwan independence.” These three transformations are not based on any individual’s whims, but reflect acquiescence to irresistible forces.

Today’s Taiwan independence rhetoric remains stuck in the second stage: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” This sort of political rhetoric has the power to persuade some swing voters. But it has no legal standing whatsoever, because in the world we live in there is no “Taiwan Constitution” or “Republic of Taiwan Constitution.” Therefore “Taiwan” has never been the name of a nation with any constitutional foundation. The assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” is meaningless. Actually, it’s worse than meaningless, as it can easily degenerate into self-deception. In the nomenclature of the Taiwan independence movement, “Taiwan” refers to a “Nation of Taiwan,” as in “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” In fact, this assertion is nothing more than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Current assertions that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” are constructed upon the Republic of China’s constitutional law foundation. If the Taiwan independence movement repudiates the Republic of China, then the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” immediately loses its legal foundation.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement spares no effort undermining the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It yearns to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” and to abolish the Republic of China. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s allegation that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” has no basis in fact. Not only is there no nation named the “Republic of Taiwan,” there is no “Constitution of Republic of Taiwan.” That of course is precisely why the Taiwan independence movement demands the so-called “rectification of names,” and the “authoring of a new constitution.” As a result, when the Taiwan independence movement bandies about its concept of nationhood, Taiwan independence fundamentalists deny that they are Republic of China citizens. They refuse to consider anyone who identifies with the Republic of China as “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of “nationhood” contradicts itself both externally and internally, both in name and in fact. Basically it fails the test of nationhood altogether.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood struggles to undermine the Republic of China. On the other hand, it creates a fictitious “Republic of Taiwan.” On the one hand it denies the reality of a Republic of China. On the other hand it fabricates a non-existent “Republic of Taiwan” Fantasyland. The Democratic Progressive Party needs to realize that its current concept of nationhood has created a Gordian Knot for itself. It will remain incapable of establishing a “Republic of Taiwan” because fundamentally speaking, it is nothing more than self-deception. The most they can do is undermine the Republic of China.

Frank Hsieh said that “Taiwan has already held presidential elections. Of course it is independent.” This is political sophistry, not constitutional law. In the real world we live in no nation named “Taiwan” ever elected a “President of Taiwan.” Only a nation named the Republic of China, founded upon the Republic of China Constitution, has ever elected presidents of the Republic of China. If Frank Hsieh is elected, he will be a president of the Republic of China, not a president of “Taiwan.” Therefore what Frank Hsieh ought to say, loudly and with pride, is that the “Republic of China has already held presidential elections, therefore the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

Taiwan independence rhetoric must acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Otherwise the disingenuous assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” will have even less basis in fact. From a Taiwan independence standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the Republic of China. But from the Republic of China’s standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are traitors to the Republic of China, who are betraying their nation. Do not mock the Republic of China. Do not engage in self-deception in order to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” or undermine the Republic of China. Only by reaffirming the nationhood of the Republic of China, by reaffirming one’s national identity as a Republic of China citizen, can one avoid tearing the Republic of China apart and unite the Republic of China against foreign influences.

Do not use a fictitious “Nation of Taiwan” to repudiate a real life Republic of China. Do not use party labels to create divisions between an alleged “native political regime” and an alleged “alien political regime.” Do not divide people into enemy camps consisting of “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “non-Taiwanese” on the other. This is what Frank Hsieh as a presidential candidate must do to strengthen the concept of nationhood and national identity. Since Frank Hsieh is about to run for Republic of China president, how can he refuse to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?

與謝長廷談國家觀念
社論
【2007-07-28/聯合報/A2版/焦點】

謝長廷在美國談到國家處境；他認為國人應有國家觀念與國家認同，不要不承認「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」。

這段話觸及了台灣政局的痛處，但問題的癥結卻正是在民進黨的國家觀念始終停留在「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」的階段，未能遵照憲法公開認同「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」。

台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指子虛烏有的「台灣共和國」，如何教國人皆認同？台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指「中華民國」，則何不乾脆直說「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」？

台獨運動的「國家觀念」，歷經了兩個階段的遞嬗轉型。一、台獨早先指中華民國為非法政權，必欲推翻之，另建台灣共和國；二、至民進黨發表《台灣前途決議文》，則稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」。未來台獨論述的「國家觀念」恐須再經第三階段轉型，成為：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，這即是台灣獨立的實現。」這三階段的轉型，不隨個人意志為轉移，而是一必趨必至的遞嬗過程。

現今的台獨論述，仍停留在第二階段，亦即：「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國。」這樣的論述，作為政治語言，確實較具騰挪游移的空間，但這種說法畢竟不具法律意義；因為，世界上並無一部「台灣憲法」或「台灣共和國憲法」，因此「台灣」從來不是具有憲法意義的國號，則自稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實沒有憲政意義，反而極易淪為一種「自欺欺人」的政治操作。在台獨詞彙中，「台灣」就是指「台灣國」；稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實是在諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。但是，如今稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，卻是建立在「中華民國」的架構之上；倘若台獨否定了「中華民國」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的論述，亦立即失去憑藉。

一方面，台獨不遺餘力地否定「中華民國」的合法正當性，而欲以正名制憲等手段去終結中華民國；但是，另一方面，所謂「台灣是一主權獨立國家」的台獨論述又根本沒有憑據，既無「台灣共和國之國號」、又無「台灣共和國之憲法」（當然，這正是台獨主張正名制憲的理由）。於是，在台獨操作的「國家觀念」中，台獨基本教義派否認自己是「中華民國國民」，且又否認其他認同中華民國者為「台灣人」；這樣的「國家觀念」，表裡衝突，名實撕裂，也就根本不成其為「國家」了。

台獨的國家觀念，一方面摧毀「中華民國」的正當性，另一方面虛構「台灣共和國」的正當性；一方面否定「中華民國」的現實，另一方面偽造「台灣共和國」的幻境。民進黨應知：當前「國家觀念」的癥結，不在未能建立「台灣共和國」（因為那根本是「自欺欺人」），而在你們要毀滅中華民國。

謝長廷說：「台灣已經選舉總統了，當然已經獨立。」這仍是政治語言，而非憲法語言。因為，世界上並無一個稱為「台灣」的國家曾選舉過「台灣總統」；只有一個名為「中華民國」的國家、依「中華民國憲法」，選舉產生「中華民國總統」。謝長廷如果當選，他也是中華民國的總統，而不是台灣（國）的總統。那麼，照謝長廷的話說：「中華民國已經選舉總統，即應大聲說出中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家。」

台獨論述必須承認「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，否則連「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」亦無所寄託。從台獨本位來看，台獨是主張推翻中華民國的革命者；但是從中華民國本位來看，台獨卻是背叛中華民國的竊國賊。勿再對中華民國冷嘲熱諷，亦勿再以「自欺欺人」的正名制憲欲置中華民國於死地；唯有建立這樣的「國家觀念」與「國家認同」，台灣才不會撕裂，也才能凝聚一致對外的力量。

不要用虛構的「台灣國」來否定實存的「中華民國」，也不要將政黨標籤化成「本土政權」或「外來（國）政權」，更不要將國人分成「台灣人」與「非台灣人」兩種仇敵；這是謝長廷以總統候選人對強化國家觀念與國家認同可為之努力，既然謝長廷都要選中華民國總統了，難道還能諱言中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家？

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 30, 2007

While visiting the US, Frank Hsieh talked about the nation’s plight. He said the public should have a sense of national consciousness and national identity. They must not refuse to acknowledge that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation”.

His comments touched a sore spot in Taiwan’s political discourse. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains fixated on the premise that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” and refuses to publicly acknowledge, in accordance with the constitution, that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

If the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to a non-existent and fictitious “Republic of Taiwan,” how can they expect people to identify with it? If on the other hand, the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to the Republic of China, why not simply and honestly state that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?”

The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood has undergone two transformations. One. The Taiwan independence movement originally referred to the Republic of China as an “illegitimate political authority,” demanded its overthrow, and demanded the establishment of a separate and independent Republic of Taiwan. Two. Ever since the DPP announced its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP has asserted that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” Eventually the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood will probably have to undergo a third transformation: “The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, and amounts to the realization of Taiwan independence.” These three transformations are not based on any individual’s whims, but reflect acquiescence to irresistible forces.

Today’s Taiwan independence rhetoric remains stuck in the second stage: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” This sort of political rhetoric has the power to persuade some swing voters. But it has no legal standing whatsoever, because in the world we live in there is no “Taiwan Constitution” or “Republic of Taiwan Constitution.” Therefore “Taiwan” has never been the name of a nation with any constitutional foundation. The assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” is meaningless. Actually, it’s worse than meaningless, as it can easily degenerate into self-deception. In the nomenclature of the Taiwan independence movement, “Taiwan” refers to a “Nation of Taiwan,” as in “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” In fact, this assertion is nothing more than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Current assertions that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” are constructed upon the Republic of China’s constitutional law foundation. If the Taiwan independence movement repudiates the Republic of China, then the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” immediately loses its legal foundation.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement spares no effort undermining the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It yearns to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” and to abolish the Republic of China. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s allegation that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” has no basis in fact. Not only is there no nation named the “Republic of Taiwan,” there is no “Constitution of Republic of Taiwan.” That of course is precisely why the Taiwan independence movement demands the so-called “rectification of names,” and the “authoring of a new constitution.” As a result, when the Taiwan independence movement bandies about its concept of nationhood, Taiwan independence fundamentalists deny that they are Republic of China citizens. They refuse to consider anyone who identifies with the Republic of China as “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of “nationhood” contradicts itself both externally and internally, both in name and in fact. Basically it fails the test of nationhood altogether.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood struggles to undermine the Republic of China. On the other hand, it creates a fictitious “Republic of Taiwan.” On the one hand it denies the reality of a Republic of China. On the other hand it fabricates a non-existent “Republic of Taiwan” Fantasyland. The Democratic Progressive Party needs to realize that its current concept of nationhood has created a Gordian Knot for itself. It will remain incapable of establishing a “Republic of Taiwan” because fundamentally speaking, it is nothing more than self-deception. The most they can do is undermine the Republic of China.

Frank Hsieh said that “Taiwan has already held presidential elections. Of course it is independent.” This is political sophistry, not constitutional law. In the real world we live in no nation named “Taiwan” ever elected a “President of Taiwan.” Only a nation named the Republic of China, founded upon the Republic of China Constitution, has ever elected presidents of the Republic of China. If Frank Hsieh is elected, he will be a president of the Republic of China, not a president of “Taiwan.” Therefore what Frank Hsieh ought to say, loudly and with pride, is that the “Republic of China has already held presidential elections, therefore the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

Taiwan independence rhetoric must acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Otherwise the disingenuous assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” will have even less basis in fact. From a Taiwan independence standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the Republic of China. But from the Republic of China’s standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are traitors to the Republic of China, who are betraying their nation. Do not mock the Republic of China. Do not engage in self-deception in order to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” or undermine the Republic of China. Only by reaffirming the nationhood of the Republic of China, by reaffirming one’s national identity as a Republic of China citizen, can one avoid tearing the Republic of China apart and unite the Republic of China against foreign influences.

Do not use a fictitious “Nation of Taiwan” to repudiate a real life Republic of China. Do not use party labels to create divisions between an alleged “native political regime” and an alleged “alien political regime.” Do not divide people into enemy camps consisting of “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “non-Taiwanese” on the other. This is what Frank Hsieh as a presidential candidate must do to strengthen the concept of nationhood and national identity. Since Frank Hsieh is about to run for Republic of China president, how can he refuse to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?

與謝長廷談國家觀念
社論
【2007-07-28/聯合報/A2版/焦點】

謝長廷在美國談到國家處境；他認為國人應有國家觀念與國家認同，不要不承認「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」。

這段話觸及了台灣政局的痛處，但問題的癥結卻正是在民進黨的國家觀念始終停留在「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」的階段，未能遵照憲法公開認同「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」。

台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指子虛烏有的「台灣共和國」，如何教國人皆認同？台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指「中華民國」，則何不乾脆直說「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」？

台獨運動的「國家觀念」，歷經了兩個階段的遞嬗轉型。一、台獨早先指中華民國為非法政權，必欲推翻之，另建台灣共和國；二、至民進黨發表《台灣前途決議文》，則稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」。未來台獨論述的「國家觀念」恐須再經第三階段轉型，成為：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，這即是台灣獨立的實現。」這三階段的轉型，不隨個人意志為轉移，而是一必趨必至的遞嬗過程。

現今的台獨論述，仍停留在第二階段，亦即：「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國。」這樣的論述，作為政治語言，確實較具騰挪游移的空間，但這種說法畢竟不具法律意義；因為，世界上並無一部「台灣憲法」或「台灣共和國憲法」，因此「台灣」從來不是具有憲法意義的國號，則自稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實沒有憲政意義，反而極易淪為一種「自欺欺人」的政治操作。在台獨詞彙中，「台灣」就是指「台灣國」；稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實是在諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。但是，如今稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，卻是建立在「中華民國」的架構之上；倘若台獨否定了「中華民國」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的論述，亦立即失去憑藉。

一方面，台獨不遺餘力地否定「中華民國」的合法正當性，而欲以正名制憲等手段去終結中華民國；但是，另一方面，所謂「台灣是一主權獨立國家」的台獨論述又根本沒有憑據，既無「台灣共和國之國號」、又無「台灣共和國之憲法」（當然，這正是台獨主張正名制憲的理由）。於是，在台獨操作的「國家觀念」中，台獨基本教義派否認自己是「中華民國國民」，且又否認其他認同中華民國者為「台灣人」；這樣的「國家觀念」，表裡衝突，名實撕裂，也就根本不成其為「國家」了。

台獨的國家觀念，一方面摧毀「中華民國」的正當性，另一方面虛構「台灣共和國」的正當性；一方面否定「中華民國」的現實，另一方面偽造「台灣共和國」的幻境。民進黨應知：當前「國家觀念」的癥結，不在未能建立「台灣共和國」（因為那根本是「自欺欺人」），而在你們要毀滅中華民國。

謝長廷說：「台灣已經選舉總統了，當然已經獨立。」這仍是政治語言，而非憲法語言。因為，世界上並無一個稱為「台灣」的國家曾選舉過「台灣總統」；只有一個名為「中華民國」的國家、依「中華民國憲法」，選舉產生「中華民國總統」。謝長廷如果當選，他也是中華民國的總統，而不是台灣（國）的總統。那麼，照謝長廷的話說：「中華民國已經選舉總統，即應大聲說出中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家。」

台獨論述必須承認「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，否則連「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」亦無所寄託。從台獨本位來看，台獨是主張推翻中華民國的革命者；但是從中華民國本位來看，台獨卻是背叛中華民國的竊國賊。勿再對中華民國冷嘲熱諷，亦勿再以「自欺欺人」的正名制憲欲置中華民國於死地；唯有建立這樣的「國家觀念」與「國家認同」，台灣才不會撕裂，也才能凝聚一致對外的力量。

不要用虛構的「台灣國」來否定實存的「中華民國」，也不要將政黨標籤化成「本土政權」或「外來（國）政權」，更不要將國人分成「台灣人」與「非台灣人」兩種仇敵；這是謝長廷以總統候選人對強化國家觀念與國家認同可為之努力，既然謝長廷都要選中華民國總統了，難道還能諱言中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家？

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 30, 2007

While visiting the US, Frank Hsieh talked about the nation’s plight. He said the public should have a sense of national consciousness and national identity. They must not refuse to acknowledge that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation”.

His comments touched a sore spot in Taiwan’s political discourse. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains fixated on the premise that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” and refuses to publicly acknowledge, in accordance with the constitution, that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

If the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to a non-existent and fictitious “Republic of Taiwan,” how can they expect people to identify with it? If on the other hand, the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to the Republic of China, why not simply and honestly state that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?”

The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood has undergone two transformations. One. The Taiwan independence movement originally referred to the Republic of China as an “illegitimate political authority,” demanded its overthrow, and demanded the establishment of a separate and independent Republic of Taiwan. Two. Ever since the DPP announced its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP has asserted that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” Eventually the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood will probably have to undergo a third transformation: “The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, and amounts to the realization of Taiwan independence.” These three transformations are not based on any individual’s whims, but reflect acquiescence to irresistible forces.

Today’s Taiwan independence rhetoric remains stuck in the second stage: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” This sort of political rhetoric has the power to persuade some swing voters. But it has no legal standing whatsoever, because in the world we live in there is no “Taiwan Constitution” or “Republic of Taiwan Constitution.” Therefore “Taiwan” has never been the name of a nation with any constitutional foundation. The assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” is meaningless. Actually, it’s worse than meaningless, as it can easily degenerate into self-deception. In the nomenclature of the Taiwan independence movement, “Taiwan” refers to a “Nation of Taiwan,” as in “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” In fact, this assertion is nothing more than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Current assertions that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” are constructed upon the Republic of China’s constitutional law foundation. If the Taiwan independence movement repudiates the Republic of China, then the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” immediately loses its legal foundation.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement spares no effort undermining the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It yearns to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” and to abolish the Republic of China. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s allegation that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” has no basis in fact. Not only is there no nation named the “Republic of Taiwan,” there is no “Constitution of Republic of Taiwan.” That of course is precisely why the Taiwan independence movement demands the so-called “rectification of names,” and the “authoring of a new constitution.” As a result, when the Taiwan independence movement bandies about its concept of nationhood, Taiwan independence fundamentalists deny that they are Republic of China citizens. They refuse to consider anyone who identifies with the Republic of China as “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of “nationhood” contradicts itself both externally and internally, both in name and in fact. Basically it fails the test of nationhood altogether.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood struggles to undermine the Republic of China. On the other hand, it creates a fictitious “Republic of Taiwan.” On the one hand it denies the reality of a Republic of China. On the other hand it fabricates a non-existent “Republic of Taiwan” Fantasyland. The Democratic Progressive Party needs to realize that its current concept of nationhood has created a Gordian Knot for itself. It will remain incapable of establishing a “Republic of Taiwan” because fundamentally speaking, it is nothing more than self-deception. The most they can do is undermine the Republic of China.

Frank Hsieh said that “Taiwan has already held presidential elections. Of course it is independent.” This is political sophistry, not constitutional law. In the real world we live in no nation named “Taiwan” ever elected a “President of Taiwan.” Only a nation named the Republic of China, founded upon the Republic of China Constitution, has ever elected presidents of the Republic of China. If Frank Hsieh is elected, he will be a president of the Republic of China, not a president of “Taiwan.” Therefore what Frank Hsieh ought to say, loudly and with pride, is that the “Republic of China has already held presidential elections, therefore the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

Taiwan independence rhetoric must acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Otherwise the disingenuous assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” will have even less basis in fact. From a Taiwan independence standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the Republic of China. But from the Republic of China’s standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are traitors to the Republic of China, who are betraying their nation. Do not mock the Republic of China. Do not engage in self-deception in order to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” or undermine the Republic of China. Only by reaffirming the nationhood of the Republic of China, by reaffirming one’s national identity as a Republic of China citizen, can one avoid tearing the Republic of China apart and unite the Republic of China against foreign influences.

Do not use a fictitious “Nation of Taiwan” to repudiate a real life Republic of China. Do not use party labels to create divisions between an alleged “native political regime” and an alleged “alien political regime.” Do not divide people into enemy camps consisting of “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “non-Taiwanese” on the other. This is what Frank Hsieh as a presidential candidate must do to strengthen the concept of nationhood and national identity. Since Frank Hsieh is about to run for Republic of China president, how can he refuse to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?

與謝長廷談國家觀念
社論
【2007-07-28/聯合報/A2版/焦點】

謝長廷在美國談到國家處境；他認為國人應有國家觀念與國家認同，不要不承認「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」。

這段話觸及了台灣政局的痛處，但問題的癥結卻正是在民進黨的國家觀念始終停留在「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」的階段，未能遵照憲法公開認同「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」。

台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指子虛烏有的「台灣共和國」，如何教國人皆認同？台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指「中華民國」，則何不乾脆直說「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」？

台獨運動的「國家觀念」，歷經了兩個階段的遞嬗轉型。一、台獨早先指中華民國為非法政權，必欲推翻之，另建台灣共和國；二、至民進黨發表《台灣前途決議文》，則稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」。未來台獨論述的「國家觀念」恐須再經第三階段轉型，成為：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，這即是台灣獨立的實現。」這三階段的轉型，不隨個人意志為轉移，而是一必趨必至的遞嬗過程。

現今的台獨論述，仍停留在第二階段，亦即：「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國。」這樣的論述，作為政治語言，確實較具騰挪游移的空間，但這種說法畢竟不具法律意義；因為，世界上並無一部「台灣憲法」或「台灣共和國憲法」，因此「台灣」從來不是具有憲法意義的國號，則自稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實沒有憲政意義，反而極易淪為一種「自欺欺人」的政治操作。在台獨詞彙中，「台灣」就是指「台灣國」；稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實是在諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。但是，如今稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，卻是建立在「中華民國」的架構之上；倘若台獨否定了「中華民國」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的論述，亦立即失去憑藉。

一方面，台獨不遺餘力地否定「中華民國」的合法正當性，而欲以正名制憲等手段去終結中華民國；但是，另一方面，所謂「台灣是一主權獨立國家」的台獨論述又根本沒有憑據，既無「台灣共和國之國號」、又無「台灣共和國之憲法」（當然，這正是台獨主張正名制憲的理由）。於是，在台獨操作的「國家觀念」中，台獨基本教義派否認自己是「中華民國國民」，且又否認其他認同中華民國者為「台灣人」；這樣的「國家觀念」，表裡衝突，名實撕裂，也就根本不成其為「國家」了。

台獨的國家觀念，一方面摧毀「中華民國」的正當性，另一方面虛構「台灣共和國」的正當性；一方面否定「中華民國」的現實，另一方面偽造「台灣共和國」的幻境。民進黨應知：當前「國家觀念」的癥結，不在未能建立「台灣共和國」（因為那根本是「自欺欺人」），而在你們要毀滅中華民國。

謝長廷說：「台灣已經選舉總統了，當然已經獨立。」這仍是政治語言，而非憲法語言。因為，世界上並無一個稱為「台灣」的國家曾選舉過「台灣總統」；只有一個名為「中華民國」的國家、依「中華民國憲法」，選舉產生「中華民國總統」。謝長廷如果當選，他也是中華民國的總統，而不是台灣（國）的總統。那麼，照謝長廷的話說：「中華民國已經選舉總統，即應大聲說出中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家。」

台獨論述必須承認「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，否則連「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」亦無所寄託。從台獨本位來看，台獨是主張推翻中華民國的革命者；但是從中華民國本位來看，台獨卻是背叛中華民國的竊國賊。勿再對中華民國冷嘲熱諷，亦勿再以「自欺欺人」的正名制憲欲置中華民國於死地；唯有建立這樣的「國家觀念」與「國家認同」，台灣才不會撕裂，也才能凝聚一致對外的力量。

不要用虛構的「台灣國」來否定實存的「中華民國」，也不要將政黨標籤化成「本土政權」或「外來（國）政權」，更不要將國人分成「台灣人」與「非台灣人」兩種仇敵；這是謝長廷以總統候選人對強化國家觀念與國家認同可為之努力，既然謝長廷都要選中華民國總統了，難道還能諱言中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家？

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood

Frank Hsieh’s Concept of Nationhood
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 30, 2007

While visiting the US, Frank Hsieh talked about the nation’s plight. He said the public should have a sense of national consciousness and national identity. They must not refuse to acknowledge that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation”.

His comments touched a sore spot in Taiwan’s political discourse. The real problem is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains fixated on the premise that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” and refuses to publicly acknowledge, in accordance with the constitution, that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

If the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to a non-existent and fictitious “Republic of Taiwan,” how can they expect people to identify with it? If on the other hand, the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” refers to the Republic of China, why not simply and honestly state that the “Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?”

The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood has undergone two transformations. One. The Taiwan independence movement originally referred to the Republic of China as an “illegitimate political authority,” demanded its overthrow, and demanded the establishment of a separate and independent Republic of Taiwan. Two. Ever since the DPP announced its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP has asserted that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” Eventually the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood will probably have to undergo a third transformation: “The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, and amounts to the realization of Taiwan independence.” These three transformations are not based on any individual’s whims, but reflect acquiescence to irresistible forces.

Today’s Taiwan independence rhetoric remains stuck in the second stage: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its current name is the Republic of China.” This sort of political rhetoric has the power to persuade some swing voters. But it has no legal standing whatsoever, because in the world we live in there is no “Taiwan Constitution” or “Republic of Taiwan Constitution.” Therefore “Taiwan” has never been the name of a nation with any constitutional foundation. The assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” is meaningless. Actually, it’s worse than meaningless, as it can easily degenerate into self-deception. In the nomenclature of the Taiwan independence movement, “Taiwan” refers to a “Nation of Taiwan,” as in “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” In fact, this assertion is nothing more than an obstinate refusal to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Current assertions that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” are constructed upon the Republic of China’s constitutional law foundation. If the Taiwan independence movement repudiates the Republic of China, then the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” immediately loses its legal foundation.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement spares no effort undermining the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It yearns to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” and to abolish the Republic of China. On the other hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s allegation that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” has no basis in fact. Not only is there no nation named the “Republic of Taiwan,” there is no “Constitution of Republic of Taiwan.” That of course is precisely why the Taiwan independence movement demands the so-called “rectification of names,” and the “authoring of a new constitution.” As a result, when the Taiwan independence movement bandies about its concept of nationhood, Taiwan independence fundamentalists deny that they are Republic of China citizens. They refuse to consider anyone who identifies with the Republic of China as “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence movement’s concept of “nationhood” contradicts itself both externally and internally, both in name and in fact. Basically it fails the test of nationhood altogether.

On the one hand, the Taiwan independence movement’s concept of nationhood struggles to undermine the Republic of China. On the other hand, it creates a fictitious “Republic of Taiwan.” On the one hand it denies the reality of a Republic of China. On the other hand it fabricates a non-existent “Republic of Taiwan” Fantasyland. The Democratic Progressive Party needs to realize that its current concept of nationhood has created a Gordian Knot for itself. It will remain incapable of establishing a “Republic of Taiwan” because fundamentally speaking, it is nothing more than self-deception. The most they can do is undermine the Republic of China.

Frank Hsieh said that “Taiwan has already held presidential elections. Of course it is independent.” This is political sophistry, not constitutional law. In the real world we live in no nation named “Taiwan” ever elected a “President of Taiwan.” Only a nation named the Republic of China, founded upon the Republic of China Constitution, has ever elected presidents of the Republic of China. If Frank Hsieh is elected, he will be a president of the Republic of China, not a president of “Taiwan.” Therefore what Frank Hsieh ought to say, loudly and with pride, is that the “Republic of China has already held presidential elections, therefore the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation.”

Taiwan independence rhetoric must acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. Otherwise the disingenuous assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation” will have even less basis in fact. From a Taiwan independence standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the Republic of China. But from the Republic of China’s standpoint, Taiwan independence advocates are traitors to the Republic of China, who are betraying their nation. Do not mock the Republic of China. Do not engage in self-deception in order to “rectify names,” to “author a new constitution,” or undermine the Republic of China. Only by reaffirming the nationhood of the Republic of China, by reaffirming one’s national identity as a Republic of China citizen, can one avoid tearing the Republic of China apart and unite the Republic of China against foreign influences.

Do not use a fictitious “Nation of Taiwan” to repudiate a real life Republic of China. Do not use party labels to create divisions between an alleged “native political regime” and an alleged “alien political regime.” Do not divide people into enemy camps consisting of “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “non-Taiwanese” on the other. This is what Frank Hsieh as a presidential candidate must do to strengthen the concept of nationhood and national identity. Since Frank Hsieh is about to run for Republic of China president, how can he refuse to acknowledge that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation?

與謝長廷談國家觀念
社論
【2007-07-28/聯合報/A2版/焦點】

謝長廷在美國談到國家處境；他認為國人應有國家觀念與國家認同，不要不承認「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」。

這段話觸及了台灣政局的痛處，但問題的癥結卻正是在民進黨的國家觀念始終停留在「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」的階段，未能遵照憲法公開認同「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」。

台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指子虛烏有的「台灣共和國」，如何教國人皆認同？台灣是一個主權獨立的國家，倘是指「中華民國」，則何不乾脆直說「中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家」？

台獨運動的「國家觀念」，歷經了兩個階段的遞嬗轉型。一、台獨早先指中華民國為非法政權，必欲推翻之，另建台灣共和國；二、至民進黨發表《台灣前途決議文》，則稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」。未來台獨論述的「國家觀念」恐須再經第三階段轉型，成為：「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，這即是台灣獨立的實現。」這三階段的轉型，不隨個人意志為轉移，而是一必趨必至的遞嬗過程。

現今的台獨論述，仍停留在第二階段，亦即：「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國。」這樣的論述，作為政治語言，確實較具騰挪游移的空間，但這種說法畢竟不具法律意義；因為，世界上並無一部「台灣憲法」或「台灣共和國憲法」，因此「台灣」從來不是具有憲法意義的國號，則自稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實沒有憲政意義，反而極易淪為一種「自欺欺人」的政治操作。在台獨詞彙中，「台灣」就是指「台灣國」；稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，其實是在諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」。但是，如今稱「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」，卻是建立在「中華民國」的架構之上；倘若台獨否定了「中華民國」，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家」的論述，亦立即失去憑藉。

一方面，台獨不遺餘力地否定「中華民國」的合法正當性，而欲以正名制憲等手段去終結中華民國；但是，另一方面，所謂「台灣是一主權獨立國家」的台獨論述又根本沒有憑據，既無「台灣共和國之國號」、又無「台灣共和國之憲法」（當然，這正是台獨主張正名制憲的理由）。於是，在台獨操作的「國家觀念」中，台獨基本教義派否認自己是「中華民國國民」，且又否認其他認同中華民國者為「台灣人」；這樣的「國家觀念」，表裡衝突，名實撕裂，也就根本不成其為「國家」了。

台獨的國家觀念，一方面摧毀「中華民國」的正當性，另一方面虛構「台灣共和國」的正當性；一方面否定「中華民國」的現實，另一方面偽造「台灣共和國」的幻境。民進黨應知：當前「國家觀念」的癥結，不在未能建立「台灣共和國」（因為那根本是「自欺欺人」），而在你們要毀滅中華民國。

謝長廷說：「台灣已經選舉總統了，當然已經獨立。」這仍是政治語言，而非憲法語言。因為，世界上並無一個稱為「台灣」的國家曾選舉過「台灣總統」；只有一個名為「中華民國」的國家、依「中華民國憲法」，選舉產生「中華民國總統」。謝長廷如果當選，他也是中華民國的總統，而不是台灣（國）的總統。那麼，照謝長廷的話說：「中華民國已經選舉總統，即應大聲說出中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家。」

台獨論述必須承認「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，否則連「台灣是一個主權獨立的國家」亦無所寄託。從台獨本位來看，台獨是主張推翻中華民國的革命者；但是從中華民國本位來看，台獨卻是背叛中華民國的竊國賊。勿再對中華民國冷嘲熱諷，亦勿再以「自欺欺人」的正名制憲欲置中華民國於死地；唯有建立這樣的「國家觀念」與「國家認同」，台灣才不會撕裂，也才能凝聚一致對外的力量。

不要用虛構的「台灣國」來否定實存的「中華民國」，也不要將政黨標籤化成「本土政權」或「外來（國）政權」，更不要將國人分成「台灣人」與「非台灣人」兩種仇敵；這是謝長廷以總統候選人對強化國家觀念與國家認同可為之努力，既然謝長廷都要選中華民國總統了，難道還能諱言中華民國是一個主權獨立的國家？

Chen Shui-bian’s Taiwan Independence Makeup

Chen Shui-bian’s Taiwan Independence Makeup
The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite”
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 26, 2007

Frank Hsieh says that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” campaign has already been launched. “Now even President Chen cannot call a halt to the process.”

Frank Hsieh’s comments in the US about the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” were akin to microsurgery. They were intended to draw a bright line between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Although Frank Hsieh signed the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite,” his key phrase was “Diplomatic policy is President Chen Shui-bian’s prerogative.” What he was actually saying was that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” was Chen Shui-bian’s pet project.

Frank Hsieh said that “Now even President Chen cannot call a halt to the process.” In fact, the law states that “only the president can call a halt to the process.” Is it really the case that Chen Shui-bian cannot call a halt to the process? After all, the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is still in the second phase of its signature drive. As long as Chen Shui-bian moderates the signature drive, he can cite the high-minded justification that “The public values Taiwan US relations, understands the need to maintain cross straits peace and ensure domestic tranquility,” then allow the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” drive to throttle down and make a soft landing.

In fact, Chen Shui-bian’s tone has already softened. He recently said “I have not ruled out the possibility of combining the presidential election with the plebiscite.” The implication being he hadn’t ruled out the possibility of not combining the presidential election with the plebiscite, either. This was not his original, dogmatic posture. Since this is the case, then a face saving measure during the second phase signature drive would be a smart move on the part of the Democratic Progressive Party.

Now let’s look at how Chen Shui-bian, Frank Hsieh, and the Democratic Progressive Party determined the pros and cons of carrying the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” petition drive all the way to the bitter end. First, Chen Shui-bian’s formal application to “Join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” has already been rejected out of hand by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and returned unread. On the one hand, since Chen Shui-bian has already made the decision to submit the application on his own, without public authorization, why bother with a pro forma “first board the train, then buy the ticket” plebiscite? On the other hand, since the application has already been rejected, what’s the point of holding a plebiscite at all?

Second, the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is merely a masochistic “butting your head against the wall diplomacy” electioneering gimmick intended to win sympathy votes. Therefore the DPP needs to determine just how beneficial it will be to its election prospects. As of today, the election is still seven months away, and it has unexpectedly hit a wall. Frank Hsieh “was surprised” at how firmly the US opposed the plebiscite. The European Union, Japan, Russia, and other major nations all declined to support the plebiscite. The manner in which the United Nations rejected the application came close to a slap in the face. Will hitting a wall this early in the game induce voters to cast sympathy votes for the DPP seven months from now? Or will it merely inspire contempt for the DPP’s incompetence? This is something that the DPP must carefully determine. Recent polls indicate that 27.8 % of the public thinks Ma Ying-jeou has a better chance of getting Taiwan into the UN than Frank Hsieh. Only 18.9 % think Frank Hsieh has a better chance of getting Taiwan into the UN than Ma Ying-jeou. Obviously the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is a phony issue, just like the question, “Do you want to win first prize in the lottery?” It is not necessarily advantageous to the DPP’s electioneering efforts.

Third, the issue most worth paying attention to is whether Frank Hsieh should draw a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Frank Hsieh’s main theme during his talks in the US were about severing ties with Chen Shui-bian. He said “The Five Noes are missing at least one No.” What he meant was that “Four Noes” remain in effect. He also said that, “Taiwan is already independent, therefore it has no need for a Taiwan independence plebiscite, has no need for an independence movement, and has no need to declare independence.” He drew a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian’s “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue.” Frank Hsieh cannot publicly commit to the “Five Noes,” but he was indicating to the US that he would make such a pledge if elected. He also said that he cannot withdraw the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” petition, but he indicated that if elected, the plebiscite would no longer be an issue after March next year. These declarations suggest that Chen Shui-bian is holding Frank Hsieh hostage. The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” and the “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue” bombshells are Chen Shui-bian’s pet projects, not Frank Hsieh’s. Why exactly is Chen Shui-bian holding Frank Hsieh hostage? How can Frank Hsieh campaign under such circumstances? If Frank Hsieh cannot get the Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence monkeys off his back, what guarantee do voters have that after he is elected he won’t remain a hostage of Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence hardliners?

Fourth, lastly, we must carry out a realistic cost/benefit analysis. According to insider information, US reaction to the “Join the UN in the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” was extremely negative. This was apparent from Frank Hsieh’s hesitant manner while discussing the issue. The US feels that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is a “Plebiscite intended to change the Status Quo,” and has already caused Taipei/Washington relations to degenerate to their lowest level in seven years. Japan, Russia, the European Union, other major nations, and the Secretary General of the United Nations have all expressed their opposition. For the Republic of China government, this is not merely an isolated defeat. It is a defeat that has further consolidated an international consensus in favor of a “One China” as defined by the CCP, rather than as defined by the KMT and by the 1992 Consensus. It is not a temporary setback. It is a setback that has cast a long shadow over Taipei/Washington relations and undermined trust between the DPP and the US government. Chen Shui-bian is recklessly “burning down the house in order to keep warm.” Can the DPP tolerate this behavior? Can the people?

The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” and the “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue” initiatives are not helpful to Frank Hsieh’s election prospects. Nor are they helpful to the DPP’s rational interests. All they do is apply a heavy and politically costly layer of make-up over the face of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, transforming him into a “Champion of Taiwan independence.” Must Frank Hsieh pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian? Must the DPP pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian? But above all, must the people pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian?

陳水扁的台獨胭脂：公投入聯，如何下車？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.26 03:32 am

謝長廷說，「入聯公投」已經發動：「現在即使陳總統來談，也無法說停就停！」

看謝長廷在美國關於入聯公投的談話，他儼然正以「奈米手術」與陳水扁切割。謝長廷雖表示也連署了入聯公投，但他最關鍵的一句話卻是「外交權是陳水扁總統的權力」，其實就是直指「入聯公投」全是陳水扁一個人的花樣。

謝長廷說「陳總統也無法說停就停」，實則是說「只有陳總統能夠叫停」。何況，陳水扁真的不能叫停嗎？畢竟入聯公投案仍在進行第二階段連署，只要陳水扁節制連署，即可標舉「民眾珍惜台美關係、顧全兩岸和平、維護國內和諧」的堂皇理由，讓入聯公投案不了了之軟著陸。

其實，陳水扁的口氣已見軟化。他居然說：「不排除總統大選併入聯公投。」言下之意即是，亦「不排除」不併；儼然已不是原先那種斬釘截鐵非併不可的姿態。倘係如此，在第二階段連署下車，或不失為民進黨的明智之舉。

現在，就要看陳水扁、謝長廷及民進黨如何評估公投入聯是否進行到底的利弊得失：一、陳水扁正式發出的「以台灣名義加入聯合國」申請案已告失敗，遭聯合國秘書長潘基文直接退件。一方面，陳水扁既已擅作主張逕自送案，又何必舉行「先上車，後補票」的公投？另一方面，案子既遭退件，公投有何意義？

二、其實，「入聯公投案」根本只是又一次「撞牆外交」的選舉操作，因此至少須評估對民進黨的選情是否有利。然而，如今在距大選還有漫漫七個月的今日，竟然已經「撞牆」，美國反對之堅決令謝長廷「驚訝」，歐盟及日俄等國際主流國家無一支持，聯合國也以跡近羞辱的手段退件；則這種過早出現的「撞牆」現象，在未來七個月會使選民滋生對民進黨的同情，或反而產生對民進黨的嫌惡，民進黨當局恐須審慎評估。最近民調居然出現認為馬英九（二十七‧八％）比謝長廷（十八‧九％）更有利台灣進入聯合國的答案，可見「公投入聯」猶如「你是否希望中樂透頭獎」的假議題，未必有利民進黨的選舉操作。

三、最值得關注的是謝長廷與陳水扁應否作出區隔的問題。謝長廷在美談話的主軸就是要與陳水扁切割，他說「四不一沒有，至少已少了『一沒有』」，意指「四不」仍然有效。他又說：「台灣已經獨立，不必（獨立）公投，不必獨立運動，不必宣布獨立。」已與陳水扁的「四要一沒有」切割。謝長廷不能公開承諾「四不一沒有」，但他向美方暗示，他當選後即可承諾；他又說不能撤回公投入聯案，但他向美方表示，只要他當選，這個議題（公投入聯）即可「到明年三月為止」，不再作祟。這些表述，其實皆顯示謝長廷受到陳水扁的挾持，「公投入聯」及「四要一沒有」均是陳水扁的花樣，而非謝長廷的主張。那麼，陳水扁憑什麼挾持謝長廷？這叫謝長廷如何競選？謝長廷若在選舉時不能甩掉陳水扁及台獨，又何以保證他在選後不受陳水扁及台獨的挾持？

四、最後，更須評估實際上所付的代價。據幕後消息，美國對公投入聯合國的反對態度極為強烈，這從謝長廷吞吞吐吐的談話已可感知。美國認為，入聯公投就是「要改變現狀的公投」，已使台美關係降至「七年以來最惡劣、最艱困的時刻」；且自日、俄、歐盟至聯合國主事者皆對此案持反對立場。何況，對台灣而言，這也不只是個案的失敗，而是反而使得「一個中國」的國際主流政策架構更形鞏固堅實；亦不僅是一時的失敗，而將使得台美關係及「民進黨／美國政府」的信任留下長期陰影。陳水扁這種燒房子取暖的愚妄行徑，民進黨豈能姑息？國人又焉可縱容？

「公投入聯」及「四要一沒有」，不符謝長廷的選舉利益，亦不符民進黨的理性利益；這只是「貪腐的陳水扁」化粧成「台獨的陳水扁」的昂價政治胭脂。謝長廷要為陳水扁埋單嗎？民進黨要為陳水扁埋單嗎？國人要為陳水扁埋單嗎？

Chen Shui-bian’s Taiwan Independence Makeup

Chen Shui-bian’s Taiwan Independence Makeup
The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite”
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 26, 2007

Frank Hsieh says that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” campaign has already been launched. “Now even President Chen cannot call a halt to the process.”

Frank Hsieh’s comments in the US about the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” were akin to microsurgery. They were intended to draw a bright line between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Although Frank Hsieh signed the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite,” his key phrase was “Diplomatic policy is President Chen Shui-bian’s prerogative.” What he was actually saying was that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” was Chen Shui-bian’s pet project.

Frank Hsieh said that “Now even President Chen cannot call a halt to the process.” In fact, the law states that “only the president can call a halt to the process.” Is it really the case that Chen Shui-bian cannot call a halt to the process? After all, the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is still in the second phase of its signature drive. As long as Chen Shui-bian moderates the signature drive, he can cite the high-minded justification that “The public values Taiwan US relations, understands the need to maintain cross straits peace and ensure domestic tranquility,” then allow the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” drive to throttle down and make a soft landing.

In fact, Chen Shui-bian’s tone has already softened. He recently said “I have not ruled out the possibility of combining the presidential election with the plebiscite.” The implication being he hadn’t ruled out the possibility of not combining the presidential election with the plebiscite, either. This was not his original, dogmatic posture. Since this is the case, then a face saving measure during the second phase signature drive would be a smart move on the part of the Democratic Progressive Party.

Now let’s look at how Chen Shui-bian, Frank Hsieh, and the Democratic Progressive Party determined the pros and cons of carrying the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” petition drive all the way to the bitter end. First, Chen Shui-bian’s formal application to “Join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” has already been rejected out of hand by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and returned unread. On the one hand, since Chen Shui-bian has already made the decision to submit the application on his own, without public authorization, why bother with a pro forma “first board the train, then buy the ticket” plebiscite? On the other hand, since the application has already been rejected, what’s the point of holding a plebiscite at all?

Second, the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is merely a masochistic “butting your head against the wall diplomacy” electioneering gimmick intended to win sympathy votes. Therefore the DPP needs to determine just how beneficial it will be to its election prospects. As of today, the election is still seven months away, and it has unexpectedly hit a wall. Frank Hsieh “was surprised” at how firmly the US opposed the plebiscite. The European Union, Japan, Russia, and other major nations all declined to support the plebiscite. The manner in which the United Nations rejected the application came close to a slap in the face. Will hitting a wall this early in the game induce voters to cast sympathy votes for the DPP seven months from now? Or will it merely inspire contempt for the DPP’s incompetence? This is something that the DPP must carefully determine. Recent polls indicate that 27.8 % of the public thinks Ma Ying-jeou has a better chance of getting Taiwan into the UN than Frank Hsieh. Only 18.9 % think Frank Hsieh has a better chance of getting Taiwan into the UN than Ma Ying-jeou. Obviously the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is a phony issue, just like the question, “Do you want to win first prize in the lottery?” It is not necessarily advantageous to the DPP’s electioneering efforts.

Third, the issue most worth paying attention to is whether Frank Hsieh should draw a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Frank Hsieh’s main theme during his talks in the US were about severing ties with Chen Shui-bian. He said “The Five Noes are missing at least one No.” What he meant was that “Four Noes” remain in effect. He also said that, “Taiwan is already independent, therefore it has no need for a Taiwan independence plebiscite, has no need for an independence movement, and has no need to declare independence.” He drew a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian’s “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue.” Frank Hsieh cannot publicly commit to the “Five Noes,” but he was indicating to the US that he would make such a pledge if elected. He also said that he cannot withdraw the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” petition, but he indicated that if elected, the plebiscite would no longer be an issue after March next year. These declarations suggest that Chen Shui-bian is holding Frank Hsieh hostage. The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” and the “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue” bombshells are Chen Shui-bian’s pet projects, not Frank Hsieh’s. Why exactly is Chen Shui-bian holding Frank Hsieh hostage? How can Frank Hsieh campaign under such circumstances? If Frank Hsieh cannot get the Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence monkeys off his back, what guarantee do voters have that after he is elected he won’t remain a hostage of Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence hardliners?

Fourth, lastly, we must carry out a realistic cost/benefit analysis. According to insider information, US reaction to the “Join the UN in the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” was extremely negative. This was apparent from Frank Hsieh’s hesitant manner while discussing the issue. The US feels that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is a “Plebiscite intended to change the Status Quo,” and has already caused Taipei/Washington relations to degenerate to their lowest level in seven years. Japan, Russia, the European Union, other major nations, and the Secretary General of the United Nations have all expressed their opposition. For the Republic of China government, this is not merely an isolated defeat. It is a defeat that has further consolidated an international consensus in favor of a “One China” as defined by the CCP, rather than as defined by the KMT and by the 1992 Consensus. It is not a temporary setback. It is a setback that has cast a long shadow over Taipei/Washington relations and undermined trust between the DPP and the US government. Chen Shui-bian is recklessly “burning down the house in order to keep warm.” Can the DPP tolerate this behavior? Can the people?

The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” and the “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue” initiatives are not helpful to Frank Hsieh’s election prospects. Nor are they helpful to the DPP’s rational interests. All they do is apply a heavy and politically costly layer of make-up over the face of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, transforming him into a “Champion of Taiwan independence.” Must Frank Hsieh pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian? Must the DPP pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian? But above all, must the people pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian?

陳水扁的台獨胭脂：公投入聯，如何下車？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.26 03:32 am

謝長廷說，「入聯公投」已經發動：「現在即使陳總統來談，也無法說停就停！」

看謝長廷在美國關於入聯公投的談話，他儼然正以「奈米手術」與陳水扁切割。謝長廷雖表示也連署了入聯公投，但他最關鍵的一句話卻是「外交權是陳水扁總統的權力」，其實就是直指「入聯公投」全是陳水扁一個人的花樣。

謝長廷說「陳總統也無法說停就停」，實則是說「只有陳總統能夠叫停」。何況，陳水扁真的不能叫停嗎？畢竟入聯公投案仍在進行第二階段連署，只要陳水扁節制連署，即可標舉「民眾珍惜台美關係、顧全兩岸和平、維護國內和諧」的堂皇理由，讓入聯公投案不了了之軟著陸。

其實，陳水扁的口氣已見軟化。他居然說：「不排除總統大選併入聯公投。」言下之意即是，亦「不排除」不併；儼然已不是原先那種斬釘截鐵非併不可的姿態。倘係如此，在第二階段連署下車，或不失為民進黨的明智之舉。

現在，就要看陳水扁、謝長廷及民進黨如何評估公投入聯是否進行到底的利弊得失：一、陳水扁正式發出的「以台灣名義加入聯合國」申請案已告失敗，遭聯合國秘書長潘基文直接退件。一方面，陳水扁既已擅作主張逕自送案，又何必舉行「先上車，後補票」的公投？另一方面，案子既遭退件，公投有何意義？

二、其實，「入聯公投案」根本只是又一次「撞牆外交」的選舉操作，因此至少須評估對民進黨的選情是否有利。然而，如今在距大選還有漫漫七個月的今日，竟然已經「撞牆」，美國反對之堅決令謝長廷「驚訝」，歐盟及日俄等國際主流國家無一支持，聯合國也以跡近羞辱的手段退件；則這種過早出現的「撞牆」現象，在未來七個月會使選民滋生對民進黨的同情，或反而產生對民進黨的嫌惡，民進黨當局恐須審慎評估。最近民調居然出現認為馬英九（二十七‧八％）比謝長廷（十八‧九％）更有利台灣進入聯合國的答案，可見「公投入聯」猶如「你是否希望中樂透頭獎」的假議題，未必有利民進黨的選舉操作。

三、最值得關注的是謝長廷與陳水扁應否作出區隔的問題。謝長廷在美談話的主軸就是要與陳水扁切割，他說「四不一沒有，至少已少了『一沒有』」，意指「四不」仍然有效。他又說：「台灣已經獨立，不必（獨立）公投，不必獨立運動，不必宣布獨立。」已與陳水扁的「四要一沒有」切割。謝長廷不能公開承諾「四不一沒有」，但他向美方暗示，他當選後即可承諾；他又說不能撤回公投入聯案，但他向美方表示，只要他當選，這個議題（公投入聯）即可「到明年三月為止」，不再作祟。這些表述，其實皆顯示謝長廷受到陳水扁的挾持，「公投入聯」及「四要一沒有」均是陳水扁的花樣，而非謝長廷的主張。那麼，陳水扁憑什麼挾持謝長廷？這叫謝長廷如何競選？謝長廷若在選舉時不能甩掉陳水扁及台獨，又何以保證他在選後不受陳水扁及台獨的挾持？

四、最後，更須評估實際上所付的代價。據幕後消息，美國對公投入聯合國的反對態度極為強烈，這從謝長廷吞吞吐吐的談話已可感知。美國認為，入聯公投就是「要改變現狀的公投」，已使台美關係降至「七年以來最惡劣、最艱困的時刻」；且自日、俄、歐盟至聯合國主事者皆對此案持反對立場。何況，對台灣而言，這也不只是個案的失敗，而是反而使得「一個中國」的國際主流政策架構更形鞏固堅實；亦不僅是一時的失敗，而將使得台美關係及「民進黨／美國政府」的信任留下長期陰影。陳水扁這種燒房子取暖的愚妄行徑，民進黨豈能姑息？國人又焉可縱容？

「公投入聯」及「四要一沒有」，不符謝長廷的選舉利益，亦不符民進黨的理性利益；這只是「貪腐的陳水扁」化粧成「台獨的陳水扁」的昂價政治胭脂。謝長廷要為陳水扁埋單嗎？民進黨要為陳水扁埋單嗎？國人要為陳水扁埋單嗎？

Chen Shui-bian’s Taiwan Independence Makeup

Chen Shui-bian’s Taiwan Independence Makeup
The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite”
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 26, 2007

Frank Hsieh says that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” campaign has already been launched. “Now even President Chen cannot call a halt to the process.”

Frank Hsieh’s comments in the US about the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” were akin to microsurgery. They were intended to draw a bright line between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Although Frank Hsieh signed the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite,” his key phrase was “Diplomatic policy is President Chen Shui-bian’s prerogative.” What he was actually saying was that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” was Chen Shui-bian’s pet project.

Frank Hsieh said that “Now even President Chen cannot call a halt to the process.” In fact, the law states that “only the president can call a halt to the process.” Is it really the case that Chen Shui-bian cannot call a halt to the process? After all, the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is still in the second phase of its signature drive. As long as Chen Shui-bian moderates the signature drive, he can cite the high-minded justification that “The public values Taiwan US relations, understands the need to maintain cross straits peace and ensure domestic tranquility,” then allow the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” drive to throttle down and make a soft landing.

In fact, Chen Shui-bian’s tone has already softened. He recently said “I have not ruled out the possibility of combining the presidential election with the plebiscite.” The implication being he hadn’t ruled out the possibility of not combining the presidential election with the plebiscite, either. This was not his original, dogmatic posture. Since this is the case, then a face saving measure during the second phase signature drive would be a smart move on the part of the Democratic Progressive Party.

Now let’s look at how Chen Shui-bian, Frank Hsieh, and the Democratic Progressive Party determined the pros and cons of carrying the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” petition drive all the way to the bitter end. First, Chen Shui-bian’s formal application to “Join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” has already been rejected out of hand by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and returned unread. On the one hand, since Chen Shui-bian has already made the decision to submit the application on his own, without public authorization, why bother with a pro forma “first board the train, then buy the ticket” plebiscite? On the other hand, since the application has already been rejected, what’s the point of holding a plebiscite at all?

Second, the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is merely a masochistic “butting your head against the wall diplomacy” electioneering gimmick intended to win sympathy votes. Therefore the DPP needs to determine just how beneficial it will be to its election prospects. As of today, the election is still seven months away, and it has unexpectedly hit a wall. Frank Hsieh “was surprised” at how firmly the US opposed the plebiscite. The European Union, Japan, Russia, and other major nations all declined to support the plebiscite. The manner in which the United Nations rejected the application came close to a slap in the face. Will hitting a wall this early in the game induce voters to cast sympathy votes for the DPP seven months from now? Or will it merely inspire contempt for the DPP’s incompetence? This is something that the DPP must carefully determine. Recent polls indicate that 27.8 % of the public thinks Ma Ying-jeou has a better chance of getting Taiwan into the UN than Frank Hsieh. Only 18.9 % think Frank Hsieh has a better chance of getting Taiwan into the UN than Ma Ying-jeou. Obviously the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is a phony issue, just like the question, “Do you want to win first prize in the lottery?” It is not necessarily advantageous to the DPP’s electioneering efforts.

Third, the issue most worth paying attention to is whether Frank Hsieh should draw a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Frank Hsieh’s main theme during his talks in the US were about severing ties with Chen Shui-bian. He said “The Five Noes are missing at least one No.” What he meant was that “Four Noes” remain in effect. He also said that, “Taiwan is already independent, therefore it has no need for a Taiwan independence plebiscite, has no need for an independence movement, and has no need to declare independence.” He drew a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian’s “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue.” Frank Hsieh cannot publicly commit to the “Five Noes,” but he was indicating to the US that he would make such a pledge if elected. He also said that he cannot withdraw the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” petition, but he indicated that if elected, the plebiscite would no longer be an issue after March next year. These declarations suggest that Chen Shui-bian is holding Frank Hsieh hostage. The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” and the “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue” bombshells are Chen Shui-bian’s pet projects, not Frank Hsieh’s. Why exactly is Chen Shui-bian holding Frank Hsieh hostage? How can Frank Hsieh campaign under such circumstances? If Frank Hsieh cannot get the Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence monkeys off his back, what guarantee do voters have that after he is elected he won’t remain a hostage of Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence hardliners?

Fourth, lastly, we must carry out a realistic cost/benefit analysis. According to insider information, US reaction to the “Join the UN in the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” was extremely negative. This was apparent from Frank Hsieh’s hesitant manner while discussing the issue. The US feels that the “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” is a “Plebiscite intended to change the Status Quo,” and has already caused Taipei/Washington relations to degenerate to their lowest level in seven years. Japan, Russia, the European Union, other major nations, and the Secretary General of the United Nations have all expressed their opposition. For the Republic of China government, this is not merely an isolated defeat. It is a defeat that has further consolidated an international consensus in favor of a “One China” as defined by the CCP, rather than as defined by the KMT and by the 1992 Consensus. It is not a temporary setback. It is a setback that has cast a long shadow over Taipei/Washington relations and undermined trust between the DPP and the US government. Chen Shui-bian is recklessly “burning down the house in order to keep warm.” Can the DPP tolerate this behavior? Can the people?

The “Join the UN under the name of Taiwan Plebiscite” and the “Four Imperatives and One Non-issue” initiatives are not helpful to Frank Hsieh’s election prospects. Nor are they helpful to the DPP’s rational interests. All they do is apply a heavy and politically costly layer of make-up over the face of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, transforming him into a “Champion of Taiwan independence.” Must Frank Hsieh pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian? Must the DPP pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian? But above all, must the people pick up the tab for Chen Shui-bian?

陳水扁的台獨胭脂：公投入聯，如何下車？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.26 03:32 am

謝長廷說，「入聯公投」已經發動：「現在即使陳總統來談，也無法說停就停！」

看謝長廷在美國關於入聯公投的談話，他儼然正以「奈米手術」與陳水扁切割。謝長廷雖表示也連署了入聯公投，但他最關鍵的一句話卻是「外交權是陳水扁總統的權力」，其實就是直指「入聯公投」全是陳水扁一個人的花樣。

謝長廷說「陳總統也無法說停就停」，實則是說「只有陳總統能夠叫停」。何況，陳水扁真的不能叫停嗎？畢竟入聯公投案仍在進行第二階段連署，只要陳水扁節制連署，即可標舉「民眾珍惜台美關係、顧全兩岸和平、維護國內和諧」的堂皇理由，讓入聯公投案不了了之軟著陸。

其實，陳水扁的口氣已見軟化。他居然說：「不排除總統大選併入聯公投。」言下之意即是，亦「不排除」不併；儼然已不是原先那種斬釘截鐵非併不可的姿態。倘係如此，在第二階段連署下車，或不失為民進黨的明智之舉。

現在，就要看陳水扁、謝長廷及民進黨如何評估公投入聯是否進行到底的利弊得失：一、陳水扁正式發出的「以台灣名義加入聯合國」申請案已告失敗，遭聯合國秘書長潘基文直接退件。一方面，陳水扁既已擅作主張逕自送案，又何必舉行「先上車，後補票」的公投？另一方面，案子既遭退件，公投有何意義？

二、其實，「入聯公投案」根本只是又一次「撞牆外交」的選舉操作，因此至少須評估對民進黨的選情是否有利。然而，如今在距大選還有漫漫七個月的今日，竟然已經「撞牆」，美國反對之堅決令謝長廷「驚訝」，歐盟及日俄等國際主流國家無一支持，聯合國也以跡近羞辱的手段退件；則這種過早出現的「撞牆」現象，在未來七個月會使選民滋生對民進黨的同情，或反而產生對民進黨的嫌惡，民進黨當局恐須審慎評估。最近民調居然出現認為馬英九（二十七‧八％）比謝長廷（十八‧九％）更有利台灣進入聯合國的答案，可見「公投入聯」猶如「你是否希望中樂透頭獎」的假議題，未必有利民進黨的選舉操作。

三、最值得關注的是謝長廷與陳水扁應否作出區隔的問題。謝長廷在美談話的主軸就是要與陳水扁切割，他說「四不一沒有，至少已少了『一沒有』」，意指「四不」仍然有效。他又說：「台灣已經獨立，不必（獨立）公投，不必獨立運動，不必宣布獨立。」已與陳水扁的「四要一沒有」切割。謝長廷不能公開承諾「四不一沒有」，但他向美方暗示，他當選後即可承諾；他又說不能撤回公投入聯案，但他向美方表示，只要他當選，這個議題（公投入聯）即可「到明年三月為止」，不再作祟。這些表述，其實皆顯示謝長廷受到陳水扁的挾持，「公投入聯」及「四要一沒有」均是陳水扁的花樣，而非謝長廷的主張。那麼，陳水扁憑什麼挾持謝長廷？這叫謝長廷如何競選？謝長廷若在選舉時不能甩掉陳水扁及台獨，又何以保證他在選後不受陳水扁及台獨的挾持？

四、最後，更須評估實際上所付的代價。據幕後消息，美國對公投入聯合國的反對態度極為強烈，這從謝長廷吞吞吐吐的談話已可感知。美國認為，入聯公投就是「要改變現狀的公投」，已使台美關係降至「七年以來最惡劣、最艱困的時刻」；且自日、俄、歐盟至聯合國主事者皆對此案持反對立場。何況，對台灣而言，這也不只是個案的失敗，而是反而使得「一個中國」的國際主流政策架構更形鞏固堅實；亦不僅是一時的失敗，而將使得台美關係及「民進黨／美國政府」的信任留下長期陰影。陳水扁這種燒房子取暖的愚妄行徑，民進黨豈能姑息？國人又焉可縱容？

「公投入聯」及「四要一沒有」，不符謝長廷的選舉利益，亦不符民進黨的理性利益；這只是「貪腐的陳水扁」化粧成「台獨的陳水扁」的昂價政治胭脂。謝長廷要為陳水扁埋單嗎？民進黨要為陳水扁埋單嗎？國人要為陳水扁埋單嗎？