Archive for August, 2007|Monthly archive page
Chen Shui-bian: What Kind of Leader would do This?
Leave a CommentChen Shui-bian: What Kind of Leader would do This?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 30, 2007
Chen Shui-bian asked: What kind of leader would I be if I were to sacrifice my “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” for the sake of better treatment during my transit through the US? This is hardly the only way to look at the matter. What Chen Shui-bian should have asked was: What kind of person would use the plebsicite to influence the upcoming elections, damage Taipei/Washington relations, and turn his state visit to Central America into a farce?
Everything Chen did was for the sake of the “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” But the plebiscite is fundamentally a phony issue. Chen Shui-bian isn’t going to all this trouble because he expects the plebiscite to succeed. All he really wants to do is elicit sympathy by butting his head against a wall. He is waiting for the plebiscite to go down in defeat. He will then milk the defeat for public sympathy, reaping the political benefits. Frank Hsieh told the US that Chen’s attempt to “Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was doomed to failure. Clearly, “joining the UN” is a phony issue. Chen’s formal application to “Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” has already been rejected by the United Nations and sent back, unopened and unread. Clearly, the “holding of a plebiscite” is also a phony issue.
Chen Shui-bian is manipulating the “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” for entirely selfish motives. He hopes to give himself a complete makeover. He hopes to transform Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat into Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan independence. As the standard bearer for Taiwan independence, he can hijack the presidential election and control the post election political scene. That is why he is pushing the “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” without regard for the consequences. In fact, he knows perfectly well that his plebiscite can never succeed. He is merely hoping that its defeat will provoke public indignation. He knows perfectly well this is merely a short term electioneering move. Yet he has no hesitation about forcing the nation to pay a long term cost that may never be recouped.
Chen Shui-bian has severely damaged Taipei/Washington relations with his phony plebiscite. During his transit through the US the treatment he received was downgraded to new lows. When asked whether the US had insulted Chen Shui-bian, a US State Department spokesperson said “The US respects the people of Taiwan.” US authorities urged Chen Shui-bian to display “leadership.” The US was clearly implying that Chen Shui-bian was unfit to represent the people of Taiwan. The US State Department spokesperson essentially issued an ultimatum, demanding that Chen Shui-bian pull back from the precipice. Chen brought this humiliation upon himself. But Chen also damaged the friendship and trust between Taipei and Washington. How will Taipei get along with Washington after this? How will the Democratic Progressive Party? How will the Taiwan independence movement? Relations with Washington were sacrificed for a phony issue such as “Joining the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” What kind of leader would do this?
Chen’s plebiscite forced Central American allies to delete a clause stating that “Taiwan is an independent nation deserving of membership in international organizations such as the UN and WHO.” Chiang Ching-kuo never resorted to “head of state diplomacy.” He was “untopical.” Lee Teng-hui had a passion for “head of state diplomacy.” Theatrics became all the rage. Diplomacy degenerated into political theater. Diplomacy under Chen Shui-bian became a three ring circus. All for the sake of “domestic sales of commodities orginally produced for export.” With much fanfare, Chen gave away nearly 10 billion dollars in aid to Honduras. Yet the following day, the clause supporting Taiwan’s membership in the UN vanished from the joint communique. Honduran President Manuel Zelaya even ordered the broadcast signal cut during Chen Shui-bian’s live speech. ROC allies refuse to support Chen’s plebsicite. Those bribed refuse to stay bribed. Under these circumstances, what is the “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” except self-deception? Chen Shui-bian has turned Central and South America diplomacy into political theater. Now the government must cope with this “public bidding, private payola.” The government’s relationship with Central and South America is not diplomatic, it is pecuniary. That is why the Central America Summit dared to brazenly defy Chen Shui-bian. That is why the government’s Central and South America diplomacy has reached the end of its rope. What kind of leader would do this?
Chen Shui-bian’s “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” has demolished an international modus vivendi established through decades of hard work. The US has voiced its opposition. So have Japan, Russia, and the European Union. The United Nations has rejected Chen’s formal application. The Central America Summit refused to stay bribed. In an open slap across Chen’s face, it unilaterally altered the language of their joint communique. This time Chen Shui-bian has definitely overplayed his hand. By butting his head against a brick wall, he has put Taiwan at odds with the international modus vivendi. He hopes the “Taiwanese people” will feel victimized by the US, mainland China, the United Nations, the entire world. He intends to convert Taiwanese pathos into political support for himself and the Democratic Progressive Party, into sympathy for “humiliation endured for the greater cause.” What kind of leader would do this?
When the US characterized Chen’s “Plebsicite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as detrimental to Taiwan’s interests, it threw a monkeywrench into Chen Shui-bian’s neat little script. The Central America Summit defied Chen Shui-bian by reneging on its promises. It refused to play along with Chen Shui-bian’s political charade. Chen Shui-bian hopes to milk his plebiscite for all it is worth, over the ashes of Taiwan’s international modus vivendi. What kind of leader would do this?
請問陳總統：這究竟算是什麼？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.30 03:24 am
陳水扁說，他倘若以放棄入聯公投，換取美國改善他的過境待遇，「我還算人嗎」？
然而，此事亦可從另一角度看。陳水扁倘若將「入聯公投」玩弄成選舉操作及政治權謀鬥爭，而以重創台美關係到此地步及出訪中美鬧出這麼大的笑話為代價，這又算是什麼？
一切皆因「入聯公投」而起，但「入聯公投」根本是個「假議題」。陳水扁絕非寄望「入聯成功」而如此大費周章，他其實只是要玩弄「撞牆外交」，待如願以償地造成「入聯失敗」，再以「公投」煽動民粹悲情，攫取其政治利益。謝長廷即曾對美國人說，「入聯」根本不會成功，只是選舉操作而已，可見「入聯」是個「假議題」；何況，根本尚未「公投」，「入聯」申請書卻已經遞出且亦已遭聯合國退件，可見連「公投」也是「假議題」。
陳水扁操弄入聯公投，完全出於自私自利的權謀動機。他亟欲將「貪腐的陳水扁」漂染成「台獨的陳水扁」，進而盤踞台獨旗手的制高點，用以挾持總統大選及選後政局，因此不計後果地炒作入聯公投。其實，如前所述，他明知不可能「入聯成功」，只是要炒作「入聯失敗」以煽動民憤；他亦明知這只是一時的選舉操作而已，卻不惜使國家付出難以彌償的長遠代價。
請問，為了「入聯公投」這個「假議題」，竟將台美關係毀壞到此地步，這算什麼？美國此次將陳水扁的過境待遇降至極低規格，在被詢及是否侮辱陳水扁時，國務院發言人竟稱「美國非常尊重台灣人民」；這是繼此前美國當局規勸陳水扁應展現「領導能力」後，不啻更露骨地否認了陳水扁有代表「台灣人民」的資格。如今，國務院更形同已對「入聯公投」發出懸崖勒馬的最後通牒。這固然是陳水扁自取其辱，但台美的友誼與信任被陳水扁毀壞到如此地步，台灣將如何與美國相處？民進黨將如何與美國相處？台獨又將如何與美國相處？為了「入聯假議題」而重傷了「台美真關係」，這算什麼？
再者，為了「入聯公投」這個「假議題」，此次出訪中美竟鬧出公報臨場刪文的大笑話，貽羞國際，這又算什麼？蔣經國未操作「元首外交」，確實「話題性」稍差；但自李登輝熱中「元首外交」以來，戲劇性固然驟然暴升，「元首外交」亦立即淪為政治戲台，至陳水扁更將「元首外交」操弄得猶如馬戲團出巡，一切皆以「出口轉內銷」為考量。此次在宏都拉斯，前一天鑼鼓喧天地剛送出逾百億的金援，第二天「支持台灣入聯」的文句竟在公報中臨場消失，甚至陳水扁發言亦由宏國總統賽拉亞下令斷訊。試問：倘若入聯議題連邦交國亦不支持，連花錢賄賂也買不通，則入聯豈非自欺欺人？陳水扁將中南美外交戲劇化後，搞到如今面臨這種「公開一起圍標，私下個別加碼」的狼狽情狀；台灣與中南美，可以斷言，除了金錢以外已無「外交」可言。這是中美峰會膽敢聯手在陳水扁面前臨時刪文的原因，更是台灣的中南美外交關係已瀕臨絕境的徵兆。請問，這又算什麼？
陳水扁炒作的「入聯公投」，不啻欲將台灣幾十年來辛苦經營的「國際維生架構」徹底摧毀。現在，不僅美國否定入聯公投，聯合國退件，日、俄、歐盟亦相繼表態反對；連欲花錢買通的中美峰會也臨場刪文，公開打了陳水扁一耳光。這一回，陳水扁的玩笑確實開過頭了，他將自己逼到幾乎與台灣整個「國際維生架構」為敵的地步，操弄「撞牆外交」，然後希望台灣人民能發出被美國、被中國、被聯合國、被全世界歧視的悲情，再將台灣悲情轉化成對民進黨、陳水扁「忍辱負重」的同情與支持。這難道不是老套？難道不是爛戲？請問：這又算什麼？
美國指「入聯公投」違反「台灣利益」，是正確破譯了陳水扁的劇本；中美峰會竟然當著陳水扁的面刪文食言，亦是拒演陳水扁的政治龍套。陳水扁欲以摧毀台灣的「國際維生架構」為代價，來炒作這個「入聯是假、公投亦假」的假議題，請問：這是什麼？這算什麼？
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
Leave a CommentAmerica’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2007
On the evening before Chen Shui-bian was scheduled to return from his state visits, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a solemn admonition. He warned Chen Shui-bian not to hold a “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” He warned him not to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and not to play fast and loose with America’s friendship. In fact, it was nothing less than an ultimatum.
Negroponte defined Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This essentially defined the contest of wills between the US and Chen Shui-bian. If the US allows Chen Shui-bian to promote his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that will amount to a display of weakness, to looking on idly as Chen Shui-bian promotes Taiwan independence and changes the status quo. If, on the other hand, the US wants to prevent Chen Shui-bian from promoting Taiwan independence and changing the status quo, it must prevent him from holding the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s remarks laid the US’s cards on the table. Now it remains to be seen whether Chen Shui-bian or the US will be the first to fold.
During his interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television Network, the only issue Negroponte addressed was Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s comments were clearly intended for Beijing’s ears. Mainland China opposes both “de jure independence” and “changing the status quo.” Negroponte sees Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This means the US agrees with mainland China’s “line in the sand,” and stands with the mainland on Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” We warned early on that Chen Shui-bian’s “anti-China” moves had already morphed into “anti-America” moves. Consider this a confirmation.
Negroponte said, “This is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan.” In other words, the US believes that the Taiwan authorities’ manipulation of the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” is irresponsible and does not advance the interests of Taiwan. Negroponte even added that “We believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.” In other words, the US believes that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” would not be advantageous even to the Taiwan authorities’ own political objectives.
What most attracted attention during the interview was Negroponte’s emphasis on Taipei’s friendship with Washington. He said that “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan’s democracy. We support their economy. We’re very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we’re also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.” But in a sudden shift, Negroponte pointed out that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not in Taiwan’s interest. His implication was that the Taiwan authorities were traitors to Taiwan’s interests, and that the US was the true defender of Taiwan’s interests. According to Negroponte’s logic, the Taiwan authorities’ “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was in fact “harming Taiwan,” while US efforts to stop Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was “loving Taiwan.” As we can see, the US was using this opportunity to speak directly to the public on Taiwan. It wants the public on Taiwan to believe that the US can discern Taiwan’s interests better than Chen Shui-bian.
Towards the end of his interview, Negroponte suggested that the Taiwan authorities can benefit “from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” but “we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.” In other words, Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not done in a serious and responsible way, and has damaged US friendship. Negroponte came straight to the point when he said “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States.” He concluded by saying that “the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” must be maintained “in a serious and responsible way.” Two threads ran through the interview. One was opposition to Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” The other was an emphasis on “US friendship.” The subtext was: “Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend?”
Does Chen Shui-bian intend to force the public to choose between his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” and friendly relations between Taipei and Washington? Is the future of Taiwan to be decided by Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or does it still depend on American friendship and support? Which is more important? Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or friendly relations between Taipei and Washington?
Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” will test US strategic clout in the Taiwan Strait. If the US is unable to kill the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that means it is unable to rein in Chen Shui-bian, it is unable to rein in the Democratic Progressive Party, and unable to suppress Taiwan independence. It will be unable to provide mainland China with a satisfactory accounting, and will be unable to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. If Chen Shui-bian succeeds in holding his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” then US opposition to unilateral changes in the status quo will no longer have any meaning.
When Chen Shui-bian transited through the US and received the US representative, he wore a “Support Taiwan’s Membership in the UN” sticker on his lapel. That constituted an open declaration of war on the US. When US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke of “Taiwan’s interests” and “US friendship,” that constituted a direct response to Chen’s challenge.
Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have a way out. Their “Resolution for a Normal Nation” can be toned down. Their “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” can be called off. War and peace often turn on a whim. Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend? Does Chen Shui-bian really want to lead the people of Taiwan on a reckless Jihad against the US?
最後通牒：台灣還要美國這個朋友嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.29 03:50 am
陳水扁出訪返台前夕，美國副國務卿奈葛彭的談話語重心長，句句皆在規勸陳水扁從「入聯公投」懸崖勒馬，不要冒險改變台海現狀，不可玩弄美國的友誼。其實，這儼然已是一封最後通牒。
奈 葛彭升高姿態，將「入聯公投」定義為「朝向宣布台灣獨立及改變台海現狀的一步」。此一「定義」既成，也就形同訂定了美國與陳水扁對決的「勝負標準」。美國 若讓陳水扁推動「入聯公投」，就是向陳水扁示弱，亦是坐視陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀；反之，美國若不容陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀，就必須制止「入聯公 投」。奈葛彭的談話不啻與陳水扁攤牌：看陳水扁抵得住，還是美國撐得住？
奈葛彭接受香港鳳凰電視專訪，且以「入聯公投」為唯一詢答主題， 當然有說給中國當局聽的用意。中國反對「法理台獨」，亦反對「改變現狀」；奈葛彭如今將「入聯公投」視為「朝向宣布台獨及改變現狀的一步」，不啻表示美國 認同了中國的「紅線」，且在「入聯公投」上與中國共同持守此一「紅線」。我們很早就提出警告，陳水扁的「反中」操作，已經變質為「反美」，至此已告證實。
奈 葛彭說，此時此際，台灣當局的作為應有責任感，亦應求增進台灣的利益；換句話說，美國認為台灣當局操弄「入聯公投」，是不負責任且違反台灣利益的。甚至， 奈葛彭還說：「對台灣當局追求他們的利益而言，我不相信這（入聯公投）會是建設性的方式。」換句話說，美國認為，「入聯公投」甚至對「台灣當局」的政治目 的亦不利。
專訪中最令人注意的角度，是奈葛彭在訪問首尾皆強調台美友誼。他說，「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」，美國強烈支持台灣的民主和 經濟，也透過台灣關係法承諾防衛台灣；但是，話鋒一轉，奈葛彭又從各種角度指出「入聯公投」不符台灣的利益，彷彿台灣當局是台灣利益的背叛者，美國才是台 灣利益的維護者。於是，在奈葛彭的架構中，台灣當局的「入聯公投」其實是「害台灣」的，美國制止「入聯公投」則是「愛台灣」。由此可見，美國亦有透過這次 專訪與台灣人民對話的用意，希望台灣人民相信，美國比陳水扁更能認清台灣的利益。
奈葛彭在專訪結尾時表示，他認為台灣當局可以「從美國的 友誼中獲益」，「但我們相信必須用一種嚴肅和負責任的方式達成」。換句話說，「入聯公投」是「不嚴肅和不負責任的方式」，也傷害了「美國的友誼」。整場專 訪，以「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」開門見山，又以「必須用一種嚴肅和負責的方式達成（維持台美友誼）」收尾；全部問答以兩條軸線貫通，一條反對「入聯公 投」，一條強調「台美友誼」，絃外之音不啻就是：台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？
陳水扁難道要逼台灣人民在「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」之間作一選擇？台灣未來的禍福將決定於這場「入聯公投」？或仍須依靠美國友誼的支援？就「台灣利益」而言，就台灣的「國際維生架構」而言，「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」，輕重如何？虛實如何？
奈 葛彭的「哀的美敦書」不啻指出：美國將以能否制止「入聯公投」，來考驗美國在台海弈局中的角色。美國若壓不住入聯公投，也就壓不住陳水扁，也就壓不住民進 黨，也就壓不住台獨，也就不能向中國交代，也就不再能維持「反對任何一方片面改變現狀」的台海政策。美國與陳水扁的對決標準正是：陳水扁的「入聯公投」若 是勝出，即是「反對片面改變現狀」的美國台海政策落敗！
陳水扁去程過境美國，在專機上胸前貼著「入聯公投」貼紙接見美國代表，不啻是公然向美國當局宣戰；而美國當局在陳水扁回台前夕，由副國務卿拋出「台灣利益／美國友誼」的談話，則可視為正面迎戰的姿態。
陳水扁及民進黨不是沒有退路。《正常國家決議文》既可打折，則「入聯公投」的連署亦可煞車。和戰進退，俱在一念之間。台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？陳水扁難道真的要帶領全體台灣人民發動一場不計後果的反美大戰！
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
Leave a CommentAmerica’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2007
On the evening before Chen Shui-bian was scheduled to return from his state visits, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a solemn admonition. He warned Chen Shui-bian not to hold a “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” He warned him not to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and not to play fast and loose with America’s friendship. In fact, it was nothing less than an ultimatum.
Negroponte defined Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This essentially defined the contest of wills between the US and Chen Shui-bian. If the US allows Chen Shui-bian to promote his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that will amount to a display of weakness, to looking on idly as Chen Shui-bian promotes Taiwan independence and changes the status quo. If, on the other hand, the US wants to prevent Chen Shui-bian from promoting Taiwan independence and changing the status quo, it must prevent him from holding the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s remarks laid the US’s cards on the table. Now it remains to be seen whether Chen Shui-bian or the US will be the first to fold.
During his interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television Network, the only issue Negroponte addressed was Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s comments were clearly intended for Beijing’s ears. Mainland China opposes both “de jure independence” and “changing the status quo.” Negroponte sees Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This means the US agrees with mainland China’s “line in the sand,” and stands with the mainland on Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” We warned early on that Chen Shui-bian’s “anti-China” moves had already morphed into “anti-America” moves. Consider this a confirmation.
Negroponte said, “This is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan.” In other words, the US believes that the Taiwan authorities’ manipulation of the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” is irresponsible and does not advance the interests of Taiwan. Negroponte even added that “We believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.” In other words, the US believes that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” would not be advantageous even to the Taiwan authorities’ own political objectives.
What most attracted attention during the interview was Negroponte’s emphasis on Taipei’s friendship with Washington. He said that “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan’s democracy. We support their economy. We’re very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we’re also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.” But in a sudden shift, Negroponte pointed out that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not in Taiwan’s interest. His implication was that the Taiwan authorities were traitors to Taiwan’s interests, and that the US was the true defender of Taiwan’s interests. According to Negroponte’s logic, the Taiwan authorities’ “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was in fact “harming Taiwan,” while US efforts to stop Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was “loving Taiwan.” As we can see, the US was using this opportunity to speak directly to the public on Taiwan. It wants the public on Taiwan to believe that the US can discern Taiwan’s interests better than Chen Shui-bian.
Towards the end of his interview, Negroponte suggested that the Taiwan authorities can benefit “from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” but “we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.” In other words, Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not done in a serious and responsible way, and has damaged US friendship. Negroponte came straight to the point when he said “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States.” He concluded by saying that “the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” must be maintained “in a serious and responsible way.” Two threads ran through the interview. One was opposition to Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” The other was an emphasis on “US friendship.” The subtext was: “Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend?”
Does Chen Shui-bian intend to force the public to choose between his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” and friendly relations between Taipei and Washington? Is the future of Taiwan to be decided by Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or does it still depend on American friendship and support? Which is more important? Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or friendly relations between Taipei and Washington?
Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” will test US strategic clout in the Taiwan Strait. If the US is unable to kill the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that means it is unable to rein in Chen Shui-bian, it is unable to rein in the Democratic Progressive Party, and unable to suppress Taiwan independence. It will be unable to provide mainland China with a satisfactory accounting, and will be unable to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. If Chen Shui-bian succeeds in holding his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” then US opposition to unilateral changes in the status quo will no longer have any meaning.
When Chen Shui-bian transited through the US and received the US representative, he wore a “Support Taiwan’s Membership in the UN” sticker on his lapel. That constituted an open declaration of war on the US. When US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke of “Taiwan’s interests” and “US friendship,” that constituted a direct response to Chen’s challenge.
Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have a way out. Their “Resolution for a Normal Nation” can be toned down. Their “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” can be called off. War and peace often turn on a whim. Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend? Does Chen Shui-bian really want to lead the people of Taiwan on a reckless Jihad against the US?
最後通牒：台灣還要美國這個朋友嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.29 03:50 am
陳水扁出訪返台前夕，美國副國務卿奈葛彭的談話語重心長，句句皆在規勸陳水扁從「入聯公投」懸崖勒馬，不要冒險改變台海現狀，不可玩弄美國的友誼。其實，這儼然已是一封最後通牒。
奈 葛彭升高姿態，將「入聯公投」定義為「朝向宣布台灣獨立及改變台海現狀的一步」。此一「定義」既成，也就形同訂定了美國與陳水扁對決的「勝負標準」。美國 若讓陳水扁推動「入聯公投」，就是向陳水扁示弱，亦是坐視陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀；反之，美國若不容陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀，就必須制止「入聯公 投」。奈葛彭的談話不啻與陳水扁攤牌：看陳水扁抵得住，還是美國撐得住？
奈葛彭接受香港鳳凰電視專訪，且以「入聯公投」為唯一詢答主題， 當然有說給中國當局聽的用意。中國反對「法理台獨」，亦反對「改變現狀」；奈葛彭如今將「入聯公投」視為「朝向宣布台獨及改變現狀的一步」，不啻表示美國 認同了中國的「紅線」，且在「入聯公投」上與中國共同持守此一「紅線」。我們很早就提出警告，陳水扁的「反中」操作，已經變質為「反美」，至此已告證實。
奈 葛彭說，此時此際，台灣當局的作為應有責任感，亦應求增進台灣的利益；換句話說，美國認為台灣當局操弄「入聯公投」，是不負責任且違反台灣利益的。甚至， 奈葛彭還說：「對台灣當局追求他們的利益而言，我不相信這（入聯公投）會是建設性的方式。」換句話說，美國認為，「入聯公投」甚至對「台灣當局」的政治目 的亦不利。
專訪中最令人注意的角度，是奈葛彭在訪問首尾皆強調台美友誼。他說，「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」，美國強烈支持台灣的民主和 經濟，也透過台灣關係法承諾防衛台灣；但是，話鋒一轉，奈葛彭又從各種角度指出「入聯公投」不符台灣的利益，彷彿台灣當局是台灣利益的背叛者，美國才是台 灣利益的維護者。於是，在奈葛彭的架構中，台灣當局的「入聯公投」其實是「害台灣」的，美國制止「入聯公投」則是「愛台灣」。由此可見，美國亦有透過這次 專訪與台灣人民對話的用意，希望台灣人民相信，美國比陳水扁更能認清台灣的利益。
奈葛彭在專訪結尾時表示，他認為台灣當局可以「從美國的 友誼中獲益」，「但我們相信必須用一種嚴肅和負責任的方式達成」。換句話說，「入聯公投」是「不嚴肅和不負責任的方式」，也傷害了「美國的友誼」。整場專 訪，以「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」開門見山，又以「必須用一種嚴肅和負責的方式達成（維持台美友誼）」收尾；全部問答以兩條軸線貫通，一條反對「入聯公 投」，一條強調「台美友誼」，絃外之音不啻就是：台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？
陳水扁難道要逼台灣人民在「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」之間作一選擇？台灣未來的禍福將決定於這場「入聯公投」？或仍須依靠美國友誼的支援？就「台灣利益」而言，就台灣的「國際維生架構」而言，「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」，輕重如何？虛實如何？
奈 葛彭的「哀的美敦書」不啻指出：美國將以能否制止「入聯公投」，來考驗美國在台海弈局中的角色。美國若壓不住入聯公投，也就壓不住陳水扁，也就壓不住民進 黨，也就壓不住台獨，也就不能向中國交代，也就不再能維持「反對任何一方片面改變現狀」的台海政策。美國與陳水扁的對決標準正是：陳水扁的「入聯公投」若 是勝出，即是「反對片面改變現狀」的美國台海政策落敗！
陳水扁去程過境美國，在專機上胸前貼著「入聯公投」貼紙接見美國代表，不啻是公然向美國當局宣戰；而美國當局在陳水扁回台前夕，由副國務卿拋出「台灣利益／美國友誼」的談話，則可視為正面迎戰的姿態。
陳水扁及民進黨不是沒有退路。《正常國家決議文》既可打折，則「入聯公投」的連署亦可煞車。和戰進退，俱在一念之間。台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？陳水扁難道真的要帶領全體台灣人民發動一場不計後果的反美大戰！
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2007
On the evening before Chen Shui-bian was scheduled to return from his state visits, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a solemn admonition. He warned Chen Shui-bian not to hold a “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” He warned him not to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and not to play fast and loose with America’s friendship. In fact, it was nothing less than an ultimatum.
Negroponte defined Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This essentially defined the contest of wills between the US and Chen Shui-bian. If the US allows Chen Shui-bian to promote his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that will amount to a display of weakness, to looking on idly as Chen Shui-bian promotes Taiwan independence and changes the status quo. If, on the other hand, the US wants to prevent Chen Shui-bian from promoting Taiwan independence and changing the status quo, it must prevent him from holding the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s remarks laid the US’s cards on the table. Now it remains to be seen whether Chen Shui-bian or the US will be the first to fold.
During his interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television Network, the only issue Negroponte addressed was Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s comments were clearly intended for Beijing’s ears. Mainland China opposes both “de jure independence” and “changing the status quo.” Negroponte sees Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This means the US agrees with mainland China’s “line in the sand,” and stands with the mainland on Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” We warned early on that Chen Shui-bian’s “anti-China” moves had already morphed into “anti-America” moves. Consider this a confirmation.
Negroponte said, “This is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan.” In other words, the US believes that the Taiwan authorities’ manipulation of the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” is irresponsible and does not advance the interests of Taiwan. Negroponte even added that “We believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.” In other words, the US believes that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” would not be advantageous even to the Taiwan authorities’ own political objectives.
What most attracted attention during the interview was Negroponte’s emphasis on Taipei’s friendship with Washington. He said that “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan’s democracy. We support their economy. We’re very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we’re also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.” But in a sudden shift, Negroponte pointed out that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not in Taiwan’s interest. His implication was that the Taiwan authorities were traitors to Taiwan’s interests, and that the US was the true defender of Taiwan’s interests. According to Negroponte’s logic, the Taiwan authorities’ “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was in fact “harming Taiwan,” while US efforts to stop Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was “loving Taiwan.” As we can see, the US was using this opportunity to speak directly to the public on Taiwan. It wants the public on Taiwan to believe that the US can discern Taiwan’s interests better than Chen Shui-bian.
Towards the end of his interview, Negroponte suggested that the Taiwan authorities can benefit “from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” but “we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.” In other words, Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not done in a serious and responsible way, and has damaged US friendship. Negroponte came straight to the point when he said “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States.” He concluded by saying that “the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” must be maintained “in a serious and responsible way.” Two threads ran through the interview. One was opposition to Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” The other was an emphasis on “US friendship.” The subtext was: “Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend?”
Does Chen Shui-bian intend to force the public to choose between his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” and friendly relations between Taipei and Washington? Is the future of Taiwan to be decided by Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or does it still depend on American friendship and support? Which is more important? Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or friendly relations between Taipei and Washington?
Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” will test US strategic clout in the Taiwan Strait. If the US is unable to kill the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that means it is unable to rein in Chen Shui-bian, it is unable to rein in the Democratic Progressive Party, and unable to suppress Taiwan independence. It will be unable to provide mainland China with a satisfactory accounting, and will be unable to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. If Chen Shui-bian succeeds in holding his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” then US opposition to unilateral changes in the status quo will no longer have any meaning.
When Chen Shui-bian transited through the US and received the US representative, he wore a “Support Taiwan’s Membership in the UN” sticker on his lapel. That constituted an open declaration of war on the US. When US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke of “Taiwan’s interests” and “US friendship,” that constituted a direct response to Chen’s challenge.
Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have a way out. Their “Resolution for a Normal Nation” can be toned down. Their “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” can be called off. War and peace often turn on a whim. Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend? Does Chen Shui-bian really want to lead the people of Taiwan on a reckless Jihad against the US?
最後通牒：台灣還要美國這個朋友嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.29 03:50 am
陳水扁出訪返台前夕，美國副國務卿奈葛彭的談話語重心長，句句皆在規勸陳水扁從「入聯公投」懸崖勒馬，不要冒險改變台海現狀，不可玩弄美國的友誼。其實，這儼然已是一封最後通牒。
奈 葛彭升高姿態，將「入聯公投」定義為「朝向宣布台灣獨立及改變台海現狀的一步」。此一「定義」既成，也就形同訂定了美國與陳水扁對決的「勝負標準」。美國 若讓陳水扁推動「入聯公投」，就是向陳水扁示弱，亦是坐視陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀；反之，美國若不容陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀，就必須制止「入聯公 投」。奈葛彭的談話不啻與陳水扁攤牌：看陳水扁抵得住，還是美國撐得住？
奈葛彭接受香港鳳凰電視專訪，且以「入聯公投」為唯一詢答主題， 當然有說給中國當局聽的用意。中國反對「法理台獨」，亦反對「改變現狀」；奈葛彭如今將「入聯公投」視為「朝向宣布台獨及改變現狀的一步」，不啻表示美國 認同了中國的「紅線」，且在「入聯公投」上與中國共同持守此一「紅線」。我們很早就提出警告，陳水扁的「反中」操作，已經變質為「反美」，至此已告證實。
奈 葛彭說，此時此際，台灣當局的作為應有責任感，亦應求增進台灣的利益；換句話說，美國認為台灣當局操弄「入聯公投」，是不負責任且違反台灣利益的。甚至， 奈葛彭還說：「對台灣當局追求他們的利益而言，我不相信這（入聯公投）會是建設性的方式。」換句話說，美國認為，「入聯公投」甚至對「台灣當局」的政治目 的亦不利。
專訪中最令人注意的角度，是奈葛彭在訪問首尾皆強調台美友誼。他說，「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」，美國強烈支持台灣的民主和 經濟，也透過台灣關係法承諾防衛台灣；但是，話鋒一轉，奈葛彭又從各種角度指出「入聯公投」不符台灣的利益，彷彿台灣當局是台灣利益的背叛者，美國才是台 灣利益的維護者。於是，在奈葛彭的架構中，台灣當局的「入聯公投」其實是「害台灣」的，美國制止「入聯公投」則是「愛台灣」。由此可見，美國亦有透過這次 專訪與台灣人民對話的用意，希望台灣人民相信，美國比陳水扁更能認清台灣的利益。
奈葛彭在專訪結尾時表示，他認為台灣當局可以「從美國的 友誼中獲益」，「但我們相信必須用一種嚴肅和負責任的方式達成」。換句話說，「入聯公投」是「不嚴肅和不負責任的方式」，也傷害了「美國的友誼」。整場專 訪，以「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」開門見山，又以「必須用一種嚴肅和負責的方式達成（維持台美友誼）」收尾；全部問答以兩條軸線貫通，一條反對「入聯公 投」，一條強調「台美友誼」，絃外之音不啻就是：台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？
陳水扁難道要逼台灣人民在「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」之間作一選擇？台灣未來的禍福將決定於這場「入聯公投」？或仍須依靠美國友誼的支援？就「台灣利益」而言，就台灣的「國際維生架構」而言，「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」，輕重如何？虛實如何？
奈 葛彭的「哀的美敦書」不啻指出：美國將以能否制止「入聯公投」，來考驗美國在台海弈局中的角色。美國若壓不住入聯公投，也就壓不住陳水扁，也就壓不住民進 黨，也就壓不住台獨，也就不能向中國交代，也就不再能維持「反對任何一方片面改變現狀」的台海政策。美國與陳水扁的對決標準正是：陳水扁的「入聯公投」若 是勝出，即是「反對片面改變現狀」的美國台海政策落敗！
陳水扁去程過境美國，在專機上胸前貼著「入聯公投」貼紙接見美國代表，不啻是公然向美國當局宣戰；而美國當局在陳水扁回台前夕，由副國務卿拋出「台灣利益／美國友誼」的談話，則可視為正面迎戰的姿態。
陳水扁及民進黨不是沒有退路。《正常國家決議文》既可打折，則「入聯公投」的連署亦可煞車。和戰進退，俱在一念之間。台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？陳水扁難道真的要帶領全體台灣人民發動一場不計後果的反美大戰！
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2007
On the evening before Chen Shui-bian was scheduled to return from his state visits, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a solemn admonition. He warned Chen Shui-bian not to hold a “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” He warned him not to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and not to play fast and loose with America’s friendship. In fact, it was nothing less than an ultimatum.
Negroponte defined Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This essentially defined the contest of wills between the US and Chen Shui-bian. If the US allows Chen Shui-bian to promote his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that will amount to a display of weakness, to looking on idly as Chen Shui-bian promotes Taiwan independence and changes the status quo. If, on the other hand, the US wants to prevent Chen Shui-bian from promoting Taiwan independence and changing the status quo, it must prevent him from holding the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s remarks laid the US’s cards on the table. Now it remains to be seen whether Chen Shui-bian or the US will be the first to fold.
During his interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television Network, the only issue Negroponte addressed was Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s comments were clearly intended for Beijing’s ears. Mainland China opposes both “de jure independence” and “changing the status quo.” Negroponte sees Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This means the US agrees with mainland China’s “line in the sand,” and stands with the mainland on Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” We warned early on that Chen Shui-bian’s “anti-China” moves had already morphed into “anti-America” moves. Consider this a confirmation.
Negroponte said, “This is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan.” In other words, the US believes that the Taiwan authorities’ manipulation of the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” is irresponsible and does not advance the interests of Taiwan. Negroponte even added that “We believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.” In other words, the US believes that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” would not be advantageous even to the Taiwan authorities’ own political objectives.
What most attracted attention during the interview was Negroponte’s emphasis on Taipei’s friendship with Washington. He said that “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan’s democracy. We support their economy. We’re very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we’re also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.” But in a sudden shift, Negroponte pointed out that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not in Taiwan’s interest. His implication was that the Taiwan authorities were traitors to Taiwan’s interests, and that the US was the true defender of Taiwan’s interests. According to Negroponte’s logic, the Taiwan authorities’ “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was in fact “harming Taiwan,” while US efforts to stop Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was “loving Taiwan.” As we can see, the US was using this opportunity to speak directly to the public on Taiwan. It wants the public on Taiwan to believe that the US can discern Taiwan’s interests better than Chen Shui-bian.
Towards the end of his interview, Negroponte suggested that the Taiwan authorities can benefit “from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” but “we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.” In other words, Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not done in a serious and responsible way, and has damaged US friendship. Negroponte came straight to the point when he said “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States.” He concluded by saying that “the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” must be maintained “in a serious and responsible way.” Two threads ran through the interview. One was opposition to Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” The other was an emphasis on “US friendship.” The subtext was: “Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend?”
Does Chen Shui-bian intend to force the public to choose between his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” and friendly relations between Taipei and Washington? Is the future of Taiwan to be decided by Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or does it still depend on American friendship and support? Which is more important? Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or friendly relations between Taipei and Washington?
Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” will test US strategic clout in the Taiwan Strait. If the US is unable to kill the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that means it is unable to rein in Chen Shui-bian, it is unable to rein in the Democratic Progressive Party, and unable to suppress Taiwan independence. It will be unable to provide mainland China with a satisfactory accounting, and will be unable to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. If Chen Shui-bian succeeds in holding his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” then US opposition to unilateral changes in the status quo will no longer have any meaning.
When Chen Shui-bian transited through the US and received the US representative, he wore a “Support Taiwan’s Membership in the UN” sticker on his lapel. That constituted an open declaration of war on the US. When US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke of “Taiwan’s interests” and “US friendship,” that constituted a direct response to Chen’s challenge.
Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have a way out. Their “Resolution for a Normal Nation” can be toned down. Their “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” can be called off. War and peace often turn on a whim. Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend? Does Chen Shui-bian really want to lead the people of Taiwan on a reckless Jihad against the US?
最後通牒：台灣還要美國這個朋友嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.29 03:50 am
陳水扁出訪返台前夕，美國副國務卿奈葛彭的談話語重心長，句句皆在規勸陳水扁從「入聯公投」懸崖勒馬，不要冒險改變台海現狀，不可玩弄美國的友誼。其實，這儼然已是一封最後通牒。
奈 葛彭升高姿態，將「入聯公投」定義為「朝向宣布台灣獨立及改變台海現狀的一步」。此一「定義」既成，也就形同訂定了美國與陳水扁對決的「勝負標準」。美國 若讓陳水扁推動「入聯公投」，就是向陳水扁示弱，亦是坐視陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀；反之，美國若不容陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀，就必須制止「入聯公 投」。奈葛彭的談話不啻與陳水扁攤牌：看陳水扁抵得住，還是美國撐得住？
奈葛彭接受香港鳳凰電視專訪，且以「入聯公投」為唯一詢答主題， 當然有說給中國當局聽的用意。中國反對「法理台獨」，亦反對「改變現狀」；奈葛彭如今將「入聯公投」視為「朝向宣布台獨及改變現狀的一步」，不啻表示美國 認同了中國的「紅線」，且在「入聯公投」上與中國共同持守此一「紅線」。我們很早就提出警告，陳水扁的「反中」操作，已經變質為「反美」，至此已告證實。
奈 葛彭說，此時此際，台灣當局的作為應有責任感，亦應求增進台灣的利益；換句話說，美國認為台灣當局操弄「入聯公投」，是不負責任且違反台灣利益的。甚至， 奈葛彭還說：「對台灣當局追求他們的利益而言，我不相信這（入聯公投）會是建設性的方式。」換句話說，美國認為，「入聯公投」甚至對「台灣當局」的政治目 的亦不利。
專訪中最令人注意的角度，是奈葛彭在訪問首尾皆強調台美友誼。他說，「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」，美國強烈支持台灣的民主和 經濟，也透過台灣關係法承諾防衛台灣；但是，話鋒一轉，奈葛彭又從各種角度指出「入聯公投」不符台灣的利益，彷彿台灣當局是台灣利益的背叛者，美國才是台 灣利益的維護者。於是，在奈葛彭的架構中，台灣當局的「入聯公投」其實是「害台灣」的，美國制止「入聯公投」則是「愛台灣」。由此可見，美國亦有透過這次 專訪與台灣人民對話的用意，希望台灣人民相信，美國比陳水扁更能認清台灣的利益。
奈葛彭在專訪結尾時表示，他認為台灣當局可以「從美國的 友誼中獲益」，「但我們相信必須用一種嚴肅和負責任的方式達成」。換句話說，「入聯公投」是「不嚴肅和不負責任的方式」，也傷害了「美國的友誼」。整場專 訪，以「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」開門見山，又以「必須用一種嚴肅和負責的方式達成（維持台美友誼）」收尾；全部問答以兩條軸線貫通，一條反對「入聯公 投」，一條強調「台美友誼」，絃外之音不啻就是：台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？
陳水扁難道要逼台灣人民在「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」之間作一選擇？台灣未來的禍福將決定於這場「入聯公投」？或仍須依靠美國友誼的支援？就「台灣利益」而言，就台灣的「國際維生架構」而言，「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」，輕重如何？虛實如何？
奈 葛彭的「哀的美敦書」不啻指出：美國將以能否制止「入聯公投」，來考驗美國在台海弈局中的角色。美國若壓不住入聯公投，也就壓不住陳水扁，也就壓不住民進 黨，也就壓不住台獨，也就不能向中國交代，也就不再能維持「反對任何一方片面改變現狀」的台海政策。美國與陳水扁的對決標準正是：陳水扁的「入聯公投」若 是勝出，即是「反對片面改變現狀」的美國台海政策落敗！
陳水扁去程過境美國，在專機上胸前貼著「入聯公投」貼紙接見美國代表，不啻是公然向美國當局宣戰；而美國當局在陳水扁回台前夕，由副國務卿拋出「台灣利益／美國友誼」的談話，則可視為正面迎戰的姿態。
陳水扁及民進黨不是沒有退路。《正常國家決議文》既可打折，則「入聯公投」的連署亦可煞車。和戰進退，俱在一念之間。台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？陳水扁難道真的要帶領全體台灣人民發動一場不計後果的反美大戰！
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2007
On the evening before Chen Shui-bian was scheduled to return from his state visits, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a solemn admonition. He warned Chen Shui-bian not to hold a “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” He warned him not to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and not to play fast and loose with America’s friendship. In fact, it was nothing less than an ultimatum.
Negroponte defined Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This essentially defined the contest of wills between the US and Chen Shui-bian. If the US allows Chen Shui-bian to promote his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that will amount to a display of weakness, to looking on idly as Chen Shui-bian promotes Taiwan independence and changes the status quo. If, on the other hand, the US wants to prevent Chen Shui-bian from promoting Taiwan independence and changing the status quo, it must prevent him from holding the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s remarks laid the US’s cards on the table. Now it remains to be seen whether Chen Shui-bian or the US will be the first to fold.
During his interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television Network, the only issue Negroponte addressed was Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s comments were clearly intended for Beijing’s ears. Mainland China opposes both “de jure independence” and “changing the status quo.” Negroponte sees Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This means the US agrees with mainland China’s “line in the sand,” and stands with the mainland on Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” We warned early on that Chen Shui-bian’s “anti-China” moves had already morphed into “anti-America” moves. Consider this a confirmation.
Negroponte said, “This is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan.” In other words, the US believes that the Taiwan authorities’ manipulation of the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” is irresponsible and does not advance the interests of Taiwan. Negroponte even added that “We believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.” In other words, the US believes that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” would not be advantageous even to the Taiwan authorities’ own political objectives.
What most attracted attention during the interview was Negroponte’s emphasis on Taipei’s friendship with Washington. He said that “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan’s democracy. We support their economy. We’re very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we’re also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.” But in a sudden shift, Negroponte pointed out that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not in Taiwan’s interest. His implication was that the Taiwan authorities were traitors to Taiwan’s interests, and that the US was the true defender of Taiwan’s interests. According to Negroponte’s logic, the Taiwan authorities’ “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was in fact “harming Taiwan,” while US efforts to stop Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was “loving Taiwan.” As we can see, the US was using this opportunity to speak directly to the public on Taiwan. It wants the public on Taiwan to believe that the US can discern Taiwan’s interests better than Chen Shui-bian.
Towards the end of his interview, Negroponte suggested that the Taiwan authorities can benefit “from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” but “we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.” In other words, Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not done in a serious and responsible way, and has damaged US friendship. Negroponte came straight to the point when he said “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States.” He concluded by saying that “the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” must be maintained “in a serious and responsible way.” Two threads ran through the interview. One was opposition to Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” The other was an emphasis on “US friendship.” The subtext was: “Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend?”
Does Chen Shui-bian intend to force the public to choose between his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” and friendly relations between Taipei and Washington? Is the future of Taiwan to be decided by Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or does it still depend on American friendship and support? Which is more important? Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or friendly relations between Taipei and Washington?
Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” will test US strategic clout in the Taiwan Strait. If the US is unable to kill the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that means it is unable to rein in Chen Shui-bian, it is unable to rein in the Democratic Progressive Party, and unable to suppress Taiwan independence. It will be unable to provide mainland China with a satisfactory accounting, and will be unable to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. If Chen Shui-bian succeeds in holding his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” then US opposition to unilateral changes in the status quo will no longer have any meaning.
When Chen Shui-bian transited through the US and received the US representative, he wore a “Support Taiwan’s Membership in the UN” sticker on his lapel. That constituted an open declaration of war on the US. When US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke of “Taiwan’s interests” and “US friendship,” that constituted a direct response to Chen’s challenge.
Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have a way out. Their “Resolution for a Normal Nation” can be toned down. Their “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” can be called off. War and peace often turn on a whim. Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend? Does Chen Shui-bian really want to lead the people of Taiwan on a reckless Jihad against the US?
最後通牒：台灣還要美國這個朋友嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.29 03:50 am
陳水扁出訪返台前夕，美國副國務卿奈葛彭的談話語重心長，句句皆在規勸陳水扁從「入聯公投」懸崖勒馬，不要冒險改變台海現狀，不可玩弄美國的友誼。其實，這儼然已是一封最後通牒。
奈 葛彭升高姿態，將「入聯公投」定義為「朝向宣布台灣獨立及改變台海現狀的一步」。此一「定義」既成，也就形同訂定了美國與陳水扁對決的「勝負標準」。美國 若讓陳水扁推動「入聯公投」，就是向陳水扁示弱，亦是坐視陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀；反之，美國若不容陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀，就必須制止「入聯公 投」。奈葛彭的談話不啻與陳水扁攤牌：看陳水扁抵得住，還是美國撐得住？
奈葛彭接受香港鳳凰電視專訪，且以「入聯公投」為唯一詢答主題， 當然有說給中國當局聽的用意。中國反對「法理台獨」，亦反對「改變現狀」；奈葛彭如今將「入聯公投」視為「朝向宣布台獨及改變現狀的一步」，不啻表示美國 認同了中國的「紅線」，且在「入聯公投」上與中國共同持守此一「紅線」。我們很早就提出警告，陳水扁的「反中」操作，已經變質為「反美」，至此已告證實。
奈 葛彭說，此時此際，台灣當局的作為應有責任感，亦應求增進台灣的利益；換句話說，美國認為台灣當局操弄「入聯公投」，是不負責任且違反台灣利益的。甚至， 奈葛彭還說：「對台灣當局追求他們的利益而言，我不相信這（入聯公投）會是建設性的方式。」換句話說，美國認為，「入聯公投」甚至對「台灣當局」的政治目 的亦不利。
專訪中最令人注意的角度，是奈葛彭在訪問首尾皆強調台美友誼。他說，「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」，美國強烈支持台灣的民主和 經濟，也透過台灣關係法承諾防衛台灣；但是，話鋒一轉，奈葛彭又從各種角度指出「入聯公投」不符台灣的利益，彷彿台灣當局是台灣利益的背叛者，美國才是台 灣利益的維護者。於是，在奈葛彭的架構中，台灣當局的「入聯公投」其實是「害台灣」的，美國制止「入聯公投」則是「愛台灣」。由此可見，美國亦有透過這次 專訪與台灣人民對話的用意，希望台灣人民相信，美國比陳水扁更能認清台灣的利益。
奈葛彭在專訪結尾時表示，他認為台灣當局可以「從美國的 友誼中獲益」，「但我們相信必須用一種嚴肅和負責任的方式達成」。換句話說，「入聯公投」是「不嚴肅和不負責任的方式」，也傷害了「美國的友誼」。整場專 訪，以「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」開門見山，又以「必須用一種嚴肅和負責的方式達成（維持台美友誼）」收尾；全部問答以兩條軸線貫通，一條反對「入聯公 投」，一條強調「台美友誼」，絃外之音不啻就是：台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？
陳水扁難道要逼台灣人民在「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」之間作一選擇？台灣未來的禍福將決定於這場「入聯公投」？或仍須依靠美國友誼的支援？就「台灣利益」而言，就台灣的「國際維生架構」而言，「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」，輕重如何？虛實如何？
奈 葛彭的「哀的美敦書」不啻指出：美國將以能否制止「入聯公投」，來考驗美國在台海弈局中的角色。美國若壓不住入聯公投，也就壓不住陳水扁，也就壓不住民進 黨，也就壓不住台獨，也就不能向中國交代，也就不再能維持「反對任何一方片面改變現狀」的台海政策。美國與陳水扁的對決標準正是：陳水扁的「入聯公投」若 是勝出，即是「反對片面改變現狀」的美國台海政策落敗！
陳水扁去程過境美國，在專機上胸前貼著「入聯公投」貼紙接見美國代表，不啻是公然向美國當局宣戰；而美國當局在陳水扁回台前夕，由副國務卿拋出「台灣利益／美國友誼」的談話，則可視為正面迎戰的姿態。
陳水扁及民進黨不是沒有退路。《正常國家決議文》既可打折，則「入聯公投」的連署亦可煞車。和戰進退，俱在一念之間。台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？陳水扁難道真的要帶領全體台灣人民發動一場不計後果的反美大戰！
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
America’s Ultimatum: Does Taiwan still want the US as a Friend?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2007
On the evening before Chen Shui-bian was scheduled to return from his state visits, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte issued a solemn admonition. He warned Chen Shui-bian not to hold a “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” He warned him not to change the status quo in the Taiwan Straits, and not to play fast and loose with America’s friendship. In fact, it was nothing less than an ultimatum.
Negroponte defined Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This essentially defined the contest of wills between the US and Chen Shui-bian. If the US allows Chen Shui-bian to promote his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that will amount to a display of weakness, to looking on idly as Chen Shui-bian promotes Taiwan independence and changes the status quo. If, on the other hand, the US wants to prevent Chen Shui-bian from promoting Taiwan independence and changing the status quo, it must prevent him from holding the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s remarks laid the US’s cards on the table. Now it remains to be seen whether Chen Shui-bian or the US will be the first to fold.
During his interview with Hong Kong’s Phoenix Television Network, the only issue Negroponte addressed was Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” Negroponte’s comments were clearly intended for Beijing’s ears. Mainland China opposes both “de jure independence” and “changing the status quo.” Negroponte sees Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” as “a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo.” This means the US agrees with mainland China’s “line in the sand,” and stands with the mainland on Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” We warned early on that Chen Shui-bian’s “anti-China” moves had already morphed into “anti-America” moves. Consider this a confirmation.
Negroponte said, “This is a time for the authorities in Taiwan to behave in a responsible manner, to behave in a way that would advance the interests of Taiwan.” In other words, the US believes that the Taiwan authorities’ manipulation of the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” is irresponsible and does not advance the interests of Taiwan. Negroponte even added that “We believe that pursuing a referendum of this kind could, as I said earlier, be interpreted as a step towards a declaration of independence, and we do not believe that that would be a constructive way on the part of the Taiwan authorities to pursue their interests.” In other words, the US believes that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” would not be advantageous even to the Taiwan authorities’ own political objectives.
What most attracted attention during the interview was Negroponte’s emphasis on Taipei’s friendship with Washington. He said that “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States. We strongly support Taiwan’s democracy. We support their economy. We’re very impressed by their vibrant economy. And we’re also, as you know, committed to the defense of Taiwan through the Taiwan Relations Act.” But in a sudden shift, Negroponte pointed out that Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not in Taiwan’s interest. His implication was that the Taiwan authorities were traitors to Taiwan’s interests, and that the US was the true defender of Taiwan’s interests. According to Negroponte’s logic, the Taiwan authorities’ “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was in fact “harming Taiwan,” while US efforts to stop Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was “loving Taiwan.” As we can see, the US was using this opportunity to speak directly to the public on Taiwan. It wants the public on Taiwan to believe that the US can discern Taiwan’s interests better than Chen Shui-bian.
Towards the end of his interview, Negroponte suggested that the Taiwan authorities can benefit “from the friendship, the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” but “we believe that it has to be done in a serious and responsible way.” In other words, Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” was not done in a serious and responsible way, and has damaged US friendship. Negroponte came straight to the point when he said “Taiwan has no better friend than the United States.” He concluded by saying that “the strong friendship of a country such as the United States” must be maintained “in a serious and responsible way.” Two threads ran through the interview. One was opposition to Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan.” The other was an emphasis on “US friendship.” The subtext was: “Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend?”
Does Chen Shui-bian intend to force the public to choose between his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” and friendly relations between Taipei and Washington? Is the future of Taiwan to be decided by Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or does it still depend on American friendship and support? Which is more important? Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan?” Or friendly relations between Taipei and Washington?
Chen’s “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” will test US strategic clout in the Taiwan Strait. If the US is unable to kill the “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” that means it is unable to rein in Chen Shui-bian, it is unable to rein in the Democratic Progressive Party, and unable to suppress Taiwan independence. It will be unable to provide mainland China with a satisfactory accounting, and will be unable to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. If Chen Shui-bian succeeds in holding his “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan,” then US opposition to unilateral changes in the status quo will no longer have any meaning.
When Chen Shui-bian transited through the US and received the US representative, he wore a “Support Taiwan’s Membership in the UN” sticker on his lapel. That constituted an open declaration of war on the US. When US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke of “Taiwan’s interests” and “US friendship,” that constituted a direct response to Chen’s challenge.
Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have a way out. Their “Resolution for a Normal Nation” can be toned down. Their “Plebiscite to join the UN under the Name of Taiwan” can be called off. War and peace often turn on a whim. Does Taiwan still want the US as a friend? Does Chen Shui-bian really want to lead the people of Taiwan on a reckless Jihad against the US?
最後通牒：台灣還要美國這個朋友嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.29 03:50 am
陳水扁出訪返台前夕，美國副國務卿奈葛彭的談話語重心長，句句皆在規勸陳水扁從「入聯公投」懸崖勒馬，不要冒險改變台海現狀，不可玩弄美國的友誼。其實，這儼然已是一封最後通牒。
奈 葛彭升高姿態，將「入聯公投」定義為「朝向宣布台灣獨立及改變台海現狀的一步」。此一「定義」既成，也就形同訂定了美國與陳水扁對決的「勝負標準」。美國 若讓陳水扁推動「入聯公投」，就是向陳水扁示弱，亦是坐視陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀；反之，美國若不容陳水扁推動台獨及改變現狀，就必須制止「入聯公 投」。奈葛彭的談話不啻與陳水扁攤牌：看陳水扁抵得住，還是美國撐得住？
奈葛彭接受香港鳳凰電視專訪，且以「入聯公投」為唯一詢答主題， 當然有說給中國當局聽的用意。中國反對「法理台獨」，亦反對「改變現狀」；奈葛彭如今將「入聯公投」視為「朝向宣布台獨及改變現狀的一步」，不啻表示美國 認同了中國的「紅線」，且在「入聯公投」上與中國共同持守此一「紅線」。我們很早就提出警告，陳水扁的「反中」操作，已經變質為「反美」，至此已告證實。
奈 葛彭說，此時此際，台灣當局的作為應有責任感，亦應求增進台灣的利益；換句話說，美國認為台灣當局操弄「入聯公投」，是不負責任且違反台灣利益的。甚至， 奈葛彭還說：「對台灣當局追求他們的利益而言，我不相信這（入聯公投）會是建設性的方式。」換句話說，美國認為，「入聯公投」甚至對「台灣當局」的政治目 的亦不利。
專訪中最令人注意的角度，是奈葛彭在訪問首尾皆強調台美友誼。他說，「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」，美國強烈支持台灣的民主和 經濟，也透過台灣關係法承諾防衛台灣；但是，話鋒一轉，奈葛彭又從各種角度指出「入聯公投」不符台灣的利益，彷彿台灣當局是台灣利益的背叛者，美國才是台 灣利益的維護者。於是，在奈葛彭的架構中，台灣當局的「入聯公投」其實是「害台灣」的，美國制止「入聯公投」則是「愛台灣」。由此可見，美國亦有透過這次 專訪與台灣人民對話的用意，希望台灣人民相信，美國比陳水扁更能認清台灣的利益。
奈葛彭在專訪結尾時表示，他認為台灣當局可以「從美國的 友誼中獲益」，「但我們相信必須用一種嚴肅和負責任的方式達成」。換句話說，「入聯公投」是「不嚴肅和不負責任的方式」，也傷害了「美國的友誼」。整場專 訪，以「台灣沒有比美國更好的朋友」開門見山，又以「必須用一種嚴肅和負責的方式達成（維持台美友誼）」收尾；全部問答以兩條軸線貫通，一條反對「入聯公 投」，一條強調「台美友誼」，絃外之音不啻就是：台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？
陳水扁難道要逼台灣人民在「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」之間作一選擇？台灣未來的禍福將決定於這場「入聯公投」？或仍須依靠美國友誼的支援？就「台灣利益」而言，就台灣的「國際維生架構」而言，「入聯公投」與「台美友誼」，輕重如何？虛實如何？
奈 葛彭的「哀的美敦書」不啻指出：美國將以能否制止「入聯公投」，來考驗美國在台海弈局中的角色。美國若壓不住入聯公投，也就壓不住陳水扁，也就壓不住民進 黨，也就壓不住台獨，也就不能向中國交代，也就不再能維持「反對任何一方片面改變現狀」的台海政策。美國與陳水扁的對決標準正是：陳水扁的「入聯公投」若 是勝出，即是「反對片面改變現狀」的美國台海政策落敗！
陳水扁去程過境美國，在專機上胸前貼著「入聯公投」貼紙接見美國代表，不啻是公然向美國當局宣戰；而美國當局在陳水扁回台前夕，由副國務卿拋出「台灣利益／美國友誼」的談話，則可視為正面迎戰的姿態。
陳水扁及民進黨不是沒有退路。《正常國家決議文》既可打折，則「入聯公投」的連署亦可煞車。和戰進退，俱在一念之間。台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？陳水扁難道真的要帶領全體台灣人民發動一場不計後果的反美大戰！
Spinning Class Conflict as "Ethnic Conflict"
Spinning Class Conflict as “Ethnic Conflict”
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2007
While Chen Shui-bian was in Honduras doling out billions in aid, Chang Chun-hsiung was bickering with farmers in Hualien and Taitung until he was red in the face. His cabinet had reneged on its promise to provide 50,000 NT in emergency relief to farmers for every five hectares of land they owned. While the head of state was overseas throwing money around, playing Daddy Warbucks, the premier was back on the island catching flak from disaster stricken farmers. The contrast between the two scenarios was the height of irony.
The public watched as Chen Shui-bian opened wide and bit into a Taiwan guava grown in Honduras, and give a big thumbs up. It also remembered that the Chen regime forbade cross Straits agriculture exchanges. Even the shipping of Taiwan fruit to the mainland was ruthlessly blocked. Taiwan melon growers moan about flood damage. Pomelo growers groan about wind damage. Chen Shui-bian meanwhile is grinning from ear to ear, because Taiwan guavas have been successfully grown in South America. One can’t help feeling one is in the Twilight Zone. Let’s not forget that just before his departure, Chen allowed the import of ractopamine-contaminated US pork as a gesture of goodwill to Washington. By contrast, even mainland China forbade the import of ractopamine-laden US pork.
With his domestic approval rating at new lows, Chen Shui-bian hoped to use the pomp and circumstance of state visits to reaffirm his status as head of state. While Taiwan was inundated by floodwaters, caught up in the ractopamine-contaminated US pork dispute, and its farms suffering severe losses, Chen Shui-bian was scattering dollar bills along the way. Schoolchildren back home cannot afford nutritious lunches. Yet their parents must donate 30,000 computers to poor children in Honduras. No wonder villagers in rural Taiwan feel deprived. Why is Chen Shui-bian so generous to foreign allies, but so niggardly toward Taiwan’s farmers?
The Democratic Progressive Party bills itself as a “native political authority.” It counts on the farm vote to maintain its long term power. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party’s relationship with the farm vote is peculiar, to say the least. It professes solidarity with farmers based on class origins. But in its bones, the DPP is a party of the capitalist class. It merely exploits peasants as political tools in its ersatz “Taiwanese, not Chinese” identity politics.
Every time an election rolls around, the Democratic Progressive Party pays lip service to its grass roots. But in truth the Democratic Progressive Party is in bed with the heads of major industries, big business, and financial groups. The Democratic Progressive Party leadership is drawn from attorneys, doctors, landlords, petty capitalists, and out of favor politicians. It is essentially a bourgeoise political organization. Even members of academia have trouble getting their foot in the door. What room is there for lowly peasants? The Democratic Progressive Party has neither the will nor the way to remedy the economic marginalization and hollowing out of Taiwan’s countryside. Its only farm policy is to foment rural discontent, to get farmers to perceive their social disadvantage as an “ethnic disadvantage.” That allows the DPP to evade the issue of class, and frame a class conflict as an ethnic conflict.
We must realize that the relationship between farmers and the government underwent a major change during the past 60 years. Many years ago the Kuomintang government implemented its “375 Rent Reduction” policy and its “Homestead Act,” by which “those who work the land, will be given the land.” Nearly 300,000 tenant farmer households benefitted from the KMT’s policies. With the liberation of the farmer, the landlords and the Kuomintang became bitter enemies. But tenant farmers became the Kuomintang’s supporters. Subsequent policy changes, by which agriculture subsidized fledgling industries, nelgected farmers’ rights and interests, and the political climate in the countryside changed. The Democratic Progressive Party seized the opportunity to get its foot in the door. But it never had any intention of bettering the farmers’ economic plight or elevating their social status. Its only goal was to incite farmers to hate “mainlanders.”
Chen Shui-bian has been in power for seven years. He has enjoyed a virtual lock on the farm vote. Yet he has been at a total loss to do anything about the depressed state of the island’s agricultural industry. Recent rezoning of agricultural land, making it available for commercial development, was billed as a “Benefits for All” policy. In fact it was merely another way of benefitting the bourgeoisie. What help is it to agriculture and rural development? Taiwan pig farmers are still recovering from the hoof and mouth disease debacle that occurred several years ago. Yet Chen Shui-bian, caving in to US pressure, rashly allowed the import of ractopamine-contaminated US pork, adding insult to injury. While visiting foreign countries, he scatters dollar bills like confetti. But when confronted with the plight of Taiwan’s rural underclass, all he is willing to do is dole out “Subsidies to Elderly Farmers.”
In years past, rural Taiwan had the capacity to absorb urban unemployment. But that capacity has been lost. News from the grassroots tells of drug dealing, theivery, robberies, and even murders, revealing that rural Taiwan is undergoing the same degeneration as the rest of society. Farm boy Yang Ju-men, with his “white rice bombs,” exploded the Chen regime’s lies long ago.
While Chang Chun-hsiung was nickle and diming farmers who demanded disaster relief, Chen Shui-bian was in Honduras, using public funds to donate 3,000 shiny new computer classrooms, equipped with 30,000 computers, in his own name. Has Chen Shui-bian forgotten that Taiwan also has poor people? That rural Taiwan is also on the wrong side of the digitial divide? That rural youth lack computers? A president who boasts that “Taiwan has embraced the world” has indeed embraced the world, and gotten its pockets picked in the process. Having bribed overseas allies for the sake of empty vanity, how will he look Taiwan’s farmers in the eye?
農村變奏：「階級論述」變成「族群論述」
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.28 04:32 am
當陳水扁在宏都拉斯一出手就送出百億金援，張俊雄卻正在國內為他有沒有允諾過每公頃五萬的災害補助，和花東災農爭得面紅耳赤。國家元首在國外撒錢當大爺，行政院長卻在島內冷對災農苦情，內冷外熱的對照畫面，真是諷刺已極。
人們看到，陳水扁大口咬著在宏國栽出的台灣芭樂，一手比出「讚」的手勢；但也令人想起，莫說扁政府不准兩岸農業交流，連台灣水果輸出大陸，也曾大力阻擋。現在，當台灣瓜農為水患叫苦連天、柚農因風損欲哭無淚時，陳水扁卻為南美試種成功的台灣芭樂笑逐顏開，能不令人有時空錯置的感慨？更別忘了，他臨行前政策性開放瘦肉精向美國示好，但連中國大陸也禁止美瘦肉精豬肉進口。
國內聲望低落的陳水扁，欲藉外邦的掌聲來抬高身為元首的虛榮，這是可以理解的心情。但是，當台灣陷於水災，又捲入瘦肉精爭議，農村重創，陳水扁卻沿路大撒鈔票，而在國內學童吃不起營養午餐時，還捐贈三萬台電腦給宏國貧童，無疑已在台灣農村形成了「相對剝奪感」。陳水扁何以如此厚外邦，而薄台灣農村？
號稱「本土政權」，又長期靠著農業縣市維持其基本盤，但民進黨與農村農民的關係卻十分耐人玩味。若穿透「本土」的表象，民進黨在骨子裡其實是一個資產階級政黨，與其說它對農村懷有「階級關懷」，不如說它一直是將農村視為「族群政治」的工具。
每到選舉，民進黨在表象上是草根支持者；但在現實政治中，民進黨與工商企業、財團金主勾肩搭背的親密關係，那才是幕後的真相。其實以律師、醫師、地主、小資本家，乃至早年所謂「失意政客」為核心的民進黨領導階層，本質上是一個資產階級的組合；即連學界人士都不易插足廁身，遑論有基層農民與聞的空間。於是，對於台灣農村在「經濟階級」上的邊緣化與空洞化，民進黨根本無心亦無力改善；它的農村政策只是煽動農村，要農民將「階級弱勢」解讀為「族群弱勢」，亦即以「族群論述」來建立農村的政治角色，而迴避了「階級因素」。
要論農民與政治的關係，其實六十年來大有一番滄桑變化。當年，國民黨政府實施「三七五減租」及「公地放領」的耕者有其田政策，近卅萬戶佃農受益；農民解放，地主與國民黨成了世仇，但佃農成了國民黨的支持者。嗣後，在經濟發展走向「以農養工」的過程中，農民的權益逐漸受到忽視，農村的政治氛圍亦漸趨變化；民進黨於此時乘虛而入，但並未著意改善農村的階級處境，只是煽起了農村的族群仇恨。
陳水扁執政七年，坐擁農村鐵票，對台灣農村的凋敝和整個農業部門的委頓卻束手無策。包括最近農田釋出供作建地的「利多」政策，基本上也只是著眼於圖利資產階級的綁樁手段；從農業與農村之發展看，助益何在？尤其，台灣養豬戶在遭逢前幾年的口蹄疫大難之後，正待休養生息；但陳水扁卻為了迎合美國，輕率要開放瘦肉精使用，這不啻又是雪上加霜。出訪外國，只要撒錢就行；但面對台灣農村的階級困境，難道只是加發老農年金即可？
前些年台灣農村有吸收都會失業子弟的作用，但現在連這項功能都逐漸失去。農村基層不斷傳出吸毒、竊盜，乃至殺人弒親的犯罪事件，顯示台灣農村已隨著社會變遷而變調。離農子弟楊儒門，其實早用白米炸彈爆破了扁政府對農民的謊言。
當張俊雄在和農民稱斤論兩談三塊五塊的災後補助時，陳水扁正在宏國用公帑以他個人之名捐贈了三千所亮麗電腦教室，共三萬台電腦。陳水扁可記得台灣也有窮人，台灣農村一樣有數位落差問題，還有許多農村子弟沒有電腦可用？這個高唱「台灣走出去」的總統，的確把台灣資源拿出去大肆分送了；只是，他在海外賄賂外邦換來了個人的虛榮，卻有何面目歸來面對台灣的農村？
Checkbook Diplomacy: Account Overdrawn
Checkbook Diplomacy: Account Overdrawn
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2007
President Chen Shui-bian’s recent state visit to Central America was trouble-ridden from beginning ’til end. The visit has done more harm than good. His “transit diplomacy” was doomed from the start. It threw dollar bills at everyone but got nothing in return, not even symbolic gestures. Even upon arrival, all Chen discussed with the media was domestic affairs. As usual, he came out guns blazing, firing in all directions. No surprises there.
Ever since assuming the office of president, Chen Shui-bian has wanted nothing more than to conduct state visits. Particularly to Central American allies whose geographical location provide him with an excuse to transit the US. These nations are the object of repeat visits. But after seven years, his treatment during transit, as well as the Republic of China’s diplomatic status have steadily declined. His state visits were once occasions for Green camp gloating. Now they are public humiliations better forgotten. This so-called “graduation trip” is turning out to be yet another hollow charade. To save face, Chen insists on going through the motions. But the reality is not so easy to laugh off.
The purpose of this visit to El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, was not to bask in twenty-one gun salutes and the red carpet treatment, but to extinguish diplomatic fires. From the beginning this visit was shrouded by dark clouds. Two of them. The first cloud was President Chen’s aggressive promotion of his “Plebiscite to Join the UN under the name of Taiwan.” This severely damaged relations with the US, and even motivated the US to retaliate. The second cloud was Costa-Rica’s shift toward Beijing. The Central American tectonic plate was beginning to slip. These two clouds constitute an unprecedented crisis for the Republic of China. If we review President Chen’s actions, he obviously has no plans to repair relations between Taipei and Washington. He is relying exclusively on checkbook diplomacy to temporarily shore up relations with Taipei’s Central American allies. Forget permanent cures. These don’t even qualify as stopgap measures. Chen’s bungling has laid bare the ROC’s diplomatic crisis for all to see.
Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly abused Washington’s goodwill, by using his transits through the US to consolidate popular support for his own presidency. Now an offended Washington is using his own weapon against him. It is using lowered levels of treatment to punish him. Many things in life have an odd symmetry to them. If you exploit transit diplomacy to elevate your status, you provide others a means to diminish your status. They can pull the red carpet from under you and let you take a tumble. Chen Shui-bian says he “endured humiliation for a higher cause.” In fact he “brought humiliation upon himself.” Worse yet, he resorted to yet another ruse to win sympathy for himself as a sacrificial martyr for Taiwan independence. Taipei/Washington relations are no longer even a consideration for Chen Shui-bian.
Halfway through his trip, Chen Shui-bian had issued checks amounting to 300 million US. Projects underwritten include a hydro-electric plant for Honduras and low interest loans for a high school computer center. Officially, hundreds of millions in aid were doled out. The actual amount is probably far higher. If this money actually improved the lives of the local populace, consolidated bilateral relations, and won international support for the Republic of China, it might be worth it. Unfortunately during Chen Shui-bian’s summit with Central American heads of state, they vetoed the Chen regime’s sole request, that they endorse his application for UN membership under the name of Taiwan. Honduras cancelled three joint press conferences with Chen in a row. Reporters from Taiwan were so frustrated they walked out in protest.
Economic conditions on Taiwan of late have been less than ideal. Entire families have been committing suicide by carbon monoxide inhalation at an alarming rate. Yet the Chen regime continues giving away huge sums of hard-earned taxpayer money, hoping for diplomatic support in return. When allies demand money, they receive it without hesitation. Meanwhile official summit resolutions are treated like hot potatoes. If this is not a warning signal, what is? Even more worrisome is that Nicaragua, Panama, and Guatemala failed to petition on behalf of Chen’s “Plebsicite to join the UN in the Name of Taiwan.” Reports are the Panamanian government refused even to allow the president’s plane to transit Panama. These countries must take United Nations peacekeeping and Security Council matters into consideration. These are carrots and sticks that Beijing has but Taipei doesn’t. The ambivalence displayed by Taipei’s Central American allies suggests that bilateral relations are shaky.
Is this all Chen Shui-bian has to show for his diplomatic efforts? That depends on how Chen sees the role of diplomacy. For Chen Shui-bian, the power of his political office comes first, Democratic Progressive Party electoral victories come next, the national interest and the public welfare come last. This is the first time the Democratic Progressive Party has been in power. It has always constituted a minority in the legislature. Its crisis awareness is acute. It lacks confidence in its political accomplishments. That is why Chen Shui-bian resorts to any and all means to protect himself and ensure victory. Chen and the DPP live one day at a time. Their calculations are forever short term. A person without a long term strategy, will invariably find himself bedeviled by short term crises. If one is forever making short term calculations, one can never make long term plans. As a result, one’s strategic situation steadily deteriorates, until everything goes awry at the same time, and all one can do is fight one fire after another.
Seven years of repeat visits to allies really didn’t require Chen Shui-bian’s participation each and every time. Looking back it was all for internal consumption, never for long term strategic positioning. It was nothing more than a stage on which to rally domestic support. The result has been the squandering of national resources in exchange for international embarrassment. Chen loves to transit the US. But his motive is to elevate his own status, not to bolster Taipei/Washington relations. His aggressive promotion of plebiscites, his termination of the National Unification Council, his “Plebiscite to join the UN in the Name of Taiwan,” all put his personal political victories above Taipei/Washington relations. He has long regarded the national interest as his personal bank account. On the one hand he spends freely, as if there was no tomorrow. On the other hand, he never makes any deposits. For seven years, he has been living off the capital. Any future head of state who inherits his mess will find the account marked “overdrawn.”
Chen refused to put on a tie. Instead, he sported a “Support Taiwan’s Bid to join the UN” sticker to his lapel. He threatened to film a commercial saying Costa Rican coffee tasted bad. Apart from diminishing the prestige of the presidency, all he did was make himself an international laughing stock. Choosing to rail against the newly formed Ma/Hsiao ticket and the media from overseas, merely confirmed that foreign diplomacy has never been Chen Shui-bian’s highest priority.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.08.27
這趟出訪加速透支了外交資源
中時社論
陳水扁總統這趟出訪中美洲，似乎一路諸事不順，效果更是憂多喜少。過境外交從一開始就玩不成，灑大把銀子卻連個起碼象徵回饋都掙不到，臨到與媒體互動暢談的還是「內政」，而且同樣是火力四射，完全沒讓人意外！
從就任總統以來，陳水扁就熱中出訪，尤其是能讓他過境美國的中美洲友邦，更是頻頻登門的對象。但七年下來，過境待遇和台灣的外交局勢卻是日走下坡，他的元首外交也從風光得意到灰頭土臉。這趟所謂畢業旅行的出訪更形同雞肋，為了面子還得勉強作樂在其中狀，真實情況卻讓人笑不出來。
這次出訪薩爾瓦多、宏都拉斯和尼加拉瓜，已不是為了享受禮炮和紅地毯，而是緊急進行外交固盤。此行一開始就籠罩在兩重陰影下，一是陳總統強推台灣入聯公投，嚴重損壞台美關係，招致美方報復；二是哥斯大黎加倒向中共，中美洲外交板塊開始流失，兩者對台灣來說都是空前嚴重的危機。但細看陳總統的作為，顯然並不打算修補台美關係，對中美洲友邦也只靠開支票暫時保平安。不要說治本，連治標都談不上，等於將台灣當前的外交危機讓國人看得一清二楚。
往昔陳水扁多次利用美國對台灣的善意，拿過境美國的待遇替個人造勢，如今得罪美國後，美國以子之矛攻子之盾，壓低過境待遇來懲罰他。很多事情是相對的，想用過境來替自己墊腳，相對地，也給人家一個抽墊子讓你跌一跤的機會。陳水扁自稱「忍辱負重」，但其實是自取其辱，甚至想以苦肉計營造自己為台灣受辱的形象。台美關係，真的已不在陳水扁考量之內了。
而行程走到一半，陳水扁開出了三億美元的支票，項目包括投資宏都拉斯水力發電廠、國中小電腦中心低利貸款等。總計百億台幣的援助，數額實在高得驚人，如果確能改善當地民眾生活，並且鞏固彼此關係，進而在國際間為台灣提供相對的支持，倒也值得，問題是，這次陳水扁與中美洲元首的高峰會上，卻否決了我們唯一要求的支持台灣參與聯合國案。而宏都拉斯三度取消總統記者會，也氣得台灣記者集體退席抗議。
台灣這些年來經濟狀況並不好，三不五時就來個全家燒炭，但扁政府還是大筆送出納稅人的血汗錢，無非想換來外交支持。結果，友邦要錢毫不猶豫，一個官樣文章的高峰會決議都推三阻四，這對台灣來說，怎麼不是嚴重的警訊？更令人擔心的是，台灣入聯提案，尼加拉瓜、巴拿馬、瓜地馬拉都沒有連署，據說巴拿馬甚至拒絕總統專機過境。雖然各國有聯合國維和或爭取安理會席位的考量，但這些都是中共可以獎懲而台灣無能為力的，友邦此時的曖昧態度，意味著雙方關係已經不穩了。
陳水扁拚外交拚得這般用力，怎是這結局呢？這要從他怎麼看待外交談起。對陳水扁來說，自己的權位居第一，其次是民進黨勝選，然後才是國家利益與人民生計。民進黨第一次執政，在國會始終是少數，生存危機感很強，對政績也沒有自信，所以陳水扁會不擇手段地自保及求勝。過一關算一關之下，永遠都在短線操作。人無遠慮，必有近憂。因為總在搶短，不作長遠經營，於是局勢就愈來愈差，到了後期百病俱發，只能一天到晚忙著救火。
七年來頻頻走訪友邦，並非都得要陳水扁本人御駕親征不可，但回頭看來其目的全是為了內部消費，不是為了長遠的外交布局，只是拿出訪當作對內造勢甚至放話的舞台。結果耗掉了大量的國家資源，換得的卻是愈見困窘的國際處境。他喜歡過境美國，目的也在於自抬身價，而不是為台美關係著想。至於強推公投、終統、台灣入聯，也是把個人與勝選置於台美關係之上。他長期把國家利益當成個人政治帳戶，一面毫無節制地揮霍，一面又不往帳戶裡存錢，吃了七年的老本，等於將未來元首的外交帳戶都透支掉了。
不打領帶、貼上入聯貼紙見客，聲稱要拍廣告說哥斯大黎加咖啡難喝等等，除了降低元首格調，只能貽笑國際，而選在國外痛批馬蕭與媒體，更證明「外交」從不是陳水扁的優先考量。
From Political Appointee to Company Director
From Political Appointee to Company Director
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2007
Yeh Chu-lan has withdrawn from the “Hsieh/Yeh ticket.” In exchange, she has been appointed Secretary General of the Presidential Office. Word has emerged from the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation that many out of work political appointees will become independent board members and receive handsome salaries. Ordinary shareholders are blasting this flagrant patronage. Last year the Presidential Palace declared it was “expressing its determination to push through reforms.” It would no longer appoint highly paid presidential advisors. Yesterday however, word emerged that the Presidential Palace had already budgeted 7.2 billion NT for a new crop of presidential advisors and would soon begin hiring.
These three news items may appear unrelated. In fact they are closely linked. Chen Shui-bian regards government positions as personal rewards for services rendered. He awards these positions according to his personal whims. The negative example he has set no longer requires comment. Six reorganizations of the cabinet in seven years have created an army of former appointees. This army is now invading the private sector. The line between government and business is now thoroughly blurred. Under such circumstances, ringing slogans about reform merely ring hollow.
The money-losing Taiwan High Speed Rail has 24 vice-presidents. Each of them receives a mind-boggling average annual salary of 63.7 million NT (2 million US) a year. Three of these independent board members receive between two and five million NT. The Taiwan High Speed Rail is hardly an isolated case. Investigators report that former political appointees now serving as independent board members are too numerous to list. Former Executive Yuan Secretary General Wei Chi-lin is single-handedly serving on five boards. The Chen regime has had six Ministers of Finance. They have all joined holding companies, banks, and corporations and been appointed board chairmen.
This is remarkable for two reasons. First, the original reason for having independent board members was to increase internal oversight in order to better manage the company. But many businesses deliberately solicited former political appointees for such posts. Their motive was to solicit favors from the government based on the former political appointees’ “guanxi.” They hoped to ensure smooth sailing for their companies or receive advance notice of policy developments. Given such realities, how are independent board members who are so handsomely remunerated, so comfortably settled into their featherbeds, to act as independent overseers and fulfill their duty as internal watchdogs?
Second, according to the “Revolving Door Provisions” of the Civil Service Act, no departing official may not accept a company director or company official position in any industry he supervised during his term of office, for a period of three years. When the Democratic Progressive Party was out of office, it adopted a hard line on this matter. It was relentless in its crusade against Kuomintang patronage. Even lowly section chiefs were exempt. But now, an army of former appointees is being directly assigned to any number of state and private sector positions, by none other than the president himself. Many people within these businesses welcome the arrival of this army with open arms, totally ignoring the “Revolving Door Provision.” They leave the government sector to join the business sector. They trample over the rule of law. They abandon their defense against political patronage. When the Democratic Progressive Party was out of office it championed one set of principles. Now that it is in power, it champions an entirely different set of principles. How sad is that?
From a more elevated perspective, it is not hard to see that the Chen regime’s incompetence during its seven years in power has frittered away the nation’s economic future. It has seriously undermined the Republic of China’s once disciplined and efficient system of government, including the autonomy of its financial and economic decision-making agencies and the neutrality of the civil service. Who knows how long it will take to repair the destructive effects of Chen Shui-bian’s two terms in power?
Consider three related questions: First, Chen Shui-bian repeatedly reorganized his cabinet during his seven years in office in order to create jobs for cronies. He abused people of talent. He demonstrated his contempt for civil service professionals. He undermined the stability and continuity of the nation’s administrative system. Chen Shui-bian’s ubiquitous meddling, combined with the Democratic Progressive Party’s populist demagoguery, offered political appointees no room for independent, ethical, and responsible policy making. What kind of rational decision-making can one engage in, if every week one has to meet Prime Minister Chang Chun-hsiung’s absurd demands for “A Benefit a Week?”
Second, the Chen regime corrupts people with remarkable speed and efficiency. The number of people willing to become cabinet ministers are as numerous as lemmings. Many covet these official positions. They know if they lose their government post for no reason, they will be immediately become board chairmen. Given such a vicious cycle, the cabinet is nothing but a “mass production machine for board chairmen.” Looking back over the past seven years, one wonders, how such an arrangement can possibly cultivate people of ability. Chen Shui-bian’s national policy advisory group was formed seven years ago. Within months advisors were leaving left and right. Now because of the upcoming election, Chen is recruiting new members. Isn’t it obvious he is using public funds to buy himself political bosses who can deliver the vote?
Third, the army of political appointees manufactured by the Chen regime is now invading the business sector. They are unlikely to increase the quality of corporate management. They are likely to become albatrosses around management’s neck. Generously provided with high salaries, these independent board members have become corporate gatekeepers. Whom among them remembers that once upon a time they were whistleblowers? The relationship between government officials and company officials has become an expanding gray area wide open to abuse. Is the Democratic Progressive Party truly unaware to this fact?
On stage, the curtain is about to ring up on the drama of the presidential election. But to those in the know, what is happening backstage, in dark corners where the spotlights cannot reach, far more frightening changes are going on.
政務官不政務，獨立董事不獨立
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.08.23 03:42 am
在葉菊蘭退出「謝葉配」而換得總統府祕書長一職之際，台灣高鐵也傳出多位卸任高官出任獨立董監事坐領高薪，而遭到小股東砲轟的事件。與此同時，總統府去年宣稱為「彰顯改革決心」不再聘任的資政，昨天也傳出已編列七千二百萬元預算，將恢復遴聘。
以上三則消息看似無關，實則脈絡相連。陳水扁將政府職位當成私人酬庸亂撒亂送，惡例多端，已不待言。而他七年六度改組釋出的大量政務官，則藉著內閣「過水」竄流至民營企業，將官商之間的權責界線弄得犬牙交錯。在這種情況下，信誓旦旦的改革口號，皆因官商界際渾沌，而流為空言。
虧損累累的高鐵，廿四位副總以上高層主管平均年薪達六百卅七萬元，令人咋舌；三位各有來頭的獨立董事，酬勞則在二百至五百萬元之間。不僅高鐵，經記者追查，卸任高官出任企業獨立董監事者不勝枚舉：曾任行政院祕書長的魏啟林即一人身兼五職，而扁政府任內曾六易財長，卸任後幾全數進了金控、銀行及企業擔任董事長。
在此，令人好奇的有二：其一，獨立董監事設置的初衷，原在增加內部監督，以健全公司治理。但許多企業刻意延攬卸任高官出任，目的均在乞助於其昔日之權力關係，協助企業排難解紛，或先一步獲知政策消息。在這樣的現實下，那些坐享高薪的獨立董監事，既已身陷「金沙發」，將如何扮演「獨立」監督的內部制衡角色？
其二，根據公務員服務法的「旋轉門條款」，公務員離職三年內，不得擔任其任內職務直接相關之企業董監事等職位。民進黨在野時，對此曾鞭策甚厲，對國民黨的酬庸人事窮追猛打，連科長級人員都不放過。但如今，眾多卸任政務官不僅可經總統直接欽點安插各公民營職務，許多人更在企業爭相迎迓下欣然登堂入室，根本無視於「旋轉門」之存在。出官入商，這不僅是對法制的傲慢與踐踏，實已形同對官商「利益輸送」防線的撤守。民進黨在野說一套，在朝做一套，可悲至此！
站高一點看，人們不難看出：扁政府執政七年的無能及失效，不僅虛耗了人民的機會和時光，更以嚴重的政治干預侵害了台灣行政體系原有的自律效能酖酖包括財經決策的獨立，以及專業官僚的中立。亦即，陳水扁兩任執政的破壞性後果，不知需要多麼長期的修補才能復元。
這裡，有三個環環相扣的問題：第一，陳水扁任內頻繁的內閣改組及因人設事，不僅是對人才的濫用，也是對公職的輕蔑，更是對國家政務穩定性、延續性的破壞。陳水扁的凡事插手，加上民進黨泛政治化及民粹式的問政手法，政務官幾乎沒有獨立決策的空間，遑論責任倫理。試想，每周要滿足府方為張揆訂下「一利多」要求的內閣部長們，還能有什麼理性決策？
第二，以扁政府蹧蹋人才之速率，願意入閣為官者仍多如過江之鯽，許多人無非覬覦那一頂官帽；即使無故丟官，也能立刻安插搖身變成企業董事長。在這種惡性循環下，內閣儼然是「董事長快速製造機」，但回顧這七年，何曾產生甚麼讓人驚艷的秀異之士？七年前以國政顧問團之清新，不數月即離心離德；如今為大選要再廣招資政，豈不擺明就是拿公帑收買選舉樁腳？
第三，扁政府拋出的政務官大量流入商界，未必有助於提升企業治理，卻嚴重增加了行政管理的困擾與負擔。在高薪渥遇的供養下，獨立董監事變成企業的「門神」，誰記得自己曾是「吹哨者」的角色？從官場漫向民間企業的權力關係，徒然擴大了法治的灰色地帶，這點，民進黨能一無所覺？
舞台上，總統選舉的大戲正熱鬧上演。但對有心的民眾而言，戲台幕後那些鎂光燈沒照到的角落，有更令人驚悚的變化在進行。
