Archive for December, 2007|Monthly archive page
The Plebiscite has changed. Refuse to accept plebiscite ballots
Leave a CommentThe Plebiscite has changed. Refuse to accept plebiscite ballots
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 31, 2007
An editorial in this newspaper recently noted that Chen Shui-bian and the DPP’s attempt to “package deal” the plebiscite with the election has disrupted the election and may even nullify the election. This view has now become the consensus.
By disrupting or even nullifying the election, the plebiscite promoted by Chen Shui-bian and the DPP has forfeited what little legitimacy it might have had. It has become the enemy of constitutionalism and the rule of law. In order to oppose their attempt to disrupt or even nullify the election, more and more people are saying, “Boycott the Plebiscite.”
The people may or may not approve of demands to “recover party assets” or “recover national assets.” But they look askance on Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party for exploiting the plebiscite process in such a lawless manner. Plebiscites and referenda were originally a means of enhancing constitutional rule. Now they have been reduced to populist weapons by which Chen Shui-bian and the DPP can destroy constitutional rule. Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have manipulated the plebiscite and plebiscite process to the point where it no longer has any legitimacy. That is why we are hearing calls from the people to boycott the plebiscite altogether.
People approve of plebiscites. But most people don’t approve of lawless manipulation of the plebiscite process. People approve of plebiscites. But most people don’t approve of plebiscites being used as tools for political manipulation.
The plebiscite has changed. One. AIT Chairman Raymond F. Burghardt pointed out that the plebiscite has been transformed into a instrument by which Chen Shui-bian can to hijack the election and manipulate the post-election political scenario. As a result, Anyone unwilling to be a hijack victim must oppose this plebiscite, even pale green voters. Chen Shui-bian has taken the DPP hostage. If you want to liberate the DPP from Chen, you should oppose the plebiscite, This will reduce the effectiveness of this tool in Chen Shui-bian’s hands.
The plebiscite has changed. Two. Chen Shui-bian and the DPP’s manipulation of the plebiscite, is unconstitutional and illegal, illogical and unreasonable. Its defects are too numerous to list. Chen Shui-bian has openly proclaimed that “package dealing the plebiscite with the presidential election is the primary means by which the DPP will win the election.” Furthermore, the DPP is misappropriating public funds, extorting money from banks and savings and loans, hijacking the Central Election Committee, engaging in every kind of unconstitutional, illegal, shameless, and unconscionable behavior conceivable. If the people of the nation still have one iota of respect for civilization and the rule of law, how can we tolerate these brigands? How can we allow ourselves to be manipulated by their phony plebiscite?
The plebiscite has changed. Three. As Frank Hsieh noted, the plebiscite will have “after effects.” The first after effect will be a vicious struggle between “Deep Green” pro-Chen and “Reformist” anti-Chen factions within the DPP after the election. The second after effect will be the need to heal the rift between Taiwan and the United States. Prevention, as always, is the best cure. Opposing the plebiscite will reveal whether pro-Chen “Deep Green” supporters or anti-Chen “Reformist” supporters are the winners. Chen Shui-bian will be subdued by the outcome. Those taken hostage by Chen Shui-bian can then be liberated as soon as possible, in which case there will be no after effects. As for trust between Taipei and Washington, as long as Chen Shui-bian’s phony plebiscite fails, the after effects can be reduced to a minimum.
The plebiscite has changed. Next year’s January and March plebiscites are not plebiscites to recover party assets or national assets, or to join the UN or rejoin the UN. They are plebiscites on whether the government has the right to ram illegal and phony plebiscites down the public’s throat. They are plebiscites on whether to preserve Taipei/Washington relations. They are plebiscites on whether Chen Shui-bian is going to remain the chessmaster of the political arena, and we are going to remain his pawns. They are votes of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian’s phony plebiscite.
The people must not allow themselves to be manipulated by Chen Shui-bian’s phony plebiscite. This newspapers urges voters: Refuse to accept either of the two plebiscite ballots. If we go along with the CEC’s “four balloting sequences” at the polling stations, we will have chaos. To solve the problem at its root, refuse to accept any plebiscite ballots. That is the best solution. That is the only countermeasure.
The pendulum always swings back in the opposite direction. Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have overplayed their hand. The public is reacting vehemently. The nature of the plebiscite has changed. The public cannot endorse a phony plebiscite, and will refuse to accept the plebiscite ballots.
The plebiscite has turned into a vote of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian. The plebiscite has turned into a plebiscite on rule of law vs. the rule of the mob. The plebiscite has turned into a plebiscite on law and order vs. the law of the jungle. The showdown will take place on March 22, during the presidential election. The prelude will take place on January 12, during the legislative elections. Boycott the plebiscite. If Chen’s attempt to package deal the plebiscite with the legislative elections fails, Chen’s attempt to package deal a plebiscite with the presidential elections will fail as well.
公投已變質，拒領公投票！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.31 02:16 am
本報社論日前指出，陳水扁及民進黨的「公投綁大選」，已經惡化變質為「公投亂大選」，「公投毀大選」；此一觀點已漸成為社會共識。
事態至此，陳水扁及民進黨的「公投」，非但已失正當性，且已變質為「亂大選／毀大選」的民主憲政「公敵」。為了反對陳水扁及民進黨「公投毀大選」，社會上「拒領公投票」的呼聲已處處可聞。
國 人或皆同意「討黨產／討國產」及「入聯／返聯」的政治訴求，但不能同意陳水扁及民進黨將「公投」操弄到如今這種無法無天的地步。「公投」原是「提升國家治 理」的憲政公器，如今卻淪為陳水扁及民進黨「摧毀國家治理」的民粹凶器。陳水扁及民進黨操弄下的「公投」已經變質，已失正當性，所以社會上才會出現「拒領 公投票」的呼聲。
國人率皆贊同公投，但多數國人必不贊同無法無天的「操弄公投」；國人率皆贊同公投，但多數國人必不贊同「變質的公投」！
公 投已經變質：一、薄瑞光指出，入聯公投已經變質為陳水扁欲綁架新總統及挾持選後政局的公投。因此，這波公投儼然已成為對陳水扁的「信任投票」。凡不願見陳 水扁繼續綁架挾持台灣政局者，就應反對公投。即使淺綠選民，若欲使民進黨擺脫陳水扁的挾持綁架，亦應反對公投，這是降低陳水扁聲勢的有力手段。
公 投已經變質：二、陳水扁及民進黨操弄公投的手段，違憲違法、違理背情，已至罄竹難書的地步。陳水扁公開宣稱「公投綁大選，就是民進黨要贏得選舉的主要手 法」，接下來，民進黨即盜用公帑推動，綁架行庫挹注，更挾持中選會幹盡一切違憲違法、無品無恥的下流下賤勾當；國人倘若對民主憲政及文明廉恥尚有一念顧 惜，豈能贊同這些民主盜匪、憲政蟊賊所操弄的「變質公投」？
公投已經變質：三、如謝長廷所說，公投會有「後遺症」。後遺症之一，是選後必 將引爆民進黨內「深綠／改革」、「挺扁／反扁」的慘烈鬥爭；後遺症之二，是台美信任及友誼的傷口，必須有以療癒。對於「後遺症」的最佳治療，就是事先防 範，不使它發生「後遺症」。只要反對公投，就能使「深綠／改革」、「挺扁／反扁」的勝負早日揭曉，將陳水扁制伏在「公投」之下，即可趁勢早日擺脫陳水扁的 挾持綁架，也就不會有後遺症。至於台美信任，也只要使陳水扁的「公投」失敗，後遺症亦可望減輕至最低程度。
公投已經變質。明年一月及三月兩次公投，其實已非「討黨產／討國產」或「入聯／返聯」的公投，而是要不要容許如此「無法無天」的公投，也是要不要維護台美信任關係的公投，也是要不要政局繼續被陳水扁挾持綁架的公投，更是要不要繼續信任陳水扁的「信任案公投」！
國人應當抵制這場陳水扁操弄的「變質的公投」。本報曾經主張：不妨兩張都不領，絕對不可領兩張。但若聽任「四種流程」在投開票所併行，這無異提供了製造混亂的條件。為正本清源，全面拒領公投票，才是最佳對策，亦已是唯一對策。
物極必反。陳水扁及民進黨將「公投」操弄到如此無法無天的地步，終使國人強烈感知公投已經走調、變質。對於走調的公投，不可支持；對於變質的公投，拒領公投票！
這 是一場「挺陳水扁vs.反陳水扁」的公投，一場「挺憲政民主vs.反憲政民主」的公投，一場「守法畏天vs.無法無天」的公投。決戰點在三二二的總統大 選，序幕戰則是一一二的立委選舉。拒領公投票，只要使陳水扁在綁立委選舉的「公投」失敗，經此「演習」，其綁總統大選的「公投」亦無得逞的可能。
96.12.31 Press Release
Leave a Comment96.12.31 Press Release
Kuomintang Cultural and Communications Committee
96.12.31
translated by Bevin Chu
This this morning (12/31) the KMT held a meeting of its Central Standing Committee. It issued a formal resolution appealing to voters in the January 12 legislative elections to “Refuse to accept Plebiscite Ballots.” Party Chairman Wu Po-hsiung said that the DPP was misusing the plebiscite to create chaos and generate conflict. For the sake of Taiwan’s democracy, the KMT is asking voters to “Refuse to accept Plebiscite Ballots.” The KMT also issued a solemn appeal to the CEC, urging that that the plebiscites and the presidential election be held separately, If the CEC continued to act recklessly, if the election led to confusion or conflict, the Central Election Commission and the DPP would have to bear full responsibility, “History will take note of what they did. “
Wu Po-hsiung convened a provisional Central Standing Committee press conference today. Vice-Chairman Chiang Pin-kung, Kuan Chung, Tsan Bo, and Lin Feng-cheng were in attendance. Wu Po-hsiung said that the DPP had misused the plebiscite, turning it into a DPP election tool. Creating chaos so that the election can no longer be held is a DPP political ploy. First the DPP refused to permit the legal codification of the CEC’s rules and regulations. Then it distorted the law and intimidated election officials. It even threatened illegal firings. Observers began to suspect the DPP was looking for an excuse to nullify the election, or even impose martial law, For the sake of Taiwan’s democratic development, the KMT has been forced to make this concession.
Wu Po-hsiung said that four years ago the Democratic Progressive Party tied two plebiscites to the presidential election. It used a two-stage balloting procedure, and the election proceeded without incident. Chen Shui-bian now says that the election process used four years ago was unconstitutional. Has Chen forgotten that he himself was elected president using just such a method?
He stressed that the DPP is bent on changing the balloting procedure to ensure that there will be numerous loopholes, that will lead to balloting procedure conflicts. In order to prevent the Democratic Progressive Party from using the plebisite as a pretext to nullify the election, the KMT has made a painful decision. It is appealing to voters to refuse to accept plebiscite ballots. It is also solemnly urging the CEC to pull back from the brink, and not to persist in its error. As long as it uses the same balloting procedure that it used four years ago, in which the election ballots and plebiscite ballots were handled separately, that would forstall any further controversy, and allow democracy to proceed smoothly.
Wu stressed that although CEC has reached a compromise between the single-stage and two-stage balloting procedures, there is still too much room for mistakes. These include ballots being removed from or placed into the wrong ballot boxes, leading to counting errors. If the CEC persists in its error, the CEC and the Democratic Progressive Party must bear full responsibility for any problems arising from this election.
Wu Po-hsiung said that for the moment the KMT is asking the public to refuse to accept plebiscite ballots only for the January 12 plebiscite, to be held on the same day as the legislative elections. He made no mention of the “Join the UN” and “Rejoin the UN” plebiscites, to be held on March 22, the same day as the presidential election. If the CEC pulls back from the brink, or reverts to the balloting procedure used four years ago, the KMT will re-evaluate its policy for the plebiscite to be held on March 22, the same day as the presidential election.
Wu also said that the KMT apologizes to the many voters who petitioned for the “anti-corruption, recover national assets” plebiscite. The KMT promises to pursue justice by other means, in order to implement its anti-corruption policies.
新 聞 稿 中國國民黨文化傳播委員會 96.12.31
國民黨今 日上午（12/31）召開臨時中常會，正式決議呼籲選民在一月十二日立委選舉時「拒領公投票」。黨主席吳伯雄表示，神聖的公投已被民進黨扭曲為「亂大 選」，甚至是引起衝突的工具，為了台灣的民主繼續下去，國民黨因而痛心的決定呼籲選民「拒領公投票」。國民黨同時嚴正呼籲中選會懸崖勒馬，將公投與大選分 開舉行，若中選會繼續蠻幹，導致引發選務混亂或衝突，中選會及民進黨要負完全責任，「歷史會記他們這一筆」。
吳伯雄今日親自召開臨時中常 會會後記者會，副主席江丙坤、關中、詹春柏、林豐正均一同出席。吳伯雄表示，公投是神聖的，但是已經變質為民進黨拿來綁大選、亂大選、甚至製造混亂，讓選 舉辦不下去的工具，民進黨在這段期間先是不讓中選會法制化，之後一再扭曲法律，威脅選務人員，甚至違法將選務人員撤職，外界懷疑民進黨期盼越亂越好，可作 為停止選舉的藉口，甚至想製造戒嚴的可能，為了台灣的民主發展，國民黨唯有委屈忍讓。
吳伯雄表示，四年前民進黨公投綁大選，但採取兩階段領投票，選務平和沒有糾紛，陳水扁說四年前的作法違法違憲，但「陳總統你別忘了，你就是在你說的違法違憲方式中當選總統」。
他 強調，如今民進黨執意要改成一定會有漏洞、甚至導致衝突的領投票方式，為了不給民進黨公投毀大選的藉口，國民黨痛心的決定，呼籲選民拒領公投票，同時也鄭 重呼籲中選會懸崖勒馬，不要一直錯下去，只要開會決定將大選與公投分開辦理，或至少依照四年前實驗過的領投票方式舉行選舉，即可化解紛爭，讓民主順暢進 行。
吳伯雄強調，儘管中選會做出一階段、二階段的折衷案，但仍有很大的機會出錯，包括容易造成選票被攜出及投錯票匭的計算等等變數，若中選會堅持繼續下去，這次的選舉發生任何錯誤，中選會及民進黨要負完全責任。
吳伯雄說，國民黨目前只決定對一月十二日立委選舉當天的兩項公投案要求拒領公投票，並未提及預定在三月二十二日總統大選時舉行的返聯公投及入聯公投，若中選會能懸崖勒馬，或回復至四年前的領投票方式，國民黨將重新評估三月二十二日總統大選當日同時進行的公投案。
吳伯雄並表示，國民黨呼籲選民拒領公投票，必須要向眾多連署「反貪腐、討國產」公投案的選民致歉，但國民黨保證會用其他司法的方式，貫徹反貪腐討國產的政策。
Can a Society devoid of Hope honor its Checks?
Comments (2)Can a Society devoid of Hope honor its Checks?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2007
It’s the end of the year, and political candidates are rushing from one event to another, partaking of the festive atmosphere. Frank Hsieh took part in a “I Love Taiwan, Happiness Party” with “economic prosperity” as his theme. He issued blank checks to the youth of Taiwan, including: housing for young people, cheap rents, good jobs, and an end to debt slavery. Hsieh said the government should encourage young people to pursue their dreams, not just make money. He said the government must provide an environment that makes young people happy and helps them fulfill their dreams.
This is merely a rehash of the Democratic Progressive Party’s campaign slogan from eight years ago: “Dare to hope, follow your dream.” The mood now however is considerably different. Some new trends and new terms have appeared. For example, the Directorate General of Budget and Manpower’s latest survey makes reference to a “hop hop class,” i.e., a work force subject to rapid turnover. According to the Job Bank, nearly a quarter of this year’s college graduates have yet to find work and have joined the ranks of the unemployed. Among those who found jobs, 48% have already quit. According to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics’ latest survey, the number of people employed part time this year has reached 252,000, a record high.
Young people who attend raves are modern Taiwan’s “lost generation.” Surveys conducted by employment agencies found that as many as 23% of college graduates have yet to find jobs five months after graduation. Their pay was low — an average of 23,000 NT. Even those with Master’s degrees earned only 34,000 NT. Low wages were among the principle factors behind high turnover among younger employees. The Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics found that the number of part time workers has soared. This is a new phenomenon that took place over the past two years. From only 100,000 part time workers in 2005, a sharp recession last year created 200,000 part time workers this year, a new high. The quality of the workplace is declining. Taiwan has the world’s longest work hours. Over the past five years, the average hourly wage has experienced zero growth. Even though the minimum wage was increased to 95 NT, hourly workers worry that corporate managers will reduce their manpower demands.
Scholars have expressed concern about the workplace. It is not merely the economy that is in decline, but an entire generation’s confidence in the future. Such low salaries in today’s inflationary environment are sure to make life hard. Young people no longer have confidence in the future. Worse, if young people do not find suitable jobs within a short time, they can easily become frustrated from long-term unemployment, sink into poverty, and begin abusing drugs. They may even commit crimes or end their own lives. These warnings come not from ivory tower academics, but from the school of hard knocks.
After Japan’s bubble economy burst, the negative impact expanded from the economic to the social. The incidence of suicide, unemployment, part time work, job shopping, and domestic violence, all soared. Students abandoned their studies and after graduation became “single parasites.” Japanese sociologist Masahiro Yamada’s disturbing treatise, “A Society devoid of Hope” described young people’s sense of sheer futility, the feeling that “No matter how hard you try, the cards are stacked against you.” Isn’t the same thing happening now on Taiwan? According to a study by the Academia Sinica, Taiwan’s society has changed over the past 20 years, and not for the better. The public now believes that “Unless one is extraordinarily lucky, one is unlikely to be promoted and to become wealthy.” The public now believes people no longer trust each other, no longer feel they are in control of their own destinies, and no longer feel that society supports them. In Japan, the collapse of a once dependable education and employment track led to “A Society devoid of Hope.” The same pattern is appearing on Taiwan with the younger generation.
Frank Hsieh has written a blank check promising “Jobs and Homes for Youth,” targeting today’s “low income, no income, single parasite” class. Hsieh has promised a pie in the sky. But these problem cannot be addressed by reversing cause and effect. They can only be addressed by issuing the right prescription for the ailment. The question is which regime was responsible for the “low income, no income, single parasite” phenomenon? Presidential candidates’ promises of economic prosperity cannot be fulfilled overnight. The question is who can lead Taiwan out of its current status as a “Society devoid of Hope?”
希望落差社會如何兌現幸福經濟支票？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.27 03:21 am
歲末充滿節慶氣氛，連候選人也趕場湊趣。謝長廷日前參加了一場「我愛台灣、幸福PARTY」晚會，以「幸福經濟」的主題向台灣青年開出支票，包括：年輕人有房子住，租到便宜房子，人人有工作，不要成為債務奴隸。謝長廷說，政府應該鼓勵年輕人追求夢想，不應該只鼓勵拚命賺錢；政府有責任提供快樂的環境給年輕人，幫年輕人圓夢。
這是民進黨過去總統大選的「希望相隨，有夢最美」口號的翻版。不過，與此相對照的社會氣氛卻大不相同。台灣就業市場最近出現了一些新趨勢與新名詞，都是根據主計處和人力調查相關資料而來。例如「跳跳族」，是指工作更換頻繁的族群；根據人力銀行業者最新調查，今年的應屆畢業生有將近四分之一至今未找到工作，淪為失業族，有正職工作者也有四成八離職求去。另外則是主計處最新調查顯示：今年「非典型就業」的部分時間工作者人數高達二十五萬兩千人，創歷年新高。
狂歡派對主角的年輕人，可能也是當今台灣最感徬徨的一個世代。人力資源業者針對畢業五個月的應屆畢業生進行的問卷調查發現，不僅二成三到現在仍未找到工作；即使找到工作，薪資也偏低，大學學歷平均只有二萬三千元，碩士學歷三萬四千元；低薪資成為青年工作不穩定的原因之一。此外，主計處調查所發現的部分工時工作者人數飆升，則是近兩年的現象。九十四年只有十萬人左右，但景氣急凍，去年即超過二十萬人，今年再創新高，而職場品質卻越來越差。台灣是世界工時最長的國家，近五年的平均時薪幾乎零成長；但即使最低時薪調整為九十五元，計時工卻反而擔心企業主將減少聘用人力。
學者對這些職場現象表示憂心，因為向下沈淪的不但是經濟景氣，也是一整個世代的前途與信心。以如此低的薪資水準，在現今物價飛漲的環境中，勢必生活辛苦，造成青年對前途和未來愈來愈沒信心。更糟糕的是，年輕人萬一短時間內找不到適合的工作，很容易因挫敗淪為長期失業者，陷入貧窮、濫用藥，甚至犯罪、自殺等惡性循環中。這不是出自象牙塔的危言聳聽，而是前車之鑑的嚴厲教訓。
日本自泡沫經濟發生之後，負面影響從經濟面擴展到社會結構面；自殺人數、失業族、打工族和約聘人員、乃至家庭暴力的個案，都同步遽增。在青少年層次，則出現了放棄學習的學生，和大學畢業後的「單身寄生族」。日本社會學家山田昌弘轟動一時的「希望格差社會」，就在描述年輕人之間這種「失去希望，也就是認為即使努力也不會有回報」的心理現象。隔海與此間看似無關的情景，如今是否也在台灣滋長？採用中研院二十年來調查台灣社會變遷的資料所進行的研究顯示，民眾對於「除非碰上好運，一個人很難升官發財」、「人與人之間再也沒有可靠而值得信任的關係了」等問卷題目的回答，呈現出民眾對自己人生的「控制感」和感受的「社會支持度」越來越低的趨勢。在日本因原先穩定的升學、就業管道搖搖欲墜所造成的「希望格差社會」，在台灣是否也複製產生了具有嚴重「希望落差感」的青年世代？
謝長廷在此時所開出的「青年有工作，有房住」的支票，應是針對時下青年「薪資低，沒工作，寄生族」等現象所提出，儼然是畫餅充飢。因為，問題不能倒果為因，而是該如何對症下藥；「青年有工作，有房住」不是能即期兌現的支票，反而應追問「薪資低，沒工作，寄生族」等現象是誰人執政所種下的果。總統候選人承諾的「幸福經濟」顯非一蹴可幾，誰能帶領台灣走出「希望落差社會」的困境？
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s "Provocations?"
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the “nativist” Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the “pro reunification media.” It is no longer a member of the “Pan Blue media.” It is no longer even a member of the “Pale Blue media.”
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP’s “rectification of names” campaign to itself. It is time for the “China Times” to change its name to the “Taiwan Times.”
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” campaign as a “provocative policy” that “unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.” This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan’s moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government’s diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian’s next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons’ plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What’s the US so worried about? What’s Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian’s total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan’s geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US’s strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That’s why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian’s provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing’s side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn’t hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US’s ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US’s Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what’s in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan’s biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan’s democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan’s national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US’s.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s "Provocations?"
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the “nativist” Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the “pro reunification media.” It is no longer a member of the “Pan Blue media.” It is no longer even a member of the “Pale Blue media.”
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP’s “rectification of names” campaign to itself. It is time for the “China Times” to change its name to the “Taiwan Times.”
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” campaign as a “provocative policy” that “unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.” This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan’s moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government’s diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian’s next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons’ plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What’s the US so worried about? What’s Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian’s total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan’s geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US’s strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That’s why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian’s provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing’s side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn’t hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US’s ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US’s Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what’s in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan’s biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan’s democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan’s national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US’s.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s "Provocations?"
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the “nativist” Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the “pro reunification media.” It is no longer a member of the “Pan Blue media.” It is no longer even a member of the “Pale Blue media.”
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP’s “rectification of names” campaign to itself. It is time for the “China Times” to change its name to the “Taiwan Times.”
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” campaign as a “provocative policy” that “unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.” This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan’s moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government’s diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian’s next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons’ plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What’s the US so worried about? What’s Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian’s total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan’s geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US’s strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That’s why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian’s provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing’s side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn’t hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US’s ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US’s Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what’s in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan’s biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan’s democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan’s national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US’s.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s "Provocations?"
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the “nativist” Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the “pro reunification media.” It is no longer a member of the “Pan Blue media.” It is no longer even a member of the “Pale Blue media.”
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP’s “rectification of names” campaign to itself. It is time for the “China Times” to change its name to the “Taiwan Times.”
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” campaign as a “provocative policy” that “unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.” This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan’s moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government’s diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian’s next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons’ plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What’s the US so worried about? What’s Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian’s total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan’s geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US’s strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That’s why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian’s provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing’s side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn’t hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US’s ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US’s Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what’s in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan’s biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan’s democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan’s national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US’s.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s "Provocations?"
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the “nativist” Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the “pro reunification media.” It is no longer a member of the “Pan Blue media.” It is no longer even a member of the “Pale Blue media.”
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP’s “rectification of names” campaign to itself. It is time for the “China Times” to change its name to the “Taiwan Times.”
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan’s “Provocations?”
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” campaign as a “provocative policy” that “unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.” This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan’s moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government’s diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian’s next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons’ plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What’s the US so worried about? What’s Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian’s total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan’s geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US’s strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That’s why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian’s provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing’s side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn’t hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US’s ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US’s Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what’s in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan’s biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan’s democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan’s national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US’s.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2007
The Republic of China Constitution was promulgated on January 1, 1947, and enacted on December 25 of the same year. Today is its 60th anniversary. In Chinese tradition 60 years marks the completion of a cosmic cycle. By coincidence, this year is also the 20th anniversary of the rescinding of martial law. The ruling DPP is aggressively trumpeting the rescinding of martial law, but pointedly ignoring the 60th anniversary of the enacting of the constitution. Apparently the constitution will have to celebrate its 60th birthday in solitude and silence.
This republican constitution underwent a difficult birth and considerable growing pains. Even before it was born, the Chinese Communist Party withdrew from the constitutional convention. For over 60 years, the CCP has adopted the attitude that the ROC Constitution has no legal authority. Even after it was born, it remained in swaddling clothes. Kuomintang President Chiang Kai-Shek, by means of temporary provisions and the implementation martial law, virtually nullified the constitution and the democratic process. As a result, during its first 40 years, constitutional rule was severely constrained. The lifting of martial law was in part the result of Democratic Progressive Party members joining “party outsiders” in demanding the restoration of the constitution. With the rescinding of martial law, the restoration of the constitution and even the peaceful transfer of power became a reality, affirming the feasibility of a constitutional republic. [Translator's note: the editorial uses the term "democracy" but constitutionally speaking this is incorrect. The Republic of China, as the name clearly denotes, is a republic, NOT a democracy. Democracies are unstable systems based on the subjective rule of the majority. Republics are relatively more stable systems based on the objective rule of law.] The ruling DPP regime however, is hostile to to this constitution. President Chen advocates the authoring of a new constitution, by hook or by crook. He is in essence repudiating the very constitution by which he was elected and swore a solemn oath to defend. This behavior is known as “dismantling the bridge after you’ve crossed it” or “love ‘em and leave ‘em.” On the 60th anniversary of the enacting of the constitution, a ruling regime that is obligated to uphold and defend the constitution, is deafening us with its silence. The ruling DPP is the very picture of a political authority unwilling to abide by constitutional constraints.
Since the rescinding of martial law twenty years ago, the constitution has regained some of its former lustre. This is the main reason the Republic of China can boast that it is a constitutional republic. The constitution has been amended seven times. The content of these amendments has been highly controversial, and has been both praised and panned. The constitution was successfully amended to allow it to apply to a smaller territorial jurisdiction. Since then it has provided a rule of law foundation for winning candidates and parties, granting them the right to govern. It has provided an umbilical cord linking the present to the past, while leaving room for new developments in the future. It allows people of different political affiliations and even national identities to take what they want from the constitution and coexist side by side. The constitution has frequently been criticized as defective, but it is the product of the democratic process. It embodies a wide range of compromises between hostile and opposed political parties. Most importantly, its amendments reflect 60 years of democratic evolution and fulfill a dual role. They provide continuity with the past even as they break with the past. This is why a 60 year old constitution remains in good health even today.
The Republic of China Constitution has been abused by the Chinese Communist Party, the Kuomintang, and the Democratic Progressive Party. That it is now able to quietly enjoy its 60th birthday, must be considered a miracle. The constitution may appear fragile, but is in fact quite durable. The path of constitutional rule remains rocky. The future is difficult to predict. But the truth is not complicated. A constitution’s raison d’etre is to limit political authority. The face of authority changes constantly. But its essential character remains the same. No one in power likes being constrained by a constitution. Everyone in power seeks the expansion of authority and its concentration in their hands. Taiwan lacks grounding in constitutionalism. It lacks acculturation in the rule of law. Its politicians lack the necessary commitment to constitutional government. In practice, the separation of the powers often degenerates into partisan strife. Blue and Green political loyalties trump concern for constitutionalism and a sense of right and wrong. Will the future be one in which power struggles destroy the constitution? Or will the constitution be able to limit the abuse of political authority? This is the test facing the Republic of China.
The real enemy of constitutional law is political power and influence. Every citizen has a responsibility to help the constitution limit political power and influence. For example, constitutional interpretations require enhanced vigilance regarding key constitutional checkpoints. One must never permit deviation from the constitution merely because the person in authority is charismatic, or his political style is dramatic. The separation of powers must be maintained. Checks and balances must not be relinquished. One’s party must not be valued above the nation. One must not change one’s stand on constitutional limits merely because one has changed positions and become the ruling party. When Chang Chun-hsiung was an opposition legislator, he challenged the KMT’s appointing of the vice president to the position of premier, expanding the power of the executive. Now that Chang holds the post of premier, how can he knowingly violate his own principles? How can he allow himself to be the president’s instrument for the expansion of executive power? Intellectuals and academics must demand that political leaders strictly observe constitutional limits. Political office holders must accept the fact that constitutional standards cannot be custom tailored for certain individuals or political parties. Ambitious politicians cannot be permitted to seize power and trample over the constitution by means of constitutional exceptions.
A once endangered constitution has managed to survive many winters and achieve something akin to permanency. This vital and tenacious constitution is the foundation of our republic. Those who celebrate the Republic of China’s constitutional government, should celebrate Asia’s oldest constitution. No matter how tyrannical a political authority might be, constitutional government is like a cool breeze or bright moonlight illuminating a river. A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.25
中華民國憲法，六十歲生日快樂
中時社論
中華民國憲法於民國三十六年一月一日公布，同年十二月廿五日施行；今天，是行憲六十周年，中華民國憲法的花甲之慶。巧合的是，今年也是解嚴廿周年，相對於紀念解嚴時的積極，政府似乎嗅不出任何慶祝行憲六十周年的氣氛。憲法，只能是一位默默享受六十歲生日的壽星。
做為一部民主憲法，它的誕生與成長均不順利。在它出生之前，中國共產黨即宣告退出孕育制憲的政治協商會議，之後六十餘年來，從來都對這部憲法採取否定其效力的態度。憲法誕生之後，尚在襁褓中即遭遇國民黨蔣介石總統以憲法臨時條款及實施戒嚴的方式，幾乎架空了民主憲政的運作，所以行憲六十年的前四十年間，憲政的成長受到了極大的壓抑。解嚴，其實很大一部分來自於當時以黨外人士出現的民進黨人長期要求「回歸憲法」的努力。解嚴之後，「回歸憲法」得到實現，甚至完成了政黨輪替的和平政權移轉，驗證了憲法的民主可行性。但是民進黨政府卻又對這部憲法抱持敵意，陳總統以各種方式提倡制憲，實質上否定他賴以當選且宣誓遵守的憲法，謂之為過河拆橋、始亂終棄也不為過，行憲六十周年，負有行憲責任的政府悄然無聲，正是權力不肯心甘情願接受憲法約束的寫照。
平心而論，解嚴廿年來，憲法開始恢復生機，就是台灣今日可以自詡為民主國家的主要原因之一。憲法增修條文歷經七次修訂，其內容雖然屢見爭議而有仁智互見的評價，但是原本在台灣運作有所侷限的憲法，因為增修條文而克服了領土管轄區域與國民範圍調整所引起的困難。它為每次在選舉中獲勝而執政的政府，提供了民主正當性的法治基礎，不但建立了連結過去的臍帶，更為未來國家發展的各種走向與可能，預留了彈性想像空間。讓生活在台灣，懷有不同政治信念甚至國家認同觀的人們，均有各取所需且共同相處的可能。這部經常遭受批評而瑕疵似乎很多的憲法，卻是民主程序下的產物，也容納了敵對政黨的各種妥協，最重要的，憲法增修條文為六十年來的台灣民主發展歷程，同時負載了斷裂時代與延續往昔的雙重功能。這正是六十年的憲法，今日仍然健在的道理。
中華民國憲法，先後歷經了共產黨、國民黨與民進黨的糟蹋，現在還能靜度六十壽辰，真是台灣的另一項奇蹟。憲法的生命看似脆弱，其實旺盛，然則憲政道路前景卻依舊坎坷，甚至有些前程未卜，這其間道理並不複雜，憲法存在的價值，在於拘束政治權力，可是權力的外貌變幻不羈，掌權者的面容也不一樣，卻有著相同的本質，他們都不樂意受憲法的拘束，也總是追求權力的擴張與集中。台灣沒有牢固的憲政傳統，也缺乏豐富的憲法文化，政治權力人物的憲政素養不足，權力分立的制衡實踐，往往變質為政黨之間的惡質傾軋。時至今日，藍綠的標籤，勝過了憲法意識與憲政是非。未來會是權力的競逐淹沒憲法，還是憲法足以規範權力的步伐，正就是台灣民主的考驗。
憲法的真正敵人是政治權勢，協助憲法馴服政治權勢，各方都有責任，例如釋憲者必須隨時提高警覺，嚴守憲法關隘，不因權力人物身分特殊、當權者姿態張狂，即予縱容曲從；權力分立機關不能輕易放棄制衡責任，也不該黨同伐異，換了權力位置就變更憲政立場。像是張俊雄在野擔任立委時，曾在憲法法庭上質疑總統不該差遣副總統擔任行政院長，覬覦行政權力；有朝一日執政擔任行政院院長，就不能明知故犯，成為暗助總統掌控行政權力的推手。還有許許多多的知識分子、學界領袖，也應該時時刻刻要求政治領袖嚴守分際，虛心接受憲法的規範不能因人而異，因黨而異，成為權力政客攫取權力破壞憲法，踐踏憲政的幫凶。
曾經危如纍卵的憲法，只要一息尚存也可經冬回春，彌足恆久。生命力強韌的憲法，就是民主政治的福音；慶幸台灣能夠享受民主的有識之士，應該慶幸台灣有著一部在亞洲國家之中堪稱長壽的民主憲法，任由政治權力強橫，憲政猶能如清風拂岡，明月照江，不絕如縷。
中華民國憲法，六十歲生日快樂！
Ma Ying-jeou: Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China
Ma Ying-jeou: Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2007
The Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party are engaged in a contest of wills over whether to eliminate the Republic of China.
Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh have clarified their respective definitions of the nation. Ma Ying-jeou and the Pan Blue camp define the Republic of China as a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to undergo de jure independence. Therefore it opposes the establishment of a new “Nation of Taiwan.” Ma Ying-jeou has declared he will maintain the status quo, no reunification, no independence, no war. If elected, Ma will not negotiate with Beijing over the issue of reunification for the duration of his term.
Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party argue that the Republic of China is a not normal country, that it is not even a country. Therefore it is necessary to “rectify names and author a new constitution,” eliminating the Republic of China and establishing a new “Nation of Taiwan.” This is the essence of the “Resolution for a Normal Nation.” They want to “rectify names and author a new constitution.” They want to promote Taiwan independence. They want to destroy the Republic of China. When Frank Hsieh visited Japan he said the Democratic Progressive Party expects to win only about 50 seats in the legislature. That is insufficient to amend the constitution. Therefore the “rectification of names” is impossible, and talking about it is nonsense. The Democratic Progressive Party has been making a fuss about “rectifying names and authoring a new constitution” for years. But when has it ever come close to the threshold for amending the constitution?
The Democratic Progressive Party’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” asserts that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Its current name is the Republic of China.” The resolution argues that the “Republic of China is a form of Taiwan independence” (de facto Taiwan independence), therefore there is no need to declare Taiwan independence.But the “Resolution for a Normal Nation” that the Democratic Progressive Party passed this year, demands the “prompt rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution.” It repudiates the Republic of China. It denies that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It demands the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution” (de jure Taiwan independence). Frank Hsieh cannot overrule the “Resolution for a Normal Nation.” He cannot prevent himself from being hijacked by the Democratic Progressive Party.
Tsao Hsing-cheng has encouraged the public to consider a “Plebiscite on Reunification” that would clarify the Blue and Green camps’ respective positions. Tsao Hsing-cheng’s definition of the Republic of China resembles the “Republic of China” referred to in the Democratic Progressive Party’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.” He is willing to accept the Republic of China as de facto Taiwan independence. He does not accept the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution” and “de jure Taiwan independence” because that would bring disaster upon the nation. Tsao Hsing-cheng’s perspective represents the perspective of some Pan Blues. It is also the Democratic Progressive Party’s de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.” However Tsao opposes the Democratic Progressive Party’s taboo “de jure Taiwan independence” expressed in its “Resolution for a Normal Nation.” Ma Ying-jeou’s “no reunification, no independence, no war” position says essentially the same thing.
Therefore, in the struggle between Hsieh and Ma, and between Blue and Green over the definition of the nation, a strange anomaly has appeared. The Blue camp seems to be defending the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in the Democratic Progressive Party’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.” The Democratic Progressive Party meanwhile, has abandoned this line of defense in favor of its “Resolution for a Normal Nation.” The “Resolution for a Normal Nation” denies that either the “Republic of China” nor “Taiwan” enjoys de facto Taiwan independence. Instead, it demands the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution,” in order to achieve de jure Taiwan independence.
As a result, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh has been reduced to its simplest and most basic form: Is it necessary to eliminate the Republic of China? Ma advocates maintaining the Republic of China. Hsieh advocates the “prompt rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution,” arguing that sooner or later it will be necessary to eliminate the Republic of China. He once proposed a “five year timetable for the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution.” Now Hsieh says the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution” is impossible. How can he contradict himself so flagrantly?
As we can see, the Blue and Green camps’ definition of national identity has clearly evolved. For some in the Blue camp the Republic of China means “no reunification, no independence, no war.” Some even advocate the codification of a “Plebiscite on Reunification” in order to “allow Taiwan’s future to be decided by 23 million people.” In fact this has much in common with the DPP’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.” Ma Ying-jeou even said that, in the Kuomintang’s view “Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China.” By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party’s Taiwan independence argument repudiates the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its own “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.” The Resolution for a Normal Nation” does not merely assert that the “Republic of China is not a sovereign and independent nation.” It also asserts that “Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation,” because it still awaits the “rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution.”
In other words, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh, and between the Blue camp and the Green camp, has unconsciously evolved into a Blue camp “de facto independent Taiwan” (The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China). The Green camp meanwhile, demands “de jure Taiwan independence” (the elimination of the Republic of China, the establishment of a Nation of Taiwan). Under the circumstances, the debate between the Blue and Green camps is not over national identity or Taiwan independence. It is over whether to eliminate the Republic of China. After all, if the Democratic Progressive Party was still arguing that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its name is the Republic of China,” then they would already have an “independent Taiwan.” Why bother with “Taiwan independence?” Why demand the elimination of the Republic of China?
This is the question that Frank Hsieh must answer. Since he demands the elimination of the Republic of China, then why is he running for the Republic of China presidency? Why did he declare that he would eliminate the Republic of China within five years? Is this Frank Hsieh’s justification for running for the presidency of the Republic of China?
馬英九：台灣在語義上等於中華民國
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.24 02:13 am
國民黨與民進黨正在進行一場是否要消滅中華民國的角力。
馬謝二人的國家論述已漸成型。馬英九及泛藍方面的論述是：中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再經「法理台獨」，因此反對另建「台灣國」。馬英九並宣示，維持現狀，不統、不獨、不武；他若當選總統，在任內不會與中共談判統一問題。
謝長廷及民進黨的論述則是：中華民國是一不正常的國家，甚至不是一個國家，因此必須「正名制憲」，以消滅中華民國，另建台灣國。此即《正常國家決議文》所主張的，將繼續不斷地搞「正名制憲」，繼續不斷地搞台獨，繼續不斷地毀滅中華民國。至於謝長廷訪日時稱，民進黨未來立委僅五十席左右，未達修憲門檻，因此不可能「修憲正名」，這卻是胡說；試問，民進黨的「正名制憲」鬧到今日地步，何嘗在立院跨過修憲門檻？
民進黨《台灣前途決議文》指出，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」；這是承認「中華民國亦是台獨的一種形式」（實質台獨），因此即不必再宣布「台獨」；但是，至民進黨今年制定《正常國家決議文》，又主張「及早正名制憲」，卻又否定了中華民國，甚至亦否定了「台灣已經是一主權獨立的國家」，所以必須再經「正名制憲」（法理台獨）。謝長廷不能否決《正常國家決議文》，就不能擺脫民進黨的挾持。
曹興誠帶動「統一公投」的討論，使藍綠國家論述的對照更形鮮明。曹興誠似乎直指他的「中華民國」，與民進黨《台灣前途決議文》中所指的「中華民國」頗有交集；他可以接受將「中華民國」視為「實質台獨」，只是不贊同「正名制憲」的「法理台獨」，因為那將為國家帶來災禍。曹興誠的觀點應可代表相當比例的泛藍觀點，也就是認為民進黨應當守住《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」底線，但反對民進黨跨入《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」禁區。馬英九所稱的「不統、不獨、不武」，其實也有這個意味。
於是，在馬謝藍綠國家論述的攻防戰中，出現了奇異的弔詭。藍軍似在全力防守民進黨《台灣前途決議文》「實質台獨」的防線，民進黨卻已棄守此一防線，代之以《正常國家決議文》，否定「中華民國」或「台灣」的「實質台獨」，而認為必須「正名制憲」，以實現「法理台獨」。
這使得馬謝國家論述的辯論，急劇地化約成一個最簡單與最根本的議題：要不要消滅中華民國？馬主張維護中華民國；謝主張「及早正名制憲」，亦即遲早要消滅中華民國，並曾提出「五年後正名制憲」時間表。如今謝又提出「不可能修憲正名」，怎能如此顛三倒四？
有目共睹，藍綠雙方的國家論述已有顯著的演化。就藍營言，中華民國不統、不獨、不武，甚至有人主張將「統一公投」法制化，以落實「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」，這其實已與《台灣前途決議文》有重大交集；馬英九甚至說，依國民黨的看法，「台灣在語義上等於中華民國」。相對而言，民進黨的台獨論述，則撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」，另採《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」，這不但是宣示「中華民國不是主權獨立的國家」，也不啻宣告「台灣亦尚非主權獨立的國家」，因為仍待「正名制憲」。
準此而言，馬謝藍綠的國家論述，竟在不知不覺間，似漸演變成藍主「實質獨台」（中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，台灣在語義上等於中華民國），綠主「法理台獨」（非消滅中華民國不可，亦非另建台灣國不可）的對峙；倘係如此，藍綠的國家論述之辯，其實不是「台獨」與否之辯，而只是一場要不要消滅中華民國的角力。畢竟，如果民進黨仍然承認「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，她的名字叫中華民國」，則「獨台」即可，何必再搞「台獨」？更何必主張非消滅中華民國不可？
這正是謝長廷必須答覆的質疑：既要消滅中華民國，則何必競選中華民國總統？宣示在五年後要消滅中華民國，難道這就是謝長廷競選中華民國總統的正當理由？
