Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan Independence Makeup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

謝長廷說，「入聯公投」已經發動：「現在即使陳總統來談，也無法說停就停！」

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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