US: Chen Shui-bian has betrayed Taiwan's Interests

US: Chen Shui-bian has betrayed Taiwan's Interests
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 13, 2007

Thomas J. Christensen is US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Christensen's comments on the "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan" reveal a central theme: The US considers Chen Shui-bian a betrayer of Taiwan's interests. [Note: according to the ROC Constitution, the "referendum" is actually a "plebiscite"]

By extension, the US believes that the Taiwan independence movement has also betrayed Taiwan's interests. By further extension, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which advocates Taiwan independence, is also a traitor to Taiwan's interests.

Over the past 15 days, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, White House National Security Council senior official Dennis Wilder, and now John Christensen, have commented on the "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan." All three expressed the same viewpoint. The "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan" amounts to a "referendum for Taiwan Independence." It changes the name of the nation and it changes the status quo. And Taiwan independence is not in Taiwan's interest.

Christensen underscored the significance of the three officials' comments. The US has already drawn a clear distinction between Chen Shui-bian and the Chen regime on the one hand, and the "Taiwan people" on the other hand. The US opposes Chen Shui-bian's manipulative "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan." It has reiterated its friendship with the "Taiwan people" and is attempting to communicate directly with the "Taiwan people." It unreservedly pointed out that the Chen regime's "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan" has betrayed "the interests of the Taiwan people."

Christensen did not mince words expressing disappointment with the Chen regime. He said he had no desire to pubicly disparage the Chen regime's policies. But he had exhausted all private means of persuasion and was compelled to ensure that the "Taiwan people" understood America's point of view. He said "we anticipate that Taiwan’s perceptive, intelligent citizens will see through the rhetoric and make a sound judgment that the referendum does not serve their interests because it will be fundamentally harmful to Taiwan’s external relations."

These three spokespersons for the US emphasized the friendship and commitments the "American people" have made to the "Taiwan people." All three officials stressed that what the US refers to as "Taiwan's interests" truly are Taiwan's interests. By implication they were stressing that Chen Shui-bian was a betrayer of Taiwan's interests. They were saying that when the time comes, the Taiwan people must choose between Taiwan's interests and Chen Shui-bian's interests.

According to these three spokespersons, maintaining peace in the Taiwan Straits and safeguarding Taiwan's democracy and prosperity are in the interests of the Taiwan people. therefore it has betrayed the interests of the Taiwan people. Christensen came right out and denounced the "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan" as motivated merely by "short-term political gain" and intended merely for internal consumption. The "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan" will limit, not expand Taiwan’s international space. It will be regarded as a violation of a pledge to the US and to the international community. His unspoken implication was: Does Taiwan still want American as its friend? Does Taiwan want to defy the entire international community?

Christensen publicly debunked "rumors" that the US and the Chinese Communist Party had "coordinated" Taiwan Straits policy. He told Chen Shui-bian there is no need for a "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan" to exploit "Sinophobia." The first thing Chen ought to confront is the "anti-Americanism" he provoked. Christensen said that Washington's Taiwan Straits policy was not guided by Taipei. Chen Shui-bian should not imagine that he could dictate US policy in the Taiwan Straits. Christensen said "we do not accept the argument that provocative assertions of Taiwan independence are in any way conducive to maintenance of the status quo or peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait." His implication was that Chen Shui-bian had better not imagine he could drag the US down with it.

Christensen debunked the Taiwan independence movement's self-pitying "international orphan" act. He said that Taiwan became a first world, democratic, commercial powerhouse under the status quo. By implication, under the "status quo of the Republic of China." This status quo is the cornerstone of Taiwan's democracy and prosperity. Yet the Taiwan independence movement wants to change this status quo. Christensen rejected the accusation that the U.S. position on the referendum constitutes interference in Taiwan’s democracy. He rejected Chen's claims that "democracy recognizes no limitations." He said the reality is that democracies can and do disagree over policies. While democracy can advocate Taiwan independence, democracy can also oppose Taiwan independence. The DPP would have the world believe that "opposition to Taiwan independence is opposition to democracy." Obviously the US doesn't agree.

Christensen elaborated on the ROC's national defense and military affairs. He pointed out something everyone knows: If one's Taiwan Straits policy is mistaken, then all one's armaments are in vain. Christensen emphasized international reality. He did not comment on Taiwan's crisis of national identity. But he might well have. After all, when one has no idea whom one is fighting for, or what one is fighting for, what is the purpose of an extravagant defense budget?

Christensen said that needlessly provocative actions by Taipei strengthen Beijing’s hand in limiting Taipei's international space, and scare away potential friends who might help Taipei. This heart-to-heart talk focused on "Taiwan's interests." So how did Chen Shui-bian respond to US concerns over the "referendum on joining the UN under the name Taiwan?" He said: "Who's afraid of whom?"

Sixty years of Washington/Taipei relations. Erased by a single "Who's afraid of whom?" from Chen Shui-bian. Is this in the interest of the Chinese people on Taiwan?

美國觀點：陳水扁是台灣利益的背叛者
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.13 03:41 am

細讀美國國務院東亞副助卿柯慶生對「入聯公投」的評論，若要從中歸納出一個核心觀點，那就是：美國認為，陳水扁是台灣利益的背叛者。

若再引伸其可以演繹的意義，那就是：美國認為，台獨是台灣利益的背叛者，主張台獨的民進黨也是台灣利益的背叛者。

十五天內，國務院奈葛彭、白宮韋德寧，與此番柯慶生密集接續對「入聯公投」發言，而三人論述的主旨皆呈現同一觀點，那就是：「入聯公投」是變更國號與改變現狀的「台獨公投」，而台獨是違反台灣利益的。

柯慶生並將三人論述的一個共同點再加強調。那就是，美國在「入聯公投」事件中，已將陳水扁、陳水扁政府與「台灣人民」作出區隔。美國反對陳水扁操弄「入聯公投」，但也重申與「台灣人民」的友誼；並嘗試直接與「台灣人民」對話，毫不保留地指出陳水扁政府的「入聯公投」已違反「台灣人民的利益」。

柯慶生亦毫不掩飾對陳水扁政府的失望。他說，他並不願公開表達與陳水扁政府的政策歧見，而是在窮盡了所有的私密途徑後始被迫出此，俾使台灣民眾明白美國的看法。他甚至說：「希望台灣人民能夠看穿（入聯公投）這套政治說辭……，並能明確分辨這項公投不符台灣利益，因為它將根本傷害台灣對外關係。」

代表美官方發言的這三人，皆一再強調「美國人民」對「台灣人民」的友誼及承諾。當三人反覆陳述美國所稱的「台灣利益」始是真正的「台灣利益」、又同時隱指陳水扁其實是「台灣利益」的背叛者之時，儼然是在訴諸台灣民眾，值此關鍵時刻，應在美國或陳水扁何者正確解讀並維護台灣利益，作一裁判及選擇。

在三人的論述中，維持台海的和平與安全以保障台灣的民主與繁榮，就是台灣人民的利益；但「入聯公投」的台獨動作，將危及台海的和平與安全，因此違反了台灣人民的利益。柯慶生更直接指出，「入聯公投」只是為了「短期政治利益」，只有「內部政治操作的效用」；但是，就台灣人民的利益而言，「入聯公投」將使台灣的國際處境更形惡化；因為，那會被視為，發動「入聯公投」者不能嚴肅面對他們對美國及國際社會的承諾。言下之意即是，台灣還要不要美國這個朋友？台灣難道要對整個國際社會造反？

柯慶生又公開澄清美國與中共「協調」台海政策的「謠言」；其弦外之音是，告訴陳水扁，勿須將「入聯公投」操作成「反中議題」，先應面對他正在發動的「反美風潮」。再者，柯慶生又說，美國的台海政策亦不須由台北來「界定」；這更是要陳水扁別想在台海政策上對美國下指導棋。緊接此話，柯慶生又說，「美國不接受台獨的挑釁有助於維持台海現狀及兩岸和平的論點」；言下之意正是，陳水扁勿妄想拖美國下水。

柯慶生並直言拆穿台獨以「國際孤兒」訴諸政治悲情的手法。他說，台灣成為世界一流的民主政體及繁榮經濟，皆是立足在「現狀」之上。若引伸此言，則應是指立足於「中華民國」的「現狀」，即是台灣民主與繁榮的基石，台獨則是欲改變此一「現狀」。柯慶生更反駁美國「干涉內政」及「民主沒有紅線」的說法。他說，在民主政治中，當然可以反對政策；此意是指，民主可以主張台獨，民主也可以反對台獨。如今民進黨操作成「反台獨即是反民主」的政治氛圍，顯非美國所能認同。

柯慶生亦以相當篇幅論述台灣的國防與軍事。他指出了一個常識：倘若台海政策錯誤，再強的軍備亦枉然。唯柯慶生強調的是國際情勢，卻未論及台灣的國家認同錯亂至此，既不知為誰而戰，亦不知為何而戰，更如何奢論國防？

柯慶生說，無必要的挑釁將強化北京限制台灣空間的腕力，並嚇跑可能幫助台灣的潛在朋友。這些肺腑之言，自皆是以「台灣利益」為著眼。但是，且聽陳水扁昨日對美國關切「入聯公投」如何回應，他說：「怕什麼怕！」

六十年的美台關係，就被陳水扁一句「怕什麼怕」貶成了一文不值，這是否符合台灣利益？