Without Economic Prosperity, Forget Talk of Dignity

Without Economic Prosperity, Forget Talk of Dignity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 16, 2007

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh held his first press conference after two weeks of seclusion. He again raised the Plebiscite to Join the UN issue and challenged Ma Ying-jeou to a debate. He proposed that whoever lost would withdraw his proposal for the UN plebiscite. The Ma camp believes that economic issues are the key. According to reports, the Hsieh camp issued its Plebiscite to Join the UN challenge because it "feels the Plebiscite to Join the UN can rally voter support, therefore it no longer wishes to discuss its former proposal for an Economy of Affluence." The DPP's official line is that political issues are being given priority over economic problem because "Taiwanese are not domestic animals," therefore "dignity" is more important than the economy. For the past decade, the DPP has not raised a single issue worth putting before the people. This includes their Plebiscite to Join the UN. Therefore besides criticizing it, we have nothing more to say.

The Republic of China is not a member of the United Nations or the World Bank. The ROC national flag is not allowed on the Olympic Games awards podium. This is unfair to ROC citizens on Taiwan. ROC national leaders must demand international breathing room. Be that as it may, one cannot treat these issues as child's play. One cannot resort to a crude, bull in a china shop approach, giving no thought to international repercussions. One cannot demand that the Plebiscite to Join the UN become the main theme of the 2008 presidential campaign. If the DPP does this, that is evidence of their own decadence, and a tragedy for the Chinese people on Taiwan. Such a campaign strategy contains several blind spots:

First. The Plebiscite to Join the UN or Plebiscite to Rejoin the UN are not issues to be decided by us unilaterally. Anyone who understands the international situation knows this. The ROC's biggest obstacle to rejoining the United Nations is the PRC. It also depends on the attitude of major nations such as the US, Japan, the UK. Anyone with any sense knows this. Even if the government bought full page ads in the New York Times for an entire month, even if it pasted Plebiscite to Join the UN posters on a million telephone poles, even if it submitted membership applications to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 100 times, the chance of these major nations changing their minds would be miniscule. The ROC government's international influence is marginal. This is an international reality. Weaker regimes must depend on their wits to protect their interests. This is the meaning of the expression "Only the wise can do much with little." In any event, a plebiscite involving a few million people on the Island of Taiwan may allow "us" to vent our spleen against "them," but it cannot change the strategic realities. The DPP wants to link an important issue like the presidential election with a hollow issue like the Plebiscite to Join the UN. This is obviously not a struggle for dignity, but mere demagoguery. This is reason number one why we cannot endorse the DPP's demands.

Next, assuming the ROC government is determined to use its international allies to force its way into the United Nations, it will have to depend on its economic clout. If Taiwan had a hundred entrepreneurs on the level of Morris Chang, Stan Shi, and Kuo Tai-min, then by means of their global influence, the ROC government's chances of making friends and establishing foreign relations would be somewhat greater. In short, the ROC's international breathing room is directly related to our economic clout. If we engage in never-ending political struggles, burning money, selling off our birthright, cutting taxes while increasing deficits, undermining the economic environment, this will lead to the flight of foreign capital. Our economic strength will deteriorate, to the detriment of the ROC's international breathing room. The economy is the ROC's lifeblood. A strong economy is our best safeguard. The Frank Hsieh camp equates economic prosperity with the feeding of domestic animals. Democratic political candidates who harbor such attitudes are rare. Can demagoguing the Plebiscite to Join the UN really replace the nation's lifeblood? This is reason number two why we cannot endorse the DPP's demands.

Furthermore, based on the analysis of American experts, the DPP's Plebiscite to Join the UN, obviously contains a double meaning. It obviously means both joining the UN and changing the name of the nation. The public on Taiwan might agree with the Plebiscite to Join the UN. But it does not agree on changing the name of the nation. On that issue it is clearly divided into to opposing camps. Everyone knows these two opposing camps will not change their views any time soon. Therefore any issue that takes the "rectification of names" as its essential theme, is a zero sum game. It will polarize the public along north vs. south lines, reunificaiton vs. independence lines, and "loving Taiwan" vs. "not loving Taiwan" lines. This nativist "recification of names" demagoguery is the reason Taiwan has been so divided in recent years. The nature of zero sum games is that if you lose, I win, if I lose, you win. It is the antithesis of Reconciliation and Coexistence. The Plebiscite to Join the UN is a zero sum game. By contrast, economic development makes the pie bigger, and creates a win/win scenario. In choosing between the Plebiscite to Join the UN or the economic well-being of the people, is anyone still confused about which is preferable?

Frank Hsieh has long advocated Reconciliation and Coexistence. Public reception of his proposal has been positive. The public hopes he can set aside the no win issues of reunification vs. independence, rectification of names, and the authoring of a new constitution, and offer a new blueprint to rebuild the economy. Unfortunately, Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang have been hijacked by Chen Shui-bian or Yu Hsi-kuen. Now, six months from the election, the ruling party has already decided that next year's election will be inconclusive, futile, self-defeating, and divisive. Not only that, it intends to resort to demagogic taunts such as "You don't dare champion Taiwan independence, only I do!" This is the sorry fate of Taiwan.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.10.15
沒經濟實力還奢談什麼尊嚴
中時社論

　民進黨總統候選人謝長廷在閉關近兩周後的首次記者會，就重新揭舉入聯公投的議題，並要求馬英九出面辯論，誰辯輸了就要公投撤案。馬陣營則認為經濟問題才是關鍵。謝陣營之所以要以入聯公投向馬下戰帖，據了解，是因為他們「感受到入聯公投更能激發支持者動力，所以不再談先前提出的『幸福經濟』」。據報載，民進黨高層認為政治問題比經濟問題優先，因為「台灣人民不是畜生」，尊嚴比經濟重要。坦白說，如果民進黨近十年來除了正名制憲之外就再無值得向人民訴求的議題，則我們除了批判之外，也就不會再有別的立場了。

　台灣不是聯合國會員、不是世衛與世銀成員、國旗上不了奧運頒獎台，這些事對台灣人民絕對不公平，國家領導人也絕對需要向國際爭取台灣的空間。但即便如此，也不能用兒戲的、粗糙的、暴虎馮河的、不顧國際後果的方式，硬要在二○○八總統大選把入聯公投當成選戰主軸。民進黨若要這樣做，那是他們的墮落，卻也是台灣人民的悲哀。這樣的選戰操作，至少有以下幾個盲點：

　首先，入聯或返聯能否成功，絕不是一個操之在我的簡單問題。任何了解國際形勢的人都知道，台灣進聯合國最大的障礙在中國大陸，也繫於美、日、英、法等國際大國的態度。任何人用膝蓋想想都知道，台灣就算在紐約時報連登一個月全版廣告、就算把入聯貼紙貼滿百萬根電線桿、就算致函潘基文上百次，這些大國改變態度的機會都微乎其微。台灣在國際上是小國，這是國際現實。小國要向外爭權益要靠智慧，所謂「惟智者能以小事大」，就是這個意思。無論如何，在台灣島內搞個幾百萬人公民投票，固然自己人可以同仇敵愾，但卻改變不了外在形勢。民進黨要把選總統這等正經大事，綁上了一個無法改變結果的公投虛議題，這擺明了就不是要爭尊嚴，而是在玩操弄，這是我們無法茍同的理由之一。

　其次，台灣若真要在國際上拉幫結派、硬闖聯合國，無論如何得靠經濟實力。如果台灣有上百位像張忠謀、施振榮、郭台銘這一級的企業家，則透過他們在全世界的影響力，台灣對外拉關係、套交情的機會就會大一些。簡單地說，台灣的國際空間，絕對與我們的經濟實力成正比。如果我們整天在拚政治、胡亂燒鈔票、賣祖產、頻減稅、濫增財政赤字，使經濟環境惡化，則廠商外移、國力日差，當然是更不利於台灣國際空間的拓展。經濟是台灣的命脈，唯有堅強的經濟實力才是我們最大的保障。謝長廷陣營把民生命脈貶抑比喻為畜生的低等需求，這是全世界民主國家候選人所罕見。難道炒作入聯公投的政治議題，竟可以把命根子也炒掉嗎？這是我們無法茍同的理由之二。

　再者，依據美國專家的解析，民進黨推動的台灣入聯公投，很顯然的兼具「入聯」與「更改國號」雙重意義。台灣人民對於入聯當然共識甚高，但是對於更改國號，則就區分為明顯對立的兩個群體。大家也都了解，這相互對立的兩群人在短時間內根本不可能改變立場。因此，一項以「正名」為本質的議題，絕對是一個零和賽局－雙方的戰略就是要區分南北、統獨、愛台與不愛台。這樣的本土正名操作，就是台灣過去數年撕裂分化的源頭。事實上，零和賽局的特色，就是你輸即我贏，我輸即你贏，整體而言絕無共生和解。入聯議題有前述零和虛耗的特性，但相對而言，經濟建設卻是在把餅做大，創造共贏的局面。入聯議題與民生經濟議題孰優孰劣，難道還不清楚嗎？

　謝長廷先生一向主張和解共生，外界對此理想評價很高，寄盼他能走出統獨、正名、制憲的零和格局，提出建設台灣的大理想與新藍圖。遺憾的是，不知是陳水扁綁架了謝長廷、還是游錫？強擄了蘇貞昌，現在離大選還有近半年，堂堂一個執政黨，就已經為明年大選設定了一個注定沒有結果、注定虛耗、注定零和、注定撕裂的主軸。不但如此，還要以「你就是不敢喊台灣、我才敢」的言語挑釁來挑起民粹情緒。這難道不是台灣人的悲哀嗎？