Liberate Cross-Strait Economic and Trade Debate from Word Games

Liberate Cross-Strait Economic and Trade Debate from Word Games
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 3, 2008

The Blue camp and the Green camp hold sharply differing views on cross-strait policy. But so far during the presidential election, the two sides have not clashed head-on. At least not until the eve of the first political debate, when sparks began to fly. Unfortunately during this confrontation, as during the earlier debate on economic policy, each side merely stated its own views. We have yet to see the two camps express different positions during a substantive debate. The issues remain lost in a linguistic fog.

At the very beginning of the debate, Frank Hsieh equated the Ma camp's "Cross-Strait Common Market" with a "One China Market." This is typical "Chenspeak." The first person to speak of a "Cross-Strait Common Market" was none other than Chen Shui-bian himself. Such word games can easily lead to a loss of focus during a debate. The two sides lingered far too long on whether the Ma and Siew ticket ever used the expression, "One China Market." Little was said about the validity of their position. Frank Hsieh's substitution of "One China" for "Cross-Strait" turned the position into a straw man he could pummel at will. Such sophistry may be a shrewd tactic during an ordinary debate. But watching Hsieh squander valuable time on a non-issue during a presidential debate was deeply discouraging.

Ma Ying-jeou is attempting to inspire hope among voters by promoting a cross-strait "common market." Hsieh, on the other hand, is determined to characterize Ma's proposal as a "One China Market," to cast aspersions on it, arousing voters' fears for the future. Both arguments can be elaborated. For example, after cross-strait links are opened, Hsieh could champion sectors of society victimized by the resulting competition. But he is clearly not interested in that. Support for cross-strait links is what distinguishes Frank Hsieh from Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian deliberately relaxed his cross-strait policy to accommodate Hsieh's presidential bid. Yet Hsieh has now turned around and adopted "Chenspeak." He has blasted the Ma/Hsiao ticket's "One-China Market" policy as inconsistent. In fact, Hsieh is the one who is being inconsistent. Hsieh is the one who is flip-flopping.

Whether one refers to the cross-strait market a "Cross-Strait Common Market" or a "One China Market," the fact remains that it is a market and operates by the rules of the market. Last year's cross-strait trade growth was amazing, reaching 102.3 billion US dollars. Taiwan enjoyed a record trade surplus relative to the mainland that reached reached 46.26 billion US dollars. Cross-strait import and export trade heated up. Export dependence on the mainland exceeded 30% for the first time since 2007. The mainland is now Taiwan's largest trading partner, its largest export market, and its largest source of trade surplus.

In other words, even if one assumes that the Democratic Progressive Party has been practicing an "effective management" policy over the past eight years, it has nevertheless been unable to reduce cross-strait trade relative to total trade. If we were to eliminate cross-strait trade, Taiwan's export growth would turn negative. Cross-strait trade is ruled by market factors.

Given the high degree of interdependence between the two sides, the potential outbreak of hostilities is cause for concern. Hsieh compared Taiwan's economic and trade dependence upon the mainland with a diabetes patient's dependence upon insulin. His comparison was not entirely unjustified. But this interdependence is not something that worries only the Green Camp. The mainland authorities could conceivably impose sanctions upon Taiwan, waging a large-scale trade war. Both sides are WTO Member States. Both sides are subject to the interdependence that accompanies global trade. If the mainland authorities initiate a trade war with Taiwan, they themselves would be harmed. What's truly alarming is the Democratic Progressive Party's Closed Door Policy. This is what mired Taiwan in cross-strait economic interdependence in the first place, and deprived it of any latitude or initiative. This is what turned it into a diabetes patient who must receive insulin injections every day. If one refuses to regulate one's diet, if one refuses to exercise, how is one going to get well?

How many Taiwan businessmens' plans for regional operations centers and R&D centers have been cancelled because direct flights were prohibited? How many Taiwan businessmens' fervent hopes that the government would provide cross-strait investment assurances, only to have the government accuse them of being "Chi-Com Collaborators?" How many Taiwan businessmen, fearing government persecution, will not allow their capital to return to Taiwan? How many Taiwan businessmen fear that once the "ASEAN plus Three" free trade agreements are implemented, taxes on Taiwan's exports to the mainland will be higher than for other regions? How many tourism, shipping, and hotel industry magnates, seeing the rapid growth of Hong Kong and Macao, can only shake their heads and sigh?

What should the two presidential candidates be doing? Should they be debating the substance of cross-strait economic and trade policy? Or should they remain mired in pointless word games?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.03.03
讓兩岸經貿議題擺脫語言遊戲的糾纏
中時社論

　儘管藍綠陣營在兩岸政策的立場分歧最大，但總統大選啟動迄今，雙方在這個環節上其實還未真正交過火。直到前天的首場公辦政見會，才出現了些許火花。很可惜的是，這種交鋒就像先前論辯經濟政策一樣，都只是點到為止。嚴格地說，我們並沒有看到兩大陣營有就彼此立場的不同進行實質對話，因為這場交鋒有很大一部分，還是糾纏在語言的迷霧裡。

　謝長廷在辯論時，一開始就將馬陣營所主張的「兩岸共同市場」等同於「一中市場」。這是很典型的扁式語法，畢竟最早將「兩岸共同市場」如此框架的正是陳水扁。這種語言遊戲當然也很容易的就讓討論失了焦，雙方光停留在馬蕭兩人究竟有無說過「一中市場」這句話就耗去了許多時間，真正實質的討論，著墨其實不多。這種以「一中」巧妙置換「兩岸」的做法，彷彿是紮了個稻草人在那裡猛打，在尋常辯論上或許是高明手法，但在涉及競逐總統大位的辯論會上，也一再要將寶貴的時間虛擲在這上面，委實是令人失望的。

　馬英九基本上是企圖藉由倡議兩岸形成「共同市場」，喚起選民對未來的「希望」，而謝長廷則是有意藉由對「一中市場」的負面訴求，激起選民對未來的某種「恐懼」。這兩種訴求的本身都是可以發展論述的，譬如謝長廷很可以在兩岸開放後，對競爭立足點較占弱勢的族群如何自處上多做發揮，但他顯然對此興趣不大。耐人尋味的是，尋求兩岸政策開放，正是謝長廷藉以區隔他與陳水扁不同的主要著力點，而陳水扁最近刻意在兩岸政策上採行放鬆政策，配合謝的用意至為明顯，結果謝卻在此刻回頭挪用扁式的語言風格，他批判馬蕭對「一中市場」說法的前後不一致，其實他自己前後所呈現的不一致，才真的是立場上的游移。

　事實上，兩岸不論是要叫「共同市場」，還是「一中市場」，都承認了一個現實，即兩岸間已經很難再擺脫「市場」法則的宰制。根據統計，僅以去年兩岸貿易成長為例，數量就已相當的驚人，全年貿易總值不但攀升至一○二三億美元大關，台灣對大陸享有的順差金額也創下歷史新高，狂飆至四六二．六億美元，兩岸進出口貿易往來熱絡，導致對大陸出口依存度也在九十六年首度突破三成，比重達三○．一％。大陸已經穩居台灣第一大貿易夥伴、第一大出口市場以及最大順差來源。

　換言之，僅就兩岸經貿依存度而論，就算民進黨過去八年都採行了「有效管理」政策，還是不能降低兩岸經貿在總體貿易總額上的比重，甚至如果扣去了兩岸經貿的這一部分，台灣的出口就立即變成負成長，這種局面不就是「市場」造成的嗎？

　這種高度的依存關係，如果雙方還存有敵意，當然會令人擔憂。謝長廷用糖尿病患者與胰島素的關係來比喻台灣對大陸經貿關係的依賴，不是完全沒有道理。問題是這種依存關係，其實並不太會出現綠營所憂慮的，有一天中共可能藉由大規模的貿易戰來制裁台灣，以兩岸現今皆為ＷＴＯ的會員國，再加上全球貿易的相互依存度，中共若對台灣輕易啟動貿易戰，它自己也會受到重傷。今天真正令人擔憂的，恰恰好是民進黨的鎖國政策，讓台灣處在這種兩岸經貿依存日趨加深的境地，完全喪失靈活調整的主動性，正好像一名糖尿病患者除了天天打胰島素外，既不忌口，也不運動，病有可能會好嗎？

　試問，有多少台商因為一直盼不到直航，連營運總部與研發中心都陸續撤離了台灣？有多少台商熱切昐望政府能出面為他們催生兩岸投資保障協定，但政府卻一直扣他們紅帽子？有多少台商因畏懼政府處分而寧可不讓資金再回流台灣？有多少台商一直擔憂東協加三的自由貿易協定正式實施後，台灣出口大陸產品的課稅將高於其他地區？有多少觀光業者、航運業者與旅館業者眼看著港澳快速成長，只能無奈的搖頭嘆息？

　談到這裡，兩位總統候選人對兩岸經貿政策的辯論，是該針對實質內容加以議論，還是要一再陷入無謂的語言遊戲糾纏，難道還不夠清楚嗎？