Koh Se-kai's Desertion Under Fire

Koh Se-kai's Desertion Under Fire
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 18, 2008

After days of protests and denials, the Japanese government has finally expressed a willingness to pay compensation and to apologize for ramming and sinking an ROC fishing boat. ROC legislators have canceled their reconnaissance mission to Diaoyutai. The storm has temporarily died down. The most regrettable aspect of this major diplomatic incident, is continued partisan infighting on Taiwan, and the inability of the opposing parties to unite to defend the ROC's national interests.

Representative to Japan Koh Se-kai refused to report to the Legislative Yuan. Instead, along with another legislator, he held a press conference, condemning the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and demanding that it immediately approve his resignation. Koh Se-kai's gesture not only violated the civil service code of ethics, it was a serious dereliction of a diplomatic envoy's sworn duty. The two nations are mired in a controversy. When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled ROC Representative to Japan Koh Se-kai, it was one way for the ROC to bargain with Japan. Yet Koh chose this moment to loudly announce his resignation. He not only deserted his post in the heat of battle, he publicly embarrassed his own government. No competent diplomat would ever betray his own country in such an underhanded manner.

Several Blue Camp legislators denounced Koh Se-kai as a "traitor to Taiwan." Their charges were inappropriate. But as the ROC's diplomatic envoy to Japan, Koh Se-kai is duty-bound to report to the legislature as a whole, not just a few impolite Blue Camp legislators. Yet he used this as an excuse to refuse to report to the Legislative Yuan. This was not merely an act of contempt for the legislature, it was also a dereliction of his solemn duties as a public servant. Therefore no matter how well Koh Se-kai might have performed during his term of office, at the crucial moment he let his country down. He came up short. He neglected his duties. He failed to speak on behalf of his country.

Koh Se-kai's dereliction of duty was rooted not merely in his possession of a "Sakura Card," i.e., Permanent Resident status in Japan, but in his Taiwan independence and Japanophilic orientation. Blue vs. Green animosity, aggravated by the recent change in ruling parties, with encouragement from Green Camp legislators, motivated Koh Se-kai's rash behavior. From Koh Se-kai's "sounding of retreat" we can see that diplomatic envoys are not the only ones afflicted with cognitive disorders. Partisan politics on Taiwan is rife with such befuddlement. Otherwise
how could the ruling and opposition parties indulge in partisan bickering when the nation is confronted by an external threat?

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' recall of Koh Se-kai during the confrontation is a commonplace means of diplomatic protest. It was directed at Japan. Who knew Koh Se-kai would conclude it was directed at him? Who knew he would interpret it as an expression of new administration dissatisfaction with his performance, and as an attempt to humiliate him? Given his failure to distinguish between public and private issues, it is little wonder he failed to understand his solemn duty. As his country's Representative to Japan, Koh Se-kai should have been loyal to his nation and his government. Instead he was loyal only to the DPP. He defied the new administration's directives. Some people said his most significant achievement while in office was to successfully cast Ma Ying-jeou as an "anti-Japanese element." With diplomats such as this stationed in foreign countries, how can we possibly uphold our nation's larger interests?

The Chen Shui-bian regime has ripped apart society with eight years of Blue vs. Green demagoguery. What's worse, it has led the nation on a Quixotic political quest, for an unattainable goal. For eight years the DPP has been shouting "We love Taiwan." In fact, their shrill declarations of love for Taiwan have merely enabled them to question the loyalty of anyone "not one of us." They trumpeted their "bull in a china shop" diplomacy and their "scorched earth" diplomacy, but turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to challenges to ROC sovereignty, fishing rights and human rights. Koh Se-kai's desertion under fire is hardly an isolated case. It represents the DPP's befuddlement regarding national identity. They dare not proclaim sovereignty over Diaoyutai. They dare not argue on behalf of Taiwanese fishermen when their rights and interests are violated. When diplomats stationed in foreign countries are recalled to testify before the legislature, they play the partisan card. So the question is: How exactly does the DPP love Taiwan?

The Diaoyutai incident has triggered an island wide political storm. It has highlighted the island's identity crisis. If the nation is unable to unite in the face of threats to its sovereignty, how will it cope when confronted by more severe tests? The opposition party is hardly the sole culprit. Ruling party legislators have also stirred up trouble, clamoring for war and demanding the dispatch of troops. They have increased the executive branch's already heavy burden. This is hardly the way a ruling party should behave.

The current storm had a favorable outcome, primarily because incontrovertible evidence showed that a Japanese warship rammed and sank an ROC fishing boat. The new administration was therefore able to use public anger to demand justice. The rights and interests of the fishing boat owner will probably be protected, but the underlying problem remains unsolved. It is said that diplomacy is an extension of domestic politics. The soft power wielded by our civil society and our economic system can help increase the ROC's inadequate diplomatic breathing space. But irrational partisan bickering could become a burden for foreign policy. The Koh Se-kai incident has added a new wrinkle to the Diaoyutai incident, and is something the ruling and opposition parties must consider as part of the larger picture.

許世楷臨陣棄守：談大使的操持與風骨
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.06.18 03:08 am

經過連日抗議折衝，日本政府就撞沉我海釣船事件表示賠償及致歉之意，我立委亦相應取消乘艦巡弋釣魚台之行，此一風波應可暫告平息。但令人遺憾的是，在這樣重大的外交事件中，台灣內部依舊沉酣於黨派之鬥，不能一致捍衛國家權益。

駐日代表許世楷拒絕列席立院報告，卻在綠營立委陪同下另舉行記者會，以幾近嗆聲的方式要求外交部准他辭職。許世楷此舉，不僅違背了行政倫理，更嚴重喪失了一個駐外使節的本分。試想，兩國正處於爭議狀態，許世楷被外交部「召回」即是我國對日交涉的手段之一；他竟然在此際高喊辭職，不僅形同陣前棄守，也等於公然給自己的政府難堪。任何稱職的外交官，都不該做出這種有辱自己國家的事。

若干藍軍立委罵許世楷為「台奸」，當然是自失格調的批評。但作為駐日使節，許世楷在體制上要面對的是整體國會，而非少數失禮的藍軍立委；他以此為由拒赴立院，不僅藐視了國會，也輕忽了己身公職所承擔的嚴肅義務。從這點看，不管許世楷在駐日任內的表現如何，但他在最關鍵的時刻棄守，實已功虧一簣，有虧他對外「代表國家」的使節職守。

許世楷失格失態的表現，除緣於他仍持有日本「櫻花卡」備遭批評外，主要是他的獨派色彩和親日背景，再加上政黨輪替帶來的「藍綠政治」情結作祟，遂使他在綠營立委慫恿下作出突兀的舉措。事實上，從許世楷的「陣前喊退」，我們看到的不僅是一位駐外使節的認知錯亂，我們更看到台灣政黨政治的畸形對立；否則，在國家面對外在危機時，朝野怎麼還有閒情酣於內鬥，互扯後腿？

外交部在折衝過程將許世楷「召回」，這原是外交上常見的抗議手段，是針對日本而發；孰料，許世楷卻將此舉視為針對他而來，認為新政府不滿意他的表現，故意藉機羞辱他。如此公私夾纏，一個使節的角色認知如何可能準確？更核心的問題是，許世楷作為駐日代表，應該效忠國家和政府；但他卻似乎選擇只效忠民進黨，抗拒新政府的指令。甚至有人說他駐日期間最大的績效之一，就是把馬英九塑造成「反日分子」。這樣的駐外使節，對於國家整體利益要如何維持？

追根究柢，扁政府過去八年的藍綠政治，不僅把社會帶向撕裂，更把國家推向茫然的追求。民進黨八年高喊的「愛台灣」，其實只是方便自己質疑異己人士的忠貞；它大肆鼓吹「衝撞外交」、「烽火外交」，對關涉台灣主權、漁權乃至人權的問題卻裝聾作啞。許世楷的臨陣脫逃，豈止是他個人角色的迷失，也是民進黨的國家認同迷航。試想，若連釣魚台的主權都不敢宣示，若連漁民權益受損都無法據理力爭，若連駐外使節返國報告都要論政黨顏色，民進黨愛的是什麼樣的台灣？

從釣魚台的涉外事件，竟引發島內的政治風波，也凸顯了台灣深沉的整合危機：如果面對國家主權問題，內部都不能齊一腳步；未來若遭遇更嚴峻的考驗時，台灣能集中力量應付嗎？別說是在野黨的杯葛，且看執政黨立委這次的表現，其間任意起鬨瞎鬧者有之，信口開河叫囂出兵一戰者有之，讓行政部門窮於應付，哪裡看得出一個執政黨國會黨團應有的表現？

說實在，這次風波能有今天的交涉成果，主要是我漁船釣客對日艦的蠻橫衝撞充分蒐證，新政府才能藉助民氣，據理折衝。聯合號的權益雖然可望獲得維護，但這片惡水上的問題依然懸而未決。過去我們常說，外交是「內政的延續」，透過民間或經濟的軟實力，政府可有效延伸台灣不足的外交空間；但在非理性的惡鬥下，內政恐怕將成為「外交的包袱」。許世楷事件成為釣魚台風波的併發症，值得朝野兩黨從大局再深思。