How Would the DPP Have People Respond to ASEAN Plus Three?

How Would the DPP Have People Respond to ASEAN Plus Three?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 25, 2009

Last weekend the Presidential Office and the Straits Exchange Foundation held a Conference on Financial and Economic Affairs, and a Conference on National Affairs. The question of whether the Taipei and Beijing should sign a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) led to yet another confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties. The government intends to promote CECA. The Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union vehemently oppose it.

In fact, ASEAN plus One, the One being Beijing, or ASEAN plus Three, the Three being Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul, all came into being during the Democratic Progressive Party's eight year regime. An Internet search will show that during this eight-year period, both ruling and opposition party cognoscenti were aware of the situation. Even the Chen administration's economic and trade officials and research organizations issued stern warnings. But during its eight years in power, the DPP government deliberately sat on this life and death issue. It never warned the public about the dangers or put the issue up for public discussion. The situation has deteriorated to where it is now a matter of extreme urgency. The DPP not only refuses to apologize to the public for the past eight years, all it is willing to do is say "No!"

Next year ASEAN plus One will implement mutual exemption of tariffs. In 2012 ASEAN plus Three will do the same. The population of ASEAN plus Three totals two billion. It will be the world's most populous free trade body. If it develops into ASEAN plus Six, adding India, Australia, and New Zealand, its population will total 3.1 billion, over half the world. Taipei has close economic and trade ties to these Asia-Pacific nations. Exports and trade with them constitute over half of Taiwan's total exports and trade. We have to ask the DPP: If the public on Taiwan is excluded from an economic framework consisting of two to three billion people, does it have any chance of survival?

The Democratic Progressive Party may object to CECA. But it cannot deny the impact of ASEAN plus N on Taiwan's economic lifeblood. Therefore if the Democratic Progressive Party want to oppose CECA, it must offer the people an alternative.

The Democratic Progressive Party's fatal illness is that when asked to offer strategies for the nation's survival, it knows only how to say no. It is unable to offer any viable alternatives. For example, the DPP knows only how to repudiate the Republic of China, even when it is obvious that Taiwan Independence and the establishment of a Nation of Taiwan is not a viable alternative. Today, the Democratic Progressive Party opposes CECA. But it hasn't offered the public any alternative. Are we to understand that the DPP's "alternative" is Taiwan Independence and the establishment of a Nation of Taiwan?

Does the DPP intend to oppose CECA regardless of the consequences? Or is it willing to conditionally endorse CECA? For example, is the DPP opposed only to articles within CECA that it says "harm our sovereignty?" Is it willing to endorse CECA upon the condition that it does not "harm our sovereignty?" Is the DPP willing to endorse CECA on the express or tacit understanding that Beijing will not prevent Taipei's participation in ASEAN or Taipei's signing of FTAs with other nations, and that CECA will not run the risk of tying Taipei's hands. The DPP need no longer play the role of "Mr. No." It should consider playing a positive role, one that will win it points. If it wants to keep saying no, the Democratic Progressive Party must offer a viable alternative. It cannot "just say no."

Tsai Ing-wen said that CECA is not merely an economic and trade issue, that it is also a political issue involving sovereignty. But CECA is not a political issue. It is fundamentally an economic and trade issue. The Republic of China's sovereignty has often been distorted. This is so without CECA. It is not any more so with CECA. Put simply, as long as CECA does not specify reunification or One Country, Two Systems, as long as after signing CECA, the Republic of China continues to elect its own President, as long as the Legislative Yuan continues operating, business as usual, as long as the Judicial Yuan remains open for business, how exactly does CECA "harm our sovereignty?" If CECA helps Taipei avoid the risk of economic and trade marginalization, and allows it to participate in ASEAN plus N or the East Asian Economic Community, isn't it "increasing our sovereignty?"

CECA is not something that sprang out of a rock. It is an issue the DPP has attempted to squash for eight years. The Democratic Progressive Party was in power for eight years. It committed the colossal blunder of ignoring a problem, thereby allowing it to grow. Does it still insist on severing economic and trade links between Taipei and ASEAN?

The Democratic Progressive Party may object to CECA. But it must offer a responsible alternative. Please do not tell us that alternative is Taiwan independence. Because that will make our participation in ASEAN plus N even less likely!

民進黨應告訴國人如何因應東協加三
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.25 02:29 am

上周末的府會財經會議與民間國是會議，竟使兩岸是否簽訂ＣＥＣＡ（綜合性經濟合作協定），演成朝野下一波政治對決的主題。政府宣示將推動ＣＥＣＡ，民進黨及台聯則強烈反對。

其實，「東協加一」（加中國），或「東協加三」（加中、日、韓），皆是在民進黨主政八年期間，由萌芽、發展，至成形；只要上網搜尋，即知在這八年期間，朝野有識之士早已對此有所警覺，扁政府的經貿主管及研究單位亦不斷發出強烈警訊；但是，民進黨政府在這八年中卻始終故意隱藏攸關國家生死的此一議題，亦即從未警示國人並訴諸公共討論。如今，情勢已經惡化至燃眉之急，民進黨非但未對過去八年的貽誤向國人表達歉意，竟仍然只是一句：「反對！」

東協加一將在明年全面互免關稅，東協加三則在二○一二年；東協加三總人口達二十億，將是全球人口最多的自由貿易體；倘若再繼續發展成東協加六（再加印度、澳、紐），則人口將達三十一億，已逾全球半數。何況，台灣素與這些亞太國家有密切的經貿互動，無論出口或貿易總額均超越台灣全額之半。我們要問民進黨：台灣若被排除在這個二十億或三十億人口的經濟架構之外，還有沒有活命？

民進黨可以反對ＣＥＣＡ，但不能否認「東協加Ｎ」對台經貿命脈的影響。所以，民進黨若反對ＣＥＣＡ，就應告訴國人：替代策略何在？

民進黨的膏肓之患在於：對於國家生存路線，只會作負面論述，卻不能提出可行的替代方案。例如，民進黨只會否定中華民國，但其台獨建國卻分明不是可行的替代方案。如今，民進黨又要反對ＣＥＣＡ，但亦未告訴國人其替代方案是什麼？難道還是台獨建國？

民進黨難道無論如何都要反對ＣＥＣＡ？還是可以有條件地贊同ＣＥＣＡ？比如說，民進黨是否只是反對ＣＥＣＡ附加「傷害主權」的條款，但在「主權」不受傷害下即可同意ＣＥＣＡ？或者，民進黨亦可主張，兩岸簽定ＣＥＣＡ，應附有不阻擋台灣參與東協或與其他國家締結ＦＴＡ的明文或默契，而不使兩岸ＣＥＣＡ發生綑綁台灣的風險。我們認為，在ＣＥＣＡ這個議題上，民進黨不必再扮演「絕對負面」的消極角色，而可嘗試扮演為ＣＥＣＡ加分避險的積極角色。倘若仍一味反對，民進黨即須拿出可行的替代方案，不能空言反對。

蔡英文說，ＣＥＣＡ不只是一個經貿議題，也是一個牽涉主權的政治議題；但ＣＥＣＡ也畢竟不是一政治議題，而在根本上仍是一個經貿議題。誠然，中華民國的主權頗受扭曲，無ＣＥＣＡ已是如此，有ＣＥＣＡ則應力求勿加重扭曲。直截而言，只要ＣＥＣＡ不以統一或一國兩制為條件；且只要簽訂ＣＥＣＡ後，中華民國仍然直選總統，國會照常運作，法院照樣開門，則ＣＥＣＡ如何「傷害」主權？何況，倘若能借ＣＥＣＡ突破台灣經貿地位邊緣化的危機，亦即能參與東協加Ｎ（或構想中的「東亞經濟共同體」），則豈非「主權」的加分？

ＣＥＣＡ不是一個突然從石頭縫裡迸出的新議題，而其實是一個民進黨逃避掩藏了八年的潛議題。民進黨執政八年，犯下了聽任危機坐大卻置之不理的大錯，如今難道仍要蠻橫力主台灣與東亞經貿就此脫勾？

民進黨可以反對ＣＥＣＡ，但必須負責任地提出替代可行方案。不過，可別告訴我們，那個方案仍是台灣獨立建國；因為，那就更不可能參與東協加Ｎ了！