Amending Laws and Abrogating Treaties is Blind Emotionalism

Amending Laws and Abrogating Treaties is Blind Emotionalism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 6, 2010

It is pointless to say certain things in advance. Nobody listens. But afterwards, these things must be said. The US beef imports controversy has led to the amendment of a law and the abrogation of a treaty. But such blind emotionalism is not in the interest of the community and is inflicting further harm upon the nation.
The agreement signed by the Ma administration and Washington threw open the doors to beef imports. This political miscalculation provoked public anxiety and legislative opposition. For this, the Ma administration has only itself to blame. But once the storm passed, the legislature amended the law and abrogated the treaty. It was tantamount to rubbing salt into a wound, and can only increase the harm inflicted upon the nation.

After amending the law and abrogating the treaty, the ruling and opposition parties attempted to put a favorable spin on their actions. They declared that "the ruling and opposition parties must stand shoulder to shoulder with the executive branch to face down international pressure." In other words, the Blue and Green political parties would bear the consequences of their actions. In fact, their declaration was phony, bombastic, and hollow. It is phony because the whole point in the controversy is to prevent the importation of beef organ meats and ground beef. To do this one need only erect an array of bureaucratic hurdles. Why go to the extreme of amending the law and abrogating the treaty? Amending the law and abrogating the treaty may allow one to make domestic political hay. But when it comes to preventing the importation of beef organ meats and ground beef, it is gilding the lily. It is bombastic because there is no "international pressure" on the Legislative Yuan. What political consequences are there for the Legislative Yuan? None. The consequences of a breach of trust and breach of contract with Washington will be borne by the nation as a whole. They will be passed on to society as a whole. And yet the Legislative Yuan boasted that it would shoulder responsibility for the consequences of its breach of trust and breach of contract. Isn't that just a tad too bombastic? It is hollow because the amending of the law and the abrogation of the treaty has merely exposed the Democratic Progressive Party's real agenda -- to milk the issue in an effort to undermine President Ma. It also satisfies the KMT legislative caucus' desire to humiliate Chairman Ma. But in terms of crisis management for the entire nation, such a declaration amounts to rubbing salt in a wound. All it will do is undermine Taipei's image and credibility.

Is there really no way to prevent the importation of beef organ meats and ground beef besides amending the law and abrogating the treaty? Wouldn't erecting a series of bureaucratic hurdles do the trick. Do we really need to destroy our international credibility? Even assuming the treaty the Ma administration signed was defective, the Blue and Green political parties in the Legislative Yuan ought to be engaging in damage control. The Legislative Yuan has amended the law and abrogated the treaty. It has indulged in a bout of blind emotionalism. Is it safeguarding the nation, or is it harming the nation?

We must not underestimate the U.S. response. The American Institute in Taiwan said that the Legislative Yuan's unilateral abrogation of a bilateral agreement, signed in good faith by the United States, ignores Taipei's own risk assessment report. It said that the move would undermine Taipei's credibility among its trading partners. It said it would difficult for Washington and Taipei to reach any future agreements, or expand and strengthen bilateral economic relations. It said that the most disappointing aspect was that the United States has been one of Taipei's most important trading and investment partners. It strongly supported Taipei's participation in the global trading system. It supported Taipei's membership in WTO and participation in APEC. If we translate the AIT's comments into plain English, what it said was, "Does Taipei still want the United States as a friend? Is Taipei still a friend the United States can count on? Does Taipei still have a government qualified to sign international treaties?"

Were it not for blind emotionalism, it would be easy to interpret the United States' response and assess the harm inflicted upon the nation. The ruling and opposition parties have foolishly underestimated the significance of the United States' reaction. Some say "The United States may punish Taiwan. But everything will blow over in six months." Some say "At worst the TIFA will be affected." Some are even uttering such nonsense as, "The United States may injure my arm, but if it does, it will injure its finger." It is easy to spout such nonsense merely to justify ruling and opposition party "cooperation." Has the legislature made every effort to serve the nation, or has it merely rubbed salt in the nation's wounds, while making blindly emotionalistic political gestures? Was amending the law and abrogating the treaty the only option. Was it the best option? Or were there other, better ways to prevent the importation of beef organ meats?

In fact, "political permission" in conjunction with "administrative prohibition" is the most common method of dealing with such matters in international trade. This method would allow us to accomodate both political and diplomatic interests and administrative requirements. It is not necessary to sacrifice political or diplomatic interests for the sake of administrative requirements. We can have both substance and appearance. But our Legislative Yuan is the only one in the world that refuses to think this way. Instead, it insists on amending laws and abrogating treaties. It insists on destroying the nation's image, credibility, and international political and diplomatic interests. No one could restrain these irrational fools before they acted. Now that they have precipitated disaster, the least we can do is demand an accounting.

And lastly, we cannot absolve either President Ma or Chairman Ma of responsibility. On the one hand, he was wrong to underestimate the consequences of signing the treaty. On the other hand, once the storm broke, he was unable to dissuade the KMT legislative caucus from wallowing in blind emotionalism, and engaging in populist demagoguery. As such, he compounded his mistake.

修法廢約是濫情理盲
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.07 03:36 am

有些話在事前說沒有用，但在事後不能不說。本文要說的是：美牛事件鬧到修法廢約的地步，根本是濫情理盲；並未增加社會的利益，反而加重了對國家的傷害。

當然，馬政府與美國簽議定書，幾乎開放全牛進口，是錯估了政治後果，而致引發社會的疑慮及立法院的對抗，這些皆是咎由自取。但是，風暴發生後，至今竟然走到修法廢約的地步，形同傷口撒鹽，卻是愈發加重了對國家的傷害。

修法廢約後，朝野政黨說得好聽，謂是「朝野及行政機關應共同面對國際壓力」，也就是表示藍綠政黨將共同承擔後果。其實，這是一句「假／大／空」的話：假話，倘若爭議的焦點是在必須禁阻美國牛雜及絞肉進口，那麼只消「三管五卡」等「行政障礙」即可達到目的，則何必走到修法廢約的地步？修法廢約也許是政治鬥爭的「真議題」，但在禁阻牛雜絞肉上卻是畫蛇添足的「假議題」。大話，試問立法院有什麼「國際壓力」？立法院有什麼政治後果？對美國背信毀約的後果，其實是由整個國家來承受，亦將轉嫁由整個社會來承受；但立法院竟誇言其能承擔國家背信毀約的傷害，也未免太自負托大了吧？空話，這場修法廢約的意義，只是實現了民進黨藉題重挫馬總統之目的，也滿足了國民黨團羞辱馬主席之目的；但從整個國家的危機處理言，卻是傷口撒鹽，雪上加霜，只是自我掏空台灣的信譽與形象而已。

問題的關鍵在於：難道除了修法廢約，沒有其他禁阻牛雜絞肉進口的方法？如果「三管五卡」之類的「行政障礙」有效，難道一定要走到修法廢約、自殘國際信譽的極端地步？即使簽約是馬政府鑄成之錯，立法院的藍綠政黨倘是真心誠意為國家社會做善後的損害控制，其實只須共同建立「三管五卡」的「行政障礙」，即可實現禁阻牛雜絞肉於境外的實效；而為了維護國家的信譽、形象及利益，自當共同勉力不要走向修法廢約的地步。立法院演出這一場理盲濫情的修法廢約，究竟是維護了國家，或傷害了國家？

不可輕估美國的反應。美國在台協會說：立法院單邊終止了美方基於政治誠意而達成的雙邊協定書，等於是無視於科學標準和台灣自身的風險評估報告。並說：台灣此舉破壞了身為貿易夥伴的誠信，將使美國未來很難與台灣達成協定、擴展與強化雙邊經貿關係。又說：特別令人感到失望的是，美國長期以來一直都是台灣最重要的貿易與投資夥伴；而且也強力支持台灣積極參加全球貿易體系，包括支持台灣取得ＷＴＯ的會員資格，以及參加ＡＰＥＣ。若將這些評論譯成白話，簡直是說：台灣還要不要美國這個重要朋友？台灣還能不能做為美國的有誠信的朋友？台灣還有能夠簽約的政府嗎？

若不是理盲與濫情，當然能正確解讀美國的這類評論，並適切評估其對我們整個國家所造成的重大傷害。如今，朝野政黨竟皆相率阿Ｑ式地輕估或無視於美國反應，有人說「美國懲罰台灣，頂多半年」，又有人說「頂多只是ＴＩＦＡ受影響而已」，甚至妄言「美若傷害我一臂，也會自傷一指」。這些故做輕鬆的胡言亂語，只是要為朝野「合作」修法廢約解嘲止謗而已。但是，我們要問：不論修法廢約的代價有多大，立法院究竟曾否為國家竭智盡忠以力求避免，還是反而在理盲濫情的政治操作中往國家的傷口撒鹽？我們的問題是：修法廢約是否唯一的方案，或最佳的方案？還是另有不需修法廢約、但也能禁阻牛雜的更佳方案？

其實，「政治放／行政禁」，是國際貿易上最常見的壁壘手段；如此即可兼顧政治與外交上的形式利益及行政管控上的實際效果，也就不必因行政措施而犧牲了政治或外交上利益，得以內外兼籌，表裡並顧。但是，全世界唯有我們的立法院不作此想：修法廢約，非要搞到葬送國家的信譽、形象，及國際政治與外交之利益的地步不可。沒有人能在事前拉得住這些狂人蠢貨，但如今大錯鑄成，總該有人在事後把話說清楚。

最後，不能放過馬總統與馬主席的責任。一方面簽約時輕估後果，已鑄一錯；另一方面，風潮發生後，又無力扭轉國民黨團理盲濫情的民粹操作，更是一錯再錯。