Is ECFA a Phony Issue?

Is ECFA a Phony Issue?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 26, 2010

President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Wu Den-yih have expressed their willingness to debate ECFA with DPP chairman Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai Ing-wen has finally relented, saying that "The leaders of the two parties will have to debate ECFA eventually." But she then demanded that the ruling and opposition party caucuses in the legislature first conduct an investigation and submit a report. The consensus is that Tsai Ing-wen has responded tactically, but deliberately thrown up obstacles strategically.

ASEAN plus One is already a reality. ECFA is now a matter of urgency. Its signing is scheduled for June. For Tsai Ing-wen to lay down the condition that "The Legislative Yuan must conduct an independent investigation" at such a late date, is merely a ploy to delay the process by two months, then shrug off any debate, alleging that the "The Ma administration is not serious." This will allow it to shift the responsibility onto Ma Ying-jeou, and leave the debate hanging in the air.

Quibbling over the "Two Yings Meeting" has gone on for some time. The "Two Yings" are of course Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai Ing-wen has constantly evaded the issue. The debate has now been demoted to the level of a "Two Yings Debate over ECFA." Only then was Tsai Ing-wen willing to respond tactically. Even then, she still laid down strategic obstacles. Actually, what the current political scenario needs is a "Two Yings Macro Level Political Debate" over the nation's overarching political and economy strategy, not a "Two Yings Special Topics Debate" over ECFA. ECFA is not intrinsically a phony issue. But the bipartisan debate over ECFA has turned it into a phony issue.

The DPP says it "is unclear about what ECFA is," and keeps demanding that the Ma administration "make clear what it means." But others wonder, if the DPP is really unclear about what ECFA is, then why is it so vehement in its opposition? Tsai Ing-wen has even demanded that the Legislative Yuan conduct an independent investigation and submit a report, providing a basis for the debate. But the DPP has been opposed to ECFA all along, regardless of the facts. Does it really need an "independent investigation" to justify its opposition?

As noted earlier, what is needed currently is a "Two Yings Macro Level Political Debate" over the nation's overall strategic political and economic path, not merely a debate over ECFA alone. The Ma administration's political framework is contained within the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, and No Reunification, No Independence, and No Military Conflict. The Ma administration's trade and economic framework is contained within ECFA. The DPP's political strategy since it stepped down in 2008 meanwhile, remains undetermined. One could say that it simply has no benchmark against which it can evaluate ECFA. In other words, If the Democratic Progressive Party advocates Taiwan independence and the founding of a new nation, it will have one opinion of ECFA. If the Democratic Progressive Party were to change its Taiwan independence path, it would have a different opinion of ECFA. Since the DPP's positions on national identity and the constitution remain indeterminate. how can it even talk about cross-Strait relations? How can it even talk about ECFA? No wonder some are wondering, can Tsai Ing-wen really "represent" the Democratic Progressive Party at all?

The Republic of China's constitutional strategy and cross-Strait trade and economic strategy must be consistent. A constitutional and political strategy that leads to an economic and trade dead end is impracticable. A cross-Strait strategy that leads to an economic and trade dead end is also impracticable. The DPP has yet to clarify its constitutional strategy. It has yet to tell us whether it still advocates Taiwan independence. It has yet to clarify its cross-Strait strategy. It has yet to tell us whether it still opposes exchanges. Until it does so, how can we know what benchmarks is it using to evaluate ECFA?

Some members of the public may not be aware of ECFA is. But are DPP party leaders really unclear about the main thrust of ECFA? For example, the purpose of ECFA is to cope with globalization and regional economic entities. It is a necessary defensive measure in response to ASEAN plus N, It does not increase imports of agricultural items. It does not introduce mainland workers. It stipulates relief for impacted industries. It stipulates a beneficial "early harvest list." It even includes a "termination clause." Besides, apart from ECFA, what alternatives do we have? Is the Democratic Progressive Party leadership really unclear about all this? Tsai Ing-wen has been involved in WTO and cross-Strait affairs for years. Is she really unclear about all this? Or is she merely using the pretext "I'm unclear" to demagogue the issue? ECFA is not a phony issue per se. But the bipartisan debate over ECFA has turned it into a phony issue.

The Ma administration has a political and economic framework for the Republic of China. From the top down that framework is: a constitutional strategy based on national identity, leading to cross-Strait strategy, leading to economic and trade strategy. In practice, from the bottom up, that framework is: to use economic and trade strategy to stabilize the cross-Strait strategic situation. To use cross-Strait strategy to safeguard the Republic of China and its constitutional framework of "One China, Different Interpretations." Therefore in order to evaluate ECFA, one must take into account this three-tiered strategy. If one fails to talk about constitutional strategy and cross-Strait strategy, and talks only about economic and trade strategy, one may as well follow the prescriptions offered by Green oriented think tanks, and urge industries to set up factories in any of the ASEAN countries. Therefore, if any debate between the Two Yings addresses the issue of ECFA in isolation, it will not solve the problem. What is needed is a Two Yings Debate over the nation's macro level political and economic path. Only that will allow the Republic of China to find a way out of its problems.

Interestingly enough, Tsai Ing-wen's "Platform for the Decade," will soon be made public. Rumor has it the first issue it raises is, surprise surprise, "A Vision for Taiwan's Prosperity," rather than "An Affirmation of Taiwan's Primacy and Its Constitution." How can one assess ECFA by turning a blind eye to the issues and talking only about constitutional strategy? Unless the DPP first makes clear its position on Taiwan independence, how can it offer an extravagant vision for Taiwan's prosperity?

ECFA是不是假議題？
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.03.26 02:33 am

馬英九總統及吳敦義院長，相繼表示願意與民進黨主席蔡英文辯論ＥＣＦＡ。蔡英文終於鬆口說，關於ＥＣＦＡ議題，「兩黨領導人終須一辯」，但又開出了應先由立院朝野黨團完成調查報告的條件。一般認為，這是蔡英文在「戰術上」接招，卻在「戰略上」設下障礙。

東協加一已經上路，ＥＣＦＡ有時間上的緊迫性，預定在六月許簽定；蔡英文此時開出「立院獨立調查」的條件，想的是只要拖過這兩個月，屆時民進黨只消一句「馬政府沒有誠意」，即可把責任推給馬英九，辯論亦可不了了之。

「雙英會」吵了很久，蔡英文總是推三阻四；如今降低規格變成「雙英辯論ＥＣＦＡ」，蔡英文才在「戰術上」接招，但仍設下戰略障礙。其實，當前政局所需要的，是一場關於國家政經總戰略大辯論的「雙英宏觀論政」；而未必是一場關於ＥＣＦＡ的「雙英專題辯論」。因為，ＥＣＦＡ本身不是假議題，但「兩黨辯論ＥＣＦＡ」卻是政爭炒作出來的假議題。

民進黨一直說「不清楚ＥＣＦＡ是什麼」，要馬政府「說清楚」；但有人質疑：民進黨既不清楚ＥＣＦＡ是什麼，那民進黨究竟是在反對什麼？如今蔡英文甚至主張應由立院提出獨立調查報告，供為辯論基礎，但民進黨一向以來如此不分青紅皂白地反對ＥＣＦＡ，卻何嘗是基於什麼「獨立調查報告」？

前文說，現在需要的是一場「雙英宏觀論政」，就國家政經總路線作一通盤議論，而不是只對ＥＣＦＡ作專題辯論。因為，馬政府是在「九二共識／一中各表」，及「不統／不獨／不武」的政治戰略下，提出了ＥＣＦＡ的兩岸經貿框架；但民進黨自二○○八下野後對兩岸政治戰略尚未確立，可以說根本沒有評價ＥＣＦＡ的基準。也就是說，民進黨若主張台獨建國，對ＥＣＦＡ將是一種評價；民進黨若修正其台獨路線，對ＥＣＦＡ則可能是另一種評價。民進黨如今連國家認同、憲法立場都尚未確定，如何談兩岸關係？又如何談ＥＣＦＡ？難怪有人說，蔡英文真能「代表」民進黨嗎？

台灣的憲政戰略、兩岸戰略與經貿戰略必須一致。在經貿上沒有出路的憲政戰略，行不通；在經貿上沒有出路的兩岸戰略，也不可行。民進黨若不將其憲政戰略說清楚（是否台獨），不將其兩岸戰略說清楚（是否反對開放交流）；他要用什麼基準來評價ＥＣＦＡ？

有些民眾可能不清楚ＥＣＦＡ為何物，但民進黨內菁英階層豈會不清楚ＥＣＦＡ的主要思慮？例如：ＥＣＦＡ是為了因應全球化及區域經濟組織，是為了因應東協加Ｎ，必須注意防衛機制（農產品不增加進口項目，不引進大陸勞工），必須對受衝擊產業給予救濟，必須爭取有利的「早收清單」，甚至訂定「終止條款」，尤其，除ＥＣＦＡ外，是否尚有其他的替代方案？種種切切，難道民進黨菁英不清楚？難道長期涉獵ＷＴＯ及兩岸政務的蔡英文不清楚？或者，只是要用「不清楚」來炒作政爭而已？因而，ＥＣＦＡ本身不是假議題，但「兩黨辯論ＥＣＦＡ」卻是政爭炒作出來的假議題。

馬政府的台灣政經總路線的架構，由上而下是：國家認同的憲政戰略→兩岸戰略→經貿戰略；然後，在實際操作時，再由下而上，以經貿戰略穩定兩岸戰略，以兩岸戰略維護中華民國「一中各表」的憲政架構。因而，要評價ＥＣＦＡ，必須思慮這三層戰略的關聯性；倘若不談憲政戰略、兩岸戰略，只談經貿戰略，就會如綠色智囊的建議，主張廠商外移至任何東協國家設廠即可。所以，雙英之間倘若只安排一場ＥＣＦＡ的專題辯論，尚不能解決問題；必須要有一場對全盤宏觀的國家政經總路線進行大辯論的「雙英會」，才有可能為台灣的難題找出答案。

令人玩味的是：蔡英文的「十年政綱」即將出爐，據聞首波推出的竟然是「台灣社會福利的願景」之類的議題，而不是「台灣的主體性與憲法定位」。避重就輕、捨本逐末。諱談憲法戰略，如何評價ＥＣＦＡ？不先說清楚台獨不台獨，奢論什麼台灣社會福利的願景？