David Shear Diametrically Opposed to Tsai Ing-wen on ECFA

David Shear Diametrically Opposed to Tsai Ing-wen on ECFAUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 17, 2010

Tsai Ing-wen warns that the cross-Strait economic framework agreement (ECFA) upsets the strategic balance in Southeast Asia. She warns that Southeast Asia will become a "Sinocentric Southeast Asia" that will weaken and marginalize the United States' presence in Southeast Asia.

Her remarks may convey the ring of a "strategic international perspective." But they were clearly intended for Washington's ears. They imply that once Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA, Mainland China will become the "center of gravity" for Southeast Asia, and that the United States will lose influence. The subtext is that in order to prevent the United States from being marginalized in Southeast Asia, Taipei should not sign ECFA. The subtext is that if Washington wishes to maintain the current "strategic balance in Southeast Asia," it must not support ECFA.

Unfortunately for Tsai Ing-wen, Washington has offered precisely the opposite response. According to State Department Acting Deputy spokesman Gordon Duguid, ECFA is a "positive development" that the U.S. government "encourages." This was followed by similar remarks by Assistant Secretary of State for Asian-Pacific Affairs David Shear. During a keynote speech Shear said that ECFA will benefit Taiwan and the world, and that the United States was delighted to see the two sides sign such an agreement. This remark may well be the most favorable evaluation of cross-Strait interactions that Washington has offered in 60 years. It was a rare moment in history.

David Shear's comments were actually quite circumspect. He reiterated that the United States does not support Taiwan independence, and is opposed to any party unilaterally changing the status quo. He added that cross-Strait economic exchanges and cultural relations were the healthiest they have been in decades. He said ECFA would accelerate this "positive development" and make Taiwan more attractive to foreign investors. He added that Washington was willing to strengthen Taipei/Washington economic cooperation by means of the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). He said that for the past 60 years, Taiwan has developed politically, socially, and economically. He said this proved that Taiwan can be simultaneously Chinese, modern, and democratic. He said the whole world "can learn from the Taiwan experience" how to promote modernization. He said ECFA showed Taipei's desire to become "an important and valuable member of the international community." He said "The United States is strongly encouraged by this development." The Republic of China withdrew from the United Nations forty years ago. Since then, when has Washington ever praised Taipei so generously? During the 60 years since 1949, when has Washington ever reaffirmed Taipei's cross-Strait policy so enthusiastically?

The DPP should reflect on Washington's assessment of ECFA. Why is its assessment diametrically opposed to Tsai Ing-wen's? Tsai Ing-wen warns ECFA is harmful to the "strategic balance in Southeast Asia." She insists that the rise of [Mainland] China will lead to the United States' marginalization. But David Shear's remarks show no hint of such concerns. Just the opposite. Shear affirmed ECFA, saying it was helping to make cross-Strait relations the healthiest they have been in 60 years. He said it showed Taipei's desire to become an important and valuable member of the international community. He said Washington was deeply encouraged. David Shear was clearly evaluating ECFA from an elevated international and global perspective. But his international and global perspective was entirely different from Tsai Ing-wen's.

Tsai Ing-wen has a strategic perspective -- of sorts. Her strategic perspective is the outdated perspective of the 20th century Cold War. David Shear's comments represent a very different strategic perspective, a post-Cold War 21st century perspective.

For example: Tsai Ing-wen warns that ECFA will facilitate the rise of [Mainland] China in Southeast Asia. But in David Shear's eyes, Beijing has already erected an ASEAN plus N framework. Therefore Taipei has no choice but to sign ECFA. Tsai Ing-wen warns that Taipei must take measures to block the rise of [Mainland] China. But David Shear apparently believes that Taipei should strive to improve the environment for foreign investment. Tsai Ing-wen assumes that Taiwan must be "anti-Chinese," even "non-Chinese." But David Shear believes Taiwan can be simultaneously Chinese, modern, and democratic.

We have repeatedly urged both the ruling and opposition parties to take note of Washington's assessment of cross-Strait interactions. Washington has said nothing negative about the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy for the past two years. Now David Shear, addressing ECFA on behalf of the US government, has praised it to the skies. Needless to say this is a clear indication of Washington's strategic perspective.

Skeptics may conclude that this is Washington's way of jettisoning Taiwan. But a fairer evaluation would be that this reflects Washington's transition from military confrontation to political/economic coopetition. Washington remains committed to Taipei. But the nature of that commitment has changed. Taipei must learn to read the signs.

Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian over-estimated Washington's military commitment to Taipei. They clung to fantasies about Washington's desire to use Taiwan independence as an anti-communist pawn. Tsai Ing-wen has apparently compounded that error. David Shear has pointed out her errors, one by one.

The United States will not be marginalized. But Taiwan is being marginalized. This may well be a concern for David Shear. But he offers a completely different perspective, and a completely different set of countermeasures than Tsai Ing-wen.

施大偉的見解與蔡英文完全相反
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.07.16 03:38 am

蔡英文評論兩岸經濟協議（ＥＣＦＡ）說：ＥＣＦＡ牽涉到東南亞戰略平衡問題，將使東南亞成為「以中國為中心的東南亞」，並會使美國在東南亞弱化及邊緣化。

這話聽起來，頗具「國際觀」，且儼然是說給美國聽的。意思是說：台灣與大陸簽成了ＥＣＦＡ，中國在東南亞將成為「中心」，美國將失勢。其潛台詞是：為了不使美國在東南亞「邊緣化」，台灣不應簽ＥＣＦＡ；為了「東南亞戰略平衡」，美國不應支持ＥＣＦＡ。

但是，美國政府卻給了與蔡英文完全相反的答案。繼國務院代理副發言人杜桂德表示，兩岸此項「正面發展」令美國政府「深受鼓舞」之後；亞太助理國務卿施大偉又發表專題演說指出：ＥＣＦＡ對台灣及全世界都有好處，美國樂見兩岸簽署。這可能是六十年來，美國對兩岸互動提過的最高評價，史罕出其右者。

施大偉的評論相當周延。他重申，美國不支持台獨，反對任何一方片面改變現狀。又說，兩岸交流的現況經濟與文化關係「較過去數十年來任何時刻都還要健康」，ＥＣＦＡ則加速了這種「正面發展」。還說，ＥＣＦＡ使台灣對外商更具吸引力。又說，美國願藉由「貿易暨投資架構協定」（ＴＩＦＡ）來加強台美經濟合作。他更說：「六十年來，台灣在政治、社會、經濟各方面的發展，證明了台灣不但可以同時是中國、是現代，而且也完全民主。」他說，全世界推動現代化，「可以學習台灣經驗」；ＥＣＦＡ顯示台灣意欲成為「國際社會重要、有價值的一員」，「美國對此深感鼓舞，我們樂見此種發展」。台灣退出聯合國四十年以來，誰曾聽過美方如此稱讚過台灣？一九四九年以降六十年以來，美方何嘗如此肯定過台灣的兩岸政策？

民進黨應當思考的是，美國政府對ＥＣＦＡ的評價，何以與蔡英文的主張完全相反？蔡英文認為，ＥＣＦＡ對「東南亞戰略平衡」有害，將使中國崛起，美國邊緣化；但在施大偉的評論中完全嗅不到這種氣味，反而肯定ＥＣＦＡ使兩岸關係「較過去數十年來任何時刻都還要健康」，且顯示台灣意欲成為「國際社會重要、有價值的一員」，美國「深感鼓舞」。施大偉顯然也將ＥＣＦＡ提高至「國際／世界」的高度作出評論，卻展現了與蔡英文完全不同的「國際觀」或「世界觀」。

蔡英文有「戰略觀點」，但那是退潮落伍的「二十世紀冷戰時代」的觀點；施大偉的評論當然也顯示了一種「戰略觀點」，卻是「廿一世紀後冷戰」的觀點。

例如：蔡英文認為，ＥＣＦＡ將使中國在東南亞崛起；但在施大偉眼中的事實卻可能是，中國已然架構了東協加Ｎ，才使ＥＣＦＡ不能不簽。蔡英文認為，台灣必須採取抵制中國崛起的手段；但施大偉似乎認為，台灣應當努力改善外商投資環境。蔡英文兀自認為，台灣唯一的角色就是「反中國」；但施大偉的見解卻是：「台灣可以同時是中國，是現代，而且也完全民主。」

我們屢次提醒朝野各方，注意美國政府對近兩年來兩岸互動的評價。有目共見的鮮明事實是：兩年來，美國對馬政府的兩岸政策沒有出現過半句負面評價；而現在施大偉代表美國政府評價ＥＣＦＡ的修辭，更幾已到了「讚譽備至」的程度。毫無疑問，這當然展示了美國的「戰略觀點」。

持懷疑眼光者或許將會認為，這是美國「甩掉」台灣的步驟；但比較公允的評論應是，美國的「兩岸戰略」已從「軍事對抗」轉軌至「政經競合」。美國對台灣仍有「承諾」，但「承諾」的性質已經改變；台灣必須正確解讀。

李登輝、陳水扁皆高估了美國對台的軍事承諾，且對美國對台獨或「反共馬前卒」的運用有逾度的幻想；現在，蔡英文好像錯得更加離譜，其嚴重謬誤經施大偉已一一指出。

美國不會邊緣化，但台灣正在邊緣化。這或許亦是施大偉的憂慮，但他提出了與蔡英文完全不同的觀點與對策。