Shih Ming-teh's Ad and the DPP's Strange Response

Shih Ming-teh's Ad and the DPP's Strange ResponseUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 12, 2010

Shih Ming-teh has posted a full page ad in four newspapers. The ad, entitled "Emergency Warning," warns that Article XVI of ECFA, also known as the "termination clause," is a "clause that will destroy Taiwan," and urges its deletion.

Shih said that Article XVI allows either side to nullify ECFA merely by giving six months notice. Either Taipei or Beijing can issue a "letter of notification," and ECFA will automatically expire after six months. He said it was in effect "a time bomb that could explode at any moment." He said that if Beijing were to trigger the termination clause, "businesses would exert pressure on the government," and provoke a political crisis on Taiwan. He said "This would be more destructive to Taiwan than the explosion of 10,000 missiles." Meanwhile, he said, "political struggles [on Taiwan] have almost reached the point of disregard for national survival." If politicians on Taiwan were to trigger the termination clause, it would be more destructive than halting construction on 10,000 Number Four Nuclear Plants. Shih Ming-teh also reminded everyone that the construction halt on the Number Four Nuclear Plant happened without warning, without consultation. It was implemented via an executive order.

Would Article XVI be, as Shih Ming-teh said, "an appendix that can easily become inflammed?" This concerns many on Taiwan. As they see it, Article XVI is a noose around Taiwan's neck. Tighten it, and death will follow.

Shih Ming-teh pointed out the danger Article XVI poses for Taiwan as a whole. But in fact the DPP is the party most likely to be affected. This newspaper posted an editorial on July 14, entitled "The Termination Clause: The Paradoxical Nature of Article XVI." We pointed out that another change in ruling parties could see the DPP back in power. Beijing might trigger the termination clause to contain Taiwan independence. Conversely, the DPP might trigger the termination clause along with a declaration of Taiwan independence. Either side could trigger the termination clause. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of Article XVI. If the DPP is afraid to nullify ECFA, de jure Independence will be impossible. If on the other hand, the DPP moves toward Taiwan independence, Beijing just might nullify ECFA. In other words, given the political implications of Article XVI, the "termination clause" may as well be termed the "Taiwan independence termination clause."

This is nothing less than a noose around the neck of the DPP. Therefore when Shih Ming-teh cried "Delete Article XVI," he assumed that the DPP would jump on the bandwagon. He assumed it would advocate the deletion of this "clause to destroy Taiwan," and find a way to remove the noose from around its neck. He assumed the DPP would reproach Ma Ying-jeou for sticking Taiwan's neck into Beijing's noose. What a simple matter that would be. But to his surprise, the DPP's response to Shih Ming-teh's clarion call was unusually low-keyed.

Not one word from the party's central leadership. Unnamed "high-ranking officials" said "no comment." Legislative Whip Kuan Bi-ling's response was the most surprising. She said "The DPP will absolutely defend the termination clause." She even accused Shih Ming-teh of being a dupe, and asked "Who is behind Shih Ming-teh? Who is demanding ECFA Forever?"

This sums up the DPP's dilemma. It clearly realizes that the termination clause is effectively a "Taiwan independence termination clause." Yet it insists that it will "absolutely defend the termination clause." Why? For two reasons. One. The termination clause was something the DPP demanded in the first place. Now that it has become a tar baby, it is too late for the DPP to change its tune. Two. If the DPP demands that the termination clause be deleted, it could be accused of advocating "ECFA Forever!" Therefore it has no choice but to swallow the blood in its mouth and "absolutely defend the termination clause" even though Article XVI is for all intents and purposes a "Taiwan independence termination clause."

Why did the DPP oppose ECFA in the first place? Wasn't it for the sake of Taiwan independence? So why is it "absolutely defending" Article XVI, the "Taiwan independence termination clause?" Does it intend to oppose ECFA even if it means the "termination of Taiwan independence?" Or is Taiwan independence a phony issue? Is opposition to ECFA merely a case of riding a tiger and finding it impossible to dismount?

Shih Ming-teh knows that ECFA contains humiliating features. But he approves of ECFA nonetheless. In his manifesto, he clearly outlines his desire to "March towards an Island of Freedom." He concludes with "the pursuit of sustainable development." He says "Only an ECFA without the Article XVI termination clause will allow the two sides to pursue sustainable development under conditions that are mutually beneficial and mutually respectful."

No one can completely shake off suspicions that Article XVI is "an appendix that can easily become inflammed." Appendicitis may be difficult to guard against. But successfully preventing the two sides from arbitrarily triggering the termination clause is doable. Moreover, once ECFA and other FTAs gradually form a framework, cross-Straits relations will be inseparable from international interests within the global marketplace. This will make it less likely that the termination clause might be triggered for political motives. As President Ma noted, ECFA is a broad-based, cross-Strait confidence-building measure.

The riskiest scenario would be one in which the DPP returns to power as a Taiwan independence party with a determinedly Sinophobic policy. The DPP continues to insist that it will "absolutely defend the termination clause." It has stuck its neck further inside the noose. It is telling itself that the noose is a silk scarf, one that will instill a "sense of honor" and a "feeling of joy."

民進黨對施明德廣告的反應真奇怪
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.12 03:17 am

施明德在四報刊登「緊急呼籲」全版廣告，指ＥＣＦＡ第十六條「終止條款」是「毀台條款」，主張應當刪除。

施明德說：第十六條規定，兩岸任何一方只要發出「通知書」，ＥＣＦＡ即在六個月之後自動失效，不啻形同「一顆隨時皆可任意引爆的炸彈」。他說，倘若由中國方面發動，將引爆對台灣「以商逼政」的危機，「這對台灣的殺傷力將遠大於十萬顆飛彈的轟炸」；另一方面，由於台灣的「政黨鬥爭幾乎已到不顧國家存亡的地步」，若由台灣政客發動「終止條款」，則其殺傷力將比一萬個「核四停建」更大。施明德還提醒：請大家回憶一下「核四停建」，豈不是在毫無預警，毫無協商下，以一個行政命令就執行了？

第十六條會不會像施明德所說，是一條「會發炎的盲腸」；這是台灣民間相當多人的憂慮。想像中，第十六條就像勒住台灣的一個活套，只要一收緊，就可能致命。

施明德是從大局來看第十六條對整個台灣的風險，但受到第十六條影響最大的其實是民進黨。我們曾在七月十四日社論〈終止條款：第十六條的弔詭〉一文指出：倘若再次政黨輪替，民進黨再執政後，北京為抵制台獨，或民進黨為宣示台獨，兩方皆有可能發動終止條款，這恐是第十六條的最大風險所在。倘若屆時民進黨不敢主動終止ＥＣＦＡ，就不可能台獨；而民進黨若走向台獨，則將面對北京發動終止ＥＣＦＡ的風險。也就是說，第十六條「終止條款」的第一個政治效應已經生效，可以稱作「終止台獨條款」。

這不啻是一個勒在民進黨脖子上的麻繩活套。因而，當施明德大聲疾呼「刪除第十六條」時，原本以為民進黨自當趁勢呼應，也主張刪除這個「毀台條款」，設法除去脖子上的活套。以民進黨的言語便給，跟著斥罵馬英九把台灣的脖子送進北京的活套裡，豈非僅是舌頭打個轉那麼簡單？詎料，民進黨對施明德的呼籲竟是出奇地低調。

黨中央沒有一字回應，不具名的「高層人士」則稱「不予置評」。立院黨鞭管碧玲最奇怪，她說「民進黨絕對捍衛終止條款」，甚至還指施明德遭人利用：「是誰在施明德背後，要將ＥＣＦＡ forever？」

這就是民進黨的處境。明知「終止條款」具有「終止台獨條款」的效應，卻仍然說「絕對捍衛終止條款」。也許有兩個理由：一、終止條款之設立，本是民進黨所堅持；如今作繭自縛，已不能改口。二、民進黨若主張刪除終止條款，難道是主張ＥＣＦＡ forever？所以，竟然就打脫牙和血吞，「絕對捍衛」這個等同「台獨終止條款」的第十六條！

然而，民進黨難道不是為了台獨才反ＥＣＦＡ嗎？為何卻對第十六條「終止台獨條款」仍「絕對捍衛」？難道是即使拚上「終止台獨」也要反ＥＣＦＡ？或者，台獨只是假議題，而反ＥＣＦＡ已是騎虎難下？

施明德亦知ＥＣＦＡ存有屈辱，但他是贊同ＥＣＦＡ的，這在聲明中「邁向自由島」一節中闡述甚明，他的結論是「追求永續發展」，他說：「沒有第十六條『終止條款』的ＥＣＦＡ，才是宣示雙方將在互利、互尊、互惠的大理想下，追求雙方永續發展的協議。」

在想像中，無人能夠完全揮去第十六條是「一條會發炎的盲腸」的陰影；不過，盲腸發炎不易預防，但欲使雙方不至於無理性地發動「終止條款」，卻應當是做得到的。何況，隨著ＥＣＦＡ及其他ＦＴＡ的架構逐漸形成，兩岸關係交纏在全球經貿的國際利益中，因政治動機而發動「終止條款」的可能性將更趨低。正如馬總統所說：ＥＣＦＡ其實是兩岸廣義的信任建立措施（Confidence-Building Measures）。

然而，「終止條款」最大及最可能發生的致命風險，仍在倘若民進黨再執政而依然採台獨及與中國為敵的政策。現在仍在宣稱「絕對捍衛終止條款」的民進黨，且將那個已經套在脖子上的麻繩活套，權充作「光榮／幸福」的花花絲巾吧！