Tsai Ing-wen's Unilateralism

Tsai Ing-wen's Unilateralism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 1, 2011

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen's recent actions were unmitigated unilateralism. If not wishful thinking, then they were willful unilateralism. If the Democratic Progressive Party is content to remain an opposition party, it can of course persist in wishful thinking. But if Tsai Ing-wen Tsai becomes president, and the DPP becomes the ruling party, willful unilateralism could precipitate the worst political and economic disaster in six decades. Unilateralism. Bush can get away with it. But can Tsai Ing-wen?

Full Text below:

Tsai Ing-wen's recent actions were unmitigated unilateralism. If not wishful thinking, then they were willful unilateralism.

If the Democratic Progressive Party is content to remain an opposition party, it can of course persist in wishful thinking. But if Tsai Ing-wen Tsai becomes president, and the DPP becomes the ruling party, willful unilateralism could precipitate the worst political and economic disaster in six decades.

U.S. President George W. Bush is a textbook case of unilateralism. He fabricated a lie. He said the US discovered weapons of mass destruction. People the world over seriously questioned the invasion of Iraq. Eventually even the mainstream media in the United States doubted the legitimacy of the invasion. By then however, the US was already neck-deep in the Iraqi quagmire, unable to extricate itself; Bush did not consult with other nations. He disregarded domestic opinion. He had all the answers, and assumed an arrogant, high-handed posture. His unilateralism totally ignored other people and their viewpoints.

Tsai Ing-wen bears more than a passing resemblance to George W. Bush. But does Tsai Ing-wen have the wherewithal to be a female George W. Bush? Bush wove a fanciful tale about weapons of mass destruction. He turned nothing into something. Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, insists that "The 1992 Consensus does not exist." She is struggling mightily to turn something into nothing. Bush was dealing with Iraq, a nation far less powerful than the United States. Essentially the strong was bullying the weak. Bush could hurt others without being hurt himself. But Tsai Ing-wen knows perfectly well that she is dealing with the Chinese mainland, which as she herself admits in "Taiwan Next: The Platform for the Coming Decade," is "a great nation on the rise." Yet she appears to have no regard for the Chinese mainland whatsoever. She even presumes to lecture the Chinese mainland. She chides them, reminding them to think twice before acting. She implies that Beijing must bear total responsibility for any and all consequences. But when push comes to shove, who will be hurt the most? Tsai Ing-wen's arrogance exceeds even Bush's. Tsai Ing-wen's recklessness is even more terrifying than Bush's.

What is unilateralism? Unilateralism is how the government of a large and powerful nation conducts itself when implementing its foreign policy. Unilateralism is acting without regard for the interests of other nations, without regard for the opinions of other nations, without regard even for the opinions of its own citizens. Unilateralism is the adoption of an unyielding posture, merely because one has the power to get away with it. Unilateralism is the refusal to negotiate, and the willfully defiance of previously reached commercial or political agreements and understandings. Unilateralism is wanton and destructive behavior.

Bush has engaged in unilateralism. Tsai Ing-wen seems to be engaging in it as well. But Tsai Ing-wen is not George W. Bush. Taipei is not Washington. Beijing is not Baghdad. Compared to Iraq, the United States is a large and powerful nation. But even then, US unilateralism led to US humiliation. Suppose Taipei and Beijing have a showdown? Does Tsai Ing-wen really intend to adopt a condescending, unilateralist posture, in which "I count for everything, and you count for nothing?" Iraq and the United States have long been at loggerheads. During 9/11, Bush Jr. became famous, for good reason. But relations between Taipei and Beijing are more peaceful and mutually beneficial than they have been in 60 years. What does Tsai Ing-wen want? To maintain the peace? Or to start a war? Bush Jr. falsely accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein issued denial after denial, to no avail. Both Taipei and Bejing consider the 1992 Consensus the premise and foundation for peaceful development. Does Tsai Ing-wen really intend to engage in unilateralism? Does she really intend to insist that the 1992 consensus does not exist? Her attitude is that no one else counts. Not the Ma administration. Not Beijing. Not Washington. No one else in the world counts.

Consider Taipei/Washington relations. Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly argued that ECFA has strategically weakened and marginalized the U.S. in Southeast Asia. But the U.S. has repeatedly praised ECFA, loudly and publicly, as a crowning achievement of the Ma administration, as a cross-Strait policy victory. The United States knows this is all predicated upon the 1992 Consensus. Does Tsai Ing-wen really think otherwise? Therefore, when Tsai Ing-wen repudiates the 1992 Consensus, she is not butting heads with the Ma administration. She is not butting heads with Beijing. She is butting heads with the United States and the United States' cross-Strait policy. The U.S. government's One China Policy implies "One China, Different Interpretations." When Tsai Ing-wen flaunts her unilateralism, what is saying, but that what the United States says doesn't count?

As we all know, Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policy contains fundamental contradictions. On the one hand, it repudiates the 1992 Consensus. On the other hand, it upholds ECFA. Of course, if Tsai Ing-wen is crazy enough, she can repudiate the 1992 Consensus. This is probably the only area where she can cling to her willful unilateralism. But can she repudiate ECFA, cross-Strait peace, and the exchanges that ECFA have made possible? When the time comes, Beijing could preempt Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP, by adopting the very same unilateralism practiced by Tsai and the DPP.

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP insist that Beijing will not, cannot, and dare not, call a halt to ECFA and other cross-Strait exchanges. But Beijing has repeatedly made clear that if Taipei repudiates the 1992 Consensus, if it ceases to oppose Taiwan independence, the underpinnings for ECFA will no longer exist. In that case, how long can the edifice known as ECFA continue to stand? If Tsai Ing-wen clings to unilateralism, the edifice will collapse. The political and economic disaster that will follow, will be far worse than what occurred in the wake of the 1958 bombardment and the ROC withdrawal from the UN. The situation today is different. Any catastrophe will be both political and economic in nature. Any consequences will be both massive and irreversible.

The repercussions for the Taiwan independence movement will be even more grievous. If Tsai Ing-wen is elected, Beijing will immediately insist that she recognize the 1992 Consensus. If she refuses, she will face political and economic disaster. She will deal a lethal blow to the Taiwan independence movement. Taiwan independence will become anathema to the public on Taiwan. On the other hand, suppose Tsai Ing-wen performs an about face and recognizes the 1992 Consensus? There is a 95% chance of this. The Taiwan independence movement will also be done for. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen will either recognize the 1992 Consensus or she will not. Either way, President Tsai's administration will lose all credibility. The Taiwan independence movement will be dealt a mortal blow. Taiwan independence advocates must understand the inevitable consequences.

The 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations are ways to ensure that neither side adopts a unilateralist posture. They are ways to seek common ground. They affirm bilateralism as the basis for cross-Strait interaction. They maintain the "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force" status quo. But if Tsai Ing-wen becomes president, and her unilateralism prevails, it will be Beijing's turn to unleash its own unilateralism.

Unilateralism. Bush can get away with it. But can Tsai Ing-wen?

析論蔡英文的「單邊主義」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.09.01 01:42 am

蔡英文如今的所作所為，可說是徹頭徹尾的「單邊主義」；倘非一廂情願，即是一意孤行。

如果民進黨繼續作個在野黨，這一切充其量只是「一廂情願」，也就罷了；但如果蔡英文變成蔡總統、民進黨變成執政黨，卻仍要如此「一意孤行」，那恐將引爆台灣六十年來最嚴重的政經災難。

談到單邊主義（Unilateralism），美國小布希總統當然是「典範」。他編造了一個「發現大規模毀滅性武器」的謊言，在世界主流輿論的強烈質疑下揮軍侵略伊拉克，後來又在美國國內主流輿論的強烈質疑下，泥足深陷伊拉克而不能自拔；他這種不問他國意見及不顧民意感受而予智自雄、師心自用的蠻橫霸道態度，即被稱作「單邊主義」；意謂完全無視他人的存在與相對的意見。

此時的蔡英文像不像當年的小布希？但問題是：蔡英文憑什麼作女版的小布希？布希編造「大規模毀滅性武器」，是無中生有；蔡英文謂「九二共識不存在」，則是化有為無。布希面對的是國力遠遜美國的伊拉克，可謂恃強凌弱，至少是傷人不傷己；但蔡英文則明知所面對的是「大國崛起」的中國（見《十年政綱》），卻彷彿視對方如無物，甚至要對方「好好想一想」，大有「一切後果概由北京負責」的味道，到頭來究竟是傷人或自傷？蔡英文這種目中無人的姿態，豈不更勝於小布希？這種不計後果的行徑，又豈不比小布希更可怕？

什麼叫做「單邊主義」？其大意是：一個大國強國的政府，為落實自己的外交政策，不考慮利害相關國家的立場，不考慮國際輿論的主張，甚至不顧國內民意，恃強仗勢，拒絕協商途徑，而任意否棄或挑戰已制定或已商就的國際協議或默契，並恣意做出翻覆局勢的破壞性行為。

這正是小布希曾經幹過的事，也儼然是蔡英文正在做的事；但蔡英文不是小布希，台灣不是美國，中國不是伊拉克。相較於伊拉克，美國是「大國強國」，然而採單邊主義的結果亦落得灰頭土臉；而台灣與中國對峙，難道蔡英文也要採取「居高臨下／有我無你」的單邊主義嗎？且伊拉克與美國始終敵對，小布希在九一一的衝擊中師出有名；但台灣與北京卻正處於六十餘年來最和平互惠的階段，蔡英文到底要維和或求戰？小布希誣指伊拉克備有「大規模毀滅性武器」，海珊百口莫辯；而如今兩岸政府皆稱「九二共識」是「和平發展」的前提與基礎，蔡英文難道只憑自己一句「九二共識不存在」，就玩起她的「單邊主義」？這是目中無人，目中無馬政府，目中無北京，目中無美國，更簡直是目中無世界。

即以台美關係而言，蔡英文始終謂ECFA將使美國在東南亞的戰略地位弱化及邊緣化；但美國卻屢屢公開高聲稱譽ECFA的成就及馬政府兩岸政策的成功，難道美國不知這一切均築基於「九二共識」？因此，蔡英文否定「九二共識」，非但與馬政府對立，亦不見容於北京，其實也與美國華府的兩岸政策扞格不入；因為，美國的「一個中國政策」，亦具「一中各表」的意蘊。蔡英文悍然標榜她的「單邊主義」，豈不是目中無美國？

眾所皆知，蔡英文的兩岸政策有其根本性的矛盾。一方面要「否定九二共識」，另一方面卻又要「維持ECFA」。固然，蔡英文只要夠瘋狂，她就可以否定「九二共識」，這恐怕是她唯一可以堅持「單邊主義」的部分；但是，她能否維持ECFA及現今兩岸和平交流的大走勢，這卻絕無可能片面取決於她與民進黨的「單邊主義」，屆時反而可能使北京取得了主動地位，被北京挾持。

蔡英文與民進黨如今的說法是：北京不會停（ECFA等），不能停，不敢停；但北京卻一再明言，「九二共識」及「反台獨」如果被民進黨否棄，則基礎不存，大廈焉附？蔡英文只要堅持其單邊主義，即必將面對那個樓倒屋塌的局面；而屆時造成的政經災難必將遠逾於八二三炮戰或退出聯合國等，因為，情勢今非昔比，那必將是個「複合式的政經大災難」，創鉅痛深，不可收拾。

而且，已可預言，那也將對台獨運動造成更為致命性的重大衝擊。蔡英文若當選，將會立即被北京以是否接受九二共識所挾持；屆時她倘不接受，勢必引爆政經大災難，那對台獨主張必成致命打擊，台獨勢將成為人民公敵；反之，如若蔡英文竟然回過頭來又接受了「九二共識」（這應有逾九成五的可能性），則台獨也就更是玩完了。也就是說，屆時蔡英文無論接受或不接受，其「蔡總統」的統治正當性皆必全盤解構，台獨亦受重創；台獨人士對此種必然的後果必須有心理警覺。

九二共識，一中各表，其實就是要擺脫兩岸任何一方採行「單邊主義」，俾在「求同存異」中，以「雙邊主義」（Bilateralism）為互動準則，而維持「不統，不獨，不武」的「現狀」。但是，若待蔡英文的「單邊主義」贏得了總統權位後，大概就要輪到北京的「單邊主義」將抬頭及肆虐的時候了。

單邊主義，布希能，蔡英文也能嗎？