Rationality is not Weakness, Present a United Front

Rationality is not Weakness, Present a United Front
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 17, 2013

Summary: President Ma has "institutionalized cross-Strait reconciliation." He sees it as the "first line of defense" in our national security strategy. The Philippines provocation showed that threats to our security do not come only from the Mainland, as many would imagine. Mainland policy and foreign policy complement each other. The Ma administration must continue to reconcile with the Mainland. It must cash in on the cross-Strait "peace dividend." It must use it to strengthen our hand in foreign diplomatic negotiations and foreign military conflicts.

Full Text below:

For shooting up a Taiwanese fishing vessel and killing a Taiwanese fisherman, President Ma Ying-jeou issued the Philippines an ultimatum. Seventy-two hours later, the Philippines attitude noticeably softened. It dispatched an envoy to Taiwan to confer. He appeared alongside a presidential spokesman, and read aloud a statement of "regret and apology." But the statement lacked sincerity.  Therefore the Ma administration decided to impose additional sanctions on the Philippines. It imposed a freeze on Filipino workers applying for work on Taiwan. First it recalled its representative to the Philippines. Then it demanded that the Philippines representatives leave Taiwan. It then imposed additional sanctions. We support the government's position. We believe the government's decision was the result of a rational decision-making process.

Being rational does not mean showing weakness. The label of "cowardly" was attached to the Ma administration by its critics, because amidst seething mob sentiment, the Ma administration delayed "getting tough."

War and peace are major issues in the life of a nation. Should a government get tough or remain pliable? Should it declare war or seek accomodation? The criterion must be the interests of the nation as a whole. The Republic of China is in a difficult situation. The incident showed us how hard it is to make a living from the sea. It also reflected the frustration of the general public over the Republic of China's continually shrinking breathing space. Think about it. The Philippines government had the temerity to harass our fishing vessels. During this incident it behaved even more high-handedly. We were "easy pickings." The Philppines saw that "weak states have no diplomacy." Such is realpolitik.

The Ma administration's crisis management during this incident was far from perfect. But it was passable. As Mao Zedong put it, "Unless one has conducted an investigation, one has no right to speak." The government decided to take action only after it conducted a comprehensive analysis of the situation. It arrived at judgments about the facts, values, and consequences, only after a rational decision-making process. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was nearly struck by a stray bullet. We should offer it encouragement. Diplomacy is the art of negotiation. Until all hope is lost, never give up on peace. The ministry staff burned the midnight oil to avoid escalating the conflict.

The public demonstrated solidarity during the incident. It too should give itself a pat on the back. As Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu said a few days ago, "This incident concerned national security and national dignity. One must remain non-partisan and of one mind. One must support the central government in its political, economic, and other sanctions against the Philippines."

We hope this incident will transform a crisis into an opportunity. We hope it will promote a sense of shared destiny. We hope the unity it inspired will become the cornerstone of a "Taiwan consensus."

The "Taiwan consensus" was an important plank in former DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's presidential campaign platform. Her hope was it would displace the KMT Ma Wu camp's "1992 Consensus." But as we all know, the "Taiwan consensus" and the "1992 Consensus" are not comparable. They cannot replace each other. Tsai Ing-wen lost. That does not invalidate what she said. We must not neglect the need for a "Taiwan consensus." The Taiwan Region of the Republic of China has long lacked an internal consensus regarding its core values and the national interest. As a result internal politics have not become an asset when the government implements foreign policy. It has become instead a liability, and the nation's prime source of internal friction. Professor Samuel P. Huntington once noted that "National interests derive from national identity." This national identity crisis is an Achilles heel that erodes the the vitality of the Taiwan Region of the Republic of China.

The Philippines committed an act of foreign aggression. We hope this external threat will transform a long-hidden internal problem. Before others can humiliate an individual, an individual must humiliate himself. Before others can destroy a family, a family must first destroy itself. Does anyone really think the Philippines failed to perceive our internal weakness?

Finally, the government must learn from its mistakes. It must learn to be more aggressive in order to make a difference. President Ma says he "does not think the current conflict is a state of war." We respect his judgment. But in The Art of War, Sunzi wrote, "Do not hope that the enemy will not come. Instead, be ready to receive him." Those in power must ask themselves whether they wish to be prepared for danger in times of peace. If so, they must prepare for the possibility of military conflict. President Ma sees himself as a peacemaker. His "East China Sea Peace Initiative" has been affirmed by the international community. It has also secured the interests of our own fishermen at home. But real world power is the basis of peaceful negotiation. The fruits of peace must sometimes be won at the price of war.

East China Sea issues remain unresolved. South China Sea issues have also flared up. The Philippines departed from civilized behavior. Is it even possible to "set aside differences in order to jointly develop the region's resources?" This is a question worth pondering.

In response to the conflict, the government should conduct a comprehensieve review of its perimeter security. It should make the appropriate strategic policy decisions. President Ma has "institutionalized cross-Strait reconciliation." He sees it as the "first line of defense" in our national security strategy. The Philippines provocation showed that threats to our security do not come only from the Mainland, as many would imagine. Mainland policy and foreign policy complement each other. The Ma administration must continue to reconcile with the Mainland. It must cash in on the cross-Strait "peace dividend." It must use it to strengthen our hand in foreign diplomatic negotiations and foreign military conflicts.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.05.17
社論－理性不是示弱 團結才能禦侮
本報訊

    　在馬英九總統對菲國「毀船殺人」罪行下達七十二小時最後通牒令後，雖然菲國的態度已顯軟化，不但遣使來台斡旋，並由總統府發言人出面，宣讀了一段表達「遺憾和道歉」的聲明；但因誠意不足，馬政府已決定升高對菲律賓的制裁行動。繼第一波的凍結菲勞申請、召回駐菲大使和要求菲國駐華代表離台後，並決定啟動第二波的反制措施。我們支持政府的立場，也相信政府的決定，是經過一個理性的決策過程。

    　理性不代表懦弱，而「懦弱」正是外界在這次事件中為馬政府貼上的「標籤」。因為，在群情激憤之下，馬政府並沒有在第一時間「硬起來」。

    　戰爭與和平是攸關國家生存的重大問題。是硬？是軟？是戰？是和？要以國家利益作為取捨標準。中華民國的處境非常艱困。在這次事件中，我們深切體會到「討海人」的辛酸；而某種程度上，這不也反映出一般民眾對中華民國生存空間不斷受到擠壓的無奈。試想，菲律賓政府膽敢三番五次地騷擾我國漁船。在這次事件發生後，又表現的如此狂妄自大，其實還不是「柿子挑軟的捏」，看準了「弱國無外交」這個國際現實。

    　馬政府這次的危機處理，表現雖不滿意，但卻可以接受。借用毛澤東的一句話，「沒有調查就沒有發言權」。政府全盤分析形勢後再決定採取行動，應該符合事實判斷、價值判斷和後果判斷的決策研究途徑。另外，外交部門因職責所在，幾乎被這次事件的「流彈」所傷。對此，我們也有必要為他們加油打氣。外交是談判的藝術，所謂「和平不到絕望時期，絕不放棄和平」，外交工作人員挑燈夜戰，就是為了避免升高衝突。

    　對於國人在這次事件中表現的團結一致，我們也應自我肯定一番。尤其肯定高雄市長陳菊日前所說，「此事關係到國人安全與國家尊嚴，必須不分黨派，上下一心，支持中央政府對菲律賓採取政治、經濟等各方面的措施與制裁。」

    　我們期待這次事件，能提供國人化危機為契機，形成「命運共同體」的動力。讓大家把團結作為建立「台灣共識」的基礎！

    　「台灣共識」是民進黨前主席蔡英文在去年總統大選時提出的重要政見，用意在取代國民黨馬吳陣營主張的「九二共識」。但眾所周知，「台灣共識」與「九二共識」內涵不同，無法相提並論，甚至取而代之。蔡英文最後雖然敗選，但我們不能因人廢言，忽視建立「台灣共識」的重要性。例如，台灣內部長久以來，即對國家利益的核心價值，嚴重缺乏共識。影響所及，內政不但不能成為政府實施對外政策的資產，反而變成導致國家不斷內耗的負債。杭庭頓（Samuel P. Huntington）教授曾經指出：「國家利益源自於國家認同」。而國家認同危機正是台灣內部的一個「阿奇里斯的足踝」，它不斷地在腐蝕台灣的生命力。

    　我們期待因為面對這次菲律賓製造的「外患」，能轉而消除我們潛藏已久的「內憂」。所謂「人必自侮而後人侮之，家必自毀而後人毀之」，菲律賓難道不是看透了我們內部的弱點。

    　最後，政府在痛定思痛之餘，應思如何積極有所作為。雖然，我們尊重馬總統的判斷，「不認為現在的衝突是一個戰爭的狀態」；但兵法有云：「無恃其不來，恃吾有以待之。」執政者應自問，是否居安思危，作好軍事衝突的準備。馬總統以「和平締造者」自我期許，提出的「東海和平倡議」，不但得到國際社會的支持，並且為國內漁民爭取到重大的權益。但實力是談判的後盾，爭取和平的果實，有時候必須被迫付出戰爭的代價。

    　東海問題懸而未決，南海問題也將甚囂塵上。對待像菲律賓這樣遠離現代文明軌道的國家，能否採取「擱置爭議，共同開發」的相同標準？這是一個值得思考的問題。

    　針對這次衝突事件，我們認為政府應就台灣面對的周邊安全形勢，進行全盤性的分析和檢討，並因應形勢，作出適當的戰略和策略選擇。馬總統把「兩岸和解制度化」視為國家安全戰略的「第一道防線」。這次菲律賓的挑釁舉動顯示，台灣的安全威脅來源並不止於一般人印像中的對岸而已。基於大陸政策和外交政策相輔相成的功能，馬政府除了持續與大陸和解外，也應思考如何讓兩岸取得的「和平紅利」，成為處理外交和對外軍事衝突的助力。