Thursday, November 28, 2013

Diaoyutai: Taipei Must Choose Sides

Diaoyutai: Taipei Must Choose Sides
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 29, 2013


Summary: The "East China Sea Peace Initiative" is currently Taipei's best option. But it is not its only option. The purpose of the East China Sea Peace Initiative was to address the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute. It does not address the complex East China Sea dispute. The East China Sea Peace Initiative names three parties, Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. It does not include Seoul. It does not include Taipei-Washington relations or cross-Strait relations. Today, changing circumstances necessitate a change in Taipei's strategy.

Full text below:

Beijing's Ministry of Defense announced an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. The zone includes Diaoyutai Island waters claimed by Tokyo, Beijing, and Taipei. It also includes islands claimed by both China and Korea, which China refers to as the Su Yan Islets. As expected, the announcement provoked strong protests from neighboring governments. Taipei now faces a more complex international situation.

Washington recently sent two unarmed B-52 bombers to overfly the Diaoyutai Islands. Korean P-3C anti-submarine aircraft also entered the airspace over outlying islands, without advanced notice. These were deliberate challenges to Beijing's declared Air Defense Identification Zone. Japan has announced that it will further expand the range of its Air Defense Identification Zone to the Xiao Li Yuan Archipelago in response. At the same time, Mainland China's aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, passed through the Taiwan Strait yesterday on its way to the South China Sea. These developments have expanded the East Asian crisis, from a territorial dispute between Taipei, Tokyo, and Beijing over the Diaoyutai Islands, to a four way dispute between Tokyo, Washington, Seoul, and Beijing.

Each of the parties wants to declare sovereignty. Xi Jinping also wants to consolidate his power and proclaim the "Renaissance of a Great Nation." The United States wants to promote its "Asian Rebalancing" strategy. Changes in these two situations have affected the direction of three policies. They will profoundly affect the future of cross-Strait relations, as well as the direction of Washington-Taipei relations and Taipei-Tokyo relations.

Consider the changing situation. First of all, the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute has expanded. It has become an East China Sea regional security issue. From Washington's perspective, the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute is an issue between China and Japan, But East China Sea and South China Sea security issues involve Washington's core interests and its "Return to Asia" strategy. Beijing unilaterally announced its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. It requires other countries' civil and military aircraft passing through the East China Sea to inform them. The Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute has escalated. It is now an East China Sea sovereignty dispute. The Sino-Japanese conflict has raised tensions between neighboring countries in the East China Sea. This provides Washington with a perfect excuse to intervene.

Secondly, the Sino-Japanese territorial dispute has intensified Sino-US regional confrontation. Last April the Diaoyutai Islands territorial dispute erupted. Washington was merely a spectator. Its position was that Beijing and Tokyo should resolve their differences through political dialogue. But it also wanted a strong Japan to counter Mainland China's rise. The U.S. had no desire to shred the post-war Japanese "peace constitution." It had no desire to change the balance of power in East Asia. But after Beijing announced its Air Defense Identification Zone, Washington rushed to send two bombers into the area to test Beijing's resolve. Washington officially declared that it was no longer a "bystander," but a participant.

Consider the new policy direction. First, Mainland China's "peaceful rise" has taken a new turn. Since 2000, "peaceful rise" and "good-neighbor diplomacy" have been the two pillars of Beijing's foreign policy. The CCP Third Plenary Session consolidated Xi Jinping's power. Mainland China's Ministry of Defense announced its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. This was a new twist in Mainland China's diplomacy. This was a new starting point for Xi Jinping's dream of becoming a great nation. Mainland China's foreign policy is increasingly assertive. It also include cross-Strait relations. This year Xi Jinping stressed that the cross-Strait issue "cannot be handed down from one generation to the next." As we can see, Taipei will face increasing pressure during political negotiations with Beijing.

Next, consider the direction the Washington-Tokyo axis is taking. Mainland China's Ministry of Defense announced its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. It intends to turn the East China Sea into a "Chinese lake." It intends to breakthrough the Western Pacific first island chain. Washington is sure to increase military cooperation with its Asian allies. Together they hope to contain Mainland China's military power. Washington has officially intervened in the Diaoyutai Islands dispute. It is strengthening the Washington-Tokyo axis. This means the new Washington Beijing big power relationship has gradually been internalized and eroded. Taipei now faces increasing pressure to choose sides between Beijing and the Washington-Tokyo axis.

Finally, consider the change in Japan's defense policy. Beijing announced its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone without advance notice. The Japanese government voiced strong objections. It ordered Japanese airlines not to submit flight plans to Beijing. The day before, Japan's parliament established a "National Security Council" and a "National Security Bureau." It will amend Japan's National Defense Program Outline by the end of this year. This will strengthen its military deployment in Yunaguo Island and Shitan Island waters. In the future, Its military activities in waters surrounding Taiwan will increase.

Events are swirling around Taiwan. Taipei cannot pretend everything is fine. In particular, the parties involved, Tokyo, Beijing, and Washington, have close ties to Taipei. A weaker Taipei finds itself caught between three stronger powers. It must be extraordinarily cautious. Taiwan must not do what DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang demanded. It must not join hands with Washington and Tokyo and demand that Beijing take back its Air Defense Identification Zone. But it must be prepared for different eventualities.

The "East China Sea Peace Initiative" is currently Taipei's best option. But it is not its only option. The purpose of the East China Sea Peace Initiative was to address the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute. It does not address the complex East China Sea dispute. The East China Sea Peace Initiative names three parties, Beijing, Tokyo, and Taipei. It does not include Seoul. It does not include Taipei-Washington relations or cross-Strait relations. Today, changing circumstances necessitate a change in Taipei's strategy.

周邊有事,台灣將面臨選邊的壓力
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.29 03:05 am

一如預期,中國大陸國防部公布東海防空識別區後,因其範圍不僅涵括日中台爭議的釣魚台海域,也劃入了中韓爭議的離於島(中方稱為蘇岩礁),此舉引起周邊國家強烈的抗議,台灣也面臨了更複雜的國際形勢。

美國日前派遣兩架無武器的B52轟炸機飛越釣魚台上空,韓國P3C反潛機也無預警進入離於島海域,藉此反對中共對防空識別區的宣示;日本則宣布將進一步擴大防空識別區範圍至小笠原群島,以為對抗。與此同時,中國大陸的航母遼寧號也於昨日通過台灣海峽,前往南海海域。這些發展,頓使東亞安全情勢從「台日中釣魚台領土爭議」擴大為「日美韓中四國角力」。

除了當事各國之間有意圖的主權宣示與行動,若加入習近平上台後鞏固權力所宣示的「大國復興」的因素,以及美國推動「亞洲再平衡」戰略的用心,我們可以看到兩項情勢的變動如同齒輪軸般地牽動三個政策的轉向,也將深刻牽動往後兩岸關係、美台關係及台日關係的走向。

先談情勢的變動。首先,是釣魚台主權爭議擴大為東海區域安全問題。從美國的觀點來看,釣魚台主權爭議是中日兩國的問題,但東海及南海的海域安全問題卻事涉美國重返亞洲戰略的核心利益。中共這次片面公布東海防空識別區,使得各國通過東海海域的民用及軍用航空器都必須向其通報,將原本的釣島主權問題升高為東海海域爭議,也將原先的中日衝突擴大為東海周邊國家的緊張關係,這正好讓美國找到介入的理由。

其次,是中日領土爭議提升為中美區域對抗。去年四月釣魚台領土爭議爆發以來,美國一直扮演著旁觀者的角色,它的立場是希望透過政治對話來解決中日的歧見,同時期待一個強大的日本來抗衡中國的崛起。但是,美國其實並不希望日本突破戰後「和平憲法」的框架來改變東亞的權力平衡。然而,在中共公布防空識別區後,美國卻搶先派遣兩架轟炸機進入該海域來試探及反制中國,這不啻正式宣告美國從「旁觀者」變成利害當事國。

再觀察政策的轉向。首先,是中國大陸「和平崛起」路線的轉向。兩千年後,「和平崛起」及「睦鄰外交」一直是中共外交政策的兩項基軸,而中共選擇在三中全會習近平權力穩固之後,由國防部發布東海防空識別區,可視為中國大陸外交新路線的新試點,也是習近平追求大國夢的新起點。接下來,中國大陸的對外政策將越來越強勢,這必然也包含兩岸關係在內。這從今年以來習近平強調兩岸問題「不能一代一代傳下去」,可以看出,今後台灣面對來自對岸要求政治談判的壓力將會越來越大。

其次,是美日同盟關係的轉向。中共國防部這次公布東海防空識別區,可視為其意圖將東海「內海化」及突破西太平洋第一島鏈的首部曲;美國今後必定會強化與亞洲軍事盟國的合作,共同圍堵中國的軍事擴張。美國正式介入釣魚台問題,以及美日同盟關係的再強化,表示美中新型大國關係已經逐步內化、弱化,今後,台灣面臨在中國大陸/美日同盟之間的選邊壓力,將會越來越大。

最後,是日本防衛政策的轉向。面對中共無預警地公布東海防空識別區,日本政府一方面表達強烈抗議,並要求日本國籍航空不能向中國大陸提交飛航計畫書;另一方面,日本參院前天也通過設立「國家安全會議」以及「國家安全保障局」,並將在今年底修改日本防衛大綱,進一步強化在與那國島及石垣島等離島海域的軍事部署。今後,在台灣周邊海域的軍事活動,將會越來越頻繁。

由此可見,周邊有事,台灣不可能沒事,尤其利害當事國都是與台灣關係密切的中美日等大國,在「三大之間難為小」的情況下,台灣的因應更要顯得格外謹慎。台灣並不需要如同民進黨主席蘇貞昌所說的,以聯合美日要求中國大陸撤回防空識別區來選邊站,卻不能沒有十八套劇本的因應準備。

「東海和平倡議」雖是台灣當前的最佳選擇,卻不是唯一的選擇。因為,東海和平倡議的前提是處理釣魚台主權爭議,而不是面對複雜的東海問題。東海和平倡議的三組雙邊是界定在中日台三國,而並不包括美韓,更不涉及台美關係及兩岸關係;如今面對情勢的轉變,台灣的國家戰略恐亦必須隨之調整因應。

"Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above" More Than Meets the Eye

"Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above" More Than Meets the Eye
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 28, 2013


Summary: "Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above" offers us a bird's eye view from the air. A "Taiwan Through the Microscope," on the other hand, would reveal how everything is broken, everything is out of order, and would leave people aghast. Premier Chiang was moved to confront the problems. But problem solving requires addressing the root of the problem. Otherwise the ad hoc group will merely watch "Beyond Beauty: Taiwan from Above" then write a report. It will hold a meeting to discuss concerns but will not get to the root of the problem. The problem will worsen. No remedies will be found for the disease. The result will be "Governing the nation by watching movies."

Full text below:

Director Chi Po-lin's film, "Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above" has won awards and created a sensation. Those who have seen the film have been so moved they want to translate their feelings into action. Business firms and individuals have purchased group tickets to spread the message of love for Taiwan. Governments at all levels have used the film as environmentalist teaching material. Premier Chiang Yi-hua ordered the formation of an ad hoc group, aimed at those who have harmed Taiwan's natural environment. He ordered inter-ministerial consultations and set a deadline for improvements.

"Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above" was deeply moving because we remain strangers to Taiwan's geography and culture. Mountain regions account for 70% of the island's surface area. But restricted access to these magnificent mountain regions has long prevented the public from feeling close to them. We pride ourselves on being a "maritime nation." But access to the coastal regions was restricted during martial law. The shores of Taiwan are lapped by ocean waves. Yet Taiwan has no maritime culture. Development has been limited to local industrial development. The public sits between the mountains and the sea. But it remains far removed from their beauty. It may care about them, but has not been able to translate that care into action. Its concern is always belated.

Having seen Taiwan from on high, Premier Chiang has acted from up close. Premier Chiang's actions should be acknowledged. But Taiwan's land has been destroyed. Improper development and pollution are hardly limited to what can be seen from a bird's-eye view high above. Forests and cities contain pollution that cannot be seen from a bird's eye perspective. Government business collusion remains rampant. Saving Taiwan requires root cures. Land planning and land surveying must be completed as soon as possible. Attention to every link in the chain is the only solution.

Existing land planning is top down. It includes "Comprehensive Land Development Plans," "Regional Plans," "Directly Administered Municipality, County or Municipal Comprehensive Development Plans." Only then do county and municipal urban planning and non-urban land use planning come into play. High level land plans have no legal basis. Top-down control leaves huge loopholes. This has resulted in all talk and no action.

Nearly 20 years separate the "Land Restoration Ordinance" from the "Land Planning Act." The Legislative Yuan has repeatedly entered and left the scene. Today the matter remains in stasis. The key reason is the manner in which aboriginal populations in the alpine forest regions are classified. Some regions are designated as autonomous regions. Others are designated as central mountain regions. Consensus has been hard to achieve.

If the status of aboriginal peoples in alpine forest regions cannot be defined, the Land Planning Act will remain empty talk. The aboriginal peoples are at one with the alpine forest regions. One must understand the mountains. If the mountains abide, man abides. If the mountains perish, man perishes. Aboriginal peoples are always the first line of defense in conservation. People sitting in government offices on the flatlands have no call to tell aboriginal peoples how they should live. Aboriginal peoples revere and cherish the mountains. They have a sustainable approach to alpine forest region resources.

One tribal leader who tried to define the role of aboriginal peoples in the alpine forest regions resigned in despair. He said, "Aboriginal peoples are dedicate guardians of the alpine forest regions, the land where their ancestors are buried. They care more about the alpine forests than anyone else." He said the ministries that introduced agriculture and alpine tourism were responsible for 70% of the damage to Taiwan's mountains." Aboriginal peoples are at one with the mountains. This must be acknowledged. A minimal but critical budget to hire aboriginal park rangers to serve as alpine forest guardians will allow the alpine forest regions to remain healthier than planning by people from the flatlands.

Aboriginal peoples have been subject to unreasonable delays in national land planning. The Land Planning Act has remained frozen in the Legislative Yuan. A comprehensive survey cannot go forward. Typhoon Herb, the 9/21 Earthquake, and Typhoon Morakot were painful lessons. They made the public aware of the need to coexist with nature. Nevertheless we have long lacked sustainable land development planning and controls.

After Premier Chiang saw "Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above," he became alarmed. He concluded that alpine forest region development and maritime policy must be changed. For example, roads obviously must not be opened merely to to increase tourism. Large tour buses should not be allowed into the alpine forest regions. Yet they are still being approved. Mountain agriculture policies formulated by bureaucrats in air-conditioned rooms introduces capital from the flatlands. Aboriginal Peoples know this is not right, but they are unable to block it.

The nation's land is an undivided entity. Taiwan is an island ecosystem. From the mountains to the sea, it requires an overall plan, for disaster prevention if nothing else.  National land planning and a national land survey remain stalled. No sustainable land planning chain exists. All we have is one discrete lower level development plan after another. This enables government business collusion to profit through pollution. How under such conditions, can we protect our rivers and mountains? The Executive Yuan has just passed a 60 billion dollar special budget for flood control. If the watershed is managed piecemeal from its headwaters to the sea, if we refuse to admit error, how can we make the slightest difference?

"Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above" offers us a bird's eye view from the air. A "Taiwan Through the Microscope," on the other hand, would reveal how everything is broken, everything is out of order, and would leave people aghast. Premier Chiang was moved to confront the problems. But problem solving requires addressing the root of the problem. Otherwise the ad hoc group will merely watch "Beyond Beauty: Taiwan from Above" then write a report. It will hold a meeting to discuss concerns but will not get to the root of the problem. The problem will worsen. No remedies will be found for the disease. The result will be "Governing the nation by watching movies."

「看見台灣」不該只有視覺反省
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.28 03:18 am

導演齊柏林高空鳥瞰福爾摩沙的作品「看見台灣」得獎並引起轟動,觀賞過的人,心動、感動之餘都想化為行動。企業、民間有心人紛紛斥資包場,想擴大這部片子傳遞的愛台灣訊息,各級政府以此為環境教育的教材,行政院長江宜樺更指示成立專案小組,針對片子裡破毀台灣「教導的功課」跨部會協商,限期改善。

觀賞「看見台灣」之所以有這麼大的感動,源於大家對台灣山川人文的陌生。山地佔了島嶼面積的七成,但長期的山地管制,阻隔了人們與壯麗山巒的親近;雖自詡海洋國家,但戒嚴時期長期的海岸管制,雖為黑潮擁抱,卻無黑潮文明,始終只有地方產業開發的導向。民眾對山、海的美麗與哀愁,雖置身其中,卻有著難以言喻的距離,愛護卻未能付諸行動,關心也始終慢半拍。

高處著眼,小處著手,江揆的作法應予肯定,但台灣的國土破壞、不當開發及汙染問題絕不僅止片中鳥瞰呈現的部分,山林、都會等鳥瞰未及的藏汙納垢,官商沆瀣助長不法恐危害更大。救台灣必須治本,儘速完成國土計畫法立法並展開國土普查,全面關懷、環環落實才是正道。

現行國土計畫體系中,從上而下,分別有「國土綜合開發計畫」、「區域計畫」、「直轄市、縣(市)綜合發展計畫」,之後才是執行面的縣市都市計畫與非都市土地利用等。但最上位的國土計畫沒有法源,由上至下的各項管制即留下許多人為操作的空間;這正是長久以來高談永續卻無法推動的關鍵。

從《國土復育條例》到《國土計畫法》,近二十年的立法院進進出出,至今仍置之冷凍庫,關鍵原因是對原住民生活所在的山林定位,不管是劃設自治區,或者是設定中央山脈主軸區的想法,都難達成共識。

其實,原住民對山林的保育角色若無法確認,國土計畫法即不啻奢談。原住民與山林是一體的,瞭解山林,山在人在,山亡人亡,就保育的角度來看,永遠是第一線的尖兵;因此,無須平地人在辦公室為原住民設想該怎麼生活,原住民敬山、惜山,對山林資源自有一套生生不息的永續道理。

曾有一位致力推動原住民山林定位的首長灰心辭官,他直言,「對山林,原住民是以祖靈地的虔誠守護,比誰都愛惜山林。」認為現下各部會指導的引進高山農業、高山觀光……等政策,才是破壞台灣百分之七十山區的關鍵,「原住民山、人一體,這必須給予尊重;將相關預算的尾數用來聘用原住民為巡山員、高山守護者,山區一定比平地人的規劃健康且永續。」

因為原住民在國土計畫的定位遲遲無法獲得合理的認可,導致國土計畫法形同遭立法院冷凍,因而之後的國土全面普查計畫也無法推動。賀伯颱風以迄九二一地震、八八風災的連番天災帶來的慘痛教訓,雖使國人驚覺須改進與大自然相處之道,但政策上始終缺乏一套國土永續與管制開發規劃。

江揆「看見台灣」之後的警惕,必須落實為開發導向山、海政策的改變,例如為了衝觀光,明明不該開路、不應容許大型遊覽車上山的區域,仍然拍板放行;農業上山的冷氣房政策,夾帶平地人的資金挺進,原住民雖知道這些均屬不宜,卻無能阻擋。

國土是一體的,台灣是島嶼生態系,從山川源頭以迄出海口,即便只為防災,也必須有通盤計畫。如今,國土計畫、國土普查推不動的情況下,沒有上下游環環相扣的國土永續規劃,僅剩一個個下位的分區開發計畫,讓政商穿梭其間得以有染指獲利的空間,美好河山如何維護?尤其,行政院會剛又通過六百億治水特別預算,若水系從源頭到出海口仍是被分割處理,不肯停止錯誤,怎可能會有效果?

「看見台灣」是從空中鳥瞰,若是「顯微台灣」近距離的放大,看到各地破碎、失序環節,恐將令人不忍卒睹。江揆的感動是面對問題的深自反省,但處理問題必須治本、斷根,否則專案小組僅就「看見台灣」作了回報,開會討論後卻無法持之以恆地追蹤關注,對後續病變、惡化開不出對症下藥之方,那豈不是「觀影治國」?

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

The US Must First Acknowledge that Diaoyutai is Disputed Territory

The US Must First Acknowledge that Diaoyutai is Disputed Territory
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 27, 2013


Summary: The confrontation between Mainland China and Japan over the Diaoyutai Islands is on the verge of burning out of control. The financial magazine Forbes has warned the U.S. government this amounts to gross diplomatic negligence and incompetence. It could harm the entire world, and lead to disastrous consequences. The United States must return to its "We do not hold any position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands" stance.

Full Text below:

The confrontation between Mainland China and Japan over the Diaoyutai Islands is on the verge of burning out of control. The financial magazine Forbes has warned the U.S. government this amounts to gross diplomatic negligence and incompetence. It could harm the entire world, and lead to disastrous consequences.

The Sino-Japanese conflict has steadily escalated. If it chooses to, the US can apply the brakes. Its first action should be to urge the parties to shelve the dispute. Japan, the Mainland, Taiwan, and the United States should agree that Diaoyutai sovereignty is currently in dispute. All parties must acknowledge that "Diaoyutai is territory over which controversy has yet to be settled."

The Diaoyutai Islands issue arose when the U.S. "turned over" the Diaoyutai Islands to the Japanese in 1972. But from the very beginning the United States has declared that it holds no position on who holds sovereignty over the island. It merely turned over "administrative jurisdiction" to Japan. Therefore Japan's current declaration of "sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands" has already exceeded the United States' understanding and commitment. If the United States were to actually argue that Japan holds sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, it would provoke as well as become involved in a Sino-Japanese War. The United States cannot get away with such a lie. It amounts to a slap to its own face. Once the US has harmed the world by precipitating a catastrophe, it will have to answer to world opinion.

The United States must return to its original "We do not hold any position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands" stance. It must acknowledge that Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty remains in dispute. The creator of the problem should resolve the problem. The US and Japan both allege that Beijing's announcement of an air defense identification zone changed the status quo. In fact Japan was the party that changed the status quo, when it "nationalized" the Diaoyutai Islands last September. Since then Mainland Chinese and Japanese planes and ships have clashed repeatedly in the waters around and the air above the Diaoyutai Islands to assert sovereignty. This is why Beijing's announced air defense identification zone must be regarded as merely a means of maintaining the status quo. Japan had already included the Diaoyutai Islands in its air defense identification zone. Had Beijing failed to make an equivalent response by including the Diaoyutai Islands, it would have failed to preserve Diaoyutai Island's disputed status. The United States has already said "We do not hold any position on Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty." Therefore it should not bias its position in favor of either China or Japan. It should acknowledge that China and Japan dispute the islands' sovereignty. It should attempt to guide the two parties to shelve the sovereignty dispute and jointly develop the Diaoyutai Islands' resources. It should guide the two parties toward a compromise settlement.

The United States says, on the one hand that it holds no position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. But on the other hand it encourages Japan to use the US-Japan Security Treaty to escalate the sovereignty conflict. Is this not a contradiction? The United States declared a "Return to Asia" for the purpose of "rebalancing." Its motive should have been the pursuit of peace and a win-win scenario for Asia. Instead it has provided the accelerant for a Sino-Japanese conflict. It has put the United States itself in jeopardy. Once it triggers military, political, and economic disaster, how will it answer to the people of Mainland China, Japan, and Taiwan, let alone to the American people? It actions will go down as an shameful debacle in America's history.

China and Japan have apparently begun a game of "Chicken." Two cars race toward a precipice. The driver who leaps from his car first is the chicken. But the potential for war may persuade the parties to be more cautious, and avoid touching off armed conflict. Even if China and Japan only engage in limited war, the damage to international political stability and economic prosperity would be inestimable. It is more likely that Japan would provoke a conflict. A democracy is more susceptible to populist sentiment. Paradoxically Beijing's authoritarianism may be better able to exercise self-restraint. Once the shooting begins, Japan's political and economic wounds will probably be more serious. Similarly, democracy is less able to withstand political and economic impacts than authoritarianism.

If the United States government wants to use the Diaoyutai Islands as a pretext to "Return to Asia" or engage in "Rebalancing," it is barking up the wrong tree. If the Japanese government under Abe wants to use the Diaoyutai Islands as a pretext to "contain China," it is playing with fire. The Diaoyutai Islands status quo has already been upset by Ishihara's "nationalization." Abe wants to change the Diaoyutai Islands status quo by changing Japan's "peace constitution" on which its peace and prosperity depend. If it succeeds, the Abe government will go down in infamy. Abe must not drag the United States down with it. Abe must not shove the United States into the inferno ahead of it.

As for Taiwan, Japan's air defense identification zone has already intruded into Diaoyutai Island waters. Yet no one on Taiwan has uttered a peep. Taiwan's own air defense identification zone actually excludes the Diaoyutai Islands. Yet no one utters a peep. Taiwan has taken advantage of the heightened conflict between Mainland China and Japan to conclude a "Taiwan-Japan Fisheries Agreement." It became the biggest beneficiary. It is the proverbial fisherman who benefitted from the struggle between the crane and the clam. It should not gloat over this victory. It should use Taiwan's position to maintain the "disputed status quo." Taiwan must realize that its strength alone is not enough to perpetuate the conflict.

The United States must return to its "We do not hold any position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands" stance. Let all parties first accept the fact that the status quo is an ongoing dispute over sovereignty. After all, one must first acknowledge the existence of a dispute before one can sit down at the negotiating table and begin reconciliation.

美國應先承認釣魚台的「爭議現狀」
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.27 03:35 am

中國大陸與日本在釣魚台的對峙已經進入一觸即發的狀態,美國媒體《富比士》警告美國政府:這是美國在外交上的嚴重過失與無能,很可能貽害世界,並造成災難性後果。

然而,在中日衝突危機節節升高之際,能夠發生煞車作用的還是美國。美國第一個動作,應該力促爭執的各方──日、陸、台,包括美國自己在內,先共同接受釣魚台的「爭議現狀」。亦即共同承認:「釣魚台為議論未定的是非之地。」

釣魚台問題源自美國在一九七二年將釣魚台「移交」給日本。但是,美國卻自始對釣島的主權歸屬「不持立場」,而稱只是將「行政管轄權」移交日本。亦即,即使從美國的地位而言,日本今天主張「對釣魚台擁有主權」,已逾越了美國的認知與承諾。而美國倘竟因日本主張「對釣島擁有主權」而掀起並捲入了中日戰爭,則美國非但不能自圓其說,而簡直是自批其頰;一旦「貽害世界/造成災難性後果」,其嚴重性更非止將面對世界輿論的矢石交加而已。

美國必須回到「對釣魚台主權不持立場」的原點,也就是必須承認釣島的「爭議現狀」。此所謂解鈴還須繫鈴人。美日皆稱,北京此次公告「防空識別區」為「改變現狀」,但首先「改變現狀」的卻是日本去年九月將釣島「國有化」。此後,中日機艦就在釣島海空尬來尬去,均在「宣示主權」。準此而言,北京公告防空識別區的動作,也只能視為「維持現狀」的措施;畢竟日本早已將釣魚台劃入其防空識別區,北京若不相對作出因應也將釣魚台劃入,即不能維持釣魚台的「爭議現狀」。對美國而言,既稱「對釣魚台主權不持立場」,即不應對中日的主權立場有所偏倚;反而應當承認中日雙方對主權立場的「爭議現狀」,然後設法引導雙方「擱置主權爭議/共享釣島利益」,也就是引導雙方共創「退而求其次」的和解方案。

可是,美國現今的做法卻是:一方面「對釣島主權不持立場」,但另一方面卻坐視、甚至以《美日安保條約》鼓動日方升高「主權衝突」,這豈非自相矛盾?其實,美國宣示「重返亞洲」,建構「再平衡」,所追求的應是亞洲的和平共贏,倘若如今竟成為引爆中日衝突的助燃劑,且使美國自身陷入危境,一旦引發軍事、政治及經濟上的大災難,非但對中、日、台的人民不能交代,也對美國人民不能交代,更將鑄成美國的歷史錯誤與恥辱。

中日雙方似已進入博弈理論的「懦夫賽局」:兩部車子飆向懸崖,視誰先跳車為「懦夫」。然而,愈是可能引爆戰爭,也可能愈促使各方產生警覺,避免輕易引爆武裝衝突。但即使「大戰」的可能性不大,只要中日開火,縱使只是有限戰爭,其在國際政治及國際經濟上的衝擊與傷害皆是不可輕估的。就大局來看,日本開釁的可能性似乎較大,因為民主政治較易出現民粹性的行險,北京的專制反而可能自我節制;而一旦開火後,日本在政治及經濟上所受傷害亦較大,同理是因民主政治在政經衝擊上的承受力不如專制政治。

因而,美國若以釣魚台為「重返亞洲」、「再平衡」的籌碼,顯係文不對題;而日本安倍政府若竟欲以釣魚台為「圍堵中國」的題材,更不啻玩火自焚。釣魚台的「現狀」已因石原慎太郎的「國有化」而敗亂至今;倘若安倍又因欲改變釣島之「現狀」,而致「改變」了日本賴以國泰民安的《和平憲法》,安倍政府必將成為日本歷史之罪人。總之,安倍不能拖美國下水,美國也不能推安倍入火坑。

至於台灣,日本的防空識別區早已將釣魚台海域劃進去,台灣無人吭聲;台灣自己的防空識別區,卻竟將釣魚台劃在外頭,也無人吭聲。台灣趁大陸與日本升高釣島衝突之際,完成了《台日漁業協定》,成為最大的受益者。漁翁既已得利,就不要妄論鷸蚌之爭,而當知「維持爭議現狀」之必要,亦應知僅憑台灣一己之力不足「維持爭議」。

美國必須回到「對釣魚台主權不持立場」的原點,讓各方先皆接受「主權爭議現狀」;畢竟,先承認了「爭議」之存在,始有坐上談判桌共商和解方案的可能性。

Monday, November 25, 2013

Su Tseng-chang's Phony Defense of Diaoyutai

Su Tseng-chang's Phony Defense of Diaoyutai
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 26, 2013


Summary: Su Tseng-chang has long been weak on the Diaoyutai sovereignty issue. He has never shown any inclination to defend the Diaoyutai Islands. Yet he is demanding that Ma Ying-jeou get tough. He himself remains weak, yet he demands that others show strength. But suppose getting tough leads Taiwan into a trap? How secure will Su Tseng-chang feel then?

Full Text below:

The Mainland China Ministry of Defense has included the Diaoyutai Islands in its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. The US and Japanese response was vehement. U.S. Defense Secretary Charles Hagel reiterated that the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applied to Diaoyutai. Secretary of State John Kerry accused Mainland China of unilaterally changing the status quo. Japan continued escalating its protests. Mainland China responded strongly to US and Japanese declarations. East China Sea tensions rapidly heated up. Taipei finds itself caught between Beijing and Tokyo. Its position was sensitive to begin with. Now it finds itself caught in a conflict between Beijing, Washington, and Tokyo. It must respond with caution. Yet DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has increased tensions by making wild declarations. He really does not seem to understand his position.

First Su Tseng-chang accused Beijing of "regional hegemony." He demanded that President Ma Ying-jeou get tough, "Otherwise he would not only be looked upon with contempt, but the enemy would soon be at our gates." Other DPP legislators said that if the Ma administration failed to issue a solemn warning [to Beijing], "In the future [Mainland] China might announce that Taiwan was part of its national territory." These unfounded allegations were outrageous.

Beijing included the Diaoyutai Islands in its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone as a defensive move. Its purpose was to counter Japan's Diaoyutai Islands "nationalization" strategy. It was Mainland China's way of asserting sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Taipei insists that Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty belongs to the Republic of China. But it is willing to shelve disputes with Japan, and engage in joint development. Beijing-Tokyo conflict erupted over Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty. For the sake of stable cross-strait relations and its traditional friendship with Washington and Tokyo, Taipei proposed an East China Sea Peace Initiative and called on all parties to remain calm and exercise restraint.

The DPP has been mealy-mouthed regarding Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty. Many in the DPP support Lee Teng-hui's claim that "The  Diaoyutai Islands belong to Japan." But some believe Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty belongs to DPP governed Yilan County. Su Tseng-chang has publicly supported "The Diaoyutai Islands belong to Japan" position. Last year Japan unilaterally "nationalized" the Diaoyutai Islands. This led to Sino-Japanese tensions, and embarrassing and self-contradictory cross-Strait relations. The ROC government solemnly declared that it does not recognize Japan's unilateral actions, and reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Su Tseng-chang was visiting Japan at the time, as a "Friend of Japan." He publicly declared that Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement actions on both sides of the Strait were "destabilizing the region." He called on the United States, Japan, and Korea to form a "democratic alliance" to contain Mainland China. One has to wonder whether Su Tseng-chang is a citizen of Japan or the Republic of China?

Prior to Japanese occupation, the Diaoyutai Islands were part of China's territory. This is not in dispute. After World War II, it should have been returned to the Republic of China, along with Penghu and the rest of Taiwan. The US allowed Japan to administer the islands. But sovereignty still belonged to the Republic of China. Following cross-Strait reconciliation, the Republic of China reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands in the national interest. This would have been the most effective assertion of sovereignty, and the one most consistent with the dignity and interests of the Chinese nation. Unfortunately, elements on Taiwan undermined the consensus regarding sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Taipei's long friendly relations with Washington and Tokyo limited its ability to fight for its sovereignty. This forced Mainland China to take the lead in defending sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands.

Mainland China established an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. This led to tensions in East Asia. But the Mainland did not invade Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone. The MAC issued a statement on behalf of the government. It said "The Diaoyutai Islands are Republic of China territory. " It called on Beijing to shelve disputes, and not increase regional tensions." This strong advice took into account the stability of cross-Strait relations and Taipei's traditional friendship wtih Washington and Tokyo. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party issued a statement on Taipei-Tokyo and Taipei-Washington relations. It screamed about "The enemy at our gates." The Mainland's demarcation of airspace was aimed at Japan. How does that make it "The enemy at our gates?" Both the ROC and PRC constitutions include territory under the other's jurisdiction. Naturally Mainland China has the constitutional authority to fight Japan for sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands on behalf of Taiwan. 

The strategic situation in East Asia is complex. If Taipei takes Beijing's side, that may be beneficial to cross-strait relations. But it would offend the US-Japan security alliance. Also, cross-Strait relations are now in the "deep end of the pool." Beijing on one side, and Washington and Tokyo on the other side, have yet to pressure Taipei to take sides. Taipei is still able to maintain strategic ambiguity. But Mainland China is on the rise. It is determined to achieve East Asian regional hegemony in the 21st century. The United States has decided to return to Asia, in order to maintain U.S. strategic dominance. China and Japan are a case of "one mountain with no room for two tigers." The complex strategic situation means the sovereignty dispute will be difficult to resolve. The situation has become increasingly intense. Taiwan may one day be compelled to choose sides.

The Chinese people on both sides of the Strait belong to one family. Historical developments have made Taiwan dependent on the US-Japan strategic relationsship. The status quo must change with the times. Strategic conflict may compress the timline. Blue vs. Green confrontation remains intense. That is Taiwan's tragedy. East Asian strategic warming is advantageous to Taiwan. But the situation appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Taiwan must exercise strategic caution.

Su Tseng-chang has long been weak on the Diaoyutai sovereignty issue. He has never shown any inclination to defend the Diaoyutai Islands. Yet he is demanding that Ma Ying-jeou get tough. He himself remains weak, yet he demands that others show strength. But suppose getting tough leads Taiwan into a trap? How secure will Su Tseng-chang feel then?

社論-蘇貞昌假保釣 自己軟 逼人硬
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年11月26日 04:09

大陸國防部將釣魚台列嶼劃入東海防空識別區,引起美日強烈反應,美國防部長海格爾重申《美日共同防衛條約》適用釣魚台,國務卿凱瑞抨擊中國大陸片面改變現狀,日本則不斷拉高抗議層級,大陸卻對美日的反應又做出強烈回應,東海緊張情勢快速增溫。台灣夾在中國大陸與日本間,地位本來就非常敏感,又陷入中美日衝突的暴風核心圈,理應小心應對,民進黨主席蘇貞昌卻放言高論加碼緊張情勢,真是搞不清自己的立場。

蘇貞昌先批中國大陸搞「區域霸權」,又要馬英九總統硬起來,「否則不但會被看不起,更會被人家直接侵門踏戶。」還有民進黨立委說,馬政府如果不提嚴正警告,「未來中國可能公布納入台灣範圍的國土區域」,這種毫無依據的推論真是太離譜了。

中國大陸將釣魚台列嶼劃入東海防空識別區,是一種防禦性的戰略作為,目的在對應日本釣魚台國有化政策,表達中國大陸堅持釣魚台主權的立場。台灣則堅持釣魚台主權屬於中華民國,但願意與日本擱置爭議,共同開發。在中日釣魚台主權衝突激化後,台灣基於兩岸關係的穩定及傳統與美日友好立場,提出東海和平倡議並呼籲各方冷靜自制。

民進黨對釣魚台主權問題立場曖昧,許多人支持李登輝「釣魚台屬於日本」的立場,但也有部分民進黨人士認為釣魚台主權屬於宜蘭縣,蘇貞昌曾經公開支持李登輝「釣魚台屬於日本」的論調。去年日本片面將釣魚台國有化,造成中日關係緊張,及兩岸關係的尷尬與矛盾,中華民國政府嚴正聲明「不承認」日本片面行為,並表達堅持釣魚台主權的立場。蘇貞昌當時卻以「日本之友」姿態訪日,公開演講宣稱兩岸保釣行動「破壞區域穩定」,要求與美日韓合組「民主同盟」圍堵中國大陸。真的不知道蘇貞昌是日本人還是中華民國國民?

釣魚台列嶼在日本據台前屬於中國領土殆無疑義,二戰後本應連同台灣澎湖歸還中華民國,日本在美國支持下占有行政管轄權,但主權仍屬於中華民國。兩岸和解之後,由中華民國站在民族大義立場向日本爭取釣魚台主權,本最為有力,也最符合中華民族的尊嚴與利益。可惜台灣內部並未建立堅持釣魚台主權立場的共識,台灣與美日兩國長期友好的關係又限制了台灣爭取主權立場的行動空間,迫使大陸必須作保護釣魚台主權的前鋒。

中國大陸設置東海防空識別區,造成東亞情勢緊張,但大陸並未侵入台灣主張的防空識別區範圍,陸委會代表政府聲明「釣魚台是為中華民國的領土,呼籲大陸應該擱置爭議,不應升高區域緊張」,奉勸的味道較濃,兼顧了兩岸關係的穩定與台日、台美間的傳統友誼。民進黨卻在兩岸與台日、台美關係中表態,高喊「侵門踏戶」。大陸的領空劃界針對日本,怎會對台灣「侵門踏戶」?兩岸憲法本來就各自涵蓋對方治下的領土,大陸當然擁有憲法權力代表台灣對日本爭取釣魚台主權。

面對複雜的東亞戰略情勢,台灣如果選邊中國大陸,可能有利於兩岸關係的深化,但會得罪美日安保同盟;反之,已進入「深水區」的兩岸關係會非常困難。目前中國大陸與美、日兩國均未逼迫台灣表態,台灣仍能保持戰略模糊。但中國崛起並決心擔任21世紀東亞的區域霸權,美國卻決定重返亞洲,維持美國戰略主導地位,中日又「一山難容二虎」,複雜的戰略情勢注定釣魚台主權爭議已難善了,隨著局勢的激化,台灣未來可能會被逼迫表態。

兩岸中國人同屬一家,歷史淵源卻造成台灣對美日戰略依賴的關係現狀,現狀最好由時間改變,戰略衝突卻可能擠壓時間縱深,藍綠如此對峙,那將是台灣的悲哀。東亞戰略緩和有利於台灣,情勢卻似乎反向發展,台灣在戰略上必須非常謹慎。

蘇貞昌在釣魚台主權問題上一向軟弱,從未展現保釣的決心,現在卻要求馬英九強硬,自己軟弱卻要求別人強硬,但政府錯誤的強硬卻將陷台灣於不義,蘇貞昌究竟安什麼心?

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Mainland China's Air Defense Identification Zone: A Turning Point in Sino-Japanese Relations

Mainland China's Air Defense Identification Zone: A Turning Point in Sino-Japanese Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 25, 2013


Summary: Superficially the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute is between China and Japan. But the United States has a return to Asia strategy. The US and Japan have carefully manipulated the situation. They have turned it into a confrontation between Mainland China and a US-Japan axis. This has forced Beijing to be especially careful in dealing with the Diaoyutai Islands issue. This is why Mainland China has remained passive  on the Diaoyutai Islands "nationalization" dispute. This is why it has sent UAVs into the airspace over the Diaoyutai Islands to test Washington's bottom line.

Full text below:

Mainland China's Ministry of Defense recently announced its Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea. One aspect of the zone attracted the most attention. The Diaoyutai Island waters, which Taipei, Tokyo, and Beijing all lay claim to, is included in the identification zone. The move has elicited strong protests from Tokyo and criticism from Washington. Sino-Japanese relations have been deadlocked for some time. They are now certain to heat up once more.

Last April Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara touched off a firestorm by proposing to "purchase" the Diaoyutai Islands. Sino-Japanese relations deteriorated in three stages. It went from economic warfare to political warfare to diplomatic warfare.

One. Last April a storm of controvery over the "purchase" of the islands erupted. By last September Prime Minister Noda had "nationalized" the islands. This was the economic war phase. Nationalist and anti-Japanese sentiment erupted on the Chinese mainland. Wave upon wave of boycotts of Japanese goods took place, and anti-Japanese protests erupted. Japanese companies suffered significant economic losses. The intent was to use economics to influence politics. The intent was to use Japanese companies to pressure the Japanese government, in the hopes of changing its Diaoyutai Islands "nationalization" policy.

Two. Between "nationalization" and this February, when Mainland China's radars locked on Japanese aircraft, constituted the political war stage. Mainland China's ocean surveillance vessels began regular patrols of waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. Meanwhile, the East China Sea Fleet entered waters around Naguo Island and Shitan Island. The fire control radars of Mainland Chinese warships locked onto Japanese warships. Sino-Japanese tensions reached a new high. Since then relations between the two governments have been deadlocked.

Three. Between the radar lock incident and now, constitutes the diplomatic war stage. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to revive the "Arc of Freedom and Prosperity" policy of the Tara Aso era. It is aggressively using financial assistance to curry favor with ASEAN countries. It is using diplomatic encirclement to "contain" Mainland China. Japan has sold 20 more coast guard cutters to the Philippines. It plans to export weapons to strengthen relations between Japan and Southeast Asian countries.

Based on past experience, we believe Mainland China suddenly announced its East China Sea air defense identification zone as a legalization measure. It wants to ensure that it is on the same legal footing as Japan in any confrontation over the islands' sovereignty.

In the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute, Beijing and Tokyo are currently on unequal footings. Japan has de facto control of the islands. It also has the advantage of having "nationalized" them. Last September, Noda announced the "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands. Mainland China dispatched coast guard cutters and normalized patrols. Its goal was to break Japan's one-sided, de facto control over the Diaoyutai Islands. It entered the airspace over the Diaoyutai Islands to force Japan to admit the existence of a sovereignty dispute.

These two measures are not permanent and are quite flexible. They can be suspended unilaterally, any time. Mainland China appears to have plenty of wriggle room on the Diaoyutai Islands issue. Its motive at the moment is to resolve the dispute rather than reassert sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. As long as Japan recognizes that sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands is in dispute and retracts its nationalization measures, the sovereignty dispute can be settled.

Unfortunately as matters stand, Japan has rejected Mainland China's proposals. The Japanese side persists in foot-dragging. Under the circumstances, Mainland China was forced to resort to legalistic means and declare an air defense identification zone. It was forced to seek an equal legal footing with Japan over the Diaoyutai Islands issue. Legalization is a sugar coating on top of the sovereignty issue. It diminishes the maneuvering room for dispute resolution. It will make the Diaoyutai Islands dispute even less soluble.

Consider the facts. We believe that Mainland China's inclusion of the Diaoyutai Islands into its East China Sea air defense identification zone is a pre-emptive maneuver. By the end of this year Washington and Tokyo intend to modify their Diaoyutai Islands guidelines. The purpose of the legal measures was military intimidation.

Superficially the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute is between China and Japan. But the United States has a return to Asia strategy. The US and Japan have carefully manipulated the situation. They have turned it into a confrontation between Mainland China and a US-Japan axis. This has forced Beijing to be especially careful in dealing with the Diaoyutai Islands issue. This is why Mainland China has remained passive  on the Diaoyutai Islands "nationalization" dispute. This is why it has sent UAVs into the airspace over the Diaoyutai Islands to test Washington's bottom line.

After Abe assumed power, Japan dispatched a special envoy to Beijing. It hoped for political dialogue to ease bilateral relations. On the other hand, Abe also increased preparedness in Diaoyutai Islands waters. He called for an aggressive defense of the Diaoyutai Islands, and a modification of the US-Japan defense guidelines. His double-dealing forced the Mainland to be more aggressive and to seize the initiative in the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute.

In short Mainland China's announcement of its East China Sea air defense identification zone was the first step in affirming its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, as well as ensuring its legalization. This will be a turning point in Sino-Japanese relations. Tokyo and Taipei have clashed over the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. Now the East China Sea has been transformed into a "Chinese lake." This will gradually lead to military clashes with Washington and Tokyo. Taipei is part of the East China Sea and Diaoyutai Islands dispute. It must of course respond as soon as possible.

中共防空識別區:中日關係的新拐點
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.25 04:13 am

中共國防部日前首次公布劃定東海防空識別區,其中最受關注的是,台日中三方爭議的釣魚台海域被劃入識別區範圍內。此舉,已引起日本的強烈抗議和美國的批評;僵持多時的中日緊張關係,勢必再次升溫。

自去年四月日本東京都知事石原慎太郎引發的釣魚台購島爭端以來,中日關係的惡化,可分為經濟戰、政治戰與外交戰等三個階段的演變。

首先,從去年四月購島爭議到去年九月前首相野田的「國有化」措施,屬於「經濟戰」階段;中國大陸點燃國內民族主義的反日情緒,一波波反日貨、反日商活動,讓日本企業蒙受重大的經濟損失,這是意圖「以經圍政」,希望利用日商向日本政府施壓,以期改變釣島國有化政策。

其次,是從國有化措施到今年二月中共雷達鎖定日機事件,是「政治戰」階段;中共海監船開始定期進入釣魚台海域巡視,同時東海艦隊也進入與那國島及石垣島中間水域。中共軍艦以火控雷達鎖定日本艦機,讓中日關係緊張達到最高峰,其後,兩國關係即陷入僵局。

第三,從雷達鎖定事件至今,是「外交戰」階段;首相安倍重拾麻生時期所推動的「自由與繁榮之弧」政策,積極以經濟援助的方式拉攏東協國家,利用外交包圍戰對大陸形成包圍網。其間,日本更向菲律賓出售二十艘海巡艇,意圖以武器輸出來強化日本與東南亞國家的關係。

觀察歷史的縱深,我們認為,中共這次突然發布東海防空識別區範圍,目的是想要利用「法制化」的措施,以形成與日本在釣島主權議題上對等的對抗地位。

事實上,在釣魚台主權爭議中,中日兩國一直處於不對等的關係。日本對釣島不但具有實質控制的事實,也存在國有化的法制優勢;而自從去年九月野田宣布釣島國有化後,中國大陸一方面出動海巡艦常態化巡視,目的就是要打破日本「單獨控制釣魚台」的事實;另一方面以無人機進入釣島領空,是要迫使日本承認釣魚台存在主權爭議。

然而,這兩項措施並不具有「永久性」,且因作法相當彈性,似隨時可以單方面中止;由此可見,中國大陸對釣魚台的立場似乎存在一定的迴旋空間。其目的,是要解決爭議,而不在於收回釣魚台主權。亦即,只要日本承認釣魚台主權存在爭議,並收回國有化措施,雙方的主權爭議便可順勢落幕。

問題是,情勢的發展,顯示中共的這兩項主張遲遲未被日本接受,日方只是一味「以拖待變」。在這種情況下,中共只好祭出發布防空識別區的法制化手段,以與日本在釣魚台問題上取得平起平坐的法制地位。在主權爭議包上「法制化」的糖衣後,也讓爭議解決的迴旋空間頓時壓縮,這將使日後的釣魚台爭議更加難解。

就事實的演變看,我們認為,中國大陸將釣魚台納入東海防空識別區的作為,是想要先發制人,在美日今年底針對保衛釣魚台進行調整防衛新指針前,以法制化措施達到軍事威嚇的效果。

釣魚台主權爭議表面上是中日兩國之爭,但在美國重返亞洲戰略的詮釋下,以及日本的精心操弄下,卻演變成中國大陸與美日同盟的對抗,這讓北京在處理釣魚台問題上格外小心翼翼。這也是中國大陸一直將釣島爭議被動地界定在國有化議題上,同時一再以無人機進入釣島空域來測試美國介入底線的主要原因。

安倍上台後,日本一方面向北京派遣特使,希望進行政治對話以緩和雙邊關係;在另一方面,安倍又積極強化對釣魚台海域的防備,同時又積極鼓吹以釣魚台為防衛主體,來修改美日防衛指針。這種兩面手法,讓中國大陸覺得必須要採取更大動作出擊,以掌握釣魚台主權爭議的主動權。

簡言之,中共公布東海防空識別區,是中國大陸掌握釣魚台主控權的第一步,也是其釣魚台法制化的開端,也將是中日關係的一個新拐點。過去原本的台日中釣魚台主權爭議,在東海被中國「內海化」後,將會逐漸發酵為美日中台的東海軍事爭議。身為東海周邊及釣魚台爭議當事國的台灣,對此當然必須及早因應。

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Support Free Trade Zone Financial Deregulation

Support Free Trade Zone Financial Deregulation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 22, 2013


Summary: We look forward to financial industry deregulation within the Free Trade Zones. They will attract more foreign investment. They will increase the breadth and depth of Taiwan's shallow dish market. When a market has sufficient participants, these participants will restrain each other. They will accelerate market equilibrium. This will avoid speculative arbitrage. The Central Bank must create a niche for the financial industry. It must create a better business environment. Its primary goal must be to accelerate the transformation of Taiwan's economic structure.

Full text below:

During the 1940s, Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's totalitarian Communism reached their ideological zenith. A planned economy was de rigueur, and augmented by the lingering shadows cast by the Great Depression of the 1930s. Western countries demanded rampant regulation of their economies. Against all odds, Friedrich Hayek championed the market economy. He issued a declaration that would reverberate through the latter half of the 20th century. He said that if the West rushes headlong into the planned economy, it will be taking the road to serfdom. He resolutely championed liberalism and the market economy.

According to Hayek, the role of government is insignificant. It as at best a bystander. In the modern global economy, all countries have extremely complex financial systems. Minute fluctuations in their financial systems are likely to cause a snowball effect, and affect the real economy. This poses a problem for economists. Should the government remain a bystander? Or should it become a participant? If it wants to become a participant, how much authority should it wield, and by what means? Most importantly, how can one prevent this participant from becoming a problem?

The ROC is a member of WTO, APEC and other international organizations. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has a high degree of economic freedom. The Heritage Foundation "2013 Index of Economic Freedom" ranked it 20th among 177. Its score has increased over the past four years. Among 41 economies in the Asian Pacific region, it ranks 5th. It trails only Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand.

The paradox is that Taiwan's economy is among the world's freest. Yet its financial sector growth ranks among the world's worst. According to World Economic Forum (WEF) "2012 Financial Development Report" world rankings for financial centers, Hong Kong ranks number one. Even the Mainland, with strict financial controls, ranks 23rd. Taiwan did not even make the cut. The report also makes an important point. In both developed and developing economies, a rigid financial system has an "adverse impact on economic recovery and growth."

Whether a nation's financial industry is developed is closely related to whether its capital is free to move about. Hong Kong has been called "a bastion of the free economy." It has long maintained a simple tax system and imposes no foreign exchange controls. All sorts of foreign currencies are readily convertible and transferrable. Capital flows are unrestricted. The flow of people, materiel, and capital are unimpeded. This has made Hong Kong Asia's most prosperous trading port.

By contrast, Taiwan may have a high degree of economic freedom. But capital flows and the development of financial products are subject to a maze of restrictions. The signs of human meddling are everywhere. For example, capital flows into Taiwan must be reported to the Central Bank. FSC financial instruments have long been restricted by conservative policies. Taiwan has far less diversity than neighboring economies.

Taiwan has a shallow dish economy. It must maintain exchange rate stability. It must avoid becoming a target of foreign hot money. Some degree of protection may be necessary. But excessive protectionism will only harm itself.

The FSC has recently changed its conservative policies. It now recommends deregulation of financial products linked to Taiwan interest rates, exchange rates, and NTD-denominated commodities within the Free Trade Zone. But differences of opinion have emerged between it and the Central Bank. The Central Bank's main objection has remained the same. It is worried about the impact of NTD exchange rate fluctuations. The Central Bank has adopted a tough stance. It refuses to compromise. But financial instruments must be linked to NTD interest rates and exchange rates. Businesses located outside the Taiwan Region cannot compete with Hong Kong and Singapore. Taiwan's financial industry will have no niche in which it can compete.

Taiwan's financial industry must be deregulated. It must be made part of the ROC's overall economic development plan. It must be consistent with industrial restructuring. The dog must wag the tail. The tail must never wag the dog. Exchange rate stability is important. But the Central Bank's mandate is not limited to stabilizing the exchange rate. If the Central Bank stabilizes the exchange rate at the expense of financial sector growth, that is contrary to its mission.

For years the Central Bank has perceived foreign central banks as the source of chaos-inducing hot money. It has kept a close watch over funds. The FSC is extremely conservative about financial instruments and deregulation. It intervenes everywhere. This has stalled Taiwan's financial industry for nearly 10 years. Over the past 12 years, the output value of Taiwan's financial GDP ratio has declined steadily. In 2012 the GDP ratio fell to 6.5%. This lags behind Hong Kong, Singapore, and even South Korea. In recent years, the Mainland has gradually implemented financial deregulation. Its market offers a wealth of opportunities. This has induced financial professionals on Taiwan to flock to the Mainland. The financial industry on Taiwan faces a loss of both human and financial capital.

Taiwan's economy remains stalled. Its service industries remain low value-added industries. This is directly related to the atrophy of the financial industry. Statistics show that average salaries in Taiwan's banking industry are twice that of other service industries. But in recent years Taiwan's financial industry has stalled. People of talent have been lured away by the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Sectors with higher than average salaries have suffered major losses. Needless to say the national average salary has not risen.

HTC and Acer profits are warning signals. They underscore Taiwan's ICT industry bottleneck. These major growth engines for Taiwan's economic growth have stalled. Taiwan urgently needs the financial services industry as a new growth engine. They must provide balance for Taiwan's economic structure.

We look forward to financial industry deregulation within the Free Trade Zones. They will attract more foreign investment. They will increase the breadth and depth of Taiwan's shallow dish market. When a market has sufficient participants, these participants will restrain each other. They will accelerate market equilibrium. This will avoid speculative arbitrage. The Central Bank must create a niche for the financial industry. It must create a better business environment. Its primary goal must be to accelerate the transformation of Taiwan's economic structure.

社論-支持自由經濟示範區金融鬆綁
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年11月22日 04:09

1940年代希特勒國家社會主義與史達林共產主義專制集權思想攀至頂峰,計畫經濟大行其道,加上1930年代大蕭條陰影依然籠罩,西方國家呼籲政府管制經 濟的聲浪甚囂塵上,主張市場經濟的海耶克卻力排眾議,說了一句深刻影響後半20世紀人類思想的名言:「若西方貿然朝向計畫經濟前行,等於步上奴役之路」堅 決主張自由主義和市場經濟。

在海耶克的理論中,政府地位無足輕重,頂多是一個旁觀者。然而,在現代國際經濟體系中,每一國家都面對極為複雜的金融網路,任何金融上的小波動,都有可能 引發滾雪球般的效果,進而影響實體經濟。這就給經濟學家製造了一個難題,政府究竟是旁觀者,還是參與者?如果要參與,權限有多大?透過怎樣的機制?最重要 的是,要如何避免「參與者本身變成問題的來源」?

身為WTO、APEC等國際組織的成員,台灣是高度的自由經濟體。美國傳統基金會公布「2013年經濟自由度指數」顯示,台灣在世界177個國家中排名第20,得分連續4年上升,在亞太41個國家中為第5,僅次於香港、新加坡、澳洲、紐西蘭。

弔詭的是,台灣經濟自由度名列前茅,但金融業發展的排名卻在全球吊車尾。據世界經濟論壇(WEF)公布的「2012年金融發展報告」,在世界金融中心的排 名中,香港高居第一,連對金融管制甚嚴的大陸都排23,台灣竟未入榜。這份報告還點出一個重要的觀點:不論已發展或發展中國家,金融體系僵化「不利經濟復 甦與發展」。

一國金融業發達與否,與其資金能否自由進出息息相關,香港被稱為「自由經濟的堡壘」,係因長期實行簡單稅制及無外匯管制政策,各種外幣可以隨時兌換調動,資金進出無限制。人流、物流、金流暢行無阻,讓香港成為亞洲最興旺的貿易港。

反觀經濟高度自由的台灣,對資金進出和金融產品的發展卻限制重重,人為干預斧痕鑿鑿。譬如,資金匯入台灣,必須向央行申報,長期以來金融商品在金管會保守政策管制下,多樣性遠遠不及鄰近國家。

台灣是淺碟型經濟體,必須保持匯率穩定,避免遭外資熱錢狙擊,適度防衛確有必要,過度防衛卻會自傷。

金管會最近一改保守政策,力主在自經區開放「與台灣利率、匯率、新台幣計價商品連結」的金融商品,卻出現和央行意見分歧現象。央行反對的理由始終如一,擔 心影響新台幣匯率波動,央行態度強硬,絕不妥協。可是,金融商品若不得與新台幣利率、匯率連結,境外的生意又不是香港和新加坡的對手,台灣金融業還有什麼 競爭利基?

台灣金融業的鬆綁,要在國家整體經濟發展計畫之下規畫,要配合產業結構調整的大脈絡,應該是「狗搖尾巴」絕不會是「尾巴搖狗」;匯率穩定非常重要,但央行的權責不是只有穩定匯率,若央行以匯率穩定為唯一職責,即使阻礙金融業發展也在所不惜,那就違背設置央行的宗旨。

長年以來,央行慣性把外資視為炒匯熱錢,對資金緊迫盯人,金管會對金融商品的開放與管制的鬆綁也保守至極,干預管制無所不在,導致台灣近10年金融業發展 幾乎一潭死水。近12年來,台灣金融產值占GDP比率節節下滑,2012年占GDP比率降至6.5%,遠不及香港、新加坡甚至韓國。大陸近年金融管制逐漸 開放,市場充滿機會,造成台灣金融人才大量流向大陸現象,台灣金融業面臨人財兩失窘境。

台灣經濟發展陷入困頓,服務業附加價值低,與金融業萎縮絕對有關。統計顯示,台灣銀行業平均薪資水準是工業或其他服務業的2倍,但近年台灣金融業發展遲滯,人才被大陸、香港和新加坡大舉挖角,平均薪資較高的部門就業人口快速流失,國內平均薪資自然無法提升。

宏達電、宏碁經營上的警訊,凸顯了台灣資通訊產業陷入瓶頸,支撐台灣經濟成長的一大引擎正在失速,亟需金融服務業成為新的成長引擎,進而平衡台灣的經濟結構。

我們期盼藉由金融業納入自經區後的法規鬆綁,能吸引更多的外資來台,幫助淺碟型市場的台灣增加其廣度與深度。事實上,當一個市場有足夠的參與者,彼此才能 相互牽制,助市場加速達成均衡,避免投機套利的發生。現階段,央行要以為金融業創造利基、營造更好的經營環境,幫助台灣經濟結構加速轉型為首要目標。 
 

Convene an Economic Affairs Conference -- Now!

Convene an Economic Affairs Conference -- Now!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 21, 2013


Summary: Taiwan's economy will have difficulty growing by 2%. Once shining high-tech industries such as AU Optronics and Acer are struggling to survive. Industry elder Morris Chang has butted heads with the Central Bank over exchange rates. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is highly favorable to domestic and foreign investment. But the DPP and TSU have obstructed its passage, and stalled it in the Legislative Yuan.

Full text below:

Taiwan's economy will have difficulty growing by 2%. Once shining high-tech industries such as AU Optronics and Acer are struggling to survive. Industry elder Morris Chang has butted heads with the Central Bank over exchange rates. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is highly favorable to domestic and foreign investment. But the DPP and TSU have obstructed its passage, and stalled it in the Legislative Yuan. The CEPD has proposed a Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. But other agencies refuse to accept it. Premier Chiang Yi-hua's decision has been given zero scrutiny.

Everyone knows the economy is in trouble. But the ruling and opposition parties, businesses, and even administration officials continue to go their own way. They work against each other. They cannot get any traction. Eventually businesses and the public will lose confidence in the future. The situation is already critical. We urge the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan to convene an Economic Affairs Conference as soon as possible. Further footdragging amidst the economic rise of the Mainland will reduce Taiwan to a lonely isle.

The STA and Free Trade Zone Pilot Program were part of President Ma's "Golden Decade" platform, advanced years ago during his re-election campaign. It is an important step that will bring the outside world to Taiwan. It can accelerate the flow of goods, people, and capital. It can pave the way for membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

President Ma was re-elected. He placed Minister of Economic Affairs Yin Chi-ming in charge of Free Trade Zone Pilot Program planning. But Yin could not complete the project during his term. On February 18, current chairman Kuan Chung-min dropped a bombshell. He said the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program was too complex. He said it must be scaled down to accelerate implementation. Chairman Kuan said that new plans would be sent to the Executive Yuan within one to four months. Some portions do not require amending the law. These can be completed immediately. Other portions require amending the law. They can be developed in tandem with a draft law. But the Executive Yuan was tardy. It approved Stage One of the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program on August 8. It announced that 12 administrative regulations could not be updated before the end of September this year. It once again failed to meet the deadline.

In March of this year, Premier Chiang Yi-hua presided over a political affairs conference. He listened to CEPD reports on the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. He instructed the various ministries and departments to develop concrete plans, and implement services on schedule. Free Trade Zone Pilot Program special regulations were submitted to the Executive Yuan for approval in mid-October. Deputy Premier Mao Chi-kuo and Political Affairs Committee Member Hsueh Chin reviewed them. But recently rumors emerged that the Science Council and the Minister of Finance vehemently opposed the tax provisions This forced Premier Chiang to reconsider. This shows that the CEPD groundwork, communications, the Deputy Premier and Political Affairs Committee Member review, and Premier Chiang's instructions were all lies. This shows that the ministries and departments are self-interested and uncommunicative, and make it impossible for policies to emerge from the Executive Yuan.

Does the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program include the financial industry? The policy changes from day to day. People are left clueless. When Chairman Kuan first took office, he intentionally included the financial sector. Later he said the financial sector was not limited by geography, therefore would not be included. He said capital flows would not be included in the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. But in July he once again told the Executive Yuan he would incorporate the financial industry into the Free Trade Zone Pilot program. The goal was to make financial products more diversified. Promoting financial sector wealth management businesses would enable Taiwan to become more prosperous. It would attract the necessary talent and capital. His words are still ringing in our ears. Controversy has recently arisen over how to open up markets for financial products. It shows that the CEPD, the Financial Supervisory Commission, and the Central Bank have trouble communicating. The FSC advocates continued opening of NTD-denominated commodities. The CEPD advocates more substantial opening and the wooing of wealth management businesses. But the Central Bank agrees only to further open OBU and OSU businesses, and those that do not involve the NTD. Blue Camp legislator Ting Shou-chung says the denominated currency should not be NTDs. Nor should it be linked to the NTD interest rate or exchange rate. Otherwise "People might as well buy from foreign countries."

CEO Peng and Chairman of the FSC Tseng Min-chung say they have no problems communicating. They say the NTD was open to foreign financial businesses long ago. They say it is an entirely different matter than the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. The two want to reassure legislators by dispelling rumors of non-cooperation. But this does nothing to solve the practical problems. This is evident in the controversy within the Executive Yuan over financial industry liberalization within the Free Trade Zone.

Taiwan's financial product designs, exchange rates, and interest rates, should not be all of one piece. Recently Morris Chang used unusually harsh language while criticizing exchange rates. CEO Peng used Tsai Ming-Kai, Liu Ching-piao and motor scooter users as a shield. Central Bank decisions on exchange rates would not be challenged. But outsiders would see the Central Bank as overly defensive.

History is written by the victors. They are the heroes. Under President Ma's two terms, Taiwan's economy has finally grown and yielded results. Is the financial sector as a proportion of GDP up or down? Is the rise of the Mainland marginalizing Taiwan's economy, or providing it with new opportunities? These should be all be tallied up. Who is responsible can also be determined. Continuing down our current path is unlikely to breath new life into a stifled economy. In 2016 President Ma will turn over power to someone else. What will follow is difficult to imagine.

Instead of weeping over the state of the nation, why not seize the initiative? Convene an Economic Affairs Conference. Allow different voices to express themselves. After rigorous examination, let the truth to emerge. Seek consensus, then combine our efforts.

社論-立即召開經濟國是會議
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年11月21日 04:09

台灣經濟保二困難,曾經閃耀的高科技業如友達、宏碁等,相繼陷入掙扎求存的境地,產業界大老張忠謀也為匯率問題槓上央行。《兩岸服務貿易協議》大大有利台灣內外投資,卻因民進黨與台聯杯葛,在立法院遲遲不能通過生效。經建會提出自由經濟示範區的租稅藍圖,其他相關部會卻不肯接受,已被行政院長江宜樺決定歸零審視。

全民都知道國家經濟出了問題,但執政黨、在野黨、企業,甚至行政團隊內部卻依然各行其是,相互反對,不能產生力量。長此以往企業與民眾將對經濟前途漸失信心。情勢已甚危急,我們建議行政立法兩院應盡速召開經濟國是會議,再蹉跎下去,面對大陸經濟強勢崛起,台灣勢必淪為孤懸海角的孤島。

兩岸服貿協議及自由經濟示範區,是馬總統在競選連任前1年所提出的「黃金十年」願景,要讓世界走進台灣的重要步驟,藉此加速開放物流、人流、金流,並為加入「跨太平洋夥伴協議」(TPP)做準備。

馬總統在成功連任後,即委任當時經建會主委尹啟銘負責規畫示範區,但尹啟銘任內未竟全功。現任主委管中閔2月18日甫上任即放出震撼彈,表示自由經濟示範區規畫太過龐雜,將進行縮減調整,以加快推動速度。管主委強調1個月內將新規畫送行政院,最遲不超過4個月。不需修法的部分可以立刻進行;需修法部分同步研擬特別法草案。但行政院遲至8月8日才通過自經示範區第一階段推動計畫,當時也宣布今年9月底前可完成12項行政法規增修,但時程一再跳票。

其實行政院長江宜樺今年3月主持政務會談,就已經聽取經建會「自由經濟示範區規畫方案」的報告,並在會中指示各部會應依規畫方向研擬具體推動計畫,務期如期落實執行。然而自經示範區特別條例在10月中報送行政院核定,並歷經副閣揆毛治國、政務委員薛琦的審議。然而對於租稅部分,最近卻傳出國科會主委及財政部長大力反對,迫使江揆決定重新研議。顯示經建會之前的準備、溝通、副閣揆與政務委員的審查及江揆的指示都是假話。反映出部會本位主義的難以溝通,政策跨不出政院大門的窘境。

自經示範區是否納入金融業,也顯示政策變來變去,令人莫衷一是。管主委初上任有意納入金融業,但後來表示金融沒有區域概念,因此不納入,但金流不會在示範區缺席。可是7月又向行政院報告將金融業納入示範區範疇,目標是讓金融商品更為多元化,促進金融業的財富管理業務在台灣能有更好發展,吸引相關人才與資金。但言猶在耳,最近發生金融商品如何開放的爭議,就證明經建會與金管會、央行的溝通更出了問題。金管會提出報告主張持續開放新台幣計價商品,經建會主張更大幅度開放,爭取財富管理業務。但央行只同意研擬擴大開放OBU與OSU業務,以不涉及新台幣為核心原則。藍營的立委丁守中卻質疑,計價幣別不得為新台幣,也不得與新台幣利率、匯率連結,「那人家乾脆跟外國買就好了」。

儘管彭總裁與金管會主委曾銘宗都說,雙方溝通沒問題,新台幣境外金融業務早就開放,與自經區是兩碼子事,兩人還刻意在立委面前勾肩搭背破除不合傳言,卻無助於實際問題的解決。可以看出政院內部對於自經示範區的金融開放,有很大的爭議。

台灣的金融商品設計,匯率、利率問題,不應是鐵板一塊。最近張忠謀以罕見的嚴詞批評匯率的問題,彭總裁拿蔡明介、劉金標及機車族來做擋箭牌,顯現央行匯率決策權威不容受到挑戰,卻也讓外界覺得央行防衛過當。

歷史以成敗論英雄。台灣的經濟發展在經歷馬總統兩任期後,終究會有結果產生。屆時金融業的表現、GDP 的占比是升是降,大陸崛起後台灣經濟是被邊緣化還是再創新猷,都要一起算總帳,也都可以論斷責任的歸屬。只是以既定的路線再走,目前的悶經濟實在很難突破,那2016年馬總統交棒的狀況,實在不忍想像。

與其屆時新亭對泣,不如現在大家就掀開這個鍋蓋,召開經濟國是會議,讓不同的聲音大鳴大放,經過嚴謹的論證,讓真理越辯越明,尋找共識,再共同來努力。

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

A Tribute to Integrity in a Time of Decline

A Tribute to Integrity in a Time of Decline
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 19, 2013


Summary: During a food crisis the public panics. But some companies within the industry are still quietly maintaining quality control. They still have consciences. They have earned our trust. Some government officials at the grassroots level are still conscientious. They are heroes whose efforts uncovered the truth. President Ma recently awarded King Star a medal. Let us not forget the unsung heroes in Changhua who contributed to our food safety.

Full text below:

The adulterated cooking oil scandal has raged for over a month. It has touched off a series of food safety crises that have yet to end. These crises have left the public with the feeling that they are living in a time of decline. Business ethics are in decline. Government efficiency is in decline. Consumer vigilance is in decline. Laws and regulations are in decline. Lawbreakers have nothing to fear. Amidst these concerns, consumers can rely only on themselves.

During this time of decline, the outrageous behavior of some companies has left people in shock. The companies include Chang Chi, Wei Chuan, Formosa Oilseed, Taisun, and Flavor Full. All of these manufacturing companies are well-known. Yet they engaged in deceit as long as they could get away with it. They lied through their teeth as long as could get away with it. Only when cornered, did they reluctantly apologize. They did not value the brands they built. They did not respect the consumers who trusted their products. They experienced no guilt over their lapse in business ethics. They have even refused to pay the fines the government imposed. How can companies such as this expect the public to forgive and forget?

Wei Chuan recently placed a large number of ads in the newspapers. It insisted that "It did not adulterate its products. It did not add adulterated oils. It too was a victim." It asked the court to make clear that Wei Chuan and Ting Hsin were "innocent victims." Its approach will only worsen the public backlash. True. Wei Chuan is not Chang Chi, the chief culprit, which did everything in its power to deceive. Wei Chuan did not intentionally adulterate its products. But to save on costs, it used Chang Chi as an OEM provider. Without careful quality control it affixed its own labels to the final products. Therefore how can it characterize itself as a victim?

Leave aside the question of whether Wei Chuan knowingly used adulterated ingredients. The Wei Chuan brand is sixty years old. It must introduce new products for a new era. It must meticulously control production for every one of them. Only that can ensure that a single mistep does not overturn the entire applecart. Only that can ensure that its products are not discredited along with those of its suppliers. Over 90% of Chang Chi's products were adulterated. Its name is mud. That is no big loss. A handful of Wei Chuan products have tarnished the image of the entire company. Was it worth it? Should consumers forgive Wei Chuan? That is not up to the pundits. But Wei Chuan has failed to offer a sincere apology and reassuring remedy. It persists in characterizing itself as a victim. This is truly unwise.

A company makes a rare misstep and suffers a corporate calamity. But look at the calamity from a different angle. Wave upon wave of scandals have struck, involving plasticizing agents, toxic starches, clenbuterol, adulterated cooking oils, and copper chlorophyllin. The real heroes are the companies that struggled long and hard to maintain the integrity of their brands. These companies must attend to every detail during procurement, quality control, research and development, and inspection. They must resist the temptation to rely on cheap, low-quality suppliers. They must constantly challenge themselves, sampling their own products, ensuring that they are 100% safe. Only by doing so can they survive wave upon wave of food safety crises.

Many companies on Taiwan boast about their integrity. But the food safety crisis has shown us the importance of meticulousness. Some manufacturers have cried foul. They have characterized themselves as victims. But if they had been meticulous, they would not have incorporated adulterated Chang Chi oil into their own products, merely to save on costs. They would have checked to see if the raw materials passed muster. That would have protected them from accusations of collusion. If they fail to provide quality products to consumers, how can they claim to be victims?

By the same token, government regulatory agencies were supposed to be the gatekeepers for food safety. But they were negligent. Serious lapses in food safety occurred. Four years ago, Spanish olive oil imports to Taiwan included other forms of oil. The Department of Health swept the matter under the rug. Two years ago, a National Science Council found that sesame oil sold on the market included soybean oil. People reported this. But the DOH had no intention of conducting a serious investigation. This is true also of the recently discovered adulterated oil. The Ministry of Health and Welfare charged the manufacturers with "false labeling" and imposed light fines. This was perhaps not a deliberate whitewash. But civil servants refused to investigate what they should have investigated. The administration is at the very least guilty of misconduct or negligence.

Fortunately the central government's failure to conduct proper food safety inspections was exposed by local government officials. The adulterated cooking oil scandal was exposed by the Changhua Health Bureau Food Safety Division and the Changhua District Prosecutors Office. They spent an entire year investigating the matter. Without this dozen or so people, consumers on Taiwan would still be ingesting adulterated cooking oil, artificially colored spinach noodles, and artificially colored green tea products. Cheng Chi-wen and Yeh Chien-cheng of the Changhua District Prosecutors Office prosecuted the clenbuterol and plasticizer cases years ago. These meticulous civil servants at the grassroots level worked hand in glove to plug food safety loopholes. They exposed companies that adulterated foods for profit. Their accomplishments put senior officials of the Ministry of Health and Welfare to shame. 

During a food crisis the public panics. But some companies within the industry are still quietly maintaining quality control. They still have consciences. They have earned our trust. Some government officials at the grassroots level are still conscientious. They are heroes whose efforts uncovered the truth. President Ma recently awarded King Star a medal. Let us not forget the unsung heroes in Changhua who contributed to our food safety.

大崩壞年代,向不茍的英雄致敬
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.20 03:20 am

假油事件爆發已一個多月,引發連串的食安風暴至今仍餘波未止。民眾在整起風暴中嗅到的,是一個「大崩壞年代」的氣味:企業倫理崩壞,行政管理崩壞,消費意識崩壞,乃至法令規章崩壞;犯罪者有恃無恐,消費大眾只能在顫慄不安下自求多福。

在這樣的大崩壞時代,一些企業經營者的膽大妄為與厚顏無恥,委實令人感到不堪。從大統長基到味全、福懋、泰山、富味鄉等企業,都是國內知名大廠,卻是一路能瞞則瞞、能賴則賴,直到狡賴不下去,才俯首道歉。然而,若對自己創造的品牌不加珍惜,對信賴自己產品的消費者沒有尊重,對自己的經營過失缺乏愧疚感,甚至連政府開出的罰款都不繳交,這樣的企業憑什麼要求社會原諒?

味全公司日前在報章刊登大幅廣告,自稱「沒有攙偽、沒有混油、只有受害」,請求法院釐清味全和頂新製油是「無辜受害」;此一作法,反而更滋社會反感。誠然,比起禍首大統公司千方百計造假,味全油品看似沒有那麼強烈的犯罪意圖;但是,為了貪圖便宜而委託大統代工,且未經審慎品管即率爾貼上自己的品牌標章,這豈能以「受害者」自居?

姑且撇開故意或知情不論,味全的品牌能維持一甲子之久,不僅產品要與時俱進推陳出新,更理應對每一項生產環節保持謹慎控管,才不致一個疏忽栽了跟斗,乃至所有產品均隨之陪葬。像大統這樣九成以上產品攙假的廠商,聲名塗炭也就算了;味全因少許幾項產品出事而敗壞了集團形象,划得來嗎?消費者要不要原諒味全,非輿論所能左右;然而,味全並未拿出比起其他企業更誠懇的補救措施,卻還自稱是「受害者」,實不明智。

從另一個角度看,在這些「偶一失足」而深受其殃的企業反面,人們應不難想像,那些經歷一波波塑化劑、毒澱粉、瘦肉精、假油、銅葉綠素風暴,卻始終能保持品牌於不墜的企業,才是真正不容易的英雄。這些企業必須盡心盡力處理每一細節,保持採購、品管、研發、檢驗過程的一絲不苟,抗拒低價劣質供應商的誘惑,甚至要不時挑戰、抽查自己的產品,才能確保百分之百安全無虞。也唯有如此,才能在食安海嘯席捲時安然度過。

台灣許多企業喜歡談「誠信」,但這次風暴,卻讓我們看到「不茍且」的重要。那些呼喊冤屈自稱「受害」的廠商,如果懷有不茍的精神,就不會為了貪圖低價而去進大統的假油,或至少必須認真追查這些原料是否合格;如此,即不致被指摘為同流合汙。不能提供品質確保的產品給消費者的企業,有什麼資格自稱受害!

同樣的,在行政體系對食品把關的疏漏中,我們也看到了嚴重的管理崩壞現象。四年前,西班牙即關切過台灣進口橄欖油混攙問題,衛生署卻草草應付了事;兩年前,國科會的委託報告中即發現市售麻油混攙大豆油,經人檢舉,衛生署對其間真相仍無意認真追查;包括此次剛查獲假油時,衛福部僅以「標示不實」輕輕對廠商罰款了事。這種種作法,就算不是出於刻意放水,公務員該查辦而未查辦,在行政上其實已構成了瀆職或怠忽。

值得慶幸的是,中央主管機關怠忽查察的真相,卻在地方公務員的努力追查下水落石出。這次大統假油事件,是彰化衛生局食品科人員和彰化地檢署檢察官合作下,費時一年追查的結果;沒有這十幾個人,全台消費者現在都還在吃黑心油,吃色素染出來的菠菜麵、抹茶製品。值得一提的是,彰化地檢署的鄭智文、葉建成兩位檢察官同時也是近年連續偵破瘦肉精案及塑化劑案的檢察官。一群「不茍且」的基層公務員,合力擋住了食品安全的漏洞,戳破了廠商造假致富的醜行;他們的成績,能不讓衛福部的高官汗顏?

食品風暴讓人恐慌,但別忘了,業界仍有一些默默謹守品質管理及良心規範的廠商,值得我們信賴;更別忘了,政府基層有一批認真不茍的英雄,努力不懈地幫我們揭開真相。馬總統最近連續頒發景星勳章,請別忘了彰化這支小兵立大功的食安悍將!

Monday, November 18, 2013

Cross-Strait Victories are Won in Peoples' Hearts and Minds, not in Gambia

Cross-Strait Victories are Won in Peoples' Hearts and Minds, not in Gambia
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 19, 2013


Summary: Taipei has two urgent priorities. One. The DPP must swiftly reaffirm the Constitution of the Republic of China. It must not enable Beijing to cite Taiwan independence as a pretext to seek other forms of victory. Two. The public on Taiwan must have confidence and ambition. It must compete with the Mainland under a big roof concept of China. It must seek a win/win scenario and mutual prosperity.

Full text below:

At GMT+15, the Republic of Gambia severed diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. Several hours later, Beijing's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying, "We too have received word from foreign media sources. Prior to this, the [Mainland] China side had no contact with the Gambian side." Slightly later, Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office stressed that "On the Taiwan side (i.e., the Green Camp) a number of statements have been made on this matter. We must prevent people with ulterior motives from using this to undermine cross-Strait relations."

Had this happened before 2008, the reason surely would have been "CCP sabotage." When the Republic of Gambia announced the severing of diplomatic relations with Taipei, it would have simultaneously announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with Beijing. Beijing would have viewed the event as another victory in the two sides' ongoing diplomatic tussle.

But Beijing had no part in the current Gambian development. It even worried that "people with ulterior motives might use the development to undermine cross-Strait relations." Beijing's Global Times noted that, "The two sides should not perceive this as a matter of winning and losing."Beijing said that if Gambia "hopes to use Taiwan's  'diplomatic relations' to seek compensation from the Mainland, it is unlikely to be successful." It is widely believed that Beijing will not establish diplomatic relations with Gambia. As many as 66% of Mainland netizens do not want the Mainland to establish diplomatic relations with Gambia.

Before 2008, the cross-Strait "diplomatic war" raged on. Beijing made every effort to eliminate Taipei's diplomatic allies. It viewed them as "cross-Strait victories." But since 2008, Beijing has turned away many of Taipei's diplomatic allies. Gambia has not established diplomatic relations with Beijing. It severed diplomatic relations with Taipei in advance. This is an exception. From a global perspective, the Mainland is becoming stronger. If Beijing were still determined to eliminate Taipei's diplomatic allies, Taipei would eventually lose. But as Beijing noted today, the two sides should not perceive this as a matter of winning and losing. It distanced itself even further, by underscoring that it learned about the development from the foreign media. It reminded Taipei not to allow people with ulterior motives to undermine cross-Strait relations.

Beijing clearly understands that at this stage of cross-Strait relations, continuing to eliminate Taipei's diplomatic allies is a no-no. Doing so would give serious offense to the public on Taiwan. Beijing understands that doing so would enable people with ulterior motives to undermine cross-Strait relations. Compare the current situation to cross-Strait relations before 2008. Compare the major differences, then and now. One. Back then Beijing was determined to eliminate the ROC as a rival in international and cross-Strait relations. It viewed the matter as a win/lose proposition. Now however, it wants to preserve the Republic of China and the Constitution of the Republic of China. Two. Back then Beijing was indifferent to the feelings of the public on Taiwan. Today it sees winning or losing as winning or losing the hearts and minds of the the public on Taiwan. Before 2008, Beijing perceived destroying the Republic of China as winning. Now it perceives winning the hearts and minds of the public on Taiwan as winning. It sees the Republic of China as the key to winning the hearts and minds of the public on Taiwan. 

Beijing said, "The two sides should not perceive the Gambian development as a matter of winning and losing." Beijing already realizes that the primany link, the only link between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is the Republic of China and Constitution of the Republic of China. To persecute the Republic of China would only break the link. To defend the Republic of China preserves the cross-Strait link. Hence Beijing's insistence on disassociating itself from Gambia's severing of diplomatic relations with Taipei, and other government's bans on the display of ROC national flags. Both represent Beijing's realization that it must not view eliminating or repudiating the Republic of China as a victory. That is why Beijing cannot allow Gambia to approach the Mainland seeking compensation. It cannot allow such ploys to succeed. Loosened restrictions on the use of the Republic of China flag, on the singing of the Republic of China national anthem, the use of the Republic of China national title need to be worked out as soon as possible. Beijing must expand Taipei's international space. Only this will reduce misunderstandings, both at home and abroad.

The Gambian development was a painful revelation for Taipei. Beijing does not view Gambia as a cross-Strait victory. Taipei should affirm this bilateral strategic understanding. Bilateral cooperation in international and cross-Strait affairs must go forward. Taipei must cease equating diplomatic allies with winning and losing. It must view winning hearts and minds as winning or losing. Whenever the one China framework is clearly disadvantageous to the Republic of China on the international stage, Taipei must strive for peace and balance within it. Whenever the one China framework becomes imbalanced in the international arena, Taipei must restore that balance through democracy and public support. Taipei must remain vigilant. Taipei must appreciate the value of the one China framework. Otherwise given today's international situation, more Gambias could spring up overnight. Beijing could declare that if the two sides are not seeking a win/win scenario within the one China framework, then it will revert to "diplomatic war" to score victories.

Faced with such a perilous situation, Taipei has two urgent priorities. One. The DPP must swiftly reaffirm the Constitution of the Republic of China. It must not enable Beijing to cite Taiwan independence as a pretext to seek other forms of victory. Two. The public on Taiwan must have confidence and ambition. It must compete with the Mainland under a big roof concept of China. It must seek a win/win scenario and mutual prosperity.

兩岸輸贏:在人心,不在甘比亞
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.19 02:12 am

中原標準時間十五日凌晨,甘比亞宣布與中華民國斷交。幾個小時後,北京外交部發言稱:「我們也是從外國媒體得到有關的消息,在此之前,中方沒有與甘方進行接觸。」稍後,北京國台辦強調:「有關台灣方面(按,主要指綠營)對這件事的一些說法,要防止一些別有用心的人,利用此事來破壞兩岸關係。」

試想:倘若此事發生在二○○八年以前,其原因必定是出自「中共的破壞」,且甘比亞在宣布與中華民國斷交時,也一定同時已與北京建交,而北京必將此視為兩岸外交角力的又一場勝利。

但是,此次甘比亞事件的實況卻是:北京並未參與其事,甚至顧忌「有心人利用此事,來破壞兩岸關係」;且北京《環球時報》指出,「兩岸無須論輸贏」,並指甘比亞「如果拿放棄台灣的『外交關係』,來找大陸要補償,今天是很難實現了」。再者,一般認為,北京不可能與甘比亞建交,且有六成六的大陸網友不贊成大陸與甘比亞建交。

在二○○八年以前兩岸「烽火外交」的歲月中,北京傾力拔除中華民國的邦交國,並以此「論兩岸之輸贏」。但二○○八年以來,卻有多個台灣的邦交國欲與北京建交被拒,此次甘比亞在未與北京建交下逕自與台斷交,遂成特例。也就是說,就世界大勢而言,由於中國大陸的綜合國力上升,倘若北京仍然「以拔除中華民國之邦交國來論兩岸之輸贏」,台灣勢必難以招架;但北京今日卻稱「兩岸無須以甘比亞事件論輸贏」,更極力撇清說「北京也是從外國媒體得知此事」,且提醒台灣「勿讓別有用心的人利用此事破壞兩岸關係」。

北京顯然知道:兩岸關係進入目前階段,「繼續拔除中華民國邦交國」之事是做不得的,那將嚴重傷害台灣人民的感情,且會「讓別有用心的人利用此事破壞兩岸關係」。此一現況,若與二○○八年以前的兩岸關係相較,其間最大的差異在於:一、往昔北京是以在國際及兩岸傾力否定及排除中華民國為「輸贏」,現今卻在某種程度上以維持「中華民國」及《中華民國憲法》為要務。二、北京往昔不知顧惜台灣人民之認知及感情,現今則以爭取台灣人民的感受為「輸贏」。也就是說:北京的兩岸政策,自二○○八年後,已從「打擊中華民國為輸贏」,轉移至「爭取台灣民心為輸贏」;而台灣民心在兩岸的主要「連結點」,即在中華民國。

北京說:「不以甘比亞事件論兩岸輸贏。」因為,北京已知,兩岸關係的主要且唯一的「連結點」即在「中華民國」與《中華民國憲法》。打壓,將使「連結點」斷裂;維持,始能保全兩岸的「連結點」。因而,北京在「甘比亞斷交事件」及「張懸國旗事件」中所持的撇清態度,均可謂是出自「不以消滅或否定中華民國為輸贏」的政治醒悟。因此,中共非但不能讓甘比亞「找大陸要補償」的詭計得逞,也須將關於中華民國國旗、國歌、國號、官銜的應對早日訂出鬆綁方案,並協力開展台灣的國際空間,如此始能減少、降低內外人士的誤解誤判。

甘比亞事件對台灣更是一個沉痛的啟示。北京不以「甘比亞事件論兩岸輸贏」,應是台灣值得維護的雙邊戰略默契。因為,雙邊在國際及兩岸實力上的消長已難逆轉,台灣自應從外交戰場上執著於邦交國數字的「輸贏」,轉移至爭取民意及民心上的「輸贏」。當「一中架構」在國際上顯然不利中華民國之時,台灣更須在兩岸之間力爭「一中架構」的和平與平衡。且愈是當「一中架構」在國際上失衡,台灣也唯有愈加依恃民主與民心來維持「一中架構」的平衡。台灣必須警覺,台灣如果在兩岸之間不知珍惜及維持「一中架構」,則依現今的國際情勢來看,可能一夕之間即會出現好幾個「甘比亞」;且北京屆時可能會說:如果兩岸相互不在「一中架構」上爭輸贏,那麼就再回到「烽火外交」去爭輸贏吧!

面對如此艱險的情勢,台灣有兩件生死攸關的大事:一、民進黨必須迅速回歸原原本本的《中華民國憲法》,勿給北京抓住「兩岸以台獨論輸贏」的口實;二、台灣人要有信心與志向,在「大屋頂中國」的「一中架構」下,與對岸爭共榮雙贏。

Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Party Chairman Must Naturally Assume Responsibility

The Party Chairman Must Naturally Assume Responsibility
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 18, 2013


Summary: Today, populism and instant gratification reign supreme. Those in power are ever more fearful of ridicule and ever more inclined to bend with the political winds. Politicians have developed the habit of kowtowing to populist sentiment. Populist rhetoric increasingly determines public policy. We would like to remind President Ma that "A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generation." "Doing the right thing" is duty. It is the only way to ensure that the nation moves in the right direction. Now that President Ma no longer needs to think of the next election, he should think of the next generation.

Full text below:

During the 19th KMT Party Congress, President Ma spearheaded an amendment to the party constitution. It stated that once a Kuomintang party member becomes President of the ROC, he "naturally becomes the party chairman." This move was interpreted a number of different ways. But realistically it means that when a new president takes office in 2016, assuming the KMT remains in power, President Ma must abide by the party constitution and surrender the party chairmanship. If the KMT loses power, there will surely be an uproar within the party. President Ma will surely find it difficult to retain his post as party chairman. In 2016, President Ma must step down empty-handed. That is a foregone conclusion.

When British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stepped down, he famously quipped, "When I leave, the pub closes." But here on Taiwan, few power holders are like that. Few are that care free. Few can simply turn and walk away. Some cling to party power. Others create new power bases to preserve their political influence. Some are even less able to let go. They surround themselves with true believers and become spoilers. If upon leaving office President Ma can be a good "ex president," he will make a positive contribution to constitutional rule in the Republic of China.

Two and half years remain until his retirement. But one must deduct the half year "caretaker period" between the election of the new president and his or her inauguration. This leaves President Ma only two years to get things done. Ma knows he will retire empty-handed. Therefore if President Ma wants to reverse the plunge in his public approval and leave a worthwhile legacy, he has no time to waste. He must seize the moment. He must assume responsibility. He must do everything he wanted to do but dared not do. He must promote everything he wanted to promote, but failed to promote. He must fulfill every promise he wanted to fulfill, but failed to fulfill. He must make every effort to do these within the next two years.

The first is tax reform. Over the past two decades, politicians and political parties, in order to win votes, have doubled down on social welfare. They have increased coverage for the underprivileged. But systemic bloat and loopholes have led to waste, fraud, and abuse. Meanwhile, tax relief measures have proliferated. The ROC now has the lowest income tax rate of any country in the world. This is true at all levels of government. It has resulted in debt at all levels of government debt totaling 22 trillion NTD. The amounts to one million NTD for every citizen.

Within democracies, tax hikes will always be politically taboo. But fiscal discipline and justice urgently demand them. In recent years, tax hikes have occasionally been proposedup. But the measures have been piecemeal and stopgap. No one dares touch the core issue. President Ma no longer has any election concerns. He has an obligation to make drastic fiscal reforms.

The second is how to revive the economy. In recent years, the domestic economy has stagnated. This is due partly to the international situation. But domestic industrial restructuring is also a factor. When the economy took off, the information industry played a leading role in Taiwan's economy. Recently however, it has reached a bottleneck. It has been unable to jettison its role as an OEM provider. It has been unable to develop its mobile industry. It has been indecisive. The government speaks of "emerging flagship industries." But it attempts to please everyone by including everything. As a result its strategy lacks focus. It wants to include everything. It is afraid of leaving out anything. In fact of course, focusing on everything is the same as focusing on nothing. If Taiwan cannot exploit its unique advantages, the harsh environment of international competition will render any such efforts futile. President Ma must choose the target and move in that direction. Otherwise, any government rhetoric about flagship industries will remain empty talk.

Fiscal discipline and industrial transformation are relatively simple reforms. Take cross-Strait relations. President Ma has made significant breakthroughs. But he has also encountered many bottlenecks. For example, TISA and the establishment of cross-strait representative offices. These have encountered long delays due to internal and external factors. Either that, or the Ma administration gave up the moment it encountered resistance. The measures were postponed indefinitely. Therefore how optimistic can one be about the upcoming TIGA? Will these things that need doing be done? It all depends on President Ma Ying-jeou and whether he has the will.

Other things, such as whether to continue construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, whether to put it into operation, or whether to concentrate on more sustainable national planning projects, have suffered due to vested interests or ideological disputes. These projects may elict more boos than applause. But if these are not done during these two golden years, they will never be done.

Today, populism and instant gratification reign supreme. Those in power are ever more fearful of ridicule and ever more inclined to bend with the political winds. Politicians have developed the habit of kowtowing to populist sentiment. Populist rhetoric increasingly determines public policy. We would like to remind President Ma that "A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generation." "Doing the right thing" is duty. It is the only way to ensure that the nation moves in the right direction. Now that President Ma no longer needs to think of the next election, he should think of the next generation.
   
當然黨主席,當然更多承當
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.18 02:06 am

國民黨十九全在馬總統主導下通過黨章修訂,今後國民黨員一旦就任總統即成為「當然黨主席」。儘管此舉引發輿論不同解讀,事實上,從政治現實分析,二○一六年新任總統上台,若國民黨繼續執政,則馬總統必須依黨章交出黨權;若國民黨丟了政權,黨內必定一片譁然,馬總統恐怕也很難再戀棧主席一職。二○一六年馬總統「裸退」,幾乎已成定局。

英國名相邱吉爾當年下台時說過一句名言:「酒店打烊我就走」;然而,在國內政壇,掌權者下台時鮮少有這種「揮一揮衣袖,不帶走一片雲彩」的灑脫。有人繼續掌握黨權,有人則另起爐灶,以確保自己的影響力不墜;有人則即便身繫囹圄,亦不甘寂寞,裹脅支持者在政壇呼風喚雨。因此,馬總統若能在卸任後稱職扮演「退休總統」角色,對中華民國的憲政發展未嘗不是一件好事。

儘管距離卸任還有兩年半,但扣除新總統選出到就任近半年的「看守政府」,馬總統真正能做事的時間,僅剩下兩年。既然是「預知裸退」,馬總統如果想在未來兩年逆轉其低民調的頹勢,留下一個可以讓人民記憶的政績,他已沒有太多時間可以浪費。他必須把握時間、承擔責任,把所有想做卻不敢做、應該做卻推不動的、承諾過卻沒做到的,傾盡全力在這兩年內完成。

首先是稅制改革。近二十年來,政治人物和政黨為了爭取選票,競相加碼各種社會福利措施;雖然增加了對弱勢族群的照護,卻也因制度的流於浮濫與漏洞百出,造成政府支出的浪費與嚴重負擔。但與此同時,各種稅負減免措施也越來越多,讓台灣變成全球人民稅負比重最低的國家。這種情況,在各級政府皆然,也讓各級政府負債總額超過廿二兆元,相當於每個國民負債近百萬元。

在民主國家,「加稅」永遠是政治人物的禁忌。但重整財政紀律與正義,確實已到刻不容緩的時候。近年來雖偶聞稅制的些微調整,但整體而言,多半是頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳,不敢觸及核心問題。在已無選舉考量的情況下,馬總統有義務大刀闊斧進行財政改革。

其次是經濟的重振。近幾年國內經濟停滯不前,部分原因雖是受國際情勢影響,但國內產業轉型不利亦是主要原因之一。經濟起飛後,電子資訊產業扮演了台灣經濟產業的龍頭角色,但近來在轉型上卻碰到瓶頸,無法擺脫代工的命運,卻又未能抓緊行動產業的發展關鍵,而舉棋不定。政府所謂「新興旗艦產業」,內容包山包海,卻缺乏焦點,什麼都想要,卻什麼都不敢捨。其實,重點太多,就是沒有重點。台灣若不能把握自身優勢,要在嚴苛的國際競爭環境裡脫穎而出,將如緣木求魚。馬總統必須選定目標並傾力朝此方向前進,否則政府設定再多的旗艦產業,也只是空談。

財政紀律和產業轉型都只是相對單純的改革,至於兩岸關係,雖在馬總統任上有了可觀的突破,卻也已然碰到了多處瓶頸。例如服貿協議和兩岸互設辦事處,因為各種內外因素延宕許久,或者遇阻力就自動放棄,而變得遙遙無期;那麼,接下來的貨品協議,又如何令人樂觀?如何讓這些「應該做的事」有效地推到其預定位置,取決於馬英九總統的一念之間。

其他,諸如核四是否要繼續興建、運轉,以及更符合永續發展的國土規劃等,也因牽涉意識型態或遭遇既得利益之爭,最後可能變成「噓聲大於掌聲」的工作。但假使不能把握這「沒有包袱」的黃金兩年,以後就更不可能做了。

在民粹當道且速食主義盛行的當下,執政者隨波逐流或憂讒畏譏的情況較諸過去嚴重,政治人物養成了向民粹低頭的習慣,民粹語言也屢屢因為可以左右政策而越發變本加厲。我們提醒馬總統:「政客想的是下一次選舉,政治家想的是下一代」,「做應該做的事情」不但是責任,也是把國家導向正確方向的唯一方法。馬總統既已無下次選舉,就多想想下一代吧!

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Regional Operations Center: Turkey Realizes Taiwan's Unfufilled Dream

Regional Operations Center: Turkey Realizes Taiwan's Unfufilled Dream
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 11, 2013


Summary: Consider the "regional transit center" dream. If today Taiwan is reduced to asking itself, "If Turkey can, why can't Taiwan?" how sad is that? Taiwan's future cannot wait. Can the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan reach a consensus? Whether or not Taiwan can, depends upon our willingness to roll up our sleeves and get down to work. It depends upon our willingness to make up for time lost to partisan backbiting. We can only pray we still have a chance to catch up.

Full text below:

For many people on Taiwan, Turkey is a distant and unknown land. In late October, an undersea railroad tunnel connected Europe with Asia, and became the focus of international attention. The tunnel runs underneat the Bosphorus Strait. The plan for the tunnel was devised by Sultan Abdul Medjid of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-nineteenth century. Today it has finally been realized. The Economist magazine called it "The Sultan's Dream," and published a report on this 150 year old dream come true.

The undersea railroad tunnel is complete. But it will still be some time before vehicular traffic can begin. Some say that Turkey’s current prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is too hubristic. A number of major construction projects were begun during his term. They include airports, bridges, and large-scale urban development projects. Criticisms vary. But his ambition is obvious. These construction projects require tens of billions of dollars in public funds. Turkey cannot afford them. But Erdogan is undeterred. For example, this tunnel is important to investors in Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was among the VIPs who attended the opening of the tunnel.

Turkey's political and economic situation has had its ups and downs. But it remains a pioneer of modernization in the Western Asian region. Prime Minister Erdogan was once Mayor of Istanbul. He had a very liberal image. But in recent years, he has been accused of authoritarian tendencies. More importantly, Turkey, like many newly industrialized countries, has grand economic ambitions. It is located at the crossroads of the Eurasian continent. It has a unique opportunity to become a tourism and transportation hub. A visionary leader will not squander this advantage. Over the past decade, its flagship Turkish Airlines was privatized and reborn. It became an international model of successful business transformation and attracted considerable attention. 

TV audiences on Taiwan have probably seen the TV ad featuring American NBA star Kobe Bryant and Argentine soccer star Lionel Messi of Barcelona, playing ball in an airline cabin. But when the credits roll and read, "The best fly with Europe's best airline -- Turkish Airlines," many people are incredulous. They can't believe such a modern and cosmopolitan TV ad was run by Turkish Airlines. Time magazine said this joint effort by two sports superstars took place in one of the most unlikely places. Turkish Airlines was willing to spend big bucks for international visibility. This ad, when uploaded to YouTube, received over 70 million hits. The publicity generated was tremendous.

Turkish Airlines has made many innovative moves. More importantly, according to professional analysts, it has made full use of its geographical advantages. It has vigorously established new destinations, in both mature European markets and emerging Asia and African markets. Many cities across three continents are only four hours away from Istanbul. Turkish Airlines has seized upon its geographical advantage. Once it decided to realize its ambition, it immediately displayed the power of a newly awakened lion.

Turkish Airlines has become a living, breathing example of national brand building. It has also become a "regional transit center." Does this not ring a bell on Taiwan? Twenty years ago, we on Taiwan began promoting a "regional operations center." Everyone was drawing up blueprints for "Taiwan as an Asian hub." According to international management consultants, only two cities were less than four hours' away from most cities in East Asia -- Taipei and Manila. Travel to and from these two cities qualified as "day trips." This is why Manila became a world-renowned center for Federal Express next day service in Asia.

The "East Asian Operations Center" dream eluded Taiwan. Only recently has Taipei's Songshan Airport undergone modernization. This enabled Ma Ying-jeou to revive the "Northeast Asian Golden Circle" dream. But many opportunities for development are no longer in Taiwan's hands. In 2009 FedEx transferred its East Asian hub in Subic Bay to the new 1.5 billion dollar Baiyun Airport in Guangzhou. This opportunity could have been ours. Looking back on two decades of rise and fall in our regional status, how can we not feel pangs of regret?

Turkey's per capita GDP is currently just over 10,000 USD, exactly half of that on Taiwan. Turkey has just completed its undersea tunnel. Turkish Airlines has built an international brand. Clearly Turkey is committed to becoming a "West Asian transit center." People on Taiwan used to ask, "If the US can, if Japan can, why can't Taiwan?" They once had the ambition of those in developed countries. Later, this became, "If Hong Kong can, if Singapore can, why can't Taiwan?" During high-tech industrial restructuring this became, "If  South Korea can, why can't Taiwan?" Now consider the "regional transit center" dream. If today Taiwan is reduced to asking itself, "If Turkey can, why can't Taiwan?" how sad is that?

Taiwan's future cannot wait. Can the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan reach a consensus? Whether or not Taiwan can, depends upon our willingness to roll up our sleeves and get down to work. It depends upon our willingness to make up for time lost to partisan backbiting. We can only pray we still have a chance to catch up.
  
區域營運中心:從土耳其看台灣未竟之夢
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.11 02:57 am

土耳其對很多國人像是不熟悉的一個遠方國度,十月底一條連接歐亞大陸的海底鐵路隧道開通,使它成為國際新聞焦點。這條貫穿博斯普魯斯海峽的海底隧道,是鄂圖曼帝國蘇丹阿布杜.梅吉德早在十九世紀中期就提出的計畫,如今終於實現。「經濟學人」雜誌就以「蘇丹的夢想」為題,報導這個在一百五十年後夢想成真的故事。

這條海底鐵路隧道開通,距離可實際通車還有一段路要走,也有人認為現任總理厄多岡好大喜功。他任內還有多項重大建設,包括機場、跨海大橋、大型都市發展計畫等,毀譽不一,但可看出其企圖心。這些公共建設所需資金動輒數十億美金,非土耳其國力所能負擔,但厄多岡魄力出手,例如這條海底隧道即以日本為重要投資者,安倍首相因此成為隧道開通的首席貴賓。

土耳其的政經情勢時有起伏,但它在西亞地區仍是現代化的先驅,曾任伊斯坦堡市長的厄多岡總理早先頗具開明形象,雖然近年來亦傳出獨裁傾向的評語。重要的是,土耳其像許多新興工業化國家一樣,拚經濟野心勃勃。它橫跨歐亞大陸的地理位置,發展旅遊業和交通樞紐的功能得天獨厚,有眼光的領導者不會浪費這種優勢。近十年來,代表其國家形象之一的土耳其航空公司,在民營化之後脫胎換骨,在國際間創造了企業轉型成功的例子,很多人津津樂道。

台灣觀眾應該看過,一支由美國NBA名人布萊恩和阿根廷籍的巴塞隆納足球明星梅西在機艙裡飆球的廣告,直到片尾打出廣告詞:「最棒的飛行,搭乘歐洲最棒的航空公司」,很多人不敢相信,如此具強烈現代感和國際觀的廣告是在介紹土耳其航空。美國時代雜誌也稱,這是兩大體壇巨星聯手合作「最不可能發生的地方」,可見土耳其航空行銷國際形象之大手筆。這支廣告在YouTube點閱超過七千萬次,產生驚人的宣傳效力。

土耳其航空種種革新之舉也都罷了,重要的是,根據專業分析,它充分利用地理優勢,大力開拓新航點,不管是成熟的歐洲市場,或新興的亞、非市場,這三大洲許多城市距伊斯坦堡在航程四小時的範圍內。土耳其航空緊抓這個地理優勢,一旦決心大展鴻圖,立即展現睡醒的獅子一般的威力。

土耳其航空不但成了國家品牌形象的活教材,關於它作為「區域轉運中心」的定位,台灣民眾會不會覺得聽來似曾相識?二十年前,台灣推展「亞太營運中心」計畫,曾到處推出過一幅「台灣作為東亞中心」的地圖。根據當時國際管理顧問公司的分析,整個東亞大部分城市飛行航程在四小時以內有資格形成「一日生活圈」條件的,唯台北與馬尼拉。這也是為什麼馬尼拉很早就成為全球知名的美商聯邦快遞「亞洲一日達」的中心。

但台灣的「亞洲營運中心」之夢稍縱即逝。直到最近台北松山機場大興變革,讓馬英九總統重提「東北亞黃金圈」的大夢,但台灣很多發展機會已時不我予。二○○九年,聯邦快遞將其亞洲轉運中心由原來設在蘇比克灣的據點,轉往新投資了一點五億美金的廣州白雲機場;這個機會,本來不是很可能是屬於我們的嗎?回顧這二十年來的區域情勢消長,能不唏噓!

土耳其目前的人均GDP剛超過一萬美金,恰好是台灣的一半。而除了新近的海底隧道之外,憑著僅僅土耳其航空的國際形象,可看出這個國家致力成為「西亞轉運中心」的企圖。台灣以前喜歡問,「美國能,日本能,台灣能不能」,頗有躋身已開發國家行列的雄心;後來問「香港能,新加坡能,台灣能不能」,甚至對高科技產業轉型問「南韓能,台灣能不能」。而就以「區域轉運中心」的夢想來說,今天若竟淪到要問「土耳其能,台灣能不能」的境地,豈不悲哀?

朝野如果對「台灣的未來不能等」還有一點共識,「能不能」的重點應是挽起袖子來努力做事,把過去虛擲內耗的時光補起來,但望還有機會迎頭趕上!

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Love Thy Neighbor: Hold No Grudges, Aid the Philippines

Love Thy Neighbor: Hold No Grudges, Aid the Philippines
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 14, 2013


Summary: Over the past two days, the ROC government has dispatched four transport aircraft loaded with 30 tons of supplies to the Philippines disaster areas. The Central Philippine Military Commander said that he and the victims will "always remember Taiwan." Compassion can win friendship and respect. This is how neighbors should treat each other. This kind of deep rooted friendship may even be the best guarantee of security for Taiwan fishermen at sea.

Full text below:

The Taiwan Region is located on the front lines of typhoon territory. Super Typhoon Haiyan ("Sea Swallow") transformed central Philippines into a living hell. If people on Taiwan could see what has happened, they would surely be moved. But news reports before and after the disaster have been sparse. Most people on Taiwan were unconcerned about this super typhoon. When the ROC government contributed 200,000 USD in humanitarian aid to the Philippines, some even expressed opposition and cynicism. This was truly regrettable.

According to Joint Typhoon Warning Center data, wind speeds for Haiyan measured high as 315 kph. It was the first time in 34 years that the highest average wind speed for a tropical storm exceeded 300 kph. This shows how powerful it was. Haiyan swept the central Philippines provinces, inflicting serious damage, Nine areas within Leyte Province were leveled to the ground. Victims' corpses littered the streets. Boats were washed ashore. Seaside villages were swallowed whole by the waves . The images were heart-breaking.

The Philippines government immediately declared a nationwide state of emergency. But the islands that make up the Philippines are spread out and isolated. Transportation to remote areas is extremely difficult. Many victims lack even basic subsistence, such as food and water. In some areas shops and supplies have been looted, and chaos prevails. A local student said "People were like zombies, walking about looking for food." This got people's attention. Survivors were forced to abandon hope of locating and burying their family members. They were forced to flee the disaster area to stay alive. The scenes were even more terrifying than those of Japan's tsunami two years ago, and presented an urgent humanitarian crisis.

The Philippines disaster left some people on Taiwan cold. The main reason was resentment from past wrangling between the ROC and the Philippines over the Kuang Ta Hsing fishing boat incident. Many still hold grudges. Their anger has yet to subside. But politics is politics, humanitarian aid is humanitarian aid. The Philippine government's irrational obstinacy was tough to swallow. But the people of the Philippines are suffering. Can we really sit on the sidelines? The elder sister of the Kuang Ta Hsing victim said, "The people are innocent, politics should not get dragged into disaster relief." This remark should be enough to silence those enagaged in cold-blooded Schadenfreude.

The ROC government contributied 200,000 USD. This was slightly more than Beijing, which contributed only 100,000 USD, and was accused of being "ungenerous." But does this really qualify as generosity? During the 2011 tsunami in Japan, the ROC government and the private sector on Taiwan contributed a total of 6.8 billion NTD, or 250 million USD. The amount was one thousand times greater. During the 2008 Mainland earthquake, the ROC government contributed 20 billion NTD, and the private sector on Taiwan contributed 5 billion NTD. During this year's earthquake in Ya'an, contributions from Taiwan approached 700 million NTD. During the Asian tsunami, contributions from Taiwan amounted to 400 million NTD. By contrast, a geographically close neighboring country was given a mere 200,000 USD. This is obviously rather shabby.

The issue is not the amount of money. The issue is whether our people still have empathy, whether they still feel others' hunger when they are starving, and whether they still feel others' panic when they are drowning. The issue is whether we still have compassion, and whether we are aware of our double standards. The distance from Taipei to Manila is 1100 km. The distance from Taipei to Tokyo is 2100 km. We had sympathy to spare for victims of the tsunami to our north. But we are apparently indifferent to victims of the typhoon to our south. Such differential treatment may have historical and cultural roots. But they also reflect our own shallowness and myopia.

Over the years many families on Taiwan have hired Filipinos to care for their elderly. Many elderly people on Taiwan who lack mobility have been provided with Filipino care givers, making their twilight years more bearable. Currently the public on Taiwan employs 40,000 Filpino care givers. We want to remind these households, to consider these Filipinos' feelings and the needs of their loved ones back home.

Over the past two days, the ROC government has dispatched four transport aircraft loaded with 30 tons of supplies to the Philippines disaster areas. Taipei is only three hours away from Cebu. Rescue operations from Taiwan can be conducted more rapidly than from other regions. That is why we must not harbor a cynical attitude toward rescue efforts. In recent years, Taiwan has endured a variety of earthquakes, floods, and storms. People understand the importance of the "golden hour," and of the need for adequate supplies, distribution, rescue organization, and knowledge and experience in caring for victims. These can all help in Philippines disaster relief. This includes the timely publication of disaster relief contribution information. Tzu Chi, Taiwan Root, and other private sector volunteers in the first line of medical care and post disaster reconstruction can all make the rescue effort more successful.

When the first batch of relief supplies arrived in Cebu, the Central Philippine Military Commander said that he and the victims will "always remember Taiwan." Compassion can win friendship and respect. This is how neighbors should treat each other. This kind of deep rooted friendship may even be the best guarantee of security for Taiwan fishermen at sea.

愛你的鄰居:人道援菲勿計前嫌
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.14 02:06 am

同處於颱風侵襲第一線的國家,台灣民眾如果看到這次超級颱風海燕狂掃菲律賓中部所留下的煉獄慘狀,一定會悽悽然感到不忍。然而,由於事前事後報導資訊的不足,多數民眾不僅對超颱的威脅缺乏關注,連政府捐款廿萬美元援助菲國的人道行動都遭到一些民眾冷言冷語相向,著實令人遺憾。

根據聯合颱風警報中心的資料,這次的海燕颱風被測得中心最高風速每小時達三一五公里,是卅四年來第一個最高平均風速超過三百公里的熱帶氣旋,可見其威力之強大。海燕橫掃菲律賓中部省分,造成嚴重災害,其中雷伊泰省近九成地區被夷為平地,眾多災民曝屍街頭;有些船隻被沖上陸地,有些海邊村落整個被巨浪吞噬,慘不忍睹。

菲國政府隨即宣布進入全國災難狀態,但由於菲國島嶼隔離散布,偏遠地區交通運補極為不易,許多災民連基本維生的水和食物都無法獲得。也因此,已有若干地區發生搶劫商店、掠奪物資的亂象;當地學生形容,「人們像殭屍般行走,四處尋找食物」,讓人聞之悚然。有些生還者甚至被迫放棄埋葬家人的最後一線希望,逃離災區另求生路。這樣的景象,比起兩年前日本海嘯的災難還要恐怖萬狀,且面臨迫切的人道危機。

對於菲國的災難,部分台灣民眾卻冷漠以對,主要原因是先前廣大興漁船事件兩國交涉過程的不愉快所致,不少人因而心存芥蒂或餘憤未消。然而,政治的歸政治,人道的歸人道;菲國政府的無理固令人難以忍受,但菲國人民的苦難難道可以冷眼旁觀?就如廣大興受害者家屬洪大姊所說的,「人民無辜,救援別扯政治」,這句話,應足以喝退那些無聊冷血的幸災樂禍言論。

我政府捐款廿萬美元,比起北京僅捐出十萬美元而被指為「不大方」或許稍勝一籌,但這能算慷慨嗎?二○一一年日本的海嘯,我國政府和民間一共捐出了六十八億台幣,約二點五億美元;兩者差距,是千倍之遙。再看,○八年的大陸汶川地震,我政府捐款廿億台幣,民間捐款五十億;今年的雅安地震,全台捐款近十七億台幣;就連當年南亞海嘯,台灣也捐助了四億多台幣。相形之下,對於一個地緣上如此接近的鄰國所遭遇的巨大災難,捐出區區廿萬美元,實顯寒傖。

重要的,其實不在金錢的多寡,而在我們對他國人民懷有多少「人飢己飢,人溺己溺」的同情;那同時也衡鑑了我們自己的悲憫心,以及我們可能不自知的雙重標準。台北到馬尼拉的航程是一千一百公里,台北到東京是兩千一百公里,我們對北鄰海嘯災民的同情如同泉湧,對南端近鄰難民的流離失所卻無動於衷;這樣的差別心,固與雙方歷史及文化淵源的深淺有關,但會不會也反映了我們自己的淺薄和盲點?

更何況,多年來台灣許多家庭都是因為雇用菲傭,才讓家中托老工作得有著落;許多行動不便的老人也因為有菲傭的陪伴,而享有比較舒適的餘年生活。目前台灣仍雇用了四萬多名菲勞,我們也要提醒這些家庭,應該適度關注這些菲勞的心情以及他們故鄉親人的需要。

近兩日,我國政府已出動四架次運輸機,運送卅噸各界募集的物資前往菲國災區。環顧此一地區,台北飛至宿霧僅三小時,這是台灣的救援行動得以比其他國家快速的優勢,也是我們不應冷眼看待救援任務的原因。事實上,台灣近年歷經各種震災、水災和風災,人們了解救援「黃金時間」之重要,也具有更充分的物資募集、分配乃至組織救援、災民安撫的知識與經驗;這些,在援菲工作上都派得上用場。包括及時公布賑災捐款帳號,與慈濟及路竹會等民間志工在第一線的醫療、重建工作,都可使整個救援工作更完滿。

當我國第一批救濟物資運抵宿霧時,代表接收的菲國中部軍區司令戴維拉圖達致謝說,他和災民都會「永遠記得台灣」。以關懷贏得友誼和尊重,才是鄰國相處之道;這種有根的友誼,或許才是台灣漁民在海上作業的最佳安全保障。