National Security Council Must Not Become a Meta-Executive

National Security Council Must Not Become a Meta-Executive
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 3, 2014

Summary: The basic principle of democracy is "powers must be consistent with responsibilities." Our constitutional framework is often criticized for unclear assignment of responsibilities. But direct presidential elections offer public accountability. The premier is the nation's highest executive. He is responsible to the president. He is also subject to Legislative Yuan oversight. The constitutional relationship still imposes constraints. But if the NSC were to become a "Meta-Executive Yuan," the ability of the framework to restrict its powers would vanish. President Ma has never given up the hope of leaving behind a legacy. Presumably he would not want to be remembered as "destroyer of the constitutional framework." The result depends on his last two years in office.

Full text below:

The constitutional framework limits the powers of the National Security Council (NSC). It has far less power than the U.S. National Security Council. Its power is limited. It is akin to the president's cabinet. But its role is not clearly defined. Therefore in practice its authority can be interpreted very broadly. President Ma has long relied on political aide King Pu-tsung, who recently returned home to serve as Secretary General of the NSC. Will the role of the NSC change? Will it become an outside the system decision-making body with immense powers but zero responsibility? Will it be able to override even the constitutional powers of the Executive Yuan? This is a matter that warrants concern.

The status of the NSC is not clearly defined. The proximate cause is the Additional Articles of the Constitution, which give the president the right to formulate national security policy. It divides executive power. In 1993, the Organic Law of the National Security Council was passed. It legally defined the president's national security authority as one, national defense; two, diplomacy; and three, cross-strait relations. It gave the NSC the same status as a presidential cabinet. During the Chen Shui-bian era, the organizational structure of the NSC was further expanded. The NSC was still nominally a cabinet level entity. But in fact it wielded considerable decision-making power.

The powers and responsibilities of the NSC are basically defined. Nevertheless the real powers of the NSC are highly extent dependent upon the president's whims. The Secretary-General of the NSC plays a real role. During the Lee Teng-hui era, the NSC Secretary-General was drawn mostly from military and diplomatic personnel. During the Chen Shui-bian era, he became the most important member of his political cabinet. Chiou I-jen served as Chen Shui-bian's Secretary-General of the NSC for four years. He even served as the DPP's election strategist. This provoked KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou to criticize the "confusion of roles."

We are now in the President Ma era. The role of the NSC is still a closely guarded secret. It is still not transparent. Recently the government announced that King Pu-tsung would become Secretary General of the NSC. The Presidential Office and King Pu-tsung both declared that their main purpose was to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)  and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Such regional economic integration measures have nothing to do with elections. But consider the past history of the NSC. How can we ensure that the role of the NSC is limited to matters of national security? That is a difficult question.

From the legal perspective, the Organic Law of the National Security Council defines the role of the NSC. It says, "The president may consult the National Security authorities on major policies." It says the Secretary-General's powers are limited to "dealing with National Security Council resolutions and commanding and supervising staff." But consider the composition of the NSC. The President is Chairman. The Vice President, Executive Yuan Vice President, MInister of the Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defense, Minister of Finance, Minister of Economic Affairs, Chief of the Mainland Affairs Council Chief, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  Secretary-General of the National Security Council, Chief of the NSB, will all of course be in attendance. Clearly it will be a president led "mini cabinet meeting."

King Pu-tsung is a long time member of the Ma government. His role has always been "under one man, but over 10,000 others." He likes to stress that he believes in confining himself to his official role and never exceeding his authority. But his central role is the leader of President Ma's political cabinet. Therefore no matter what position he accepts, that position becomes the power center. That is inevitable. Tha twas the case when King Pu-tsung was News Director of Taipei City. That was the case when he was Deputy Mayor. That was the case when he was KMT secretary-General. That was even more the case when he was ROC Representative to the US. During future "small cabinet meetings," King Pu-tsung will remain one of the president's key cabinet members. He will also be in a position to influence decision-making through the NSC. Under President Ma, King Pu-tsung will be "the most powerful Secretary-General of the NSC." Of that we can have no doubt.

Consider in particular the upcoming seven in one local elections, presidential election, and legislative elections. Electoral victory or defeat hinges on job performance. This includes regional integration and any other significant policy. None of these can be divorced from elections. Let us back up. Let us declare that the future task of the NSC will be to enable us to join the TPP and RCEP. Therefore the CEPD, MInistry of Transportation and Communication, Ministry of Agriculture and other cabinet members who did not attend NSC meetings, will now become essential attendees at NSC meetings. If so, this is cause for concern. The NSC meeting was the president's small cabinet meeting. Will it be transformed into the Secretary-General's Meta-Executive meeting?

The basic principle of democracy is "powers must be consistent with responsibilities." Our constitutional framework is often criticized for unclear assignment of responsibilities. But direct presidential elections offer public accountability. The premier is the nation's highest executive. He is responsible to the president. He is also subject to Legislative Yuan oversight. The constitutional relationship still imposes constraints. But if the NSC were to become a "Meta-Executive Yuan," the ability of the framework to restrict its powers would vanish. President Ma has never given up the hope of leaving behind a legacy. Presumably he would not want to be remembered as "destroyer of the constitutional framework." The result depends on his last two years in office.

莫使國安會成太上行政院
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.03 03:04 am

由於憲政體制設計，我國的國家安全委員會權力，雖遠不如美國國安會，應僅限於總統的幕僚性質；但由於角色定位曖昧不清，運作上有極大想像空間。馬總統長期倚賴的政治幕僚金溥聰近日將回國接任國安會秘書長，國安會的角色是否會因此變質，成為「有權無責」的體制外決策機關，甚至凌駕行政院的憲政職權，值得關注。

國安會妾身未明，直接原因是憲法增修條文賦予總統「制訂國家安全重大方針」之權，切割了行政權。民國八十二年國安會組織法的制訂，確定將總統關於「國家安全」的法定職權定義為國防、外交和兩岸關係三項，並賦與國安會的幕僚角色。到了陳水扁時代，進一步擴大國安會的組織結構，讓國安會雖名為「幕僚單位」，實際上具備一定的決策權能。

儘管國安會的權責有其基本界定，但國安會的實權仍相當程度取決於總統的態度，以及國安會秘書長角色的實際發揮。李登輝時期，國安會秘書長多半由軍情、外交專才出任；陳水扁時代，則變成由重要政治幕僚出掌。曾在扁政府擔任國安會秘書長四年之久的邱義仁，甚至還以此身分擔任民進黨的選舉操盤手，引來當時國民黨主席馬英九的批評，說他「角色混淆」。

到了馬總統時代，國安會的角色仍諱莫如深，並不透明。此次發布金溥聰擔任國安會秘書長，總統府和金溥聰本人都宣稱主要目的是為加入ＴＰＰ（跨太平洋夥伴協定）與ＲＣＥＰ（區域全面經濟夥伴關係）等區域經濟整合，與選舉無關。但從國安會過去歷史來看，如何讓職權「僅限於國家安全事項」，恐怕仍是個複雜的課題。

從法制看，國安會組織法雖將國安會定位為「總統決定國家安全有關大政方針之諮詢機關」，秘書長的職權僅限於「依據國安會決議處理會務，並指揮、監督所屬職員」；但國安會的組成，以總統為主席，副總統、行政院正副院長，內政、外交、國防、財政、經濟部長，以及陸委會主委、參謀總長、國安會秘書長、國安局長，都是當然出席人員，儼然是個由總統主導的「小內閣會議」。

金溥聰在馬政府的角色一向是「一人之下，萬人之上」之姿，他雖強調自己信奉「角色主義」，不會踰越；然而，他的核心角色就是馬總統的首席政治幕僚，因此，無論他進入哪個職位，哪個職位就成為權力核心，這是勢所難免。金溥聰擔任台北市新聞處長、副市長時如此，擔任國民黨秘書長、駐美代表時，更是如此。未來在「小內閣會議」裡裡外外，金溥聰一方面可銜總統之命總綰核心幕僚群，另一方面可透過國安會議召開直接影響決策。金溥聰將是馬總統任內「權力最大的國安會秘書長」，已無庸置疑。

尤其七合一地方選舉，和總統、立委大選接踵而來，選舉成敗繫於政績，包括加入區域整合，任何重大政策，恐怕都難與選舉脫鉤。退一萬步言，宣示未來國安會任務將以加入ＴＰＰ、ＲＣＥＰ為主，則包括經建、交通、農業等原本不在國安會議的內閣成員，都將成為國安會議的「必要出席者」。如此，不得不令人擔憂，國安會議是否會從「總統的小內閣會議」變身為「秘書長的太上行政院會」。

民主政治的基本原則就是「權責相符」。雖然我國憲政體制常被批評為「權責不清」，但總統直接民選，對民意負責；行政院長是國家最高行政首長，除向總統負責，亦受立法院監督，彼此憲政關係仍有一定的制約。然國安會若一旦成為「太上行政院」，這僅有的權責制約關係勢將蕩然無存。馬總統念茲在茲希望留下歷史地位，相信不會樂見「憲政體制的破壞者」稱號，在任期的最後兩年加諸己身吧。