Protests Against the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services: Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?

Protests Against the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services:
Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
(Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 27, 2014

Summary: The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?

Full text below:

Protesters opposed to the Cross-Strait Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services waved the banner of opposition to [Mainland] China. But their actions may well harm Taiwan.

Actually, Taiwan must deal with more than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Taiwan hopes that the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services will improve the ECFA system, increase cross-strait trust and goodwill, and facilitate membership in the TPP and RCEP. If Taiwan cannot join the TPP and RCEP, it will be increasingly marginalized in both the regional and international economy. This marginalization will make Taiwan even more economically dependent upon the Mainland, and more suseptible to Mainland China political pressure. Therefore the agreement involves a paradox. In the name of opposition to Mainland China, the protests are bringing disaster upon Taiwan.

This is common knowledge for people on both sides of the issue. The stars of the current political storm are college students. They should have some modicum of common sense and reasoning ability. If they are free from political prejudices, they can read the pros and cons on the Internet. Surely they realize this protest opposing Mainland China has harmed Taiwan instead. Even assuming the college students are unaware of this, can the DPP be equally unaware? After all, it has been dealing with this issue for the past several decades. Therefore the current situation is not the result of protestors ignorance, but something else.

After Jesus was crucified the Apostle Peter said, "Brothers, I know you acted out of ignorance. Your leader did so as well. " The student leaders occupying the legislature grounds did not act out of ignorance. DPP party princes Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh, and Su Tseng-chang, who fanned the flames, did not act out of ignorance. They knew their actions would precipitate disaster upon Taiwan. They knew their opposition to Mainland China was a dead end path that would in fact harm Taiwan. Yet for partisan advantage, they were perfectly willing bury Taiwan.

How should we characterize this storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to black box operations? Opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to Mainland China? Or harmful to Taiwan? First take opposition to black box operations. Sixteen public hearings and up to one hundred briefings were held. Government officials and the opposition parties addressed the issue almost daily. The Internet featured millions of pro and con opinions regarding everything, from the impact of globalization, to the details of the trade provisions. The common people can complain about a "lack of communication." But student leaders are supposed to be intellectuals seeking rational dialogue. Otherwise why would they seek a meeting with the president? Others may be able to talk about "black box operations." But the DPP legislative caucus can hardly talk about "black box operations." After all, Su Tseng-chang turned down Ma Ying-jeou's invitation to debate the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, did he not? Democracies the world over follow the same procedure. The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed by the legislature. It is voted up or down as a complete package. The provisions of the agreement will be made public during Legislative Yuan review. The pros and cons will all be presented to society. There simply will be no "black box" to speak of.

Wang Jin-pyng refused to participate in the inter-yuan coordination meeting. Leave aside his political calculations. He correctly defined the matter as the internal affairs of the legislature. This is a serious procedural conflict. It is a controversial matter of procedural justice. Therefore the Legislative Yuan must resume operations. It must return to a line item review and line item vote. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is a matter of Legislative Yuan political consultation. It is a political process. It completely eliminates the problem of "black box operations."

So are the protests opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? The students occupying the legislature and the DPP are not advocating totally severing cross-strait trade. Nor do they oppose those parts of the agreement that are beneficial to Taiwan. They merely mutter about "harm to SMEs." But all FTAs are instances of "give a little to get a little." The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a unilaterally favorable trade agreement, highly favorable to our side. Or do the students and the DPP want Beijing to become Taiwan's "sugar daddy?" If not, how can Taiwan demand a treaty that only takes but does not give? And what if the agreement were to become a "sugar daddy treaty?" Would this not be a benefit to Taiwan? Besides, Taiwan wants to join the TPP and RCEP. Isn't this another case of only taking without giving?

Therefore opposition to black box operations, and opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, are mere pretexts. In fact, the true nature of the current storm has to do with Sinophobia. Otherwise, why was legislative review of the agreements with Singapore and New Zealand conducted in accordance with legislative convention? The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed. It is voted up or down as a total package. Only the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has been subjected to political negotiations and a line item review. Some protestors have even advocated a separate "Articles on Cross Strait Negotiation Oversight." Do they want a separate "Articles on TPP Negotiation Oversight" as well? Do they advocate prior review? Besides, the administration has promised a line item review and line item vote. Why not leave well enough alone? Why continue to incite Sinophobia? Therefore as noted above, this is a political storm rooted in Sinophobia. It may cause irreversible harm to Taiwan.

The political storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has had at least three effects. First, the DPP's policy of reconciliation with Beijing has been exposed as phony. This means that if Democratic Progressive Party ever regains power, Beijing will subject it to extreme pressure. Secondly, international and domestic respect for Taiwan's democracy has been badly undermined. Abroad, trust in any future contracts Taiwan might sign has been undermined. At home, society has been torn asunder. Public confidence in the future of the nation has take a serious hit. Thirdly, a dark shadow has been cast over cross-strait relations. Taiwan's chances of joining the TPP and RCEP may have been undermined. Cross-strait relations without an international network makes Taiwan more dependent on Mainland China. The consequences are hard to imagine.

The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
 
服貿風暴弔詭：抗中或害台？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.27 04:12 am

這場服貿風暴，打的是「反中抗中」的旗幟，卻不無可能造成「害台禍台」的後果。

其實，台灣現在面對的並不只是「服貿協議」，而是希望以服貿協議來完善ＥＣＦＡ體系，進而在兩岸的互信及善意下，試圖加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ。台灣若不能加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，無論在區域經濟或國際政治上將更趨邊緣化；而邊緣化的結果，即必使台灣在經濟上更依賴大陸，亦在政治上更受中國的挾制。因而，這場服貿風暴的弔詭是：打著反中抗中的旗幟，卻將造成害台禍台的後果。

這樣的推理，可謂已是在兩岸議題上的常識。這場風暴的主角是大學生，應有基本的求知及論理能力，倘若不持政治成見，只要在網路上參閱正反意見，即不會不知這種「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的弔詭；即使大學生不知，但已在兩岸議題中翻滾了幾十年的民進黨豈可能不知？因此，今日的局面難謂是與事者出於無知，而是另有原因。

使徒彼得在耶穌被釘十字架後說：「兄弟們，我知道你們所行的是出於無知，你們的首領也如此。」但是，今日占領立院議場的學生領袖卻未必是出於無知，煽風點火的民進黨蘇蔡謝等天王們更絕非出於無知，彼等皆明明知道這是將台灣帶上「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的絕路。但只是為了黨爭，竟不惜葬送台灣。

這場服貿風暴應如何定性？是反黑箱？反服貿？反中？或禍台？先談反黑箱。十六場公聽會、上百場說明會，政府官員及反對黨幾乎每日都有針對性發言，網路上更有千萬則大自全球化、小至服貿條文的正反意見；一般庶民容或可說仍是「溝通不夠」，但學生領袖若能善盡知識分子的「自我理智對話」，則何須慕求「總統接見」？何況，大家都說「黑箱」，唯民進黨立院黨團不能說「黑箱」；至少應還記得蘇貞昌拒絕了馬英九服貿專題辯論的邀請吧？其實，「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」是世界民主國家簽訂條約的通例，當服貿協議的全部條文在立院公開審議，一切利弊盡已公諸社會，即無「黑箱」可言。

因此，王金平拒絕出席院際協調，不論其政治算計為何；但他將此事界定為「立法院內部事務」則屬正確。此事誠是一件嚴重的議事衝突，在程序正義上引起爭議；因此，若能讓立院恢復運作，回復「逐條審查／逐條表決」（這不是法定程序，而是立院「政黨協商」的政治程序），更可完全消除「黑箱」的問題，是為正辦。

再言是否反服貿？占院學生及民進黨並未主張全面停斷兩岸經貿，亦未反對服貿協議對台灣有利部分，而只是空泛地說「傷害中小企業」。但一切的ＦＴＡ皆是「有給有取」，而此一服貿協議則是一高度片面讓利的條約；除非學生及民進黨主張台灣應由北京全面「包養」，否則台灣豈有可能訂出一紙「只取不給」的條約？且倘若真有那種「包養條約」，又豈對台灣有利？再者，台灣能想像入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ也是「只取不給」嗎？

因此，反黑箱、反服貿只是藉口，這場風暴的真正性質其實是「反中」。否則，為何立院審議新加坡協議及紐西蘭協議皆遵照「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」的立法規範，唯獨服貿協議卻要「政黨協商／逐條審查」，甚至尚主張另訂《兩岸協議監督條例》（難道也要訂《ＴＰＰ監督條例》，主張事前審查？）；何況，如今既已應允「逐條審查／逐條表決」，卻何以仍不善罷干休，繼續煽動「反中抗中」的情緒。於是，如前所述，這一場「反中抗中」的風暴，即不無可能出現無以逆轉的「害台禍台」的後果。

這場服貿風暴至少已產生三種效應：一、民進黨對北京當局的和解政策崩盤，這使得民進黨若再執政必遭北京嚴酷挾制。二、國際及國內對台灣民主政治的評價動搖，對外傷害台灣未來的締約信任，對內使社會撕裂更形嚴重，全民對國家前途的信心受到嚴重打擊。三、兩岸關係蒙上陰影，倘致影響了台灣參與ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，兩岸關係失去國際節制的網絡，將使台灣更加依賴中國，後果不堪想像。

這場反服貿大火愈燒愈烈並走上歧路，帶頭的幾個學生當非出於無知；民進黨的火上加油更非出於無知。但請問：為何明明知道，卻仍要將台灣帶上絕路？