If the DPP Opposes ECFA, Why Not Invoke Article XVI?

If the DPP Opposes ECFA, Why Not Invoke Article XVI?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 14, 2014

Executive Summary: "Do not betray Taiwan!" Now that is a phrase we have long listened to with a jaundiced ear. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen however, must now take this admonition seriously. The DPP is holding in reserve Article XVI, the ECFA termination clause. It can proclaim its cross-Strait policy before the people. It can then give "serious consideration to supporting" the ECFA follow-up bill. It can give Taiwan a way out. It can spare Taiwan. Please!

Full Text Below:

"Do not betray Taiwan!" Now that is a phrase we have long listened to with a jaundiced ear. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen however, must now take this admonition seriously.

The PRC-ROK FTA has been finalized. Our media describes it as "a nightmare come true." But listen to what some DPP spokespersons are saying. Some are saying that, "Certain industries on Taiwan will of course be adversely affected. But the degree of the impact, will to a considerable extent, depend on changes in objective conditions and the government's response." Some say, "The DPP is determined to sign all manner of FTAs. It is not putting all its eggs in one basket."

This rhetoric initially comes off as pretentious. But upon closer examination, it comes across as utterly incomprehensible. The DPP says the Ma administration is exaggerating the damage. It says Ma administration officials are competing with each other, seeing who can exaggerate the most in order to frighten the people. But one estimate issued by the Ma administration has remained consistent. If Taiwan fails to approve the STA and MTA, over the next three to five years it will suffer trade and economic losses ranging from 250 billion to 650 billion NTD. Once the damage has been done, Taiwan will find it difficult to recover. The DPP has conceded that "certain industries will be adversely affected." Yet it insists that "the extent of damage will be difficult to estimate." The DPP insists that "It is difficult to say whether there will be any real impact." Is the DPP saying that Perng Huai-nan and others in industry, government, and academia are deceiving the public and making much ado about nothing? If so, would the DPP please provide us with its own loss estimates? Would it please let us know what the impact will be to Taiwan's bottom line? Will it state plainly whether it thinks Taiwan ought to suffer such losses?

The DPP insists that “The (extent of the losses) will depend on changes in our objective circumstances and the government's response." Would the DPP be so kind as to share precisely what sort of "changes in our objective circumstances" will ameliorate such losses? The DPP refers to "the government's response." Does it mean that the government's response should be to abandon its advocacy of the STA and MTA? The DPP adopted a scorched earth policy when it obstructed passage of ECFA. Yet it yearns to take part in the TPP, RCEP, ant o sign FTAs with other governments. It insists that Taiwan should put its eggs in different baskets. Yet it obdurately refuses to put any of its eggs in the Mainland Chinese basket, which is the world's largest marketplace. Never mind that “distant water cannot fight a nearby fire.” The DPP's "Globalization without [Mainland] China” is unmitigated nonsense.

The DPP is deceiving the people. Politically it cannot bring itself to support the ECFA follow-up agreements. Pragmatically it lacks the courage to repudiate the ECFA follow-up agreements. The DPP opposes the STA and the MTA. It refuses to fight. It refuses to peace. It refuses to surrender. It refuses to walk. The only thing it can bring itself to do is procrastinate. The DPP insists on "strict review." If so, shouldn't the legislative process be open to review? The DPP demands "specifics." If so, would the DPP be so kind as to tell us what it wants, specifically? The reality is that for the DPP, "strict review" means "no review," and "specifics” means "nothing you specify will ever be specific enough." The DPP's bottom line is procrastination.

The PRC-ROK FTA is a fatal blow to Taiwan's economy and trade relations. The public must not allow the DPP to get away with its wishy-washy, tough on the outside, craven on the inside posturing. The DPP can demand "strict review." It can demand "specifics." But in the end it must defer to the democratic principle of majority rule and allow the majority in the Legislative Yuan to fulfill its constitutional duties. After all, this is a major event. Hundreds of billions in economic and trade interests are at stake. It affects Taiwan's economic future. If the DPP fights these measures in the Legislative Yuan and fails, it can openly declare that if it returns to power in 2016, it will abolish ECFA by invoking Article 16, the "Agreement Termination" provision. ECFA will then be abolished. The DPP can then implement its own policy proposals. Article XVI states that "If one party wishes to terminate an agreement it shall notify the other party in writing... If consultations fail to lead to an agreement, the party terminating the agreement shall give notice of termination 180 days before the date of termination."

Such a declaration would respect the Legislature's constitutional and democratic mechanisms. It would allow the DPP to honorably reveal its policy stance. The DPP persists in opposing the 1992 consensus and ECFA. If it returns to power it can nullify the ECFA agreements. So why not invoke Article XVI now? Why not allow the current majority in the Legislative Yuan to fulfill its constitutional duty to ECFA? If and when the DPP returns to power and terminates ECFA, that will be its responsibility. That is the essence of politics.

Actually, this is an escape clause the DPP has reserved for itself. If the DPP returns to power, and can bring itself to affirm the 1992 consensus accept ECFA “unconditionally,” it will honor the terms of the commitment it signed today. The DPP can then sit back and enjoy the show. The DPP can choose to uphold or to abolish ECFA. But it cannot indulge in its irrational “frightened to review, frightened to oppose, frightened to pass” act. If the DPP persists in making ECFA die a slow death, if it watches idly as Taiwan loses its economic lifeblood, the Democratic Progressive Party will become a traitor to Taiwan. Will the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen stop short of the precipice?

The DPP is holding in reserve Article XVI, the ECFA termination clause. It can proclaim its cross-Strait policy before the people. It can then give "serious consideration to supporting" the ECFA follow-up bill. It can give Taiwan a way out. It can spare Taiwan. Please!

反ECFA 民進黨應宣示啟動第十六條
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.14 04:29 am

「不要做台灣的罪人！」這句話在過去不妨姑妄聽之，但如今民進黨與蔡英文皆必須認真面對這個警告。

中韓ＦＴＡ敲定，媒體謂為「噩夢成真」，且看民進黨發言人怎麼說。一種說法是：「台灣部分產業固然會受到不利影響，但影響程度大小及會否真的實現，在相當程度上，須視各種客觀條件變化及政府因應作為。」另一種說法是：「民進黨堅持加入各種ＦＴＡ，不把雞蛋放在一個籃子裡。」

這樣的論調，乍看煞有介事，細讀不知所云。民進黨說，馬政府誇大損失，各種說法在比賽誇大，是在恐嚇人民。但馬政府發表的有一個估計數字卻始終如一，那就是：倘若台灣不能以兩岸服貿協議及貨貿協議因應，在未來三至五年內，經貿損失可自二千五百億至六千五百億；且此種損害一旦發生，即難以回復。其實，民進黨也畢竟承認「部分產業會受到不利影響」，但竟稱「影響程度大小難謂」，又稱「是否真有影響也難說」；這莫非是說，此刻包括彭淮南在內的產官學界之戒懼憂慮皆是自欺欺人、庸人自擾？那麼，就請民進黨公布一下該黨所估計的損失數字，並說清楚台灣可以擔當的損失底線何在，及民進黨是否主張台灣應當承當此種損失。

又謂：「（損失程度）須視各種客觀條件變化及政府因應作為而定。」則民進黨何不說清楚，會有何種「客觀條件變化」得以消弭損失？至於又言「政府因應作為」，則是否意指政府應當以放棄兩岸服貿及貨貿協議的推進為「因應作為」？民進黨焦土杯葛兩岸ＥＣＦＡ，卻又主張要加入ＴＰＰ、ＲＣＥＰ，並廣泛議簽其他ＦＴＡ，亦即認為台灣應把雞蛋放在不同的籃子裡，唯獨不可將雞蛋放在中國大陸這個全球最大的市場中；莫說這豈止是遠水救不了近火，此種「沒有中國的全球化」，簡直是癡人說夢。

民進黨之誤國誤民，是在政治上不能支持ＥＣＦＡ後續協議，在現實上又不敢全盤否定ＥＣＦＡ後續協議。民進黨如今對服貿協議、貨貿協議的戰略，不啻是不戰、不和、不降、不走，只有一個「拖」字；若說要「嚴審」，那立法院就應開議審查；若謂要「配套」，民進黨就請說出高見！但是，「嚴審」卻成了「拒審」，「配套」卻成了「套住」，全部法寶只是一個拖字。

中韓ＦＴＡ對台灣經貿是一致命重擊，民眾不能聽任民進黨操作這種首鼠兩端、色厲內荏的拖刀計。民進黨可以進行「嚴審」，也可以主張「配套」，但最終仍應在民主政治「多數主治」的原則下，讓立院以多數決來履行其憲政職責，這畢竟是攸關數千億經貿利益乃至台灣未來經濟命脈的大事。民進黨如果在立法院力爭而表決失敗，則可公開宣示，民進黨若在二○一六年重返執政，將啟動ＥＣＦＡ協議第十六條的「終止協議」機制，將ＥＣＦＡ廢止，實現民進黨的政策主張。第十六條規定：「一方終止本協議應以書面通知另一方……如果協商未能達成一致，則本協議自通知一方發出終止通知之日起第一百八十日終止。」

這樣的宣示，既尊重立法院的憲政民主機制，又可光明磊落地標榜民進黨的政策主張。何況，民進黨堅持其「否定九二共識／否定ＥＣＦＡ」的立場，若未來重新執政，ＥＣＦＡ各項協議必陷癱瘓狀態，則何不直接啟動第十六條？因此，讓今日立法院的多數席位實現其支持ＥＣＦＡ的憲政職責，而民進黨則聲明保留其重返執政後終止ＥＣＦＡ的權力，這始是責任政治的真諦。

其實，這也是民進黨為自己預留餘地的作法。倘若民進黨重返執政，能夠回歸「九二共識」，並又想回頭對ＥＣＦＡ「概括承受」，則屆時亦可完全承接今日完成議簽的果實，民進黨即可坐享其成。因而，不論民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ操持或存或廢的戰略，均不可出以如今這種「不敢審／不敢反／不敢過」的無理行徑；倘若民進黨仍刻意將ＥＣＦＡ拖死，坐令台灣經濟大失血，民進黨必定成為台灣的罪人。民進黨及蔡英文豈能不懸崖勒馬？

總之，民進黨既能保留啟動ＥＣＦＡ第十六條終止條款的最後立場，即可向國人昭信其兩岸政策。那麼，此際民進黨即應「嚴審」「配套」ＥＣＦＡ後續法案，放台灣一條生路，饒了台灣吧！