United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 1, 2015
Executive Summary: US policy toward Taiwan is paradoxical. On the one hand, it upholds Taiwan's democracy. On the other hand, it explicitly opposes Taiwan authorities from seeking Taiwan independence. The US considers Taiwan independence counter to Taiwan's own interests, and non-conducive to Taiwan's democracy.
Full Text Below:
US policy toward Taiwan is paradoxical. On the one hand, it upholds Taiwan's democracy. On the other hand, it explicitly opposes Taiwan authorities from seeking Taiwan independence. The US considers Taiwan independence counter to Taiwan's own interests, and non-conducive to Taiwan's democracy.
The United States believes that Taiwan independence agitation within the private sector falls within the scope of democracy. But it believes that Taiwan authorities must not engage in Taiwan independence activity. The US made its views abundantly clear during Lee Teng-hui's terms and Chen Shui-bian's second term. Back then, Lee and Chen were still engaged in trickery. They deceived people at home and abroad. They took advantage of US goodwill towards Taiwan's democracy to promote Taiwan independence. This led in time to a blow up with the United States.
Now that the DPP may return to power, it will once again face this test. Joseph Wu recently visited the United States. He appealed to the United States "to defend Taiwan's democracy, in the hope of maintaining peaceful cross-Strait exchanges". With so much at stake, Tsai Ing-wen must not repeat the mistakes made by Lee and Chen.
During the Clinton era, the United States proclaimed that it would "safeguard democracy while opposing Taiwan independence". In June 1998, in Shanghai, Clinton reiterated the one China policy and declared that the US does not support Taiwan independence or one China, one Taiwan. This was part of its "three non-supports" policy. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told reporters that even if the elected government of Taiwan chose Taiwan independence, or an overwhelming majority of the public voted yes in a public referendum on Taiwan independence, the United States would not support it. This was the first time the pledge to "defend democracy while opposing Taiwan independence" was expressed in such unambiguous terms. Clinton aides were blunt. The one China policy is beneficial to Taiwan.
The following year, the KMT's 2000 presidential election prospects were gloomy. Lee Teng-hui announced his "two states theory" and pushed for a fifth constitutional amendment that would make his two states theory part of the constitution. Then American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Richard Bush immediately rushed to Taiwan to remind Lee Teng-hui that One China is the cornerstone of US policy, and has led to an environment favorable to a democratic Taiwan. In other words, Taiwan's democracy depends on the one China policy. Therefore those in power on Taiwan must not overturn the one China policy. This amounted to a reiteration of the “One China is advantageous to Taiwan” declaration. Because the US intervened, Lee Teng-hui was forced to retreat. While meeting face to face with Richard Bush, Lee withdrew his plan to incorporate his two states theory into the constitution. Richard Bush said, "I am firmly opposed to Taiwan independence!"
Alas, Chen Shui-bian and Lee Teng-hui repeated their mistakes. As the 2008 presidential election approached, Chen Shui-bian found himself mired in corruption scandals. He stage managed Taiwan independence political theater and demanded a public referendum paving the way for “Taiwan's entry into the UN”. The US State Department publicly and repeatedly blasted Chen Shui-bian, saying that the US hoped the people of Taiwan would see through the rhetoric of the referendum, and realize that the referendum is inconsistent with Taiwan's interests. It said Taiwan independence will not enrich Taiwan's democracy. The US once again declared that the one-China policy is favorable to Taiwan, while Taiwan independence is not. At the time, Chen Shui-bian openly defied the US. He dismissed the US statement as "election rhetoric", and promised that "nothing will happen after the election." As a result, Chen Shui-bian became persona no grata to the United States.
Chen declared that "Democracy has no red lines." But the US government's position is that “Policies must have red lines”. The two may seem contradictory, but this is a dialectical relationship. The United States feels that its one China policy achieves balance in cross-Strait policy. It defends Taiwan's democracy, therefore the Taiwan authorities must not overthrow the existing framework. This newspaper has long championed this view as well. We believe the opposition DPP has a right to advocate Taiwan independence. But it has no right to make it policy when it is in power.
The United States is gradually changing its wording vis a vis its one China policy. Before it said that the one China policy is beneficial to Taiwan. Now it says the 1992 consensus is favorable to Taiwan. The United States uses the one China policy to stabilize the Taiwan Straits, and defend Taiwan's democracy. But the one China policy had no room for growth. In March 2008, Hu Jintao mentioned the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations to George W. Bush on the hotline. This instantly increased US latitude on the one China policy. The meaning of the 1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations have yet to be finalized. But they have already become the United States' upgraded version of the one China policy. It has become nothing less than the common political basis for the tripartite relationship between Taipei, Washington, and Beijing. It is definitely not just a matter of KMT-CCP relations.
Therefore when the DPP repudiates the 1992 Consensus, it upsets the United States' Taiwan Strait policy. The US perceives the DPP attitude as nothing less than self-destruction. The US wonders why the DPP cannot seem to understand that the 1992 consensus is beneficial to Taiwan. Why inflict harm upon Taiwan's interests? That is why when Douglas Paal visiting Taiwan in 2012, he said the 1992 consensus is the cross-Strait bottom line. This March, Barbara Schrage explicitly referred to the 1992 consensus as beneficial and essential to the United States and to cross-Strait relations. She urged Tsai Ing-wen not to evade the reality of the 1992 consensus. This amounted to a declaration that the 1992 consensus is favorable to Taiwan.
Lee and Chen used Taiwan independence as election tools. But in the end, they shot themselves in the foot and seriously undermined Taiwan's interests. Does Tsai Ing-wen really not know that the 1992 consensus is beneficial to Taipei, Washington, and Beijing? Is she really determined to reduce the 1992 consensus to election rhetoric? She is advised to pull back from the brink. She must never repeat the mistakes made by Lee and Chen.
細看美國的「九二共識對台灣有利論」
2015-05-01聯合報
美國對台政策有一辯證形式的弔詭：一方面維護台灣的民主政治，但另一方面明確反對台灣主政者採台獨路線，認為台獨違反了台灣自己的利益，不能豐富台灣民主的內涵。
美國認為，在台灣民間的台獨活動屬民主政治的範圍，但台灣的主政者若採台獨路線則是政策上的禁區。美國的此一觀點，在李登輝及陳水扁二任政府時皆有完整的操作與體現。當時，李扁二人皆尚權謀，對內對外均無誠信，玩到後來皆不啻「利用」美國對台灣民主政治的善意，而操弄台獨政治，為此，最後美國皆與之翻臉反目。
如今，可能重返執政的民進黨也將面對此一考驗。吳釗燮日前訪美，亦獲美國「維護台灣民主政治／但希望兩岸和平交流」的說法，殷鑒在目，蔡英文不可重蹈李扁二人覆轍。
在柯林頓時代，美國就公開了「維護民主／反對台獨」的政策架構。一九九八年六月，柯林頓在上海重申「一個中國政策」，並發表包括「不支持台獨或一中一台」在內的「三不支持」；且當記者問同行的國家安全顧問柏格：「即使台灣民選政府選擇了台獨，或經由公民投票壓倒性的傾向支持台獨，美國也不支持嗎？」柏格回答：「不支持。」這可視為對「維護民主／反對台獨」的首次直白宣示。柯林頓幕僚並直言，「一個中國」的政策，對台灣有利。
次年，李登輝面臨國民黨在二○○○年總統大選的頹勢，鋌而走險發表「兩國論」，並醞釀在第五次修憲中將兩國論入憲。當時的美國在台協會理事主席卜睿哲迅速銜命來台，向李登輝表示：「『一個中國』是美國政策的基石……這個原則促成了有利的環境，使得……台灣得以繁榮和民主……。」言下之意，台灣的「民主」有賴「一中政策」的維繫，所以台灣的主政者不可推翻「一中政策」。這不啻又是「一個中國對台灣有利論」的宣示。由於美國介入，李登輝縮了回去，他當著卜睿哲的面收回了「兩國論」入憲的念頭，並對卜睿哲說：「我是堅決反對台獨的！」
但是，陳水扁又蹈李登輝覆轍。在迫近二○○八年總統大選時，陷入貪腐醜聞的陳水扁又大玩台獨戲法，操弄「公投入聯」。美國國務院連番公開轟擊陳水扁，並「希望台灣人民能看穿（入聯公投）這套政治說詞……，且能明確分辨這項公投不符台灣利益」，更直指「台獨不能豐富台灣民主的內涵」。在此，美國不啻又宣示「一中政策對台灣有利／台獨對台灣不利」。在那段時間，陳水扁甚至公開對美放話稱，他說的只是「選舉語言」，並保證「選後一切都不會發生」。至此，陳水扁在美國眼中，已是人格掃地。
陳水扁說：「民主無紅線。」但美國政府的立場是：「政策有紅線。」二者看似弔詭，其實卻是辯證關係。美國認為，一中政策所形成的兩岸平衡，維護了台灣的民主政治，所以台灣的主政者不可推翻這個架構。此一觀點與本報長久以來的觀點可謂不約而同，我們認為：台獨可以是台灣反對黨的「專利」，但絕不可是台灣執政者的「政策」。
如今，美國的「一中政策對台灣有利論」，似已逐漸轉向「九二共識對台灣有利論」。因為，美國是以「一中政策」來穩定台海形勢，用以維護台灣的民主政治，但一中政策卻找不到發展的空間；至二○○八年三月，胡錦濤在熱線中對布希提出「九二共識／一中各表」，形同霎時放大了美國「一中政策」的發展空間。至此，「九二共識／一中各表」的內涵雖然尚未定型，但儼然已成為美國「一中政策」的升級版，亦不啻成為台、美、中三方關係的「共同政治基礎」，而絕非只是「國共關係」。
因而，民進黨否定九二共識，看在美國眼裡，豈僅是打亂美國的台海政策，更不啻是台灣在自毀長城。美國的疑問是：民進黨為何不知九二共識對台灣有利？為何要自損台灣的利益？所以，包道格在二○一二來台說「九二共識是兩岸底線」，施藍旗今年三月間則明指九二共識對美國、對兩岸關係及對台灣皆有利，且建議蔡英文必須面對九二共識，不要閃躲。此皆可視為「九二共識對台灣有利論」的表現。
李扁二人將台獨視為選舉操作，最後不但自身落得狼狽不堪，且皆重傷了台灣的利益。蔡英文難道不知「九二共識」對台美中的三邊大局有利嗎？難道也要將「否定九二共識」視為「選舉語言」嗎？奉勸懸崖勒馬，萬勿重蹈李扁二人覆轍。
No comments:
Post a Comment