Taiwan's Maritime Interests Must Not Be Sacrificed Merely to Defy the Mainland

Taiwan's Maritime Interests Must Not Be Sacrificed Merely to Defy the Mainland
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation 
May 18, 2016

Executive Summary: Opposing the 1992 Consensus out of sheer spite, even forcing Taiwan to surrender its sovereign territory and maritime interests, can only lead to self-destruction. Only by standing up for Taiwan's interests, and playing our cross-Strait cards in pragmatic fashion, can we protect our interests in the trilateral relationship between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei.

Full Text Below:

The Tsai Ing-wen government has pledged to "maintain the status quo". Yet it obdurately refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Its real plan is to change the status quo in the relationship between Taipei, Washington, and Beijing, and the relationship between Taipei, Tokyo, and Beijing. Its real plan is to cozy up to the US and Japan and use the conflict in the South China Sea to defy the Mainland. It seeks to lead Taiwan down a very different path than the KMT. Consider the four variables. The South China Sea conflict is nothing new. Beginning in the 1990s, then president Lee Teng-hui attempted to prevent Taiwan businesses from “going west”. He failed. Beginning in 2010, the ASEAN countries increased economic cooperation with the Mainland. They formed a free trade zone, making great strides forward. By contrast, the DPP government's New Southern Strategy shows no promise whatsoever.

Japan is perhaps the key component of the new government's “anti-China” (anti-Mainland) policy. When Tsai Ing-wen became the DPP's presidential candidate, Japan made no secret it was chummy with Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP. In 1972 Taipei and Tokyo severed diplomatic relations. Since then Japanese officials have never commented publicly on Taiwan election results. They have never offered public congratulations. The Abe cabinet broke from this precedent. He publicly congratulated Tsai Ing-wen on her election victory. This of course amounted to a breakthrough in Taipei Tokyo relations. But is playing the Japan card really in Taiwan's strategic interest? Or does playing this supposed trump card, merely make Taiwan a pawn in Japan's effort to contain China?

Consider relations between Taipei and Washington. To make Taiwan safe and secure, one must first manage relations between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei. Over the past eight years, the Ma government has managed relations between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei by “being close to Washington, being friendly to Tokyo, and being at peace with Beijing”. But this requires a foundation -- the 1992 Consensus. Tsai longs to dispense with the 1992 Consensus. But the Mainland is not the only party that opposes such a change. The US does as well. Tsai Ing-wen wants to pander to US interests, and cling to Japan, in order to strengthen an alliance against Mainland China. But how would such an approach actually play out in real life?

The United States' long-held position has been “maintain the status quo”. Every US President has reaffirmed the premise of one China, constructive cross-Strait dialogue, and opposition to any party unilaterally changing the status quo. It is widely known that divided but peaceful cross-Strait relations are most consistent with US national interests. The US economy is fragile. It cannot withstand unnecessary regional tensions or conflicts.

The US takes a hardline on maintaining the status quo. Former President Chen Shui-bian, as well as  Tsai Ing-wen, who first ran for president in 2012, have both challenged the US on this. Both ran right into a brick wall. Tsai Ing-wen reported to Washington last year. She pledged to maintain the status quo and strengthen trade between Taiwan and the US. She expressed goodwill and was vetted by the US. If Taiwan panders to the US in order to defy Mainland China, how high will the price be? Will the result be worth it?

The history of US diplomacy is a history of ruthless realpolitik. In order to safeguard its own interests, the US frequently betrays its allies. Take our own case for example. The United States secretly sacrificed China at Yalta, in exchange for a Soviet declaration of war on Japan. During the KMT-CCP civil war, it sacrificed the Nationalist government. When the Nationalist government retreated to Taiwan, it cooked up the “Taiwan's status is undetermined” argument and sacrificed Taiwan. In order to halt the Soviet Union it did not hesitate to sever diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and cozy up to Mao Zedong. To the United States, Taiwan has far less to offer than the Mainland. Does Tsai Ing-wen really believe the United States government will not sacrifice its Taiwan pawn when the time is right?

The Japanese government values the DPP government. Its common strategic goal is containing Mainland China. But the DPP government cozying up to Japan, includes Taiwan independence elements identifying with its former colonial “motherland”. These people worship Japan. They fantasize about Taiwan's inclusion in the US-Japan Security Treaty. No matter. Acting on any of these delusions will cross a line in the sand. If the DPP is not careful, it will provoke intense anti-Japanese hatred on the Mainland. The danger will be all too real. Such actions also clash with the US desire to maintain regional stability.

Improving relations between Taipei and Tokyo is not necessarily a bad thing. But not if it cavalierly sabotages cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen pledged that upon being elected she would "carefully handle cross-Strait relations, ensure clear communications, offer no provocations, and spring no surprises". She has violated all of these pledges. Tsai Ing-wen's official position on relations between Taipei and Washington is on record. When she was Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council she authored a document entitled "The US, China, and Taiwan Trilateral Security Relationship and Taiwan's Security". It stated that “cross-Strait security requires dynamic peace and stability, Taiwan must go forward”.

But how should Taiwan go forward? It must of course increase its ability to maintain peace and stability. But this is an economic issue. Tsai Ing-wen has turned it into a political issue. She mistakenly equates recognizing the 1992 Consensus with surrender. She considers it coerced. That is why she stubbornly insists that "If we yield on this one issue, the next generation will have no choice".

In fact however, the core meaning of the 1992 Consensus is one China, different interpretations. When Tsai Ing-wen reported to Washington, she pledged to "maintain the status quo of cross-Strait relations under the constitutional framework of the Republic of China". That is in fact one China, different interpretations. Tsai Ing-wen of course understands this. But in order to avoid offending Taiwan independence fundamentalists, she is willing to jeopardize existing peace and stability. As a result, she has made an enemy of the Mainland. In order to gain support from the United States and Japan, she has surrendered our territorial sovereignty. How will she answer to future generations on Taiwan for that?

Consider the Taiping Island and Cong Zi Niao Reef disputes. President Ma resolutely refused to yield to the United States and Japan. He defended the dignity and interests of the Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand, submitted meekly, in deeply disappointing fashion.

Opposing the 1992 Consensus out of sheer spite, even forcing Taiwan to surrender its sovereign territory and maritime interests, can only lead to self-destruction. Only by standing up for Taiwan's interests, and playing our cross-Strait cards in pragmatic fashion, can we protect our interests in the trilateral relationship between Washington, Beijing, and Taipei.

不可為對抗大陸犧牲海洋利益
2016年05月18日 中國時報

宣稱要「維持現狀」卻拒絕接受九二共識與一中概念的蔡英文新政府，真實的盤算是改變台美中及台日中關係「現狀」，以靠向美國、拉攏日本、展望南洋來抗衡中國大陸，帶領台灣走上與國民黨政府不同的道路。四大變數之中，南向並不是新話題，從90年代李登輝前總統開始推動，企圖壓抑台商西進浪潮，卻以失敗告終。東協國家從2010年起開始與中國大陸深化經濟合作、形成自由貿易區，取得非常大的成就，民進黨新政府的新南進政策看不出亮點。

日本可能是新政府抗衡中國大陸政策的核心，蔡英文獲得民進黨提名角逐總統大位後，日本毫不掩飾對蔡英文與民進黨的友好，安倍內閣打破1972年台日斷交以來，日本官員不對台灣選舉結果發表聲明的慣例，公開祝賀蔡英文當選總統，這當然是台日外交關係的突破。不過，日本牌是蔡英文政府強化台灣戰略利益的一張好牌？還是自以為好牌，卻淪為日本圍堵中國大陸的棋子？

談到台美關係，要在台灣安身立命，首要是把美中台關係處理好。過去8年，美中台關係的平衡建立在馬政府採取的「親美、友日、和中」基礎上，基礎的基礎是「九二共識」。蔡英文想跳出「九二共識」框架，偏偏這種改變不只是對岸反對，美國也心生疑慮，因此蔡英文想更倒向美國利益，加緊拉攏日本，以此強化對抗中國大陸的籌碼。只是，這種想像在實際上可行嗎？

美國一向的立場是維持台海現狀，歷任美國總統一再重申在一個中國的前提下，鼓勵兩岸進行持續的建設性對話，反對任何一方片面改變現狀。眾所皆知：分裂而和平的兩岸關係，最符合美國國家利益。畢竟脆弱的美國經貿現況，一點也禁不起沒有必要的區域緊張關係甚至衝突。

美國維持現狀的立場強硬，前總統陳水扁以及2012年首次參選總統的蔡英文，都曾經試圖挑戰而踢到鐵板。蔡英文去年訪美，在承諾維持現狀與加強台美經貿等方面，釋出了足夠的善意，才換來美國的認可。問題是，讓台灣倒向美國來對抗中國大陸，還要賠上多少利益？划算嗎？

檢視美國外交史可知，奉行現實主義的美國，經常為了維護自身利益而出賣盟友。光是對我們，美國就曾在雅爾達密約犧牲中國，換取蘇聯對日宣戰，國共內戰又犧牲國民政府，國府退守台灣又拋出地位未定論犧牲台灣，為防堵蘇聯毫不猶豫與台灣斷交、拉攏毛澤東中國。就美國而言，台灣利益遠小於中國利益，蔡英文政府難道不怕美國必要時又輕易犧牲台灣這個棋子。

日本政府看重民進黨政府，戰略目標是共同圍堵中國大陸。但是民進黨政府對日靠攏，還包含了台獨勢力回歸殖民母國的錯誤認同，及崇日派一廂情願希望台灣納入《美日安保條約》的幻想。不論哪一個，一旦成為具體行動，就是踩踏對岸的紅線，一不小心就會激起大陸民間強烈的仇日民粹主義，危險性十足，也不符合美國維持區域穩定的立場。

強化台日關係不是壞事，但如果魯莽牽動兩岸關係，恐怕就違反了蔡英文自己在當選後國際記者會中的承諾：「處理兩岸關係，積極溝通，不挑釁，也不會有意外。」回顧蔡英文對美中台關係的立場，並非無跡可尋，她在擔任陸委會主委時曾以「美中台三邊關係與台灣安全」為題指出：兩岸需要動態的和平穩定，台灣必須向前走。

問題是台灣該怎麼向前走？基本方向當然是在和平穩定中提高自身的實力。這本該是經濟議題，蔡英文卻弄成了政治議題，還誤以為接受「九二共識」就是屈服、就是不自主，因此說出「只要這條線一讓，那麼台灣的下一代就沒有選擇」。

「九二共識」的核心是一中各表，蔡英文訪美時主張「在中華民國憲政體制下維持兩岸關係的現狀」，這就是一中各表。蔡英文當然懂，卻為了不得罪基本教義派而不惜破壞現有的和平穩定，結果不只對大陸樹敵，還為了爭取美國及日本的支持而在領土主權問題上讓步，這又如何面對台灣的下一代？

從太平島與沖之鳥礁爭議來看，當馬總統堅決不向美、日讓步，強力維護中華民國的尊嚴與利益之際，蔡英文卻過分溫順，令人失望。

在九二共識問題上為反對而反對，甚至迫使台灣在國家主權與海洋利益問題上退縮，將自陷絕境。只有站在台灣的利益基礎上，務實活用包括兩岸關係在內的每一張好牌，才能在美中台三邊關係中尋求最大的利益。