As Diaoyutai turns Red Hot, Japan turns Sickly Green
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 28, 2012
Summary: Mainland China has been sharpening its swords for the past decade. Now that they are sharp, it wants to test them out. This could happen soon. It could happen a few years down the line, It could even happen decades from now. But Mainland China will eventually want to change the Asia-Pacific strategic picture. It will insist on a position more consistent with its national strength. The world is not immutable. The Asia-Pacific situation will change. Japan and the United States must be psychologically prepared for this.
Full Text below:
The United Nations General Assembly convened this week. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda exploited the occasion to claim that the Diaoyutai Islands belong to Japan. He hoped to secure the support of the international community. But Mainland China also expressed strong views on the matter. The foreign ministers of the two governments met and exchanged fire. The Diaoyutai Island conflict has now spread to United Nations. A Sino-Japanese conflict is brewing.
Noda admits he misjudged the situation concerning the Diaoyutai Islands "nationalization." He admits he did not realize the Chinese reaction would be so intense. That is why he sent a special envoy to Beijing. But Mainland China vehemently objects to Noda's "purchase" of the Diaoyutai Islands. Noda's "purchase" undermines a long held Sino-Japanese agreement not to change the status quo. Noda found himself in a dilemma. If he "buys" the islands, the consequences are serious. If he does not "buy" the islands, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara will demagogue the issue, If in the future more diplomatic disputes erupt, Noda will still be the one to face the consequences.
Noda appealed to the international community. But consider the matter closely. The United States has made clear that it takes no position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. It says it merely turned administrative authority of the islands over to Japan. The US says the Japan-US Security Treaty applies to the Diaoyutai Islands. In other words, even the United States, which is Japan's strongest supporter, does not agree that Japan has sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Other members of the international community are reluctant to become involved. Japan wants to pretend that Japan's alleged sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands is uncontested. It refuses to turn the matter over to the international court for arbitration. It has announced to the international community that it is digging in its heels. In fact, it is merely talking to itself. Needless to say this is hardly going to moderate Mainland China's fury.
The 29th of this month is the 40th anniversary of the establishment of Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations. But the Diaoyutai Islands conflict has intervened. The two sides were preparing to celebrate the occasion. The atmosphere between the two governments has changed all that. The Mainland side says the the celebrations have been cancelled. Will they resume any time soon? The Mainland side says they have been "postponed indefinitely." This means Sino-Japanese relations are now ice cold.
Storm clouds appear to be forming over the Diaoyutai Islands. Mainland Chinese fishery and ocean surveillance ships are everywhere. Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats shuttle back and forth. Warships from both sides are on alert. We will be lucky if a stray spark doesn't touch of a conflagration. Sino-Japanese relations have now come to this. If Japan expects Mainland China to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties, then it is too disingenuous for words.
In fact, the Diaoyutai Islands conflict is not confined to the ownership of a few uninhabited islands. Nor is it confined to the fact that international political factors make it impossible to develop the undersea oil resources. Rather, this is the focus of an historic blood feud and power struggle between major world powers. This is a long burning fuse that has finally reached the powderkeg.
After WWII the United States fostered the rapid re-emergence of Japan. To nations victimized by Japanese aggression, postwar Japan's meteoric rise was hardly consistent with justice. Japan caused the enormous loss of life. It invaded these countries. It slaughtered their citizens. It destroyed their families. The result of the Second World War was Japanese defeat and Chinese victory. But as both sides of the Taiwan Strait see it, the United States, a Western power, illegally and arbitrarily turned China's sovereign territory over to Japan, a former aggressor. In other words, the war may have ended. But Japan has yet to return territory belonging to another nation that Japan obtained through naked military aggression.
This territory may be small in size. But behind it are smoldering, unresolved historical grievances. These demons continue to haunt us. From one perspective, the war never really ended. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait continue to wage their Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaigns. In fact what they are doing is attempting to end the conflict by resolving a lingering injustice inflicted upon China by Japan.
The Chinese mainland hopes to resolve this historical grievance with Japan. It hopes to put the Diaoyutai Islands dispute behind it. The United States has long dominated East Asia. It has long attempted to contain Mainland China. Mainland China is now striking back.
First of all, the party that turned the Diaoyutai Islands over to the Japanese was the US. It was the instigator of the current troubles. The US now says it holds no position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. But the US-Japan Security Treaty refers to the Diaoyutai Islands as the "Senkaku Islands." This betrays an obvious bias in favor of Japan. The US is simply refusing to acknowledge responsibility for its original decision. Therefore Mainland China does not believe for one minute that the United States is either disinterested or neutral. Even if the United States wanted to mediate, it would not be trusted. If the Diaoyutai Islands conflict lacks a mediation mechanism, Mainland China and Japan will collide head-on.
Second, and more fundamentally, Mainland China will eventually want to overthrow the US containment strategy for Asia. The US has long attempted to contain Mainland China by encircling it with a second island chain. This chain includes South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. But Mainland China is clearly on the rise. Its political, economic, and military strength continue to grow. It will not always be willing to be locked inside its own home by the United States. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict may enable Mainland China to break through the United States' East Asian containment chain. Absent this conflict, Mainland China would have a hard time finding a broken link in the chain, especially during peacetime. Japan caused the Diaoyutai Islands conflict to heat up. Ironically it brought the roof down on itself.
Mainland China has been sharpening its swords for the past decade. Now that they are sharp, it wants to test them out. This could happen soon. It could happen a few years down the line, It could even happen decades from now. But Mainland China will eventually want to change the Asia-Pacific strategic picture. It will insist on a position more consistent with its national strength. The world is not immutable. The Asia-Pacific situation will change. Japan and the United States must be psychologically prepared for this.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.09.28
社論－釣魚台紅了 日本人的臉就綠了
本報訊
聯合國大會本周登場，日本首相野田佳彥藉著這個場合宣揚釣魚台屬於日本，希望能爭取國際社會的支持，但中國大陸也強烈表達主張；兩國外長會晤相互駁火，釣魚台紛爭燒進聯合國，中日衝突持續發酵中。
野田雖然承認在處理釣魚台國有化一事上誤判形勢，沒料到中國反應如此激烈，因此派遣特使赴中溝通，但是，中國大陸強烈反對野田破壞日中「不改變釣魚台現狀」的長期共識，進行購島動作，但此事野田又已騎虎難下難有退路：買島，後果嚴重；不買，讓東京都知事石原慎太郎拿去玩，日後鬧出更多外交糾紛，野田還是要面對後果。
野田想訴諸國際社會，然而，仔細分析，美國都講明對釣魚台主權沒有意見，只是行政權屬日本，所以釣魚台也適用於《日美安保條約》，其實這番話的意思就是說，連最挺日本的美國，也不認同日本擁有釣魚台的主權，而其他國際社會的成員，則不太願意介入此事。日本不承認釣魚台主權有爭議，不肯交國際法庭仲裁，強力向國際社會宣傳的動作，其實只是自說自話而已，此舉當然完全不可能讓中國大陸的反應降溫。
廿九日是中日建交四十周年紀念日，但因為釣魚台問題，之前雙方籌備的多項慶祝活動，如今因為兩國氣氛丕變，中方已表示取消，是否及何時恢復，「無限推遲」；這意味著中日雙方目前的關係已冷到極點。
如今釣魚台周邊彷彿戰雲密布，漁船到處撒網捕魚，中方的漁政與海監船、日方的海上保安廳巡邏艇來回，雙方的軍艦臨近警戒，能夠不擦槍走火就已經謝天謝地了；關係僵到這個地步，日本如果還奢望中國熱絡歡慶建交四十周年，那也實在太少根筋了。
其實，釣魚台爭議的糾葛不只在於區區幾個無人島的領土所有權，也不只在礙於國際政治因素始終無法開發的海底石油資源，而在於這是一個歷史宿怨與強權角力的突破點，在長期醞釀後終於引爆。
日本戰後得到美國的扶植而迅速重新崛起，在昔日被侵略的國家看來，日本造成的生靈塗炭與國破家亡，與戰後日本平步青雲的際遇，是不符合正義比例的。二次大戰的結果雖然是日敗中勝，但在兩岸的認定裡，釣魚台卻是美國（西方列強）將中國的土地不合法不正當地擅自交給日本（昔日侵略者）。也就是說，戰爭雖然結束，日本侵略別國領土的債還欠著一筆沒還。
這筆債，帳面上的面積也許不大，背後卻鬱積著未解的歷史宿怨，仇恨的幽靈盤據其上，從某種角度看，戰爭其實並沒有真正結束。兩岸持續進行的保釣運動，其實是要把最後一場仗打完，了斷和日本未完的恩怨。
而除了與日本的歷史宿怨之外，釣魚台爭議的背後，也是中國大陸對美國長期主宰東亞並圍堵中國的反擊。
首先，把釣魚台交給日本的是美國人，算來是紛擾的始作俑者。如今美國只能說對釣魚台的主權問題不持任何立場，但在「尖閣諸島」用詞及《美日安保條約》適用範圍上態度偏向日本，其實也是在對自己當初的決策嘴硬。問題是，也因為如此，中國根本認為美國的立場不超然不中立，如今美國即使想調停，也不會得到信任。而釣魚台爭議若沒有一個可以調停的機制，中日便會一直硬碰硬。
其次，更根本的，是中國終究會要推翻美國設計的亞洲權力生態。美國過去從南韓、日本、台灣、菲律賓拉出第二島鏈來圍堵中國，但中國崛起已是明顯之勢，以其不斷增長的政經軍事實力，不會永遠願意在自己家門口被美國鎖死。釣魚台就是一個挑戰美國東亞布局的突破點，要不是有這個爭議，承平時期，中國還真不容易找到其他施力點。日本把釣魚台爭議炒大，反而給自己惹來天大的麻煩。
中國十年磨一劍，磨好了，終究要出來試鋒的。時間也許快，也許再等幾年，或者十幾年過後，但中國大陸總是會想改變亞太權力生態，給自己掙一個比較符合自己國力的位置。世事不會一成不變，亞太局勢會變，日、美都應該要有心理準備。
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Diaoyutai and Cross-Strait Relations
Diaoyutai and Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2012
Summary: Taiwan has been marginalized during the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands. This shows that the Republic of China must assert that it is "China." It must also make distinctions between itself and the "People's Republic of China." Otherwise, sooner or later it will lose its claim to being "China." Instead, it will be absorbed into the "People's Republic of China." The public on Taiwan, especially the DPP, should cease using the term "China" to differentiate between the two sides. They should insist that Diaoyutai belongs to China, specifically, the Republic of China.
Full Text below:
The recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands are now winding down. Consider the conflict from the macro level. The Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty issue remains what it has been for the past 40 years -- controversial. But each of the parties has gained or lost as a result of the recent clashes.
Japan may have "nationalized" the Diaoyutai Islands. But its losses are the heaviest. One. The recent clashes have transformed sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands into a long term bone of contention between Mainland China and Japan. Deng Xiaoping once said "[The issue may be] set aside. It is not urgent." Japan has now turned it into a hot button issue. Was this wise? Two. During the recent clashes, the most intense wave of anti-Japanese sentiment in four decades erupted on the Chinese mainland. This led to a resurgence of Sino-Japanese hatred, harking back to the first Sino-Japanese War over a century ago. This is a trauma Japan will have a difficult time overcoming. Three. The authoritarian regime in Beijing and the Mainland public feel lingering hatred toward the Japanese. Calls for economic sanctions have reached new highs. The impact has far exceeded Japan's expectations. As a result the dispute over sovereignty has intensified. Goodwill between the two peoples has been shattered. , Serious economic damage has been done. These are the three most obvious wounds Japan has suffered as a result of the recent clashes.
The Chinese mainland is probably the the biggest beneficiary. One. Beijing eventually forced Prime Minister Noda to admit that he misjudged the situation. The United States may continue to uphold the US-Japan Security Treaty. It may include the Diaoyu Islands. But it declared it held no position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta added the US would not allow Japan to do whatever it wants. These developments show that Beijing was not the loser. Two. During the recent clashes Beijing was able to put on a concrete show of its national strength. It has proved that it must not be underestimated. Its economic power bolsters its overall fighting ability. This is obvious to everyone. Three. From Beijing's perspective, the Diaoyutai Islands problem is a Taiwan problem. During the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands, its warships broke through the first island chain and approached ROC waters. To the US and Japan it announced the adoption of a hardline attitude. To the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan, it announced the adoption of a "brothers may quarrel within the family, but must unite against outside enemies" reunificationist strategy.
Now consider Taiwan. The veterans of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement carried out their historical mission 40 years ago. In 2012, during the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands, they passed the baton to Zhongnanhai and the Mainland public. This reflects four decades of evolution in international politics. It also reflects the ebb and flow of six decades of cross-Strait relations. Beijing's firm actions during the recent clashes have enabled Taipei to enjoy a free ride and to bask in Beijing's reflected glory. But they have also placed Taipei in a dilemma. Tokyo now appears willing to make concessions to Taipei regarding fishing rights. Taipei may be a beneficiary. But the recent clashes significantly impact cross-Strait relations. Taipei must weigh the gains and losses carefully.
"Diaoyutai has been China's territory since antiquity." This is the key premise of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement. Even DPP Yilan County Chief Lin Kung-hsien says that absent this premise, the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement would have no case. During the First Sino-Japanese War, there was no dispute about what the term "China" referred to. But today the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have serious differences about what it means. This constitutes a serious disagreement between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan side says that "Diaoyutai is Republic of China territory." But why has the five star PRC flag appeared in Republic of China territory surrounding Diaoyutai? Why have People's Republic of China ocean surveillance ships declared that they will defend Diaoyutai? We have not even mentioned the 1.3 billion people on the Mainland who support the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands.
Diaoyutai is a game of chess. It is a microcosmic cross-Strait chess board. Beijing's firm actions may enable Taipei to hitch a ride and achieve a breakthrough in Taipei/Tokyo fishing rights negotiations. Beijing stresses that "Diaoyutai has been China's territory since antiquity." Taipei can hardly object. But can we persuade Beijing to stop at "Diaoyutai is Republic of China territory?" Mainland ocean surveillance ships have already entered Diaoyutai Island waters and proclaimed sovereignty over the islands. Are the two sides of the Taiwan Strait defining China the way it was defined during the First Sino-Japanese War? Or is Beijing trespassing on Republic of China's front door?
Beijing said "The Diaoyutai Islands have been China's territory since antiquity." What it should have said, but did not, is that "Diaoyutai is China's territory, because Taiwan is China's territory." Beijing's policy on the Diaoyutai Islands issue reflects Beijing's policy on the Taiwan issue. Never mind the frenzy of Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activism in 85 cities on the Chinese mainland. That too is territory the Republic of China has regarded as "China's territory since antiquity."
The current Diaoyutai Island Defense Movement clashes are a warning for Taiwan. One. They provide further evidence that Taiwan independence is impossible. Two. They show that we must seek our future inside the conceptual framework of "China." Three. They show that we must seek common ground as well as maintain partitions among the "Republic of China, China, and the People 's Republic of China."
Taiwan has been marginalized during the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands. This shows that the Republic of China must assert that it is "China." It must also make distinctions between itself and the "People's Republic of China." Otherwise, sooner or later it will lose its claim to being "China." Instead, it will be absorbed into the "People's Republic of China." Therefore we propose that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait meet under the "Big Roof China" concept. The Republic of China is democratic China. The People's Republic of China is socialist China.
In other words, the public on Taiwan, especially the DPP, should cease using the term "China" to differentiate between the two sides. They should instead use the term "democratic" as a buffer between the two sides. They should insist that the Republic of China is democratic China.
Therefore Diaoyutai belongs to China, specifically, the Republic of China.
在釣魚台看兩岸關係
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.27
這場釣島風暴已進入清理戰場的階段。就宏觀面言，釣島主權仍然停留在四十年來一貫的「爭議狀態」，但各方的得失損益已不同於風暴前。
日本雖將釣島「國有化」，卻是損失最重的一方。一、經此風暴，釣魚台將成為中國大陸與日本尖銳且長期的「主權」爭議，已非鄧小平所說「放一下，不要緊」的問題。日本把一只冰凍的山芋烤到燙手，何其不智？二、風暴期間，中國大陸爆發四十年來最激烈的反日仇日風潮，使甲午百餘年來的中日血仇大回潮，這對日本更是最難彌補的創傷。三、北京的專制體制與大陸民間的對日宿仇，在操作經濟制裁上佔據了制高點，其影響超過日本的估計。因而，主權爭議升高、兩國民間感情破裂，及經濟損傷嚴重，這是日本在這場風暴的驗傷單上最受矚目的三個傷口。
中國大陸應是獲利最大的一方。一、北京最後逼到野田首相自承「誤判」情勢，美國雖仍主張《美日安保條約》包括釣魚台，但聲言「對釣魚台主權不持立場」，國防部長潘尼達又說「不會讓日本為所欲為」；這些發展，皆見證了北京不是輸家。二、中國大陸在這次風暴中具體而微地操作了一場國力的演習與展示，已證實不容輕估，而其經濟力已具備總體戰的效能，則是有目共睹。三、對北京而言，釣島問題即是台灣問題。此次藉釣島風暴命其艦艇突破第一島鏈，更迫近中華民國海域；一則對美日宣示其強硬的政策態度，一則對台灣朝野操演「兄弟鬩於牆，外禦其侮」的統戰手法。
對台灣而言，四十年前台灣「老保釣」的歷史勛業，已在二○一二這場保釣風暴中讓位給中南海及大陸人民。這顯示了四十年來國際政治的演變，更反映了六十來年兩岸情勢的消長。由於北京的強勢作為，台灣處於這場風暴中，在「借力使力」與「狐假虎威」中，左右為難。目前看來，日本可能會對台日漁權談判鬆手，這是台灣可能的收益；但這場風暴對兩岸關係的重大衝擊，始是台灣必須慎估之得失。
「釣魚台自古就是中國的領土」，這是保釣論述的第一句話，連民進黨籍的宜蘭縣長林聰賢都這麼說；沒有這句話，保釣即失根據。然而，甲午時代的「中國」也許沒有爭議，但今天的「中國」究何所指，卻是兩岸之間的嚴重歧見所在。台灣說：「釣魚台是中華民國的領土。」但在「中華民國的領土」釣魚台上卻怎麼會出現五星紅旗？又怎麼會由「中華人民共和國」的海監船宣示保釣，何況又有十三億大陸人民主張保釣。
釣魚台的這一盤棋，具體而微地幾乎等同於兩岸這一盤棋。由於北京的強勢作為，或許台灣能「借力使力」在台日漁權談判中找到突破口；但北京強調「釣魚台自古就是中國領土」的主張，台灣不能提出異議，卻如何能讓北京在「釣魚台是中華民國領土」的標線前止步？然而，如今，對方的海監船已進入釣魚台海域宣示「主權」，這究竟是兩岸在「甲午中國」的共同立場？抑或其實是北京對「中華民國」的侵門踏戶？
北京說，「釣魚台是中國的固有領土」，但沒有說出的一句話應是：「因為，台灣是中國的固有領土。」正因如此，北京對釣魚台問題的政策態度，其實也反映了北京對台灣問題的政策態度。何況，大陸八十五城市的「保釣」狂潮，也是將「中華民國的領土」釣魚台，視為「自古就是中國的領土」。
這場保釣風暴對台灣的示警在於：一、更進一步地可以斷言台獨已絕無可能；二、必須在「中國概念」中，找到台灣的出路；三、重點在於必須設法在「中華民國／中國／中華人民共和國」三者之間找到交集，並建立區隔。
台灣在釣島問題上的邊緣化顯示：「中華民國」如果不能善用「中國」的交集，並建立起與「中華人民共和國」的區隔，恐怕遲早會在喪失了「中國」的「介面」後，被「中華人民共和國」所侵吞。因此，我們的主張是：在兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的「大屋頂中國」之下，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國。
也就是說，台灣（尤其是民進黨）應將「中國」從兩岸的「阻隔」轉為「介面」，而改以「民主」作為兩岸的緩衝與調劑。此即堅持：中華民國是民主中國。
如此，釣魚台是中國的，也是中華民國的。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2012
Summary: Taiwan has been marginalized during the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands. This shows that the Republic of China must assert that it is "China." It must also make distinctions between itself and the "People's Republic of China." Otherwise, sooner or later it will lose its claim to being "China." Instead, it will be absorbed into the "People's Republic of China." The public on Taiwan, especially the DPP, should cease using the term "China" to differentiate between the two sides. They should insist that Diaoyutai belongs to China, specifically, the Republic of China.
Full Text below:
The recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands are now winding down. Consider the conflict from the macro level. The Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty issue remains what it has been for the past 40 years -- controversial. But each of the parties has gained or lost as a result of the recent clashes.
Japan may have "nationalized" the Diaoyutai Islands. But its losses are the heaviest. One. The recent clashes have transformed sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands into a long term bone of contention between Mainland China and Japan. Deng Xiaoping once said "[The issue may be] set aside. It is not urgent." Japan has now turned it into a hot button issue. Was this wise? Two. During the recent clashes, the most intense wave of anti-Japanese sentiment in four decades erupted on the Chinese mainland. This led to a resurgence of Sino-Japanese hatred, harking back to the first Sino-Japanese War over a century ago. This is a trauma Japan will have a difficult time overcoming. Three. The authoritarian regime in Beijing and the Mainland public feel lingering hatred toward the Japanese. Calls for economic sanctions have reached new highs. The impact has far exceeded Japan's expectations. As a result the dispute over sovereignty has intensified. Goodwill between the two peoples has been shattered. , Serious economic damage has been done. These are the three most obvious wounds Japan has suffered as a result of the recent clashes.
The Chinese mainland is probably the the biggest beneficiary. One. Beijing eventually forced Prime Minister Noda to admit that he misjudged the situation. The United States may continue to uphold the US-Japan Security Treaty. It may include the Diaoyu Islands. But it declared it held no position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands. Secretary of Defense Leon Pannetta added the US would not allow Japan to do whatever it wants. These developments show that Beijing was not the loser. Two. During the recent clashes Beijing was able to put on a concrete show of its national strength. It has proved that it must not be underestimated. Its economic power bolsters its overall fighting ability. This is obvious to everyone. Three. From Beijing's perspective, the Diaoyutai Islands problem is a Taiwan problem. During the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands, its warships broke through the first island chain and approached ROC waters. To the US and Japan it announced the adoption of a hardline attitude. To the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan, it announced the adoption of a "brothers may quarrel within the family, but must unite against outside enemies" reunificationist strategy.
Now consider Taiwan. The veterans of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement carried out their historical mission 40 years ago. In 2012, during the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands, they passed the baton to Zhongnanhai and the Mainland public. This reflects four decades of evolution in international politics. It also reflects the ebb and flow of six decades of cross-Strait relations. Beijing's firm actions during the recent clashes have enabled Taipei to enjoy a free ride and to bask in Beijing's reflected glory. But they have also placed Taipei in a dilemma. Tokyo now appears willing to make concessions to Taipei regarding fishing rights. Taipei may be a beneficiary. But the recent clashes significantly impact cross-Strait relations. Taipei must weigh the gains and losses carefully.
"Diaoyutai has been China's territory since antiquity." This is the key premise of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement. Even DPP Yilan County Chief Lin Kung-hsien says that absent this premise, the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement would have no case. During the First Sino-Japanese War, there was no dispute about what the term "China" referred to. But today the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have serious differences about what it means. This constitutes a serious disagreement between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan side says that "Diaoyutai is Republic of China territory." But why has the five star PRC flag appeared in Republic of China territory surrounding Diaoyutai? Why have People's Republic of China ocean surveillance ships declared that they will defend Diaoyutai? We have not even mentioned the 1.3 billion people on the Mainland who support the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands.
Diaoyutai is a game of chess. It is a microcosmic cross-Strait chess board. Beijing's firm actions may enable Taipei to hitch a ride and achieve a breakthrough in Taipei/Tokyo fishing rights negotiations. Beijing stresses that "Diaoyutai has been China's territory since antiquity." Taipei can hardly object. But can we persuade Beijing to stop at "Diaoyutai is Republic of China territory?" Mainland ocean surveillance ships have already entered Diaoyutai Island waters and proclaimed sovereignty over the islands. Are the two sides of the Taiwan Strait defining China the way it was defined during the First Sino-Japanese War? Or is Beijing trespassing on Republic of China's front door?
Beijing said "The Diaoyutai Islands have been China's territory since antiquity." What it should have said, but did not, is that "Diaoyutai is China's territory, because Taiwan is China's territory." Beijing's policy on the Diaoyutai Islands issue reflects Beijing's policy on the Taiwan issue. Never mind the frenzy of Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activism in 85 cities on the Chinese mainland. That too is territory the Republic of China has regarded as "China's territory since antiquity."
The current Diaoyutai Island Defense Movement clashes are a warning for Taiwan. One. They provide further evidence that Taiwan independence is impossible. Two. They show that we must seek our future inside the conceptual framework of "China." Three. They show that we must seek common ground as well as maintain partitions among the "Republic of China, China, and the People 's Republic of China."
Taiwan has been marginalized during the recent clashes over the Diaoyutai Islands. This shows that the Republic of China must assert that it is "China." It must also make distinctions between itself and the "People's Republic of China." Otherwise, sooner or later it will lose its claim to being "China." Instead, it will be absorbed into the "People's Republic of China." Therefore we propose that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait meet under the "Big Roof China" concept. The Republic of China is democratic China. The People's Republic of China is socialist China.
In other words, the public on Taiwan, especially the DPP, should cease using the term "China" to differentiate between the two sides. They should instead use the term "democratic" as a buffer between the two sides. They should insist that the Republic of China is democratic China.
Therefore Diaoyutai belongs to China, specifically, the Republic of China.
在釣魚台看兩岸關係
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.27
這場釣島風暴已進入清理戰場的階段。就宏觀面言，釣島主權仍然停留在四十年來一貫的「爭議狀態」，但各方的得失損益已不同於風暴前。
日本雖將釣島「國有化」，卻是損失最重的一方。一、經此風暴，釣魚台將成為中國大陸與日本尖銳且長期的「主權」爭議，已非鄧小平所說「放一下，不要緊」的問題。日本把一只冰凍的山芋烤到燙手，何其不智？二、風暴期間，中國大陸爆發四十年來最激烈的反日仇日風潮，使甲午百餘年來的中日血仇大回潮，這對日本更是最難彌補的創傷。三、北京的專制體制與大陸民間的對日宿仇，在操作經濟制裁上佔據了制高點，其影響超過日本的估計。因而，主權爭議升高、兩國民間感情破裂，及經濟損傷嚴重，這是日本在這場風暴的驗傷單上最受矚目的三個傷口。
中國大陸應是獲利最大的一方。一、北京最後逼到野田首相自承「誤判」情勢，美國雖仍主張《美日安保條約》包括釣魚台，但聲言「對釣魚台主權不持立場」，國防部長潘尼達又說「不會讓日本為所欲為」；這些發展，皆見證了北京不是輸家。二、中國大陸在這次風暴中具體而微地操作了一場國力的演習與展示，已證實不容輕估，而其經濟力已具備總體戰的效能，則是有目共睹。三、對北京而言，釣島問題即是台灣問題。此次藉釣島風暴命其艦艇突破第一島鏈，更迫近中華民國海域；一則對美日宣示其強硬的政策態度，一則對台灣朝野操演「兄弟鬩於牆，外禦其侮」的統戰手法。
對台灣而言，四十年前台灣「老保釣」的歷史勛業，已在二○一二這場保釣風暴中讓位給中南海及大陸人民。這顯示了四十年來國際政治的演變，更反映了六十來年兩岸情勢的消長。由於北京的強勢作為，台灣處於這場風暴中，在「借力使力」與「狐假虎威」中，左右為難。目前看來，日本可能會對台日漁權談判鬆手，這是台灣可能的收益；但這場風暴對兩岸關係的重大衝擊，始是台灣必須慎估之得失。
「釣魚台自古就是中國的領土」，這是保釣論述的第一句話，連民進黨籍的宜蘭縣長林聰賢都這麼說；沒有這句話，保釣即失根據。然而，甲午時代的「中國」也許沒有爭議，但今天的「中國」究何所指，卻是兩岸之間的嚴重歧見所在。台灣說：「釣魚台是中華民國的領土。」但在「中華民國的領土」釣魚台上卻怎麼會出現五星紅旗？又怎麼會由「中華人民共和國」的海監船宣示保釣，何況又有十三億大陸人民主張保釣。
釣魚台的這一盤棋，具體而微地幾乎等同於兩岸這一盤棋。由於北京的強勢作為，或許台灣能「借力使力」在台日漁權談判中找到突破口；但北京強調「釣魚台自古就是中國領土」的主張，台灣不能提出異議，卻如何能讓北京在「釣魚台是中華民國領土」的標線前止步？然而，如今，對方的海監船已進入釣魚台海域宣示「主權」，這究竟是兩岸在「甲午中國」的共同立場？抑或其實是北京對「中華民國」的侵門踏戶？
北京說，「釣魚台是中國的固有領土」，但沒有說出的一句話應是：「因為，台灣是中國的固有領土。」正因如此，北京對釣魚台問題的政策態度，其實也反映了北京對台灣問題的政策態度。何況，大陸八十五城市的「保釣」狂潮，也是將「中華民國的領土」釣魚台，視為「自古就是中國的領土」。
這場保釣風暴對台灣的示警在於：一、更進一步地可以斷言台獨已絕無可能；二、必須在「中國概念」中，找到台灣的出路；三、重點在於必須設法在「中華民國／中國／中華人民共和國」三者之間找到交集，並建立區隔。
台灣在釣島問題上的邊緣化顯示：「中華民國」如果不能善用「中國」的交集，並建立起與「中華人民共和國」的區隔，恐怕遲早會在喪失了「中國」的「介面」後，被「中華人民共和國」所侵吞。因此，我們的主張是：在兩岸主權相互含蘊並共同合成的「大屋頂中國」之下，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國。
也就是說，台灣（尤其是民進黨）應將「中國」從兩岸的「阻隔」轉為「介面」，而改以「民主」作為兩岸的緩衝與調劑。此即堅持：中華民國是民主中國。
如此，釣魚台是中國的，也是中華民國的。
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Every Ministry Must Promote Full Employment
Every Ministry Must Promote Full Employment
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2012
Summary: The attempt to dissolve the cabinet failed. President Ma and the ruling party he heads face even more rigorous challenges. The political picture and social climate are quite clear. The cabinet's response to a string of issues such as gasoline prices and electricity rates over the past six months has left the public disgusted. The public faces a grim situation, including a weak economy and a lack of employment opportunities. The public is impatient with the cabinet's tardy and uninspiring countermeasures. The cabinet cannot afford to continue on its merry way, offering no change, and offering no sound policies. It must rescue the economy, which has hit rock bottom. Otherwise it will have to be changed.
Full Text below:
The attempt to dissolve the cabinet failed. President Ma and the ruling party he heads face even more rigorous challenges. The political picture and social climate are quite clear. The cabinet's response to a string of issues such as gasoline prices and electricity rates over the past six months has left the public disgusted. The public faces a grim situation, including a weak economy and a lack of employment opportunities. The public is impatient with the cabinet's tardy and uninspiring countermeasures. The cabinet cannot afford to continue on its merry way, offering no change, and offering no sound policies. It must rescue the economy, which has hit rock bottom. Otherwise it will have to be changed.
Cabinet members often criticize other ministries. Cabinet members have publicly complained during Executive Yuan meetings that budgets have been cut. Outsiders get the impression that cabinet members are each going their own way, that they are each concerned only about their own lives, that they are each fighting only for their own turf. They do not resemble a team. Therefore the cabinet is the most important challenge. It must have a clear goal. It must have a clear division of labor. This will enable cabinet members to take action, to act like a team, to strive for a common goal.
The current economic and employment situation is particularly grim. We have experienced nine blue economic warning lights in a row. We think the larger objective should be to enhance worker employability, and thereby reduce unemployment. But reducing unemployment should not be the sole responsibility only of the Council of Labor Affairs. It should not be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council for Economic Planning. It should be the common responsibility of all ministries.
Dividing the labor is not difficult. Some jobs are created by business investment. The government may help or hinder job investment. It all depends on the regulatory and administrative environment. It all depends on a variety of regulatory agencies. For example, the Ministry of Education oversees education. The Ministry of Transport oversees transportation and tourism. The Ministry of Culture oversees cultural undertakings. The Department of Health oversees medical employment. These authorities determine what kind of regulatory environment these industries will face.
For some time now these service industry ministries were given primary responsibility for the "management" of these industries. But the Executive Yuan needs new thinking. These ministries should be required to do more than manage. They also need to promote and assist the businesses they oversee. This includes both for profit and nonprofit entities. They must save existing jobs and create new employment opportunities.
The legal basis for this is well established. Article 4 of the May 2008 Industrial Innovation Act states: "Within one year after the promulgation of this Ordinance... central government industry regulatory agencies shall determine the direction of industrial development and submit industrial development plans to the Executive Yuan for approval and periodic review." It also stipulates that "The central government regulatory agency for each industry shall be responsible for promoting the development of that industry." It has been two years since that announcement was made. But the Executive Yuan has yet to make a serious effort to implement this program. It merely asks various ministries to conduct pro forma documentation. Everyone knows the score.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council for Economic Planning are important. The Ministry of Economic Affairs oversees almost all manufacturing and general business. The CEPD oversees energy research, and the setting of goals for the nation and other ministries. Various cross-ministry political affairs representatives are also important. They are involved in improving the investment environment and making new investments. These require the active participation of cross-ministry political affairs respresentatives.
This mechanism, along with several flagship projects, constitute a point of light. The economy is salvageable. We think the Executive Yuan should seriously consider this mechanism. It should go all out. The international economic conditions may be grim. But faced with the same conditions, certain countries have maintained substantial economic growth. Other countries have experienced economic stagnation, even economic retrogression. The public will forgive a slowdown due to poor international conditions. But they will not tolerate a government that allows us to fall behind neighboring Asian countries. We think this mechanism will help the various ministries to take action. Consider the Council of Agriculture. Its main business was to look after farmers, to ensure the food supply, and to stablize agricultural production and the market order. Recently the Council of Agriculture proposed a creative point of light, called the "New Farmers Return Home Plan." It encourages urban youth to return to the farm to engage in high value-added agriculture, and to reactivate fallow agricultural land. If this plan is fully implemented, it could create new jobs in agriculture, and of course more jobs in general.
The various ministries must take action. From their respective positions, they must each propose plans to create or at least save jobs. Out of gratitude, they may set up project offices, They may help industry heads make investments. They may help them overcome difficulties instead of imposing unwarranted restraints in the name of industry regulation. Investments will be saved. Therefore jobs will be saved.
We hope the Executive Yuan will move in this direction, as soon as possible. It should promote such programs based on their effectiveness. It should assess the efficiency of various ministries. We hope that cabinet members will cease going their own ways. We hope they will keep their eye on the larger goal. We hope that based on their individual goals, they should formulate detailed programs, and implement them in earnest. Perhaps team morale can be restored. Perhaps team spirit can be reborn. This would both fulfill public expectations and assist economic recovery.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.09.26
社論－動起來拚就業 每個部會都有責任
本報訊
倒閣案沒有過以後，馬總統和他所領導的執政黨面臨更嚴格的挑戰。現在的政治情勢和社會氛圍很清楚，民眾對於現行內閣在過去半年處理證所稅、油價、電價等一連串議題的作法倒足胃口，對於面臨經濟和就業不佳的嚴峻情勢，遲遲未能推出感動人心的對策感到不耐。如果內閣還是我行我素、沒有改變，沒有推出好的政策，確實將經濟從谷底救起，到時候這個內閣不換也不可能。
我們看到有閣員經常批評其他部會業務，也有閣員在院會上公開抱怨預算被砍，目前內閣給外界的感覺是閣員各行其是，各自顧性命，各自拚舞台，不像是一個團隊。因此，內閣最大也是最重要的挑戰，就是如何有個明確目標，有個分工計畫，讓全體閣員「動起來」，像個團隊，一起為這個目標而努力。
當前經濟及就業情勢格外嚴峻，景氣燈號已經連九藍，我們建議，總體目標應當是趕快提升就業，降低失業率。但是失業改善，不應當只是直接主管單位勞委會的責任，也不應當只是經濟主管部會經濟部和經建會的責任，而是所有部會的共同責任。
要如何分工並不困難。就業的創造來自事業投資，而影響事業投資的重大因素，就是行政協助或掣肘的治理環境，也可以稱為法規及行政環境。決定這個環境的，就是各目的事業主管機關，例如教育部主管教育事業，交通部主管交通和觀光事業，文化部主管文化事業，衛生署主管醫療事業等等，這些主管機關也就決定了這些行業所面臨的治理環境。
在過去很長一段時間，這些服務業主管部會被賦予的主要責任，在於「管理」這些行業。行政院現在需要的新思維，就是應當要求這些部會除了管理以外，還需要負責推動和協助他們所主管的各行各業，包含營利事業和非營利事業，保住現有的就業機會，並創造新的就業機會。
這樣做的法源早就有了。九九年五月公布的《產業創新條例》第四條明訂：「本條例公布施行後一年內…各中央目的事業主管機關應訂定產業發展方向及產業發展計畫，報行政院核定，並定期檢討。」也規定：「各產業之中央目的事業主管機關，應負責推動所主管產業之發展。」現在離公布的時點已經超過兩年，行政院有沒有認真執行，還是只是請各部會寫篇文案聊備一格，大家心裡有數。
當然，經濟部和經建會還是很重要，畢竟，經濟部主管幾乎所有的製造業和一般性商業；而經建會應當以其研究能量，訂立全國的目標，和其下各部會的目標。各跨部會政務委員也很重要：許多投資環境的改善和新投資的推動，都牽涉跨部會業務，需要政務委員從事積極的協調。
如果能有這樣一個機制，再配合幾個旗艦計畫作為亮點，經濟總不致於救不起來。我們認為，行政院應當認真考慮這個機制，並全力以赴。國際經濟情勢嚴峻是一回事，但面臨同樣的國際情勢，為什麼有的國家可以維持相當幅度的成長，有的國家卻產生成長停滯或甚至倒退，是另一回事。人民可以原諒國際大環境不佳而產生的成長趨緩，但不能容忍我國的表現落於鄰近亞洲國家之後。我們相信，有了這樣一個機制，各部會都會「動起來」。以農委會為例，過去業務的重點在於照顧農民，確保糧食供應，穩定農產品產銷秩序，而最近農委會提出了一個有創意的亮點，叫做「新農返鄉計畫」，也就是鼓勵都市青年回到鄉村創業，從事高附加價值農業，活化休耕農地。這個計畫如果全力推動，可以創造新的農業就業，當然會對整體就業有幫助。
如果各部會都這樣動起來，在各自的崗位，提出好的就業創造或至少維持計畫，或者成立專案辦公室，以「感恩」的心情，來對待有志在該部會主管行業投資的事業，全力輔導，協助突破難關，而不是處處以管理為名，橫加掣肘，投資就有救了。投資有救，就業就有救了。
我們希望行政院盡速朝這個方向努力，並依據推動成效，對各部會進行考核。希望從此之後，閣員不再是各行其是，而是在大目標之下，依據個別的目標，訂立詳細的細部方案，並認真執行。如此或許團隊士氣可以恢復，團隊精神可以重生，也從而帶動經濟的恢復，有效回應國人的期盼。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2012
Summary: The attempt to dissolve the cabinet failed. President Ma and the ruling party he heads face even more rigorous challenges. The political picture and social climate are quite clear. The cabinet's response to a string of issues such as gasoline prices and electricity rates over the past six months has left the public disgusted. The public faces a grim situation, including a weak economy and a lack of employment opportunities. The public is impatient with the cabinet's tardy and uninspiring countermeasures. The cabinet cannot afford to continue on its merry way, offering no change, and offering no sound policies. It must rescue the economy, which has hit rock bottom. Otherwise it will have to be changed.
Full Text below:
The attempt to dissolve the cabinet failed. President Ma and the ruling party he heads face even more rigorous challenges. The political picture and social climate are quite clear. The cabinet's response to a string of issues such as gasoline prices and electricity rates over the past six months has left the public disgusted. The public faces a grim situation, including a weak economy and a lack of employment opportunities. The public is impatient with the cabinet's tardy and uninspiring countermeasures. The cabinet cannot afford to continue on its merry way, offering no change, and offering no sound policies. It must rescue the economy, which has hit rock bottom. Otherwise it will have to be changed.
Cabinet members often criticize other ministries. Cabinet members have publicly complained during Executive Yuan meetings that budgets have been cut. Outsiders get the impression that cabinet members are each going their own way, that they are each concerned only about their own lives, that they are each fighting only for their own turf. They do not resemble a team. Therefore the cabinet is the most important challenge. It must have a clear goal. It must have a clear division of labor. This will enable cabinet members to take action, to act like a team, to strive for a common goal.
The current economic and employment situation is particularly grim. We have experienced nine blue economic warning lights in a row. We think the larger objective should be to enhance worker employability, and thereby reduce unemployment. But reducing unemployment should not be the sole responsibility only of the Council of Labor Affairs. It should not be the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council for Economic Planning. It should be the common responsibility of all ministries.
Dividing the labor is not difficult. Some jobs are created by business investment. The government may help or hinder job investment. It all depends on the regulatory and administrative environment. It all depends on a variety of regulatory agencies. For example, the Ministry of Education oversees education. The Ministry of Transport oversees transportation and tourism. The Ministry of Culture oversees cultural undertakings. The Department of Health oversees medical employment. These authorities determine what kind of regulatory environment these industries will face.
For some time now these service industry ministries were given primary responsibility for the "management" of these industries. But the Executive Yuan needs new thinking. These ministries should be required to do more than manage. They also need to promote and assist the businesses they oversee. This includes both for profit and nonprofit entities. They must save existing jobs and create new employment opportunities.
The legal basis for this is well established. Article 4 of the May 2008 Industrial Innovation Act states: "Within one year after the promulgation of this Ordinance... central government industry regulatory agencies shall determine the direction of industrial development and submit industrial development plans to the Executive Yuan for approval and periodic review." It also stipulates that "The central government regulatory agency for each industry shall be responsible for promoting the development of that industry." It has been two years since that announcement was made. But the Executive Yuan has yet to make a serious effort to implement this program. It merely asks various ministries to conduct pro forma documentation. Everyone knows the score.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council for Economic Planning are important. The Ministry of Economic Affairs oversees almost all manufacturing and general business. The CEPD oversees energy research, and the setting of goals for the nation and other ministries. Various cross-ministry political affairs representatives are also important. They are involved in improving the investment environment and making new investments. These require the active participation of cross-ministry political affairs respresentatives.
This mechanism, along with several flagship projects, constitute a point of light. The economy is salvageable. We think the Executive Yuan should seriously consider this mechanism. It should go all out. The international economic conditions may be grim. But faced with the same conditions, certain countries have maintained substantial economic growth. Other countries have experienced economic stagnation, even economic retrogression. The public will forgive a slowdown due to poor international conditions. But they will not tolerate a government that allows us to fall behind neighboring Asian countries. We think this mechanism will help the various ministries to take action. Consider the Council of Agriculture. Its main business was to look after farmers, to ensure the food supply, and to stablize agricultural production and the market order. Recently the Council of Agriculture proposed a creative point of light, called the "New Farmers Return Home Plan." It encourages urban youth to return to the farm to engage in high value-added agriculture, and to reactivate fallow agricultural land. If this plan is fully implemented, it could create new jobs in agriculture, and of course more jobs in general.
The various ministries must take action. From their respective positions, they must each propose plans to create or at least save jobs. Out of gratitude, they may set up project offices, They may help industry heads make investments. They may help them overcome difficulties instead of imposing unwarranted restraints in the name of industry regulation. Investments will be saved. Therefore jobs will be saved.
We hope the Executive Yuan will move in this direction, as soon as possible. It should promote such programs based on their effectiveness. It should assess the efficiency of various ministries. We hope that cabinet members will cease going their own ways. We hope they will keep their eye on the larger goal. We hope that based on their individual goals, they should formulate detailed programs, and implement them in earnest. Perhaps team morale can be restored. Perhaps team spirit can be reborn. This would both fulfill public expectations and assist economic recovery.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.09.26
社論－動起來拚就業 每個部會都有責任
本報訊
倒閣案沒有過以後，馬總統和他所領導的執政黨面臨更嚴格的挑戰。現在的政治情勢和社會氛圍很清楚，民眾對於現行內閣在過去半年處理證所稅、油價、電價等一連串議題的作法倒足胃口，對於面臨經濟和就業不佳的嚴峻情勢，遲遲未能推出感動人心的對策感到不耐。如果內閣還是我行我素、沒有改變，沒有推出好的政策，確實將經濟從谷底救起，到時候這個內閣不換也不可能。
我們看到有閣員經常批評其他部會業務，也有閣員在院會上公開抱怨預算被砍，目前內閣給外界的感覺是閣員各行其是，各自顧性命，各自拚舞台，不像是一個團隊。因此，內閣最大也是最重要的挑戰，就是如何有個明確目標，有個分工計畫，讓全體閣員「動起來」，像個團隊，一起為這個目標而努力。
當前經濟及就業情勢格外嚴峻，景氣燈號已經連九藍，我們建議，總體目標應當是趕快提升就業，降低失業率。但是失業改善，不應當只是直接主管單位勞委會的責任，也不應當只是經濟主管部會經濟部和經建會的責任，而是所有部會的共同責任。
要如何分工並不困難。就業的創造來自事業投資，而影響事業投資的重大因素，就是行政協助或掣肘的治理環境，也可以稱為法規及行政環境。決定這個環境的，就是各目的事業主管機關，例如教育部主管教育事業，交通部主管交通和觀光事業，文化部主管文化事業，衛生署主管醫療事業等等，這些主管機關也就決定了這些行業所面臨的治理環境。
在過去很長一段時間，這些服務業主管部會被賦予的主要責任，在於「管理」這些行業。行政院現在需要的新思維，就是應當要求這些部會除了管理以外，還需要負責推動和協助他們所主管的各行各業，包含營利事業和非營利事業，保住現有的就業機會，並創造新的就業機會。
這樣做的法源早就有了。九九年五月公布的《產業創新條例》第四條明訂：「本條例公布施行後一年內…各中央目的事業主管機關應訂定產業發展方向及產業發展計畫，報行政院核定，並定期檢討。」也規定：「各產業之中央目的事業主管機關，應負責推動所主管產業之發展。」現在離公布的時點已經超過兩年，行政院有沒有認真執行，還是只是請各部會寫篇文案聊備一格，大家心裡有數。
當然，經濟部和經建會還是很重要，畢竟，經濟部主管幾乎所有的製造業和一般性商業；而經建會應當以其研究能量，訂立全國的目標，和其下各部會的目標。各跨部會政務委員也很重要：許多投資環境的改善和新投資的推動，都牽涉跨部會業務，需要政務委員從事積極的協調。
如果能有這樣一個機制，再配合幾個旗艦計畫作為亮點，經濟總不致於救不起來。我們認為，行政院應當認真考慮這個機制，並全力以赴。國際經濟情勢嚴峻是一回事，但面臨同樣的國際情勢，為什麼有的國家可以維持相當幅度的成長，有的國家卻產生成長停滯或甚至倒退，是另一回事。人民可以原諒國際大環境不佳而產生的成長趨緩，但不能容忍我國的表現落於鄰近亞洲國家之後。我們相信，有了這樣一個機制，各部會都會「動起來」。以農委會為例，過去業務的重點在於照顧農民，確保糧食供應，穩定農產品產銷秩序，而最近農委會提出了一個有創意的亮點，叫做「新農返鄉計畫」，也就是鼓勵都市青年回到鄉村創業，從事高附加價值農業，活化休耕農地。這個計畫如果全力推動，可以創造新的農業就業，當然會對整體就業有幫助。
如果各部會都這樣動起來，在各自的崗位，提出好的就業創造或至少維持計畫，或者成立專案辦公室，以「感恩」的心情，來對待有志在該部會主管行業投資的事業，全力輔導，協助突破難關，而不是處處以管理為名，橫加掣肘，投資就有救了。投資有救，就業就有救了。
我們希望行政院盡速朝這個方向努力，並依據推動成效，對各部會進行考核。希望從此之後，閣員不再是各行其是，而是在大目標之下，依據個別的目標，訂立詳細的細部方案，並認真執行。如此或許團隊士氣可以恢復，團隊精神可以重生，也從而帶動經濟的恢復，有效回應國人的期盼。
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Government Must Deliver on Diaoyutai Fishing Rights
The Government Must Deliver on Diaoyutai Fishing Rights
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 25, 2012
Summary: Since the beginning of recorded history, the Diaoyutai Islands have fishing grounds for fishermen from Taiwan. In recent years however, Japan began preventing our fishermen from fishing in the surrounding waters. It has even provoked numerous incidents. Taipei and Tokyo have held 16 fishing rights negotiations, but to no effect. This time, besides defending our sovereignty, the relevant government agencies must defend our fishermens' fishing rights. They must not allow the Japanese to yet again play them for fools.
Full Text below:
Yesterday Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists held the largest scale Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement demonstration in Taiwan's history. As one beheld the mighty fishing fleet one could only sigh. A half century has changed everything. Yet 42 years later, the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty issue remains controversial and difficult to resolve. The Japanese government's unilateral "nationalizing" of the Diaoyutai Islands has reignited this unresolved historical conflict. We must safeguard our nation's sovereign territory. We must not surrender even an inch. For the Taiwan region, there are even more pressing practical problems, such as fishing rights.
Since the beginning of recorded history, the Diaoyutai Islands have fishing grounds for fishermen from Taiwan. In recent years however, Japan began preventing our fishermen from fishing in the surrounding waters. It has even provoked numerous incidents. Taipei and Tokyo have held 16 fishing rights negotiations, but to no effect. This time, besides defending our sovereignty, the relevant government agencies must defend our fishermens' fishing rights. They must not allow the Japanese to yet again play them for fools.
Forty-two years ago, the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaign was drawing to a close. A China Times reporter successfully planned and executed an island landing. For the first time, the national flag of the Republic of China flew on the island. Until recently, this was an unprecedented and possbily unrepeatable historical feat. In the 42 years since, every so often the Diaoyutai Islands conflict would flare up yet again. But over time the controversy was forgotten. The resolve of Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists has never wavered. They have merely gotten older. Forty-two years later, the Japanese government misjudged the situation. As a result they provoked the largest scale outbreak of Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement protests in years. Eighty percent of the public on Taiwan supports the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands. Yet Blue and Green government officials remain indifferent. We regret having to say this to those who wield political power. But how can you defend our fishermens' fishing rights if you lack the courage to defend our nation's territorial sovereignty?
President Ma Ying-jeou has proposed an "East China Sea Peace Initiative." It is basically consistent with the interests of the public on Taiwan. It also increases the ROC's visibility in the international arena. But the political climate on Taiwan is perverse. The Democratic Progressive Party was in power for eight years. Yet all it can do today is mock the ruling administration. Lest we forget, legally speaking the Diaoyutai Islands are under the jurisdiction of the DPP ruled Ilan County Government. Former party chairman and former Premier Yu Shyi-kun even declared sovereignty over Diaoyutai. A country belongs to all of its people. How can sovereignty be divided between Blue and Green? The DPP is utterly indifferent to defending our sovereignty. This is deeply worrisome. Suppose it returns to power in the future? Will it cavalierly relinquish sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands to others?
Back then the authorities did not permit protesters to land on Diaoyutai. Nevertheless the China Times reporter overcame overwhelming obstacles and landed on the Diaoyutai Islands. National sovereignty is not the exclusive domain of any particular group or person. Safeguarding national sovereignty is everyone's responsibility. Today the China Times Media Group allies itself with the spontaneous, grass roots Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaign. The Group President has offered his personal support. He too is motivated by his love of Taiwan and his country. Ironically this love of one's native land, this feeling for one's country, has been coopted by the DPP. It has become stage dialogue spouted by DPP officials, in a "major production," directed by the media, with the acquiescence of the ruling authorities. The ruling party controlling the central government, and the ruling party controlling the local governments, are all civil servants paid monthly by the taxpayers. When are they going to do something for their country? Why have they made defending the nation's sovereignty and fishermens' fishing rights the sole responsibility of fishermen who lack financial resources? Why have they made it necessary for these fishermen to seek private financing? Politicians think only about their own power. But the media should stand with the people. We have asked ourselves what can we do for our country. We have come up with a practical plan of action. The DPP covets the office of the president. But it remains indifferent to the plight of the nation. In which case, what gives the DPP the right to speak ill of others?
Back then, the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement gave rise to Taiwan's largest student movement. Among overseas Chinese, it led to the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement controversy. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict is an historical legacy left behind by two world wars. The Diaoyutai Islands are proof of a shared cross-Strait historical experience. The Republic of China government was one of the victors of World War II. But the Chinese Civil War forced it to move the nation's capital from the Mainland to Taiwan. It was unable to oppose the United States' administration of the islands. This provoked intense anger among the public. Mainland China had no say in the matter during the Cold War East and West confrontation. The Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaign left an historical wound in peoples' hearts. Today, the international situation has changed. The Mainland has risen. It is a power the world cannot ignore. It is even angrier about Diaoyutai than Taiwan. The reason is simple. Japan invaded a once weak China. The issue must be settled rationally and peacefully. But infringements of our sovereignty can no longer be tolerated. The Republic of China government on Taiwan must speak out on the sovereignty of Diaoyutai. Rights must be fought for. We cannot compromise on the issue of sovereignty. This is the only way to remind the world that the Republic of China exists and is real.
The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. Fishing boats from Taiwan that sailed into waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands were driven away or impounded and fined. The interests of Taiwan fishermen were seriously harmed. The first year Ma took office, Japanese ships sank a fishing boat from Taiwan in waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. , Taipei/Tokyo relations were tense. The National Security Council and a delegation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodged a solemn protest. They forced Japan to apologize to the boat owners and their families. The long-suspended Taipei/Tokyo fishing rights negotiations were soon restarted. Unfortunately, three years later, the Taipei/Tokyo fishing rights negotiations have led nowhere. This has been galling in the extreme. The recent spontaneous, grass roots protests have proclaimed our sovereignty. Those in power must be bold and resolute. They must safeguard our sovereignty. They must wage a bitter fight for our fishing rights. The opposition DPP must not merely snipe at the ruling administration from behind its back. Only a unified nation can win international respect.
釣魚台護漁 政府這次一定要拿出成績
2012-09-25
中國時報
台灣歷史上規模最宏大的保釣行動，於昨日展開。看著浩浩蕩蕩的漁船船隊，不禁令人慨嘆，半個世紀，足以讓世事全變，然而，釣魚台主權問題，在時隔四十二年後，卻依舊爭議難解；更因為日本政府片面將釣魚台國有化，讓這個歷史懸案重啟爭端；而在維護主權寸土不讓之際，對台灣而言，其實還有更重要且實際的問題，那就是漁權。
釣魚台自有歷史記載以來，向例是台灣的漁場，然而，日本方面這幾年多次阻撓我漁民在周邊海域捕釣，甚至發生過若干磨擦和衝突，為此台日雙方已經歷十六次漁權談判，卻毫無實際進展，這一次，政府相關部門在堅守主權之外，更要為漁民維護漁權，不容日方再次唬弄過關。
四十二年前，《中國時報》記者在保釣運動方興未艾之際，策畫並執行登島行動，第一次，中華民國的國旗在島上飄揚，迄今，這都是一樁空前、也可能是絕後的歷史壯舉；四十二年來，幾乎每隔一段時間釣魚台就會爆發一次爭議，然而，在時間的遞嬗間，爭議已逐漸被人們淡忘，保釣壯志猶在，只是已老；四十二年後，因為日本政府的錯估形勢，再爆發這麼多年來的最大保釣民氣。然而，即使有八成民意支持保衛釣魚台，藍綠政府卻出現藍冷綠冰的情狀，我們必須很遺憾的說，手握政治權柄者，若不思維護主權，又談何爭取漁權？
馬英九總統提出「東海和平倡議」，基本上，符合台灣人民權益，也是讓台灣在國際舞台重現能見度的想法，然而台灣在扭曲的政治生態下，曾經執政八年、如今在野的民進黨，竟只知冷嘲熱諷，別忘了，釣魚台還是依法屬於民進黨執政的宜蘭縣政府轄下，民進黨前主席、前行政院長游錫?也曾宣示過釣魚台主權！國家是全民的，主權豈能有藍綠之分，民進黨今日對主權維護如此淡漠，令人擔心，未來果若執政豈不把釣魚台主權拱手讓人？
就像當年《中國時報》記者在當政者並不容許的情況下，突破萬難登上釣魚台，因為國家主權不屬一家一姓，維護國家主權匹夫有責；如今，中時媒體集團有感於民間自發性的保釣運動，遂由集團總裁個人支持，也是基於一份愛台灣、愛國家之心，這份對鄉土、對國家的情懷，落在民進黨公職口中，卻成為媒體主導、政府配合的「大戲」，請問：如果執政的中央政府、執政的地方政府、月領人民納稅錢的所有公職，都能為自己的國家盡一分心，哪裡會讓護衛主權與漁權的漁民面臨漁船出港卻無財力支援的窘境？又哪裡需要民間自籌財源？政客想到的是權力，媒體卻和全體人民站在一起，在自問能為國家做什麼事的同時，我們拿出了實際行動，只想到競逐總統大位卻不思國家處境的民進黨，有什麼顏面惡言譏評？
當年，保釣曾經掀起台灣最大的學生運動，在海外華人世界更掀起保釣論戰，釣魚台是二次世界大戰後的歷史所遺留的爭議，保釣也曾是兩岸歷史脈絡的印證；當年的中華民國是二戰的戰勝國，卻因為內戰播遷來台，無力接收美國託管，而釀起劇烈的民情激憤，對岸大陸則在東西冷戰對峙間毫無發言權，保釣運動在人民心中留下了歷史的傷痕。如今，國際局勢已變，大陸已經是全球不容忽視崛起強國，對保釣的激憤更甚於台灣，原因無他，曾經因為日本的侵華行動而衰弱的中國，必須理性和平，卻不容主權再遭侵犯，而中華民國在台灣又豈能輕易放棄釣魚台主權的發言權！權利是爭來的，主權問題當然不能退讓，唯其如此，才能提醒世界：中華民國在台灣是實際且明確的存在。
民進黨執政八年，我漁船赴周邊海域不是遭驅離就是扣船罰錢，嚴重影響漁民權益，而馬政府執政第一年，就發生我海釣船在釣魚台海域遭日本船艦撞沉事件，台日關係更一度緊張，在國安會與外交團隊的嚴正抗議與努力斡旋下，讓日方赴台向船東及家屬致歉，當時，即已表明中斷已久的台日漁權談判將在最短時間內重啟，很遺憾的，三年多過去了，台日漁權談判還是未能獲致具體結論，是可忍孰不可忍！這次民間自發做好各種宣示主權的準備，執政者一定要拿出魄力，為維護主權、爭取漁權奮力一搏，在野黨則不能只知扯人民的後腿；唯有團結的國家，才能真正贏得國際的敬重。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 25, 2012
Summary: Since the beginning of recorded history, the Diaoyutai Islands have fishing grounds for fishermen from Taiwan. In recent years however, Japan began preventing our fishermen from fishing in the surrounding waters. It has even provoked numerous incidents. Taipei and Tokyo have held 16 fishing rights negotiations, but to no effect. This time, besides defending our sovereignty, the relevant government agencies must defend our fishermens' fishing rights. They must not allow the Japanese to yet again play them for fools.
Full Text below:
Yesterday Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists held the largest scale Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement demonstration in Taiwan's history. As one beheld the mighty fishing fleet one could only sigh. A half century has changed everything. Yet 42 years later, the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty issue remains controversial and difficult to resolve. The Japanese government's unilateral "nationalizing" of the Diaoyutai Islands has reignited this unresolved historical conflict. We must safeguard our nation's sovereign territory. We must not surrender even an inch. For the Taiwan region, there are even more pressing practical problems, such as fishing rights.
Since the beginning of recorded history, the Diaoyutai Islands have fishing grounds for fishermen from Taiwan. In recent years however, Japan began preventing our fishermen from fishing in the surrounding waters. It has even provoked numerous incidents. Taipei and Tokyo have held 16 fishing rights negotiations, but to no effect. This time, besides defending our sovereignty, the relevant government agencies must defend our fishermens' fishing rights. They must not allow the Japanese to yet again play them for fools.
Forty-two years ago, the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaign was drawing to a close. A China Times reporter successfully planned and executed an island landing. For the first time, the national flag of the Republic of China flew on the island. Until recently, this was an unprecedented and possbily unrepeatable historical feat. In the 42 years since, every so often the Diaoyutai Islands conflict would flare up yet again. But over time the controversy was forgotten. The resolve of Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists has never wavered. They have merely gotten older. Forty-two years later, the Japanese government misjudged the situation. As a result they provoked the largest scale outbreak of Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement protests in years. Eighty percent of the public on Taiwan supports the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands. Yet Blue and Green government officials remain indifferent. We regret having to say this to those who wield political power. But how can you defend our fishermens' fishing rights if you lack the courage to defend our nation's territorial sovereignty?
President Ma Ying-jeou has proposed an "East China Sea Peace Initiative." It is basically consistent with the interests of the public on Taiwan. It also increases the ROC's visibility in the international arena. But the political climate on Taiwan is perverse. The Democratic Progressive Party was in power for eight years. Yet all it can do today is mock the ruling administration. Lest we forget, legally speaking the Diaoyutai Islands are under the jurisdiction of the DPP ruled Ilan County Government. Former party chairman and former Premier Yu Shyi-kun even declared sovereignty over Diaoyutai. A country belongs to all of its people. How can sovereignty be divided between Blue and Green? The DPP is utterly indifferent to defending our sovereignty. This is deeply worrisome. Suppose it returns to power in the future? Will it cavalierly relinquish sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands to others?
Back then the authorities did not permit protesters to land on Diaoyutai. Nevertheless the China Times reporter overcame overwhelming obstacles and landed on the Diaoyutai Islands. National sovereignty is not the exclusive domain of any particular group or person. Safeguarding national sovereignty is everyone's responsibility. Today the China Times Media Group allies itself with the spontaneous, grass roots Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaign. The Group President has offered his personal support. He too is motivated by his love of Taiwan and his country. Ironically this love of one's native land, this feeling for one's country, has been coopted by the DPP. It has become stage dialogue spouted by DPP officials, in a "major production," directed by the media, with the acquiescence of the ruling authorities. The ruling party controlling the central government, and the ruling party controlling the local governments, are all civil servants paid monthly by the taxpayers. When are they going to do something for their country? Why have they made defending the nation's sovereignty and fishermens' fishing rights the sole responsibility of fishermen who lack financial resources? Why have they made it necessary for these fishermen to seek private financing? Politicians think only about their own power. But the media should stand with the people. We have asked ourselves what can we do for our country. We have come up with a practical plan of action. The DPP covets the office of the president. But it remains indifferent to the plight of the nation. In which case, what gives the DPP the right to speak ill of others?
Back then, the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement gave rise to Taiwan's largest student movement. Among overseas Chinese, it led to the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement controversy. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict is an historical legacy left behind by two world wars. The Diaoyutai Islands are proof of a shared cross-Strait historical experience. The Republic of China government was one of the victors of World War II. But the Chinese Civil War forced it to move the nation's capital from the Mainland to Taiwan. It was unable to oppose the United States' administration of the islands. This provoked intense anger among the public. Mainland China had no say in the matter during the Cold War East and West confrontation. The Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement campaign left an historical wound in peoples' hearts. Today, the international situation has changed. The Mainland has risen. It is a power the world cannot ignore. It is even angrier about Diaoyutai than Taiwan. The reason is simple. Japan invaded a once weak China. The issue must be settled rationally and peacefully. But infringements of our sovereignty can no longer be tolerated. The Republic of China government on Taiwan must speak out on the sovereignty of Diaoyutai. Rights must be fought for. We cannot compromise on the issue of sovereignty. This is the only way to remind the world that the Republic of China exists and is real.
The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. Fishing boats from Taiwan that sailed into waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands were driven away or impounded and fined. The interests of Taiwan fishermen were seriously harmed. The first year Ma took office, Japanese ships sank a fishing boat from Taiwan in waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. , Taipei/Tokyo relations were tense. The National Security Council and a delegation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodged a solemn protest. They forced Japan to apologize to the boat owners and their families. The long-suspended Taipei/Tokyo fishing rights negotiations were soon restarted. Unfortunately, three years later, the Taipei/Tokyo fishing rights negotiations have led nowhere. This has been galling in the extreme. The recent spontaneous, grass roots protests have proclaimed our sovereignty. Those in power must be bold and resolute. They must safeguard our sovereignty. They must wage a bitter fight for our fishing rights. The opposition DPP must not merely snipe at the ruling administration from behind its back. Only a unified nation can win international respect.
釣魚台護漁 政府這次一定要拿出成績
2012-09-25
中國時報
台灣歷史上規模最宏大的保釣行動，於昨日展開。看著浩浩蕩蕩的漁船船隊，不禁令人慨嘆，半個世紀，足以讓世事全變，然而，釣魚台主權問題，在時隔四十二年後，卻依舊爭議難解；更因為日本政府片面將釣魚台國有化，讓這個歷史懸案重啟爭端；而在維護主權寸土不讓之際，對台灣而言，其實還有更重要且實際的問題，那就是漁權。
釣魚台自有歷史記載以來，向例是台灣的漁場，然而，日本方面這幾年多次阻撓我漁民在周邊海域捕釣，甚至發生過若干磨擦和衝突，為此台日雙方已經歷十六次漁權談判，卻毫無實際進展，這一次，政府相關部門在堅守主權之外，更要為漁民維護漁權，不容日方再次唬弄過關。
四十二年前，《中國時報》記者在保釣運動方興未艾之際，策畫並執行登島行動，第一次，中華民國的國旗在島上飄揚，迄今，這都是一樁空前、也可能是絕後的歷史壯舉；四十二年來，幾乎每隔一段時間釣魚台就會爆發一次爭議，然而，在時間的遞嬗間，爭議已逐漸被人們淡忘，保釣壯志猶在，只是已老；四十二年後，因為日本政府的錯估形勢，再爆發這麼多年來的最大保釣民氣。然而，即使有八成民意支持保衛釣魚台，藍綠政府卻出現藍冷綠冰的情狀，我們必須很遺憾的說，手握政治權柄者，若不思維護主權，又談何爭取漁權？
馬英九總統提出「東海和平倡議」，基本上，符合台灣人民權益，也是讓台灣在國際舞台重現能見度的想法，然而台灣在扭曲的政治生態下，曾經執政八年、如今在野的民進黨，竟只知冷嘲熱諷，別忘了，釣魚台還是依法屬於民進黨執政的宜蘭縣政府轄下，民進黨前主席、前行政院長游錫?也曾宣示過釣魚台主權！國家是全民的，主權豈能有藍綠之分，民進黨今日對主權維護如此淡漠，令人擔心，未來果若執政豈不把釣魚台主權拱手讓人？
就像當年《中國時報》記者在當政者並不容許的情況下，突破萬難登上釣魚台，因為國家主權不屬一家一姓，維護國家主權匹夫有責；如今，中時媒體集團有感於民間自發性的保釣運動，遂由集團總裁個人支持，也是基於一份愛台灣、愛國家之心，這份對鄉土、對國家的情懷，落在民進黨公職口中，卻成為媒體主導、政府配合的「大戲」，請問：如果執政的中央政府、執政的地方政府、月領人民納稅錢的所有公職，都能為自己的國家盡一分心，哪裡會讓護衛主權與漁權的漁民面臨漁船出港卻無財力支援的窘境？又哪裡需要民間自籌財源？政客想到的是權力，媒體卻和全體人民站在一起，在自問能為國家做什麼事的同時，我們拿出了實際行動，只想到競逐總統大位卻不思國家處境的民進黨，有什麼顏面惡言譏評？
當年，保釣曾經掀起台灣最大的學生運動，在海外華人世界更掀起保釣論戰，釣魚台是二次世界大戰後的歷史所遺留的爭議，保釣也曾是兩岸歷史脈絡的印證；當年的中華民國是二戰的戰勝國，卻因為內戰播遷來台，無力接收美國託管，而釀起劇烈的民情激憤，對岸大陸則在東西冷戰對峙間毫無發言權，保釣運動在人民心中留下了歷史的傷痕。如今，國際局勢已變，大陸已經是全球不容忽視崛起強國，對保釣的激憤更甚於台灣，原因無他，曾經因為日本的侵華行動而衰弱的中國，必須理性和平，卻不容主權再遭侵犯，而中華民國在台灣又豈能輕易放棄釣魚台主權的發言權！權利是爭來的，主權問題當然不能退讓，唯其如此，才能提醒世界：中華民國在台灣是實際且明確的存在。
民進黨執政八年，我漁船赴周邊海域不是遭驅離就是扣船罰錢，嚴重影響漁民權益，而馬政府執政第一年，就發生我海釣船在釣魚台海域遭日本船艦撞沉事件，台日關係更一度緊張，在國安會與外交團隊的嚴正抗議與努力斡旋下，讓日方赴台向船東及家屬致歉，當時，即已表明中斷已久的台日漁權談判將在最短時間內重啟，很遺憾的，三年多過去了，台日漁權談判還是未能獲致具體結論，是可忍孰不可忍！這次民間自發做好各種宣示主權的準備，執政者一定要拿出魄力，為維護主權、爭取漁權奮力一搏，在野黨則不能只知扯人民的後腿；唯有團結的國家，才能真正贏得國際的敬重。
Diaoyutai Sovereignty: The ROC's Legal Case
Diaoyutai Sovereignty: The ROC's Legal Case
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2012
Summary: The Diaoyutai Islands belong to China. Historically they are part of Taiwan. History attests to this. After World War II, the United States turned over administration of the Diaoyutai Islands, along with the Ryukyus, to Japan. This complicates the issue, but does not change it. Who administers a territory has no bearing on its sovereignty. The sovereignty of the islands remains the same. Japan is currently unwilling to relinquish administrative control. But it cannot ignore the Republic of China's sovereignty. Still less can it assume that administrative control can be magically transformed into territorial sovereignty. The ROC must continue to proclaim its sovereignty to avoid being taken advantage of.
Full Text below:
Storm clouds are gathering over the Diaoyutai Islands. For several days the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and Japan have been taking action. The situation continues to heat up.
Yesterday, Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists staged a protest march through the streets of Taipei. Ilan County fishermen rallied nearly 100 fishing boats. They intend to go out to sea today from Ao Yu Harbor in southern Yilan County. They will sail into Diaoyutai Island waters to proclaim their fishing rights. Last week, Hanhai Engineering Company vessels entered Diaoyutai Island waters. They informed Japan they intend to defend ROC sovereignty over Diaoyutai. They were escorted by ROC Coast Guard vessels during their journey. They circled the islands for over two hours before turning back.
Across the Strait, the Beijing authorities, in accordance with rules prescribed by the Law of the Sea Convention, proclaimed the territorial limits of the Diaoyutai Islands. They submitted diagrams of the 200 nautical mile continental shelf in the East China Sea to the United Nations Continental Shelf Commission. The State Oceanic Administration and Ministry of Civil Affairs made public their standard names and location diagrams for the Diaoyutai Islands and their surrounding waters. In Japan, Yoshihiko Noda was reelected leader of the Democratic Party. He will continue to serve as Prime Minister. He declared that he would attend the United Nations General Assembly, and deliver a speech laying out Japan's position on Diaoyutai. Meanwhile news emerged that Beijing and Tokyo were engaged in military deployments and military preparations. Japan and the US Navy recently held military exercises in the U.S. territory of Guam. They claimed that the exercises targeted no one in particular. But their intentions were abundantly clear.
The Diaoyutai Islands belong to China. Historically they are part of Taiwan. History attests to this. After World War II, the United States turned over administration of the Diaoyutai Islands, along with the Ryukyus, to Japan. This complicates the issue, but does not change it. Who administers a territory has no bearing on its sovereignty. The sovereignty of the islands remains the same. Japan is currently unwilling to relinquish administrative control. But it cannot ignore the Republic of China's sovereignty. Still less can it assume that administrative control can be magically transformed into territorial sovereignty. The ROC must continue to proclaim its sovereignty to avoid being taken advantage of.
We must proclaim our sovereignty over Diaoyutai. But we must beware of at least two things. One. We must beware of alarming Japan, which currently has administrative control. We must avoid changing the status quo. We must avoid widening the conflict. We must prevent it from getting out of hand. Two. We must continually argue the issue of legal rights. We must seek appropriate redress. We must ensure that our legal claims to the Diaoyutai Islands are heard.
First consider the practical side. We must maintain the status quo and avoid worsening the situation. Tensions over the Diaoyutai Islands have sharply increased, because Japan allegedly "nationalized" the islands. This was a devious strategy to change the status quo. Japan's Prime Minister has previously made the same claims. But his current election strategy has provoked strong reactions from both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Anti-Japanese sentiment on the Mainland is especially intense. Economic sanctions may be next. This was something the Japanese did not expect. But the Japanese apparently have no intention of stopping what they are doing. They have no intention of admitting they misjudged the situation. They are pretending to take one step back. In fact they are taking two steps forward. The geographic location of the Diaoyutai Islands is critical. It affects more than the ownership of the islands and the development of its economic resources, including fish and fossil fuels. It affects the demarcation of our territorial boundaries and the boundaries of our territorial waters economic region. It even affects military strategy. For example, will Beijing be able to project power into the Pacific? The Diaoyutai Islands issue must not be treated lightly, as merely a right wing campaign issue within Japan. Consider the Republic of China's perspective. The Diaoyutai Islands are part of Taiwan. We cannot remain silent. We cannot sit like a fly on the wall. Especially since Beijing and Tokyo have squared off against each other, both politically and militarily. The US also has strategic considerations. The ROC must avoid military unrest. We must prevent the Taiwan Region, which is closest to Diaoyutai, from being drawn into unnecessary military conflict. We must not undermine peace and the existing balance of power.
President Ma has announced the ROC government's position. The ROC will safeguard its sovereignty through peaceful dialogue. This is commendable. But the Ma administration must give greater importance to safeguarding the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands through legal means. Since President Ma Ying-jeou assumed office, ROC international law scholars have been hard at work. They have been making long-term, in-depth studies of the legal basis of our sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. We do not lack talent. These scholars have dedicated their lives to these goals. We do not lack people with lofty ideals. The administration should establish a work group. It should systematically compile relevant information. When the time is right, it will be able to argue the legal case. President Ma has already declared that the matter should be resolved through international negotiations, mediation, arbitration, or even international court proceedings. This is the correct path from an international law perspective. The Mainland has also shown an active interest in advancing the legal arguments. Japan, on the other hand, merely asserts that no sovereignty dispute exists. This amounts to lying through its teeth. It also reveals a guilty conscience. We must make ourselves heard on the international stage. We know our case is unassailable. We should not be afraid to argue our case in the court of world opinion. In fact, no international law argument on Diaoyutai sovereignty, by any party, can refute the Republic of China's historical claims. We hope to resolve the issue in a peaceful manner. This is why we must constantly make ourselves heard internationally. As the saying goes, "God looks after those who look after themselves."
釣魚台歸屬 法理論證台灣不缺席
2012-09-24
中國時報
釣魚台問題風雲變幻，連日以來，海峽兩岸以及日本方面都有動作，情勢持續升溫。
台北街頭昨天出現保釣遊行；宜蘭漁業界人士集結近百艘漁船，預計今天從宜蘭縣南方澳漁港出海，前往釣魚台海域宣示漁權。上周則有大瀚海事工程公司的船隻進入釣魚台海域，向日本宣示維護我國對釣魚台的主權，此行並有海巡署船艦隨行保護，繞行兩個小時有餘始行返航，完成宣示保釣的任務。
海峽對岸則先是依照海洋法公約規定的程序，宣布釣島領海基線，並向聯合國大陸棚界限委員會提交東海部分海域二百浬大陸棚劃界案，嗣又由其國家海洋局及民政部就釣魚台等島嶼及其周邊海域之部分地理實體，公布其標準名稱及位置示意圖。日本方面則是甫行當選民主黨黨魁而繼續擔任首相的野田佳彥，宣布將出席聯合國大會，準備以演說表達日本對釣魚台列嶼的主張。於此同時，也有消息傳出對岸與日本均在從事相關軍事部署，從事軍事準備，日本甚至與美國關島海軍進行奪島戰軍事演習，雖然宣稱演習並無針對性，但是用意如揭。
釣魚台屬於我國，歷史上與台灣的關係也最為密切，史乘斑斑可考。美國於二次戰後將之與琉球的管領地位一併交由日本接手，雖然增加了問題的複雜性，但是管理地位的易手，並不能動搖主權的歸屬。目前日本雖然事實仍不放棄其管領的意圖，也不能排除我國的主權主張，更不能想當然耳地從管領者轉變為主權者。我國必須不斷地公開宣示主權，才能免於為人所乘。
爭取釣魚台的權利主張，至少有兩個面向須要小心謹慎，步步為營。一個面向是在事實狀態應該避免管領者處心積慮改變現狀的企圖，當然也要避免衝突擴大，以致於不可收拾；另一個面向則是法理上的權利主張，必須不斷地據理力爭，而且尋求適當的程序，確保法理主張可以有效地發揮其維護我國在釣魚台上固有權利的作用。
先談事實層面，也就是現狀的維持與避免事態的惡化之道。最近釣魚台情勢陡然升高，其實是緣於日本企圖將釣魚台國有化的行動而起，這正是一種改變現狀以謀不軌的策略。日相雖然曾經公開表示，此項因為選舉而採取的策略措施，引起海峽兩岸的強烈反應，特別是對岸反日情緒高張而有加施經濟制裁的趨勢，為日方始料所未及，但是日方顯然無意停止其企圖，承認錯估情勢，實不無表面上退一步、實質上進兩步的欺敵動作之嫌。由於釣魚台的地理位置，不但涉及經濟資源（包括漁捕與石油開採）的歸屬與開發利益，也直接關係到領土及領海經濟區域的劃界，更還有軍事戰略上北京能否跨向太平洋的形勢位置考量。釣魚台的問題絕不能僅以日本國內右翼勢力的選舉姿態視之而掉以輕心；對於我國而言，釣魚台屬於台灣，自不能自甘緘默而僅作壁上之觀，尤其因為北京與東京進入政治及軍事相對峙的局面背後，還有美國的戰略布局考量，我國更必須設法避免此一問題引起軍事不安，而使得距離釣魚台最近的台灣陷入不必要的國防緊張狀態，破壞既有的勢力平衡與和平情勢。
因此，我國政府由馬總統宣示以和平對話為維護主權的主軸立場，甚為合宜，但仍應重視更重要的面向，也就是從法理上循可行之管道提出維護釣島主權的主張。我國國際法學者們，從馬英九總統以降，長期深入研究釣魚台主權歸屬法理基礎者，大有人在，而且不乏以之為畢生致力目標的有志之士，應該有一個群策群力的平台，有系統地整理相關資料，以便於經營適當的場合力爭法理。前此馬總統已然表明應循國際談判、調解、仲裁乃至於國際法院訴訟做為解決糾紛的途徑，此點原是國際法上的正道；對岸最近也有意積極從法理進行對話，而日本方面，卻謂主權在彼而謂爭端並不存在，這不僅是睜眼瞎話，而且不能免於情虛之譏。我方應該在國際上發聲，自認理直者，都不應懼怕在國際法理舞台上據理力爭，事實上，凡是要在國際法上論證釣魚台歸屬，不論是誰，都不可能抹殺中華民國在此一問題上的關鍵歷史身分與地位，也不可能否定我們的話語。以和平的方式解決爭端，正是我們不斷在國際上發聲所必須堅持的基調。好自為之，必然大有可為！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2012
Summary: The Diaoyutai Islands belong to China. Historically they are part of Taiwan. History attests to this. After World War II, the United States turned over administration of the Diaoyutai Islands, along with the Ryukyus, to Japan. This complicates the issue, but does not change it. Who administers a territory has no bearing on its sovereignty. The sovereignty of the islands remains the same. Japan is currently unwilling to relinquish administrative control. But it cannot ignore the Republic of China's sovereignty. Still less can it assume that administrative control can be magically transformed into territorial sovereignty. The ROC must continue to proclaim its sovereignty to avoid being taken advantage of.
Full Text below:
Storm clouds are gathering over the Diaoyutai Islands. For several days the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and Japan have been taking action. The situation continues to heat up.
Yesterday, Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists staged a protest march through the streets of Taipei. Ilan County fishermen rallied nearly 100 fishing boats. They intend to go out to sea today from Ao Yu Harbor in southern Yilan County. They will sail into Diaoyutai Island waters to proclaim their fishing rights. Last week, Hanhai Engineering Company vessels entered Diaoyutai Island waters. They informed Japan they intend to defend ROC sovereignty over Diaoyutai. They were escorted by ROC Coast Guard vessels during their journey. They circled the islands for over two hours before turning back.
Across the Strait, the Beijing authorities, in accordance with rules prescribed by the Law of the Sea Convention, proclaimed the territorial limits of the Diaoyutai Islands. They submitted diagrams of the 200 nautical mile continental shelf in the East China Sea to the United Nations Continental Shelf Commission. The State Oceanic Administration and Ministry of Civil Affairs made public their standard names and location diagrams for the Diaoyutai Islands and their surrounding waters. In Japan, Yoshihiko Noda was reelected leader of the Democratic Party. He will continue to serve as Prime Minister. He declared that he would attend the United Nations General Assembly, and deliver a speech laying out Japan's position on Diaoyutai. Meanwhile news emerged that Beijing and Tokyo were engaged in military deployments and military preparations. Japan and the US Navy recently held military exercises in the U.S. territory of Guam. They claimed that the exercises targeted no one in particular. But their intentions were abundantly clear.
The Diaoyutai Islands belong to China. Historically they are part of Taiwan. History attests to this. After World War II, the United States turned over administration of the Diaoyutai Islands, along with the Ryukyus, to Japan. This complicates the issue, but does not change it. Who administers a territory has no bearing on its sovereignty. The sovereignty of the islands remains the same. Japan is currently unwilling to relinquish administrative control. But it cannot ignore the Republic of China's sovereignty. Still less can it assume that administrative control can be magically transformed into territorial sovereignty. The ROC must continue to proclaim its sovereignty to avoid being taken advantage of.
We must proclaim our sovereignty over Diaoyutai. But we must beware of at least two things. One. We must beware of alarming Japan, which currently has administrative control. We must avoid changing the status quo. We must avoid widening the conflict. We must prevent it from getting out of hand. Two. We must continually argue the issue of legal rights. We must seek appropriate redress. We must ensure that our legal claims to the Diaoyutai Islands are heard.
First consider the practical side. We must maintain the status quo and avoid worsening the situation. Tensions over the Diaoyutai Islands have sharply increased, because Japan allegedly "nationalized" the islands. This was a devious strategy to change the status quo. Japan's Prime Minister has previously made the same claims. But his current election strategy has provoked strong reactions from both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Anti-Japanese sentiment on the Mainland is especially intense. Economic sanctions may be next. This was something the Japanese did not expect. But the Japanese apparently have no intention of stopping what they are doing. They have no intention of admitting they misjudged the situation. They are pretending to take one step back. In fact they are taking two steps forward. The geographic location of the Diaoyutai Islands is critical. It affects more than the ownership of the islands and the development of its economic resources, including fish and fossil fuels. It affects the demarcation of our territorial boundaries and the boundaries of our territorial waters economic region. It even affects military strategy. For example, will Beijing be able to project power into the Pacific? The Diaoyutai Islands issue must not be treated lightly, as merely a right wing campaign issue within Japan. Consider the Republic of China's perspective. The Diaoyutai Islands are part of Taiwan. We cannot remain silent. We cannot sit like a fly on the wall. Especially since Beijing and Tokyo have squared off against each other, both politically and militarily. The US also has strategic considerations. The ROC must avoid military unrest. We must prevent the Taiwan Region, which is closest to Diaoyutai, from being drawn into unnecessary military conflict. We must not undermine peace and the existing balance of power.
President Ma has announced the ROC government's position. The ROC will safeguard its sovereignty through peaceful dialogue. This is commendable. But the Ma administration must give greater importance to safeguarding the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands through legal means. Since President Ma Ying-jeou assumed office, ROC international law scholars have been hard at work. They have been making long-term, in-depth studies of the legal basis of our sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. We do not lack talent. These scholars have dedicated their lives to these goals. We do not lack people with lofty ideals. The administration should establish a work group. It should systematically compile relevant information. When the time is right, it will be able to argue the legal case. President Ma has already declared that the matter should be resolved through international negotiations, mediation, arbitration, or even international court proceedings. This is the correct path from an international law perspective. The Mainland has also shown an active interest in advancing the legal arguments. Japan, on the other hand, merely asserts that no sovereignty dispute exists. This amounts to lying through its teeth. It also reveals a guilty conscience. We must make ourselves heard on the international stage. We know our case is unassailable. We should not be afraid to argue our case in the court of world opinion. In fact, no international law argument on Diaoyutai sovereignty, by any party, can refute the Republic of China's historical claims. We hope to resolve the issue in a peaceful manner. This is why we must constantly make ourselves heard internationally. As the saying goes, "God looks after those who look after themselves."
釣魚台歸屬 法理論證台灣不缺席
2012-09-24
中國時報
釣魚台問題風雲變幻，連日以來，海峽兩岸以及日本方面都有動作，情勢持續升溫。
台北街頭昨天出現保釣遊行；宜蘭漁業界人士集結近百艘漁船，預計今天從宜蘭縣南方澳漁港出海，前往釣魚台海域宣示漁權。上周則有大瀚海事工程公司的船隻進入釣魚台海域，向日本宣示維護我國對釣魚台的主權，此行並有海巡署船艦隨行保護，繞行兩個小時有餘始行返航，完成宣示保釣的任務。
海峽對岸則先是依照海洋法公約規定的程序，宣布釣島領海基線，並向聯合國大陸棚界限委員會提交東海部分海域二百浬大陸棚劃界案，嗣又由其國家海洋局及民政部就釣魚台等島嶼及其周邊海域之部分地理實體，公布其標準名稱及位置示意圖。日本方面則是甫行當選民主黨黨魁而繼續擔任首相的野田佳彥，宣布將出席聯合國大會，準備以演說表達日本對釣魚台列嶼的主張。於此同時，也有消息傳出對岸與日本均在從事相關軍事部署，從事軍事準備，日本甚至與美國關島海軍進行奪島戰軍事演習，雖然宣稱演習並無針對性，但是用意如揭。
釣魚台屬於我國，歷史上與台灣的關係也最為密切，史乘斑斑可考。美國於二次戰後將之與琉球的管領地位一併交由日本接手，雖然增加了問題的複雜性，但是管理地位的易手，並不能動搖主權的歸屬。目前日本雖然事實仍不放棄其管領的意圖，也不能排除我國的主權主張，更不能想當然耳地從管領者轉變為主權者。我國必須不斷地公開宣示主權，才能免於為人所乘。
爭取釣魚台的權利主張，至少有兩個面向須要小心謹慎，步步為營。一個面向是在事實狀態應該避免管領者處心積慮改變現狀的企圖，當然也要避免衝突擴大，以致於不可收拾；另一個面向則是法理上的權利主張，必須不斷地據理力爭，而且尋求適當的程序，確保法理主張可以有效地發揮其維護我國在釣魚台上固有權利的作用。
先談事實層面，也就是現狀的維持與避免事態的惡化之道。最近釣魚台情勢陡然升高，其實是緣於日本企圖將釣魚台國有化的行動而起，這正是一種改變現狀以謀不軌的策略。日相雖然曾經公開表示，此項因為選舉而採取的策略措施，引起海峽兩岸的強烈反應，特別是對岸反日情緒高張而有加施經濟制裁的趨勢，為日方始料所未及，但是日方顯然無意停止其企圖，承認錯估情勢，實不無表面上退一步、實質上進兩步的欺敵動作之嫌。由於釣魚台的地理位置，不但涉及經濟資源（包括漁捕與石油開採）的歸屬與開發利益，也直接關係到領土及領海經濟區域的劃界，更還有軍事戰略上北京能否跨向太平洋的形勢位置考量。釣魚台的問題絕不能僅以日本國內右翼勢力的選舉姿態視之而掉以輕心；對於我國而言，釣魚台屬於台灣，自不能自甘緘默而僅作壁上之觀，尤其因為北京與東京進入政治及軍事相對峙的局面背後，還有美國的戰略布局考量，我國更必須設法避免此一問題引起軍事不安，而使得距離釣魚台最近的台灣陷入不必要的國防緊張狀態，破壞既有的勢力平衡與和平情勢。
因此，我國政府由馬總統宣示以和平對話為維護主權的主軸立場，甚為合宜，但仍應重視更重要的面向，也就是從法理上循可行之管道提出維護釣島主權的主張。我國國際法學者們，從馬英九總統以降，長期深入研究釣魚台主權歸屬法理基礎者，大有人在，而且不乏以之為畢生致力目標的有志之士，應該有一個群策群力的平台，有系統地整理相關資料，以便於經營適當的場合力爭法理。前此馬總統已然表明應循國際談判、調解、仲裁乃至於國際法院訴訟做為解決糾紛的途徑，此點原是國際法上的正道；對岸最近也有意積極從法理進行對話，而日本方面，卻謂主權在彼而謂爭端並不存在，這不僅是睜眼瞎話，而且不能免於情虛之譏。我方應該在國際上發聲，自認理直者，都不應懼怕在國際法理舞台上據理力爭，事實上，凡是要在國際法上論證釣魚台歸屬，不論是誰，都不可能抹殺中華民國在此一問題上的關鍵歷史身分與地位，也不可能否定我們的話語。以和平的方式解決爭端，正是我們不斷在國際上發聲所必須堅持的基調。好自為之，必然大有可為！
Thursday, September 20, 2012
King Pu-tsung Will Maintain Balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington
King Pu-tsung Will Maintain Balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 21, 2012
Summary: The key problem on Taiwan today is that Taipei and Washington lack a common language, and Taipei and Beijing have yet to establish sufficient trust. For the Ma administration, national security, cross-Strait, and foreign relations are all under the control of "insiders." Amidst all the euphoria, it must not lose sight of its own identity. We believe King Pu-tsung will maintain the balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
Full Text below:
Cross-Strait, foreign affairs, and national security personnel have undergone a major reshuffle. Some say it is a dream team. Some say it is stretched to the limit. Some say it is a well-oiled machine. Some say it is a self-contradiction.
Most skepticism concerns whether the new personnel will upgrade or degrade the balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
As we all know, the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington is the key to Taiwan's survival and development. The framework affects everything from national idenity and constitutional allegiance, to cross-Strait relations, diplomatic relations, economic development, and internal Blue vs. Green coopetition.
During the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian eras, this triangular relationship involved Washington influencing what Beijing would do, Taipei and Beijing tearing each other apart, and finally Taipei and Washington finding themselves at odds with each other. In 2008 the Ma administration came to power. The situation changed. Beijing determined what Beijing would do. Taipei and Beijing successfully promoted peaceful cross-Strait development. Taipei/Washington relations improved as well. Beijing influenced what Washington would do. The current personnel changes have attracted much attention. The foremost question has been how they will affect the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
King Pu-tsung is now the ROC representative to the US. He is the key to the entire roster. Sources close to King Pu-tsung say that his appointment means the Ma administration sees Washington and Beijing as two major powers who are of equal importance. It means Taipei will not lean completely in the direction of Beijing. Green Camp leader Julian J. Kuo said Ma Ying-jeou's personnel appointments are "pro-US, and alienate [Mainland] China." Kuo thinks that "[Mainland] China will surely be furious." Both the Blue and Green camps have weighed in on the impact of King Pu-tsung's appointment on the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington. Debate over the current personnel changes focus on precisely this.
King Pu-tsung said the next year or two are critical for Taipei/Washington relations. We are about to initiate TIFA and TPP. We are about to join the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). But the next few years are also critical to cross-Strait relations. ECFA is in advanced negotiations. Taipei is gaining greater international breathing room. It looks forward to cooperation with the new government in Beijing. Political issues may arise. This will be a difficult test for the new administration. This is a critical moment. Is this the appropriate time to declare that "Taiwan will not lean completely in the direction of the Mainland?" Was the Ma administration's intent merely to dispel the notion that "Taiwan is completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland?" If so, then wouldn't appointing King Pu-tsung as ROC Representative to the United States be a clear case of overkill?
Actually, the notion that "Taiwan is completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland" is a label the DPP attached to the Ma adminstration, It is a phony issue. Even the United States does not believe it. Therefore why would the Ma administration appoint King Pu-tsung as ROC representative to the US merely to dispel this phony rumor?
Let us look ahead. We have long reiterated that the first challenge Taiwan faces is the combination of FTA, TIFA, and TPP. This requires assistance from Washington. More importantly, it requires cooperation between Beijing and Washington. Washington's assistance and Beijing's resistance are all part of the framework. Washington is no longer be able to determine what Beijing will do. Beijing now determines what Beijing will do. If we can influence Beijing, Beijing may influence Washington. Perhaps King Pu-tsung as ROC Representative to the US, will be able to increase this influence.
King Pu-tsung's most distinctive characteristic is his symbolic value. It may also be his Achilles Heel. King Pu-tsung has been appointed ROC Representative to the US. Does this mean "Taiwan is not completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland?" Does this mean the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington will become more balanced? This alleged symbolism is foolish. We do not believe it was the reason King Pu-tsung was appointed. Someone with absolutely no sense of proportion concocted this nonsensical "reason" for King Pu-tsung's appointment.
We believe the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington will entail "Beijing determining what Beijing will do." for quite some time. If Beijing is willing to act, then so will others. Only then will Washington act. Those in charge must understand that in order to influence Washington, we must first influence Beijing. Only then can we ensure the ROC's economic prosperity.
King Pu-tsung has a new job. It is to bring greater balance the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington. It is not to stir up the pot and upset this delicate balance. King Pu-tsung should not be seen as a symbol of "not completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland." Beijing must not allow itself to be provoked by Julian J. Kuo's characterization. Washington must realize that if Beijing balks, the entire relationship could break down down. As the old American expression puts it, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
King Pu-tsung repeatedly declared that he "would not become a member of the government, would not become a member of the cabinet." But today he is ROC Representative to the United States. His disciple Wang Yu-chi heads the Mainland Affairs Council. His disciple Lin Chung-sheng heads the SEF. King is single-handedly managing both Taipei/Washington relations and Taipei/Washington relations. The personnel roster seems custom tailored to King Pu-tsung. Cross-strait interaction and Taipei/Washington relations must not be upset. King Pu-tsung must use a balance bar to walk a tightrope. He must not rob Peter to pay Paul.
The key problem on Taiwan today is that Taipei and Washington lack a common language, and Taipei and Beijing have yet to establish sufficient trust. For the Ma administration, national security, cross-Strait, and foreign relations are all under the control of "insiders." Amidst all the euphoria, it must not lose sight of its own identity. We believe King Pu-tsung will maintain the balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
金溥聰不會打亂台陸美平衡
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.21 02:37 am
這一波兩岸、外交、國安人事大換血，有人說是精銳盡出，有人說是捉襟見肘；有人說能如臂使指，有人說是自相矛盾。
最核心的一個議論焦點是：這份名單，究竟有益台陸美的三角平衡，或有傷台陸美的三角平衡。
眾所皆知，台陸美的三角關係，是台灣生存發展的脊柱架構；這個架構，牽動了自國憲認同，至兩岸關係、外交布局、經濟發展及國內藍綠競合等所有的政經命脈。
在李登輝、陳水扁時代，這個三角關係的政策動線，是「從華府轉動北京」；最後弄到兩岸撕裂，台美反目。至二○○八年馬政府主政，政策動線逐漸轉向「從北京轉動北京」，不但迄今兩岸和平發展，台美關係也更和睦並提升，亦可謂「從北京轉動華府」。因此，此波人事異動最受關注者，在於是否顯示台陸美三角關係的操作動線將有改變？
金溥聰出任駐美代表，是整份名單的主軸。近金溥聰的人士稱，金的任命，表示馬政府對美國、中國兩大強權的平等重視，「台灣不會完全倒向大陸」；另綠營人士如郭正亮則指出，此一任命顯示馬英九「親美遠中」，因此「中國一定會抓狂」。由此可見，藍綠雙方的這兩種說法，皆視金溥聰的任命為台陸美三角關係的調整，而這正是這一波人事異動最引致議論的焦點。
金溥聰稱，未來一、兩年是台美關係的關鍵時刻，將迎對ＴＩＦＡ、ＴＰＰ，及加入ＩＣＡＯ（國際民航組織）等重大課題。但是，同樣的，未來幾年亦是兩岸關係的關鍵時刻，包括ＥＣＦＡ的進階談判、台灣更大國際空間的爭取，與迎對北京新政府的兩岸磨合，及可能觸及政治議題等等，可謂沒有一張易答的考題。然則，在這個「關鍵時刻」，是否宣示「台灣不會完全倒向大陸」的適當時機？而若只是為了破解「台灣完全倒向大陸」的誤會，竟以任命金溥聰為駐美代表來因應，會不會下藥過重？
其實，「台灣完全倒向大陸」只是民進黨給馬政府貼的政治標籤，卻根本是個假議題，恐怕連美國也不相信；然則，為什麼馬政府必須用任命金溥聰為駐美代表，來為這個假議題「闢謠」？
瞻望前路，我們屢次提醒，台灣正將面對的首要挑戰即是「ＦＴＡ+ＴＩＦＡ＋ＴＰＰ」的大題目，這固然需要美國的協助，但其實更重要的是必須搞定北京。美國的助力，與北京的阻力，有其「系統性」的關聯。亦即，如果想「從華府轉動北京」，可能轉不動；但若能「從北京轉動北京」，即可能獲得「從北京轉動華府」的動能。金溥聰出任駐美代表，能不能增加這個動能？
金溥聰最特異的條件就是他的「象徵性」，但這也可能正是他的罩門所在；若以金溥聰出任駐美代表來象徵「台灣不會完全倒向大陸」，不啻宣告台陸美的三角將由平衡轉趨傾斜，則正是此一「象徵性」最愚昧的表達。我們不相信這是任命金溥聰的原因，而像是不知輕重者為金溥聰的任命胡亂安上一個最無厘頭的理由。
我們認為，台陸美三角關係在未來相當時間內，仍應以「從北京轉動北京」為操作動線；北京肯動，其他關聯因素都會動，美國也才能動得起來。主政者必須在「轉動北京／帶入華府」的微妙平衡中，開創中華民國的生機。
金溥聰的新職，應是在加強平衡台陸美的三角關係，而不是攪動這個微妙的平衡。金溥聰不要被貼上「使台灣不完全倒向大陸」的標籤，北京不要被郭正亮那類的言語挑撥了，美國則應知如果北京卡住，則整個體系就可能拋錨。機器如果沒有壞，就不要隨便修理。
金溥聰屢屢宣示「不入府、不入閣」，如今則自己駐美，而由子弟兵王郁琦掌陸委會，又用林中森「架空」海基會，可謂一手操持了台美關係及兩岸互動的國家命脈，而這張名單宛如為金溥聰量身裁製。唯兩岸互動與台美關係，絕對不能失衡，金溥聰應抓好手中的平衡桿走過鋼索，切勿出現扶了東牆西牆倒的局面。
台灣今日的關鍵問題，不在台美沒有共同語言，而在兩岸仍未建立強固的互信。對於馬政府而言，國安、兩岸、外交如今皆由「自己人」掌握，不要在「自己人」中失去「自己」。因此，我們相信，金溥聰不會打亂得來不易的台陸美平衡。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 21, 2012
Summary: The key problem on Taiwan today is that Taipei and Washington lack a common language, and Taipei and Beijing have yet to establish sufficient trust. For the Ma administration, national security, cross-Strait, and foreign relations are all under the control of "insiders." Amidst all the euphoria, it must not lose sight of its own identity. We believe King Pu-tsung will maintain the balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
Full Text below:
Cross-Strait, foreign affairs, and national security personnel have undergone a major reshuffle. Some say it is a dream team. Some say it is stretched to the limit. Some say it is a well-oiled machine. Some say it is a self-contradiction.
Most skepticism concerns whether the new personnel will upgrade or degrade the balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
As we all know, the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington is the key to Taiwan's survival and development. The framework affects everything from national idenity and constitutional allegiance, to cross-Strait relations, diplomatic relations, economic development, and internal Blue vs. Green coopetition.
During the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian eras, this triangular relationship involved Washington influencing what Beijing would do, Taipei and Beijing tearing each other apart, and finally Taipei and Washington finding themselves at odds with each other. In 2008 the Ma administration came to power. The situation changed. Beijing determined what Beijing would do. Taipei and Beijing successfully promoted peaceful cross-Strait development. Taipei/Washington relations improved as well. Beijing influenced what Washington would do. The current personnel changes have attracted much attention. The foremost question has been how they will affect the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
King Pu-tsung is now the ROC representative to the US. He is the key to the entire roster. Sources close to King Pu-tsung say that his appointment means the Ma administration sees Washington and Beijing as two major powers who are of equal importance. It means Taipei will not lean completely in the direction of Beijing. Green Camp leader Julian J. Kuo said Ma Ying-jeou's personnel appointments are "pro-US, and alienate [Mainland] China." Kuo thinks that "[Mainland] China will surely be furious." Both the Blue and Green camps have weighed in on the impact of King Pu-tsung's appointment on the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington. Debate over the current personnel changes focus on precisely this.
King Pu-tsung said the next year or two are critical for Taipei/Washington relations. We are about to initiate TIFA and TPP. We are about to join the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). But the next few years are also critical to cross-Strait relations. ECFA is in advanced negotiations. Taipei is gaining greater international breathing room. It looks forward to cooperation with the new government in Beijing. Political issues may arise. This will be a difficult test for the new administration. This is a critical moment. Is this the appropriate time to declare that "Taiwan will not lean completely in the direction of the Mainland?" Was the Ma administration's intent merely to dispel the notion that "Taiwan is completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland?" If so, then wouldn't appointing King Pu-tsung as ROC Representative to the United States be a clear case of overkill?
Actually, the notion that "Taiwan is completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland" is a label the DPP attached to the Ma adminstration, It is a phony issue. Even the United States does not believe it. Therefore why would the Ma administration appoint King Pu-tsung as ROC representative to the US merely to dispel this phony rumor?
Let us look ahead. We have long reiterated that the first challenge Taiwan faces is the combination of FTA, TIFA, and TPP. This requires assistance from Washington. More importantly, it requires cooperation between Beijing and Washington. Washington's assistance and Beijing's resistance are all part of the framework. Washington is no longer be able to determine what Beijing will do. Beijing now determines what Beijing will do. If we can influence Beijing, Beijing may influence Washington. Perhaps King Pu-tsung as ROC Representative to the US, will be able to increase this influence.
King Pu-tsung's most distinctive characteristic is his symbolic value. It may also be his Achilles Heel. King Pu-tsung has been appointed ROC Representative to the US. Does this mean "Taiwan is not completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland?" Does this mean the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington will become more balanced? This alleged symbolism is foolish. We do not believe it was the reason King Pu-tsung was appointed. Someone with absolutely no sense of proportion concocted this nonsensical "reason" for King Pu-tsung's appointment.
We believe the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington will entail "Beijing determining what Beijing will do." for quite some time. If Beijing is willing to act, then so will others. Only then will Washington act. Those in charge must understand that in order to influence Washington, we must first influence Beijing. Only then can we ensure the ROC's economic prosperity.
King Pu-tsung has a new job. It is to bring greater balance the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington. It is not to stir up the pot and upset this delicate balance. King Pu-tsung should not be seen as a symbol of "not completely leaning in the direction of the Mainland." Beijing must not allow itself to be provoked by Julian J. Kuo's characterization. Washington must realize that if Beijing balks, the entire relationship could break down down. As the old American expression puts it, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
King Pu-tsung repeatedly declared that he "would not become a member of the government, would not become a member of the cabinet." But today he is ROC Representative to the United States. His disciple Wang Yu-chi heads the Mainland Affairs Council. His disciple Lin Chung-sheng heads the SEF. King is single-handedly managing both Taipei/Washington relations and Taipei/Washington relations. The personnel roster seems custom tailored to King Pu-tsung. Cross-strait interaction and Taipei/Washington relations must not be upset. King Pu-tsung must use a balance bar to walk a tightrope. He must not rob Peter to pay Paul.
The key problem on Taiwan today is that Taipei and Washington lack a common language, and Taipei and Beijing have yet to establish sufficient trust. For the Ma administration, national security, cross-Strait, and foreign relations are all under the control of "insiders." Amidst all the euphoria, it must not lose sight of its own identity. We believe King Pu-tsung will maintain the balance between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington.
金溥聰不會打亂台陸美平衡
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.21 02:37 am
這一波兩岸、外交、國安人事大換血，有人說是精銳盡出，有人說是捉襟見肘；有人說能如臂使指，有人說是自相矛盾。
最核心的一個議論焦點是：這份名單，究竟有益台陸美的三角平衡，或有傷台陸美的三角平衡。
眾所皆知，台陸美的三角關係，是台灣生存發展的脊柱架構；這個架構，牽動了自國憲認同，至兩岸關係、外交布局、經濟發展及國內藍綠競合等所有的政經命脈。
在李登輝、陳水扁時代，這個三角關係的政策動線，是「從華府轉動北京」；最後弄到兩岸撕裂，台美反目。至二○○八年馬政府主政，政策動線逐漸轉向「從北京轉動北京」，不但迄今兩岸和平發展，台美關係也更和睦並提升，亦可謂「從北京轉動華府」。因此，此波人事異動最受關注者，在於是否顯示台陸美三角關係的操作動線將有改變？
金溥聰出任駐美代表，是整份名單的主軸。近金溥聰的人士稱，金的任命，表示馬政府對美國、中國兩大強權的平等重視，「台灣不會完全倒向大陸」；另綠營人士如郭正亮則指出，此一任命顯示馬英九「親美遠中」，因此「中國一定會抓狂」。由此可見，藍綠雙方的這兩種說法，皆視金溥聰的任命為台陸美三角關係的調整，而這正是這一波人事異動最引致議論的焦點。
金溥聰稱，未來一、兩年是台美關係的關鍵時刻，將迎對ＴＩＦＡ、ＴＰＰ，及加入ＩＣＡＯ（國際民航組織）等重大課題。但是，同樣的，未來幾年亦是兩岸關係的關鍵時刻，包括ＥＣＦＡ的進階談判、台灣更大國際空間的爭取，與迎對北京新政府的兩岸磨合，及可能觸及政治議題等等，可謂沒有一張易答的考題。然則，在這個「關鍵時刻」，是否宣示「台灣不會完全倒向大陸」的適當時機？而若只是為了破解「台灣完全倒向大陸」的誤會，竟以任命金溥聰為駐美代表來因應，會不會下藥過重？
其實，「台灣完全倒向大陸」只是民進黨給馬政府貼的政治標籤，卻根本是個假議題，恐怕連美國也不相信；然則，為什麼馬政府必須用任命金溥聰為駐美代表，來為這個假議題「闢謠」？
瞻望前路，我們屢次提醒，台灣正將面對的首要挑戰即是「ＦＴＡ+ＴＩＦＡ＋ＴＰＰ」的大題目，這固然需要美國的協助，但其實更重要的是必須搞定北京。美國的助力，與北京的阻力，有其「系統性」的關聯。亦即，如果想「從華府轉動北京」，可能轉不動；但若能「從北京轉動北京」，即可能獲得「從北京轉動華府」的動能。金溥聰出任駐美代表，能不能增加這個動能？
金溥聰最特異的條件就是他的「象徵性」，但這也可能正是他的罩門所在；若以金溥聰出任駐美代表來象徵「台灣不會完全倒向大陸」，不啻宣告台陸美的三角將由平衡轉趨傾斜，則正是此一「象徵性」最愚昧的表達。我們不相信這是任命金溥聰的原因，而像是不知輕重者為金溥聰的任命胡亂安上一個最無厘頭的理由。
我們認為，台陸美三角關係在未來相當時間內，仍應以「從北京轉動北京」為操作動線；北京肯動，其他關聯因素都會動，美國也才能動得起來。主政者必須在「轉動北京／帶入華府」的微妙平衡中，開創中華民國的生機。
金溥聰的新職，應是在加強平衡台陸美的三角關係，而不是攪動這個微妙的平衡。金溥聰不要被貼上「使台灣不完全倒向大陸」的標籤，北京不要被郭正亮那類的言語挑撥了，美國則應知如果北京卡住，則整個體系就可能拋錨。機器如果沒有壞，就不要隨便修理。
金溥聰屢屢宣示「不入府、不入閣」，如今則自己駐美，而由子弟兵王郁琦掌陸委會，又用林中森「架空」海基會，可謂一手操持了台美關係及兩岸互動的國家命脈，而這張名單宛如為金溥聰量身裁製。唯兩岸互動與台美關係，絕對不能失衡，金溥聰應抓好手中的平衡桿走過鋼索，切勿出現扶了東牆西牆倒的局面。
台灣今日的關鍵問題，不在台美沒有共同語言，而在兩岸仍未建立強固的互信。對於馬政府而言，國安、兩岸、外交如今皆由「自己人」掌握，不要在「自己人」中失去「自己」。因此，我們相信，金溥聰不會打亂得來不易的台陸美平衡。
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Fight for President Ma's Legacy
The Fight for President Ma's Legacy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 20, 2012
Summary: The current national security, foreign affairs, and cross-Strait personnel shuffles show President Ma's ambitions. He seeks new and ambitious diplomatic and cross-Strait relations. He is also seeking to ensure his historical legacy.
Full Text below:
The 19th of this month constitutes a milestone for the Ma Ying-jeou administration. The National Security Council has been subjected to a major reshuffle. The process has captured everyone's attention. The personnel changes focus on recruiting from the outside. But what concerns the public is economic survival. In this regard, the Ma administration must be aggressive in its thinking and planning.
The Ma administration's high level personnel changes have attracted widespread attention. King Pu-tsung, former Secretary-General of the Kuomintang and President Ma's Chief Adviser on International Affairs, has been made ROC representative to the US. Last September King Pu-tsung served as President Ma's alterego during his visit to the United States. Washington zeroed in on him as the best choice for the Ma administration's representative to the United States. But King has always valued his freedom. He hoped to withdraw from politics after this year's presidential election. He was reluctant to make any promises. Consider the US perspective. King served as ROC representative. He understands President Ma's thinking about the US, Japan, and cross-Strait policy. King would give the ROC greater peace of mind. The US looks forward to "Ambassador King" serving for the next three years. It looks forward to him promoting military procurements, the Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) negotiations, and ROC participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The US looks forward to renewed Taipei/Washington relations. It would promote ROC economic liberalization. It would also reduce Taiwan's over-reliance on the Mainland economy and markets.
Jason Yuan, ROC Representative to the US, will head the National Security Council. In 2008, Yuan, a career diplomat, was appointed ROC Representative to the US. During the next four years, Taipei and Washington established mutual trust. Washington vetted Taipei as a member of the visa waiver program (VWP). During the last three months of last year, Washington dispatched three officials to Taipei. Last November, in Hawaii, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed that the ROC was an important "security and economic partner" of the US. Yuan has been in Washington for four years. He often receives phone calls from President Ma. This lends him an official imprimateur when meeting with U.S. officials or members of Congress. It enables him to accomplish the tasks entrusted to him by the administration. Onlookers hope that as Secretary General of the National Security Council he will communicate and coordinate with Ambassador King. One will be stationed at home. The other will be stationed abroad. Together they will help President Ma formulate a new and improved US policy. Together they will maximize our national interests and national security.
Foreign Minister Timothy Yang will take over as Secretary-General of the Office of the President. For him this constitutes a step up. It means President Ma will continue to draw on Timothy Yang's foreign policy expertise. Taipei and Beijing have enacted a diplomatic truce. ROC foreign aid and humanitarian aid policy will be better planned. The new Foreign Minister will be Deputy Foreign Minister David Lin. His diplomatic resume is complete. It includes Asia, Latin America, and Europe. He was Ambassador to Grenada, European Department Chief, Representative to Indonesia, International Organizations Department Chief, and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He boasts an international perspective and a wealth of practical experience. When he was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, he vigorously championed Taipei's accession to the World Health Assembly (WHA). He was considered the man behind the screen. When he was Representative to the EU, he successfully fought for and obtained visa-free treatment from the EU for ROC passport holders.
The new Mainland Affairs Council Chairman will be Wang Yu-chi, Spokesman for the Office of the President. He is the youngest Mainland Affairs Council Chairman ever. When he was on the National Security Council Advisory Committee, he was heavily involved in cross-Strait and diplomatic affairs. He has a good understanding of President Ma's cross-Strait policy and philosophy. But some worry that his credentials and contacts may be inadequate. This is cause for concern.
The new SEF chairman is expected to be KMT Secretary-General Lin Join-sane. He served as a Committee Member in the Taipei City Government, Kaohsiung City Government Secretary-General, Deputy Mayor, Deputy Chief of Operations and Political Affairs for the Ministry of the Interior, and Executive Yuan Secretary General. When he was Executive Yuan Secretary General and KMT Secretary General, he demonstrated an ability to broker deals. We look forward to him working with the Mainland Affairs Council.
Lai Shin-yuan, Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, will be the Resident Representative to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Her job will not be limited to WTO Affairs. She will also promote improved relations with all countries, including substantive economic and trade relations. Does Lai have the character and leadership qualities required? Will she contribute to improved relations with the EU, which requires coordination and dialogue? That remains to be seen.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council appointments demonstrate President Ma's commitment to the United States. During a video conference with a Washington think tank on May 12 last year he mentioned "three lines of defense." During this year's May 20 inauguration speech he proposed "three iron triangles." President Ma sees Taipei/Washington relations as one of the most important links for the Republic of China. He is well aware that without a U.S. security commitment we would have no cross-Strait economic dividend or peace dividend.
The current national security, foreign affairs, and cross-Strait personnel shuffles show President Ma's ambitions. He seeks new and ambitious diplomatic and cross-Strait relations. He is also seeking to ensure his historical legacy.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.09.20
社論－馬總統歷史定位的奮力一搏
本報訊
本月十九日是馬英九政府一個新的里程碑，國安團隊做了大幅度的調整，令人耳目一新；然而，這次人事調整以向外開展為主軸，但人民最關切的畢竟還是攸關民生的議題，對此，馬政府也應有積極的思維與布局。
這次馬政府最讓各界矚目的高層人事變動，莫過於國民黨前祕書長與國際事務首席顧問金溥聰將出任駐美代表。自從金溥聰去年九月以馬總統「分身」訪美之後，華府即鎖定他為馬政府駐美代表的最佳人選。只是金一向喜歡閒雲野鶴、悠遊自在，希望今年總統大選後淡出政治，而未曾輕易允諾。惟就美方來看，有他出任駐美代表，就能更直接地瞭解馬總統對美、日與兩岸的政策思維與方向，而對我國更為放心與安心。期盼「金大使」在未來三年多，能夠在推動軍購、台美「貿易及投資架構協議」（TIFA）談判、我國參與「跨太平洋夥伴關係」（TPP）等重要議題上，讓台美關係再創新局，不僅有助於提升我國的經濟自由化，也會緩解或平衡我方對大陸經濟與市場的過度倚賴。
現任駐美代表袁健生將出掌國安會。二○○八年，袁健生以職業外交官出任駐美代表，四年下來，台美關係重新建立互信，而且美國支持我國成為「免簽證計畫」（VWP）候選國。此外，華府在去年最後三個月還派遣三位官員訪問我國。希拉蕊國務卿更在去年十一月於夏威夷宣布我國是美國重要的「安全與經濟夥伴」。在華府四年多，袁健生經常接到馬總統的電話，這使他在面對美國政府官員或國會議員時，有著如同尚方寶劍的加持，而更有助於達成國家所交付的任務。外界期待他擔任國安會祕書長後，與金駐美代表能有好的溝通協調，一內一外襄贊馬總統制定更佳的對美政策，盡可能極大化我國的國家利益與國家安全。
外交部長楊進添將接任總統府祕書長，對他個人而言，當然是更上一層樓，顯示馬總統將繼續借重楊進添的外交長才，為兩岸的外交休兵、我國的援外政策與人道援助，做出更周延完整的規畫。新任外交部長則將由前外交部次長林永樂出任。他的外交體系歷練完整，橫跨亞洲、拉丁美洲、歐洲，曾任駐格瑞那達大使、歐洲司長、駐印尼代表、國際組織司長、外交部次長等，深具國際觀和豐富實務經驗。擔任外交部次長時，他對我國加入「世界衛生大會」（WHA）著墨甚深，堪稱幕後功臣；擔任駐歐盟代表任內，也成功爭取歐盟給予台灣「免簽證待遇」。
陸委會主委由前總統府發言人王郁琦接任，這位「陸委會史上最年輕的主委」，在擔任國安會諮詢委員期間，曾實質參與國安會有關之兩岸、外交相關工作，對馬總統的兩岸政策及理念，有一定程度的掌握；但有人擔心他在相關領域上的資歷與人脈可能不足，這的確值得關注。
至於海基會董事長則預計由現任國民黨祕書長林中森接任。他歷任台北市政府專門委員、高雄市政府祕書長、副市長、內政部常務、政務次長、行政院祕書長等公職。擔任行政院和國民黨祕書長期間，也展現了調和鼎鼐的能力，期待未來能與陸委會合作無間。
原陸委會主委賴幸媛將出任駐「世界貿易組織」（WTO）代表。未來，她的新職將不限於WTO事務，也被賦予推動與各國發展包括經貿在內實質關係的重責大任。而賴的性格與領導特質，是否有助於重視協調與對話穿梭的對歐工作推展，也有待進一步觀察。
這次外交與國安人事布局充分顯示馬總統確實在履行對美國的承諾。不論是去年五月十二日在與華府智庫視訊會議中提到的「三道防線」或是今年五月二十日就職演說提出的「三個鐵三角」，馬總統都將台美關係視為中華民國最重要的一環，因為他深知我國若沒有美國的安全承諾，就不可能有兩岸關係的「經濟紅利」與「和平紅利」。
這次國安、外交、兩岸的人事調整，似乎展現馬總統有意在外交、兩岸關係再創新局的雄心壯志，相信也是他尋求歷史定位的重要奮力一搏。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 20, 2012
Summary: The current national security, foreign affairs, and cross-Strait personnel shuffles show President Ma's ambitions. He seeks new and ambitious diplomatic and cross-Strait relations. He is also seeking to ensure his historical legacy.
Full Text below:
The 19th of this month constitutes a milestone for the Ma Ying-jeou administration. The National Security Council has been subjected to a major reshuffle. The process has captured everyone's attention. The personnel changes focus on recruiting from the outside. But what concerns the public is economic survival. In this regard, the Ma administration must be aggressive in its thinking and planning.
The Ma administration's high level personnel changes have attracted widespread attention. King Pu-tsung, former Secretary-General of the Kuomintang and President Ma's Chief Adviser on International Affairs, has been made ROC representative to the US. Last September King Pu-tsung served as President Ma's alterego during his visit to the United States. Washington zeroed in on him as the best choice for the Ma administration's representative to the United States. But King has always valued his freedom. He hoped to withdraw from politics after this year's presidential election. He was reluctant to make any promises. Consider the US perspective. King served as ROC representative. He understands President Ma's thinking about the US, Japan, and cross-Strait policy. King would give the ROC greater peace of mind. The US looks forward to "Ambassador King" serving for the next three years. It looks forward to him promoting military procurements, the Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) negotiations, and ROC participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The US looks forward to renewed Taipei/Washington relations. It would promote ROC economic liberalization. It would also reduce Taiwan's over-reliance on the Mainland economy and markets.
Jason Yuan, ROC Representative to the US, will head the National Security Council. In 2008, Yuan, a career diplomat, was appointed ROC Representative to the US. During the next four years, Taipei and Washington established mutual trust. Washington vetted Taipei as a member of the visa waiver program (VWP). During the last three months of last year, Washington dispatched three officials to Taipei. Last November, in Hawaii, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed that the ROC was an important "security and economic partner" of the US. Yuan has been in Washington for four years. He often receives phone calls from President Ma. This lends him an official imprimateur when meeting with U.S. officials or members of Congress. It enables him to accomplish the tasks entrusted to him by the administration. Onlookers hope that as Secretary General of the National Security Council he will communicate and coordinate with Ambassador King. One will be stationed at home. The other will be stationed abroad. Together they will help President Ma formulate a new and improved US policy. Together they will maximize our national interests and national security.
Foreign Minister Timothy Yang will take over as Secretary-General of the Office of the President. For him this constitutes a step up. It means President Ma will continue to draw on Timothy Yang's foreign policy expertise. Taipei and Beijing have enacted a diplomatic truce. ROC foreign aid and humanitarian aid policy will be better planned. The new Foreign Minister will be Deputy Foreign Minister David Lin. His diplomatic resume is complete. It includes Asia, Latin America, and Europe. He was Ambassador to Grenada, European Department Chief, Representative to Indonesia, International Organizations Department Chief, and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He boasts an international perspective and a wealth of practical experience. When he was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, he vigorously championed Taipei's accession to the World Health Assembly (WHA). He was considered the man behind the screen. When he was Representative to the EU, he successfully fought for and obtained visa-free treatment from the EU for ROC passport holders.
The new Mainland Affairs Council Chairman will be Wang Yu-chi, Spokesman for the Office of the President. He is the youngest Mainland Affairs Council Chairman ever. When he was on the National Security Council Advisory Committee, he was heavily involved in cross-Strait and diplomatic affairs. He has a good understanding of President Ma's cross-Strait policy and philosophy. But some worry that his credentials and contacts may be inadequate. This is cause for concern.
The new SEF chairman is expected to be KMT Secretary-General Lin Join-sane. He served as a Committee Member in the Taipei City Government, Kaohsiung City Government Secretary-General, Deputy Mayor, Deputy Chief of Operations and Political Affairs for the Ministry of the Interior, and Executive Yuan Secretary General. When he was Executive Yuan Secretary General and KMT Secretary General, he demonstrated an ability to broker deals. We look forward to him working with the Mainland Affairs Council.
Lai Shin-yuan, Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, will be the Resident Representative to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Her job will not be limited to WTO Affairs. She will also promote improved relations with all countries, including substantive economic and trade relations. Does Lai have the character and leadership qualities required? Will she contribute to improved relations with the EU, which requires coordination and dialogue? That remains to be seen.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council appointments demonstrate President Ma's commitment to the United States. During a video conference with a Washington think tank on May 12 last year he mentioned "three lines of defense." During this year's May 20 inauguration speech he proposed "three iron triangles." President Ma sees Taipei/Washington relations as one of the most important links for the Republic of China. He is well aware that without a U.S. security commitment we would have no cross-Strait economic dividend or peace dividend.
The current national security, foreign affairs, and cross-Strait personnel shuffles show President Ma's ambitions. He seeks new and ambitious diplomatic and cross-Strait relations. He is also seeking to ensure his historical legacy.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.09.20
社論－馬總統歷史定位的奮力一搏
本報訊
本月十九日是馬英九政府一個新的里程碑，國安團隊做了大幅度的調整，令人耳目一新；然而，這次人事調整以向外開展為主軸，但人民最關切的畢竟還是攸關民生的議題，對此，馬政府也應有積極的思維與布局。
這次馬政府最讓各界矚目的高層人事變動，莫過於國民黨前祕書長與國際事務首席顧問金溥聰將出任駐美代表。自從金溥聰去年九月以馬總統「分身」訪美之後，華府即鎖定他為馬政府駐美代表的最佳人選。只是金一向喜歡閒雲野鶴、悠遊自在，希望今年總統大選後淡出政治，而未曾輕易允諾。惟就美方來看，有他出任駐美代表，就能更直接地瞭解馬總統對美、日與兩岸的政策思維與方向，而對我國更為放心與安心。期盼「金大使」在未來三年多，能夠在推動軍購、台美「貿易及投資架構協議」（TIFA）談判、我國參與「跨太平洋夥伴關係」（TPP）等重要議題上，讓台美關係再創新局，不僅有助於提升我國的經濟自由化，也會緩解或平衡我方對大陸經濟與市場的過度倚賴。
現任駐美代表袁健生將出掌國安會。二○○八年，袁健生以職業外交官出任駐美代表，四年下來，台美關係重新建立互信，而且美國支持我國成為「免簽證計畫」（VWP）候選國。此外，華府在去年最後三個月還派遣三位官員訪問我國。希拉蕊國務卿更在去年十一月於夏威夷宣布我國是美國重要的「安全與經濟夥伴」。在華府四年多，袁健生經常接到馬總統的電話，這使他在面對美國政府官員或國會議員時，有著如同尚方寶劍的加持，而更有助於達成國家所交付的任務。外界期待他擔任國安會祕書長後，與金駐美代表能有好的溝通協調，一內一外襄贊馬總統制定更佳的對美政策，盡可能極大化我國的國家利益與國家安全。
外交部長楊進添將接任總統府祕書長，對他個人而言，當然是更上一層樓，顯示馬總統將繼續借重楊進添的外交長才，為兩岸的外交休兵、我國的援外政策與人道援助，做出更周延完整的規畫。新任外交部長則將由前外交部次長林永樂出任。他的外交體系歷練完整，橫跨亞洲、拉丁美洲、歐洲，曾任駐格瑞那達大使、歐洲司長、駐印尼代表、國際組織司長、外交部次長等，深具國際觀和豐富實務經驗。擔任外交部次長時，他對我國加入「世界衛生大會」（WHA）著墨甚深，堪稱幕後功臣；擔任駐歐盟代表任內，也成功爭取歐盟給予台灣「免簽證待遇」。
陸委會主委由前總統府發言人王郁琦接任，這位「陸委會史上最年輕的主委」，在擔任國安會諮詢委員期間，曾實質參與國安會有關之兩岸、外交相關工作，對馬總統的兩岸政策及理念，有一定程度的掌握；但有人擔心他在相關領域上的資歷與人脈可能不足，這的確值得關注。
至於海基會董事長則預計由現任國民黨祕書長林中森接任。他歷任台北市政府專門委員、高雄市政府祕書長、副市長、內政部常務、政務次長、行政院祕書長等公職。擔任行政院和國民黨祕書長期間，也展現了調和鼎鼐的能力，期待未來能與陸委會合作無間。
原陸委會主委賴幸媛將出任駐「世界貿易組織」（WTO）代表。未來，她的新職將不限於WTO事務，也被賦予推動與各國發展包括經貿在內實質關係的重責大任。而賴的性格與領導特質，是否有助於重視協調與對話穿梭的對歐工作推展，也有待進一步觀察。
這次外交與國安人事布局充分顯示馬總統確實在履行對美國的承諾。不論是去年五月十二日在與華府智庫視訊會議中提到的「三道防線」或是今年五月二十日就職演說提出的「三個鐵三角」，馬總統都將台美關係視為中華民國最重要的一環，因為他深知我國若沒有美國的安全承諾，就不可能有兩岸關係的「經濟紅利」與「和平紅利」。
這次國安、外交、兩岸的人事調整，似乎展現馬總統有意在外交、兩岸關係再創新局的雄心壯志，相信也是他尋求歷史定位的重要奮力一搏。
Beijing/Tokyo Relations Strained: Taipei Could Serve as Intermediary
Beijing/Tokyo Relations Strained: Taipei Could Serve as Intermediary
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2012
Summary: The Diaoyutai Islands are outlying islands of Taiwan. Taipei could ask Beijing to respect Taipei's jurisdiction. Beijing is attempting to maintain sovereignty over the waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. This could moderate its behavior. This could calm the current crisis. This could prevent the Diaoyutai Islands conflict from undermining the future of Sino-Japanese relations. Relations are strained on both Mainland China and Japan. Under the circumstances Taipei could play a valuable role as intermediary.
Full Text below:
The backlash from Japan's so-called "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands has far exceeded the expectations of the Yoshihiko Noda cabinet. Anti-Japanese sentiment on Mainland China is raging out of control. On 9/18, the anniversary of the September 18, 1931 Shengyang Incident, large scale demonstrations erupted in over 100 Mainland cities. A ceremony celebrating the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Japan was cancelled. Numerous private sector economic and tourism exchanges were also cancelled. Sino-Japanese relations were once again in a state of crisis. Tensions were even higher than in 2005, when the Koizumi cabinet was in office.
Both times the crisis in Sino-Japanese relations was the result of Japanese provocation. The last time was during Prime Minister Koizumi's term. He made annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. He stirred up the Chinese people's memories of anti-Japanese resistance. Japan's Fuso history textbooks were the catalyst. They ignited anti-Japanese protests on the Chinese mainland. Basically this sort of anti-Japanese sentiment is rooted in emotions. Once passions subside, people come back down to earth. They consider reality. They return to reason. Anti-Japanese sentiment cools. The situation does not spin out of control. By this is very different from the current anti-Japanese demonstrations on Mainland China. These were triggered by Japan's so-called "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands.
Japan has a "different understanding of history" than its neighbors China and Korea. This often undermines Japan's real world diplomatic interests. After Koizumi stepped down, the Japanese government attempted to improve Sino-Japanese relations. To stabilize bilateral relations, currently serving Prime Ministers would avoid visiting the Yasukuni Shrine. The result was that Japan, which suffered two recessions, sank deep roots in into the Mainland Chinese market. For the Japanese economy, which was experiencing deflation, this was an important shot in the arm.
As a result, for some time, Japanese officialdom deliberately exercised restraint regardubg its "understanding of history." It discouraged Japanese rightists from demagoguing the issue in history textbooks. But the two countries' maritime interests enabled right-wing politicians in Japan to provoke conflict between the two nations. The Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute became the catalyst by which Shintaro Ishihara would undermine Sino-Japanese relations. The hot topic between leaders of the two major parties was once economic growth. It is now national security. Ishiba Shigeru, Ishihara Akira, and other right wingers were able to set the election agenda. They gained an advantage in party leader elections. Meanwhile, in the upcoming House of Representatives elections became a means to incite antagonism toward Mainland China. It became a way to mask the Japanese government's ineptitude and the Japanese government's economic plight.
Governor Ishihara's so-called "purchase of the island" and Prime Minister Noda's "nationalization" are both examples of political sleight of hand. They are both ploys to distract from domestic policy failures by shifting attention to foreign policy conflicts. This changes Sino-Japanese relations from one rooted in subjective emotions, to one rooted in objective maritime interests. This makes the risk of an unintended conflict even greater than in 2005. . Japan probably made certain calculations. It probably calculated that on the eve of the 18th National Congress, the CCP would feel compelled to maintain political stability. It probably calculated that circumstances would be more favorable to Japan. It probably calculated that it would not trigger the tripwire in the Diaoyutai Islands. But the backlash genuinely took Japanese politicians by surprise.
Mainland China has risen. It has become increasingly active in the East Asian maritime region. It has become a thorn in the side of Japan, a self-proclaimed "maritime nation." In particular, cross-Strait relations have improved in recent years. Japan sees an increasing threat to its security on its southern flank. This underscores Sino-Japanese competition in the East Asian maritime region. The Diaoyutai Islands have a fatal attraction for both sides not limited to incalculable oil reserves. It also involves critical strategic values.
Since the Cold War, Japan has been accustomed to cross-Strait opposition. It has been advantageous to Japanese security interests. It has limited the practical importance of Taipei/Tokyo relations. Japanese politicians may hold high the banner of the "East Asian Community." But they have never departed from Fukuzawa's "We Must Possess Taiwan" realpolitik. They still see Taiwan as a means to maintain the security of the southwestern archipelago to the south of Japan's border. Anti-Japanese sentiment has reappeared throughout the Chinese Mainland. Japanese from all walks of life worry that Beijing may impose economic sanctions and jeopardize Japanese economic security. Japanese must rethink the impact of cross-Strait relations on Japan's foreign policy and national security. Japanese have traditionally assumed society on Taiwan is divided into simple blacks and whites, into pro-Japan/anti Mainland China sentiments, or pro Mainland China/anti-Japan sentiments. Japan needs to incorporate improved cross-Strait relations into Sino-Japanese relations. Take the East China Sea issue. Butting heads with Beijing will not increase Japan's security. It will not benefit Japanese diplomacy. The victims will be the markets and investments of Japanese trading companies on the Chinese mainland. This is clearly a disadvantageous policy.
Take the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. Japan must realize that Taipei has negotiated temporary administrative measures for the waters between 25 and 27 degrees north latitude. These could become the ultimate solution to the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty issue. The Diaoyutai Islands are outlying islands of Taiwan. Taipei could ask Beijing to respect Taipei's jurisdiction. Beijing is attempting to maintain sovereignty over the waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. This could moderate its behavior. This could calm the current crisis. This could prevent the Diaoyutai Islands conflict from undermining the future of Sino-Japanese relations. Relations are strained on both Mainland China and Japan. Under the circumstances Taipei could play a valuable role as intermediary.
中日關係緊繃 台灣的區域斡旋自有價值
2012-09-19
中國時報
「國有化」釣魚台後的情勢似乎遠超過日本野田內閣的預估。中國大陸的「反日」運動如大火燎原，超過一百座城市在九一八紀念日當天，出現大規模的示威遊行，亦使原本預先登場的中、日建交四十周年慶祝活動紛紛喊卡，不少民間經濟、旅遊互動也叫停，中日關係再現危機，其程度更甚於二○○五年小泉內閣時中日關係的緊張。
雖說，兩次中日關係的危局皆為日本主動挑釁，但前次乃小泉首相在其任內，個人每年參拜靖國神社，喚醒中國人「抗日」的歷史記憶，經日本「扶桑社歷史教科書」催化，激起中國大陸的反日運動。基本上，此種「反日」為情緒性的，激情過後，仍會回歸「現實」，且因「現實」的考量，而重返「理性」，讓反日降溫，不易造成情勢失控，因而中、日間的衝突，其本質上迥異於此次因「國有化」釣魚台所引發的中國大陸反日示威。
誠然，「歷史認識問題」為日本與中、韓鄰國間關係的不確定因子，經常危及日本外交的現實利益。後小泉時代，日本為改善中日關係，歷任首相選擇迴避「靖國神社參拜」，企圖穩定雙邊關係，而其結果也的確讓二度經濟衰退的日本得以深耕中國大陸市場，對陷入通貨緊縮的日本經濟來說，有很重要的挹注效果。
因此，一段時間以來，日本官方刻意在「歷史認識問題」上克制，不再令日本右派在歷史教科書中借題發揮；但兩國在海洋利益的競爭關係上，又提供了日本右翼政客另闢戰場的溫床，釣魚台主權爭端旋即被石原慎太郎操作為裂解中日關係的催化劑，亦使原本朝野兩大政黨黨魁之爭的最熱議題，由經濟議題讓路給安保議題，石破茂、石原伸晃等右派成功掌握選戰主軸，在黨魁選舉中取得優勢，同時，在即將到來的眾議院大選中，中國大陸勢將成為渠等群起攻之的對象，以掩飾日本朝野對當前日本經濟困局的束手無策。
因此，不論石原知事的「購島」或野田首相的「國有化」，都是日本國內政治的圍魏救趙之策，但卻使得影響日中關係的因素從主觀的「情感性」歷史問題，轉化為現實性的「海洋利益」，因此，其中存在的不可測性與擦槍走火的風險自然也遠甚於○五年的局勢。日本或許是機關算盡，想藉中共十八大召開前夕、政治上需要維穩之際，圖謀將釣魚台現狀的「紅線」往對日本有利的方向挪移，但引發如此巨大的後坐力，實是日本政界所始料未及的。
中國大陸崛起後，對東亞海域之經營轉趨積極，確實令自詡為「海洋國家」的日本感到芒刺在背。尤有進者，近年兩岸關係的改善更造成日本想像其南面安全環境已出現質變，如此更突出中、日兩國在東亞海域的競爭關係；其中，釣魚台對雙方的致命吸引力不再只是深不可測的石油蘊藏，而是攸關現實安保利益的戰略價值。
冷戰以來，日本習慣於兩岸關係的對立，一方面從中獲取日本安保上的利益，另一方面，也由此局限了台日關係的現實意義。在日本政界高舉「東亞共同體」的自由主義大旗時，對台灣的認識竟仍不脫福澤諭吉之「台灣領有論」的現實主義思維，將台灣視為其維持西南群島安全的「國境之南」。其實，在中國大陸舉國再現「反日」浪潮，日本各界憂心中共再度祭出經濟制裁手段、危及日本經濟安全時，應重新思考兩岸關係對日本外交及安保的意義，揚棄傳統將台灣社會內部分為親日/反中或親中/反日二元對立的僵化認識。日本需要學習如何將兩岸關係的改善轉化成為其操作中日關係的槓桿，在東海問題上，與北京衝撞無助於加大日本的安全縱深，不會給日本外交帶來利益，老實講，直接受害者為日本商社在中國大陸的市場及投資，實為損人不利己之策。
在釣魚台爭端中，日本應意識到與台灣先行在北緯二十五度至二十七度間海域，協商暫時性的管理措施，可作為最終解決釣魚台主權問題的過渡性安排，並透過兩岸關係，要求北京尊重台北對台灣屬島釣魚台列嶼的管轄權，以節制中共對釣魚台水域所採取的維權行為，始為平息當前危局，並有效避免釣魚台爭端今後成為中日關係深水炸彈的良方。關係緊繃的中日雙方應體會到，在這件事情上，台灣在區域斡旋上是有角色與價值的。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2012
Summary: The Diaoyutai Islands are outlying islands of Taiwan. Taipei could ask Beijing to respect Taipei's jurisdiction. Beijing is attempting to maintain sovereignty over the waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. This could moderate its behavior. This could calm the current crisis. This could prevent the Diaoyutai Islands conflict from undermining the future of Sino-Japanese relations. Relations are strained on both Mainland China and Japan. Under the circumstances Taipei could play a valuable role as intermediary.
Full Text below:
The backlash from Japan's so-called "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands has far exceeded the expectations of the Yoshihiko Noda cabinet. Anti-Japanese sentiment on Mainland China is raging out of control. On 9/18, the anniversary of the September 18, 1931 Shengyang Incident, large scale demonstrations erupted in over 100 Mainland cities. A ceremony celebrating the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Japan was cancelled. Numerous private sector economic and tourism exchanges were also cancelled. Sino-Japanese relations were once again in a state of crisis. Tensions were even higher than in 2005, when the Koizumi cabinet was in office.
Both times the crisis in Sino-Japanese relations was the result of Japanese provocation. The last time was during Prime Minister Koizumi's term. He made annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. He stirred up the Chinese people's memories of anti-Japanese resistance. Japan's Fuso history textbooks were the catalyst. They ignited anti-Japanese protests on the Chinese mainland. Basically this sort of anti-Japanese sentiment is rooted in emotions. Once passions subside, people come back down to earth. They consider reality. They return to reason. Anti-Japanese sentiment cools. The situation does not spin out of control. By this is very different from the current anti-Japanese demonstrations on Mainland China. These were triggered by Japan's so-called "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands.
Japan has a "different understanding of history" than its neighbors China and Korea. This often undermines Japan's real world diplomatic interests. After Koizumi stepped down, the Japanese government attempted to improve Sino-Japanese relations. To stabilize bilateral relations, currently serving Prime Ministers would avoid visiting the Yasukuni Shrine. The result was that Japan, which suffered two recessions, sank deep roots in into the Mainland Chinese market. For the Japanese economy, which was experiencing deflation, this was an important shot in the arm.
As a result, for some time, Japanese officialdom deliberately exercised restraint regardubg its "understanding of history." It discouraged Japanese rightists from demagoguing the issue in history textbooks. But the two countries' maritime interests enabled right-wing politicians in Japan to provoke conflict between the two nations. The Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute became the catalyst by which Shintaro Ishihara would undermine Sino-Japanese relations. The hot topic between leaders of the two major parties was once economic growth. It is now national security. Ishiba Shigeru, Ishihara Akira, and other right wingers were able to set the election agenda. They gained an advantage in party leader elections. Meanwhile, in the upcoming House of Representatives elections became a means to incite antagonism toward Mainland China. It became a way to mask the Japanese government's ineptitude and the Japanese government's economic plight.
Governor Ishihara's so-called "purchase of the island" and Prime Minister Noda's "nationalization" are both examples of political sleight of hand. They are both ploys to distract from domestic policy failures by shifting attention to foreign policy conflicts. This changes Sino-Japanese relations from one rooted in subjective emotions, to one rooted in objective maritime interests. This makes the risk of an unintended conflict even greater than in 2005. . Japan probably made certain calculations. It probably calculated that on the eve of the 18th National Congress, the CCP would feel compelled to maintain political stability. It probably calculated that circumstances would be more favorable to Japan. It probably calculated that it would not trigger the tripwire in the Diaoyutai Islands. But the backlash genuinely took Japanese politicians by surprise.
Mainland China has risen. It has become increasingly active in the East Asian maritime region. It has become a thorn in the side of Japan, a self-proclaimed "maritime nation." In particular, cross-Strait relations have improved in recent years. Japan sees an increasing threat to its security on its southern flank. This underscores Sino-Japanese competition in the East Asian maritime region. The Diaoyutai Islands have a fatal attraction for both sides not limited to incalculable oil reserves. It also involves critical strategic values.
Since the Cold War, Japan has been accustomed to cross-Strait opposition. It has been advantageous to Japanese security interests. It has limited the practical importance of Taipei/Tokyo relations. Japanese politicians may hold high the banner of the "East Asian Community." But they have never departed from Fukuzawa's "We Must Possess Taiwan" realpolitik. They still see Taiwan as a means to maintain the security of the southwestern archipelago to the south of Japan's border. Anti-Japanese sentiment has reappeared throughout the Chinese Mainland. Japanese from all walks of life worry that Beijing may impose economic sanctions and jeopardize Japanese economic security. Japanese must rethink the impact of cross-Strait relations on Japan's foreign policy and national security. Japanese have traditionally assumed society on Taiwan is divided into simple blacks and whites, into pro-Japan/anti Mainland China sentiments, or pro Mainland China/anti-Japan sentiments. Japan needs to incorporate improved cross-Strait relations into Sino-Japanese relations. Take the East China Sea issue. Butting heads with Beijing will not increase Japan's security. It will not benefit Japanese diplomacy. The victims will be the markets and investments of Japanese trading companies on the Chinese mainland. This is clearly a disadvantageous policy.
Take the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. Japan must realize that Taipei has negotiated temporary administrative measures for the waters between 25 and 27 degrees north latitude. These could become the ultimate solution to the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty issue. The Diaoyutai Islands are outlying islands of Taiwan. Taipei could ask Beijing to respect Taipei's jurisdiction. Beijing is attempting to maintain sovereignty over the waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. This could moderate its behavior. This could calm the current crisis. This could prevent the Diaoyutai Islands conflict from undermining the future of Sino-Japanese relations. Relations are strained on both Mainland China and Japan. Under the circumstances Taipei could play a valuable role as intermediary.
中日關係緊繃 台灣的區域斡旋自有價值
2012-09-19
中國時報
「國有化」釣魚台後的情勢似乎遠超過日本野田內閣的預估。中國大陸的「反日」運動如大火燎原，超過一百座城市在九一八紀念日當天，出現大規模的示威遊行，亦使原本預先登場的中、日建交四十周年慶祝活動紛紛喊卡，不少民間經濟、旅遊互動也叫停，中日關係再現危機，其程度更甚於二○○五年小泉內閣時中日關係的緊張。
雖說，兩次中日關係的危局皆為日本主動挑釁，但前次乃小泉首相在其任內，個人每年參拜靖國神社，喚醒中國人「抗日」的歷史記憶，經日本「扶桑社歷史教科書」催化，激起中國大陸的反日運動。基本上，此種「反日」為情緒性的，激情過後，仍會回歸「現實」，且因「現實」的考量，而重返「理性」，讓反日降溫，不易造成情勢失控，因而中、日間的衝突，其本質上迥異於此次因「國有化」釣魚台所引發的中國大陸反日示威。
誠然，「歷史認識問題」為日本與中、韓鄰國間關係的不確定因子，經常危及日本外交的現實利益。後小泉時代，日本為改善中日關係，歷任首相選擇迴避「靖國神社參拜」，企圖穩定雙邊關係，而其結果也的確讓二度經濟衰退的日本得以深耕中國大陸市場，對陷入通貨緊縮的日本經濟來說，有很重要的挹注效果。
因此，一段時間以來，日本官方刻意在「歷史認識問題」上克制，不再令日本右派在歷史教科書中借題發揮；但兩國在海洋利益的競爭關係上，又提供了日本右翼政客另闢戰場的溫床，釣魚台主權爭端旋即被石原慎太郎操作為裂解中日關係的催化劑，亦使原本朝野兩大政黨黨魁之爭的最熱議題，由經濟議題讓路給安保議題，石破茂、石原伸晃等右派成功掌握選戰主軸，在黨魁選舉中取得優勢，同時，在即將到來的眾議院大選中，中國大陸勢將成為渠等群起攻之的對象，以掩飾日本朝野對當前日本經濟困局的束手無策。
因此，不論石原知事的「購島」或野田首相的「國有化」，都是日本國內政治的圍魏救趙之策，但卻使得影響日中關係的因素從主觀的「情感性」歷史問題，轉化為現實性的「海洋利益」，因此，其中存在的不可測性與擦槍走火的風險自然也遠甚於○五年的局勢。日本或許是機關算盡，想藉中共十八大召開前夕、政治上需要維穩之際，圖謀將釣魚台現狀的「紅線」往對日本有利的方向挪移，但引發如此巨大的後坐力，實是日本政界所始料未及的。
中國大陸崛起後，對東亞海域之經營轉趨積極，確實令自詡為「海洋國家」的日本感到芒刺在背。尤有進者，近年兩岸關係的改善更造成日本想像其南面安全環境已出現質變，如此更突出中、日兩國在東亞海域的競爭關係；其中，釣魚台對雙方的致命吸引力不再只是深不可測的石油蘊藏，而是攸關現實安保利益的戰略價值。
冷戰以來，日本習慣於兩岸關係的對立，一方面從中獲取日本安保上的利益，另一方面，也由此局限了台日關係的現實意義。在日本政界高舉「東亞共同體」的自由主義大旗時，對台灣的認識竟仍不脫福澤諭吉之「台灣領有論」的現實主義思維，將台灣視為其維持西南群島安全的「國境之南」。其實，在中國大陸舉國再現「反日」浪潮，日本各界憂心中共再度祭出經濟制裁手段、危及日本經濟安全時，應重新思考兩岸關係對日本外交及安保的意義，揚棄傳統將台灣社會內部分為親日/反中或親中/反日二元對立的僵化認識。日本需要學習如何將兩岸關係的改善轉化成為其操作中日關係的槓桿，在東海問題上，與北京衝撞無助於加大日本的安全縱深，不會給日本外交帶來利益，老實講，直接受害者為日本商社在中國大陸的市場及投資，實為損人不利己之策。
在釣魚台爭端中，日本應意識到與台灣先行在北緯二十五度至二十七度間海域，協商暫時性的管理措施，可作為最終解決釣魚台主權問題的過渡性安排，並透過兩岸關係，要求北京尊重台北對台灣屬島釣魚台列嶼的管轄權，以節制中共對釣魚台水域所採取的維權行為，始為平息當前危局，並有效避免釣魚台爭端今後成為中日關係深水炸彈的良方。關係緊繃的中日雙方應體會到，在這件事情上，台灣在區域斡旋上是有角色與價值的。
Monday, September 17, 2012
ROC Flag Appears at Diaoyutai Protest in Beijing
ROC Flag Appears at Diaoyutai Protest in Beijing
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 18, 2012
Summary: On Saturday, September 15, Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists protested in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. A red, white, and blue ROC flag appeared at the scene. Activists waved the giant flag for at least ten minutes, long enough for reporters from Taiwan to notice it and photograph it. The government on the Mainland underwent a change in 1949. This is probably the first time since then that the national flag of the Republic of China has appeared in broad daylight on the streets of Beijing.
Full Text below:
On Saturday, September 15, Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists protested in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. A red, white, and blue ROC flag appeared at the scene. Activists waved the giant flag for at least ten minutes, long enough for reporters from Taiwan to notice it and photograph it. The government on the Mainland underwent a change in 1949. This is probably the first time since then that the national flag of the Republic of China has appeared in broad daylight on the streets of Beijing.
On August 15, Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists set sail from Hong Kong on the Chi Feng 2. They carried with them onto the Diaoyutai Islands two national flags. They carried with them the red, white, and blue ROC flag with them on their own initiative. This reflected a grassroots awareness of a "Big Roof China." This was not a "ploy to promote reunification" choreographed by Beijing officials. The national security system concluded that "The ROC national flag is being used as a tool to promote reunification." This newspaper published an editorial expressing disagreement.
Last Saturday Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists waved a giant ROC national flag in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. That may have been an officially choreographed "ploy to promote reunification." Protesters also carried a 10 meter long banner reading, "The two sides of the Strait are one family. Brothers may bicker at home, but unite against outside aggressors." This was a verbatim quote from Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office. As a result, one cannot help feel differently about the flag waved on the streets of Beijing, and the flag waved on the Diaoyutai Islands.
We think the flag waved on the Diaoyutai Islands shows the respect ordinary citizens on both sides of the Strait have for the "Big Roof China." Their actions are not necessarily motivated by political advantage. Therefore they are particularly worth cherishing. But the flag waved on the streets of Beijing may have been the result of official calculation. Therefore we may need to factor that in when we interpret the political impact.
Consider the upside. Suppose the appearance of this flag was the result of official arrangements. That means Beijing at least accepts that the ROC national flag represents the Republic of China. On August 16, the Global Times, a publication of the People's Daily Syndicate, published photos of the national flag of the Republic of China on the Diaoyutai Islands. Such thinking does that one better. This may be a small step. But we hope it will impact Beijing's larger Taiwan policy.
Consider the downside. Suppose Beijing was merely using the Diaoyutai Islands conflict as a political ploy. Suppose it was merely using the national flag of the Republic of China as a "ploy to promote reunification?" Such political calculation would probably provoke greater antipathy and resentment among the public on Taiwan.
The two sides do not recognize each others' national titles, national flags, and official titles. This is mainly because Beijing does not accept the Republic of China's legal system. Several years ago the Mainland authorities protested the appearance of the red, white, and blue ROC national flag at international sporting events. During the 2008 Beijing Olympics the Olympic torch was supposed to transit Taiwan. But word emerged that Beijing actually wanted to prohibit the display of ROC national flags along the torch route. When cross-Strait exchanges were initiated and Mainland VIPs first arrived, Beijing wanted Taiwan hosts to cover up the ROC flags. Last month during the London Olympics, a red, white, and blue ROC national flag also had to be taken down on Regent Street. Given that cross-Strait exchanges having evolved to where they are today, are such moves irrational? Or are they merely obtuse?
Consider this distinctly disturbing scenario. Last Saturday a red, white, and blue ROC national flag appeared in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. Does Beijing recognize this flag or not? If not, then why use it as part of a "ploy to promote reunification?" If it persists in using it as a "ploy to promote reunification," won't it have the opposite effect on the public on Taiwan?
Beijing hopes Taipei will uphold its "one China Constitution." But how can it simultaneously repudiate the ROC flag? Beijing should realize that "Taiwan is the water. The Republic of China is the glass. As long as the glass remains, the water remains. Shatter the glass, and the water spills everywhere." This is the "glass theory" championed by this newspaper. Does Beijing agree that "The Republic of China is part of China?" If not, how can it make the public on Taiwan accept "China?" How can it make Taiwanese see themselves as "Chinese?" Consider the two national flags under a "Big Roof China" landing simultaneously on the Diaoyutai Islands. Don't Chinese people the world over take such an image for granted?
On September 15, the red, white, and blue ROC flag appeared in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. If it was merely a "ploy to promote reunification," then it was a big mistake. But if it represented a breakthrough in the Beijing authorities' thinking about cross-Strait political symbolism and cross-Strait policy, it is well worth encouraging.
The current conflict over the Diaoyutai Islands is having a significant impact on cross-Strait relations. One of the most important revelations is the emergence of the "Big Roof China" concept. Under the "Big Roof China" concept, the Republic of China is "democratic China." The People's Republic of China is "socialist China." Both are part of one China.
On August 15, the two national flags appeared on the Diaoyutai Islands. On September 15, the Republic of China flag appeared in front of the Japanese Embassy. This starts one thinking. These two scenarios confirm that the "Big Roof China" already exists and the "Big Roof China" must be maintained.
The day before yesterday ARATS President Chen Yunlin visited Kenting. An ROC national flag hung high above the entrance to the Cape Eulanbi Lighthouse. The photo even made the newspapers. "One's horizons determine one's world, one's ideas determine one's path." Is this merely one small step for Chen Yunlin? Or will it be one giant leap for the two sides of the Taiwan Strait?
北京保釣出現中華民國國旗
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.18
上周六，九月十五日，北京日本大使館前的保釣示威現場，出現了一幅中華民國青天白日滿地紅國旗；那幅巨旗至少在現場揮舞了十分鐘左右，足供台灣記者發現並拍下照片。這應當是大陸一九四九年易幟以來，首度在光天化日之下的北京街頭出現中華民國國旗。
八月十五日，香港「啟豐二號」保釣船擎持了「兩幅國旗」登上釣魚台；那幅青天白日滿地紅國旗應是由保釣人士主動攜往，可謂是反映了「大屋頂中國」的民間意識，而非出自北京官方設計安排的統戰動作。當時，本報社論曾對「國安系統」視那幅國旗為「利用國旗為統戰工具」，表達了不同的看法。
但是，上周六北京日本大使館前出現的那一幅中華民國國旗，看來卻很像是官方安排的「統戰工具」，再加上遊行隊伍出現十幾公尺長的橫幅標語，上書「海峽兩岸一家，兄弟鬩於牆，外禦其侮」，更是直接出自北京台辦的新聞用語；令人對北京街頭的這幅旗，與釣島的那一幅旗，有不同的感受與解讀。
我們認為，釣島的那一幅旗，顯示了兩岸民間對「大屋頂中國」的懷想，由於未必出自政治算計，因此格外值得珍惜。然而，北京街頭出現的這一幅旗，則可能是出自官方的政治算計，因而亦不妨解讀其政治效應。
從正面效應看，此旗若是出自官方安排，至少顯示北京已默認或接受了青天白日滿地紅國旗為代表「中華民國」的政治符號；此種思考，比《環球時報》（人民日報系統）於八月十六日完整刊出中華民國國旗登島的照片又進了一步。這雖是小而微妙的一步，但希望能自此帶動北京對台政策的整體思考。
從反面效應看，這若只是用於保釣個案的權謀動作，亦即只是將中華民國國旗當作「統戰工具」而已，則此種政治算計，恐將更加引發台灣人民的不平與反感。
國號、國旗及政府官銜等政治符號，迄在兩岸間互不承認，這主要是因北京不接受中華民國的法理體制。就在幾年前，國際運動比賽的觀眾席上出現青天白日滿地紅旗，還常遭大陸方面「抗議」；○八年京奧，原本商議聖火過境台灣，居然傳說北京禁止台北沿途出現中華民國國旗而告吹；再到了兩岸交往開通，屢生大陸客人到，台灣主人須將國旗遮起來的怪事；一直到了上個月的倫敦奧運，攝政街上一幅青天白日滿地紅旗也被撤去。兩岸交流已至今日境界，細看這類舉動，真是何其無理，更是何其愚蠢？
再以這些歷歷在記憶中的惱人景象，與上周六北京日本大使館前出現的那一幅青天白日滿地紅國旗對照；北京若不承認這幅國旗，又何必用作「統戰工具」？若用為「統戰工具」，對台灣民眾會不會有反效果？
北京希望台灣能持守「一中憲法」，卻豈能否定中華民國國旗？北京應當深切體認，「台灣是水，中華民國是杯；杯在水在，杯破水覆」，此為本報主張的「杯子理論」。北京若不接受「中華民國為一部分的中國」，怎使台灣人接受「中國」？又怎使台灣人自我認同為「中國人」？何況，兩幅國旗在「大屋頂中國」的理念下同登釣島，豈不正是全球華人皆認為理所當然的圖像？
九月十五日，北京日本大使館前出現的那一幅青天白日滿地紅旗，倘只是「統戰工具」，應屬敗筆；但若能顯示北京當局在兩岸政治符號上的開明思維與在兩岸政策上的進取與突破，則是值得鼓勵。
這次釣島風暴，其實正重大且深刻地影響著兩岸關係；其中最重要的啟示是，「大屋頂中國」的理念已然浮現。在「大屋頂中國」的概念下，中華民國是「民主中國」，中華人民共和國是「社會主義中國」，兩者皆是一部分的中國。
從八月十五日釣島上的兩幅國旗，與九月十五日北京日本大使館前的中華民國國旗出發，啟動思考；即知，這兩個場景都證實了「大屋頂中國」的本來就存在，與「大屋頂中國」的必須被護守。
正在此際，大陸海協會會長陳雲林前天訪問墾丁，迎對著一幅高懸的青天白日滿地紅國旗進入鵝鑾鼻燈塔，照片還上了報紙；「眼界決定境界，思路決定出路」，這只是陳雲林的一小步，或將是兩岸的一大步？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 18, 2012
Summary: On Saturday, September 15, Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists protested in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. A red, white, and blue ROC flag appeared at the scene. Activists waved the giant flag for at least ten minutes, long enough for reporters from Taiwan to notice it and photograph it. The government on the Mainland underwent a change in 1949. This is probably the first time since then that the national flag of the Republic of China has appeared in broad daylight on the streets of Beijing.
Full Text below:
On Saturday, September 15, Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists protested in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. A red, white, and blue ROC flag appeared at the scene. Activists waved the giant flag for at least ten minutes, long enough for reporters from Taiwan to notice it and photograph it. The government on the Mainland underwent a change in 1949. This is probably the first time since then that the national flag of the Republic of China has appeared in broad daylight on the streets of Beijing.
On August 15, Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists set sail from Hong Kong on the Chi Feng 2. They carried with them onto the Diaoyutai Islands two national flags. They carried with them the red, white, and blue ROC flag with them on their own initiative. This reflected a grassroots awareness of a "Big Roof China." This was not a "ploy to promote reunification" choreographed by Beijing officials. The national security system concluded that "The ROC national flag is being used as a tool to promote reunification." This newspaper published an editorial expressing disagreement.
Last Saturday Diaoyutai Islands defense movement activists waved a giant ROC national flag in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. That may have been an officially choreographed "ploy to promote reunification." Protesters also carried a 10 meter long banner reading, "The two sides of the Strait are one family. Brothers may bicker at home, but unite against outside aggressors." This was a verbatim quote from Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office. As a result, one cannot help feel differently about the flag waved on the streets of Beijing, and the flag waved on the Diaoyutai Islands.
We think the flag waved on the Diaoyutai Islands shows the respect ordinary citizens on both sides of the Strait have for the "Big Roof China." Their actions are not necessarily motivated by political advantage. Therefore they are particularly worth cherishing. But the flag waved on the streets of Beijing may have been the result of official calculation. Therefore we may need to factor that in when we interpret the political impact.
Consider the upside. Suppose the appearance of this flag was the result of official arrangements. That means Beijing at least accepts that the ROC national flag represents the Republic of China. On August 16, the Global Times, a publication of the People's Daily Syndicate, published photos of the national flag of the Republic of China on the Diaoyutai Islands. Such thinking does that one better. This may be a small step. But we hope it will impact Beijing's larger Taiwan policy.
Consider the downside. Suppose Beijing was merely using the Diaoyutai Islands conflict as a political ploy. Suppose it was merely using the national flag of the Republic of China as a "ploy to promote reunification?" Such political calculation would probably provoke greater antipathy and resentment among the public on Taiwan.
The two sides do not recognize each others' national titles, national flags, and official titles. This is mainly because Beijing does not accept the Republic of China's legal system. Several years ago the Mainland authorities protested the appearance of the red, white, and blue ROC national flag at international sporting events. During the 2008 Beijing Olympics the Olympic torch was supposed to transit Taiwan. But word emerged that Beijing actually wanted to prohibit the display of ROC national flags along the torch route. When cross-Strait exchanges were initiated and Mainland VIPs first arrived, Beijing wanted Taiwan hosts to cover up the ROC flags. Last month during the London Olympics, a red, white, and blue ROC national flag also had to be taken down on Regent Street. Given that cross-Strait exchanges having evolved to where they are today, are such moves irrational? Or are they merely obtuse?
Consider this distinctly disturbing scenario. Last Saturday a red, white, and blue ROC national flag appeared in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. Does Beijing recognize this flag or not? If not, then why use it as part of a "ploy to promote reunification?" If it persists in using it as a "ploy to promote reunification," won't it have the opposite effect on the public on Taiwan?
Beijing hopes Taipei will uphold its "one China Constitution." But how can it simultaneously repudiate the ROC flag? Beijing should realize that "Taiwan is the water. The Republic of China is the glass. As long as the glass remains, the water remains. Shatter the glass, and the water spills everywhere." This is the "glass theory" championed by this newspaper. Does Beijing agree that "The Republic of China is part of China?" If not, how can it make the public on Taiwan accept "China?" How can it make Taiwanese see themselves as "Chinese?" Consider the two national flags under a "Big Roof China" landing simultaneously on the Diaoyutai Islands. Don't Chinese people the world over take such an image for granted?
On September 15, the red, white, and blue ROC flag appeared in front of the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. If it was merely a "ploy to promote reunification," then it was a big mistake. But if it represented a breakthrough in the Beijing authorities' thinking about cross-Strait political symbolism and cross-Strait policy, it is well worth encouraging.
The current conflict over the Diaoyutai Islands is having a significant impact on cross-Strait relations. One of the most important revelations is the emergence of the "Big Roof China" concept. Under the "Big Roof China" concept, the Republic of China is "democratic China." The People's Republic of China is "socialist China." Both are part of one China.
On August 15, the two national flags appeared on the Diaoyutai Islands. On September 15, the Republic of China flag appeared in front of the Japanese Embassy. This starts one thinking. These two scenarios confirm that the "Big Roof China" already exists and the "Big Roof China" must be maintained.
The day before yesterday ARATS President Chen Yunlin visited Kenting. An ROC national flag hung high above the entrance to the Cape Eulanbi Lighthouse. The photo even made the newspapers. "One's horizons determine one's world, one's ideas determine one's path." Is this merely one small step for Chen Yunlin? Or will it be one giant leap for the two sides of the Taiwan Strait?
北京保釣出現中華民國國旗
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.18
上周六，九月十五日，北京日本大使館前的保釣示威現場，出現了一幅中華民國青天白日滿地紅國旗；那幅巨旗至少在現場揮舞了十分鐘左右，足供台灣記者發現並拍下照片。這應當是大陸一九四九年易幟以來，首度在光天化日之下的北京街頭出現中華民國國旗。
八月十五日，香港「啟豐二號」保釣船擎持了「兩幅國旗」登上釣魚台；那幅青天白日滿地紅國旗應是由保釣人士主動攜往，可謂是反映了「大屋頂中國」的民間意識，而非出自北京官方設計安排的統戰動作。當時，本報社論曾對「國安系統」視那幅國旗為「利用國旗為統戰工具」，表達了不同的看法。
但是，上周六北京日本大使館前出現的那一幅中華民國國旗，看來卻很像是官方安排的「統戰工具」，再加上遊行隊伍出現十幾公尺長的橫幅標語，上書「海峽兩岸一家，兄弟鬩於牆，外禦其侮」，更是直接出自北京台辦的新聞用語；令人對北京街頭的這幅旗，與釣島的那一幅旗，有不同的感受與解讀。
我們認為，釣島的那一幅旗，顯示了兩岸民間對「大屋頂中國」的懷想，由於未必出自政治算計，因此格外值得珍惜。然而，北京街頭出現的這一幅旗，則可能是出自官方的政治算計，因而亦不妨解讀其政治效應。
從正面效應看，此旗若是出自官方安排，至少顯示北京已默認或接受了青天白日滿地紅國旗為代表「中華民國」的政治符號；此種思考，比《環球時報》（人民日報系統）於八月十六日完整刊出中華民國國旗登島的照片又進了一步。這雖是小而微妙的一步，但希望能自此帶動北京對台政策的整體思考。
從反面效應看，這若只是用於保釣個案的權謀動作，亦即只是將中華民國國旗當作「統戰工具」而已，則此種政治算計，恐將更加引發台灣人民的不平與反感。
國號、國旗及政府官銜等政治符號，迄在兩岸間互不承認，這主要是因北京不接受中華民國的法理體制。就在幾年前，國際運動比賽的觀眾席上出現青天白日滿地紅旗，還常遭大陸方面「抗議」；○八年京奧，原本商議聖火過境台灣，居然傳說北京禁止台北沿途出現中華民國國旗而告吹；再到了兩岸交往開通，屢生大陸客人到，台灣主人須將國旗遮起來的怪事；一直到了上個月的倫敦奧運，攝政街上一幅青天白日滿地紅旗也被撤去。兩岸交流已至今日境界，細看這類舉動，真是何其無理，更是何其愚蠢？
再以這些歷歷在記憶中的惱人景象，與上周六北京日本大使館前出現的那一幅青天白日滿地紅國旗對照；北京若不承認這幅國旗，又何必用作「統戰工具」？若用為「統戰工具」，對台灣民眾會不會有反效果？
北京希望台灣能持守「一中憲法」，卻豈能否定中華民國國旗？北京應當深切體認，「台灣是水，中華民國是杯；杯在水在，杯破水覆」，此為本報主張的「杯子理論」。北京若不接受「中華民國為一部分的中國」，怎使台灣人接受「中國」？又怎使台灣人自我認同為「中國人」？何況，兩幅國旗在「大屋頂中國」的理念下同登釣島，豈不正是全球華人皆認為理所當然的圖像？
九月十五日，北京日本大使館前出現的那一幅青天白日滿地紅旗，倘只是「統戰工具」，應屬敗筆；但若能顯示北京當局在兩岸政治符號上的開明思維與在兩岸政策上的進取與突破，則是值得鼓勵。
這次釣島風暴，其實正重大且深刻地影響著兩岸關係；其中最重要的啟示是，「大屋頂中國」的理念已然浮現。在「大屋頂中國」的概念下，中華民國是「民主中國」，中華人民共和國是「社會主義中國」，兩者皆是一部分的中國。
從八月十五日釣島上的兩幅國旗，與九月十五日北京日本大使館前的中華民國國旗出發，啟動思考；即知，這兩個場景都證實了「大屋頂中國」的本來就存在，與「大屋頂中國」的必須被護守。
正在此際，大陸海協會會長陳雲林前天訪問墾丁，迎對著一幅高懸的青天白日滿地紅國旗進入鵝鑾鼻燈塔，照片還上了報紙；「眼界決定境界，思路決定出路」，這只是陳雲林的一小步，或將是兩岸的一大步？
Chen Shui-bian: Psychosis or Prince of Yan Syndrome?
Chen Shui-bian: Psychosis or Prince of Yan Syndrome?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 17, 2012
Summary: Chen Shui-bian has been imprisoned. It is inevitable that he will experience physical and mental anguish. He should settle his mind. This will benefit his physical and mental health. It will also improve his public image. It might even change history's verdict. Some cannot wait to see Chen Shui-bian seriously ill, receive CPR, and attempt suicide. These crazed Green Camp physicians and Green Camp politicians want Chen Shui-bian to feign "Prince of Yan Syndrome." Are they caring for Chen Shui-bian? Or are they exploiting Chen Shui-bian? Do they really have the heart to carry on like this?
Full Text below:
Chen Shui-bian's cell has ants. He told visitors, "Ma Ying-jeou and Wen Jiabao sicced these on me." The visitor immediately concluded, "This is clearly a case of mental illness, Clearly he has a persecution complex!"
First it was "Chen Shui-bian has cancer." Then it was "Chen Shui-bian is going to need CPR within four years." Then it was "Chen Shui-bian has suicidal tendencies." Now it is "Chen Shui-bian is mentally ill." One new pretext after another has been trotted out to justify "medical parole."
This charade began just over a month ago. First supporters said Chen Shui-bian had prostate cancer. It turned out to be a blood blister. Then supporters said Chen Shui-bian "attempted suicide three times." They said he was on a "hunger strike" and drinking only rice soup. But Chen Shui-bian himself insisted, "I will not commit suicide." Supporters said Ah-Bian had a "physical and mental disorder." But Chen family members disputed this. Instead, they accused the Taipei Detention Center supervisor administering a mild sedative to Ah-Bian even though he was disease free. Apparently they felt claims that Ah-Bian was mentally ill constituted an affront to his dignity. But the rumors continued snowballing. Supporters within the Green Camp suggested that Chen Shui-bian smear his face with feces and pretend to be insane. That way "He will surely be judged insane" and "The Ministry of Justice will immediately approve medical parole." But Chen Shui-bian said "Feigning insanity takes a long time, and is easy to see through." He added, "Feigning insanity would result in penalties. It would undermine my chances for parole."
The above proves two things. One. Those attempting to win medical parole for Ah-Bian seem determined to depict him as having cancer, as being suicidal, or as insane. Two. Their rumors spread faster than the medical reports. The media immediately ran with them and painted lurid pictures. Ah-Bian was depicted at death's door. But every time these rumors turned out to be either falsehoods or exaggerations.
Recently his visitors have relentlessly floated rumors. They say "Ah-Bian is not as sharp as he used to be." They say "He stammers a lot." They say Ah-Bian often asks "Where was I?" Others claim that Ah-Bian said "Ma Ying-jeou and Wen Jiabao sicced the ants on me." Clearly Chen Shui-bian's current condition is more and more consistent with the requirements for medical parole. So is this a medical issue? Or is it a case of political intrigue?
Zhu Yuanzhang was the founder of the Ming dynasty. When he died he bequeathed his throne to his grandson Zhu Yunwen, aka Emperor Jianwen, aka Emperor Hui. Emperor Jianwen used a meeting between Qitai and Huang Zicheng to eliminate his rivals. The Prince of Yan Zhu Di feigned insanity to avoid being purged. The Ming Chronicles note that "The Prince of Yan kept a fire going even in midsummer, insisting that it was "so cold." The Prince of Yan feigned insanity. He would wander through the streets railing at no one in particular, take wine and food without asking, babble incoherently, or lie in the dirt all day. But eventually the Prince of Yan's pretense of insanity was exposed. This led to the "Jingnan Uprising." Unofficial records say the Prince of Yan feigned insanity by smearing his face with feces.
Emperor Jianwen sent agents to spy on the Prince of Yan. That is how he discovered that the Prince of Yan was feigning insanity. But modern medicine is more sophisticated. Visitors allege that "Chen Shui-bian babbles incoherently," that "he has a persecution complex," and that "he is a paranoid schizophrenic." But are such allegations enough? What is this, if not a tug of war between medical expertise and political intrigue?
Is Chen Shui-bian mentally ill? This can be determined by the prison health care system. But the integrity of the manipulators within the Green Camp medical community and Chen Shui-bian are in serious question. On December 15, 2006, when Wu Shu-cheng made her first court appearance during the Chen family corruption trial, she "fainted." When she left the courtroom, she was ostensibly "in a coma." Yet Wu Shu-chen's hands were wrapped firmly around her attendant's neck. This was a clear case of "King of Yan Syndrome." During the 644 days that followed the National Taiwan University Hospital cited various reasons why Wu Shu-chen could not appear in court. Seventeen times she requested and received medical leave. But as reports from the courtroom after September 2008 showed, Wu Shu-chen was perfectly fine, physically and mentally. This was a huge slap in the face for National Taiwan University Hospital. Seventeen times it refused to allow Wu to appear in court. Its diagnosis hamstrung the judicial process. If it was the result of professional error, then it shames National Taiwan University Hospital. If it was the result of political bias, then it shame National Taiwan University Hospital even more. These sorts of physicians have been repeatedly visiting Chen Shui-bian in his prison cell. How can the public trust such people?
By now the public should have reached a consensus on Chen Shui-bian's "medical condition." He must meet the objective requirements for medical parole. Political considerations must not negate Chen Shui-bian's right to medical parole. By the same token, if he fails to meet those objective requirements, political considerations must not lead to Chen Shui-bian's "medical parole." These Green Camp physicians must demonstrate professional integrity. Can they really claim that Chen Shui-bian has a disease that the prison medical facilities cannot treat?
Some have suggested that Chen Shui-bian resort to "smearing feces over his own face" and "babbling incoherently" to ensure "medical parole." If so, then that is "King of Yan Syndrome." It is something the prison health care system can treat. One may not be able to treat it. But that does not mean one cannot see through it. This ought to be the minimum standard for medicine on Taiwan.
The prison medical system should make every effort to safeguard Chen Shui-bian's health. Chen Shui-bian has been imprisoned. It is inevitable that he will experience physical and mental anguish. He should engage in self introspection and self-examination, He should settle his mind. This will benefit his physical and mental health. It will also improve his public image. It might even change history's verdict. Some cannot wait to see Chen Shui-bian seriously ill, receive CPR, and attempt suicide. These crazed Green Camp physicians and Green Camp politicians want Chen Shui-bian to feign "Prince of Yan Syndrome." Are they caring for Chen Shui-bian? Or are they exploiting Chen Shui-bian? Do they really have the heart to carry on like this?
陳水扁得了精神病或燕王症？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.17 02:39 am
陳水扁的囚室發現螞蟻，他對探監者說：「
於是，繼「陳水扁得了腫瘤」、「
事情開端於一個多月前，先是說陳水扁得了攝護腺癌，
上述過程顯示：一、策動保外就醫者似乎巴不得阿扁長癌、自殺、
最近，探監者又密集放話，說法是：扁不如以前smart，
明太祖朱元璋逝，傳位太孫朱允炆，是建文帝（惠帝）。
建文帝是遣人窺視始知燕王裝瘋，但以現代醫學之精進，
陳水扁是不是得了精神病，可由獄政醫療體制做出診斷；
面對陳水扁的「病情」，國人應有的共識是：在符合要件時，
但是，如果有人建議陳水扁要用「大便塗臉」、「語多妄亂」來「
國人注目，我們期勉獄政醫療體系全力維護陳水扁的健康。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 17, 2012
Summary: Chen Shui-bian has been imprisoned. It is inevitable that he will experience physical and mental anguish. He should settle his mind. This will benefit his physical and mental health. It will also improve his public image. It might even change history's verdict. Some cannot wait to see Chen Shui-bian seriously ill, receive CPR, and attempt suicide. These crazed Green Camp physicians and Green Camp politicians want Chen Shui-bian to feign "Prince of Yan Syndrome." Are they caring for Chen Shui-bian? Or are they exploiting Chen Shui-bian? Do they really have the heart to carry on like this?
Full Text below:
Chen Shui-bian's cell has ants. He told visitors, "Ma Ying-jeou and Wen Jiabao sicced these on me." The visitor immediately concluded, "This is clearly a case of mental illness, Clearly he has a persecution complex!"
First it was "Chen Shui-bian has cancer." Then it was "Chen Shui-bian is going to need CPR within four years." Then it was "Chen Shui-bian has suicidal tendencies." Now it is "Chen Shui-bian is mentally ill." One new pretext after another has been trotted out to justify "medical parole."
This charade began just over a month ago. First supporters said Chen Shui-bian had prostate cancer. It turned out to be a blood blister. Then supporters said Chen Shui-bian "attempted suicide three times." They said he was on a "hunger strike" and drinking only rice soup. But Chen Shui-bian himself insisted, "I will not commit suicide." Supporters said Ah-Bian had a "physical and mental disorder." But Chen family members disputed this. Instead, they accused the Taipei Detention Center supervisor administering a mild sedative to Ah-Bian even though he was disease free. Apparently they felt claims that Ah-Bian was mentally ill constituted an affront to his dignity. But the rumors continued snowballing. Supporters within the Green Camp suggested that Chen Shui-bian smear his face with feces and pretend to be insane. That way "He will surely be judged insane" and "The Ministry of Justice will immediately approve medical parole." But Chen Shui-bian said "Feigning insanity takes a long time, and is easy to see through." He added, "Feigning insanity would result in penalties. It would undermine my chances for parole."
The above proves two things. One. Those attempting to win medical parole for Ah-Bian seem determined to depict him as having cancer, as being suicidal, or as insane. Two. Their rumors spread faster than the medical reports. The media immediately ran with them and painted lurid pictures. Ah-Bian was depicted at death's door. But every time these rumors turned out to be either falsehoods or exaggerations.
Recently his visitors have relentlessly floated rumors. They say "Ah-Bian is not as sharp as he used to be." They say "He stammers a lot." They say Ah-Bian often asks "Where was I?" Others claim that Ah-Bian said "Ma Ying-jeou and Wen Jiabao sicced the ants on me." Clearly Chen Shui-bian's current condition is more and more consistent with the requirements for medical parole. So is this a medical issue? Or is it a case of political intrigue?
Zhu Yuanzhang was the founder of the Ming dynasty. When he died he bequeathed his throne to his grandson Zhu Yunwen, aka Emperor Jianwen, aka Emperor Hui. Emperor Jianwen used a meeting between Qitai and Huang Zicheng to eliminate his rivals. The Prince of Yan Zhu Di feigned insanity to avoid being purged. The Ming Chronicles note that "The Prince of Yan kept a fire going even in midsummer, insisting that it was "so cold." The Prince of Yan feigned insanity. He would wander through the streets railing at no one in particular, take wine and food without asking, babble incoherently, or lie in the dirt all day. But eventually the Prince of Yan's pretense of insanity was exposed. This led to the "Jingnan Uprising." Unofficial records say the Prince of Yan feigned insanity by smearing his face with feces.
Emperor Jianwen sent agents to spy on the Prince of Yan. That is how he discovered that the Prince of Yan was feigning insanity. But modern medicine is more sophisticated. Visitors allege that "Chen Shui-bian babbles incoherently," that "he has a persecution complex," and that "he is a paranoid schizophrenic." But are such allegations enough? What is this, if not a tug of war between medical expertise and political intrigue?
Is Chen Shui-bian mentally ill? This can be determined by the prison health care system. But the integrity of the manipulators within the Green Camp medical community and Chen Shui-bian are in serious question. On December 15, 2006, when Wu Shu-cheng made her first court appearance during the Chen family corruption trial, she "fainted." When she left the courtroom, she was ostensibly "in a coma." Yet Wu Shu-chen's hands were wrapped firmly around her attendant's neck. This was a clear case of "King of Yan Syndrome." During the 644 days that followed the National Taiwan University Hospital cited various reasons why Wu Shu-chen could not appear in court. Seventeen times she requested and received medical leave. But as reports from the courtroom after September 2008 showed, Wu Shu-chen was perfectly fine, physically and mentally. This was a huge slap in the face for National Taiwan University Hospital. Seventeen times it refused to allow Wu to appear in court. Its diagnosis hamstrung the judicial process. If it was the result of professional error, then it shames National Taiwan University Hospital. If it was the result of political bias, then it shame National Taiwan University Hospital even more. These sorts of physicians have been repeatedly visiting Chen Shui-bian in his prison cell. How can the public trust such people?
By now the public should have reached a consensus on Chen Shui-bian's "medical condition." He must meet the objective requirements for medical parole. Political considerations must not negate Chen Shui-bian's right to medical parole. By the same token, if he fails to meet those objective requirements, political considerations must not lead to Chen Shui-bian's "medical parole." These Green Camp physicians must demonstrate professional integrity. Can they really claim that Chen Shui-bian has a disease that the prison medical facilities cannot treat?
Some have suggested that Chen Shui-bian resort to "smearing feces over his own face" and "babbling incoherently" to ensure "medical parole." If so, then that is "King of Yan Syndrome." It is something the prison health care system can treat. One may not be able to treat it. But that does not mean one cannot see through it. This ought to be the minimum standard for medicine on Taiwan.
The prison medical system should make every effort to safeguard Chen Shui-bian's health. Chen Shui-bian has been imprisoned. It is inevitable that he will experience physical and mental anguish. He should engage in self introspection and self-examination, He should settle his mind. This will benefit his physical and mental health. It will also improve his public image. It might even change history's verdict. Some cannot wait to see Chen Shui-bian seriously ill, receive CPR, and attempt suicide. These crazed Green Camp physicians and Green Camp politicians want Chen Shui-bian to feign "Prince of Yan Syndrome." Are they caring for Chen Shui-bian? Or are they exploiting Chen Shui-bian? Do they really have the heart to carry on like this?
陳水扁得了精神病或燕王症？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.09.17 02:39 am
陳水扁的囚室發現螞蟻，他對探監者說：「
於是，繼「陳水扁得了腫瘤」、「
事情開端於一個多月前，先是說陳水扁得了攝護腺癌，
上述過程顯示：一、策動保外就醫者似乎巴不得阿扁長癌、自殺、
最近，探監者又密集放話，說法是：扁不如以前smart，
明太祖朱元璋逝，傳位太孫朱允炆，是建文帝（惠帝）。
建文帝是遣人窺視始知燕王裝瘋，但以現代醫學之精進，
陳水扁是不是得了精神病，可由獄政醫療體制做出診斷；
面對陳水扁的「病情」，國人應有的共識是：在符合要件時，
但是，如果有人建議陳水扁要用「大便塗臉」、「語多妄亂」來「
國人注目，我們期勉獄政醫療體系全力維護陳水扁的健康。
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Era of Unease: Renewed Terrorist Attacks?
Era of Unease: Renewed Terrorist Attacks?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 14, 2012
Summary: The September 11 Attacks were indeed masterminded by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But not every Muslim is a terrorist. Radical Islam is a product of the late 20th century. This is something we must be clear about. Naturally we condemn the cruelty of genuine terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. But the response of some Americans is also questionable. The film "Innocence of the Muslim" was obviously a low budget video made by Americans ignorant about Islam.
Full Text below:
On the 11th anniversary of the September 11 Attacks, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya was attacked and killed by an assassin in the US Consulate in Benghazi, the largest city in the eastern part of the country. Three other U.S. diplomats also lost their lives. Angry mobs in Egypt gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. The American flag was being flown at half mast in memory of 9/11. The mob climbed over the fence, tore down the flag, and set it ablaze. Demonstrations broke out in front of the U.S. embassies in Yemen, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. This series of events shocked the world. They feared a renewed wave of terrorist attacks.
Back in the US, the presidential election was entering its final stage. The two presidential candidates initially suspended campaign activities out of respect for the victims of 9/11. The candidates hoped that with Osama bin Laden's death, the nation could emerge from the shadow of the terrorist attacks. But these incidents forced them to respond. The American people feel that 9/11 is not something that will easily fade from memory. As election season approaches, politicians find it hard not to be swayed by public sentiment. Especially Obama, who has long been suspected of being a Muslim. His overreaction to events in Libya have increased public concerns.
The cause of these anti-American sentiments was a low budget, low quality American film slandering Muhammad and Islam. Just how should we view this tragedy?
First we offer our condolences to the US for US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. Ambassador Stevens graduated from the University of California, Berkeley. He joined the Peace Corps and served in Morocco. He formed a bond with North Africa. During the Libyan Civil War he was a special envoy stationed in Benghazi. His actions led to US and UN intervention in Libya. They led to the eventual collapse of the 24 year regime of strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Because Stevens supported the rebels, the public in Benghazi waved the American flag. They considered Special Envoy Stevens a hero. This US diplomat helped the Benghazi rebels make a comeback. Alas, he lost his life in this city.
As representatives of a global hegemon, US embassies and US diplomats often become the target of terrorist attacks. They are often surrounded by angry mobs. In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Iran was occupied by students and militants involved in the Iranian Revolution. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. They were released only after President Reagan took office in 1981. On August 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were targets of simultaneous bomb attacks. A truck loaded with explosives was driven into the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. The explosion killed 213 people. Twelve of them were Americans. The rest were Kenyans who worked at the embassy or nearby residents. In addition, 4000 people were injured. An attack on Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed 12 people and injured nearly 100. These brutal events forced the United States to increase security for its diplomatic facilities and personnel. But the isolation also created a negative impression of the United States among the public. It undermined the efforts of U.S. diplomats in the region. According to various reports, Stevens and the United States Consulate were highly vulnerable. Libya was not yet stable. This is an oversight that must be addressed.
The “Innocence of Muslims” is a film that Muslims feel desecrates their faith. Americans may consider the making of such a film an expression of freedom of speech. But it was disseminated by people with an agenda. This led to an highly emotional backlash. It became an excuse to attack the United States. This may have been the actions of an isolated individual. But the U.S. government and US diplomats must bear the consequences. This is a turbulent era. Those involved should think twice about what they are doing.
In recent years, the United States has repeatedly clashed with Islam. In 2005, U.S. troops at Guantanamo Naval Base, Cuba, flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. This of course was a desecration of Islam. But doubts have arisen concerning the authenticity of this incident. In 2010, a pastor in Florida named Terry Jones, announced a "Koran Burning Day" to commemorate 9/11. This aroused fierce protests in many parts of the Muslim world. Shortly after he held his 2010 Koran burning ceremony, an Afghan mob broke into the local office of the United Nations. This resulted in many deaths. In February this year, U.S. troops tried to prevent prisoners in Afghanistan from passing messages in loaned copies of the Koran. They piled copies of the Koran on the ground and set them ablaze. When news of the Koran burning broke, riots erupted and over 10 people were killed.
The September 11 Attacks were indeed masterminded by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But not every Muslim is a terrorist. Radical Islam is a product of the late 20th century. This is something we must be clear about. Naturally we condemn the cruelty of genuine terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. But the response of some Americans is also questionable. The film "Innocence of the Muslim" was obviously a low budget video made by Americans ignorant about Islam. But the religious law message it disseminated did not come from the U.S. government. It came from individuals. We hope the Islamic world will make the proper distinctions, and not exact indiscriminate retribution. We hope they will not provide terrorists with a pretext for attacks, and make the entire world uneasy.
這令人不安的年代啊...恐怖攻擊再起？
2012-09-14
中國時報
「九一一」十一周年，美國駐利比亞大使在該國東部第一大城的班加西領事館遭該國暴徒攻擊遇害，另有三名美國外交官亦不幸喪生，而美國在開羅大使館外亦有憤怒的埃及群眾集結，爬上圍牆，將為紀念九一一而降半旗的美國國旗扯下，點火焚燒；此外，美國駐葉門、摩洛哥、蘇丹和突尼西亞等國大使館外也陸續爆發示威行動。連串事件引發世人的震驚，擔心是否新一波的恐怖攻擊再起。
在美國本土，儘管正進入總統大選的衝刺階段，但兩黨候選人原先為了表達對九一一受難者的尊重而暫停競選活動，並希望能夠在賓拉登遭擊斃後，逐漸走出恐怖攻擊的陰影，但如今已被迫要做出回應，而美國民眾則感受到九一一將不會輕易淡去；在此大選前，政治人物總是很難不受到國內民意情緒的牽動；尤其歐巴馬是否會為了撇清之前一直被認為是穆斯林的質疑，對利比亞事件做出過激反應，更加讓人關注。
造成這兩處反美情緒的導火線，是一個低成本、低品質、污衊穆罕默德和伊斯蘭的美國製影片，究竟我們該如何看待這悲劇？
首先，我們對美國駐利比亞大使史蒂文斯的罹難，致上哀悼之意。史蒂文斯大使在美國加州大學柏克萊分校畢業後，就加入和平團在摩洛哥服務，從此和北非結上不解之緣。在利比亞內戰期間，他是美國派駐班加西的特使，並促成美國及聯合國的干預行動，最終讓強人格達費四十二年的政權垮台。因為他對叛軍的支持，班加西的民眾當時還曾揮舞著美國國旗，視史蒂文斯特使為英雄，然而這位讓班加西叛軍起死回生的美國外交官，卻不幸在這個城市喪生，讓人不勝唏噓。
其次，身為全球強權的代表，美國駐外使館和外交官不只一次成為恐怖攻擊的目標，或是憤怒群眾包圍的對象。一九七九年美國駐伊朗大使館遭參與革命的學生和好戰分子占領，五十二名美國人遭挾持長達四百四十四天，在一九八一年雷根總統上台後才被釋放。一九九八年八月七日美國在東非肯亞和坦尚尼亞的大使館同時遭到炸彈攻擊，一輛載滿炸藥的卡車衝進奈洛比的美國大使館，引爆後造成兩百一十三人死亡，其中十二名為美國人，其餘則是在使館工作的肯亞人和附近民眾，另外有四千多人受傷。坦尚尼亞三蘭港的攻擊，則是造成十二人死亡，近百人受傷。這些殘酷的歷史事件，迫使美國必需加強駐外設施和人員的安全，但層層隔離也影響了群眾對美國的印象，衝擊到美國外交官在當地的工作。根據各方報導，史蒂文斯和美國領事館的安全確實出現極大的漏洞，特別是在一個尚位完全穩定的利比亞，這是必需檢討的疏失。
再者，從伊斯蘭教的角度來看，《無知的穆斯林》確實是一部會讓穆斯林認為褻瀆他們信仰的影片，或許拍這影片的美國人自認是言論自由的表達，但一旦被有心人士散佈，很容易引發情緒反彈，它也就成為攻擊美國的藉口。儘管這僅是個人的行為，但美國的政府和外交官卻必需承擔不幸的後果；在此敏感動盪的年代，相關行為者實在必須三思。
近年來，美國和伊斯蘭教衝突的事件已有多起，二○○五年美軍在古巴關達那摩基地將《古蘭經》沖入馬桶，當然是褻瀆伊斯蘭教的行為，不過這起事件的真實性存疑。二○一○年美國佛州牧師瓊斯宣布要舉行「焚燒《古蘭經》日」，來紀念九一一，引起許多地方穆斯林的激烈抗議，在他於二○一一年真的舉行焚燒儀式後，阿富汗的暴民衝入聯合國在當地的辦公室，造成多人死亡。今年二月，美軍為了防止在阿富汗的囚犯利用借閱的《古蘭經》傳遞訊息，因此將其放在垃圾堆燒毀，事件曝光後，又造成暴動和十多人死亡。
九一一的恐怖攻擊確實是信奉伊斯蘭教的賓拉登和蓋達組織所為，但是並非每一位穆斯林都是恐怖分子，激進的伊斯蘭教是二十世紀後期的產物，這是必須先釐清的。我們對那些以宗教之名進行恐怖攻擊之實的殘忍行為當然要給予譴責，但部分美國人選擇的回應方式也值得商榷。《無知的穆斯林》顯然是對伊斯蘭教無知的美國人所製作的劣質影片，但其中所散播的褻瀆訊息畢竟不是來自美國政府，而是個人，期盼伊斯蘭世界有所區分，不要冤冤相報，為恐怖攻擊提供藉口，讓全球陷入不安。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 14, 2012
Summary: The September 11 Attacks were indeed masterminded by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But not every Muslim is a terrorist. Radical Islam is a product of the late 20th century. This is something we must be clear about. Naturally we condemn the cruelty of genuine terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. But the response of some Americans is also questionable. The film "Innocence of the Muslim" was obviously a low budget video made by Americans ignorant about Islam.
Full Text below:
On the 11th anniversary of the September 11 Attacks, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya was attacked and killed by an assassin in the US Consulate in Benghazi, the largest city in the eastern part of the country. Three other U.S. diplomats also lost their lives. Angry mobs in Egypt gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. The American flag was being flown at half mast in memory of 9/11. The mob climbed over the fence, tore down the flag, and set it ablaze. Demonstrations broke out in front of the U.S. embassies in Yemen, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. This series of events shocked the world. They feared a renewed wave of terrorist attacks.
Back in the US, the presidential election was entering its final stage. The two presidential candidates initially suspended campaign activities out of respect for the victims of 9/11. The candidates hoped that with Osama bin Laden's death, the nation could emerge from the shadow of the terrorist attacks. But these incidents forced them to respond. The American people feel that 9/11 is not something that will easily fade from memory. As election season approaches, politicians find it hard not to be swayed by public sentiment. Especially Obama, who has long been suspected of being a Muslim. His overreaction to events in Libya have increased public concerns.
The cause of these anti-American sentiments was a low budget, low quality American film slandering Muhammad and Islam. Just how should we view this tragedy?
First we offer our condolences to the US for US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. Ambassador Stevens graduated from the University of California, Berkeley. He joined the Peace Corps and served in Morocco. He formed a bond with North Africa. During the Libyan Civil War he was a special envoy stationed in Benghazi. His actions led to US and UN intervention in Libya. They led to the eventual collapse of the 24 year regime of strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Because Stevens supported the rebels, the public in Benghazi waved the American flag. They considered Special Envoy Stevens a hero. This US diplomat helped the Benghazi rebels make a comeback. Alas, he lost his life in this city.
As representatives of a global hegemon, US embassies and US diplomats often become the target of terrorist attacks. They are often surrounded by angry mobs. In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Iran was occupied by students and militants involved in the Iranian Revolution. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. They were released only after President Reagan took office in 1981. On August 7, 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were targets of simultaneous bomb attacks. A truck loaded with explosives was driven into the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. The explosion killed 213 people. Twelve of them were Americans. The rest were Kenyans who worked at the embassy or nearby residents. In addition, 4000 people were injured. An attack on Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed 12 people and injured nearly 100. These brutal events forced the United States to increase security for its diplomatic facilities and personnel. But the isolation also created a negative impression of the United States among the public. It undermined the efforts of U.S. diplomats in the region. According to various reports, Stevens and the United States Consulate were highly vulnerable. Libya was not yet stable. This is an oversight that must be addressed.
The “Innocence of Muslims” is a film that Muslims feel desecrates their faith. Americans may consider the making of such a film an expression of freedom of speech. But it was disseminated by people with an agenda. This led to an highly emotional backlash. It became an excuse to attack the United States. This may have been the actions of an isolated individual. But the U.S. government and US diplomats must bear the consequences. This is a turbulent era. Those involved should think twice about what they are doing.
In recent years, the United States has repeatedly clashed with Islam. In 2005, U.S. troops at Guantanamo Naval Base, Cuba, flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. This of course was a desecration of Islam. But doubts have arisen concerning the authenticity of this incident. In 2010, a pastor in Florida named Terry Jones, announced a "Koran Burning Day" to commemorate 9/11. This aroused fierce protests in many parts of the Muslim world. Shortly after he held his 2010 Koran burning ceremony, an Afghan mob broke into the local office of the United Nations. This resulted in many deaths. In February this year, U.S. troops tried to prevent prisoners in Afghanistan from passing messages in loaned copies of the Koran. They piled copies of the Koran on the ground and set them ablaze. When news of the Koran burning broke, riots erupted and over 10 people were killed.
The September 11 Attacks were indeed masterminded by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But not every Muslim is a terrorist. Radical Islam is a product of the late 20th century. This is something we must be clear about. Naturally we condemn the cruelty of genuine terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. But the response of some Americans is also questionable. The film "Innocence of the Muslim" was obviously a low budget video made by Americans ignorant about Islam. But the religious law message it disseminated did not come from the U.S. government. It came from individuals. We hope the Islamic world will make the proper distinctions, and not exact indiscriminate retribution. We hope they will not provide terrorists with a pretext for attacks, and make the entire world uneasy.
這令人不安的年代啊...恐怖攻擊再起？
2012-09-14
中國時報
「九一一」十一周年，美國駐利比亞大使在該國東部第一大城的班加西領事館遭該國暴徒攻擊遇害，另有三名美國外交官亦不幸喪生，而美國在開羅大使館外亦有憤怒的埃及群眾集結，爬上圍牆，將為紀念九一一而降半旗的美國國旗扯下，點火焚燒；此外，美國駐葉門、摩洛哥、蘇丹和突尼西亞等國大使館外也陸續爆發示威行動。連串事件引發世人的震驚，擔心是否新一波的恐怖攻擊再起。
在美國本土，儘管正進入總統大選的衝刺階段，但兩黨候選人原先為了表達對九一一受難者的尊重而暫停競選活動，並希望能夠在賓拉登遭擊斃後，逐漸走出恐怖攻擊的陰影，但如今已被迫要做出回應，而美國民眾則感受到九一一將不會輕易淡去；在此大選前，政治人物總是很難不受到國內民意情緒的牽動；尤其歐巴馬是否會為了撇清之前一直被認為是穆斯林的質疑，對利比亞事件做出過激反應，更加讓人關注。
造成這兩處反美情緒的導火線，是一個低成本、低品質、污衊穆罕默德和伊斯蘭的美國製影片，究竟我們該如何看待這悲劇？
首先，我們對美國駐利比亞大使史蒂文斯的罹難，致上哀悼之意。史蒂文斯大使在美國加州大學柏克萊分校畢業後，就加入和平團在摩洛哥服務，從此和北非結上不解之緣。在利比亞內戰期間，他是美國派駐班加西的特使，並促成美國及聯合國的干預行動，最終讓強人格達費四十二年的政權垮台。因為他對叛軍的支持，班加西的民眾當時還曾揮舞著美國國旗，視史蒂文斯特使為英雄，然而這位讓班加西叛軍起死回生的美國外交官，卻不幸在這個城市喪生，讓人不勝唏噓。
其次，身為全球強權的代表，美國駐外使館和外交官不只一次成為恐怖攻擊的目標，或是憤怒群眾包圍的對象。一九七九年美國駐伊朗大使館遭參與革命的學生和好戰分子占領，五十二名美國人遭挾持長達四百四十四天，在一九八一年雷根總統上台後才被釋放。一九九八年八月七日美國在東非肯亞和坦尚尼亞的大使館同時遭到炸彈攻擊，一輛載滿炸藥的卡車衝進奈洛比的美國大使館，引爆後造成兩百一十三人死亡，其中十二名為美國人，其餘則是在使館工作的肯亞人和附近民眾，另外有四千多人受傷。坦尚尼亞三蘭港的攻擊，則是造成十二人死亡，近百人受傷。這些殘酷的歷史事件，迫使美國必需加強駐外設施和人員的安全，但層層隔離也影響了群眾對美國的印象，衝擊到美國外交官在當地的工作。根據各方報導，史蒂文斯和美國領事館的安全確實出現極大的漏洞，特別是在一個尚位完全穩定的利比亞，這是必需檢討的疏失。
再者，從伊斯蘭教的角度來看，《無知的穆斯林》確實是一部會讓穆斯林認為褻瀆他們信仰的影片，或許拍這影片的美國人自認是言論自由的表達，但一旦被有心人士散佈，很容易引發情緒反彈，它也就成為攻擊美國的藉口。儘管這僅是個人的行為，但美國的政府和外交官卻必需承擔不幸的後果；在此敏感動盪的年代，相關行為者實在必須三思。
近年來，美國和伊斯蘭教衝突的事件已有多起，二○○五年美軍在古巴關達那摩基地將《古蘭經》沖入馬桶，當然是褻瀆伊斯蘭教的行為，不過這起事件的真實性存疑。二○一○年美國佛州牧師瓊斯宣布要舉行「焚燒《古蘭經》日」，來紀念九一一，引起許多地方穆斯林的激烈抗議，在他於二○一一年真的舉行焚燒儀式後，阿富汗的暴民衝入聯合國在當地的辦公室，造成多人死亡。今年二月，美軍為了防止在阿富汗的囚犯利用借閱的《古蘭經》傳遞訊息，因此將其放在垃圾堆燒毀，事件曝光後，又造成暴動和十多人死亡。
九一一的恐怖攻擊確實是信奉伊斯蘭教的賓拉登和蓋達組織所為，但是並非每一位穆斯林都是恐怖分子，激進的伊斯蘭教是二十世紀後期的產物，這是必須先釐清的。我們對那些以宗教之名進行恐怖攻擊之實的殘忍行為當然要給予譴責，但部分美國人選擇的回應方式也值得商榷。《無知的穆斯林》顯然是對伊斯蘭教無知的美國人所製作的劣質影片，但其中所散播的褻瀆訊息畢竟不是來自美國政府，而是個人，期盼伊斯蘭世界有所區分，不要冤冤相報，為恐怖攻擊提供藉口，讓全球陷入不安。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)