The ROC Must Rebalance Too

The ROC Must Rebalance Too
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2012

Summary: U.S. President Barack Obama's "rebalancing" act is affecting the Asian-Pacific strategic picture. We on Taiwan should not exaggerate its political or military significance. Instead, we should pay close attention to the economic situation. We should be vigilant. We should do some "rebalancing" of our own.

Full Text below:

U.S. President Barack Obama's "rebalancing" act is affecting the Asian-Pacific strategic picture. We on Taiwan should not exaggerate its political or military significance. Instead, we should pay close attention to the economic situation. We should be vigilant. We should do some rebalancing of our own.

Obama's rebalancing has political and military undertones. He uses such terms as "returning to Asia," "entering China's backyard," and "neo-containment." We need not repudiate such perspectives. But they overlook the forest for the trees. They use 60s era Cold War rhetoric to interpret 21st century world events.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union faced off against each other, primarily in Europe. The United States formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact. One military alliance pitted itself against the other. Today, the Asian mainland has become the rebalancing arena for the United States and Mainland China. The US-led TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) is emerging. Mainland China is the hub of the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership). These two economic organizations cooperate as well as compete.

Obama has held high the banner of "returning to Asia." Intentionally or otherwise, he has implied that the US is "resisting the rise of China." But Obama knows that military force is not the solution. The solution to the problem is economic. The TPP is the economic means by which Obama seeks to achieve rebalancing.

By the same token, Mainland China, Japan, and South Korea announced a tripartite FTA in Phnom Penh. They are jointly promoting the RCEP. Japan and South Korea have clashed over Dokdo. Japan and Mainland China have clashed over Diaoyutai. These clashes were necessary responses to nationalist sentiments at home. But the RCEP shows that the three governments realize that the future requires economic coopetition. Disputes over islands are trees. Economic alliances are the forest. One must not destroy the forest for the sake of the trees.

This requires a broader view of history. The wars of the 19th century arose due to economic factors. In extreme cases, one side seized territory from the other, and turned them into colonies or foreign concessions. The main cause of wars during the twentieth century was ideology. The themes of the Cold War were "containment" and "exporting revolution." But since the twentieth century, forcible economic colonization is no longer possible. Communist regimes have disintegrated, one after the other. Either that, or they have undergone glasnost and perestroika. Rebalancing is less and less likely to lead to war. It is more likely to involve economic and trade coopetition. Obama's rebalancing is no exception.

NATO confronted the Warsaw Pact. Now the RCEP is confronting the TPP. Paradoxically this is "ASEAN plus six." ASEAN was seen as a military alliance to confront Beijing. Clearly the political climate has changed. It has presented nations the world over with new challenges. Future world powers and world leaders can no longer rely on military means to achieve their ends. They must be creative. They must depend on trade and economics. The US-led TPP is attempting to use stringent labor conditions and environmental conditions to weaken backward economies, in order to gain an advantage. Will it prevent the Mainland Chinese led RCEP, a relative latecomer, from catching up? This will be the acid test for the United States' rebalancing act.

The Asian-Pacific region is undergoing rebalancing. We on Taiwan must also think about rebalancing. We need not harbor fantasies about rebalancing the military picture in the Asian-Pacific region. Instead, we should give serious thought to affecting the economic and trade picture. We should try to join both the TPP and the RCEP. If we fail, we will become "economic orphans." The political implications would be unimaginable. We on Taiwan should respond to the new strategic picture in two ways.

One. We must establish more peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations. We should upgrade. We should trade the 1992 consensus in for "one China, different interpretations under the big roof concept of one China." Together with the Mainland, we should seek a shared definition of "one China." This would stabilize cross-Strait relations. The Mainland must realize that Taiwan is willing to participate. We may not be able to participate in the TPP and RCEP. But Beijing is hardly the only party that could exclude us. If Mainland China forces other countries to persecute Taiwan, politically and economically, it will surely harm cross-Strait relations.

Two. We on Taiwan must establish a political and economic consensus between the ruling and opposition parties. Refusal to liberalize economically, will make it impossible for us to survive. Liberalizing economically, on the other hand, will inflict pain. The ruling and opposition parties must work together to minimize the pain of economic liberalization. They must avoid turning the pain caused by economic liberalization into a bargaining chip in a political struggle. Politically speaking, the DPP has been taken hostage by Taiwan independence hardliners. Its concepts of national and constitutional allegiance, and its cross-Strait policy, must be replaced. It must not cling to fantasies that it can benefit from "rebalancing" and "neo-containment." Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen must not be even more blind to history than Shintaro Ishihara. They must not remain blind to the bigger picture.

The global political and economic picture is changing dramatically. Governments the world over are attempting to rebalance themselves. We on Taiwan must give careful thought to rebalancing our nation's governance and cross-Strait relations.

深思慎擇：台灣也有自己的「再平衡」
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.11.27

美國總統歐巴馬標舉「再平衡」所牽動的亞太新局，就台灣的立場言，不宜過度強調其在政治或軍事上的意義，而應特別關注其漸將驅動的經濟情勢演變。國人必須警覺：台灣也需有自己的「再平衡」。

歐巴馬的「再平衡」，被附加了許多政治性或軍事性的註腳，如「重返亞洲」、「進入中國的後花園」、「新圍堵」等；人們或許不必完全否認此類觀點，但這卻是見樹不見林的說法，也是誤以二十世紀六○年代的冷戰語言來解釋廿一世紀的世局。

冷戰年代，美蘇的對立以歐洲為主要舞台，當時的情勢是，美國主持北大西洋公約，蘇聯主持華沙公約，亦即以軍事聯盟對抗軍事聯盟；如今，亞洲若成為美國與中國大陸兩強「再平衡」的舞台，正在浮現的則是美國主導的ＴＰＰ（泛太平洋夥伴協議），與以中國大陸為樞紐的ＲＣＥＰ（區域全面經濟夥伴關係），這卻是兩個有競有合的經濟組織。

歐巴馬高舉「重返亞洲」的旗幟，並有意無意地渲染「抵制中國崛起」的意味；但歐巴馬自己確知，軍事不應也不會是解決未來問題的手段，關鍵仍在經濟，而ＴＰＰ即是歐巴馬提出的經濟手段，亦即主要欲以經濟方法去實現「再平衡」之目的。

同樣的道理，也見諸中日韓三國在金邊宣布啟動三國議簽ＦＴＡ，及共同推進ＲＣＥＰ；足見日韓的獨島爭議與中日的釣魚台爭議，雖也皆是各自回應國內民族主義的必要戲碼，但三國亦均知，未來世局演進的關鍵仍在經濟競合。畢竟，島嶼之爭只是「樹」，經濟結盟才是「林」，不能因樹毀林。

這牽涉到「大歷史觀」的認知，十九世紀的戰爭大多出自經濟動機，嚴重者甚至以武力強奪他人領土而據為殖民地或租界；廿世紀的戰爭主因，則在意識形態，冷戰的主題是「圍堵」與「相互輸出革命」。然而，自廿世紀末葉，由於武力經濟殖民已無可能，而共產政權又相繼崩解或進行「改革開放」，世界的「再平衡」即愈來愈不應亦不會訴諸戰爭，而必須循由經貿競合的途徑，歐巴馬的「再平衡」也不例外。

由北大西洋公約對抗華沙公約，轉到以ＴＰＰ對抗ＲＣＥＰ（弔詭的是，此為「東協加六」，而東協卻是被認為有與北京抗衡意味的軍事聯盟）；顯示了歷史氛圍的大改變，也給了世界各國一個新課題。未來世界的強國或領導國，將愈來愈不再能徒以軍事為憑藉，而須以經貿的創造力及經營力為張本。準此以論，美國主導的ＴＰＰ欲以高勞動條件與高環保條件等為門檻，來「削弱」後進國家的「優勢」；卻會否因此使中國大陸主導的ＲＣＥＰ後發先至且後來居上，這也許就是美國能否「再平衡」的考驗。

在亞太「再平衡」的大局中，台灣必須思考自己的「再平衡」。不要過度幻想亞太「再平衡」的軍事意義，而應嚴重關切其所必將牽動的經貿情勢；對台灣而言，ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ都應設法加入，倘若二者皆落空，將成「經濟孤兒」，其政治性效應尤不堪想像。為因應新局，台灣的關鍵作為有二：

一、對外言，必須建構更為和平穩定的兩岸關係：在台灣方面，應試以「在大屋頂中國下的一中各表」為「九二共識」的升級版，努力與中國大陸尋求「一個中國」的定義共識，以穩定兩岸關係。在大陸方面亦應知，台灣並非無意願參與，或無資格參與ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，而倘若完全只因北京的阻撓杯葛而不能參與，這將是中國挾持外國對台灣的巨大政經迫害，必然不利兩岸之將來。

二、對內言，必須建構朝野一致的政經共識：就經濟言，不開放，不能活；要開放，又有痛苦。朝野應共同克服、化解開放的痛苦，不宜以開放必將面臨的痛苦作為政治鬥爭的籌碼。就政治言，民進黨被台獨挾持的國憲認同與兩岸政策必須轉型，不能又陷於「再平衡／新圍堵」的迷夢中，而蘇貞昌、蔡英文等，尤不能成為比石原慎太郎更「史盲」、更不識大體的政治人物。

其實，在世界政經情勢發生如此巨變的今日，全球各國皆在尋求自己的「再平衡」；對台灣而言，無論就國家治理或兩岸關係的「再平衡」，亦應深思慎擇。