United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 14, 2016
Executive Summary: The appointments of Chiang Chun-nan and James Huang as ROC Representative to Singapore were stillborn. The Tsai government's ill-fated "New Southern Strategy" reveals the shallowness of Taiwanese populist politics, as well as the unprofessional nature of its diplomacy. They simply do not pass muster. The Tsai government's diplomatic incompetence has been fully revealed.
Full Text Below:
The appointments of Chiang Chun-nan and James Huang as ROC Representative to Singapore were stillborn. The Tsai government's ill-fated "New Southern Strategy" reveals the shallowness of Taiwanese populist politics, as well as the unprofessional nature of its diplomacy. They simply do not pass muster. The Tsai government's diplomatic incompetence has been fully revealed.
The Singaporean government refused to accept James Huang as ROC Representative to Singapore for three reasons. First, the Tsai government failed to consult Singapore's prime minister before Tsai government officials leaked the news of James Huang's appointment. Second, when James Huang's appointment made the news, DPP and Tsai government officials openly boasted that Singapore would become a "command post" to promote the “New Southern Strategy”. The Tsai government has not denied this. Treating a nation with which one has diplomatic relations as a strategic base is a diplomatic no-no. Singapore was naturally incensed. Third, in 2008 James Huang was dismissed for his involvement in the Papua New Guinea bribery scandal. Wu Sicai, one of the brokers in the scandal was a Singaporean national, and opened a joint account in Singapore with another broker, Jin Jijiu. The ROC filed suit in Singapore to recover the funds. James Huang's checkbook diplomacy is well known in Singapore, and does him no credit.
As the above analysis shows, James Huang's rejection as ROC Representative to Singapore is a major diplomatic setback for the Tsai government. This defeat appears unrelated to pressure from Beijing. Instead it reflects our own failure to comply with diplomatic professionalism and custom, and our own failure to respect Singapore's circumstances. Taiwan's self-indulgent populism is solely for domestic political consumption. When aired in public, this dirty laundry eventually proves to be an embarrassment.
James Huang's rejection has nothing to do with pressure from Beijing. Clashes have arisen between the Mainland and Singapore recently as a result of the South China Sea dispute. In the international arena, Singapore has long played a role as middleman and non-aligned nation. But on the South China Sea issue, Singapore's concern for regional strategic balance has led Beijing to conclude that Singapore has cozied up to the US and distanced itself from China. During the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in late September, Singapore proposed that the results of the South China Sea “arbitration” be included in the minutes of the General Assembly. The proposal was rejected. But the hawkish Mainland Global Daily blasted Singapore for the move. Beijing's Ambassador to Singapore Luo Jialiang minced no words. The Mainland and Singapore found themselves at odds with each other. Therefore they could not have joined hands to oppose James Huang's appointment. On the contrary, the decision was made by the Singaporean government on the basis of its own national interests.
James Huang was once Minister of Foreign Affairs. Chiang Chun-nan was merely a National Security Council Deputy Secretary-General. Strictly speaking, Huang is far more qualified. The government of Singapore accepted Chiang Chun-nan, yet rejected James Huang. That is indeed interesting. Leave aside personal qualifications for the moment. What angered Singapore was our government's rude, arrogant diplomatic response. This provoked it to say no. Naturally this includes forbidding Taiwan to use Singapore as a base of operations for its New Southern Strategy, thereby creating chaos among the ASEAN nations.
Similar problems arose during the Ma era. Shi Ya-ping repeatedly crossed Singapore's diplomatic line in the sand, upsetting relations between the two nations. He flew the national flag above the embassy on National Day. He sang the national anthem. He met with opposition parties. He even met with members of the Chinese Communist Party without Singapore's knowledge. His actions violated Singapore's political taboos. He was even reprimanded by Singapore's deputy foreign minister. Eventually the chill forced Shi's recall from Singapore. The Shi Ya-ping and James Huang incidents had something in common. Both men were the president's trusted advisors. But both their actions were too heavy handed for the host nation to tolerate.
On Taiwan, populist politics has degenerated to the point where nothing is taboo. Anything can be rationalized under the banner of "Love for Taiwan". The sole exception is diplomacy, where the superficial nature of Taiwan's populist politics is revealed for all the world to see. Shi Ya-ping raised the national flag and sang the national anthem without prior approval from the Singaporean government. James Huang treated Singapore as a command post for the Tsai government's New Southern Strategy. From a populist point of view, why not? The problem is, that when we talk about the New Southern Strategy, and about "standing tall and marching forth", can we really afford to ignore international norms or the norms of our hosts?
James Huang was appointed to Singapore in his capacity as director of the Office for New Southern Strategy. This in itself revealed the narrowness and bankruptcy of Tsai government thinking. Huang is in no position to explain why Singapore rejected him. Can he calmly return to his job as director? Early last year, James Huang joined the DPP as director of its International Affairs Department. In fact, he was waiting for the DPP to become the ruling party before taking to the diplomatic battlefield, as a "Level 12 Presidential Office Secretary”.
Look around. Whom among Tsai Ing-wen's foreign policy advisers still has the courage to step forward?
黃志芳案暴露台式民粹政治的淺薄
2016-10-14 聯合報
從江春男到黃志芳，我駐新加坡代表接連難產，除隱示蔡政府「新南向」的前途多舛，也說明台式民粹政治的淺薄，通不過專業外交的檢驗。而蔡政府外交人才之捉襟見肘，至此也暴露無遺。
新加坡政府拒絕接受黃志芳為駐星代表，主因大約有三：第一，政府尚未徵詢星方意見，官員即逕自披露黃志芳將出使的消息，不符正常外交慣例，亦不尊重駐在國。第二，黃志芳使星消息傳出，黨政人士即渲染此布局是要以新加坡為推動南向的「指揮站」，府方亦未否認；這種將出使國當成戰略基地的作法，犯了外交大忌，新加坡當然反感。第三，黃志芳二○○八年因巴紐案去職，該案掮客之一吳思材持有新加坡國籍，並與另一掮客金紀玖在星國開設聯合帳戶，我國並在星國提出告訴追還款項。黃志芳進行金錢外交之事，因此在星國人盡皆知，並不光榮。
從以上分析看來，黃志芳使星遭拒，當然是蔡政府在外交上的一大挫敗。而這次的挫敗，基本上似無關乎中共的打壓，而是我國不遵守外交專業與慣例，又不尊重新加坡的立場所致。尤其，台灣內部自我耽溺式的民粹作風盛行，所有操作均只為國內政治消費之用，但放在國際場合，終將自取其辱。
之所以說黃志芳被拒無關中共打壓，主要是，中星之間最近才因南海問題連續發生爭執。在國際上，新加坡一向以「中間人」及「不結盟」的角色自許，但在南海議題上，卻因強調區域戰略平衡，被北京認為是「親美遠中」。在九月下旬的「不結盟運動首腦峰會」中，新加坡提議將南海仲裁結果寫入大會文件，卻未獲通過。其後，中共鷹派媒體《環球日報》為此大批新加坡，復引發星國駐北京大使羅家良強硬回應。也因此，以中星兩國的不睦氣氛，不可能聯手運作反對黃志芳，而是新加坡政府基於其自身國家利益所作的決定。
嚴格而論，以黃志芳曾任外交部長的資歷，比起江春男的國安會副祕書長資歷，顯有過之；新加坡政府稍早接受江春男，而今卻拒絕黃志芳，自耐人尋味。亦即，撇開個人條件不談，讓新加坡不滿的，應當是我政府在外交應對上的粗魯草率，一連串的荒腔走板演出，讓對方決以「否定」向台灣示警。其中，當然包括了：絕不容許台灣將新加坡當成新南向的指揮作戰基地，搞亂東協國家間的關係。
類似問題，在馬政府時代其實也曾經上演過。當時，駐星代表史亞平數度踩到新加坡的外交紅線，而引起兩國關係一度欠和，包括：國慶日在使館懸掛國旗並唱國歌、不當會見該國在野黨人士、乃至未知會星國逕自接觸中共人員等，皆觸犯星國政治禁忌，甚至遭到該國外交次長約見訓斥，最後因關係已僵，只能調離當地。史亞平和黃志芳事件的共同軌跡是，兩人都深受總統重用，但可能也因此操作上便顯得草率，踰越了駐在國可以忍受的尺寸。
在台灣，當政治已民粹到百無禁忌的地步，只要套上一句「愛台灣」的大紅花布，什麼事都可以正當化，在外交上卻淺薄畢露。史亞平未經協調地唱國歌掛國旗、愛見誰就見誰，黃志芳要把新加坡當成南向指揮站，從民粹的角度看，有何不可？問題是，當我們談的是「新南向」、「站起來、走出去」，台灣能絲毫不遵守國際禮儀或地主國的規範嗎？
黃志芳以「新南向辦公室主任」被總統指派出使新加坡，已暴露蔡政府用人的侷促與拮据；如今因不便明說的原因遭新加坡拒絕，他還能坦然回任南向總指揮的工作嗎？去年初黃志芳申請加入民進黨，出任「國際事務部」主任，其實就在等著執政後能披掛上外交戰場一搏；誰料，出師未捷，他已連栽兩個跟斗，而以「總統府十二等祕書」職作收。
放眼望去，蔡英文總統的外交策士群中，誰還有餘勇可賈？
No comments:
Post a Comment