俺非常同意火辣阿嬤 - - 艾琳達的觀點，尤其針對小英政府外交的部屬提出尖銳的質疑。
從二戰之後，台灣從來沒有過真正的外交戰場，有的是蔣介石國民黨為保持代表中國政府（ROC）的外交，從來不敢公開主張，推廣，促銷 ”建交台澎” 的平行概念。
小英政府是第一次真的有足夠立場可以嘗試這種史上從沒發生過的 ”建交台澎”，讓世界來台澎廣設邦使館。”邦使館” 的 ”邦誼關係”，這些名詞都是以創新而取代 ”大使館”的 “外交關係”。
有人會問，行得通嗎？有啥行不通的理由？只要對雙邦有利，有何不可？北京的叫囂又有何鳥用？難道北京斗膽回到過去楚河漢界？更何況只要台灣不宣稱與 ”中國” 有任何關係，還有啥不可？
”中國 = ROC = 中華民國 = 台灣”
小英的外交觀念要徹底從蔣介石的 ”中華民國ROC的一中” 概念退出，轉換，改變成為台澎的國際空間擴展，這才能走出一條路。而人才就是要朝這方面去部屬設置，絕對不是從國民黨履歷內找科班外交官，準死的。寧可從國際知名的民間企業家找一些擴展商場的高手，都比這些外交職業吃客更有亮麗的表現。
KMT choking foreign policy
Taiwanese have been unaware of the evils perpetrated by the Republic of China (ROC) over the past decades in its international dealings, such as forming alliances with dictatorships that share its paranoid anti-communist Cold War mentality. These include forming an alliance with the South African apartheid government and complicity in supporting and training reactionary death squads in Central America.
Notably, Roberto D’Aubuisson, who founded El Salvador’s right-wing ARENA party and has been documented to have ordered the March 1980 assassination of Bishop Oscar Romero, has visited the then-Political Warfare College in New Taipei City’s Beitou District (北投) seven times (see Inside the League, 1986, by Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson).
Less lethal, but still damaging to Taiwan’s international reputation, is its recent money diplomacy with small Pacific islands, which has been disparaged by Australian commentators.
Transitional justice on the international front must delve into and acknowledge the corrosive history of Taiwan’s international relations. What better way for president-elect Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) upcoming administration to distinguish itself from the martial law heritage of the Chinese settler regime and promote its international image as the new embodiment of democracy in Taiwan?
Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) eight years in office did not alter the mindset and stance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It still upholds the untenable and self-isolating “one China” principle as seen in the pre-emptive severing of diplomatic ties with Nauru in July 2002.
News commentators and people around the world call Taiwan just “Taiwan.” What is the use of maintaining relations with 3 percent of the world’s population under the fictional title of the “Republic of China”?
Undoubtedly, it provides inflated salaries and expense budgets for ministry staff. However, we can give the ministry some credit for funding and providing informational services for non-governmental international activities since the 1990s.
With an overwhelming mandate from the public that rejected the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) pandering to China and gave the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) a legislative majority, Tsai has a responsibility to take control of the ministry and set a new direction for it.
However, several sources said that the incoming administration plans to appoint a ministry official who began his career in the martial law period and served as the nation’s representative to the US, Canada and Australia, as the new head of the ministry.
Whatever the merits of the individual, this cannot but provoke astonishment and outrage. The ministry has consistently upheld the “one China” principle, no matter how anachronistic or damaging to Taiwan. This massively sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. Taiwanese have expressed their collective will by electing Tsai, even though the nation retains the ROC title in its Constitution.
However, the KMT has denied and suppressed the sovereignty of Taiwanese and instead recognized the sovereignty of China over Taiwan. Far from moving toward transitional justice, appointing a KMT official to head the ministry could be construed to be a betrayal of the founding ideals of the DPP, ideals for which many spent years in prison, and perhaps a frustration of the hopes of the electorate as well. What justification can be given for this?
I can attest that several prominent Taiwanese with experience in foreign relations concur with my views; I hope that they will speak for themselves.
Linda Gail Arrigo