衝破國民黨的窒息外交
（Ajin開口）
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？
具體舉例，若德國希望與台澎建立正式互換邦使的關係，有啥不可？只要小英政府努力向德國遊說，可能性是很大的。即使溝通過程遭受北京使出各種威脅叫囂，只要德國堅持，難道北京斗膽來個斷交？
只要有一個歐美邦國踢出第一球，接著 ”邦誼台澎”的骨牌效應就自然會產生，難道北京要與全世界斷交？俺說，試試看咩！
然而，小英政府絲毫沒有這種大膽以台澎為主體擴張國際空間的壯志，新出任的外交部長竟然終身奉行：
”中國 = ROC = 中華民國 = 台灣”
的人。就是因為這種荒誕論述，這怎可能讓台澎在國際上走出空間呢？
當英國政府回說不能與台澎建立邦交的理由，並非英國政府不想與台澎建立關係，而是因為英國政府認為ROC不能代表中國的緣故啦！只要小英政府宣示ROC招牌的台澎不是中國，PRC才是中國，那麼任何國要與台澎建立關係就變成可能了。更何況說要拼經濟，遠離中國，要往南走，倘若沒有堅強的外交部屬，沒有新的取向，只要一個肯亞案三不五時發生，再怎樣的拼經濟都是拼假的啦！
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
Taipei
沒有留言:
張貼留言
發表意見者，請留稱呼。用匿名不留稱呼者，一律自動刪除。