美國政府對 「台灣的經貿議題」、「純屬台灣內政的議題」或「涉及台灣主權的議題」的反應與處理態度及方式不同(中)
三
建州運動現在轉載Michael Burton所經營的”The View from Taiwan”部落格所張貼的文章，因為我們希望大家來讀AIT理事卜道維(David Brown)針對立委蕭美琴寫給The Nelson Report的信所做的回應 。我們從David Brown的觀點，就可窺知美國政府及一般政界學界與智庫界菁英對多數台灣學生與多數弱勢民眾 「反服貿」的行動的看法。David Brown所代表的觀點，與美國眾議員Ileana Ros-Lehtinen所代表的觀點不同。很不幸的是，到現在為止，我們還看不出Ileana她們對「中台經貿協議」的政治判斷有成為華盛頓政治圈的主流觀點的可能性，我們不要忘了，在2009年11月17日的「美中聯合聲明」中，歐巴馬政府還官式地支持台北馬英九當局與北京胡錦濤政權所簽的ECFA。
“NELSON REPORT: David Brown on Hsiao Bi-khim's Letter”
michaelburton.blogspot.com
3/29/2014
DPP legislator Hsiao Bi-khim wrote a letter to the Nelson Report, this is a response from David Brown at SAIS at Johns Hopkins. Brown is on the Board of AIT and is a former foreign service officer. His political sympathies will be obvious from the tone of the letter and the direction of its numerous errors and omissions.
+++++++++++++++
LOYAL READER COMMENTARY ON BI-KHIM/DPP LETTER in last night's Report....Asia expert and SAIS scholar Dave Brown offers some helpful perspective, followed by a note from the hard-working team at TECRO here in DC:
Chris,
Thanks for sharing Bi-Khim's open letter. She deserves respect, but this piece is a partisan statement of DPP views on the current crisis in the LY [MT -- to which Brown replies with a partisan statement of KMT views]. That's her job, of course. [MT -- Hsiao is a politician. What is Brown's job as a SAIS scholar?]
You and others will note that it omits much of the story concerning the STA, which the DPP has opposed from its signing last June. She conveniently omits the DPP's record of obstruction of LY consideration of the agreement.[MT -- just as Brown conveniently omits the KMT's similar record]. That began in the special LY session last fall and continued with dilatory handling of forums on the agreement.
The week before March 17, the DPP had repeatedly prevented the planned article by article review of the STA at the LY committee level. That obstructionism was the proximate incentive for the KMT to ram through a decision moving the STA from committee to plenary consideration on Mar. 18. [MT -- both parties were engaged in it but it was very obviously the KMT that was blocking the process, as Cole notes. For example, here and here. As the pro-KMT China Post notes, it was the KMT that blocked the podium on Mar 13. Recall that the KMT does not want a floor vote, because their legislators don't want to be seen voting for this dog. They want it to become law administratively. Thus DPP obstructionism was not the "proximate incentive" but merely a KMT excuse. And another error here -- the pact was sent for plenary review on the 17th, not the 18th. Brown has the chronology all wrong.]
It is remarkable that the students reacted so quickly that same evening to occupy the LY. [MT -- this is unconscionable. The Interior committee "closed" the review on March 17 (China Post report) and the protesters occupied the legislature on the evening of the 18th. How is over 24 hours "quickly?" They were not even the same day as Brown claims!]. The KMT has accused the DPP of instigating this action, an accusation that many believe [MT -- and those believers are KMTers]. Unnamed DPP politicians were reportedly on the scene later that evening [MT -- yes, they and TSU legislators were there to protect the students from the police. They were hardly unnamed as they were in their party clothing and easily recognizable -- they were on TV and in thousands of videos and stills!]; and the party endorsed the action the following day, and then encouraged all its members to support the students' illegal occupation.[MT -- of course. When people support your values, you should support them. Hint, hint.].
A DPP poll published a few days earlier had indicated that a plurality of DPP members (40%) were dissatisfied with the party's knee-jerky opposition to every step forward in cross-strait relations [MT -- poll is here]. So rather than have the DPP LY caucus responsible for continuing to block consideration of the STA [MT -- the KMT caucus was blocking too], wasn't it in the DPP's interest to have students play that role? [MT -- yes. Perhaps Brown should ask why the protests have majority support and why so many students, including many of my own, were willing to come out. Not to mention that 70% of the public supports a line by line review, the review the KMT was trying to stop. And as polls show, that dog of a pact only has 20% support now.].
Bi-Khim portrays this as a struggle for democracy. It's really another fundamental clash of approaches toward the mainland and toward Taiwan's future [MT -- Ummm... hello! What is that but a struggle about the future of Taiwan's democracy!]. But if its about democracy, is the DPP's repeated physical blocking of LY action democratic? [MT -- is the KMT's? Obviously, the DPP's tactics are in the realm of normal tactics practiced by both parties in Taiwan's democracy. Obviously cutting off the review before it occurred was not.]
The DPP's problem is that the KMT, divided as it is, has a LY majority, and the DPP will go to whatever lengths are necessary to block the majority when their key interests are involved or when it suits the DPP's election mobilization goals to exploit issues for political advantage. [MT -- Brown is obviously trying hard to gin up a DPP conspiracy here. Can we have some actual evidence, please? O wait... Brown doesn't have any.]
I suspect that the fall election is a key consideration in how the party is handling the issue. In this country we would not permit such obstruction to occur in the Congress, and we would not view the DPP's obstruction tactics as legitimate democratic action.[MT -- once again, the 'only the DPP is doing it' refrain. Let's quote The China Post on the Mar 13 fun: "Several KMT legislators blocked the podium to prevent anyone from taking it; on the other hand, DPP legislators stood along the roster and held every microphone installed on the table."]
Taiwan is a democracy in transition. It faces challenges and some of those challenges come from the DPP. [MT -- let's recall why we're a democracy in transition -- because the KMT shot thousands of people and locked up thousands of others, and suppressed democracy here for decades, while the people who formed the party you say is engaging in 'undemocratic' tactics stopped them. You bet some of the challenges come from the DPP, but the vast vast majority of the problem is the "success" and legacy of the KMT.]
Dave [David Brown]
我不做翻譯，所以以老K的「中央社「」的一則簡短的新聞稿來替代: ---Read More---
「『非正當』，卜道維批綠阻議事」
中央社／華盛頓30日電
March 31, 2014 06:00 AM
美國兩岸學者、美國在台協會（AIT）理事卜道維（David Brown）就台灣的服貿爭議指出，在美國，妨礙議事的舉動不被容許，「我們不會視民進黨的阻撓策略為具有正當性的民主行動」；台灣民主正在轉型，面臨挑戰，但「有些挑戰是來自於民進黨。」
民進黨發言人張惇涵說，卜道維對台灣民意的觀察不夠，身分也無法完全代表美國官方；美國的官方說法，日前國務院發表希望以和平、文明的方式，解決目前服貿的爭端。
卜道維曾任國務院台灣科科長，目前是約翰霍普金斯大學高等國際研究院教授，華府報導小道政治消息的尼爾森報告（Nelson Report），報導卜道維回應民進黨立委蕭美琴26日向美方發出的公開信。
蕭美琴信中指服貿協議簽署前，未與受影響行業諮商，國會未獲簡報，也未事前通知，官方試圖在沒有國會同意下執行，抗爭後才有跨黨派協商、公聽會與逐條審查表決。
但卜道維認為蕭美琴略去大部分服貿協議事件的發展過程，是民進黨對近期立法院危機的單方面聲明。
卜道維表示，民進黨的主要考量是為了今年秋天的選戰；但在美國，妨礙議事的舉動不會被容許，「我們不會視民進黨的阻撓策略為具有正當性的民主行動。」
他指出，民進黨去年6月反對簽署服貿協議，在立法院阻撓審議，並於秋天開始在特別會期中持續延宕有關協議的討論。
他並觀察到，學生在3月18日反應極快，當天晚上占據了立法院，國民黨方面指控民進黨挑動學生的行動，「許多人相信這項指控」。
(待續)
台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)
