字體:小 中 大 | |
|
|
2008/03/15 10:16:25瀏覽1613|回應1|推薦16 | |
兩岸共同市場爭議越演越烈,從基層老百姓角度如何認識這個主張,已經成重要課題。面對社會質疑,馬蕭陣營主要有三種回答。首先,兩岸共同市場不是他們競選政見。其次,兩岸共同市場是從經濟面著眼,「一中市場」的說法是扣政治帽子。最後,他們不開放大陸勞工、不開放已禁止進口的大陸農產品。 這些說法,非常的不誠實,而且自我矛盾。國民黨在 2005 年 8 月十七次全國代表大會中通過的「中國國民黨政策綱領」中,從前言、政策綱領到行動綱要,三度提到兩岸共同市場的主張。難道國民黨總統候選人不用實踐黨的主張嗎?如果連黨最高權力機關通過的政策綱領都是虛假的,我們又怎麼相信國民黨開的其他支票? 馬蕭政策自相矛盾 蕭萬長在《一加一大於二—邁向兩岸共同市場之路》一書中,提到兩岸共同市場「政治意義」很大( 17 頁),這就戳破共同市場僅限經濟意義的說辭。那又是怎樣的政治意義呢?蕭先生說,要讓兩岸共同市場成為兩岸「政治統合的基本架構」( 31 頁)。他認為,台灣應該要參與中國和平崛起這樣的「歷史盛會」,而經濟合作將是「兩岸和平統合之道的最佳起點」( 121 頁)。 經濟整合有不同的層次,為何把整合程度較高的「共同市場」當作主要政策目標呢?蕭先生解釋說︰「只有兩岸共同市場的出現,才有可能進行更全面的經濟、社會與政治制度的整合。」( 142 頁)以共同市場當作兩岸政治統合的主要手段,其實正是蕭先生原本的核心關懷,馬蕭陣營「唯經濟論」說辭不正是自打嘴巴?蕭先生還強調,要接受「九二共識」(一個中國、各自表述)以作為兩岸經濟整合談判的基礎( 144 、 152 頁)。由此觀之,謝陣營以「一中市場」概括蕭先生的主張又怎是「污衊」呢? 至於馬蕭陣營說的幾項「不開放」,更是嚴重的自我矛盾。蕭先生早就明白︰「建立自由貿易區,並走向共同市場,最重要的是以商品、人員、資金、服務、資訊等生產資源移動全面自由化為目的,所進行的一系列政策與制度的調整。」( 158 頁)何況,要達到共同市場,得經過 FTA 或是類似中港間 CEPA 的階段,這都會涉及商品和人員流動的自由化。蕭先生對此知之甚詳,也知道歐盟為了避免自由化的弊病,提出了社會憲章等以謀補救。蕭先生在選戰中卻一方面迴避共同市場的核心意義,一方面對其可能出現的弊病,提不出任何補救措施,這是負責任的政治家應有的態度嗎? 不要口水不要謊言 WTO 或是其他 FTA 的談判中,不民主和黑箱作業,往往是許多社運團體批判的重點之一。馬蕭承諾未來兩岸談判時要「透明化」,但是他們還沒當選,談判還沒開始,就出現這麼多的矛盾與謊言,民眾又怎能相信他們的承諾? 狹隘的保護主義當然不是基層民眾的出路,然而毫無限制的經貿與投資自由化也會產生相當的弊病。面對「一中市場」的爭論,我們不需要口水、不需要謊言,但是卻需要政客的誠實,需要民眾積極的關心,需要我們以自己的行動,打造真正美好的未來。 作者為社運工作者,「關注全球化資訊中心」創會召集人 蘋果日報 20080315 楊偉中 以下為英文版 刊於台北時報 Siew's ideas contradict KMT policy By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中 Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008, Page 8 First, the "cross-strait common market" is not their campaign platform. Second, the "cross-strait common market" focuses on economics, whereas the "one China market" is a political label. Last, they do not wish to open Taiwan to Chinese labor or agricultural products that are now banned. But these arguments are dishonest and contradictory. The foreword, policy outline and action plan of the KMT's policy guidelines, passed during the 17th KMT National Congress in August 2005, all promote the "cross-strait common market." Would the KMT presidential candidate not implement the party's plans? If the guidelines passed by the highest authority of the KMT are empty words, how can we trust other promises of the party? In Siew's book One Plus One is Two ? the Road Toward a Cross-Strait Common Market, he mentions the great political significance of such a market on page 17, debunking the explanation that the common market is limited to economic importance. On page 31, Siew claims that the "cross-strait common market" will become the foundational structure for the integration of cross-strait politics. He believes that Taiwan should participate in the peaceful rise of China. On page 121, Siew says that economic partnership is the best starting point for peaceful cross-strait integration. Economic integration has various degrees. Why is the high-level goal of a common market the main policy objective? Siew says on page 142 that only the emergence of a "cross-strait common market" can bring about total economic, social and political integration. To use the common market as the main strategy for cross-strait political integration is Siew's core concern. By claiming that the common market is purely economic, the pan-blue camp is contradicting itself. On pages 144 and 152, Siew further emphasizes that the so-called "1992 consensus" must be accepted as the basis of negotiation for cross-strait economic integration. From this perspective, how is the Democratic Progressive Party's labeling of Siew's policy a "one China market" an insult? The pan-blue camp's list of things that will not be open to China in a common market is also self-contradictory. In his book, Siew says on page 158 that the creation of a free-trade area and the progression toward a common market relies most importantly upon a series of policy and regulation adjustments, based on the free and liberal flow of goods, labor, funds, services, information and other production resources. To achieve a common market, there needs to be intermediate stages -- such as establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) or a closer economic partnership agreement, as in the case between China and Hong Kong -- both of which involve the free flow of products and labor. Siew is clearly aware of this, but he ignores the implications of the common market without providing any solutions to its possible problems. Is this the attitude of a responsible politician? In the negotiations of the WTO or other FTAs, non-democratic and black-box procedures often draw heavy criticism from social rights groups. Ma and Siew have promised that future cross-strait negotiations will be transparent. However, though they have not yet been elected, and the negotiations have not yet begun, there are already a number of lies and contradictions. How can people believe their promises? Narrow protectionist policies are of course not the final solution for average citizens. However, unlimited deregulation of trade and investment would also cause corresponding problems. Faced with the "one China market" debate, we don't need lies or a war of words. We need honest politicians and active concern from the public to forge our own future with our own actions.
Translated by Angela Hong |
|
( 時事評論|兩岸 ) |