【Comment】
AIT理事David
Brown撰文認為民進黨鼓動學生運動阻撓服貿，就邏輯與文氣觀察，作為學者實在太魯肉腳，一如罵街莽漢，白白糟蹋自己的名聲。
但相對於David
Brown在Nelson
Report的投書文章影響力及於世界，AIT發言人金明（Mark Zimmer）在受訪時被動的發表短短的「卜道維言論是個人意見」的說法，其影響卻只在台灣。差太遠。更別提還有容安瀾（Alan Romberg）敲邊鼓。
假使AIT僅敢以「個人」搪塞而無法更正其治理層的言論，那這意見就會逐漸影響到國務院。
注意到了沒，23日Susan Stevenson訪台，馬也在當天舉行記者會。24凌晨出現闖入與鎮暴，看起來式表演給Susan Stevenson看的，以證明前駐美代表在華盛頓所定調的「暴民」是「正確」的。而Susan Stevenson顯然與David Brown、Alan Romberg不太搭嘎。也代表國民黨在操作二線人。
卜道維：民進黨阻議事無正當性○中央社（2014.03.30）http://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/201403300238-1.aspx
（中央社記者廖漢原華盛頓30日專電）美國兩岸學者、美國在台協會（AIT）理事卜道維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」。
約翰霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院（SAIS）教授，同時也具有美國在台協會理事身分的卜道維（David Brown），28日在華府外交界刊物尼爾森報告（Nelson Report），就民進黨籍立委蕭美琴26日向美方發出的公開信函提出上述回應。
蕭美琴在向美方發出的信函中指出，台灣目前面臨民主發展重要關頭，需要更多國際關注。她寫道，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。
卜道維認為蕭美琴的信函略去大部分服貿協議事件的發展過程，但仍感謝她的公開信。他說，蕭美琴值得尊重，善盡職責，但那是民進黨對近期立法院危機的單方面聲明。
卜道維質疑，民進黨的主要考量是為了今年秋天的選戰，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2013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」。
根據媒體報導，某些民進黨籍政治人物當晚在現場現身，卜道維說，民進黨隔天為學生的行動背書，鼓勵全體黨員支持學生的占據行為。卜道維認為，學生扮演占領立法院的角色，「不是正符合民進黨的利益？」
他表示，無論國民黨如何分裂仍居立院多數，只要涉及關鍵利益或符合選舉動員的目標，民進黨會竭盡所能封殺國民黨，利用這些議題來獲取政治優勢。
他在結論中指出，台灣的民主正在轉型，面臨挑戰，有些挑戰是來自於民進黨。1030330
約翰霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院（SAIS）教授，同時也具有美國在台協會理事身分的卜道維（David Brown），28日在華府外交界刊物尼爾森報告（Nelson Report），就民進黨籍立委蕭美琴26日向美方發出的公開信函提出上述回應。
蕭美琴在向美方發出的信函中指出，台灣目前面臨民主發展重要關頭，需要更多國際關注。她寫道，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。
卜道維認為蕭美琴的信函略去大部分服貿協議事件的發展過程，但仍感謝她的公開信。他說，蕭美琴值得尊重，善盡職責，但那是民進黨對近期立法院危機的單方面聲明。
卜道維質疑，民進黨的主要考量是為了今年秋天的選戰，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2013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」。
根據媒體報導，某些民進黨籍政治人物當晚在現場現身，卜道維說，民進黨隔天為學生的行動背書，鼓勵全體黨員支持學生的占據行為。卜道維認為，學生扮演占領立法院的角色，「不是正符合民進黨的利益？」
他表示，無論國民黨如何分裂仍居立院多數，只要涉及關鍵利益或符合選舉動員的目標，民進黨會竭盡所能封殺國民黨，利用這些議題來獲取政治優勢。
他在結論中指出，台灣的民主正在轉型，面臨挑戰，有些挑戰是來自於民進黨。1030330
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:
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2014/03/nelson-report-david-brown-on-hsiao-bi.html
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
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2014/03/nelson-report-david-brown-on-hsiao-bi.html
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
金小刀對操弄真的有一套, 至少搞定了David Brown.
回覆刪除KMT其實做足了包裝跟表面功夫, 要什監督程序都有,
對不知內情的人, 不了解問題在哪的人, 是可以呼攏過去.
David Brown大概不清楚一件事 - 把歐美那套制度搬到亞洲來, 十之八九都會走調.
BY 路人甲
回覆刪除民進黨應多以客觀第三人角度為文說服美方說馬英九及KMT是個Trouble maker，現在是，未來更會是。而不是只以出自為己辯護或只批評馬及KMT角度來向美方報告，這在心理已有偏見的AIT或美國國務院那些人心理自然是聽不下去的。
但若以Trouble maker角度來說服，則美方或多或少會參考，一旦久了心理自然量變產生質變，對KMT支持力度會下降。
當然這些是比較樂觀看法，可能美方和KMT之間還有許多秘密讓外界永遠難以了解，除非加入國民黨體系。
BY 路人甲
回覆刪除經過這些年，台派人士應該都該了解，在台灣執政的前提必須要盡量巴結美國，其重要性常比能獲得人民認同更為重要。雖然只能當傀儡心理會難受，但也只能認了，國際政治現實就是如此，這是出身在中國隔壁，作為中國鄰居的台灣人的悲哀。
甭說這三流角色，甚至國務卿本人，或白宮爸老闆親身出來說話，俺一點都不期待他們對太陽花會有啥好話。
回覆刪除本來嘛，不管理由，不管狀況，無論如何都得支持KMT統治台澎，這是山姆大帝70年來的既定政策，毫不變更。這還能期待山姆大帝不譴責學生們嗎？比起白宮2012出面直接了當詆毀小英，AIT這樣的拐彎磨角粉飾地責怪，那已經算客氣了。
大家不要把山姆這樣的動作看成是小刀的功勞，這太給面子了。坦白說，就算KMT完全不做啥，山姆照樣扶捧KMT的。所以小刀有做沒做，根本不是山姆考慮的問題。不要神化小刀是三頭六臂。他的大腦未必比這部落格的任一網友優秀啦。換俺們去做他的位置，都比他做得更精采的。要詐，要狠，耍陰，誰也不輸誰啦。輸贏都是背景的差別而已，不是任何個人的頭腦好壞。小刀不利害的啦！所以俺完全不覺得這次AIT這傢伙出來說這些是小刀的功勞。絕對沒有。若有的話，是摳摳灑得多才靈的啦！
已經出來切割了。
回覆刪除卜道維：學生占領立院是非法行為 AIT：卜的個人意見
http://www.ettoday.net/news/20140331/341273.htm