台灣正逐步邁向一國兩制（紐約時報，全文翻譯）
笨笨
（原文附於文末）
、
台灣現實上作為一個獨立國家的狀態似乎正被慢慢形塑成如同香港與中國的『一國兩制』狀態。這情勢並非是不可逆的，但對中國有著情感依附的執政黨(中國國民黨)，只對自身的經濟利益有興趣的商業團體，以及普遍意識到的經濟問題，都在把台灣往中國的懷裡送。
這個趨勢正在腐蝕著台灣所得到的美日的支持；雖然這些支持並非規律性的。
最明顯的證據就是台灣政府為了取悅北京當局而拒絕流亡維吾爾人領袖熱比婭。卡德爾入境 –
這麼做的代價是讓台灣近年來備受讚譽的自由民主價值受損。這麼做，官方說法是『為了國家利益』，而很明顯的，這與（可能在不久的將來）和中國簽署經濟上的諒解備忘錄（MOU）有關。
當然，簽署備忘錄是一大進步，特別是讓銀行能夠擺脫在台灣低成長和過剩的儲蓄的限制，而能前進飛躍中的中國。這並且會使中國的地方獲得更多的挹注。但總統馬英久可能忘了台灣的國家利益
– 做為一個獨立國家 -，雖然也許有一天會和中國合併，有時需要犧牲一些。而熱比婭。卡德爾為維吾爾人所尋求的高度自治乃是台灣甚至是香港所享有的一部份而已。
增加雙邊的經濟聯繫確有實質好處。銀行將會獲得不少好處，因為他們可以為那些在中國有商業行為的台灣客戶服務。雙邊經貿的往來也可能會吸引服務業進駐台灣而非香港。中國觀光客來台旅遊毫無疑問也是一個加分。
但是台灣似乎正在催眠自己，讓自己相信真的這麼需要依賴中國。如果消除了一些為保護本地企業所設下的限制，或是除去官僚文化和過時的法規，台灣將是一個很能吸引外資前來投資的地方。
賦稅問題也把外資吹離台灣並且無法阻止大量資金外流。馬政府為此做了一些努力，但是與兩岸議題比起來，這些努力是微不足道的。
將台灣經濟的毫無起色歸咎於無法從中國獲得全部益處，這樣的說法是很容易編造出的。但是事實上，台灣是個勞動力只有微幅成長的成熟經濟體。就像日本的問題一樣，問題在於國內服務業的缺乏，而非具創意的出口製造業。
對中國的依賴往往被誇大了。儘管台灣有百分之四十的出口到中國，但其中超過一半都是銷往全球貨品的零組件，比如筆電或是手機，這些都是由台灣公司製造，然後經由中國『再』出口的。這種依賴是經由計算利潤多寡而自我設定的，當在中國的生產成本增加的時候，就可以轉移，因為還有其他可替代的選擇。
台灣的友人也擔心，中國國民黨的強大支持者利用台灣的寬宏民主成為一種對反對黨的報復行動。前總統陳水扁被發現犯了貪污罪而他的行為讓民進黨士氣低落並感到挫折。但由於普遍存在的金錢政治和過去國民黨聲譽的腐敗，將陳水扁判處終身監禁是極端偏激的。現在，已經有消息指出，以反貪腐之名，對陳水扁政府成員的獵巫行動已經展開。對一些人來說，這意味著泛統派藉著妖魔化陳水扁來討好北京，而阿扁是支持台灣獨立的，並因為打破國民黨的威權而受苦。
以上所說的這些都對台灣與其主要支持者 – 美國 –
之間的關係沒有幫助。陳水扁藉由不必要的激怒北京而在家鄉台灣獲取政治利益，這使台灣的天生盟友布希（美國前總統）感到不快。而現在，國民黨卻已走向了另一個極端。台灣在軍購議題上已經拖了太久而使華盛頓方面感到失望。而現在台灣更讓人感到，它不願意在保有它所宣稱的自由和獨立之下付出經濟代價。馬總統在國外仍然得到應有的尊重，但他在國內對國民黨的掌控力卻令人懷疑。台灣對於如何看待它自己，如何在保有自身的自由民主和實質獨立下平衡台中美三邊關係以及全球經濟佈局，仍然缺乏策略。
～～～original article～～～
Taiwan and China
By PHILIP BOWRING
Published: October 6, 2009
HONG KONG — Taiwan’s position as a de facto independent state seems to
be morphing very slowly toward the “one country, two systems” status
of Hong Kong. The process is not irreversible but the sentiments of
those of mainland origin in the governing Nationalist Party, along
with the self-interest of business groups and a widespread sense of
economic vulnerability are all pushing the island toward accommodation
with Beijing.
The trend could mean an erosion in the support Taiwan gets, albeit
erratically, from the United States and Japan.
The most striking evidence of a desire to please Beijing — at the
expense of the liberal values which have gained Taiwan much praise in
recent years — was the denial of entry to the exiled Uighur leader
Rebiya Kadeer. This was done in the name of “national interest,”
apparently linked to the finalization, expected soon, of a memorandum
of understanding on cross-strait financial links.
For sure, the memorandum would be a major advance, enabling banks in
particular to escape the confines of Taiwan, with its low growth and
surplus savings, for the fast-growing mainland. And it would bring
more mainland capital to local stocks and property. But the government
of President Ma Ying-jeou may have forgotten that Taiwan’s national
interest as an independent state, albeit one that may one day merge
with the mainland, sometimes requires sacrifices. The degree of
autonomy that Rebiya Kadeer has been seeking for Uighurs is a fraction
of that enjoyed by Taiwan or even Hong Kong.
There is real benefit in increasing cross-straits financial links.
Banks have much to gain by being able to service clients in Taiwan
with business on the mainland. Cross-straits links may attract service
industries to Taiwan that would otherwise go to Hong Kong. Mainland
tourism is also an unqualified plus.
But Taiwan seems to be talking itself into believing that it is even
more dependent on the mainland than need be the case. The island would
be a more attractive place for foreign business if it removed the many
restrictions that exist to protect local businesses, or stem simply
from bureaucracy and outdated rules. Tax issues also tend to keep
business offshore while not preventing a huge outflow of capital. The
Ma government has made progress on these issues, but they get scant
attention compared to cross-straits ones.
It is easy to blame a lackluster economy on being unable to take full
advantage of the mainland. But in reality, Taiwan is a mature economy
with minimal growth in its work force. Like Japan, its problems lie
with an inefficient domestic services sector, not with an inventive
export-manufacturing one.
Dependence on China is often overstated. While 40 percent of Taiwan’s
exports go there, more than half are components for globally traded
items like laptops and cellphones made by Taiwanese companies and then
re-exported from China. The dependence is self-imposed for profit
reasons, which may be shifting as mainland costs rise. There are
alternatives.
Worrying too for friends of Taiwan’s liberal democracy is the
vengeance being meted out to the opposition by powerful supporters of
the governing Nationalist Party, or KMT. Former president Chen
Shui-bian was found guilty of corruption and his conduct has left the
opposition Democratic Progressive Party demoralized and frustrated.
But given the pervasiveness of money politics and the past reputation
of the Nationalists for corruption, the life sentence for Chen is
extreme. Now, in the name of fighting corruption, there is talk of a
witch-hunt against other members of the Chen administration. To some
this smacks of an attempt by pro-unification elements to please
Beijing by demonizing Chen, who supported independence and who
suffered much in the cause of breaking the KMT’s authoritarian hold on
power.
None of this is likely to help Taiwan’s relations with its main
supporter, the United States. Chen upset a natural ally in George W.
Bush by needlessly provoking Beijing in an attempt to score political
points at home. Now the KMT seems to have gone to the other extreme.
Taiwan has long disappointed Washington with unwillingness to spend
money on arms. Now it may sense a lack of willingness to pay an
economic price for the principles of independence and liberalism it
claims to stand for. President Ma remains well-regarded abroad, but
his grip on the KMT is uncertain. Taiwan lacks a strategic view of
itself and how to balance relations with the Chinese mainland, the
United States and the global economy with liberal democracy and de
facto independence.