《經濟學人》罕見狠批扁：怪誕淒涼

* 2009-10-24

* 【中評社／黃曉南編譯報導】

陳水扁為求脫身，以“台灣仍受美國管轄”為由控告美政府，引起國際笑聲一片，令台灣人尷尬不堪。

最新一期《經濟學人》以《台灣良心遺留在舊金山？》為題刊文，評論陳水扁此一行徑。該刊在政治上屬自由派，以略帶幽默的筆法針砭國際政治事務，對藍、綠陣營向來無所偏頗，但一直都認同台灣的美式民主成就，因此評論兩陣營政治人物時，都會留有情面，不致太過刻薄。

但這篇文章對扁卻是一面倒的批評和嘲諷、無半句好話，也沒有平衡觀點（balance of view）的論述，實在十分罕見。或許在西方主流媒體眼中，陳水扁已喪失了所有的尊嚴，完全淪為一個滑稽人物。

該文說，因貪污而被判終身監判、現正上訴的台灣前總統陳水扁，現在又面臨一項新的指控－－足以被判死刑的“叛國”（treason）罪。這個極其怪誕（bizarre）的罪名，源於陳水扁自己一個同樣怪誕的說法。他聲稱，在八年總統任期里，他的真正身份其實是美國政府的代理人。

陳水扁這個怪異的論述，是受到一小撮（a tiny band）邊緣獨派人士的啟發，這班人現在自稱為“福爾摩沙法理建國會”。他們認為，在1951年簽署的《舊金山和約》，“並未將台灣的主權歸還給中華人民共和國或中華民國”，因此“美國一直是台灣的主權政府，正如波多黎各現仍屬美國領地”。

今年9月，陳水扁大力聲援這個組織，並且“爆料”說，他在擔任總統期間，不時收到並執行來自“美國在台軍事政府”的“命令”。被台灣法庭以貪污罪判處終身監禁後，他又向美國軍事法庭提訴，要求美國以“主權政府”身分，介入他的貪污案。

儘管陳水扁信誓旦旦，聲稱他上述的怪誕行徑，是為了所謂“讓台灣脫離中國”，但分析人士都認為，他只是為了“讓自己脫離牢獄”。

針對今次事件，台灣兩大陣營有不同的反應。國民黨視之為進一步打擊陳水扁的良機，舉行記者會指斥他是“山姆大叔的龜兒子” （bastard son of Uncle Sam）。相反，陳水扁曾經擔任主席的民進黨，就顯得非常尷尬，一方面，他們堅決不認同“美屬論”，另一方面，又怕會觸怒黨內的深綠派，而不敢向扁猛烈開火。

文章最後說，就算“叛國罪”未必會成真，陳水扁的處境已經夠淒涼（grim）。本月較早前，司法院大法官會議認為，扁案一審時曾更換法官，當中並無構成違憲；同時，他又面臨新的“侵吞外交公款”指控。另一方面，他在美國法院挑戰美國政府的行動，同樣遭遇屢戰屢敗。但很多人都相信，他仍然會屢敗屢戰。

==============
Taiwan's jailed former president
Looking for a loophole

Oct 22nd 2009 | TAIPEI

Did Taiwan leave its heart in San Francisco?

(From The Economist print edition)

BANGED up for life for corruption, a sentence against which he is appealing, Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan’s president in 2000-08, faces a new investigation. This time he is up for treason, a crime that can carry the death penalty. The bizarre charge springs from his own bizarre claim: that, during his tenure, he was an American agent.

The thinking derives from a tiny band of fringe independence activists, now calling itself the Formosa Nation Legal Strategy Association. It argues that the San Francisco peace treaty, signed in 1951 to end the second world war, did not award sovereignty over Taiwan to either Communist China or the Republic of China, over which the remnants of China’s Nationalist party, the Kuomintang (KMT), still claimed to rule. The association insists the treaty overrides all subsequent agreements, and Taiwan is still the territory of Japan’s conqueror, the United States, its status comparable to that of Puerto Rico. Demanding American passport rights, the association’s precursor in 2006 sued America for failing to be a military occupier. After a Washington district court threw the case out, it went to the court of appeals, which in April ruled in favour of the American government. The association then set its sights on America’s Supreme Court.

Mr Chen weighed in to back the association, claiming that, as president, he took orders from the Americans. After his sentencing in September he sued for his freedom in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, proclaiming his innocence and arguing that America should intervene, as Taiwan was technically under its occupation.

Mr Chen said he did this to clarify that Taiwan was separate from China. But local analysts said he desperately hoped to get out of jail. The former president announced that circumstances had forced him to reveal “the existence of the United States Military Government for Taiwan”. But the American appeals court declined the case in early October. The Supreme Court has also refused to consider the association’s case.

The ruling KMT has made hay over Mr Chen’s outlandish claims, calling him “the bastard son of Uncle Sam”. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party, which Mr Chen used to lead, is embarrassed. It adamantly does not want Taiwan ruled by either China or America. But it is hard for it to turn on Mr Chen without alienating its own hardliners.

Even without his “treason”, the outlook for Mr Chen looks grim. A court interpretation this month rejected the claim that a controversial switch of judges in his corruption case in December was unconstitutional. Last month Mr Chen received another indictment, over the alleged pocketing of money meant for foreign affairs. So far he is faring no better in America’s courts. But Jonathan Levy, his lawyer, says he is allowed to try again. Many think he will.