Diplomatic Truce: Taking the Long View

Diplomatic Truce: Taking the Long View
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 12, 2009

The most important policy change the Ma administration made since taking office, was to transform cross-Strait confrontation into reconciliation and communication. The resulting "diplomatic truce" has been the most palpable change in the eyes of the international community. The diplomatic truce merits heartfelt affirmation.

Taipei's past diplomatic plight was not the result of anything it did wrong. It was the result of pressure from Beijing. Today, the two sides are moving towards reconciliation. The two sides have reached a tacit understanding. They will not attempt to undermine others' relations with their diplomatic allies. Over the past year the number of diplomatic allies on each side has remained constant. Several of our diplomatic allies in Central America repeatedly threatened to defect to Beijing, only to discover that Beijing was giving them the cold shoulder, and that Taipei was no longer willing to tolerate political extortion. These allies were forced to re-examine their way of relating to Taipei.

This bilateral diplomatic truce has given Taipei a badly needed respite. Suppose there had been no diplomatic truce, and Beijing had maintained its strategy of obstruction. The financial tsunami has greatly increased Beijing's international influence. Taipei has only 20 or so diplomatic allies. One can only imagine how many it would have lost. Externally and internally, the pressure on Taipei would be even greater than it is today.

In this respect, Beijing has indeed manifested goodwill. It didn't merely pass up an opportunity to steal Taipei's pitifully few diplomatic allies. It even allowed Taipei to participate in the World Health Assembly as an observer. Former ROC Vice President Lien Chan also represented President Ma Ying-jeou when he attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting (APEC) leaders summit. Meanwhile, Taipei is choosing its battles. It is no longer seeking direct readmission to the United Nations. Instead it is seeking participation in the International Climate Change Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and other organizations affiliated with the United Nations.

Of course, some people will criticize these gains as charity, and attribut to Beijing ulterior motives. If Taipei lowers its guard, and Beijing experiences a change of heart, then Taipei's situation could be even more perilous. These concerns have some basis. They also reflect doubts and fears at the grass roots level. The two sides' fundamental interests are still sharply at odds. Under threat from thousands of ballistic missiles, the public on Taiwan cannot be expected to lower its guard on such short order. But the two sides have created a new window of opportunity, and must boldly seize the initiative.

A diplomatic truce is superficially akin to the cease-fire during the bombardment of Kinmen. The two sides no longer undermine each others' diplomatic allies by making out larger and larger checks. But at an even deeper level, it has liberated the two sides from an endless and meaningless cycle of diplomatic battles. It has provided the two sides with an opportunity to create a different world, to gradually establish a new and mutually beneficial means of interaction.

Disputes are never resolved by arguing or fighting. Only through mutual consideration, understanding, tolerance, and the seeking of common ground can one establish long-term friendships. Only then can one truly eliminate over half a century of confrontation. Military force can only result in lasting enmity. Military intimidation can only make the public on Taiwan suspect Beijing's expressions of goodwill. Diplomatic obstructionism can only humiliate the public on Taiwan and generate lasting resentment. In every one of these areas, Beijing might appear to be the winner. But it would merely sacrifice a better future. Would it really behoove Beijing to act in such a manner? Beijing has a choice. All it needs is greater courage and imagination. All it needs is greater concern for the future of our children, the progress of our nation, and a greater sense of mission.

Beijing has definitely implemented a diplomatic truce." Unfortunately, some measures may not yet be fully in place. During international film festivals or book fairs Taipei has still been forced to change its signs. For example, at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair, the Taiwan exhibit must be renamed "Publishers from Taiwan."

This is truly incomprehensible. The ROC Director of Health is allowed to attend WHA and make politically sensitive speeches. But at a purely private sector book fair, the ROC remains subject to suppression. Beijing must understand that suppressing the ROC in civil sector, non-political international activities such as sports and culture will merely humiliate the public on Taiwan, and make them feel Beijing has gone too far.

The ROC has a democratic society. No one can force a democratic society to take orders. Because the concept of sovereignty is deeply rooted in people's minds. The direction of the nation must be decided by the people. A head of state does not have the final say. Nor can a nation be sold out by a single individual. Because without a public mandate, leaders have no power whatsoever. Here is where they differ from authoritarian systems.

Therefore if Beijing wishes to continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation, and gradually transforming bilateral hostility into friendship, it must demonstrate its goodwill through more concrete actions. Taipei must also take advantage of this rare opportunity to promote cultural exchanges, laying a solid foundation for its return to the international community. The respite will allow us to continue our advance. The truce will allow us to use our energy to perform other, more important work.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.11.12
休兵，是為了走更長遠的路
本報訊

馬政府上任以來，最重要的政策變化，在於將兩岸關係從激烈對抗轉向為和解交流，而「外交休兵」是國際社會最能明顯感受到的改變。「外交休兵」實踐至今，成果值得肯定。

台灣過去外交陷入困境，不在於自己本身有什麼問題，而是因為中共的打壓封殺。如今在兩岸走向和解下，雙方達成互不挖邦交牆腳的默契，一年多來，邦交國數目維持不變，幾個曾一再揚言要倒向北京的中美洲邦交國，發現中共不理不睬，台灣也不再接受政治勒索，必須重新檢視和台灣的交往模式。

這是兩岸外交停火後台灣難得的休養生息空間。如果沒有「外交休兵」，如果中共繼續原有的封鎖策略，加上金融海嘯讓中國的國際影響力更加增強，可以想見，台灣區區廿出頭的邦交國難免還要再掉幾個。內外交困，台灣遭受的衝擊與壓力將遠遠甚於現在。

在這方面，北京確實表達了善意，不只是暫時放過台灣少得可憐的邦交國，也讓台灣以觀察員身分參與世界衛生大會，我國前副總統連戰更代表馬英九總統出席亞太經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）領袖峰會。相對的，台灣轉移戰場，不再直接要求重返聯合國，而是轉向尋求參與國際氣候變化公約與民航組織等聯合國周邊組織活動。

當然，有人批評這些收穫全靠中共施捨，而對方居心叵測，台灣如果因此鬆懈，一旦對岸翻臉，台灣的處境將更加危險。這些話有其道理，也反映不少基層民眾的疑懼，因為兩岸的基本國家利益仍有相當的矛盾衝突，在上千枚飛彈的威脅下，台灣民眾不可能在短時間的示好拉攏後就放下心防。但兩岸既已為自己創造了一個新的機會之窗，就必須勇敢抓住機會。

「外交休兵」在表面上看來，彷彿金門炮戰的停火，雙方不挖邦交國不猛開支票，但更深層的功能，是把雙方從無休止、也無意義的惡鬥中釋放出來，讓雙方有機會創造一個不同的世界，逐漸建立一個新的、對雙方人民都有利的文明互動模式。

沒有爭執能靠吵架或打架解決，只有相互關懷、理解包容，在長期的求同存異建立情誼之後，才能真正消弭兩岸超過半世紀的對立。用武力壓制，只會鑄下血海深仇；用軍事恫嚇，只會讓台灣人民無法信任中共的善意；用外交封殺，只會讓台灣人民在羞辱下憤恨難消。凡此種種，表面上看來中共似乎是贏家，但其實是在替自己輸掉一個更好的未來。而究竟是不是非這樣不可，是可以選擇的，只要更有勇氣與想像力，只要對子孫未來與國家發展有更多、更真誠的使命感。

截至目前為止，中共方面的確在許多外交領域實踐了「外交休兵」，可惜的是，有些命令可能沒有到位，以至於仍然出現國際影展或書展強迫台灣改名的事件，例如今年的法蘭克福書展中，台灣參展單位便被改名為「台灣出版人」。

這實在很難令人理解，當台灣的衛生署長都能出席政治色彩較強世衛大會並發言時，在純民間的影展書展中，台灣竟然依舊遭到打壓。中共必須了解，在民間、非政治的國際活動中打壓台灣，例如體育、文化等等，會讓台灣人民在情感上感到更尖銳的羞辱，更覺得欺人太甚。

台灣是個民主社會，誰也不可能強迫一個民主社會接受指揮，因為主權在民的觀念早已深植人心。而國家的走向必須由全民決定，不是元首一個人說了算，也不會被一個人就出賣掉，因為沒有了民意的授權，領袖什麼權力都沒有，這點和威權體制完全不同。

因此，北京如果想繼續推動兩岸和解，讓雙方能逐漸化敵為友，就必須在「外交休兵」上以更多具體的行動展現真正的善意。而台灣也應該掌握這難得的機會，積極推動與國際社會的實質交流，為重返國際打下堅實的基礎。休息是為了走更遠的路，休兵，則是為了把精力用來做其他更重要的工作。