Tokyo Film Festival Confrontation:
Opening Fire is Easy, Making Peace is Hard
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 26, 2010

A minor incident can sometimes lead to a major disaster. One individual's rash conduct can sometimes lead to a policy impasse. Against enormous odds, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have finally managed to moderate cross-Strait hostility, and promote reconciliation and cooperation. Who knew the Tokyo Film Festival would become the occasion for a confrontation over name change, and undermine the improved political atmosphere? This shows us just how difficult the road to reconciliation is, and how fragile the fruits of reconciliation are. If Beijing is sincere about improving cross-Strait relations, it must demonstrate its sincerity by taking concrete action.

The Tokyo Film Festival incident was apparently the handiwork of Mainland delegation leader Jiang Ping as an individual. The Tokyo Film Festival is a non-governmental activity. Movie industry exchanges have nothing to do with politics. In the past, Taipei has always used the name "Taiwan" when participating in the Tokyo Film Festival. This usage never elicited any controversy. This time however, Jiang Ping suddenly demanded that the Taipei delegation's name be changed to "China, Taiwan," or "Chinese Taipei," in accordance with Olympic Committee rules. Frank Chen, leader of the Taipei delegation, flatly refused. To everyone's surprise, Jiang Ping began shouting and pointing at him in the crowded lobby of a five-star hotel. He even threatened him, saying "Do you still want to sell your films to [Mainland] China?" His rude speech and behavior disgusted not just the public on Taiwan, but the entire world.

Frank Chen was baffled. The two sides had just signed ECFA. Exchanges had become more and more frequent. What prompted the Mainland delegate to behave that way? The two sides have expended immense time and energy, and overcome countless obstacles, creating an environment conducive to reconciliation. They are now awaiting the opportunity to follow-up and actively promote cooperation. But suddenly, this atmosphere has been spoiled by a single individual, posturing as a hero. Jiang Ping's imperious manner and crude language were broadcast on television for all to see. Against all odds, by means of a "diplomatic truce," the two sides reached a reconciliation longed for by the international community. Suddenly that reconciliation has been shattered, casting doubt on the Mainland's sincerity. This situation is hardly what the Beijing authorities want to see.

Specifically, the dispute over names prevented Taiwan stars such as Vivian Hsu, Ethan Juan, and Chang Chun-ning from appearing on the green carpet. Vivian Hsu was reduced to tears. The treatment these stars were subjected to will have an impact, particularly on younger generation people on Taiwan. Young people seldom care when government officials engage in one-upsmanship across the Strait. But when their idols are bullied, young people may lash back at Mainland China.

The two sides have been in conflict for such a long time. Everyone looks to the fading away of historical grievances. That would allow the younger generation to inhabit a peaceful and friendly environment, to understand each other, and to develop feelings for each other. Now however, a single act of self-righteous behavior has sown seeds of enmity in the hearts of countless young people. It has canceled out the goodwill cultivated over many years by others. The cost is inestimable, both in intellectual perception and in hurt feelings. For cross-Strait relations, this was absolutely unnecessary. It was a lose/lose proposition.

From Jiang Ping's perspective, he may feel justified. He may even believe he did nothing wrong. The expression, "There is only one China in the world. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China." is the most politically correct mantra one can recite anywhere on the Mainland. Even now, no government agency has dared to say Jiang did anything wrong. This clearly underscores the gap in Beijing's Taiwan policy. This gap is a problem the Mainland must confront and deal with.

Those who understand Mainland politics know that Beijing's basic policy toward Taipei has not changed that much. It is merely Beijing's tactics and methods that have changed. For example, Beijing no longer attempts to lure away our diplomatic allies. It allows Taipei to enjoy observer status in the WHO. It does not object to Taipei signing free trade agreements with other governments. But at the moment these practices are applied differently within and without, and also differently between different agencies. Taipei-related agencies are more flexible. . Their attitude is relatively friendly. Other agencies still adhere to their previous rigid stance.

There are two aspects to the problem. First, complex and delicate cross-strait issues. A single word can often convey very different meanings and attitudes. Taipei-related agencies have a better understanding of the nuances. They know how to speak in language Taipei understands. But other departments may not understand these niceties. Naturally they fall back on long held dogma.

This, in turn, involves a second gap. Many leaders in Beijing have expressed goodwill towards Taipei. They have made substantial adjustments in their strategy towards Taipei. But just what changes in policy do these adjustments imply? Decision makers at the central government level have yet to communicate these changes to their subordinates. Furthermore, information is controlled on the Mainland. Even though its Taipei strategy has changed, it will not be the focus of news reports. The result will be that other agencies have no understanding of these changes. Nor does the rest of Mainland society.

This gap will make the public on Taiwan wonder whether Beijing's goodwill is genuine or false. Taipei-related departments are friendly toward Taipei. But the rest of the Beijing government has yet to be updated on its policy toward Taipei. The failure of Beijing leaders to deal with this gap implies that the policy has not really changed.

The development of cross-Strait relations should be considered from the perspective of the public. What kind of future is beneficial or detrimental to the public on both sides, as well as mankind? What kind of responsibilities do those in power bear? These issues all deserve careful consideration.

東京影展「暴衝」 交火容易和解難

2010-10-26 中國時報

一個小意外，有時會造成大災難；一個人的「暴衝」，有時可以讓政策撞牆。兩岸好不容易緩和敵對態勢，推動和解合作，卻因為東京影展爆發改名之爭，而讓氣氛大受影響。這說明和解之路多麼困難，和解成果又多麼脆弱。北京如果對推動兩岸友好關係有誠意，就必須展現出更具體的行動。

這次的東京影展事件，看來是大陸代表團團長江平個人的「暴衝」所致。東京影展是個民間活動，電影交流也無關政治，台灣過去參加東京影展，也向來用台灣名義，沒發生過什麼爭議。這次江平卻突然要求台灣代表團的名稱改為「中國台灣」，或比照奧會模式改為「中華台北」。台灣代表團團長陳志寬堅決拒絕，江平竟在五星級飯店人來人往的大廳裡，指著陳志寬叫罵，還威脅說「你們的電影不想賣到中國了嗎？」這種粗魯蠻橫的言行，不要說台灣民眾看了反感，更是貽笑國際。

就像陳志寬質疑的，兩岸剛簽完ＥＣＦＡ，交流越來越頻繁，中國代表團為什麼還要這樣？的確，兩岸花了許多心力時間，克服了不少障礙，才經營出一個有利於和解交流的環境，正待後續積極推動各項合作時，氣氛卻一下子就被一個自己搞暴衝當英雄的人搞砸了。江平跋扈的嘴臉、粗暴的言語，全都透過電視傳達出來，讓之前兩岸透過「外交休兵」政策好不容易達成的國際社會和解態勢，瞬間跌碎在地，也讓台灣民眾對大陸的誠意重新打上問號，這種狀況，豈是北京當局所樂見的？

尤其值得重視的是，因為名稱之爭，台灣明星如徐若瑄、阮經天、張鈞甯等，最後都不能走星光大道的綠地毯，徐若瑄甚至失望落淚。這些明星所受到的打壓，對台灣的年輕世代尤其會產生影響。兩岸政治人物高來高去的交鋒，年輕人通常懶得搭理，但受崇拜的偶像被欺負，年輕人可是會對中國強烈反彈的。

兩岸的結打了這麼久，大家寄望歷史恩怨能隨著歲月淡去，讓年輕世代有一個和平友好的環境，去理解彼此、建立感情，結果一個人自以為是的暴衝行為，在無數年輕人心中種下了惡感，抵消掉之前澆灌耕耘的善意。其代價，難以估計，既傷觀感又傷感情。對兩岸關係來說，這是完全沒必要、也沒有價值的耗損。

站在江平的立場，可能至今還振振有詞，完全不認為自己哪裡做錯了。而「世界上只有一個中國，台灣是中國不可分割的一部分」，在中國不管走到哪裡都是最政治正確的真理。即使到了現在，大陸也沒有哪個單位敢說他有什麼地方做得不對，這就清楚凸顯出了北京對台政策的落差，而這個落差，是中國必須正視並處理的問題。

了解大陸政情的人都知道，北京對台的基本政策並沒有太大改變，但是策略和做法上有所調整，例如不搶邦交國、容許台灣以觀察員身分出席世衛組織大會、不反對台灣與他國簽署自貿協定等。不過目前這些做法不只內外有別，各部門之間也有不同。涉台機構、對台灣說話時，用語比較彈性、態度比較和善，其他機構卻仍然依循一貫的強硬僵化立場。

問題有兩個層面，一是兩岸問題複雜微妙，一字之差，意涵與姿態都可以有相當不同。涉台部門比較理解其中的拿捏技巧，懂得使用台灣比較聽得入耳的言詞，但其他部門不太懂其中三昧，當然會照搬長年教條來表態。

這又牽涉到第二個落差了。北京領導人雖然多次對台灣做出善意的表達，對台策略做了相當調整，但這些做法上的調整，究竟在政策上意味著什麼變化，中央決策高層顯然並沒有全面的傳達出去。加上大陸資訊封閉，即使對台策略有調整，也不會成為報導重點，以致於其他部門毫無掌握，整個中國社會也欠缺理解。

這種落差會讓台灣民眾質疑，中國的善意究竟是真是假。如果比較友善的臉孔只有涉台部門在面對台灣時才戴上，而整個中國對政策的理解與執行都沒有得到訊息更新，北京領導當局放任這個落差存在而不去處理，恐怕意味著政策並沒有真正的改變。

兩岸關係的發展，要回歸到從人的角度去思考。什麼樣的未來是對兩岸乃至人類社會有益，什麼又是不利，而擁有執政權的人又肩負什麼責任，值得慎重思考。