Boao Forum: Why Put on an Act?

Boao Forum: Why Put on an Act?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 2, 2012

Summary: If cross-Strait relations really do not entail "you annexing me or me annexing you," why must we persist in this practice of mutual repudiation? The Boao Forum acknowledges that Fredrick Chien was former GIO Chief and CEPD committee member. This is a small step in the right direction. The leaders of the two governments, "Mr. Ma" and "Mr. Xi," ought to have the guts to take a giant leap in the right direction. If we do not refer to things by their proper name, our words will not reflect reality. If our words do not reflect reality, what needs to be done will not be done.

Full Text below:

Why put on an act? Why not face reality? Why not not seek truth from facts?

Yesterday morning the Wu/Li Meeting convened. The meeting was important because Wu Den-yih will become Republic of China Vice President in May, and Li Keqiang will become Premier of the People's Republic of China in the fall. Both men occupy important positions within in their respective governments. Yet when the meeting convened they addressed each other as "Mr." This greatly undercut the significance of the meeting.

During the 2008 Boao Forum, Vice President-elect Vincent Siew was already a member of the Boao Forum. But upon being elected, he immediately applied for membership yet again. The Beijing authorities immediately approved his application. This led to the Siew/Hu Meeting, and to the two leaders' "16 word proclamations." This intriguing cross-Strait interaction paved the way for the new breakthroughs in 2008. It laid the foundation for the next four years of "peaceful development".

Now take the current Boao Forum for Asia. Wu Den-yih is also participating as Vice President-elect. This shows that the two sides are still communicating with each other at the same level. But it also shows that the novelty has worn off. Wu Den-yih proposed a "new 16 word proclamation." Li Keqiang told an interviewer, "Ah, also 16 words!" He went through the motions. The symbolic significance was greater than the actual significance.

Every milestone in cross-Strait relations holds out the promise of new cross-Strait heights. The clearest symbolf of this is the way the two sides address each other. When Wu and Li meet, Wu could address Li as Vice Premier Li. Wu currently holds no public office. Therefore Li addressed him as "Mr. Wu." But if Li had congratulated Wu on being elected Vice President, the atmosphere would have been very different. Given the current atmosphere, everyone assumes this is impossible. But it is not impossible. Here is why.

Take Wu Den-yih. After the Ma administration took office in 2008. Wu visited the Mainland, as KMT Secretary-General. He addressed Hu Jintao as General Secretary. Hu Jintao clarified, saying he was "Secretary-General." Later, however, once Wu Den-yih became Premier, he could no longer visit the Mainland. Now he has been elected Vice President. He has resigned his position as Premier. He is attending the Boao Forum as Vice President-elect. Li addressed him as "Mr. Wu." Wu did not address Li as "Vice Premier" either. Had Wu addressed Li as "Political Bureau Standing Committee Member," it would have been even more awkward. All Wu could do is address Li as "Mr. Li." Of course when Wu becomes Vice President, he will no longer be able to visit the Mainland.

Amidst these cross-Strait exchanges, the same Wu Den-yih is treated differently, depending upon his elective position or party position. This has its own logic. Beijing acknowledged that Wu Den-yih was the Secretary-General of the ruling party of the Republic of China. But Beijing did not acknowledge that he was the Premier of the Republic of China. It did not acknowledge that he was the Vice President-elect of the Republic of China. Isn't this self-delusion?

In fact, the Secretariat of the Boao Forum appears to have a new frame of reference for the government of the Republic of China. Its manual describes former delegation leader Fredrick Chien as "Taiwan region Government Information Office Chief, CEPD committee member, and the head of both elective and monitoring bodies." As we can see, the Boao Forum authorities have already acknowledged such titles as "Government Information Office Chief" and "CEPD committee member." Beijing once referred to him as the "head of the CEPD." But Beijing deliberately omitted Chien Fu's experience as former Minister of Foreign Affairs. They did not refer to him as Speaker of the National Assembly, They referred to him instead as the "head of an elective body." They did not refer to him as the President of the Control Yuan. They referred to him instead as the "head of a monitoring body." When they introduced Chiu Cheng-hsiung, they referred to him as "the head of the Ma Ying-jeou authorities' administrative agency." They did not refer to him as the "Vice Premier."

And so it goes. This is considered taboo. That is considered taboo. Beijing has already acknowledged that Chien was Government Information Office Chief, and a CEPD committee member. Why deny that he was Minister of Foreign Affairs? Why not accept that he was Vice Premier, National Assembly Speaker, and Control Yuan President? Don't these titles come from the same Republic of China political framework? This reminds one of the scare quotes the Mainland media persists in adding to "legislators" from the ROC. Adding the scare quotes may express a disparaging attitude. But it does not change the facts.

Things should be referred to by their proper name. The two sides have many problems with names. This reflects the many obstacles and blind spots in the framework for cross-Strait interaction. For example, the Wu/Hu Summit ten days ago made clear reference to "the two sides' existing constitutions." But this was demoted to the level of "the two sides' existing provisions." Li Keqiang knows perfectly well that Wu Den-yih is the Republic of China's Vice President-elect. But he refrains from offering him congratulations or best wishes. Nor does Wu refer to Li as "Vice Premier." In order to repudiate the ROC Constitution, Beijing is forced to repudiate its own constitution. Because its own vice president-elect has been repudiated, Taipei is forced to repudiate the PRC Vice Premier. At best this is putting on an act. At worst this is is self-delusion. The fact is government officials on both sides long ceased using middlemen. They have personally participated in cross-Strait wrangling at the negotiating table.

If cross-Strait relations really do not entail "you annexing me or me annexing you," why must we persist in this practice of mutual repudiation? The Boao Forum acknowledges that Fredrick Chien was former GIO Chief and CEPD committee member. This is a small step in the right direction. The leaders of the two governments, "Mr. Ma" and "Mr. Xi," ought to have the guts to take a giant leap in the right direction.

If we do not refer to things by their proper name, our words will not reflect reality. If our words do not reflect reality, what needs to be done will not be done.

博鰲，為何還要如此裝模作樣？
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.04.02


為什麼還要如此裝模作樣？為什麼不能正視現實，實事求是？

昨日上午登場的「吳李會」，最重要的意義是在吳敦義為將在五月上任的中華民國候任副總統，李克強則為將在今秋上任的中華人民共和國候任國務院總理；雙方正因在各自體制上的此種重要地位而有此會，但二人開場白的一句互稱「先生」，卻使這場會面的意趣大減。

二○○八年的博鰲論壇，由於當時剛當選副總統的蕭萬長原本已是博鰲論壇的會員，在當選後立即報名參加，北京當局亦馬上同意，促成了「蕭胡會」，並各自宣示了「十六字箴言」；這一記兩岸之間的妙傳妙接，揭開了二○○八新機運的序幕，奠定了此後四年「和平發展」的基礎。

這次的博鰲會，吳敦義也是以候任副總統的角色與會，雖可顯示兩岸的交往模式仍然維持在此一層次，但畢竟已無開例首創的新鮮感；連吳敦義提出「新十六字箴言」，李克強也說：「啊，也是十六個字啊！」會面過程，行禮如儀，頗有「象徵意義大於實質意義」的味道。

其實，兩岸在每一個交往的里程碑上，皆有使雙方關係更上層樓的可能性；相互稱謂，即是一個最佳表徵。倘若吳李見面，吳能稱李為副總理；而由於吳目前未具公職，則李雖不妨稱「吳先生」，但若能對其當選副總統當面表達申賀與祝福，那必是不同的氣象。依現今的兩岸氛圍而言，眾人都會說這不可能。但不可能歸不可能，其中的道理卻可一論。

以吳敦義為例，在二○○八年馬政府執政後，曾以國民黨秘書長身分赴大陸訪問，他稱胡錦濤「總書記」，胡錦濤稱他「秘書長」；然而，後來吳敦義當了行政院院長，就再也去不成大陸了；現在，他當選副總統，卸去了行政院長職，在候任期間赴博鰲與會，李稱他「吳先生」，他也不便稱李「副總理」，若稱「政治局常務委員」那就更彆扭了，所以只好也稱「李先生」。當然，待吳出任副總統後，又去不成大陸了。

在兩岸交往中，同是一個吳敦義，在黨職或政職有不同處遇，這雖在體制邏輯上有其理路；但承認吳敦義為中華民國執政黨的秘書長，卻不承認他是中華民國行政院長或中華民國副總統，這寧非自欺欺人？

其實，此次博鰲論壇秘書處對中華民國的政府官銜，似有新的表述架構。例如，大會手冊對團長錢復的簡歷介紹是：「先後擔任台灣地區新聞局長、經建會主委、民意機構及監察機構負責人。」此處可見，大會當局已直接接受「新聞局長」及「經建會主委」的職銜（過去須稱「經建機構負責人」），卻又故意略去錢復曾任外交部長的重要經歷；且不稱國民大會議長，而稱「民意機構負責人」，又不稱「監察院長」，而稱「監察機構負責人」。另在介紹邱正雄時，稱他「馬英九當局的行政機構負責人」，而不稱「行政院副院長」。

如此這般，把紅線畫來畫去；既接受了新聞局長、經建會主委，為何要塗掉外交部長？又何以不接受行政院副院長、國民大會議長、監察院長？難道這些職銜不是出自同一個中華民國體制？正如大陸媒體迄今仍要在台灣的「立法委員」上加個引號，但加了這個引號只是表達了否定的態度，卻不可能否定事實。

必也正名乎，兩岸相對的名稱問題，反映了兩岸整個互動架構的巨大障礙與盲點。例如，十天前的「吳胡會」，明明是指「雙方現行憲法」，卻矮稱為「雙方現行規定」；如今，李克強明知吳敦義是候任副總統，卻未表示祝賀與祝福，吳亦不稱李為「副總理」。這種為了要否定對方（的憲法），所以也自我否認（自己的憲法）；或不被對方承認（為候任副總統），所以也不承認對方（為副總理）的異象，說得輕些是裝模作樣，說得重些則根本是自欺欺人。現今的事實是：雙方政府官員早已脫掉白手套，親身參與兩岸談判桌上的折衝樽俎。

如果兩岸關係真的不是「你吃掉我或我吃掉你」，為何非要採這種相互否定的作法；博鰲論壇能接受錢復曾任新聞局長、經建會主委，也算是跨出了極小的一步，兩岸下屆新政府的「馬先生」、「習先生」應有膽識向前再邁一大步！

因為，名不正，言不順，則事不成。