Cross-Strait Exchanges: Take Off the White Gloves

Cross-Strait Exchanges: Take Off the White Gloves
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 16 2012

Summary: This is a critical moment. Both sides must act. They must begin by setting up cultural and economic offices. Both sides must consider removing their "white gloves." At the very least, they must replace them with disposable gloves. Both sides must set up cultural and economic offices. They must establish links based on the two sides' existing legal systems. This is an urgent task. We must not squander this precious opportunity.

Full Text below:

Yesterday ARATS chairman Chen Yunlin said, "I hope we can begin talks on the establishment of cultural and economic offices, and establish them within the year." Chen's remarks show that the cultural and economic offices will use the same names as the two cross-Strait committees. They will remain "white gloves," i.e., intermediaries, and the goal will still be to establish them within the year.

Given the progress in cross-Strait relations, we should consider removing the white gloves from the cultural and economic offices. Establishing the cultural and economic offices could be the cross-Strait issue with the most creative potential heading into 2016. It offers the two sides much to ponder and discuss. We must ensure maximum synergy. We need not turn it into a rush job. The establishment of the offices should enable us to break through existing cross-Strait bottlenecks. Otherwise they can be temporarily shelved, rather than be allowed to undermine the entire undertaking.

Her are our recommendations. Beijing is looking into the establishment of cultural and economic offices. It is probably taking its cue from the 18th National Congress Political Report. It read, "Look into cross-Strait political relations under special conditions in which the two sides have yet to be reunified. Make reasonable arrangements." The Ma administration can base its thinking on the amended Constitution of the Republic of China. The preface calls for "thinking about how to respond to the nation's needs prior to reunification." The establishment of the two cultural and economic offices should be consistent with the following four conditions: One. The nation has yet to be reunified. Two. The nation faces special conditions. Three. The two sides of the Strait have a political relationship. Four. The two sides must make reasonable arrangements.

The "Cross-Strait Peace Agreement" could have dealt with this problem. We could have signed a peace agreement to reaffirm the aforementioned four conditions. We could have established offices predicated upon these four conditions. But the peace agreement ran aground. Therefore, we must consider first setting up cultural and economic offices. We must then ensure that the cultural and economic offices are consistent with the four conditions. The agreement to establish cultural and economic offices is a stand-in for a peace agreement.

As we see it, The most reasonable solution is the "big roof concept of China." This is consistent with the four conditions for cross-Strait relations. There is only one China in the world. The Republic of China is democratic China. The People's Republic of China is socialist China. Both are part of China. Both are part of a single China whose sovereignty they share.  Together they comprise one China. The two sides should establish cultural and economic offices under the big roof China concept. The big roof China concept acknowledges the ROC. The ROC recognizes the big roof China concept. It is consistent with the new four conditions for cross-Strait relations.

After years of agitation and conflict, the two sides understand that reunification is no easy matter. Therefore a long process must precede reunification. This process will transform goal-oriented policies into process-oriented policies. This transformation will enable us to extend, improve, and enhance our goals. This transformation will enable us to prolong and slow the process. This transformation is consistent with the common interests of both sides.

We initially hoped the peace agreement could materialize and take effect. But the peace agreement is currently infeasible. Therefore we must consider an alternative, an agreement to establish cultural and economic offices in pursuit of the same goal.

Therefore we must consider removing the white gloves from the cultural and economic offices. Beijing has repeatedly referred to "using the two sides' existing provisions as a point of departure." Beijing is of course referring to the two sides' legal provisions, including their constitutions and laws. This constitutes "seeking common ground regarding one China, while shelving differences regarding the political content." Therefore these arguments should be rendered into text. They should be incorporated into the negotiations over the establishment of cultural and economic offices. They will help define their roles. Take the two sides' existing legal systems as our point of departure. Seek common ground while shelving differences. Acknowledge the special circumstances the two sides find themselves in. Do this, and the two sides' will no longer need white gloves. They can acknowledge that political relations between the two sides is a special case.

In fact cross-Strait exchanges and the status quo make it difficult to distinguish the hand from the glove. Beijing's State Council Taiwan Affairs Office and ARATS are a case of "the same staff, with two different door signs." A future cultural and economic office would be a case of "the same staff, with three different door signs." Why the unnecessary redundancy? Why the self-deception?

Are cross-Strait relations rooted in "the two sides' existing legal systems?" If they are, they should be reflected in the status of the two sides' cultural and economic offices. They should be consistent with the two sides' existing legal systems." This will enable the two sides to cope with cross-Strait relations under "exceptional circumstances." This will enable them to set up cultural and economic offices on both sides.

Even if this cannot be achieved, the same staff, with two or three different door signs, remains a reality. It is clearly laid out in the provisions of the agreement. For example, it clearly states that "Based on the two sides' existing legal systems, authorities on both sides will assume their appropriate roles and participate in the operations of the cultural and economic offices." Terms such as "respective legal systems, " "authorities," and "officials" are contained in the text of the agreement. The hand within the glove is visible. This shows that the two sides respect each others' existing legal systems.

The two sides are at an impasse. Beijing wants Taipei to uphold its "one China constitution." But it refuses to recognize the Republic of China's existing legal system. The ROC's "one China constitution" gets no respect from either side. The political situation on Taiwan is unstable. The two sides know they will not be reunified for some time. Without the "big roof China concept" as a framework for "special cross-Strait political relations" how can the two sides ensure "peaceful development?"

In 2012, the threshold for cross-strait relations was ECFA. The Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party crossed the threshold. Now the Democratic Progressive Party has "unconditionally accepted" it as well. We hope that in 2016, the two sides can sign a cross-Strait agreement based on the two sides' existing legal systems. The agreement would be fully consistent with the four conditions required for the new relationship. We hope the agreement will become a new threshold for cross-Strait relations. We hope the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party can cross it. We hope the DPP can as well.

The issue for 2012 was whether to rescind ECFA. The issue for 2016 is whether to eliminate the two sides' economic and cultural Offices.

This is a critical moment. Both sides must act. They must begin by setting up cultural and economic offices. Both sides must consider removing the white gloves. At the very least, they must replace them with disposable gloves. Both sides must set up cultural and economic offices. They must establish links based on the two sides' existing legal systems. This is an urgent task. We must not squander this precious opportunity.
 
兩岸辦事處應當脫掉白手套
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.16 03:42 am

大陸海協會長陳雲林日前表示，「希望盡快啟動兩會互設辦事機構商談，爭取年內完成互設」；此言顯示，辦事處掛的還是「兩會」的招牌，仍是白手套，時程則希望在年內實現。

我們認為，兩岸關係進展至今日地步，應當通盤考慮未來的辦事處是否應當脫掉白手套；至於時程方面，由於互設辦事處可能是二○一六年前兩岸最具創新潛能的議題，為了使雙方有充裕的思考與討論空間，以產生最大的綜合效應，其實沒有「趕工」的必要。倘若辦事處的設置，不能突破兩岸交流的現有瓶頸，甚至不妨暫時擱置，不要糟蹋了這個題材。

我們的建議是：北京在研榷兩岸辦事處時，應可從十八大政治報告所指「探討尚未統一特殊情況下的兩岸政治關係，作出合情合理的安排」開始發想；而馬政府則可根據憲法增修條文序文所稱「為因應國家統一前的需要」啟動思考。於是，兩岸辦事處的設立，應當反映並滿足四個條件：

一、國家尚未統一；二、特殊情況下的；三、兩岸政治關係；四、作出合情合理的安排。

原本，《兩岸和平協議》應可處理這個問題，也就是先簽和平協議，以確立前述四條件，再根據四條件設置辦事處；但是，如今和平協議已告擱淺，因此似可考慮先設置辦事處，而藉辦事處來反映並滿足四條件，亦即以設置辦事處的協議來替代和平協議。

在我們的想像中，欲反映並滿足「兩岸新關係四條件」，最「合情合理」的方案即是「大屋頂中國」：世界上只有一個中國，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國，二者皆是一部分的中國，同屬「兩岸主權相互含蘊並相互合成的一個中國」。兩岸倘能在「大屋頂中國」的思維下簽署互設辦事處的協議，中華民國得到「大屋頂中國」的接納，而「大屋頂中國」得到中華民國的認同，即有可能反映並滿足兩岸的「新關係四條件」。

經歷多年的激盪與折衝，兩岸雙方皆知「統一」之「目的」絕非容易，因而必須經營一個長期的「尚未統一」的「過程」。這使得雙方的政策皆從「目的論」，轉向了「過程論」；此一轉換，可使「目的」推遠、改善、提升，亦可將「過程」拉長、放緩，應當符合兩岸各自的與共同的利益。

這原是希望由《和平協議》實現的功效，但如今簽不成和平協議，即可思考由互設辦事處的協議來體現這樣的追求。

所以，應當思考讓兩岸辦事處脫掉白手套。在兩岸交往中，北京屢申「由雙方各自規定出發」，其實即是指「由雙方各自法制（憲法及法律）出發」，又稱「求一個中國之同，存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」；既是如此，即應將這類論述化為文字，載入兩岸互設辦事處的協議中，藉此為辦事處定位。如果能確立「從各自法制出發」、「求同存異」的「特殊情況」，則兩岸辦事處實已不必再有白手套，因為雙方即可面對並承認兩岸是一種「特殊情況下的政治關係」。

其實，兩岸交流現狀，手與手套已是表裡難分，北京的國台辦與海協會更是「一套人馬／兩塊招牌」；未來若成立辦事處，亦將是「一套人馬／三塊招牌」。試想：何必如此疊床架屋？更何必如此自欺欺人？

倘若兩岸關係應以「雙方現行法制」為準據，即應在辦事處的設置上反映此種認知；例如載明「依據雙方現行法制」，為了處理「特殊情況下的兩岸關係」，而互設辦事處。

即使作不到如此，亦可將「兩塊（三塊）招牌／一套人馬」的事實，明載於協議條文中，例如明文：「依據兩岸各自現行法制，雙方當局官員得以適宜身分參與辦事處運作。」藉由將「各自法制」、「當局」、「官員」等詞彙之載入協議文本，把手從手套中露出來，顯示雙方對「各自現行法制」的維持與尊重。

兩岸今日僵局在於：北京既要台灣維持「一中憲法」的「現行規定」，卻又不承認中華民國的「現行法制」；而「一中憲法」在兩岸之間既得不到支撐，台灣的政局就難以安定。而既然兩岸皆知「尚未統一」將是長期的過程，倘若不以「大屋頂中國」為「特殊情況下的兩岸政治關係」，兩岸將如何「和平發展」？

二○一二年，兩岸關係的門檻是ＥＣＦＡ，國民黨與中共都跨過了，如今也已帶領民進黨「概括跨過」；我們寄望，在二○一六年，根據「兩岸現行法制」所簽署的兩岸辦事處協議，得以充分反映及滿足兩岸的「新關係四條件」，且能成為兩岸的新門檻，而國民黨與中共皆能跨過，也可帶著民進黨跨過。

倘係如此，二○一二年的議題是：要不要廢ＥＣＦＡ？二○一六年的議題則成為：要不要廢兩岸辦事處？

關鍵的時刻，兩岸應有關鍵的作為；就從兩岸互設辦事處作起，雙方應考慮脫去白手套，至少須換上透明的可拋棄式手套。否則，倘若兩岸互設辦事處，不能在回歸兩岸各自現行法制上有所連結與突破，則亦非當務之急，也就不必平白糟蹋了這個寶貴的題材。