APEC: Wang Zhang Meeting a Stepping Stone for a Ma Xi Meeting

APEC: Wang Zhang Meeting a Stepping Stone for a Ma Xi Meeting
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 30, 2013

Summary: On June 8, this newspaper published an editorial, "fully backing a Ma Xi meeting at next year's APEC conference." The question now is no longer whether to back a Ma Xi meeting. If the authorities on the two sides fail to live up to this historic opportunity, who should be blamed then?

Full text below:

The annual APEC conference will convene in Bali, Indonesia tomorrow. MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi will attend the meeting as a "consultant" for the delegation from Taipei. He will meet with Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun. For Taipei and Beijing, this meeting will be the highlight of the conference.

In fact, as long as Wang and Zhang meet under the same roof, it matters little whether their meeting is one on one or how they address each other. In essence, the two are "MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi " and "Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun." Therefore if the two fail to greet each other during the conference, or if they address each other as "Mr. Wang" or "Consultant Wang," or "Mr. Zhang," it will merely leave behind a frustrating impression of evasiveness. This evasiveness, which is so far removed from reality, is the primary obstacle to improved cross-Strait relations now that the two sides are entering more treacherous waters.

Put bluntly, the two sides are entering more treacherous waters. This is not something that politicians from the two sides can settle through negotiations. The key is how the public on Taiwan regards the term "China," and just who is "Chinese." Therefore, as this newspaper has often reiterated, the public on Taiwan must first agree that "Within the framework of one China, the Republic of China is part of China." Otherwise the majority of the public on Taiwan cannot be persudaded to identify themselves as "Chinese." If this is the case, how can one speak of "reunification?"

We enthusiastically agree with the CCP 18th Party Congress, which declared its intention to "Explore cross-Strait political relations under special circumstances in which the country has yet to be reunified, and to make reasonable arrangements." This proposition acknowledges the current state of cross-Strait relations. It is a "yet to be reunified" relationship. It acknowledges that "cross-Strait political relations are yet to be reunified relations." In other words, the "Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China are in a special relationship, one in which they coexist side by side." The 18th Party Congress acknowledges that the relationship is "a special relationship that is a yet to reunified relationship." Otherwise it would not use expressions such as "Although the two sides have yet to be be reunified, they are both parts of one China," or "one China is an in progress one China."

The "Constitution of the Republic of China" provides the sole assurance of cross-strait "peaceful development." Yet it the Constitution of the Republic of China is referred to as "existing cross-Strait provisions." Is this not evasive? The MAC and the Taiwan Affairs Office are charged with cross-Strait affairs. Yet their representatives cannot even be addressed as Chairman Wang and Chairman Zhang." Is this not equally evasive? Politics on Taiwan is chaotic. National identity on Taiwan is confused. In the final analysis, the main reason for this is Beijing's intolerance. It refuses to allow the Republic of China to be part of China under the "Big Roof Concept of China." This makes the public on Taiwan leery of the "one China" framework. , It deprives them of a sense of security, dignity, and identity.

Since 2008, the two sides have corrected many of the mistakes they made before 2008. Take one example. The ban on the display of the ROC flag in international stadiums has apparently been lifted. Beijing now realizes that not allowing the public on Taiwan to wave the ROC flag has negative consequences. It makes the public on Taiwan feel even less connection with "China." It makes them feel even less identification with "China" and "the Chinese people." As a result of this major revelation, Beijing adopted a more open approach for the WHA and the ICAO. The cross-Strait diplomatic truce has been in effect for over five years. This positive trend in cross-Strait relations has won the recognition and approval of the public on Taiwan.

Even international aspects of cross-Strait relations can be improved. Non-international aspects of cross-Strait relations should be even more amenable to innovative breakthroughs. Over the past five years many significant breakthroughs have been made. The ROC now enjoys more international breathing space. Cross-Strait breathing space will naturally increase as well. Now we must wait and see how Zhang Zhijun and Wang Yu-chi conduct themselves in Bali.

Macau Chief Executive Fernando Cui Sai-on met with Wang Yu-chi in August. They addressed each other as "Chairman Wang" and "Chief Executive Cui." Fools see countless mountains in their hearts. Sages see the sheet of paper before their eyes. If Zhang Zhijun could not address Wang as "Chairman Wang," then Chui Sai On would have no reason to reciprocate. Conversely, if Cui Sai On could address Wang as "Chairman Wang," Zhang Zhijun would have no reason not to reciprocate. Zhang Zhijun carries more cross-Strait policy weight than Cui Shi On. Let us listen closely and see if Cui shakes things up by addressing Wang as "Chairman Wang."

A single utterance of "Chairman Wang" could shred a piece of paper. But a single utterance of "Chairman Wang" could clear away a thousand mountains. Changing the way people are addressed might change attitudes and policies. Besides, current cross-Strait relations have already cleared away a thousand mountains. Now all that remains is to shred the paper that dicates the manner of address. The Xi Jinping team may appear to have immense obstacles to overcome. In fact, it probably only needs to decide what title to use.

Hu Jingtao's cross-Strait achievements began with the 2005 Lian Hu Meeting. Xi Jingping's cross-Strait assignment begins next year, when Beijing hosts the APEC conference, and Ma and Xi may meet. When Ma and Xi meet, how will they address each other? Within the APEC Council, Ma and Xi are both "economic leaders." Outside the conference, they can refer to the 1995 "Jiang Eight-Point Proposal." Xi can address Ma as "leader of the Taiwan authorities." Ma can address Xi as "leader of the Mainland authorities." Surely the Beijing authorities commitment eight years ago, will still be honored nine years later?

Finally, on June 8, this newspaper published an editorial, "fully backing a Ma Xi meeting at next year's APEC conference." The question now is no longer whether to back a Ma Xi meeting. If the authorities on the two sides fail to live up to this historic opportunity, who should be blamed then?

APEC：以王張會為馬習會敲門磚
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.30 04:43 am

ＡＰＥＣ年會明天在印尼峇里島舉行，陸委會主委王郁琦將以「顧問」名義隨團赴會，他與台辦主任張志軍的互動，將成為此會在兩岸之間的最大亮點。

其實，只要王張二人在同一天花板下的同一場所見面，不論是多對多還是一對一，也不論是怎麼稱呼，在實質上皆是「陸委會主委王郁琦」與「台辦主任張志軍」見了面。正因如此，倘若二人在此會仍以互不招呼，或以互稱「王先生」、「王顧問」、「張先生」收場，那其實只能顯示一種令人扼腕的虛矯，而這種背離事實的虛矯正是兩岸關係進入深水區的主要障礙。

直白而言，兩岸深水區的難題，絕無可能逕由兩岸政治人物經談判解決，其真正關鍵，是在台灣人民如何決定其對「中國」及「中國人」的認同。因此，本報屢申，如果不能使台灣人民先認同「在一個中國的架構下，中華民國是一部分的中國」，即絕無可能使多數台灣人民認同自己是「中國人」。倘係如此，更如何奢言「統一」？

我們十分贊同中共十八大所宣示：「探討國家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。」此一命題確立了當前的兩岸關係是「尚未統一」的關係，亦等同承認了「兩岸尚未統一的政治關係」即是「中華民國與中華人民共和國共存並立的特殊關係」。若不承認此種「尚未統一的特殊關係」，如何奢言「雖然尚未統一，仍是一個中國」，或「一個中國是現在進行式」？

若明知「中華民國憲法」是維繫兩岸「和平發展」的唯一憑藉，卻將「中華民國憲法」稱為「兩岸各自現行規定」，這豈非虛矯？又明知兩岸各自是以陸委會及台辦主持兩岸事務，卻不能相互稱呼為「王主委」、「張主任」，這豈不亦是虛矯？台灣在政治和認同上的亂局，說到底，主要是因北京不容「在大屋頂中國架構下，接受中華民國是一部分的中國」，致使台灣人民在「一個中國」的框架下，缺乏安全感、尊嚴感與認同感所致。

其實，兩岸在二○○八年以前各自所犯的錯誤，二○○八年後已見大幅導正。僅舉一例：國際運動場看台上的青天白日滿地紅旗似已「解禁」，因為北京知道，不容台灣人民擎持「中華民國國旗」的後果，只會使台灣人民與「中國」更無「連結點」，更不認同「中國」與「中國人」。在這樣的大覺大悟下，ＷＨＡ與ＩＣＡＯ皆有了較為開放的作法，兩岸外交休兵至今亦有五年餘，此種兩岸在國際關係方面的正向走勢，已明顯受到台灣人民的肯定與贊同。

如果在國際方面可以朝往開明、開放的方向發展，則在兩岸之間尤應有創新突破的作法（五年來已有極多與極大的成果）。國際上能放大空間，兩岸的空間必當更大。現在且看張志軍與王郁琦在峇里島如何表現。

澳門特首崔世安八月會見王郁琦，以「王主委」及「崔特首」互稱。愚者心中的萬重山，智者眼下的一張紙。若張志軍不能稱「王主委」，崔世安也沒有道理能；反之，若崔世安能稱「王主委」，張志軍亦沒有道理不能。然而，畢竟張志軍在兩岸政策上的分量仍是重於崔世安，讓我們洗耳以待會不會自他口中吐出那句旋轉乾坤的「王主委」。

一聲「王主委」也許只是撕開一張紙；但一聲「王主委」也能搬開萬重山。稱謂轉換，是寄望能夠帶動心態的正向轉換與政策的正向轉換；何況，兩岸關係的現狀，可謂已經破除了萬重山，反而似乎只剩下如何撕去「稱謂」這一張紙了。因此，習近平團隊的兩岸功業看似深水難渡，其實可能只決定在一句稱謂之間而已。

胡錦濤的兩岸業績，啟動於二○○五年的連胡會；習近平的兩岸勳業則應當啟動於明年在大陸舉行的ＡＰＥＣ馬習會。至於，馬習見面，如何稱呼？在ＡＰＥＣ會內，馬習皆是「經濟體領袖」；在會場外，則可依一九九五年「江八點」所指，習稱馬「台灣當局領導人」，馬稱習「大陸當局領導人」。難道，北京當局八年前的承諾，九年後竟不能兌現？

最後，重申本報六月八日社論〈全力促成明年ＡＰＥＣ馬習會〉所言：現在，問題不在「該不該促成這場馬習會」，而當想像，兩岸當局如果辜負了這個歷史機遇，將該當何罪？