Cross-Strait Relations: The Frail Vessel Has Weathered Many Storms

Cross-Strait Relations: The Frail Vessel Has Weathered Many Storms
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 18, 2014

Summary: The two sides have been separately governed for 65 years. This is longer than a "jiazi," or a 60 year cycle in Chinese time keeping. Even from an historical perspective, this is a long time. China has been divided and reunified repeatedly throughout its history. Are the Chinese people on both sides of the strait unable to learn from history and seek answers in reality? The Wang Zhang meeting is an important step in the history of cross-strait relations. We hope that subsequent steps will proceed in the right direction.

Full text below:

To determine the historical significance of the Wang Zhang meeting, we must begin by reviewing history. This year is the 65th anniversary of divided rule. Over the past 65 years, the two sides have experienced the flames of civil war, the Cold War standoff, the exchange of secret emissaries, the establishment of communications channels through the SEF and ARATS, and an eventual breaking of the deadlock. The journey has been tortuous. From the Koo-Wang meeting to the 2005 Lien Hu meeting and the KMT's return to power in 2008, this period has been one of repeated advances and retreats. Every step has been excruciatingly difficult. The recent Wang Zhang meeting marks a new phase in the peaceful evolution of cross-strait relations. As chairman Wang Yu-chi noted, the two sides were divided 65 years ago. He is the first government official to visit the Mainland as MAC Chairman. He said the visit was "an important milestone in the course of cross-strait relations, and an indicator of official normalization of cross-strait interaction."

Wang spoke of the "official normalization of cross-strait interaction." It may not sound like much, but it has far-reaching significance. As we all know, consultation mechanisms between the two sides have long been institutionalized. Since their initial establishment, these mechanisms have been deactivated then reactivated. Today, it is standard operating procedure. But it was always burdened with the "private sector" label. The SEF and ARATS are not official institutions. The two sides have signed a number of agreements. At the end of this month in Taipei they will sign the "Cross-Strait Meteorological Cooperation Agreement" and the "Cross-Strait Seismic Monitoring Cooperation Agreement." Nearly all cross-strait agreements require official participation and official jurisdiction. Such agreements pertain to cooperation on matters of transportation, mutual legal assistance, agricultural quarantine and inspection, customs cooperation, financial supervision, food safety, and nuclear safety. None of these agreements can be signed by private sector entities. During negotiations official representatives may be in attendance. But they have always attended as consultants or private sector participants. This is not normal.

Cross-strait consultation is conducted on a "first economics, then politics; first the easy, then the hard basis." But politics has always been the key. Without the highly political Lien Hu meeting, the evolution of peaceful cross-strait relations would have remained impossible. Ma Ying-jeou would never have come to power. The vision of cross-strait peace could never have been translated into concrete policy, and be given its kick start. So far the political channels between the two sides remain at the party to party level. Party to party dialogue and cooperation is not sufficiently representative and comprehensive. It is not sufficiently stable. That is a major problem.

To ensure functionality, representativeness, legitimacy, and permanence, cross-strait "official normalization of interaction" is essential. But at this stage the most important requirement for peaceful cross-strait relations is consensus and wisdom. By consensus we mean official interaction. We mean ending cross-strait confrontation and division, and promoting the peaceful evolution of cross-strait relations, cross-strait integration, and national revival. By wisdom, we mean the insight offered by Hong Kong's "China Review," which wrote, "If the Taiwan side drags its feet on everything, it will Inevitably lose out on golden opportunities. If the Mainland side is too narrow in its calculations, it will inevitably make improved cross-strait relations impossible."

After the Wang Zhang meeting, Taiwan's two largest political parties began confronting this new development. As a China Times editorial on February 16 pointed out, the Ma government and the ruling party must promote cross-strait political contacts, dialogue, communications, and negotiations. It must consider defense strategy, economic integration, immigration, culture, and education. Systemically speaking, it must establish a committee for the peaceful evolution of cross-strait relations. It must author a cross-strait peace program, and restore the National Unification Guidelines.

More importantly, the DPP must stop making monkey sounds. The frail vessel of cross-strait relations has already weathered countless storms. When will the DPP finally arrive at Baidicheng? The DPP must think hard. The KMT and CCP are willing to set aside their historical grievances and practical interests. They are willing to confront the cross-strait reality head on, with open hearts. They are willing to propose solutions to resolve the political obstacles in the way of peaceful development of cross-strait relations. The DPP, meanwhile, persists in foot dragging, flip-flopping, and flailing. It will be seen as out of touch with reality. The DPP has greeted the Wang Zhang meeting with narrow-minded disdain. Once again it has highlighted the party's grave limitations. Look back at the peaceful evolution of cross-strait relations. The key to breaking through political barriers is political will. The DPP must face its demons on cross-strait issues. All it requires is the will. It must jettison outdated dogma. It must transcend short-term political advantage. When the DPP does that, it will find the road ahead of it wide open.

The two sides have been separately governed for 65 years. This is longer than a "jiazi," or a 60 year cycle in Chinese time keeping. Even from an historical perspective, this is a long time. China has been divided and reunified repeatedly throughout its history. People often speak of the Three Kingdoms Era. Tsao Tsao usurped the Han throne. The Jin dynasty reunified the land. This took 60 years. Another major division was the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms era. This too took 60 to 70 years. China has been divided and reunified repeatedly throughout its history. Are the Chinese people on both sides of the strait unable to learn from history and seek answers in reality? The Wang Zhang meeting is an important step in the history of cross-strait relations. We hope that subsequent steps will proceed in the right direction.

社論－兩岸輕舟已過萬重山
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年02月18日 04:10

要為王張會確定歷史定位，應該從歷史看起。今年是兩岸分治分立65周年，65年來，兩岸從內戰烽火、冷戰對峙、密使往來，再到建立海基、海協兩會管道，打破僵局，已經是十分曲折，而從第一次辜汪會談到2005年連胡會，再到2008年國民黨重新執政，這一段歷史更是進退反覆，舉步維艱。如今，王張會可說是在兩岸關係和平發展的進程上又開啟了一個新階段，誠如王郁琦主委所說，兩岸分治65年來，他是第一位正式以政府官員登陸訪問的陸委會主委，這是「兩岸關係歷程上的一個重要里程碑，對兩岸官方常態化互動具有指標意義」。

「兩岸官方常態化互動」短短9個字，卻蘊含深遠的意義。眾所周知，兩岸之間雖然有了制度化的協商機制與管道，這個機制從初始建立、中間停擺，到恢復運行，如今確實已經確立了常態化運作的模式，但卻始終冠有個「民間」的大帽子，海基海協兩會不是官方機構，兩岸之間簽署了大量的協議，本月底在台北又將簽署《兩岸氣象合作協議》與《兩岸地震監測合作協議》，這一整批的兩岸協議，包括交通、司法互助、農產品檢疫檢驗、海關合作、金融監理、食品安全、核電安全合作等等，不但範圍寬廣，更幾乎無一不涉及官方角色、不涉及治權課題，但又沒有一個協議不是以兩岸兩個民間團體的身分來代表簽訂，在協商會談過程，即使有官方代表出席，也都是以民間團體的顧問或其他職務身分來參與，這不能不說是一種非正常的現象。

另一方面，兩岸協商對話，雖說是先經後政，先易後難，但「政治」始終是關鍵要素，沒有高度政治性的連胡會，就不會有兩岸和平發展局面的開啟，沒有馬英九上台執政，兩岸和平發展的願景也不可能落實為具體政策，進而獲得實際推動。但是到目前為止，兩岸間的政治管道，仍然處在黨對黨的階段，政黨間的對話與合作，終究有代表性不夠全面、穩定性不夠堅固的大問題。

從功能性、代表性、正當性、未來性等各種角度來看，兩岸始終要走上「官方常態化互動」的階段，然而，要走上、走穩這個階段，除了兩岸和平發展客觀現實的需要外，更重要的是共識與智慧。所謂共識，應該是指官方互動的意義「不是維持兩岸的對峙與分裂，而是要促進兩岸關係的持續和平發展」，進而推進兩岸整合、民族復興。所謂智慧，香港中國評論網的短評點出了關鍵─「台灣方面如果事事怯步，必然失去大好時機。大陸方面如果狹窄算計，必然導致兩岸關係寸步難行」。

王張會之後，台灣兩大主流政黨要面對的新課題才剛剛開始，中國時報2月16日社論已經指出，馬政府及執政黨要從國防戰略、經濟統合及移民、文化、教育各方面分階段分緩急來推進兩岸政治接觸、對話、溝通進而談判。在體制上，應建立兩岸和平發展委員會、制訂兩岸和平發展綱領，進而恢復國統綱領。

更重要的是民進黨，兩岸猿聲啼不住，輕舟已過萬重山，民進黨何時才能抵達白帝城呢？民進黨應該嚴肅思考，當國共兩黨願意拋開歷史恩怨、現實利害等糾葛，以積極與包容的態度來正視兩岸現實，逐步提出辦法來解決橫亙在兩岸和平發展道路上的政治障礙，民進黨卻繼續故步自封，政策反覆，步伐凌亂，只會被現實遠遠拋在後面。民進黨面對此次王張會的態度曖昧與小鼻子小眼睛，再度證明了該黨的嚴重侷限性。回顧兩岸和平發展的道路，其實突破政治障礙的關鍵往往是在主事者的一念之間，民進黨人如何面對自己在兩岸問題上的心魔，其實也是在一念之間。拋棄過時的教條思維，超越短期的政治利害，民進黨當會發現在自己面前的道路絕對是柳暗花明。

兩岸分立分治達65年，這超過一甲子的光陰，即使從大歷史的角度來看，都不能算短。要論中國歷史上分合一統的大勢，人們往往首提三國時代，從曹丕篡漢到晉一統天下，也不過60年的時間，中國歷史上另一個大分裂時代─五代十國，也是60、70年的光景。面對分久必合的歷史大勢，兩岸的中國人難道沒有足夠的胸襟與智慧從歷史汲取教訓，從現實找尋解答嗎？王張會確實是兩岸關係史上重要的一步，我們期待後續跨出的每一步都是邁向正確的方向。