Wang Zhang Meeting: A New Understanding on National Identity

Wang Zhang Meeting: A New Understanding on National Identity
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
February 10, 2014

Summary: We hope the two sides will view the Wang Zhang meeting and the opportunity for the two to address each other by their official titles, as a major achievement. We hope they can reach a new understanding on the two sides' political and national identity. If Wang and Zhang can meet, why can't Ma and Xi?  

Full text below:

ROC Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi will travel to the Mainland tomorrow. The most important aspect of his trip, is that Wang Yu-chi will be visiting using his official title. He will also be addressing officials on the other side by their official titles. This is the first time the two sides have greeted each other as one head of government to another head of government.

Of course, the significance of this must not be blown out of proportion. For the time being, this is merely a special case. It does not mean all officials from the two sides will be addressing each other by their official titles. But both Wang and Zhang are heads of government. Suppose this is applied to higher level officials? The MAC is part of the Executive Yuan. The Taiwan Affairs Office is part of the State Council. Suppose this is applied to even higher level officials? The Executive Yuan is part of the ROC. The State Council is part of the PRC. Admittedly this is unlikely to happen any time soon. But Wang and Zhang have removed their "white gloves." They have referred to each other by their official titles. . They have taken the first step in establishing a new consensus on the two sides' political and national identities.

Beijing is being cautious about this first step. Before Chairman Wang departed, word emerged that Beijing had issued "Three Taboos." One. Political issues must not be discussed. Two. The term "Republic of China" must not be mentioned. Three. Terms such as human rights, democracy , the rule of law, and president must not be mentioned. In other words, this meeting has constraints. The terms "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang" are acceptable. But "president" and "Republic of China" remain taboo. This is odd. After all, Beijing recognizes "Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi." Yet without the ROC, without the presidential office, without the Executive Yuan, there would be no Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Wang Yu-chi. 

This meeting permits the use of "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang." This is a meaningful step forward. But proceeding directly to the use of "Republic of China " or "president" remains forbidden. This is regrettable. We do not recommend taking a mile when we have been given an inch. To do so would be premature. But we hope the two sides will cherish the "Chairman Wang" and "Director Zhang" inch that they have already been given. After all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. A mighty torrent begins with a tiny trickle.

The purpose of the Wang Zhang meeting is to establish cross-strait representative offices and deal with other matters. But these matters could have been managed without the Wang Zhang meeting. Therefore the real significance of the visit and meeting is that "Chairman Wang" is received by "Director Zhang." This amounts to a "head of government meets a head of government" protocol. Of course Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles has many implications. Many issues still cannot be voiced too loudly or expressed too clearly. For the time being, one cannot expect this protocol to be applied to other heads of the two governments, such as the president and national secretary. But this amounts to a difficult and significant first step. We hope the two sides can work together. We hope they can establish a new understanding regarding their political and national identity.

The current cross-strait political understanding is summed up in the "one China framework." Beijing's "one China framework" implies that "one China" is the People's Republic of China. The Ma adminstration's counterargument is that "one China" is the Republic of China. This framework is referred to as "one China, different interpretations." Unfortunately, this framework does not permit the two sides to address each other by their official titles. Also, it amounts to a different kind of "two states theory." To resolve this "two states" dilemma, the only solution is for the two sides to accept a "big roof concept of China." Under this "Greater One China Framework" meta-concept, the two sides' sovereignty overlap and is shared. Such a framework encompasses both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. It would eliminate any lingering concerns that it constituted a "two states theory." Officials from both sides would have a legal basis by which to address each other by their official titles.

The only legal basis for a Wang Zhang meeting, one in which officials from the two sides address each other by their official titles, is the "big roof concept of one China." Both the ROC and the PRC are subsumed under the "big roof concept of China." Therefore Chairman Wang and Director Zhang addressing each other using their official titles would not be the resulf of any "two states theory," but rather the "big roof concept of one China."

As we can see, the "big roof concept of China" is real. Chairman Wang Yu-chi and Director Zhang Zhijun are real. Political considerations may force us to deny this reality, for now. But one day Chairman Wang and Director Zhang will address each other by their official titles. Political considerations may force us to deny the facts. But they cannot eradicate the facts. Will the two sides be reduced to a coercive and oppressive "kill or be killed" scenario? If not, the only solution is the "big roof concept of China." Accordingly to this concept, Wang and Zhang addressing each other by their official titles can be regarded as a tentative step in the direction of the "big roof concept of China." We must proceed with caution. But we must never retreat.

We hope the two sides will view the Wang Zhang meeting and the opportunity for the two to address each other by their official titles, as a major achievement. We hope they can reach a new understanding on the two sides' political and national identity. If Wang and Zhang can meet, why can't Ma and Xi?  

創新兩岸國家論述自王張會始
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.02.10 03:23 am

中華民國行政院大陸委員會主任委員王郁琦明日率團訪問中國大陸。此行最重大的意義，在於王郁琦公開宣示將以政府正式職銜往訪，而對方亦給予互稱官銜的承諾，這是兩岸首次進行「政府首長對政府首長」的拜會訪問。

當然，不能過度放大此會的效應。畢竟，在眼前看來，這只是特例，尚不能發展為兩岸官員一律互稱官銜的通案。但是，王張各為主管兩岸政務的政府首長；往上推，陸委會屬行政院，國台辦屬國務院；再往上推，行政院屬中華民國，國務院屬中華人民共和國。誠然，現在並無往上推的可能性，但王張既能脫掉了白手套，互稱官銜，可謂已經跨出了「創新兩岸政府論述／國家論述」的第一步。

跨出這第一步，北京顯得戒慎恐懼。於是，王主委行前，傳出北京方面有「三個不能說」的禁忌。一、不能談政治議題；二、不能提中華民國；三、不能提人權、民主、法治和總統。也就是說，此會的上限天花板是「互稱王主委與張主任」，而天花板以上的「總統」及「中華民國」，仍屬此會的禁區。但是，既然承認了「陸委會主任委員王郁琦」，若是沒有中華民國，沒有總統府，沒有行政院，哪來的陸委會主委王郁琦？

可見，此會「互稱王主委與張主任」，已是跨出具有重大意義的一步；但若欲由此推進至直稱「中華民國」或「總統」，卻尚無可能。然而，雖是如此，我們並不建議在時機尚未成熟之時作「得寸進尺」的奢求，但我們亦至盼雙方皆能珍惜「互稱王主委與張主任」的「一寸之得」，畢竟，不積跬步無以致千里，不積小流無以成江海。

此次王張會的議程上，有兩岸互設辦事處等項目；但這些議題，即使沒有王張會，也能進行無礙。因而，此會最重大的亮點即在，「王郁琦主委」親訪大陸，而能受到「張志軍主任」的接待，由此呈現了「政府首長對政府首長」的形式。當然，在「王張互稱官銜」的形式表現下，仍有極多不能說或說不清的理則有待釐清，且一時並不能向旁側推及雙方政府其他首長，亦不能向上推及總統或國家主席；但我們希望，在好不容易跨出這意義重大的第一步之後，雙方能共同努力由此啟動「創新兩岸政府論述及國家論述」的槓桿。

兩岸現在的政治默契是「一中框架」或「一中架構」。北京「一中框架」的潛台詞是「一個中國是中華人民共和國」，因此馬政府的對策即是「一個中國就是中華民國」；這樣的架構可稱作「一中各表」，但也因此不能「互稱官銜」，因為那可能形成另一種「兩國論」。若要解決「兩個中國」的難題與疑慮，唯一的方案，就是兩岸共同接受一個「大屋頂中國」，也就是一個「主權相互含蘊並共同合成」的「上位概念」的「大一中架構」，並接受「中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國」，如此即無「兩國論」的疑慮，兩岸官員就有了「互稱官銜」的法理基礎。

其實，若欲為王張會「互稱官銜」的進展找到法理基礎，唯一的解釋即在「大屋頂中國」；因為，中華民國與中華人民共和國，均在「大屋頂中國」之下及之內，所以王主委和張主任互稱官銜也就不是出自兩國論，而亦是在「大一中架構」之下及之內。

因此可知，「大屋頂中國」是一個真實的存在；正如王郁琦主委與張志軍主任皆是真實的存在。政治力或許可能在一定條件下否認事實於一時，但終究也有「王主委與張主任互稱官銜」的一天；因為，政治力可以否認事實，但未必能消滅事實。如果兩岸的未來不是以「你吃掉我，我吃掉你」的強制及壓迫手段來解決，「大屋頂中國」即應是唯一的方案。據此以論，「王張互稱官銜」即不妨視為對「大屋頂中國」的初步試探；慎步前行，萬勿退卻。

希望兩岸能珍惜王張會上互稱官銜的重大成就，並以「共創兩岸政府新論述及國家新論述」的高度視之。如此，王張會能，馬習會亦焉有不能？