Arrange a Ma Xi Meeting, Issue a One China Joint Declaration

Arrange a Ma Xi Meeting, Issue a One China Joint Declaration
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 13, 2014

Summary: Ma and Xi can meet at a third locale or a third country. The important thing is that the meeting must be treated as a domestic affair. If both sides agree that symbolism is more important, then they must demonstrate goodwill on matters of protocol. They must make compromises without fear of losing face. As long as the two men can meet, a "one China joint affirmation" will be a foregone conclusion. This would show that the Chinese people on both sides of the strait can resolve their political differences, and are willing to pursue peace.

Full text below:

Much has happened recently, internationally, on Taiwan, and across the Taiwan Strait. The Malaysian Airlines incident has attracted global attention. So far no trace of the plane has been found. The public is concerned. The turmoil in Ukraine, including Crimean independence, has impacted relations between the United States, Europe, and Russia. The repercussions are far-reaching. Election season on Taiwan is approaching. Both the KMT and DPP election campaigns are plagued by internal problems. A dispute between Su and Tsai is about to erupt. Times are hard. The Wang Zhang and Lien Xi meetings have adjourned. How can bilateral relations move forward? Can a Ma Xi meeting be arranged? The question demands collective brainstorming. The ruling and opposition parties appear determined to wage a lose/lose battle over the cross-strait trade and services agreement. Absent a showdown, any sort of resolution is unlikely.

In general, one cannot ignore the hard realities. How should they be dealt with? How will they play out? A number of elements are involved. One's decisions depend on one's values. Take cross-strait relations. The two sides have declared their official views. The realities are apparent. President Ma Ying-jeou has a subjective desire. He also has an objective need. In an appropriate capacity, he hopes to meet with Mainland President Xi Jinping, at and appropriate time and appropriate place. Taipei considers the November APEC conference in Beijing the most appropriate venue. Mainland China understands Taiwan's position. It is willing to consider a meeting between Xi and Ma. It is even willing to make major concessions. But it has different considerations regarding the venue and the theme of the meeting. In principle, it does not favor the two mean meeting at APEC.

Both sides want to meet. That is a reality. But each has concerns regarding how and where they should meet. We must all facilitate such a meeting, They should ask themselves, is the symbolic value of such a meeting more important, or the practical rewards? If one can achieve both, that is of course ideal. But when the obstacles are difficult or near impossible, shouldn't the two sides consider a higher, more strategic perspective? A different way of thinking means different values.

Suppose one's greatest concern is national reunification? Suppose one's concern is to make a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. One must not start out by making an about face. Symbolism is the most important consideration. But suppose one's concern is practical rewards? Then of course one must be a bean counter. One must move carefully in order to force the other side to make the most concessions possible.

Naturally the two sides should deal with cross-strait issues. Most major nations believe the symbolic significance of a Ma Xi meeting would be greater than its practical significance. They are encouraging the two sides to reduce tensions and solve problems through dialogue. They understand Taiwan's internal politics and the Mainland's political concerns. The window of opportunity for the two to meet is narrow. Naturally there is no reason to deliberately stand in the way of a Ma Xi meeting. Other nations wish such a meeting well. They merely offer Taiwan some a well-intentioned advice. One must think before acting. One approach complex issues with a progressive approach. One must not have overly high expectations. Only such an approach is consistent with regional security for all. The two sides should not disregard other nations' goodwill, or keep everyone in the dark.

The two sides are still haggling over the time and place for the Ma Xi meeting. Taipei has made clear it wants to meet at APEC. It has repeatedly stressed that there is no alternative. It is waiting for the nod from the Mainland. Its reasoning seems to make sense. The Mainland considers the APEC venue inappropriate. But it considers a third locale or country acceptable, as long as it is not an international venue. This leaves considerable room for the imagination. Some have suggested Hawaii, Taiping Island, Singapore, Switzerland, even Mongolia. Some of the suggestions are almost comical. The Mainland has concerns about meeting at APEC. To be fair, it is not without reason. A Ma Xi meeting could unfold according to the script. But suppose Japan's Abe, or America's Barack Obama, or any other national leader were to warmly embrace Ma Ying-jeou? Suppose he or she, intentionally or otherwise, welcomed "Taiwan's president?" Suppose he or she expressed hoped that his attendance would become routine? This alone would give Beijing cold sweats. Therefore it must be avoided.

The DPP persists in obstructing cross-strait peaceful development. Along with the CCP and KMT, it often plays word games. Sometimes these games resemble theology or metaphysics. Arguments persist over Zhonghua Taipei vs. Zhonguo Taipei, the one China framework vs. one China architecture, sovereignty vs. jurisdiction, the Koo Wang meeting vs. the Wang Koo meeting, and domestic vs. international. Each party feels it is righteous and merely "telling it like it is." But when the crisis has passed, the entire affair seems ridiculous.

Ma and Xi can meet at a third locale or a third country. The important thing is that the meeting must be treated as a domestic affair. If both sides agree that symbolism is more important, then they must demonstrate goodwill on matters of protocol. They must make compromises without fear of losing face. In 1992, the two sides achieved a consensus. They moved forward on the basis of one China, different interpretations. One can call it the "one China framework," "one China architecture," or "one China roof." As long as the two men can meet, a "one China joint affirmation" will be a foregone conclusion. This would show that the Chinese people on both sides of the strait can resolve their political differences, and are willing to pursue peace. A Ma Xi meeting could become a model for mankind, and make an historic contribution to China.

社論－實現馬習會 成就「一中共表」
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月13日 04:10

從國際到台灣到兩岸，近來發生不少大事。馬航事件舉世關注，迄今不見飛機蹤影，讓人揪心；烏克蘭動亂、克里米亞獨立牽動美、歐、俄關係，後遺症不小；台灣政治旺季即將到來，國、民兩黨選情都有內憂，蘇、蔡之爭不日登場，日子看來都不好過；兩岸繼王、張及連、習會後，雙邊關係究竟要如何進一步往前發展，馬、習會能否成功推動，均須各界集思廣益，至於眼前的《兩岸服貿協議》，看來朝野非要焦土抗戰、惡鬥一回，否則很難有個答案。

綜觀一切，其實都脫離不了基本的事實、處理方法及結果幾個要項，而選擇的方案則又與價值觀有關。在兩岸關係方面，從雙方官方的各種談話看來，眼前看到的事實是，馬英九總統不但有主觀的願望，恐怕也有客觀的需要，希望以合適的身分，在適當的時機和場合與大陸國家主席習近平見面，台北認為今年11月的北京亞太經合會是最適當的安排。中國大陸一方面了解台灣的態度，二方面也覺得習、馬二人會面並非不能考慮，甚至還願意給予相當程度的配合，但對兩人見面的場地和會談的內容有些不同的考量，原則上並不贊成兩人在APEC見面。

既然事實是雙方都有意願見面，只是對方法、場合等有些不同的考量，為了促成此事，那麼大家就不妨進一步思考，兩人見面到底是應該以象徵意義為重或要有實質收穫為主？如果能夠兩者兼顧當然最好，但當此事的難度甚大或幾乎不可能的時候，雙方是否要從更高的戰略高度出發，有個不同的思考，這裡面就牽涉到價值取向的問題了。

如果要從有利於國家統一，能讓兩岸關係有所突破，不可逆轉出發，以象徵意義為重，事情相對就會較為簡單容易，但如果要以實質收穫為主，那當然就要錙銖必較，謹小慎微的務求迫使對方做出最大程度的讓步為要。

理所當然，兩岸的事應由兩岸自己來辦，但至少就我們所知，相關的主要國家在看待馬習會一事上，多數還是認為，如果能落實，其象徵意義應該大於實質成果，既然各國都鼓勵兩岸雙方透過溝通、對話來降低緊張，解決問題，也理解台灣的內政和大陸的政治顧慮，使得兩人見面的機會之窗未必很大，自然也就沒有刻意阻擾馬習會成局的道理。各國對此基本上仍持樂觀其成的態度，只是善意的勸告台灣，一切都要謀定而後動，要用漸進的方式來處理複雜的問題，不要有過高的期望，這才符合區域安全與大家最大的共同利益，不希望兩岸將各國善意的關切置之不顧，或把大家蒙在鼓裡。

客觀而言，馬習會的地點和場合問題，雙方還在漫天喊價及就地還錢的階段。台北表明就要在APEC場合，而且多次強調沒有備用方案，只等大陸點頭，似乎言之成理；大陸方面則認為不宜，但明示第三地或國並非國際場合，這裡面就有了很大的想像空間。現在有人主張在夏威夷、太平島、新加坡、瑞士，甚至外蒙古，有些簡直到了搞笑的地步。持平而論，大陸不願兩人在APEC場合見面的顧忌不是完全沒有道理，即使馬、習照腳本演出，但如果日本安倍或美國歐巴馬，或任一國家與會領袖在會上存心或無意的熱忱擁抱馬英九，歡迎台灣總統與會，表示希望形成慣例，光是這樣就會讓北京嚇出一身冷汗，能免則免。

兩岸雙方及堅持杯葛兩岸和平發展的民進黨，時常都在玩弄文字遊戲，有時甚至到了神學、玄學的地步，雙方可以為中華台北或中國台北，一中框架與一中架構，主權和治權，辜汪或汪辜、國內或國際吵個沒完沒了，事情當下都覺得自己理直氣壯，為所當為，但等到事過境遷之後，實在讓人覺得簡直可笑到不知所為何來。

其實，馬、習二人會面在第三地或第三國自亦無妨，只要這是兩岸自家人的事，如果雙方都同意二人會面應以象徵意義為重，那麼雙方都可展現出形式上的善意，做出不失立場的表面讓步，讓雙方可以在九二共識、一中各表的基礎上往前邁步，無論稱「一中架構」、「一中框架」或「一中屋頂」，只要兩人見了面，「一中共表」已然成局，可展現兩岸中國人化解政治歧見、追求和平的意願，而成為人類的典範，馬、習二人對兩岸中國的歷史性貢獻。