Zhang Zhijun Insulted: Who Is To Blame?

Zhang Zhijun Insulted: Who Is To Blame?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 2, 2014

Summary: The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun was seated in a car in Kaohsiung's West Bay when protesters flung paint at it. Zhang is a guest. Yet this is how he was received. This behavior made a lie of the boast, "Taiwan's most beautiful sights are its people." This incident must be considered a serious matter.

Full Text Below:

The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun was seated in a car in Kaohsiung's West Bay when protesters flung paint at it. Zhang is a guest. Yet this is how he was received. This behavior made a lie of the boast, "Taiwan's most beautiful sights are its people." This incident must be considered a serious matter.

Consider his public safety. Those charged with his public safety had two responsibilities. One. They had responsibility for choosing the venue. Two. They had responsibility for maintaining security. The MAC chose the Sunset Beach Resort. An incident followed. It cannot shirk responsibility. But on the other hand, the MAC is not a security agency. Security professionals within the National Police Agency, together with the Kaohsiung City Police Department, evaluated the choice of venue. They concluded that security would not a problem. These agencies rendered their professional judgment. Therefore they must bear some degree of responsibility.

The Kaohsiung City Government expressed doubts about the West Bay site before the incident. But saying no is easy. Offering concrete recommendations is hard. The Kaohsiung City Government recommended holding the Wang Zhang meeting at the Grand Hotel where Zhang Zhijun was staying. This may have been a convenient choice from a security perspective. But fortunately the MAC did not go along iwth it. When Wang Yuqi visited Taiwan, the two sides deliberately avoided each other's hotels. This posed the problem of who was visiting whom, and who outranked whom. If Wang Yu-chi had actually visited Zhang Zhijun's hotel, it would have been denounced as a "pilgrimage." It would most assuredly been blasted as "self-abasement."

Obviously however, the choice of venue was not the only reason Zhang Zhijun was insulted. Chen Chu and Zhang Zhijun met at Hanshin Arena. This was Kaohsiung's choice of venues. Protestors there also chased after Zhang Zhijun's car and beat on it. That also resulted in bloodshed. This shows that the choice of venue was not the only factor that affected Zhang's personal security, Was personal security actually ensured? Did the Kaohsiung Police ensure Zhang's personal security during the Wang Zhang meeting at West Bay? The paint flinging was a scene of chaos. Why didn't the police set up protest zones to keep the crows away from Zhang? Why didn't they place the barricades farther away? These questions all demand answers. The police are of course responsible. But it is not fair to place all the blame on the police. The Kaohsiung paint flinging incident must be traced back to its source. Only then can we identify the real problem.

The scales of justice may help us imagine what good security for Zhang would have looked like. On the one hand, guests of the nation have a right to be protected. On the other hand, the protesters have the right to free speech. Basically the guest's personal security must come first. Protestors' freedom of speech must come second. But the scales of justice are never still. They are subject to social influences and official attitudes. The paint flinging incident cannot be seen as nothing more than flung paint. It must be seen as part of Zhang Zhijun's visit to Taiwan.

Zhang Zhijun arrived at Taoyuan International Airport. Protestors stalked him relentlessly. But police successfully maintained security around him. Zhang Zhijun's safety was their top priority. This was the right approach. If anything were to happen to Zhang Zhijun, cross-Strait relations and the nation's image would take a severe hit. But putting a guest's safety first has a price. It may inspire protest groups and some of the media , to provoke confrontations and level accusations of "state violence." This puts considerable pressure on the police.

The scales of justice tipped the other way after Chen Chu and Zhang Zhijun's meeting at the Hanshin Arena. During the Chen Zhang meeting, the police cracked down on the protesters. This led to bloodshed. Chen Chu caved in to intense pressure from the protesters, who were all green camp supporters. Chen Chu left a comment on facebook. She absolved protestors of blame for their behavior. Instead, blamed the police. She said that if the police used excessive force, they would be punished severely.

Chen Chu is the Mayor of Kaohsiung. Her declaration naturally had a crucial impact on the Kaohsiung Police's handling of security. Fearing they would be punished, the police abruptly changed their security procedures. They wavered when it came time to segregate the protestors. Chen Chu's threat of punishment forced police to loosen their security procedures. This was a key contributor to the paint flinging incident.

In addition to reviewing security procedures, we must also clarify responsibilities. We must consider attitudes on both sides of the Strait. The paint flinging incident shows that all three parties, red, blue, and green, need to have greater empathy for each other.

One. When Zhang Zhijun was on stage, Wang Yu-chi admonished Zhang Zhijun to "listen to the public on Taiwan." This was a reasonable request. But shouldn't Taiwan listen to the public on the Mainland as well? Shouldn't people on Taiwan empathize with the public on the Mainland? The paint flinging incident is sure to fester in the minds of the Mainland public. They are sure to feel insulted. Many Mainland netizens mock the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office or "guo tai ban." They refer to it contemptuously as the "guai tai ban," or "the office that kneels before Taiwan." The Mainland also has internal populist it must cope with. People on Taiwan expect the Mainland to feel empathy for Taiwan. But people on Taiwan should also feel empathy for the Mainland.

Two. The Mainland should refrain from giving excessive coverage tothe paint flinging incident. Most people on Taiwan are still rational. Historically speaking, the Zhang Zhijun paint flinging incident in Kaohsiung is regrettable. But the protest was significantly less intense than it was during Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan in 2008. This means that the public on Taiwan now has a more pacifistic view of cross-Strait exchanges. Breaking the ice results in safer navigation. Ice breaking such as Chen Yunlin's first visit to Taiwan has an enormous impact. As a result, it provoked a huge storm. But following his visit, the skies cleared. We must have confidence in this historical pattern. We must be patient. We believe that following Zhang Zhijun's ice-breaking voyage, the winds will be gentler and the sun will be warmer.

Three. The DPP must pay attention. Zhang Zhijun has visited Taiwan. Six years ago, when Chen Yunlin visited Taiwan, the DPP stood on the front lines. This represents progress of a sort. But the paint flinging incident reveals the DPP's shortcomings. Chen Chu's dilemma was obvious. She could not decide whether to take a hard line. The DPP and its supporters found themselves at odds with each other. The DPP wants to prove that it can manage cross-Strait relations. This however, remains its biggest obstacle.

社論－張志軍受辱 誰的錯？
2014年07月02日 04:10
編輯部

大陸國台辦主任張志軍，座車在高雄西子灣遭抗議民眾潑漆。來者是客卻受此待遇，有違台灣「最美的風景是人」美稱，應嚴肅看待。

先看維安責任。維安責任有二。一是規畫選址責任，二是維安執行責任。陸委會選了西子灣沙灘會館，出了事，受責不能算冤。但另一方面，陸委會並非安全單位，請有維安專業的警政署會同高雄市警察局評估場址，得到的結論既是安全沒有問題，那麼做出專業判斷的單位也有責任。

高雄市政府，雖然事前表達對選址西子灣的疑慮，但反對容易，建議難，高市府建議就在張志軍下榻的圓山飯店舉行王張會，看起來確實是維安上最方便的建議。但還好陸委會未採，王郁琦訪陸，雙方刻意避開對方下榻飯店，就是怕有誰拜見誰不對等的質疑。如果王郁琦真去張志軍下榻的飯店會談，豈不變成「朝拜」，必招引自我矮化的批評。

這也可以看出，選址不是造成張志軍受辱唯一的問題，陳菊與張志軍會談的漢神巨蛋是高雄方面選的，也發生了抗議民眾追著張志軍座車拍打的事件，還造成流血衝突。可知，選址不是維安唯一因素，維安執行是否確實，也應受到檢視。西子灣的王張會，高雄市警方有落實維安執行嗎？潑漆事件現場一片混亂，警方為何沒有設置抗議區隔開群眾？為何不拉出足夠的封鎖線距離？這些都該檢討。從這個角度，警方當然有責，但全部歸責警方也未必公允。必須回溯高雄潑漆事件的脈絡，才能找出問題癥結。

不妨用天秤來想像維安。一方是來客安全，一方是抗議者自由。基本上，警方維安應以來客安全為優先考量，再兼及抗議者自由。但維安天秤是浮動的，會受到社會氛圍、首長態度影響。潑漆事件不能只看潑漆，必須將張志軍訪台歷程回溯檢視。

從張志軍抵達桃園機場開始，抗議如影隨形，但警方執行維安任務，以張志軍安全為優先，這是正確做法，若張志軍發生意外，兩岸關係、國家形象都得賠進去。但來客「安全為先」的代價就是：抗議團體與部分媒體，不斷的營造「國家暴力」的社會氛圍，會造成警方執法的壓力。

警方執法天秤的真正變化，是在陳菊與張志軍的漢神會後。陳張會，警方在維安執法中，對抗議民眾採強制措施，造成流血。面對抗議者皆是綠營支持者的強大壓力，陳菊在臉書未對抗議民眾的踰越行為責難，卻表示警方「若確屬不當執法，絕對會進行相關懲處。」

陳菊身為高雄市長，其宣示當然對高雄市警方維安的執法天秤產生關鍵影響。擔憂受到懲處的警方，在維安工作上頓然失了準據，就會對要不要隔離、要不要採取強制手段產生猶疑。在陳菊的懲處宣示後，警方維安天秤鬆動，是潑漆事件重要的因素。

除了檢討維安，釐清責任，我們也應檢視，各方兩岸的交往到底該抱持什麼樣的態度。潑漆事件，顯示出紅藍綠三方的同理心功課都還要努力。

第一重同理心，張志軍登台前，王郁琦說要讓張志軍「多聽台灣民眾聲音。」這個同理心期待很好，但台灣是否也應對大陸民眾的感受「擁有同理心」呢？潑漆事件也在大陸民眾心中發酵，覺得受辱。甚至有大陸網民將國台辦稱為「跪台辦」。要知道，大陸內部也有民粹聲音壓力。期待大陸對台同理心的同時，也應擁有對大陸民眾情緒的同理心。

第二重同理心，大陸方面不宜太過放大這次潑漆事件。台灣社會的理性力量仍然強大。從歷史來看，張志軍在高雄遭遇潑漆固然遺憾，比起陳雲林在2008年來台時的流血圍城，抗議強度已大幅減低，這代表台灣民眾更平和看待兩岸交往。破冰當下對航行安全的衝撞性，強過破冰之後，就像陳雲林第一次來台雖引發了偌大風暴，但他其後來台，就變得雲淡風輕。我們應對這歷史規律有信心與耐心，相信張志軍此次破冰衝擊後，下次再來，風會更和、日會更暖。

第三重同理心要說給民進黨聽。此次張志軍來台，民進黨不像6年前陳雲林來台時站上衝突第一線，是種進步，但從潑漆事件中，民進黨左支右絀、陳菊輕重難斷的窘境，可以看出，民進黨想和但支持者不想和的矛盾，是民進黨在兩岸關係上想要有所施為，最難的功課。