Ma Xi Meeting: Beijing will Regret Lost Opportunity

Ma Xi Meeting: Beijing will Regret Lost Opportunity
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 26, 2014

Summary: Scotland and Hong Kong have shown that cross-Strait problems are more complex, both conceptually and methodologically. The Republic of China is undoubtedly a common asset for both sides. Therefore Beijing must not cling to the notion of destroying the Republic of China. If a Ma Xi Meeting can be held, the two sides can avoid at least two decades of suffering. Without a Ma Xi Meeting, Beijing might destroy the Republic of China amidst a Pyrrhic victory. Does Beijing possess the wisdom and compassion? Does it realize that if it passes up the opportunity to hold a Ma Xi Meeting, any future regret will be too late?

Full Text Below:

The hope that Beijing would use the APEC Meeting in November to arrange a Ma Xi Meeting has been shattered. But champions of the meeting have not given up trying. If Beijing passes up the opportunity to hold a Ma Xi Meeting, any future regret will be too late.

As the saying goes, "Follow the mandate of heaven and comply with the will of the people." An historical trend is the mandate of heaven. Public opinion is the will of the people. Any solution to cross-Straits problems requires following the mandate of heaven and complying with the will of the people. It must not defy the mandate of heaven and ignore the will of the people. The Ma Xi Meeting can be a meeting of "heaven and man," as well as a meeting of "history and public opinion." Pass up this rare opportunity, and another one may never come along.

Any solution to cross-Strait problems must go with the flow of history. Modern and contemporary history has witnessed two waves of national self-determination. The first wave began at the end of World War II, in 1945. It was primarily motivated by calls for national self-determination. The second wave began with the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, and in 1991, when the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact imploded. It was motivated primarily by the desire to overthrow a Communist dictatorship and establish political self-determination. Cross-Strait issues cannot be resolved by means of a "Taiwan independence referendum." But neither is it possible to stifle some form of "reunification referendum." This can be regarded as a form of "self-determination." This is a cross-Strait historical trend. This is a watershed for human civilization, democracy, and human rights that cannot be avoided.

Leave aside for the moment international opinion on the Scottish independence referendum. It was undoubtedly a positive example for human civilization, political rights, and democratic rule. By the same token, any solution for cross-Strait problems must also adhere to the requirements of human civilization. They must not lead to a tragedy for history, civilization, and democracy.

Furthermore, the solution to cross-Strait problems must comply with public opinion. Take the situation in Hong Kong for example. The political system is at odds with its value system. This is not something that rhetorical attacks, military intimidation, or financial inducements can reconcile. This is especially true when public opinion merges with historical trends. Defying the mandate of heaven and ignoring the will of the people will only make the situation harder to resolve. Public opinion in Hong Kong is "merely" fighting for genuine universal suffrage. Yet the wrangling has already led to an impasse. How would Beijing deal with public opinion on Taiwan during the upcoming sixth presidential election for the Republic of China?

Can the two sides find a solution? Will they remain deadlocked over the existence of the Republic of China? Is an APEC Ma Xi Meeting possible? Is the meeting also stuck on the Republic of China? What solution to cross-Strait problems does Beijing seek, in its heart of hearts? Does it want a one China erected on the grave of the Republic of China? Such a solution would be a catastrophe and tragedy for history, civilization, democracy, and human rights. This refusal to recognize the Republic of China, this determination to destroy the Republic of China, makes Beijing hesitant to support an APEC Ma Xi Meeting. Beijing is afraid to lend credence to the "Two States Theory," by acknowledging the existence of both the ROC and . the PRC. Can Beijing free its thinking and embrace realism, as Deng Xiaoping urged and Beijing recently reaffirmed? Can it embrace a one China solution that preserves the Republic of China? Such a solution would follow the mandate of heaven and comply with the will of the people. Under such a "big roof concept of China," both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China would be part of China. Why couldn't such a vision be realized at an APEC Ma Xi Meeting?

Beijing hopes to use the Republic of China to guard against Taiwan independence. Yet it refuses to admit that the Republic of China is part of China. It merely affirms that both the Mainland and Taiwan are part of one China. This encourages relentless attempts at "backdoor listing" on Taiwan. This has become the main reason the public on Taiwan finds it difficult to identify with "one China," and to refer to themselves as Chinese. The UDN News has advocated the "water glass theory." Taiwan is the water, the ROC is the glass. As long as the glass remains intact, the water in the glass will remain in place. Once the glass is shattered, the water will spill out everywhere. This theory remains true under "one China, different interpretations" or the "big roof concept of China." Therefore any cross-Strait solution should preserve the ROC as part of one China.

Can Beijing shift its thinking from destroying the Republic of China in order to ensure one China, to preserving the Republic of China to ensure one China? Must it back away from an APEC Ma Xi Meeting? If such a meeting can take place, couldn't authorities on both sides refer to the APEC Ma Xi Meeting as a "test case?" Ma Ying-jeou could attend the meeting as a "Chinese Taipei Economic Leader" and "leader of Taiwan." Sundry ceremonies and activities could be negotiated and planned by both sides. This flexible international/domestic context could give "one China" new meaning. Cross-Strait relations could benefit from new thinking and be given a new vitality. This could even establish a new model for political conflict resolution. A Ma Xi Meeting would not be just another meeting. It would affect how civilized society thinks. 

Beijing's mistake is to see an APEC Ma Xi Meeting as a stage on which Taiwan might enact some sort of political theater. It has missed the greater importance of this meeting to the ruling government and political opposition on the Mainland. This meeting could free up Beijing's thinking and enable it to embrace realism. It could be an opportunity for the two sides to think anew. It is possible that Beijing realizes this is a golden opportunity, but lacks leaders of sufficient wisdom, strength, and compassion to make new choices and extricate the two sides from their never-ending struggle.

Scotland and Hong Kong have shown that cross-Strait problems are more complex, both conceptually and methodologically. The Republic of China is undoubtedly a common asset for both sides. Therefore Beijing must not cling to the notion of destroying the Republic of China. If a Ma Xi Meeting can be held, the two sides can avoid at least two decades of suffering. Without a Ma Xi Meeting, Beijing might destroy the Republic of China amidst a Pyrrhic victory. Does Beijing possess the wisdom and compassion? Does it realize that if it passes up the opportunity to hold a Ma Xi Meeting, any future regret will be too late?

錯失馬習會 北京會吃後悔藥
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.26 02:05 am

運用十一月北京ＡＰＥＣ年會安排馬習會的構想幾告幻滅，

但鼓吹促成此事者似仍未放棄最後的努力。北京若錯失了此次馬習會的不二機遇，未來恐會來不及吃後悔藥。

語云，順天應人。歷史的走向就是天，民意的歸趨就是人。兩岸的解決方案必須順天應人，不能背天逆人。馬習會可以是一個「天人交匯」之會，即「歷史與民意」之會；一旦錯失這個村，也許就不再有這家店。

兩岸的解決方案必須順應大歷史的走向。近代及現代史上有兩波「國家自決風潮」，一波在一九四五年二戰結束後，以「民族自決」為主；第二波起自一九八九年柏林圍牆倒塌及一九九一年蘇聯解體引爆的「蘇東波」，則是以擺脫共黨專政的「政治自決」為主。兩岸問題即使不能以「獨立公投」解決，但也必然不可能扼殺某種形式的「統一公投」，這亦可視為一種「自決」形式，將是兩岸在歷史走向、人類文明及民主人權上無法迴避的一個關口。

準此以論，不論國際輿論對蘇格蘭獨立公投的評價如何，但無疑是在政治文明及民主人權上樹立了典範。同理，兩岸的解決方案也必須回應人類文明的基準要求，不能釀成反歷史走向、反文明、反民主的悲劇。

再者，兩岸的解決方案自亦應以民意為歸趨。從香港的情勢可見，政治體制及價值信念的歧異，不是「文攻／武嚇／利誘」所能彌合；尤其，當民意的歸趨與前述歷史走向成為一致之時，背天逆人的橫柴入灶將使情勢難以收拾。香港的民意「只是」為了爭取「真普選」而已，卻已經鬧得不可開交，則北京將如何面對即將「第六次直選中華民國總統」的台灣民意？

兩岸能否覓得解決方案，卡在「中華民國」；而ＡＰＥＣ馬習會之能否實現，亦卡在「中華民國」。北京心中的兩岸解決方案若是建立一個「消滅中華民國的一個中國」，則不論在歷史文明上，或民主人權上，都是一個災難性、悲劇性的想法。而亦正因出自這種「不承認中華民國」、「消滅中華民國」的想法，所以北京對ＡＰＥＣ馬習會猶豫，深怕弄成「中華民國vs.中華人民共和國」的兩國論。但是，倘若北京能「解放思想／實事求是」（這是北京最近倡導的「鄧小平主旋律」），改以建立一個「保全中華民國的一個中國」為兩岸解決方案，即可能順應歷史文明、回應民意歸趨；那麼，在這個「大屋頂中國」之下，「中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國」，為什麼不能在ＡＰＥＣ實現馬習會？

北京欲以中華民國來防範台獨，卻又不肯承認中華民國是「一部分的中國」（只說大陸與台灣同屬一個中國）；這就使得台灣內部「借殼上市」之念不絕，且成為台灣人民在「一個中國」及「中國人」的認同上難以發展的根本原因。我們曾經主張「杯子理論」，亦即：「台灣是水，中華民國是杯；杯在水在，杯破水覆。」此一理論，不論在「一中各表」階段，或進入「大屋頂中國」階段，皆可成立。亦即，應以「保全中華民國的一個中國」為兩岸解決方案。

若北京能從「消滅中華民國的一個中國」，轉至「保全中華民國的一個中國」，則有什麼理由自ＡＰＥＣ馬習會上退縮？若能成事，兩岸當局何妨共同宣示以「試驗事件」來進行ＡＰＥＣ馬習會；馬英九以「中華台北經濟領袖」及「台灣領導人」的身分與會，各種儀節活動均經雙方協商規劃；在此「國際／國內」出現解讀彈性的情境中，「一個中國」即可能有了新內涵，兩岸關係也有了新思維與新活力，甚至能對人類解決政治衝突的方法與境界創造出新典範。因為，馬習會不只是一個「會面」，且必是一個影響人類文明思維的「號召」。

北京的思維誤區是，以為ＡＰＥＣ馬習會只是給台灣搭台唱戲，卻看不到此會更重要的是一個為大陸朝野「解放思想／實事求是」以重新思考兩岸方案的珍貴機遇。或者，北京也有人看出此一機遇，只是缺少一位有足夠大智慧及強烈慈悲心的領導人來為兩岸的糾纏解套，作出新的抉擇。

從蘇格蘭及香港之例，足證兩岸問題在理念及方法上的不簡單，而「中華民國」無疑是兩岸的共同資產，是以，切不可有「消滅中華民國」的淺薄想法。若有馬習會，兩岸至少可以省去二十年的磨難；若無馬習會，北京亦不當以「消滅中華民國」為兩岸玉石俱焚的解決方案。北京若能有此大智慧與大慈悲，即知一旦錯失馬習會，來日必會來不及吃後悔藥。