We Offer These Words on the Ma Xi Meeting

We Offer These Words on the Ma Xi Meeting
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2014

Summary: The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses. Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic.

Full Text Below:

The Mainland recently sent emissaries to Taiwan to deliver invitations to this year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting. Where the two sides will meet and who the participants will be have all been carefully planned in advance. The Mainland side will be represented by Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Director Gong Qinggai. Our side chose the Taipei Guest House. MAC and Foreign Ministry heads will be in attendance. This shows by implication that the relationship between the two sides is neither a state to state relationship, nor a purely internal matter. It is consistent with dignity and equality, and highlights the special relationship between the two sides. It is obviously a compromise, but one acceptable to both sides. It is completely different from the 2001 Shanghai APEC Leaders' Meeting, when an invitation was sent via fax machine. The two sides now understand each other. Their flexibility in dealing with the matter deserves affirmation. We believe it will help the two sides deal with matters pertaining to foreign affairs and mutual trust.

The Taiwan side later engaged in careful internal evaluation and consideration. Since the Chinese Communist Party did not reject outright President Ma attending the Economic Leaders Meeting as an economic leader, there may still be hope for a Ma Xi meeting at APEC in Beijing this year. People from all quarters are making an effort. They are making a last ditch attempt to ensure that it takes place. They include experts regarded as emissaries for the government, the pro-blue media, and even scholars who have never dabbled cross-Strait relations. For several days, a large number of articles were published. They urged the Beijing authorities to adopt a more elevated and strategic perspective, to seize a rare and historic opportunity to advance the two sides' common interests. President Ma Ying-jeou should agree to the meeting and meet with Xi Jinping. Beijing has deliberately released this information to Taipei. It clearly has a clear understanding of what it means.

From the past to the present, the Mainland's response to Ma Ying-jeou attending the APEC Leaders' Conference has been consistent. It will abide by APEC precedents. Beijing does not oppose a Ma Xi Meeting. It merely wishes to stipulate certain conditions. It has pointed out that if the two sides meet in a third country, that should not be construed as an international arena. It has also made clear its bottom line concerns. Our side knows that different people on the Mainland hold different ideas about a Ma Xi Meeting. Some value the historical role of a leaders meeting. They advocate throwing the doors wide open, and making an historic breakthrough. Others advocate gradualism. They think steadiness is preferable to impatience. They think haste could make waste. Still others think this is all a political game. Therefore Taiwan must be pressured to make concrete concessions. Others have suggested that the United States is not happy to see a significant and rapid improvement in cross-Strait relations, and may attempt to undermine it. In short, there is no consensus.

A Ma Xi Meeting is of course no trivial matter. Observers generally consider it more symbolic than real in significance. But the symbolic significance itself would have a significant impact. Since the meaning is largely symbolic, the possibility of success is greater. As long as both sides have a tacit understanding, as long as two people can meet, that will be a great achievement. How they meet and when they meet can be further discussed. Peace has become a common value for compatriots and authorities on both sides. An end to hostilities has become a reality. All that remains is to make the correct legal representations and reasonable and proper arrangements. We should do the easy before the difficult, and the simple before the complex. First publish the KMT Peace Declaration, then gradually proceed from there. Who can object to political dialogue and political consultation, paving the way for political negotiations?

Some may have doubts about the preceding claims. Is peace a process or a goal? People may have different views. Some think that peace is a means, and reunification is the ultimate goal. If peaceful national reunification cannot be achieved, Beijing will change its methods. But others believe that peace is a goal in itself, and a kind of value, one we must work hard to maintain. To be fair, peace is both a goal and a method. As we can see, the concept of national sovereignty is becoming diluted. One example is the independence referendum for Scotland. Authorities on both sides have much to reflect upon. The international community is of course interested in a Ma Xi Meeting. But the United States has made clear that whether Ma and Xi meet is a matter between the two sides. The American position remains to encourage dialogue and reduce tensions, step by step. America cares only about whether it understands what is going on, and is not kept in the dark. Apparently the U.S. will not interfere with or oppose any Ma Xi Meeting.

The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses.

Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic. And for that we offer the above commentary.

社論－對馬習會再進數言
2014年09月19日 04:11
本報訊

日前大陸派員來台遞送今年參加亞太經濟合作會議領袖會議邀請函，雙方見面的地點、人選都經過事前縝密規畫。大陸方面由國台辦副主任龔清概遞交，我方則挑選台北賓館，現場同時有陸委會及外交部主管，間接表明了雙方既不是國與國關係，又不是單純的內政問題，既符合尊嚴、對等的要求，也凸顯兩岸之間的特殊關係，這顯然是個雙方妥協，彼此都能接受的安排，與2001年上海APEC領袖會議以一紙傳真函邀請全然不同。雙方彼此體諒與靈活值得肯定，相信有助於兩岸共同處理涉外事務互信的累積。

事後，台灣內部經過多方評估和考量，研判既然中共並未正面拒絕馬總統以經濟領袖之名出席會議活動，馬習二人藉著今年北京APEC會面的可能並未絕望，各界卯足全力，開始進行最後的嘗試和努力。許多素來被視為幫政府傳遞訊息的專家、親藍的媒體，甚至某些從來不曾涉獵兩岸關係的學者，連續幾天大量發表文章，鼓吹北京當局應該由更高的戰略高度出發，把握稍縱即逝的歷史難得機遇，為兩岸共同利益，應同意馬英九總統與會，並與習近平會面。北京對台北刻意釋放的訊息，應該已經有相當程度的理解。

從過去到現在，大陸對馬英九參加APEC領袖會議一事，一貫立場是尊重APEC的慣例，至於馬習會一事，北京並不反對，只說仍要創造條件，而且指出兩人在第三國見面，並不意味著是國際場合，已經明示、暗示大陸的底線和顧慮。我方也知道，大陸內部對於馬習二人是否會面仍有不同思路，有人看重領導人的歷史性作用，主張大開大闔放手一搏，完成歷史性的突破，也有人主張循續漸進，不要揠苗助長，穩漸比躁進來得理想，欲速卻有不達的可能，更有人認為這是一場政治博奕，台灣必須做出具體讓步，還有人提出美國並不樂見兩岸關係大幅快速改善，不無掣肘的可能，總之，並無共識。

當然，馬習二人會面非同小可，外界一般認為象徵意義應該大於實質意義，而象徵意義的本身又會帶來實質的影響，既然象徵意義較大，事情成功的可能和機會當然就相對大些。只要雙方都有默契，只要兩人能夠見面就是最大的成就，而且見面的方式與時地仍有進一步操作的空間，當和平已經成為兩岸同胞與雙方當局認定的共同價值，當兩岸結束敵對狀態已經成為事實，未來端看雙方如何在法理上做出正確的表述，以及合情合理的妥善安排。至於是否採取由易而難，由簡而繁的方式，先行發表國共和平宣言，再往上逐步發展，為將來的政治對話、政治協商、政治談判進行鋪路，誰曰不宜？

或許，有人會對於前述主張有所質疑，對於和平到底是方法或是目標仍有不同的看法，有人認為和平是手段，統一才是最終的目標，如果以和平的方法無法實現國家統一的目標，北京在方法就會有所調整，但也有人認為和平的本身就是一個目標，就是一種價值，必須全力加以維護。持平而論，和平既是理想目標也是手段方法，我們看到當前各國淡化主權觀的趨勢，及蘇格蘭統獨公投的事例，對兩岸當局或許都有值得深思借鏡的地方。國際社會對馬習會的關切理所當然，但美國已表明，認為馬習是否見面，是兩岸之間的事情，美國的立場仍然是鼓勵對話、降低緊張、循序漸進，美國只在意自己是否能夠了解事態的發展，不被矇在鼓裡。看來，美國不會干擾、反對馬習會的實現。

兩岸和平發展的外力干擾，可能性與強度已逐漸減弱，大局雖仍有風險，但馬習會的主動權操之於北京，中國大陸如何能在既維持原則的堅定性，又不忘策略的靈活性的基礎上，以創造性的思維，突破性的作法，把握歷史的機遇，為了兩岸和平發展的永續，為了中華民族偉大復興的實現，而不要斤斤計較於短期的政治得失。

馬習能否利用這次APEC會議場域見面，其實端在習先生的一念之間。雖然機會之窗已經有限，但我們對此仍然抱持審慎的期望，願意為此再進以上數言。