Taipei and Beijing Must Walk a Mile in Each Other’s Shoes

Taipei and Beijing Must Walk a Mile in Each Other’s Shoes
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2014

Executive Summary: Both sides face a new situation. Both sides need to learn empathy and eschew self-centered political calculation. Neither side should indulge in wishful thinking or judge the other according to the rules of its own system. Both sides need to make use of existing mechanisms to provide advance notice and ensure clear communications. Only then can decision-makers and opinion leaders grasp each others’ meaning and point us in the right direction.

Full Text Below:

The 3/18 Sunflower Student Movement was followed by the Chang Hsien-yao incident, which was in turn followed by the abortive Ma Xi meeting. Xi Jinping’s reference to “one country, two systems” led to Ma Ying-jeou’s National Day speech, in which he hoped that the Mainland authorities would “allow some people to enjoy democracy first." Storm clouds have darkened the skies over the Taiwan Strait for some time now. Fortunately Siew and Xi and Wang and Zhang were able to meet during the APEC conference. Deep-rooted cross-Strait structural problems remain. Fortunately authorities on both sides are willing to see the Big Picture, and rebuild political trust on the basis of the 1992 consensus. We believe the course of cross-Strait relations remains unchanged. The momentum remains unchanged, the goodwill remains unchanged, and the determination remains unchanged. We must continue to broaden and deepen interaction between the two.

The authorities on both sides have been reasonable, pragmatic, and level-headed. They should be applauded for doing everything in a timely and clear-cut manner.

Their handling of the situation will help avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. Misunderstandings and miscalculations are the most important cause of international and cross-Strait conflicts. The two sides must maintain this attitude from this day on. They must continue to see the Big Picture. They must convey accurate messages in a timely manner through existing mechanisms and appropriate communication channels. Cross-Strait relations will remain subject to fluctuations. But these fluctuations can be confined within a certain range. This is good for the two sides, and good for regional security. It should be welcomed by everyone.

The two sides share the same cultural origin. But they have been separated by decades of divided rule. Different political and economic systems have led to differences in thinking and behavior. These have led to differences over the 1992 consensus, over one China, shared interpretation or one China, different interpretations, over Chinese Taipei or China Taipei. These have led to differences over terms such as domestic, international, or cross-strait, to the 2005 "Anti-Secession Law," and to pro-war or pro-peace. Cross-Strait relations are a dilemma. Do not pass the buck onto future generations. Statements may be interpreted as pressuring Taiwan or simply expressing a hope. But political one-upsmanship is transparently obvious. Do not claim that foreigners or the two sides’ authorities do not understand.

Xi Jinping’s 9/26 statement about one country, two systems triggered criticisms. But Beijing was not issuing a political manifesto. It was merely proposing a new Taiwan policy of "peaceful development, opposition to Taiwan independence, and a meeting of the minds." We believe specific programs will soon be introduced. Beijing was surprised by Taipei’s anger. By the same token, Ma Ying-jeou double ten speech expressed hope that the Mainland would implement democratic constitutionalism. It expressed understanding and support for the Occupy Central demonstrations in Hong Kong. This provoked the Beijing authorities’ ire. They thought the Taipei authorities were mobilizing to support pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. But that is not how the authorities in Taipei operate. Absent specific instructions, President Ma's words were merely an expression of opinion. No concrete action was intended.

Another example of misunderstandings was the Ma-Xi meeting at APEC. Mainland authorities felt they had made their position clear long ago. One. They would follow precedents. Two. An international venue was inappropriate. They even said that holding the meeting in a third country was not an international alternative. The Beijing authorities tried to consider feelings in Taipei. They were reluctant to come straight out and say that Xi Jinping refused to meet, so they left matters fuzzy. As a result, the Taipei authorities misunderstood. They assumed that unless the highest authorities in Beijing directly and explicitly refused, a meeting was still possible. So they launched a last-ditch campaign. We can review the reasons behind national security agency miscalculations. But insiders know the misunderstanding was the result of President Ma's subjective expectations, rather than professional miscalculations.

Cross-Strait relations today are different. The power differential is obvious. Time is not on Taipei’s side. But the CCP also knows that reunification cannot be based entirely upon culture, ethnic origin, or national sentiment. The Mainland hopes to establish new conditions for reunification. It hopes to create a new theoretical framework, encourage mutual understanding and mutual respect, in order to ensure that the two sides are moving in the same direction. For people on Taiwan, Mainland China’s rise is simultaneously an opportunity, a challenge, and a threat. People on Taiwan should of course not put all their faith in the uncertain goodwill of the Mainland. But Beijing is doing its utmost to understand our plight on Taiwan. It is attempting to meet our needs. It is attempting to avoid angering the public on the many issues that still cannot be resolved.

Both sides face a new situation. Both sides need to learn empathy and eschew self-centered political calculation. Neither side should indulge in wishful thinking or judge the other according to the rules of its own system. Both sides need to make use of existing mechanisms to provide advance notice and ensure clear communications. Only then can decision-makers and opinion leaders grasp each others’ meaning and point us in the right direction.

社論－兩岸易位思考才能避免誤判
2014年11月18日 04:10
本報訊

從318太陽花運動、張顯耀事件到馬習會破局，由習近平一國兩制談話到馬英九國慶演說期望大陸「讓一部分人先民主起來」，不可否認，過去一段時間台海上空曾經陰霾密布。所幸經過亞太經合會的蕭習會和王張會後，兩岸深層的結構性問題雖仍存在，但兩岸當局都展現願以大局為重，願在九二共識基礎上，重建彼此的政治互信，相信兩岸關係可以在方向不變、勢頭不變、誠意不變、決心不變的前提之下，採取積極措施，繼續擴大、深化彼此之間的各種互動。

各界對於兩岸當局這種理性、務實、冷靜的處事風格，適時、明快澄清立場的作法都持肯定的態度，畢竟這將有助於避免誤解與誤判，而誤解、誤判和意外正是國際和兩岸發生衝突的最主要原因。今後，只要雙方都能夠維持這種心態和做法，凡事多由大局與戰略的高度出發，能夠透過既有的機制或適當的溝通管道，適時傳達正確的訊息，即或兩岸問題將來仍然會有波動，但其幅度終將侷限在可以控制的範圍之內，這對兩岸雙方、對區域安全都是好事，應為大家所樂見。

兩岸雖然文化淵源相同，但幾十年的分隔分治，不同的政經體制使得雙方在某些思維和行為上已經有了出入，從九二共識的一中共表或一中各表，由中華台北或中國台北，是國內、國際或兩岸航線，到2005年《反分裂國家法》到底是求戰或是求和，兩岸問題不要一代代傳下去，是對台施壓或只是單純的表達期望。這些高來高去的政治語言和行為，不要說外國人看不懂，即或兩岸當局有時都還不能精準掌握。

更具體的說，926習近平有關一國兩制的說法引發非議，但北京的重點不在政治宣示，而在提出「三個充分照顧，和平發展，反對台獨以及心靈契合」對台新政策，相信很快就還有具體方案和作為出檯，台北的憤怒完全出乎北京意料之外。同樣的，馬英九雙十談話中對大陸民主憲政的期許，和對香港占中行動的理解與支持讓北京非常憤怒，以為台灣政府部門將會全面動員，對香港民眾追求民主的活動展開實際的支援和協助，但了解台灣政府運作的人都應該知道，除非有更具體的指示，馬總統的談話不過是立場和態度的表達，不會有實際的動作出現。

再比如說，有關APEC會上馬、習二人會面的問題，大陸方面自覺早已透過工作階層把話說得再明白不過，一要遵循慣例，二是國際場合不宜，甚至提出第三國不等於國際的替代方案，北京顧及台北的感受，不願由習近平直接出面表達拒絕之意，讓雙方仍有一點模糊的空間。但台北方面的判斷卻是，只要沒有來自北京最高當局直接而且明確的拒絕就表示仍有可能，於是在APEC會前發動最後一回合宣傳攻勢，企圖奮力一搏。如今如要檢討國安單位判斷失誤固然並無不可，但圈內人應該知道，這多半是配合馬總統的主觀期望所做出的政治而非專業判斷。

兩岸關係今昔不同，強弱已然易勢，時間不在台灣的一邊，但中共也已體會，統一不能再以單純的文化、血源、民族情感做為號召，大陸希望建構新的統一條件，形塑新的理論架構，鼓勵雙方相互體諒，彼此尊重，相向而行。對台灣來說，中國大陸的成長與茁壯是機會、挑戰、威脅兼而有之，台灣固然不宜把自己的前途完全寄託在大陸不確定的善意上，但北京如今正在盡最大的可能，包容、體諒台灣某些的困境，配合台灣的需求，在許多目前仍然無法處理的事情上盡量不要激怒台灣民意。

面對新情勢，兩岸都需要學習換位思考，減少自我為中心的政治算計，不要一廂情願以自己的制度或行事方式來評斷對方，要透過現有機制，增加事前溝通，傳達正確訊息，讓決策當局、意見領袖能夠掌握正確意涵，適時發揮導正作用。