The AIIB: Beijing should be Understanding, Taiwan should be Pragmatic

The AIIB: Beijing should be Understanding, Taiwan should be Pragmatic
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2015

Executive Summary: Should Taipei join the Mainland China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)? If so, how? Questions such as these have become the focus of attention at the Boao Forum. Before the meeting, President Ma, Premier Mao, and the MAC expressed Taipei's desire to join the AIIB. Once the government authorized Taipei's membership, former Vice President Vincent Siew told Xi Jinping that Taipei was willing to become an active participant. Xi nodded understanding. Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun then said Taipei is welcome to join. Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is in charge of foreign affairs, pointed out that the AIIB is a multilateral bank. Taipei's membership is subject to consultation. Even the name must be handled according to international conventions.

Full Text Below:

Should Taipei join the Mainland China sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)? If so, how? Questions such as these have become the focus of attention at the Boao Forum. Before the meeting, President Ma, Premier Mao, and the MAC expressed Taipei's desire to join the AIIB. Once the government authorized Taipei's membership, former Vice President Vincent Siew told Xi Jinping that Taipei was willing to become an active participant. Xi nodded understanding. Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun then said Taipei is welcome to join. Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is in charge of foreign affairs, pointed out that the AIIB is a multilateral bank. Taipei's membership is subject to consultation. Even the name must be handled according to international conventions.

The Mainland and Taiwan have made their positions and attitudes abundantly clear. Taipei has expressed a willingness to join, provided of course it is treated as an equal. Beijing has told Taipei it is welcome, but that the details need to be negotiated. The case is complex, involving many levels. Obviously they cannot be resolved immediately. But the exchange was positive. The two sides have gotten oft to a good start. They must now remember the big picture. They must maintain an historical and strategic perspective, engage in dialogue, negotiation, consultation, and put themselves in the other's place. They must succeed against all odds, make the impossible possible, and ensure its implementation, as soon as possible. If successful, both Taiwan and the Mainland will be winners.

Can Taiwan join international organizations? If so, how? For years the two sides fought bitterly over national identity, the name of the nation, and timing. They fought over terms such as Chinese Taipei, China Taipei,  and Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu Customs Territory. , They fought over every comma and every period, often dispensing with decorum. For both sides, the matter involves national dignity, national sovereignty, political stance, and face saving. Many ordinary people on both sides, and even foreign governments, do not understand the complexities of the issue. To them the two sides are merely playing word games or quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The arguments are often incomprehensible. Decades later, many remain baffled. The authorities on both sides, as well as the public, must now free up their thinking, and keep pace with the times.

Past experience with the Asian Development Bank, the International Olympic Committee, and the WTO, have shown Beijing to be firm, principled, and consistent. But on some matters it has been flexible and willing to work around problems. Taiwan has also been firm. It has tried to both save face and get what it wants. It has not always been happy with the results. But it has been able to live with them. It protests, but participates nonetheless. This rational and pragmatic approach is the correct one. After all, substantive benefits are more important than saving face. Taipei's participation in the AIIB should be handled in the same spirit and same fashion.

Regarding international conventions and the name issue, we agree with the Mainland on the one-China principle. We should insist on the one China concept or one China policy.  Taipei wants meaningful participation in international organizations and activities. But it has absolutely no intention to create two Chinas, one China, one Taiwan, or Taiwan independence. It ruled this possibility out long ago. Knowing this, the Mainland may be able to deal with such issues with greater tolerance and patience. Using the Hong Kong or Macao model to deal with Taipei's membership in the AIIB  is probably not the best approach. Xi spoke to Taiwan last year about his “three requirements”, including understanding, care, and respect for the status and interests of the people on Taiwan. Taiwan, after all, is not Hong Kong or Macau. A future "one country, two systems" on Taiwan would also be different. The Mainland should abide by the spirit of Xi Jinping's talk, and not engage in exaggeration.

Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties must set aside their differences. They must consider Taiwan's long term interests. They must not resort to trickery. They must not allow themselves to be hijacked by a minority of extremists and politicians concerned only about myopic political or personal advantage. After all, in the international community, power is the most important consideration. Dignity does not to come from begging. Having both the name and the game is best of course. But if one cannot have both, substantive benefits are what most people prefer. Central Bank CEO Perng Huai-nan said that all proposals must be pragmatic or submitted for public consideration. The current ruling party has expressed just such a willingness. We expect the DPP to offer concrete proposals for public consideration.

We understand that the Mainland has many concerns. One. Beijing is far more powerful today then it was back then. Even EU nations ignore the United States' recommendations and objections in order to join. Does Beijing intend to dictate the conditions of Taiwan's entry because it can? Or does it have other considerations? Two. The KMT was defeated in last year's election. This suggests that Taiwan may undergo yet another change in ruling parties in 2016. Beijing and the KMT enjoy mutual trust, rooted in the 1992 consensus. Beijing is willing to be lenient about Taiwan's membership in the AIIB. If next year the DPP returns to power however, this could turn into a serious problem. Academics and government officials in Beijing will experience headaches. We however must not exceed our brief by worrying about this problem on Beijing's behalf.

入亞投行 北京應包容台灣要務實
2015年03月30日 中國時報

台灣能否及如何參加由中國大陸倡議成立的亞洲基礎建設投資銀行（亞投行）一事，這次博鼇論壇中成為關注的焦點。會前，馬總統、毛院長及陸委會先後對台灣參與亞投行一事表達了正面的態度，經過政府授權，前副總統蕭萬長更是當面向習近平表達了台灣願意積極參與的立場。習近平對此點頭表示理解，而國台辦主任張志軍則說台灣有機會，大陸歡迎台灣加入，主管涉外事務的外長王毅則指出，亞投行是多邊銀行，需要經過一定的協商程序，至於名稱則應按國際慣例來辦理。

中國大陸和台灣都已經把立場和態度表達得非常清楚，台北積極表態願意加入，前提當然是要對等尊嚴，北京表示理解歡迎，但細節仍要協商。本案複雜，牽涉不少層面，事情顯然不可能立刻獲得解決，但就當前雙方反應看來，算是一個好的開場。今後就看兩岸雙方是否能夠從大局出發，站在歷史及戰略的高度，嘗試透過對話、談判、協商，易位思考，發揮化不可能為可能的藝術，排除萬難，早日促其實現。如能成功，對台灣、對大陸、對兩岸這都會是一個雙贏、多贏的結果。

兩岸為了台灣能否加入國際組織、如何參與國際活動，多年來鬥得不可開交，身分、名稱與時機都是爭議，從中華台北、中國台北到台澎金馬關稅領域，由逗點到句點，爭執幾度到了幾乎撕破臉的地步。對兩岸來說，這裡面牽涉到國格主權、政治立場和面子的問題，但對不了解兩岸問題複雜性的民眾和外國政府來說，雙方簡直是在玩弄文字魔術或大搞玄學，有時甚至到了難以理解的地步，幾十年後再回過頭來看，恐怕不少人還真會覺得有點莫名其妙。兩岸當局和民眾現在都要能夠解放思想、與時俱進才行。

從過去的經驗來看，從亞銀到國際奧會再到世界貿易組織，北京固然有其原則的堅定性和一貫性，但在某些安排上也展現了一定的靈活性，願意以變通的辦法來解決問題；台灣雖然也有所堅持，上策當然是面子、裡子兼而有之最好，但最後總在雖不滿意，但還能接受，或以抗議但仍然參與的方式，在理性務實的基礎上能做出正確的抉擇，畢竟裡子和實惠才是重要的考量。對於台灣參加亞投行的問題，雙方都應本著同樣的精神和方法來處理問題才是上上之策。

有關國際慣例與名稱問題，我們同意中國大陸對於一中原則、一中概念或一中政策應該有所堅持，台灣雖然理當有意義的參與相關國際組織和活動，但其前提是絕對不能成為兩個中國、一中一台或台灣獨立，只要排除了這種可能，中國大陸或許可以用更大的包容與耐心來處理問題。如果要以香港或澳門的模式來處理台灣的入行問題，這恐怕未必是最好的作法，按照習近平去年講過對台灣的三個充分，要包容、照顧、尊重台灣的現況與民眾利益，台灣畢竟不是香港、澳門，而且未來「一國兩制」在台灣的具體實現也將有所不同，大陸各方應當把握習講話的精神，不宜過度上綱上線。

除此而外，我們更要呼籲台灣朝野政黨捐棄成見，由台灣的整體及長遠利益出發，不要再機關算盡，不要再被少數極端分子和政客所挾持，只想到眼前短期的政黨或個人利益，畢竟在國際社會裡，實力才是最重要的考量，尊嚴不是要來的，如果魚與熊掌能夠兼而有之當然最好，但如果沒法兼得，現實的利益恐怕還是多數民眾追求的目標，中央銀行總裁彭淮南有謂，一切還是要務實以待的主張或值各界參考。如今，執政黨已表明態度和立場，我們期望民進黨也要拿出一套具體的主張，以供全民檢驗。

我們當然理解，中國大陸當前還有各種不同的考量。首先，北京今日的實力已非當年可比，連歐盟各國都敢置美國的規勸和阻擾於不顧，北京是否要以新的條件來對應台灣入行的要求或有不同考量；其次，國民黨去年底選舉大敗，隱然之間2016台灣可能再次出現政黨輪替，如果北京出於和國民黨的互信，在九二共識的基礎上，願意對台灣的入行問題採取相對較為寬鬆的態度，萬一明年民進黨重新執政，這確實是個讓人操煩的問題，就讓北京的學者、官員去頭疼吧，咱們暫且犯不著越俎代庖的為北京去操心了。