The Unsaid Was More Important than the Said

The Unsaid Was More Important than the Said
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 2, 2015

Executive Summary: The Ma Xi summit spanned six decades. What was not said during the summit was far more exciting, far more critical, and far more important, than what was said. It also symbolizes Taiwan's turbulent political evolution.

Full Text Below:

The two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been separated since 1949, when the Chinese civil war ended. The Ma Xi summit was the first time leaders from the two sides have met in 66 years. Few question its historic significance or its contribution to cross-Strait peace. Criticisms focus mainly on protocol, transparency, and the details of the dialogue. The sharpest criticisms have been directed at Ma for not mentioning “different interpretations” during his opening statement, but instead mentioning it only later, during closed-door talks. These critics characterize Ma's action as backing down, and cite it to repudiate the value of the Ma Xi summit in toto.

Set aside for the moment the question of whether the Ma Xi summit gave Taiwan greater international prominence, contributed to cross-Strait peace, or defined cross-Strait relations for the DPP in the event it returns to power. Narrow the focus, and zoom in on the content. Forget for the moment what Ma Ying-jeou refrained from saying during his opening remarks. Focus instead on what other participants refrained from saying during the summit. Only then will one gain a true appreciation for the significance of the Ma Xi summit. Ma Ying-jeou was hardly the only person who refrained from saying something during his opening remarks. At least two other persons refrained from saying something. What they refrained from saying, far outweighs what they did say. especially Xi Jinping.

Some critics of the Ma Xi summit argue that Xi Jinping said nothing groundbreaking, therefore the summit was more symbol than substance. This criticism fails to understand the importance of symbolic events. Many substantive processes have been driven by symbolic events. As former American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Richard Bush noted, the Ma Xi summit had considerable symbolic significance, and the symbolism may well generate substance. Did Xi Jinping really say nothing new? Those who make this claim focus only on what Xi said. They fail to appreciate the importance of what Xi Jinping refrained from saying. Try this experiment. Search "Xi Jinping" and "Taiwan" and see what keywords emerge.

The answer is: "one country, two systems", "opposition to Taiwan independence", and "belong to one China". Did anyone notice these keywords were not in Xi Jinping's opening remarks? These things that Xi refrained from saying are the Mainland's chief innovation in Taiwan policy. These things. left unsaid, are the Mainland's way of showing respect for the feelings of the public on Taiwan. These constitute an important goodwill gesture. What Xi Jinping refrained from saying during his opening remarks explains why Ma Ying-jeou refrained from saying certain things during his opening remarks, and why Ma underscored “different interpretations” only later, behind closed doors.

This is why The Economist's Banyan Park Forum noted that the summit between ROC President Ma Ying-jeou and PRC President Xi Jinping, represents the most significant concession any Mainland leader has made on the core issue of sovereignty in recent years. After all, for the two sides to sit down to talk as “leaders” is in itself, an acknowledgement of the other party's jurisdiction. These things, which remained unsaid, were far more important than what Ma and Xi said aloud. They, far more than what was said, represent goodwill and progress.

Next, consider what Tsai Ing-wen refrained from saying. Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP blasted the Ma Xi summit afterwards. They said it would "undermine Taiwan's democracy". They said it would "box in the public on Taiwan, and limit their options". These criticisms were serious. But such criticisms aside, what Tsai Ing-wen refrained from saying is even more interesting.

The first thing Tsai Ing-wen refrained from saying, was anything negative about Xi Jinping. She blasted Ma, but never once mentioned Xi. This shows she hopes to retain the option of dealing with Xi following the election. She does not want bilateral relations to deteriorate. Therefore she exercised self-restraint. The next thing Tsai Ing-wen refrained from saying, would have have gone unnoticed, except that the Eric Chu vs. Tsai Ing-wen side show drew attention. Following the Ma Xi summit, Eric Chu wrote to the Washington Times and said that Tsai Ing-wen had no way to maintain the status quo. He said Tsai Ing-wen has habitually accused the KMT of "selling out Taiwan". The Tsai camp did not respond directly to Eric Chu's accusation. Instead, it solemnly stated that "The DPP did not accuse President Ma of selling out Taiwan during the Ma Xi summit".

In 2008, when Chen Yunlin visited Taiwan, the green camp stage a bloody siege. Tsai Ing-wen blasted President Ma, saying "He has no right to sell out Taiwan's sovereignty". She did not hesitate to red bait President Ma. Other DPP politicians have red baited the KMT relentlessly over the past decade. This time however, the DPP issued a solemn declaration saying it refrained from accusing President Ma of selling out Taiwan during the Ma Xi summit. This is significant. It amounts to an implicit DPP apology for years of accusing the Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT for selling out Taiwan. This constitutes an improvement of sorts. It means that politics on Taiwan has a chance to move toward the center.

The Ma Xi summit spanned six decades. What was not said during the summit was far more exciting, far more critical, and far more important, than what was said. It also symbolizes Taiwan's turbulent political evolution.

社論－「沒說什麼」比「說了什麼」更重要   

 馬習會是1949年國共內戰結束兩岸分隔66年後，領導人首度會面。對這一場會面，鮮少出現質疑其歷史性和平鞏固效果的聲音，反對意見多聚焦在程序不透明與談話的細節，特別是把炮火集中在馬英九於開場發言時沒說，但在閉門會談時才說的「各自表述」，認為是立場的退縮，然後一竿子推翻馬習會的價值。

先不論馬習會在宏觀面，為台灣帶來的國際能見度、所表彰的和平鞏固與深化意義、對民進黨再度執政後兩岸關係定位的鋪陳。就算縮小焦點，單從會談內容做微觀審視，也不應僅論究馬英九開場發言的「沒說」，而應同時觀察直接參與者與間接參與者的「沒說」，綜合來看，才能對馬習會得到正確的解讀。馬習會中，除了馬英九開場談話的「沒說」，另外還有兩個人的「沒說」，比他們說了什麼更重要，尤其是習近平的「沒說」。

對於馬習會，批評者的另一個貶抑，是認為從習近平的發言內容不具開創性，象徵意義大於實質。這種批評既是低估也是誤解，低估了歷史上許多重要的實質性進程是由重大象徵性事件所推動，前美國在台協會理事主席卜睿哲說得很到位：馬習會具有顯著象徵性意義，而象徵可創造實質。習近平談話真的沒有開創性嗎？那是因為論者只聚焦在習近平說了什麼，而沒有好好解讀習近平「沒說」所代表的重大意義。不妨做個實驗，如果把「習近平」與「台灣」二個詞彙放在一起，想想會有哪些「關鍵字」跳出來呢？

答案是：「一國兩制」、「反對台獨」、「同屬一中」。大家有沒有注意到，這些關鍵字在習近平的開場發言中都沒有出現。這些「沒說」的部分，就是大陸對台政策的「重大開創」，傳達出大陸方面尊重與理解台灣人民對兩岸關係的疑慮與情感，這當然是一個極大的善意。從習近平開場發言的「沒說」，才能正確解讀馬英九在開場發言裡「沒說」，但在閉門會強調的「各自表述」的意義與緣由。

這也是為什麼英國《經濟學人》的「榕園論壇」（Banyan）專欄，在馬習會後刊出評論中指出，總統馬英九與中國大陸國家主席習近平這場會談，可能是大陸歷任領導人近年來對主權「核心議題」的最大讓步。畢竟，兩岸領袖以「領導人」身分坐下來對談，本身即是一種「治權的承認」，這樣的「沒說」，遠比馬習二人的「有說」更重要、更善意、更具進步性。

其次，是蔡英文的「沒說」。雖然馬習會後蔡英文與民進黨強力批評馬習會「傷害台灣民主」、「框限台灣人民選擇」，這些批評不可謂不重。然而，在這些表面批評之外，蔡英文「沒說」的什麼，其實更有玄機。

蔡英文的第一個沒說，是她猛烈批馬卻不批習，這一點「沒說」，顯示她仍冀望在選後要保持與習近平的互動，不想惡化雙邊關係，因而仍保有一些節制。另一個「沒說」，本來是不會受到注意的，卻因為朱立倫與蔡英文一次「邊場交鋒」而受到關注。馬習會後，朱立倫投書《華盛頓時報》，質疑蔡英文沒有維持現狀的方法，文章中並指責蔡英文對國民黨一貫扣上「賣台」的大帽子，蔡陣營對朱立倫的維持現狀方法論質疑沒有正面回應，反倒鄭重發聲明，聲稱在馬習會「民進黨沒有指控馬總統賣台」。

回顧2008年陳雲林來台，引發流血包圍，當時蔡英文痛批馬總統「無權出賣台灣主權」，毫不遲疑扣了馬總統賣台的帽子，更遑論民進黨其他政治人物十多年如一日，對國民黨人丟賣台大帽子多到難以計數。此時的民進黨卻鄭重聲明，他們「沒說」馬總統賣台。這樣的沒說應有其意義，可視為一種對長期被民進黨扣賣台帽的馬總統與國民黨人「沒明說道歉的道歉」，這不能不說是一種進步，意謂台灣的政治，有機會朝更中道的方向跨步。

馬習這場跨越一甲子的領導人之會，沒說的什麼，遠比說了什麼更精彩、更關鍵，也更重要，對台灣顛簸的政治發展，可能也有一些代表性意義。(中國時報)