China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2016
Executive Summary: The Xi-Obama summit was undoubtedly the highlight of bilateral diplomacy at the Hangzhou G20 summit. As in the past, no joint press release was issued for the Sino-US summit. Instead, each side presented its own interpretation of the talks. Comparing the press releases issued by the two sides reveals where the two nations agree and disagree on a wide range of issues.
Full Text Below:
The Xi-Obama summit was undoubtedly the highlight of bilateral diplomacy at the Hangzhou G20 summit. As in the past, no joint press release was issued for the Sino-US summit. Instead, each side presented its own interpretation of the talks. Comparing the press releases issued by the two sides reveals where the two nations agree and disagree on a wide range of issues.
Consider the two sides' official press releases. Both heads of state affirmed the bilateral response to climate change, military confidence building measures. the fight against cyber crime, and challenges to economic development. But they did not hide their differences. One fourth of the Mainland's press release dealt with Xi Jinping's stance on Taiwan, Tibet, human rights, the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, and THAAD. In the White House press release, Obama expressed US concern over Internet security, human rights, the South China Sea, and Mainland political reform. On the South China Sea issue in particular, Obama devoted much ink demanding that Beijing respect international law, and stressed the US commitment its allies' security.
Now consider the two sides' arguments. The Mainland press release contained over 10,000 characters and covered 35 major points. Some major points included myriad minor points. It even included the two sides' exhibition of historical artifacts next year in New York, in painstaking detail. By contrast, the US press release was half as long as the Mainland's. The contrast between the two is intriguing.
For starters, the first item in the Mainland's press relealse was the "New Great Power Relationship between China and the US". Expressions such as these do not appear in the United State press release. This is not the first time this has happened. The United States has a very different view of the nature of Sino-US relations. For both, strategic trust remains inadequate. Secondly, the two sides' positions on major global and regional issues are nearly verbatim translations. These include peacekeeping, refugees, Iraq, Afghanistan, outer space, nuclear safety, maritime cooperation, economic cooperation, particularly with regards the cooperation component of economic development. This shows that the above-mentioned issues go beyond bilateral relations. This is especially true for political issues. They have become a new area for Sino-US cooperation. As Xi Jinping put it, Sino-US relations have strategic and global influence. Sino-US cooperation can benefit many other nations and the world as a whole.
Unfortunately the overlap between the two is relatively small. The United States is concerned about narcotics trafficing, law enforcement, counter-terrorism, Internet security, military relations, and regional cooperation. Not one of these is the result of bilateral trade and economic cooperation. For example, the Mainland wrote "Both China and the US confirmed that significant progress has been achieved on bilateral investment agreements”. This implies that the US side still has reservations about the progress made in bilateral relations.
Fortunately both sides reiterated their desire to handle their differences constructively, and to increase pragmatic cooperation. Despite tit for tat actions in the South China Sea, Obama urged the two sides to reduce tensions and create conditions conducive to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Sino-US cooperation benefits both. Strife will only harm both. Sino-US relations are about to enter a new phase. The Xi-Obama summit has fulfilled its purpose.
The most relevant issue in Mainland and US press releases for Taiwan, was of course the Taiwan issue. According to the Xinhua News Agency, Xi Jinping has made his position on Taiwan clear. He hoped the US side would adhere to the one China policy and the three Sino-US joint communiques, and take concrete action to safeguard peaceful cross-Straits relations and overall Sino-US cooperation. Obama responded positively, saying that United States' adherence to the one China policy has not changed, and it opposes any attempt to seek Taiwan independence. But the White House press release made no mention of the Taiwan issue. The media has confirmed that the United States' was merely responding in a low-keyed manner. Its policy has not changed.
There are two possible reasons for the low-keyed US response. One is that the Xinhua News Agency exaggerated the US position. But the United States needs to maintain cooperative relations with the Mainland. Either that, or it considers it inconvenient to argue with Mainland officials. Therefore it responded in a low-keyed manner. Another possibility is that the Xinhua News Agency report was accurate, but the US did not want to exert undue pressure on the Taiwan public and Tsai Ing-wen government. Therefore it deliberately downplayed the success of the Xi-Obama talks. If so, it was naturally in no position to correct the Xinhua News Agency press release.
The Mainland and the US have held "different interpretations" for quite some time. The United States established diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1979. Based on its one China policy, the US broke off diplomatic relations with the ROC. Withdrawal of troops was a requirement. But the United States clung to its own "one China" definition. The Mainland side knows the US was being two-faced. But it had no choice but to accept. The Mainland and the US each have their own one China policy. This has maintained stability in the Strait and with Beijing/Washington/Taipei relations for nearly 40 years. It remains valid today. Clearly “different interpretations" is politically astute. It enables two sides who hold different positions to save face, maintain contact, and continue interaction.
The 1992 Consensus is another kind of politically astute “different interpretations”. But the DPP government has foolishly tossed it aside. Does the DPP have the determination to go head to head with the Mainland? If not, then it must find room for "different interpretations". Trust between the CCP and DPP is essentially non-existent. The balance of power between the Mainland and the US is changing. The DPP will eventually pay a high price for its obstinacy.
歐習會「一會各表」的智慧
2016/9/9 中國時報
歐習會無疑是杭州G20峰會雙邊外交的重頭戲，與過去幾次一樣，本次中美峰會也沒有發表聯合聲明或共同新聞稿，而是各自表述會談的過程與成果。比較雙方分別公布的新聞稿與成果清單，可以清楚看出兩國在一系列問題上的共識與分歧。
先看兩國官方各自發布的新聞稿。兩位元首都肯定了雙方在應對氣候變遷、加強兩軍關係、打擊網路犯罪、應對發展挑戰等領域的合作，也都不迴避各種分歧。中方新聞稿中用了四分之一篇幅闡述習近平在台灣、西藏、人權、南海、朝鮮半島核問題，以及「薩德」等議題上的原則立場。在白宮新聞稿中，歐巴馬則表達了美方對網路安全、人權、南海、大陸政治改革等問題上的關切。尤其在南海問題上，歐巴馬用了許多篇幅敦促北京遵守國際法，並強調了美國對盟友安全所承擔的義務。
再看雙方各自梳理的成果清單，中方清單洋洋灑灑1萬多字，涵蓋35個大點（其中一些大點還包括若干小點），連雙方明年計畫在紐約合辦文物展等細節都寫了進去，可謂不厭其煩，面面俱到。反觀美方清單，相比中方縮水一半左右。兩相對照，耐人尋味。
首先，中方清單第一項就是「中美新型大國關係」，但類似表述並沒有出現在美方清單中，並且這不是第一次發生，可側面證明美方對中美關係性質有不同觀點，雙方戰略互信仍然不足。其次，雙方清單的交集主要在全球和地區問題，如維和、難民、伊拉克、阿富汗、外空、核安全、海洋合作、發展合作等，特別是有關發展合作部分，雙方的表述簡直就是中英文對譯。這說明上述超越雙邊層次的議題（尤其是其中的低政治議題），已成為中美合作的新增長點。用習近平的話來說，中美關係具有戰略意義和全球影響，中美合作可以辦成許多有利於兩國和世界的大事。
不過，兩國在雙邊關係成果上的交集相對不多，美方關注的是禁毒、執法、反恐、網路安全、軍事關係、地方合作等內容，清單上甚至沒有任何一項雙邊經貿合作的成果（比如中方宣布的「中美雙方確認，雙邊投資協定談判取得重大成果」），似乎暗示，美方對雙邊關係的實質性進展持相對保留態度。
令人欣慰的是，雙方均重申將繼續建設性管理分歧，拓展務實合作。即使在針鋒相對的南海問題上，歐巴馬也鼓勵各方降低緊張態勢，為和平解決爭端創造有利條件。中美合則兩利，鬥則兩傷。隨著中美關係即將進入新時期，可以說末代「歐習會」已經完成了自己的使命。
在中美各自發布的新聞稿中，最值得台灣重視的一個分歧點，就是台灣問題。據新華社的通稿，習近平對台灣問題有明確表態，希望「美方恪守一個中國政策和中美三個聯合公報原則，以實際行動維護兩岸關係和平發展和中美合作大局」。歐巴馬也作出了積極回應，稱「美方奉行一個中國政策沒有改變，反對任何尋求台灣獨立的做法」，但白宮新聞稿對台灣問題隻字未提。有媒體為此向美方查證，美方只是低調回覆，相關政策沒有改變。
美國低調有兩個可能，一是新華社報導不實，過度擴張解釋美國的立場，但美國基於與大陸維持合作關係的需要，或至少不便就此與大陸官員爭辯，因而低調應對。第二個可能是新華社新聞稿符合實情，但美國不願造成台灣民眾及蔡英文政府的壓力，故意對歐巴馬談話隱而不彰，當然事後不便更正新華社的新聞稿。
中美在台灣問題上「各自表述」其實由來已久，美中1979年建交是以美國承認「一個中國政策」，與中華民國斷交、撤軍為條件，但美國始終堅持自己的「一個中國」定義，中國大陸深知美國的雙面性，但也不得不接受。中美各自以自己的「一中政策」維繫中美台關係及台海穩定將近40年，至今依然有效。可見「各自表述」是一種政治智慧，可以讓不同立場的雙方找到台階，維持交往與互動。
「九二共識」就是一種各自表述的政治智慧，可惜民進黨政府棄如敝屣。民進黨如果沒有決心與中國大陸對衝，就必須重新與大陸找出「各自表述」的空間。只是，以民共之間互信的薄弱與中美兩國實力對比的位移，民進黨勢必付出更高代價。
No comments:
Post a Comment