Taipei Times: Based on your involvement in the preparation work for the talks between then-Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and then-Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) chairman Wang Daohan (汪道涵) in 1993 and 1998, what are your thoughts on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) earlier this month?
Chang Jung-feng (張榮豐): A meeting between leaders from both sides of the Taiwan Strait is an issue of great importance, a good thing as a matter of fact.
However, the point is, why has there not been a cross-strait leaders’ summit these past 20 years, even when in 1995 then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) announced “Jiang’s Eight Points (江八點)” and invited then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for a meeting?
Photo: Fang Pin-chao, Taipei Times
The reason is that we took national interests into consideration.
If one simply wished to actualize the meeting with disregard for national costs — like Ma in pursuit of fame that lacks true substance — then a meeting between leaders from both sides of the Strait would have easily taken place at some point in the past 20 years.
TT: What led you to believe that Ma held the Ma-Xi meeting simply to fulfill his own personal interests?
Chang: At the most important setting where leaders from both sides of the Strait appeared in front of the international media, during that crucial five to seven minutes, Ma ditched the “different interpretations” component from the so-called “1992 consensus” in his discussions.
From remarks made by Ma’s aide Chao Chun-shan (趙春山) afterward, we learned that the omission was not a slip of the tongue, but a result of negotiations due to China’s objection, so they decided to take it out.
From this point of view, the notion of “one China, with different interpretations” (一中各表) could be said to be our biggest national interest, yet Ma ended up sacrificing our most important national interest, especially so right in front of the international media, a move that was tantamount to declaring to the whole world that from now on there is only “one China,” and no “different interpretations.”
It was an action that showed a downright disregard for national interests. He was simply wanting to cement his so-called personal legacy.
However, historical legacy is merely a reputation of sorts, given to people who are dead; it is pointless. As some Japanese academics have pointed out, it [the pursuit of a personal legacy] is often the “inner demon” haunting Taiwan’s president.
The Ma-Xi meeting was like “exchanging a diamond for a roof-tile.” The “different interpretations” [component from the “1992 consensus”] is like a diamond, which Ma used in exchange for a “roof-tile,” his so-called personal legacy.
TT: The Ma-Xi meeting was followed by a press conference held by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) before a separate one presided over by Ma. How would you assess Ma’s performance?
Chang: For an international event like this, when leaders from two nations meet, usually what they present in front of the international media is a political declaration, followed then by a discussion of the details from closed-door talks, and then a post-summit elaboration delivered by ranking-level officials recounting what has been discussed at the summit.
China follows this international protocol thoroughly: Xi in his speech clearly reiterated China’s nationalism, all the while declaring that Chinese are capable of solving their problems.
That was it, his political declaration, loud and clear, without dwelling on details.
When it was Ma’s turn, he presented his speech in point form, one, two, three and so forth, which came across more like something a Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) minister would do.
By the long-winded demeanor in which he presented his speech, he instantly lowered his position to that of a ranking official.
Further analyzing the five points he made, two among which were on nationalism: In one he spoke of the “1992 consensus,” in which he made reference to the Constitution by stating it does not allow “two Chinas, one China one Taiwan, nor Taiwanese independence;” and another when he spoke of “invigoration of the Zhonghua minzu (Chinese ethnic group, 中華民族) — remarks that completely echoed Xi’s statements.
As for the remaining three points, namely expanding cross-strait exchanges, removing missiles aimed at Taiwan and upgrading the level of a cross-strait hotline, they are in fact all pseudo-issues. Why? Expanding cross-strait exchanges, it is a no-brainer issue.
As for the removal of the missiles, unless China destroys the missiles, removing them is pointless considering today’s technology, because even if China removed the missiles along its coast in Fujian, it could still send missiles Taiwan’s way from Xinjiang, Dongbei (northeastern China) and Yunnan. As for the cross-strait hotline, it in fact already existed during Lee’s presidency. At the time it was between the SEF and the ARATS; now Ma has proposed to upgrade the hotline level to that of a MAC minister, but it lacks true substance because regardless of which level in government the hotline is established under, messages received have to be reported to the president anyway.
Above all these, the most ridiculous is that after Ma pitched these three requests, Xi did not make concrete statements in response.
As for the post-meeting press conference, it should have been held by ranking-officials, but Ma, out of a desire to show off, decided to host it himself.
At the press conference he presented himself more like a professor, lecturing about constitutional matters, and amid his long-winded remarks, the audience lost track of what his focal points were.
TT: Everything that you have mentioned suggests that Ma failed in presenting a level of class befitting his status and standing as president. Do you think it was because of his aides’ negligence, who did not prepare him enough for the occasion, or an issue to do with his own competence?
Chang: I believe it was not negligence on the part of his aids, because from what I have learnt, their advice to Ma fell on deaf ears: It was Ma’s one-man show.
That is why I say Ma has sacrificed that national interest for his personal fame, because he not only abandoned national interests, but also was oblivious to advice given by his aides.
TT: The most recent claim by the Ma administration is that China brought up the possibility of the meeting in September, suggesting there had been contact in preparation for the summit for at least two months. Why did Ma not inform the legislature about the matter?
Chang: Of the 23 agreements the Ma administration has signed with China over the past seven years, none of them show any respect for the legislature or pubic opinion.
In essence, what he did is in violation of democracy, he does not believe in the core value of democracy.
After the Ma-Xi meeting, he said he was willing to make a report to the legislature, but if you truly respect the legislature, you would have informed it before, not after.
Take the 1998 Koo-Wang talk as an example. In December 1997, we announced that there would be a Koo-Wang talk the following year. Although the exact date of the talk required further negotiation, at least the Taiwan public was informed that there would be a Koo-Wang talk in 1998.
During that time, we as aides conducted polls, sought opinion from the opposition party; as a matter of fact, Koo’s delegation included the opposition’s Kang Ning-hsiang (康寧祥).
We also consulted experts from various realms, including ones from the Peking opera, as Koo was fond of and had a talent for singing Peking opera.
We also let the US and Japan know in advance, not so they could tell us what to do, but to offer us their opinions.
The difference between the Ma-Xi meeting and the 1998 Koo-Wang talk is that we had gauged the public’s opinion in advance, as well as sought advice from the legislature and our allies.
Our set goal for the 1998 talk was also clear, which was an “equal footing and democratic values,” which was upheld in front of the international media.
TT: Xi is to remain the Chinese president for the next seven years. How would you suggest Taiwan’s new president, to be elected on Jan. 16, deal with cross-strait affairs?
Chang: I must reiterate that the current cross-strait situation is not an achievement of a single individual, though Ma would like to think of it as his personal achievement.
It is a result of a “dynamic and non-cooperative game” between Taiwan, the US and China these past 60 years.
To be part of this “dynamic and non-cooperative game” and uphold national interests, the most important thing is that you must possess a collective national strength. When a president faces pressure, what he or she relies on the most is the nation’s collective strength.
As such, the president would need to revive the nation’s economy, take good care of domestic affairs and continue along the path of consolidating the nation’s democracy; only then, in the so-called “game,” can Taiwan garner support from the international community.
A group of Taiwanese-American and Tibetan-American students at Harvard University on Saturday disrupted Chinese Ambassador to the US Xie Feng’s (謝鋒) speech at the school, accusing him of being responsible for numerous human rights violations. Four students — two Taiwanese Americans and two from Tibet — held up banners inside a conference hall where Xie was delivering a speech at the opening ceremony of the Harvard Kennedy School China Conference 2024. In a video clip provided by the Coalition of Students Resisting the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), Taiwanese-American Cosette Wu (吳亭樺) and Tibetan-American Tsering Yangchen are seen holding banners that together read:
UNAWARE: Many people sit for long hours every day and eat unhealthy foods, putting them at greater risk of developing one of the ‘three highs,’ an expert said More than 30 percent of adults aged 40 or older who underwent a government-funded health exam were unaware they had at least one of the “three highs” — high blood pressure, high blood lipids or high blood sugar, the Health Promotion Administration (HPA) said yesterday. Among adults aged 40 or older who said they did not have any of the “three highs” before taking the health exam, more than 30 percent were found to have at least one of them, Adult Preventive Health Examination Service data from 2022 showed. People with long-term medical conditions such as hypertension or diabetes usually do not
POLICE INVESTIGATING: A man said he quit his job as a nurse at Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital as he had been ‘disgusted’ by the behavior of his colleagues A man yesterday morning wrote online that he had witnessed nurses taking photographs and touching anesthetized patients inappropriately in Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital’s operating theaters. The man surnamed Huang (黃) wrote on the Professional Technology Temple bulletin board that during his six-month stint as a nurse at the hospital, he had seen nurses taking pictures of patients, including of their private parts, after they were anesthetized. Some nurses had also touched patients inappropriately and children were among those photographed, he said. Huang said this “disgusted” him “so much” that “he felt the need to reveal these unethical acts in the operating theater
Heat advisories were in effect for nine administrative regions yesterday afternoon as warm southwesterly winds pushed temperatures above 38°C in parts of southern Taiwan, the Central Weather Administration (CWA) said. As of 3:30pm yesterday, Tainan’s Yujing District (玉井) had recorded the day’s highest temperature of 39.7°C, though the measurement will not be included in Taiwan’s official heat records since Yujing is an automatic rather than manually operated weather station, the CWA said. Highs recorded in other areas were 38.7°C in Kaohsiung’s Neimen District (內門), 38.2°C in Chiayi City and 38.1°C in Pingtung’s Sandimen Township (三地門), CWA data showed. The spell of scorching