最近的發展揭示了大陸紅十字會、台灣海峽交流基金會和台灣陸委會如何處理2月14日大陸船隻事故的善後工作，該事故導致金門海域兩名大陸漁民死亡。本文將分析此類溝通所涉及的政治。
2月16日，台灣海峽交流基金會（海基會，個由台灣政府設立的、負責與大陸處理技術和商業事務的半官方組織）致函大陸海峽兩岸關係協會（海協會），並安排大陸漁民親屬前往金門處理有關事宜。
國台辦：海警部門將進行常態化執法巡查行動
2月17日，大陸國台辦新聞發言人朱鳳蓮表示，台灣是大陸領土不可分割的一部分，根本不存在「禁止、限制水域」的說法。台方必須對兩名大陸漁民的死亡承擔責任。同時，福建海警表示，將提升海域治安執法能力，維護秩序，維護內地漁民生命財產安全。
朱鳳蓮也表示，造成兩名大陸漁民遇難是「惡性」事件。針對朱鳳蓮的言論，台灣陸委會表示，大陸漁船「不得」進入「台灣限制及禁止水域」，主管機關為維護漁民權益，依法驅離或扣留「越界」船舶。
2月18日，朱鳳蓮表示，大陸海警部門將在廈門、金門水域進行常態化執法巡查行動，國台辦將堅決支持這項行動。她的言論意味着大陸海警將在廈門、金門之間海域採取巡邏行動。
同日，金門區漁會發表公告：（一）兩岸正處敏感時刻，呼籲當地漁民切勿越界作業及從事違規行為，以保障自身安全；（二）若遇海事糾紛或大陸公務船截查，漁民可通報漁會電台，或撥打海巡署電話。
台灣國防部2月19日同時發布消息稱，24小時內，共有7架解放軍飛機在台灣領空附近飛行，7艘大陸軍艦有活動。客觀地講，突然的宣布似乎讓兩岸氣氛緊張，但大陸戰機和軍艦的出動或許是巧合。
2月19日，台灣一艘遊艇在金廈門水域突然被福建海警登船臨檢。第二天，台灣新聞報道大陸海警船再次進入「金門水域」。
大陸海警2月19日對台灣遊艇進行臨檢的舉動，與朱鳳蓮2月18日提到的大陸海警將把巡查行動作為一種「常態化」活動相契合。
陸委會批評：傷害兩岸人民感情
對此，台灣陸委會批評大陸海警的此類行為「傷害兩岸人民感情」。台灣交通部航港局公開表示，如果台灣船隻遇到大陸海警的巡查行動，可以拒絕停船，並應迅速返回台灣，這一消息引起了一些台灣評論人士的批評，他們認為，台灣政府把球踢給台灣民眾解決問題，而不是採取行動解決問題。
儘管台灣交通部航港局在「限制、禁止水域」的問題上可能公開發表了不利好兩岸關係的言論，但台灣國防部表示不會干預大陸海警對台灣船隻的此類檢查──這是化解任何危機並防止兩岸緊張局勢不必要升級的明智之舉。
2月20日，泉州晉江紅十字會高級顧問李朝暉率領6名大陸漁民親屬抵達金門。李朝暉說，他們此行的目的是「了解事實真相，協助家屬善後，接回兩名生還者」。
李朝暉也帶着泉州晉江紅十字會的同事和大陸律師來到金門。 他補充說，台方不應反對大陸代表團查明兩名大陸漁民死亡事實的基本訴求。
2月20日，兩名倖存大陸漁民被安排從金門返回大陸。但當陸委會工作人員出示文件要求大陸紅十字會在上面簽收「遣返人員移交證書」時，大陸方面卻拒絕了。對此，台灣海巡署表示，儘管大陸紅十字會拒絕簽署有關文件，但仍會將大陸人遣送回大陸。
大陸漁民被粗暴對待？
2月21日，大陸生還者回到廈門，他們抱怨台方「粗暴」對待他們，台灣海巡艇竟然在2月14日下午與大陸船隻發生擦撞。對於大陸生還漁民，朱鳳蓮表示，大陸方面要求台方披露事實，嚴懲事件責任人，並向受害大陸漁民說明情況。
同時，台灣新聞報道透露，台灣海巡艇2月14日驅離大陸漁船時沒有攜帶任何攝影機，這一情況已得到金門檢察部門的證實。據報道，台灣海巡艇上的一名隊員雖然手持攝影機，但由於船隻的劇烈晃動，以及短短5分鐘內發生漁民落水要救人，使他無法錄影。因此，收集該事件的證據存在困難，這樣的解釋自然引起了大陸和台灣的批評。
更複雜的是，台灣海巡署承認海巡艇與大陸漁船發生擦撞。
2月21日晚，大陸國台辦發言人朱鳳蓮表示，台方不應隱瞞事實，而應公開事實，嚴懲相關責任人，並向遇難者家屬道歉。
2月22日，台灣海巡署召開記者會，向傳媒解釋稱，CP1051海巡艇屬於10噸以下小型船舶，按照法律法規，該船不需要配備攝影機。不過，為了避免未來發生類似事件，這類船舶今後將安裝攝影機。該部門的解釋相當謹慎，無法回應CP1051艇與大陸漁船發生擦撞的批評。
台灣官方當局管理攝影機的方式受到反對派國民黨的批評。國民黨議員、立委陳玉珍表示，台灣海巡艇有配備「密錄器」，但由於其中一些是大陸製造的，因此沒有使用。
所有新聞報道都未能確定CP1051艇上是否有個別人員攜帶可以拍攝台灣海巡艇與大陸漁船「擦撞」的攝影機。
但從雙方的溝通來看，這場悲劇仍具有政治意義。
雙方依靠紅十字會進行溝通
首先，雙方依靠紅十字會進行溝通。2月23日，大陸晉江市紅十字會率團再次訪問金門，與台方進行閉門會談。兩名大陸遇難者家屬要求台灣海巡署道歉，但雙方沒有共識。雖然雙方都有分歧，但這次活動最有意思的是，包括大陸和台灣紅十字會在內的雙方都求同存異。 因此，無論高層政治分歧如何，相互溝通都是操作層面的務實舉措。
雙方紅十字會的互動可以追溯到1990年9月12日，雙方在金門討論如何監管台灣和大陸的疑犯移交事宜。他們的討論以「積極看待事實、建立互信、平息爭議、爭取雙贏」的原則達成了《金門協議》。有意思的是，自2月14日大陸船難以來，這項原則又被重新提起──儘管兩岸執政黨在高層政治層面上存在爭執，但這是兩岸關係積極健康的跡象。但在低級政治和現實悲劇的層面上，雙方必須至少非正式或半正式地坐下來，就令所有利益相關者滿意的解決方案進行溝通。
其次，台灣海基會與大陸海協會的溝通──前者給後者寫信，然後是雙方紅十字會的交流──引發了討論。海基會致海協會的信函意義重大，雙方討論了操作層面的務實問題。
第三，從參加金門會談的人員來看，大陸代表團中有半官方身分的成員，也就是兼任泉州泉州市台港澳辦公室副主任的李朝暉。如果紅十字會接受大陸政府的政治領導和監督，那麼其領導官員，如晉江市紅十字會秘書長曹榮山，就顯得具有半官方地位。雙方2月23日的會面具有政治意義，因為台方包括了海巡署、陸委會、海基會的官員。因此，2月23日的金門會談，可以說是自2016年5月蔡英文就任台灣總統、兩岸關係惡化以來所未有的。
綜上所述，2月14日大陸船隻在金門海域發生的悲劇，最重要的非故意和政治後果，是引發了兩岸在務實和操作層面上，為了大陸生還者和遇難者家屬的利益而進行的討論。在雙方紅十字會進行相互溝通和對話的同時，雙方的半官方和官方機構也有不同程度的參與，其中大陸方面有半官方機構和半官方人員參與。另一方面，台灣半官方的海峽交流基金會和官方機構海巡署、陸委會實際上已經介入了會談。雙方都表現出了高度的務實、包容，以及在困難中達成共識的意願。如果是這樣，兩岸關係仍保持謹慎樂觀。未來幾天、以至幾周內，雙方如何達成讓大陸遇難者家屬滿意的解決方案，我們且拭目以待。
The politics of Cross-Strait communications over the Mainland boat tragedy in Kinmen
Recent developments have revealed how the Mainland Red Cross, the Strait Exchange Foundation from Taiwan, and the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council have been dealing with the aftermath of a mainland boat’s tragedy, which led to the deaths of two mainland fishermen off the coast of Kinmen on February 14. The politics involved in such communications will be analysed in this article.
*Sonny Lo
On February 16, the Taiwan side’s Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) – a semi-official organization set up by the Taiwan government to deal with technical and business matters with the mainland – wrote a letter to the mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and arranged the relatives of the mainland fishermen to go to Kinmen to handle the matters concerned.
On February 17, the spokesperson of the mainland’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office, Zhu Fenglin, said that, from the ancient times, there have been no “prohibited waters” around Kinmen, and as such, the Taiwan side had to shoulder the responsibility of the deaths of the two mainland fishermen. At the same time, the Fujian marine police remarked that it will enhance its ability to implement law and order on the waters to protect the order and to safeguard the lives and properties of the mainland fishermen.
Zhu also remarked that the incident involving the deaths of the two mainland fishermen was “malicious.” In response to Zhu’s remarks, the Taiwan side’s Mainland Affairs Council said that the mainland fishing vessels “cannot” enter the “restricted Taiwan waters, and that the Taiwan marine inspection vessels needed to protect the “normal order on Taiwan waters.”
On February 18, Zhu Fenglin commented that the mainland marine police would take inspection action on the waters of Xiamen and Kinmen as a part of normalization – an action that would be resolutely supported by the Taiwan Affairs Office. Her remarks meant that there will be action taken by the mainland marine police to patrol on the waters of Xiamen and Kinmen.
On February 19, four marine police vessels from mainland China were appearing in the waters of Xiamen and Kinmen, and they surrounded the northern, southern, and southeastern parts of Kinmen. On the same day, the spokesperson of the mainland Taiwan Affairs Office, Zhu Fenglin, repeated that after the incident of “Taiwan side rudely treating the mainland fishermen,” the mainland side decided to send the Quanzhou Red Cross to accompany the family members of the victims to go to Kinmen. Zhu remarked that the Taiwan side should facilitate and arrange the mainlanders’ visit for the sake of “avoiding further harm to the sentiments of the comrades of the two straits.”
On the same day, the Kinmen Fishing Association made a declaration: (1) due to the sensitivity in cross-strait relations, Taiwan’s fishermen should not cross the boundaries to engage in illegal fishing while protecting their own personal safety; (2) if the Taiwan fishermen encounter any marine dispute or any sudden inspection by the mainland official vessels, then they can call the Taiwan Fishing Association or the Taiwan Marine Inspection authorities.
The Taiwan Defence Ministry simultaneously announced on February 19 that within the 24 hours, there were seven airplanes from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) flying near the Taiwan airspace, while seven mainland PLA warships had movements. Objectively speaking, the sudden announcement seemed to make the cross-strait atmosphere tense, but perhaps the movement of mainland fighter airplanes and warships was coincidental.
On February 19, a Taiwan ferry running across Kinmen and Xiamen suddenly saw mainland marine police boarding the ferry and conducting inspection. On the next day, Taiwan news reported that mainland marine police vessels again went into “Kinmen waters.”
The action of the mainland marine police in conducting inspection on the Taiwan ferry on February 19 fit into what Zhu Fenglin mentioned on February 18 that mainland marine police would take inspection action as a sort of “normalization” activities.
In response, the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council criticized such mainland marine police’s activity for “hurting the sentiment of the people from two sides.” The Taiwan Transport Department and Marine Port Bureau publicly said that, if Taiwan vessels meet mainland marine police’s inspection action, they could refuse stopping their vessels and should return to Taiwan quickly – an announcement that led to criticisms from some Taiwan commentators, who believed that the Taiwan government “kicked the ball” to the Taiwan citizens to solve the problems rather than taking action to tackle the issue itself.
Although the Taiwan transport and marine authorities might make public remarks that were not conducive to the resolution of cross-strait relations over the “prohibited” waters, the Taiwan Defence Ministry said that it would not intervene in such mainland marine police’s inspections of Taiwan vessels – a wise move that defused any crisis and prevented any unnecessary escalation of tensions across the two straits.
On February 20, Quanzhou Red Cross adviser Li Chaohui led six relatives of the mainland fishermen to visit and arrive Kinmen. Li said that their visit aimed at “comprehending the facts, helping the relatives of the victims to manage post-death matters, and bringing back two survivors to the mainland.”
Li also brought his colleagues from the Quanzhou Red Cross and a mainland lawyer to visit Kinmen. He added that the Taiwan side should not object to the mainland delegation’s basic request of finding out the facts of why two mainland fishermen died.
On February 20, two survived mainland fishermen were arranged to return to the mainland from Kinmen. However, when the Mainland Affairs Council staff showed a document to request the Mainland Red Cross to sign on it as an affirmation of “repatriating mainland personnel,” the mainland side refused to do so. In response, the Taiwan Marine Inspection authorities said that the mainlanders would still be sent back to the mainland even though the mainland Red Cross refused to sign the document concerned.
On February 21, the mainland survivors returned to Xiamen, and they complained that the Taiwan side treated them “cruelly,” and that the Taiwan Marine Inspection vessel actually clashed with the mainland boat on the afternoon of February 14. In response to the remarks of the mainland surviving fishermen, Zhu Fenglin said that the mainland side called for the Taiwan side to reveal the facts, penalize any persons responsible for the incident, and explain the situation to the victims of the mainland fishermen.
At the same time, the Taiwan news reports revealed that the Taiwan Marine Inspection vessel did not carry any video camera when it chased the mainland fishing boat on February 14 – a situation confirmed by the Kinmen prosecution department. Although an officer on the Taiwan Marine Inspection vessel reportedly held a video-camera, his balance was affected by the vessel’s fast movement and by the tragedy that occurred in a short duration of five minutes. As such, there were difficulties in collecting the evidence of the incident. Such explanation naturally aroused criticisms, both from the mainland and Taiwan.
What complicated the matter was that the Taiwan Marine Inspection admitted that there were clashes between the Taiwan Marine Inspection vessel and the mainland fishing boat.
On the night of February 21, Zhu Fenglin from the mainland’s Taiwan Affairs Office said that the Taiwan side should not hide the facts and that it should reveal the facts, penalize the persons responsible for the deaths of the mainland fishermen, handle the requests of the family members of the two mainland victims, and apologize to the family members of the victims.
On February 22, the Taiwan Marine Inspection held a press conference, explaining to the media that the inspection vessel CP1051 belonged to a small one under ten tons, meaning that the vessel did not need to have video-camera in accordance with the law and regulations. However, to avoid similar events in the future, such vessel type will be installed with video-cameras in the future. The department’s explanation was quite defensive, and it could not deal with the criticisms that its CP1051 vessel clashed with the mainland fishing boat.
The way in which the official Taiwan authorities managed the video cameras was criticized by the opposition Kuomintang (KMT). One KMT member and legislator, Chen Yu-jen, said that the Taiwan marine officers were equipped with cameras, but since some of the cameras were made in mainland China, these cameras were not used.
It is not clear that, from all the news reports, on whether any individual officer on CP1051 carried a video camera that could capture the “clashes” between the Taiwan marine inspection vessel and the mainland fishing boat.
However, from the communications between the two sides, the tragedy remains politically significant.
First, both sides rely on the Red Cross to communicate with each other. On February 23, the mainland Red Cross at Jinjiang city led a delegation to visit Kinmen again to have closed-door discussions with the Taiwan side. The family members of the two mainland victims requested an apology from the Taiwan Marine Inspection, but both sides had no consensus. Although both sides had disagreement, what is most interesting in this event is that both sides, including the Red Cross from the mainland and Taiwan, agree to disagree. As such, mutual communications are pragmatic moves at the operational level, regardless of political differences at the higher level.
The mutual communications between the Red Cross of the two sides could be traced back to September 12, 1990, when both sides discussed in Kinmen on how to oversee the transfer of criminal suspects from Taiwan and the mainland. Their discussions led to the Kinmen agreement by adopting the principle of “looking at the facts positively, constructing mutual trust, laying down disputes, and striving for a win-win situation.” This principle has been interestingly revived since the mainland boat tragedy on February 14 – a positive and healthy sign in cross-strait relations even though the ruling parties from both sides are at loggerheads at the level of high politics. But at the level of low politics and practical tragedy, both sides must sit down at least unofficially or semi-officially to communicate over a satisfactory solution to all stakeholders.
Second, the communications between the Taiwan SEF and the mainland’s ARATS – the former writing a letter to the latter, and then the exchange between the Red Cross from both sides — triggered discussions. The letter written by the SEF to ARATS was significant as both sides dealt with pragmatic issues at the operational level.
Third, judging from the personnel participating in the talks in Kinmen, the mainland delegation had members with semi-official status, namely Li Chaohui who is also the director of the Taiwan-Hong Kong-Macau Office in Quanzhou city. If the Red Cross is under the political leadership and supervision of the mainland government, its leading officials, like Jinjiang Red Cross secretary Chao Yongshan, appeared to have semi-official status. The meeting between the two sides on February 23 was politically significant, because the Taiwan side embraced officials from the Marine Inspection, Mainland Affairs Council and the SEF (see Liberty Times, February 24, 2024, in 海巡與中方代表 閉門會談無共識 – 政治 – 自由時報電子報 (ltn.com.tw)). As such, it can be said that the meeting in Kinmen on February 23 has been unprecedented since the deterioration of the cross-strait relations after the assumption of office of Tsai Ing-wen as Taiwan president in May 2016.
In conclusion, the most important unintended and political consequence of the mainland boat’s tragedy off the coast of Kinmen on February 14 is to trigger the discussions between the two sides – both mainland and Taiwan – at the pragmatic and operational level in the interest of the mainland survivors and victims. While the Red Cross from both sides have been involved in mutual communications and dialogues, the semi-official and official authorities from both sides have also been involved in varying degrees, including the mainland side which involve semi-official organizations and personnel with semi-official capacity. On the other hand, the Taiwan side has actually involved the semi-official Strait Exchange Foundation and the official authorities from the Marine Inspection and Mainland Affairs Council. Both sides have demonstrated a high degree of pragmatism, tolerance, and willingness to discuss amid the difficulties of reaching a consensus. If so, cross-strait relations remain cautiously optimistic. We will have to observe how both sides will reach a resolution satisfactory to the family members of the mainland victims in the coming days and weeks.
原刊於澳門新聞通訊社（MNA）網站，本社獲作者授權轉載。原文網址：http://tinyurl.com/5n8v28cd
