2024年7月24日，兩岸就2月14日一艘大陸船隻遭台灣海巡署船隻追趕，導致意外沉沒，兩名漁民不幸身故的撞船事件，達成務實和解的共識。
此次和解歸功於雙方代表的努力，雙方同意擱置追究責任問題，這是大陸遇難漁民家屬接收兩具遺體的共識取得突破。
此外，家屬及台灣代表前往金門殯儀館致祭。台方對兩船相撞時未能用錄影記錄悲劇事件表示歉意。大陸方面表示，希望台方盡快調查並公布結果，並保證不再發生同類悲劇。
大陸方面由泉州市台港澳辦副主任李朝暉代表，陪同兩名遇難漁民家屬前往金門。李朝暉強調，台方應避免再次發生此類損害兩岸關係的事件。
遇難者家屬收到台方給付的撫慰金，但具體金額尚不清楚。這筆錢是對遇難者家屬的補償。
2月中旬以後，雙方總共進行了15輪談判，最終在遇難者家屬及大陸泉州市台港澳辦副主任李朝暉、海協會協調處長許偉偉的見證下達成共識。台灣方面則由海巡署副署長謝慶欽與海基會代表出席在金門金湖飯店舉行的協商。
雖然共識的內容未見透露，但傳媒重點強調（1）台方道歉及賠償；（2）兩具遺體送還大陸；（3）為死者舉行公祭；（4）台方承諾公布調查結果，避免再次發生類似事件，似乎也是共識的一部分內容。
遇難漁民的公祭結束後，兩人的遺體被移送到碼頭，兩艘內地船隻接收並運往福建省晉江市。金門縣政府表示，期待事件解決後，兩岸持續「讓善意循環、正能量堆積」。
台灣海巡署署長張忠龍在公祭上向兩名大陸遇難者家屬致歉，這是悲劇發生後必須表示的深切遺憾和慰問。
雙方協商以大陸紅十字會參與的方式進行，避免了官方之間的直接接觸。台灣陸委會副主委梁文傑將此突破歸因於「持續溝通」。
一個被忽視的因素是國民黨立委陳玉珍前往大陸商討處理悲劇的不懈努力。
今年3月，一名胡姓台軍士官與一名釣客朋友飄流到大陸水域後在泉州被拘留，他的朋友後來被釋放了。最近就兩名漁民死亡事件達成的和解，可能會加速胡姓士官從大陸返回台灣的進程。陳玉珍表示，近期將帶胡姓士官的家人到福建。
值得注意的是，大陸泉州台港澳辦副主任李朝暉與台灣陸委會副主委梁文傑握手。台灣傳媒也注意到，海巡署副署長謝慶欽與晉江市紅十字會顧問莊東航握手。不過，目前還不清楚大陸方面的主要代表之一、海協會的許偉偉是否與謝慶欽握手，或者謝慶欽有沒有與許偉偉握手。
今年3月，與台灣方面談判的3名大陸代表分別是許偉偉、李朝暉和晉江市紅十字會秘書長曹榮山。
從撞船事件的兩岸突破中，可以觀察到一些重要的線索。
首先，大陸和台灣的紅十字會是重要的非政府組織，帶來了持續的溝通。儘管嚴格來說，大陸紅十字會可以說是一個半政府組織。
其次，雙方官員的讓步──台灣方面一再道歉，而大陸方面願意擱置追究責任問題，促成了談判的突破。
第三，儘管表面上雙方有明顯的政治分歧，特別是兩岸高層政治領袖的言論和不妥協的立場，但雙方官員在金門的姿態，是務實的的表現。
第四，如果遇難者遺體的處理，屬於低級政治問題，那麼大陸和台灣雙方或許可以更好地關注低級政治層面的合作問題，例如擴大學生交流、商討開放更多來自大陸或台灣的遊客，以及福建與金門之間更多的社會經濟互動等。
第五，金門顯然是兩岸互動的重要場所，因此，福建正在建設的跨海峽大橋，或許可以成為大陸與台灣之間不可或缺的基建設施聯繫，而金門是一個關鍵的中點，其間伴隨着關於更多文化和社會經濟互動的漫長而困難的分階段談判過程。文化和務實的問題可以在談判中先解決，政治問題留到最後階段。
第六，陳玉珍等國民黨中間人的努力，無論過去和現在都是重要的，但卻被忽視了。如此一來，國民黨將成為兩岸政府官員與執政黨之間的關鍵中間人。
第七，撞船事件的解決，確實給了雙方面子，特別是如果「面子」是中國式談判的核心，正如已故政治學家和漢學家白魯恂（Lucian Pye）在他的著作中提醒我們的那樣。
總的來說，撞船事件的解決和達成共識，表明兩岸關係中務實主義佔主導地位。如果真是這樣，未來兩岸關係的發展，絕對不會像傳統觀點所想像的，尤其是許多觀察家將注意力集中在軍事和意識形態的角度那樣悲觀。尋求務實的解決方案、持續溝通的重要性、中介機構的作用、非政府或半政府組織和個人的部署、給雙方面子的要素，以及以金門為橋頭堡的地緣戰略意義對兩岸和解的重要性，顯然就是在最近高層政治言論不斷傳出的情況下，大陸和台灣在如何處理撞船悲劇的突破中學到的經驗。
Cross-strait agreement over the fishing boat tragedy: observations and implications
On July 24, 2024, the mainland and Taiwan sides reached a pragmatic settlement over the fishing boat tragedy that took place on February 14, when two mainland fishermen died accidentally after their boat was chased by a Taiwan coast guard vessel.
The settlement was attributable to the efforts of the representatives from both sides, who agreed to shelve the issue of “criminal” responsibilities – a breakthrough leading to the agreement in which the relatives of the mainland victims received the two bodies.
Moreover, the relatives and the Taiwan representatives went to pay tribute to the dead at a funeral home in Kinmen. The Taiwan side apologized for the failure of using video to record the tragedy during the clash of the two vessels. The mainland side said that it hopes the Taiwan side would investigate and release the results as soon as possible, and that the Taiwan side would guarantee no such tragedy would happen again.
The mainland side was represented by Quanzhou Taiwan Affairs Office director Li Zhaohui, who accompanied the relatives of the two victims to go to Kinmen. Li stressed that the Taiwan side should avoid such incident again as it undermined cross-strait relations.
The relatives received “consolation money” collected from the Taiwan private sector, but the amount was unclear. Such payment was a compensation to the families of victims.
Overall, 15 rounds of talks were conducted after mid-February, leading to a signed agreement witnessed by the relatives of victims together with Li Zhaohui and Xu Weiwei, who was a representative from the mainland’s Association for Relatives Across the Taiwan Straits. On the Taiwan side, the coast guard administration’s deputy director Hsieh Ching-chin participated in the discussion at Kinmen’s Jinhu Hotel.
Although the terms of the agreement were not revealed, the media’s emphases on (1) the Taiwan side’s apology and compensation, (2) the repatriation of the two dead bodies, (3) the public memorial service for the dead, and (4) the Taiwan side’s promise of releasing the investigation results and avoiding such incident again appeared to be some elements of the agreement.
After the public memorial service for the two victims, their bodies were transferred to a pier where two mainland vessels received and transported them to Jinjiang in Fujian province. The Kinmen county government said it hoped to see “the generous attitude to repeat” after the settlement of this tragedy.
During the public memorial service, the head of the Taiwan coast guard Chang Chun-lung apologized to the relatives of the two mainland victims – a gesture of deep respect and profound regret essential to the breakthrough of the tragedy.
The talks were conducted by the two sides in a way that involved the mainland’s Red Cross so that direct official-to-official contact was avoided. Liang Wen-chieh, vice chair of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, attributed the breakthrough to “continuous communication.”
A neglected factor was the persistent efforts made by Kuomintang legislator Chen Yu-chen who went to the mainland to discuss the solutions dealing with the tragedy.
In March, a Taiwan soldier surnamed Hu was detained in Quanzhou after he and his friend’s boat went into mainland waters. His friend was released. The most recent settlement over the two dead fishermen is likely accelerating Hu’s return from the mainland to Taiwan. Chen said she would bring the family members of Hu to visit Fujian soon.
It was important to note that mainland representative Li Zhaohui shook hands with Taiwan representative Liang Wen-chieh. The coast guard administration director Hsieh Ching-chin was seen by the Taiwan media as shaking hands with Jinjiang Red Cross adviser Zhuang Donghang. However, it was unclear whether Xu Weiwei from the mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, a key representative from the mainland side, shook hands with Hsieh, or vice versa.
In March, the three mainlanders who went to negotiate with the Taiwan side were Xu, Li and also Cao Rongshan, secretary of the Red Cross in Jinjiang.
Some important observations can be made from the breakthrough of the fishing boat incident.
First, the Red Cross from the mainland and Taiwan sides were crucial non-governmental organizations that brought about continuous communications, although strictly speaking the mainland Red Cross may arguably be a semi-governmental organization.
Second, officials from both sides made concessions – the Taiwan side’s apologies again and again and the mainland side’s willingness to shelve the issue of “criminal” responsibilities – that contributed to the breakthrough in negotiations.
Third, the presence of officials from both sides in Kinmen was a sign of pragmatism even though on the surface both sides had and have obvious political differences, especially the high-level rhetoric and non-compromising stances of political leaders from the two straits.
Fourth, if the handling of the dead bodies of victims belongs to an issue of low politics, then both the mainland and Taiwan sides can perhaps better focus on collaborative issues at the level of low politics, such as expanding students exchange, discussing more tourists from the mainland to Taiwan and vice versa, and more socio-economic interactions between Fujian and Kinmen.
Fifth, Kinmen is obviously a crucial place for more cross-strait interactions and, as such, a mainland bridge that is under construction from Fujian, can perhaps be an indispensable infrastructure linkage between the mainland and Taiwan, with Kinmen as a critical mid-point punctuated by a long but of course difficult process of stage-by-stage negotiations about more cultural and socio-economic interactions. Cultural and pragmatic issues can go first in negotiations with politics left to the last stage.
Sixth, the efforts of Kuomintang go-betweens, such as Chen Yu-chen, were and are significant but neglected. As such, the Kuomintang will become a pivotal middleman between the officials of the government and ruling parties of the two straits.
Seventh, the settlement over the fishing boat incident did give face to both sides, especially if face with dignity and respect is so central to the Chinese style of negotiations, as the late political scientist and Sinologist Lucian Pye reminded us in his work.
In conclusion, the settlement and agreement over the tragic boat accident has demonstrated that pragmatism prevails in cross-strait relations. If so, the future development of cross-strait relations is by no means so pessimistic as conventional wisdom may assume, especially as many observers are focusing on the military and ideological perspectives. The quest for pragmatic solutions, the importance of continuous communications, the utility of intermediaries, the deployment of non-governmental or semi-governmental groups and individuals, the element of giving face to both sides, and the geostrategic significance of using Kinmen as a bridgehead of cross-strait rapprochement are clearly the lessons learnt from the most recent breakthrough over how the mainland and Taiwan handled the tragedy of the fishing boat amid the constantly heard rhetoric of high politics.
