While basking in worldwide blessings after its most democratic presidential election, will Taiwan spare the world more unpleasantries in the future? The answer lies in how Taiwan is perceived and how Taiwan perceives itself. Taiwan’s image in the world is full of paradoxes. The Republic of China is now a vibrant, noisy and stunt-filled democracy. Yet Taiwan’s mainland policy is often interpreted as if there exists some kind of grand conspiracy. What the world forgets is that in a democracy, policy must reflect the will of the people.
Taiwan ranks within the top 10 percent among the 200-plus nations in terms of GDP, per capita income and foreign exchange reserves. Such prosperity proves to the world that a democratic system can be built without bloodshed or sacrificing economic growth. Furthermore, it shows the 1.3 billion Chinese on the mainland that Chinese people can flourish and be happier in a democracy. Yet Taiwan is still treated as a pariah state, with memberships in fewer intergovernmental organizations than Liechtenstein. Taiwan is a country one hears about but rarely hears from. Its high-level officials are under different degrees of “house arrest”: they even are unable to get visas to most countries. Officials of other countries (including Taiwan desk officers) are banned from setting foot here. In one important friendly country, for instance, the desk officer responsible for Taiwan policy never visited Taipei throughout her entire term. When we have traveled, government doors were shut in our faces. All we got was an hour of coffee and toast with a few officials.
While Beijing blames the West and Japan for its backwardness and humiliation, most people in Taiwan blame Beijing for their isolation and frustration. Insult is added to injury each time Beijing invokes the word “brotherhood.” If Beijing believes it has yet to occupy a rightful place in the world, Taipei’s insecurity and indignity run equally deep, if not deeper. To build stable peace in this region, attention should be paid to the psychological dimension as well as to the concrete issues at hand. “Face” and the interests of both Taiwan and the mainland should be protected. One way to do so is to build effective communication channels between Washington, Beijing and Taipei. Taipei now has none with Beijing and only sporadic communication with Washington. To restrict communication is not only to hamper understanding but also to deny face. This will only feed more suspicions and is a sure recipe for more unpleasant surprises in the future. Priority should be given to expanding official communication–and developing unofficial channels, too.
No less important is the one-China issue. It is as much a political and legal issue as a face issue filled with memories, emotions and symbols. For Beijing, one China is a “principle”: like Grandma’s nightgown, it covers everything. But the Kuomintang government accepts one China only as an abstract “concept.” The incoming Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration never even liked the concept. So far, the DPP is willing to discuss it only as a “topic.” But to discuss it, one may open a Pandora’s box. Considering the nature of the issue, it seems best to put it aside rather than tackle it head-on. In an era of interdependence, the two sides may very well discuss a wide range of concrete issues. Many economic issues are crying out for solutions. It makes no sense for them to await the resolution of the one-China issue.
If the current deadlock is broken, longer-term peace will be possible. The DPP’s victory in Taiwan’s election offers a golden opportunity for all parties to start a new way of thinking.
The DPP will have to consider whether “Taiwan independence” should be dropped as a campaign strategy of the past or upheld as a national policy for the future. Beijing must realize that years of demonizing President Lee Teng-hui have only helped someone the mainland considers even more “devilish.” Doesn’t that mean that if Beijing treats Taiwan as a separatist, it will become a separatist? For the international community, isn’t it time to examine the contemporary version of the emperor’s new clothes: Beijing’s empty claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, where it never ruled for a single day? We will all breathe more freely if old thinking is left behind in the 20th century and new thinking takes primacy in the new era.
