Arthur Ding of National Chengchi University, Wu Shiouh-Guang from National Taipei University, and Smith College’s Steven Goldstein discussed the future of cross-strait relations and the challenges faced by all sides in making progress and maintaining stability. The Stimson Center’s Alan Romberg moderated, and Cynthia Watson of the National War College provided commentary.

No More Easy Tasks

Ding noted that most of the easy economic issues between Taiwan and Mainland China have already been resolved. What remains, he said, are difficult economic and political matters. Domestic political pressure will ensure that even if Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected, he will have little room to maneuver and will be unable to make any major concessions to China, despite China’s high aspirations.

Supporting President Ma

Wu said that there was reason to be optimistic about the potential for stability and progress in cross-strait relations, and that both the United States and China could take steps to ensure stability and help Taiwan continue its rapprochement with the mainland.

  • Continued Accommodation: Wu argued that continued accommodation might not weaken Taiwan’s position, but rather buy it time. He added that a change in Taiwan’s government could create a tremendous backlash from China.

  • U.S.-China Support: China and the United States should support Ma’s current policy, Wu said. The United States should do so by accelerating arms sales and helping Taiwan develop an indigenous high-tech military industry. This will strengthen Ma’s position, make his re-election more likely, and thus help stabilize the relationship.

Unstable Status Quo

Goldstein explained that there is significant uncertainty over the current status of cross-strait relations, which makes it difficult to move forward. He highlighted two fundamental and contradictory observations that illustrate this, as well as his own conclusion about the situation:

  • Shifting Fundamentals: The first observation argues that the foundations for past stability are shifting. Some observers view this as an opportunity to reduce the importance of the Taiwan issue in China. Others see it as potentially dangerous, because they view Taiwan as a beacon of democratic values that is crucial to U.S. interests or an indicator of American commitment in Asia.

  • Enhanced Fundamentals: The second observation is that the foundations for past stability have not shifted but rather have been enhanced. Some observers argue there has been an institutionalization of the 1992 Consensus and an institutionalization of stability.

  • Stable Fundamentals, but a False Consensus: Goldstein, however, argued that there is a third option: fundamentals are not shifting, but that cross-strait talks are based on a shared belief in a consensus on issues that, in fact, does not exist. This false consensus has facilitated contact, but has no real substance. The result is a status quo where some people feel that the policies currently being pursued endanger their long-term objectives. The challenge, Goldstein said, will be to get past this fundamental condition that has a greater chance of deteriorating than it does of improving.

Short-Term Thinking

Watson argued that China, the United States, and Taiwan all seem to be focusing on short-term priorities rather than long-term issues. Potential leadership changes in 2012 could potentially bring weakened administrations to power in all three countries, which would only increase the tentativeness of each side.