On Taiwan, Everything Old is New Again
■"60 Years Later, China Enemies End Their War: TV Handshake Aimed at Taiwan Separatists," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 30 April 2005, p. A1.■"China Tries to Isolate Taiwan's President," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 26 April 2005, p. A6.
■"Nationalist Chairman's Visit to Mainland Spurs Taiwanese Interest in Accords," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 1 May 2005, p. A17.
■"Taiwan Communication Plan Stirs New Hopes for a Thaw," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 2 May 2005, off web.
Isn't it amazing how every time there's an alleged close call on conflict between China and Taiwan, if you actually follow the story long-term, each such plus-up in tension inevitably triggers a new and deeper accommodation.
It happens again this time.
The close-call on the December 04 elections (would Chen Shubai's party win a majority in the Taiwanese parliament and then do something stupid, like a meaningless name change, to trigger a military crisis with China?) now segues into a clever, divide-and-conquer strategy by Beijing to highlight the reality that a slim majority-at best-supports Chen's party, but when the question isn't "Do you want Taiwan to assert its independence?" but rather "Do you want to do something that puts at risk the rising economic connectivity between Taiwan and the mainland?" it's really a strong majority that prefers that economic vision of a joint future worth creating.
So China's hosting opposition party leaders, including the head of the legacy party of the Kuomintang once headed by Chiang Kaishek, the Jefferson Davis of the Chinese civil war after World War II. So this guy showing up and shaking hands in Beijing is a big deal, reminding the world how far the two sides have come from that conflict.
This is not a story about communists vs. democrats, but a story of two Chinas: one much farther ahead in democracy than the other, but both moving in the same Core-integrating direction.
China's leadership not looking so crude in its diplomacy right now, is it?