The Relations across the Taiwan Straits after Half-century(英譯稿)

Author: Hsiung Bing-yuan Posted on Oct 14, 2009 Apple Daily
Translator: Welson Xiong (Oct 18, 2009)

In distinct fields there are different issues to be dealt with; however, the representation of each issue seemly diverges tremendously, yet ways of its analysis are often interlinked or identical.

Epitaph Thinking for Planning

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, written by Stephen R. Covey, is a business bestseller with more than 10 million copies sold. This book comes out with lots of Covey’s fetching viewpoints, one of which is “Epitaph Thinking” for life planning, e.g. firstly asking yourself in your mind: At the end of your life journey what epitaphs would you prefer your family and closed friends saying to you and having them written on your tombstone—“Here lies a man. Honest and caring.” or “A man full of inimitable enthusiasm?” Accordingly, setting those memorial words as your goal, and then returning to the present making choices ever since responsively. To make sure whatever you do is to move slowly toward the goal.

The similar concept also exists in both mathematics and economics. It is based on initial conditions to compute in a dynamic system the most desirable outcome, then to reverse step by step the process at each critical point of time to determine a sequence of optimal actions, which composes a responsive track to the end of a problem or situation. The terminology for this algorithm is named “backward induction.” Abstractly speaking, it is virtually “Epitaph Thinking.”

One of the most significant ordeals that confront Chinese community, Asia or even the world as well is cross-strait relations. If political strife and hostile confrontation between Blue and Green camps were merely temporary twists and turns, what would cross-strait relations eventually turn out, and what exact position should Taiwan take? To mull over those questions by epitaph thinking or backward induction not only has an intellectual interest but acquires more substantial enlightenments in policy. Once the current clashes are ignored and all unrests are settled, the problem becomes quite simple. How would the relationship status across the Straits evolve, then?

For so many years I have been speculating on this issue, to which, as far as I know, only Nanfang Shuo(南方朔), a pseudonym of Wang Hsing-ching(王杏慶), a social commentator and thinker, has addressed his remarks. His viewpoint is to take the relations between England and Scotland as a reference coordinate,—in short, the northern Scotland and southern England, with different backgrounds of language, history and culture, had fought each other for centuries; nevertheless, influenced by various interaction forces, the two countries finally have formed an excellent coalition and become the main members of the United Kingdom. Nowadays, Scotland still enjoys its unique tradition, and unceasingly makes its contributions in culture, art and science to the British society.

Other than Nanfang Shuo’s analysis, I would also like to share my humble opinion here: Cross-strait relations, while reaching a stable and long-lasting state, would resemble the case of America and Canada, both of which share a common cultural background and language, and treats each other with equality and reciprocity. They are two political entities and remain an independent relationship respectively despite some occasional unexpected conflicts.

What I mean is from the perspective of historical background, an intimate relationship between Taiwan and Mainland China is normal, but an isolated state would be accidental. Additionally, from the current exchange of personnel and goods in trade and economics, it is out of the question for both to have been caught in such a long deadlock of hostility. Half-century later, through the magic interaction of various forces the relationship between Taiwan and Mainland China should be in a new phase of inseparability, harmony and mutual prosperity. As for the choice of name title, whatever there might have been diverse emphases on “Special State-to-State Relationship,” “One Country on Each Side” or “Two States in One Nation,” etc., it could be almost certain that both sides across the Straits would develop the situation of “one plus one is bigger than two.”

Jump out of Blue and Green Antagonistic Frame

Certainly, the examples, Scotland/England and US/Canada, enumerated for cross-strait relations as reference coordinates might not completely appropriate. After all, both sides, disconnected by land, are not to merge into a commonwealth with one parliament. On the other hand, in terms of scale and master-slave relationships, Taiwan/Mainland China could not be compared with US/Canada. The main function of reference coordinates is to provide the point of force application for thinking, using a ready-made framework to speculate on the extremely urgent issue.

In any case, it is better to open up horizons and widen the scene than to spin in circles within the Blue and Green antagonistic frame. It is not drawing lessons from history, but setting the future as a starting point. It is based on the ideal state of the distant horizon to find out the path toward one’s whereabouts for settling down and pursuing well-being.

The author is now Professor in the Institute & Department of Economics, National Taiwan University and Chair Professor in China University of Technology.