EDITORIAL: After
Palestine, could it be Taiwan?
Last week¡¦s vote at the UN General Assembly to make Palestine a ¡§non-member
observer state¡¨ was a rare bit of good news from a region that often provides
more than its share of misery. Besides breathing new life into the possibility
of a two-state solution, the decision could also create a precedent for another
seemingly intractable conflict of equal duration, that of Taiwan¡¦s status
vis-a-vis China.
Palestine¡¦s journey from ¡§non-member observer entity¡¨ to ¡§non-member observer
state¡¨ was not easy, nor was it uncontroversial. Furthermore, this new status,
which is now equal to that of the Vatican, does not resolve a number of
substantive issues, such as Israeli settlements or Hamas¡¦ refusal to recognize
Israel¡¦s right to exist.
Nevertheless, the development shows that even with staunch opposition within the
UN system ¡X including from the US, a permanent Security Council member, and
Israel ¡X weaker polities can make progress toward having their voices heard at
the international level.
The question, then, is if Palestine can score such a victory, why can¡¦t Taiwan?
Tempting though it might be to draw parallels, one should approach the question
with the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. The
conflict pitting Palestine against Israel does have an indisputable
David-versus-Goliath element reminiscent of that between Taiwan and China. In
addition to the asymmetry of power between the opponents, the stronger entity
also tends to rely on historical (and in Israel¡¦s case, religious) ¡§right¡¨ to
claim parts or the entirety of another people¡¦s territory.
That said, there are also substantial differences, including the decision by
Taiwanese not to resort to force or terrorism against the stronger opponent, as
well as the tremendous influence that China has over UN members ¡X something that
cannot be said of Israel, with its much smaller economy. More significantly,
while some Israeli politicians like former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who is
angling for a comeback in next year¡¦s election, have stated their support for
Palestine¡¦s new status at the UN and a two-state solution, the latter outcome is
exactly what Beijing does not want to see.
Part of the reason why 138 UN members voted in favor of granting Palestine
status as a non-member observer state is the realization that anything short of
a two-state solution will only yield one thing: more violence, which threatens
not only the belligerents themselves, but stability within the entire region,
while having the side effect of providing a ¡§rationale¡¨ for global terrorism.
In that respect, Taiwan¡¦s situation is more similar to that of Palestine than it
might appear. Despite the rapprochement that has occurred between Taipei and
Beijing since the election of President Ma Ying-jeou (°¨^¤E) in 2008, the chasm
that exists between the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait remains as
wide as ever, if not more so as China becomes more nationalistic and its
leadership more paranoid. Growing trade and investment figures across the Taiwan
Strait notwithstanding, the fact remains that the political conflict is far from
resolved.
Absence of war does not mean absence of conflict, and the closer Taiwan gets to
when Beijing starts applying pressure to enter negotiations on Taiwan¡¦s status,
the more evident the tectonic pressures of identity will become. Unless we
experience a sudden and unlikely shift in decades-old trends in Taiwanese
self-identification, those tensions will remain and will become more serious. As
such, barring an invasion by China, peaceful unification will remain a very
distant possibility.
Finding alternative ways to avoid armed conflict and to address the resulting
tensions will not only be the responsibility of Taiwanese and Chinese
themselves, but that of the international community as well. What better forum
than the UN to seek out such solutions?
|