Participant Reflections

Picture this: you received an orange. This sweet, savory, and juicy orange is the fruit you crave. You think to yourself, without this orange, I will surely suffer. Then, your partner walks in and says: “I want that orange. I love oranges so much that I’ll perish without them.” What would you do? Logically, you might ask, “Why do you want this orange?” to understand their perspective. However, 70% of the time, we fail to ask this question, leading to unnecessary arguments. This kind of conflict happens from micro to macro level, and at every level, from minor disagreements to international disputes, like when Canada and Denmark placed a bottle of whiskey disagreement on Hans Island, or to the more severe Japan-South Korea crisis, and ultimately to violent conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war.

One of the most enduring conflicts in recent years is the cross-Strait conflict between Taiwan and Mainland China, which has been ongoing since 1949. Initially centered on questions of international legitimacy on whether the Republic of China or the People’s Republic of China is the legitimate one, the dispute has evolved as Taiwan’s growing democratic identity conflicts with China’s emphasis on national unity. The United States plays a significant role in this dynamic, viewing the Taiwan Strait as crucial to its Indo-Pacific security policy. The 2018 U.S.-China trade war escalated tensions further, bringing U.S. allies, including Japan, into heightened security concerns.

In 2005, Brown University student Johnny Lin and Professor Tatsushi Arai founded Strait Talk (海峽尋心), a program that gathers young scholars from Taiwan, Mainland China, and the United States to foster peacebuilding in cross-Strait relations. Over the past 20 years, Strait Talk has expanded from Brown University to UCLA, Hong Kong, Taipei, Edmonton, and Washington, DC, at the George Washington University, engaging thousands of alumni worldwide. This year, Strait Talk hosted symposiums in Washington in May and Tokyo in December, incorporating Japan’s perspective into discussions on cross-Strait issues. I was fortunate to work for the Washington chapter and even more fortunate to join the Tokyo chapter as a Taiwanese delegate, leaving lasting impacts on my personal and professional development.

Many may ask, why join Strait Talk? How does it differ from Model U.N.? While Model U.N. is a popular platform for discussing international issues, Taiwan has not been a U.N. member since 1971 due to Resolution 2578. Strait Talk moves beyond traditional diplomatic simulations, focusing on cross-Strait relations using the Interactive Conflict Resolution (ICR) method. This approach shifts delegates away from zero-sum thinking and rigid position-taking. Instead of diving directly into political disputes, the symposium began by examining the core of conflicts: basic human needs (BHN). Most conflict often arises from differing goals and miscommunication. Identifying and understanding each party’s BHN is essential in bridging these divides. Yet, when the Taiwanese delegates attempted to define our BHN, we found no clear consensus. Is it democracy, security, or self-identity? The same exercise applied to Chinese, American, and Japanese delegates revealed that security and economic stability were common concerns.

After defining BHNs, we formulated a dilemma question: “How can we develop cross-Strait relations where Mainland China ensures its legitimacy, national unity, and international standing, Taiwan expresses its distinct identity and seeks recognition, and the United States and Japan fulfill their respective security and economic needs?” This question encapsulated the conflicting priorities of all stakeholders.

Mainland China views Taiwan as part of one China, tying this to a national pride goal through historical grievances of the century of humiliation that lost this last piece of holy land. Meanwhile, Taiwan has developed a unique identity over the past 70 years, emphasizing democracy and autonomy. The U.S. and Japan complicate this landscape, prioritizing regional stability, security, and economic interests. Voices from Okinawa are included in this symposium, adding a unique dimension and highlighting concerns over military tensions and the historical impact of conflict on their region. Okinawa was heavily destroyed at the end of the Second World War in one of the last but bloodiest battles in the Pacific theatre in 1945, where the islands were eventually occupied by American troops until 1974.

With this dilemma question in place, we drafted a consensus paper advocating gradual de-escalation and peacebuilding inspired by the Helsinki process (1972-1975). Given the lack of formal recognition between Taipei and Beijing, we proposed a Track 1.5 diplomacy model—a semi-official dialogue where senior officials engage in civil society exchanges as private citizens, with U.S. and Japanese representatives acknowledging mutually determined outcomes. This initiative aims to facilitate trust and prevent military escalation while also fulfilling the special relations between Beijing and Taipei.

Beyond security concerns, our paper emphasized economic cooperation on green energy. Geopolitical tensions and climate change have disrupted trade, threatened supply chains, and endangered material sources, making economic collaboration crucial. One delegate proposed the Four-Strait Green Investment Fund, modeled after the Quad Investors Network (QUIN), to finance green energy projects involving Taiwan, Mainland China, the U.S., and Japan. Unlike QUIN, which includes state-owned enterprises, this initiative focuses on private investment to bypass political recognition issues and foster regional cooperation.

Drafting this consensus paper was challenging. The symposium’s intense schedule often stretched from 9 in the morning to late night at 9 o’clock, filled with discussions, debates, and occasional frustrations. Yet, despite the exhaustion, all delegates remained committed to this constructive dialogue for peace. Interestingly, many of us lived together in traditional Japanese dormitory-style housing, an experience reminiscent of diplomatic shuttle negotiations in the 1960s. And to no secret, this is where shuttle diplomacy occurs every night.

On the final day, we presented our findings at a public event. I was struck by the diverse audience’s keen interest in the Taiwan Strait issue. People from various backgrounds, regardless of nationality, were eager to hear how young professionals from different regions could propose peaceful solutions. Their enthusiasm reaffirmed that the desire for stability and cooperation transcends political divisions. And like the birds and bees in the garden, they assisted in the spreading of the word for Strait Talk by sharing what they have witnessed, allowing more news and acknowledgment of the conflict resolution symposium that welcomes young professionals from all walks of life.

Reflecting on my time from Strait Talk’s Washington to Tokyo chapter, conflict resolution extends beyond diplomacy and policy; it is also not as simple as sharing personal identities and stories. Back in the Washington chapter, all that I witnessed was people sharing their experience with the Taiwan Strait issue, whether that’s a story on identity or experience working in the field. However, engaging in deep discussions and addressing ideological differences in Tokyo reinforced the reality that peacebuilding is neither simple nor quick. Despite the progress being achievable through sustained dialogue and mutual understanding effort, I wondered whether it was worth flying 12 hours from Washington to Tokyo for these 9 to 9 work shifts.

Not every conflict I faced stems from my military conscription background; instead, I believe peaceful negotiations through dialogue and understanding should maximize mutual benefits for all involved parties. Leaving Tokyo, I carried away a deeper understanding of the complexities across the Taiwan Strait and a renewed sense of responsibility. I felt that my fellow delegates and I were tasked with the duty to achieve peace for those who long for it. The friendships forged, ideas shared, and consensus reached were not mere theoretical exercises—they laid the foundation for a future where dialogue prevails over division. This experience reinforced my belief that meaningful change starts with individuals willing to engage, listen, and persevere, even when faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges.