Yesterday I was picking up old magazines, I read a 2006 edition of The Economist.

Inside there is an article about Gibraltar.

I heard a little bit about Gibraltar but didnt know much about it. Apparently Gibraltar is a contested territory between Spain, which consider it as part of its rightful territory, and Britain, which is the current sovereignty holder, and also the local Gibraltar residents, who do not wish to merge with Spain.

I was reading this article, it was interesting, and I think there are several similarities with the Chinese Reunification project. Actually there are several pointers and tips that can be picked up from studying this Gibraltar situation, and other similar experiences by others in the world.

Here is the article, and please read through it, you will find MANY uncanny resemblance with the current major direction and issues of the Chinese Reunification vis-a-vis Taiwan.

===============

Britan, Spain and Gibraltar

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Madrid
A trilateral deal over a disputed patch of territory

Spain's foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, likes to point out to his British visitors the large 18th century oil painting that hangs behind his desk. The picture is of Gibraltar, a tiny British overseas territory whose 30,000 inhabitants obstinately refuse, despite Spain's claim of sovereignty, to become Spaniards.

Given Mr Moratinos's taste in pictures, it must have cost him an effort to smile on September 18th, when he posed in Cordoba for a three way handshake with Gibraltar's elected chief minister, Peter Caruana, and Britain's Europe minister, Geoff Hoon. Yet the handshake represented an historic shift in Spain's attitude to Gibraltar. For it marks the moment when sticks are replaced by carrots.

The deal resolves many arguments over Gibraltar, but leaves the question of sovereignty on one side. Gibraltar's airport will get a new terminal straddling the frontier and there will be direct flights from Spanish cities and, vitally for such a poor region, for tourists from all round Europe. A row over British pension payments to 6,000 Spaniards who lost their jobs at Gibraltar's Royal Navy dockyards when Franco closed the border in 1969 has been settled. Gibraltar will get direct dialling. Spanish controls at the border, fully reopened in 1985, will be eased. And an outpost of Spain's Cervantes Institute will open - letting the Spanish flag to fly in Gibraltar for the first time in half a century.

"The Spanish government's political courage has been key" commented Mr Caruana. This was a sign that carrot diplomacy may be working. The stick wielded by previous governments had signally failed to advance Spain's quest to regain sovereignty it ceded in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Instead it set generations of Gibraltarians firmly against Spain. Asked in a 2002 referendum if they would contemplate co-sovereignty, 98.97% of Gibraltarians said no. Britain, which is happy to share, has pledged not to concede anything on sovereignty against local wishes.

Spain, which has had problems over self-determination for its own regions, has always refused to accept that Gibraltarians can decide their future. Previous governments would not have shaken hands with them over anything. Spain's centre-right opposition will chide the Socialist government, although the new approach should improve relations with Britain, a European Union partner. The British might have looked better had they sent the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, in place of a more junior minister. But Mr Hoon must be getting used to deputising: Mrs.beckett has skipped all of the tree most recent meetings of EU foreign ministers.

=====================================

Map of Gibraltar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Gibraltar_EU.png

Gibraltar wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar

======================================

Some things which I noticed and want to comment, apparently Spain is taking a path which is almost identical and very similar to what China is doing now, which is, to open pragmatic links, contacts, between Gibraltar residents and Spain, while putting sovereignty issue aside. They have also realized that putting too much emphasis on "sticks" have not worked and in fact majority of Gibraltarians do not wish to merge with them, or to have co-sovereignty even. So now Spain change tack and is trying to normalize or relax relations and put out more carrots.

I believe the overall development, and in fact some events, very much resemble what is happening with China-Taiwan. I think it can serve as a useful comparative study. Everyone who is interested in Chinese Reunification should study this and other cases in the world, to see what lessons can be picked up and apply some tips.

Other similarities I think, in Taiwan the majority do not wish to merge with China. We have to be honest with this. Taiwanese prefer status-quo, which means no to reunification. Same with Gibraltar. China does not consider Taiwanese should have the capability to decide or opine, same with Spain's position on Gibraltar.

Another similarity, a third party superpower. Just like Gibraltar which can survive up to this day it is because it falls under British protection. Otherwise Spain could have forced its way. Similarly Taiwan is actually an American protectorate. The guarantor and protector of Taiwan sovereignty is a third party superpower, in this case America.

If we look at the article above, we can see a triangular movement of Spain, Britan, and Gibraltar, and we can see that Britain officially is not opposed to sharing sovereignty or presumably other forms of compromise, but yet in practice they say they want to adhere to local Gibraltarians wishes, which is, for now, no to any changes. So Britain, although officially is saying they are not against a compromise, is actually acting in a different manner, in contrary to Spain's interests, by using "respecting local Gibraltarians wishes" as a reason.

It has a lot of parallels with China-Taiwan-USA situation, how USA is officially saying Taiwan is part of China, but is conducting acts which is contrary to the stated position, by taking up numerous stated reasons whether it is defending Taiwan, defending democracy, and so on.

I think this case of Gibraltar-Spain-Britain detente should be followed and studied, how it evolves and what lessons can be learnt, because it has a lot of uncanny resemblance with China-Taiwan-USA situation, and by sheer coincidence, both of these triangles are now moving in a same direction.

An interesting comparison, but the dissimilarities are also glaring. Gibraltar is a rock that 300 years ago belonged to Spain until they gave up Sovereignty along with other European territories. Taiwan is a part of China that was relinquished by treaty in 1895 and regained by China in 1945. Although it appears a fiction to some, Taiwan is still retained by the same Chinese Government which regained it 64 years ago and would still be in association with the mainland provinces had the Chinese Communists not hosted a Civil War by which actions they split Taiwan from the Mainland following their inability to conquer all of China (including Taiwan). At the same time, the original Chinese Central Government in Taipei has had to accomodate itself to nativist views on the part of the Taiwanese popuation and has entered into multi-party democratic rule meaning the views and aspirations of the people of Taiwan cannot be ignored in any arrangement with the Mainland. Perhaps long ago Pres. Chiang Kai-shek might have been able to "deliver" Taiwan to the mainland without recourse to the views of the Taiwanese just as the Communists could have "delivered" the Mainland back to the Central Government without recourse to the views of mainlanders. But those days are gone - the people in Taiwan, especially, expect to be a part of any decision and will be.

Unlike King Juan Carlos I whose Bourbon ancestors relinquished Gibraltar and who represents a continued line of authority and interest in the matter, the Communist Party has never at any time controlled or had any part in Taiwan affairs. The PRC Government's various Taiwan Affairs offices are no less a fiction of imagined control over Taiwan than the ROC Government's various offices and institutions which imagine control over the mainland. These are "fictions" lost in claims and counter-claims, to history and pride - but with little foundation in the actual situation. The claims are useful only in that they state policy positions and serve useful political and diplomatic purposes.

My sense is that no matter how much of a working relationship the Government of the ROC can establish with the Government of the PRC, under whatever guise they pretend, Taiwan will never be "delivered" to mainland control. I believe the current KMT-led Government when they seek to improve and more regularize their relationship with the mainland while maintaining the long-held status quo that the Republic of China is a free and independent entity from the Peoples Republic of China, with its own claims to legitimacy and to history and, in particular, with a special responsibility for the welfare of the people of Taiwan. At the same time, I do not think Taiwan independence will ever happen nor should happen. As noble as it may sound in the ears of nativist sympathizers, Taiwan independence does not serve the interest of the people of Taiwan. There is no reason to believe that an independent Taiwan would garner any more international support than an independent Republic of China already has. In fact, there is a real possibility it would lose international support - certainly the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act would be put in jeopardy. And - it certainly would not endear itself to the PRC which is a very important factor.

What is more likely to occur under KMT administrations and, perhaps, under future DPP administrations is a growing concensus on Taiwan that Taiwan and its relationship with the Government of the Republic of China is what it is. That ROC Taiwan can both provide for its defense and have a healthy relationship with the mainland at the same time. This will be a profitable win-win solution and increase trust and working relationships on both sides of the Straits. Diplomatically, the ROC will continue to have difficulties as countries increasingly confront the issue of "official" recognition, but pragmatically the ROC will probably gain greater exchanges and less than "official" official relationships. Everyone plays into this fiction and while it may harm the ROC's self image, it produces great rewards on a practical level.

For its part, the PRC has largely walked a steady road in being "patient" with Taiwan, but the PRC has a tendency to want to toot its horn from time to time and its military can get a bit out of hand. The relationship with Taiwan is likely to grow warmer, but muscle flexing would be harmful, especially more threats to invade, etc. It seems unlikely the PRC would actually invade Taiwan or that the ROC would give the PRC the pretext to do so, but the PRC is more vulnerable to flying off the handle in a more impactful way.

Into the far future, it is hard to speculate. The Communist Party seems quite content with ruling the PRC all by itself and as long as it can provide prosperity to the people, it seems unlikely the mainlanders will care enough about their rights to challenge the Communists in any direct way. Still, change happens and who knows in what direction the PRC will evolve in coming years and decades. I do imagine that if the day comes the Communists are willing to share power with other political parties, the KMT will seek to reassert itself on the mainland - but to what effect is hard to predict.

I strongly believe some sort of "Federation" with a high degree of autonomy will occur in the future. Just give it 20-30 years.

how about state government?