As the US visit of PRC President Jiang Zemin and his much awaited talks with President Clinton draw to a close, relations across the Taiwan Strait are again the subject of analysis by academics and the media in Taiwan. This is prompted in part by the high-profile summit's implications for the ROC's interests and by recent comments on cross-strait trade by industry heavyweights such as Formosa Plastics patriarch Wang Yung-ching and Evergreen head Chang Jung-fa, but also by the fact that a full 10 years have passed since the late President Chiang Ching-kuo authorized family visits to mainland China, ushering in a new era in cross-strait relations after four decades without contact. Just what phases have our relations with the mainland passed through? What is their state today? And what does the PRC represent for the 21 million people of politically democratic, economically vibrant Taiwan, whose society is gradually entering an age of pluralistic thinking-a brother preparing to make up after many years' quarreling, or an aggressive enemy?

Of course we hope it is the former. Despite the unhappy history of the relations between the nationalist and communist parties, we would much prefer to hand over history to the historians and look at cross-strait relations with a forward-looking attitude, in order to build lasting prosperity for all the Chinese nation. But contrary to the international trend for communication and negotiation instead of war and conflict, the other side continually issues "warnings" and displays its military might. Under such circumstances, how can one speak of cooperation across the Taiwan Strait, let alone peaceful reunification?

The separation of regimes across the Taiwan Strait has its origins in historical factors, but it is also a political reality, and the differences in lifestyle and mentality are real too. What we mean here is not tangible differences such as the material standard of living, for if the mainland continues with its reforms, its economy is likely to develop rapidly. Indeed, Jiang Zemin's US visit is a demonstration of the PRC's spending power, and we hope that living standards in mainland China can improve as quickly as possible. But the real distance between the people on the two sides of the strait lies in the differences in mentality and values of people living under different systems. Put simply, these are the ideas of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights which are part of the blueprint for a new China drawn in blood and sacrifice years ago by Sun Yat-sen and so many revolutionaries. Without these concepts and practices on which human civilization depends, material prosperity is not enough. And as long as there is no change in the overall structure of mainland society, which still demands ideological conformity and in which rulers are above the law, the two sides across the Taiwan Strait can indeed do little more than increase cultural and economic exchanges and develop mutual understanding, so as to lay down the foundations for reunification at some time in the future. Otherwise, we will continue to talk past each other and drift further and further apart.

If the two sides could arrive at an acceptance of the present situation and a shared understanding about the future, this would not only broaden the scope for mutual tolerance and benefit, it would also allow the philanthropic ideal of "caring for others as for one's own," so long stressed in Chinese culture, to be expressed in the international arena in the form of humanitarian assistance. For over a century the Chinese suffered a constant succession of internal strife and external aggression, and had to endure all kinds of hardships. Today, now that we have resources to spare, we should be doing our best to participate all we can in meaningful activities such as food aid, disaster relief, medical care, education and environmental conservation. In the global village there are so many victims of natural and man-made disasters who need a helping hand. If we are so proud of our great nation and ancient civilization, why should we constantly revolve around ideology and limit ourselves to momentary considerations of unification or independence, while forgetting the higher goal of creating a better world for all?

As for international organizations, be it the WTO, the WHO, the World Bank or other institutions, the ROC has much to contribute. If Beijing opposes ROC participation merely over the "private" question of Taiwan's status, this not only hinders the realization of these organizations' basic aims and harms the international collaborative projects which need greater material support-it will also deepen the disdain in which the people of Taiwan hold the PRC regime. If even the most basic trust and tolerance is lacking between the two sides, how we can speak of living together in a unified state?

The PRC is a new force which is being closely watched by the whole world, and which the Western media often refer to as a "dragon." We hope Beijing can abandon its ideas of hegemonistic struggle in favor of humanitarian ideals, and become a Chinese-style dragon of good omen, not the fire-breathing dragon of Western legend which brings destruction and disaster.