As nationalism and identity politics have come to dominate public spheres around the world, researchers strive to understand the repercussions of such political behavior. How does nationalism affect the health of a democratic system, and when might it foster well-functioning liberal democracy?

This is the central question that Gidong Kim, APARC’s 2023-25 Korea Program Postdoctoral Fellow, seeks to answer. Kim’s research, situated at the intersection of comparative politics and political economy, focuses on nationalism and identity politics, inequality and redistribution, and migration in South Korea and East Asia. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Missouri. In his dissertation, “Nationalism and Redistribution in New Democracies: Nationalist Legacies of Authoritarian Regimes,” he investigated the micro-level underpinnings that sustain weak welfare systems in developmental states. 

As part of his fellowship, Kim works with the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL), a new initiative housed at Shorenstein APARC under the directorship of Professor Gi-Wook Shin. The Lab works to provide evidence-based policy recommendations to help implement structural reforms that foster a “Next Asia” characterized by social, cultural, and economic maturity.

On January 24, 2024, Dr. Kim will present his research at a seminar hosted by the Korea Program. You can register for the event, "Narratives of Inclusion: Evidence from South Korea’s Migration Challenge."

We caught up with Dr. Kim to hear more about his fellowship experience this academic year and what’s next. The conversation has been slightly edited for length and clarity. 

First off, can you describe your current research project?

Broadly speaking, as a comparative political scientist, I study nationalism and its behavioral consequences with a regional focus on Korea and East Asia. More specifically, because nationalism is sometimes harmful to liberal democracy, but it can also be helpful, I research when and how national sentiments have either negative or positive effects on liberal democracy through citizens’ political attitudes and behaviors, such as voting behavior, redistribution preferences, migration attitudes, and public opinion on foreign policy.  

How did you come to be interested in this topic?

I was born and raised in South Korea and earned my B.A. and M.A. in political science at a Korean university before pursuing my Ph.D. in the United States. Because I was originally interested in partisan politics, my goal was to understand how American voters think and behave, so that I can explain Korean politics using theories developed in the United States. However, as I took graduate seminars about American politics, I – both as a Korean and as an East Asian – learned that such theories could not be applied well to the Korean and East Asian context.  

It was my second year of the Ph.D. program when I had academic dissatisfaction about the discrepancy between Western theories and East Asian reality. Dr. Aram Hur, my doctoral advisor, has significantly influenced my academic interests and identity. Every conversation that I had with her led me to new insights.

In particular, we focused on nationalism, which can arise not only from each country’s different historical trajectories but also from citizens’ different interpretations and understandings of such trajectories. Since then, based on my personal experience and knowledge of Korea, I tried to challenge the extant political science theories to offer my explanation of Korean and East Asian political dynamics, especially through a lens of nationalism.  

How has your time at APARC as a Korea Program Postdoc helped your research?

APARC provides me with the best academic environment. First, everyone at the Center is open and always welcomes me whenever I need their help. For example, if I want to develop and sharpen my research ideas, I can share my ideas anytime with excellent scholars who always give me constructive feedback. I believe the in-person conversations I can have whenever necessary are the best part of APARC from which I benefit.

Moreover, both the Korea Program and APARC organize many events. Our events feature not only scholars but also policymakers. This is a tremendous help because I believe the ultimate goal of doing research is to make a better society. 

I felt that many U.S. social science Ph.D. programs, including in political science, aim to train their Ph.D. students as researchers who can write papers, less as leaders who can contribute to our communities. But the diverse events at the Korea Program and APARC keep reminding me of the importance of both roles by giving me a balanced perspective.

Are there any individuals who you connected with during your time at APARC?

Since I came here, I met diverse faculty members and excellent students. But I want to share my interactions with Research Fellow Dr. Xinru Ma and Postdoctoral Fellow Dr. Junki Nakahara. Because we share an office, we always have opportunities to discuss our research ideas, different perspectives, and even daily lives. In particular, while I’m a comparative political scientist, Xinru is an international relations (IR) scholar and Junki is a communication scholar. Because we have different academic foundations, this collaborative environment is extremely helpful for me to sharpen my research ideas.

Can you describe the new SNAPL lab and share a bit about your experience?

SNAPL is led by Prof. Gi-Wook Shin, and its full name is ‘Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab.’ As you can see from the name, SNAPL has two main goals. First, we address emerging political, social, economic, and cultural challenges in Asia that can direct the ‘next’ Asia. Second, we also try to provide ‘policy’ solutions to those challenges to make the next Asia better. In other words, our ultimate goal is to upgrade Asia to the next level.  

For those goals, we gather every week. Because Xinru, Junki, and I are leading different, but interconnected, projects at SNAPL, we share ongoing respective research at our weekly meetings with Prof. Shin as well as our two excellent research associates, Haley and Irene. 

When we discuss together, we sometimes criticize each other and sometimes cannot reach a consensus. But eventually, our active debates lead us to come up with new ideas and find solutions together. 

This weekly SNAPL meeting is my favorite time because I can share my research, get insightful feedback from Prof. Shin, learn from Xinru and Junki, and also get excellent support from both Haley Gordon and Irene Kyoung. I believe this is the best way of doing research, which is extremely rare in the social science field.

What is on the horizon for you? What's next?

First, as a junior scholar, I plan to focus on my research into nationalism and its political behavioral consequences. The projects I am leading at SNAPL focus on how the international relations context, such as the growing U.S.-China tensions and dynamics of alliance relationships, shapes global citizens’ attitudes toward neighboring countries and foreign policy. Because these projects are fundamentally related to national sentiments, by focusing on my SNAPL projects, I want to not only contribute to SNAPL as a postdoctoral fellow but also produce good research as an independent scholar.

Second, as my long-term goal, I want to further promote Korean studies in the United States. Despite the growing academic and public interest in Korea, many people still have a limited understanding of the country. 

As a scholar, one way that I can think of to offer a better explanation of Korea is to actively produce scholarly works, such as books and papers, and more importantly, to share them through diverse networks. Thus, someday in the future, I want to lead an institute for Korean Studies and create diverse channels to share such works. 

This commentary originally appeared in The New York Times.

For a half-century, America has avoided war with China over Taiwan largely through a delicate balance of deterrence and reassurance.

That equilibrium has been upset. China is building up and flexing its military power; hostile rhetoric emanates from both Beijing and Washington. War seems likelier each day.

It’s not too late to restore the kind of balance that helped to keep the peace for decades, but it will require taking steps to ease China’s concerns. This will be difficult because of Chinese intransigence and the overheated atmosphere prevailing in Washington. But it is worth the political risk if it prevents war.

Deterrence came in the form of the implied use of U.S. military force to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan. Reassurance was provided by the understanding that the United States would not intrude on decisions regarding Taiwan’s eventual political status.

The United States and its regional allies must continue to create a robust military deterrence. But U.S. leaders and politicians also need to keep in mind the power of reassurance, try to understand China’s deep sensitivities about Taiwan and should recommit — clearly and unequivocally — to the idea that only China and Taiwan can work out their political differences, a stance that remains official U.S. policy.

During the Cold War, Beijing and Washington signed a series of communiqués related to Taiwan. One of them said the United States “reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” This and other wording was deliberately ambiguous, but it was accepted by all sides as a commitment to avoid rocking the boat. China still views this arrangement as binding.

To be clear, it was China that began rocking the boat first.

Since 2016, when Tsai Ing-wen of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party was elected president of Taiwan (succeeding a more China-friendly administration), Xi Jinping has repeatedly brandished China’s military power with large-scale military exercises and other pressure tactics apparently meant to discourage independence sentiment on Taiwan.

U.S. political figures have rightly responded with rhetorical support for democratic Taiwan, by supplying it with weapons and by strengthening the U.S. military presence in the region. But the American reaction is also pouring fuel on the fire.

I have worked on U.S. defense strategy in various military roles for more than a decade. I recently traveled to Beijing, where I met with Chinese government and military officials, leading academics and experts from Communist Party-affiliated think tanks. During these talks it was clear that Beijing is far less concerned with U.S. efforts to enhance its military posture in the region — the deterrence side of the equation — than with the political rhetoric, which is seen in China as proof that the United States is moving away from past ambiguity and toward supporting Taiwan’s de facto independence.

They have plenty of evidence to point to.

In December 2016, Donald Trump became the first U.S. president or president-elect since the normalization of China-U.S. relations in 1979 to speak directly with a Taiwanese leader, when Ms. Tsai called to congratulate him on his election victory. President Biden has, on four occasions, contradicted the U.S. policy of ambiguity by saying we would support Taiwan militarily if China attacked. The number of U.S. Congress members visiting Taiwan — which China views as overt support for the island’s independence — reached a decade high last year, including an August 2022 trip by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House at the time and the highest-ranking U.S. official travel to Taiwan since the 1990s. That has continued this year: In June a nine-member congressional delegation, the largest in years, arrived in Taipei.

Provocative legislation has not helped. Last year the Taiwan Policy Act, which articulated support for Taiwan’s role in international organizations, was introduced in the Senate, and in July of this year the House passed a similar act. House Republicans introduced a motion in January to recognize Taiwan as an independent country.

Actions like these put great pressure on Mr. Xi, who won’t tolerate going down in history as the Chinese leader to have lost Taiwan. That would be seen in Beijing as an existential threat, potentially fueling separatist sentiment in restive regions like Tibet and Xinjiang.

For now, lingering doubts over Chinese military capabilities and the specter of U.S. and allied retaliation are enough to restrain Mr. Xi. But if he concludes that the United States has broken, once and for all, from its previous position on Taiwan and is bent on thwarting unification, he may feel that he must act militarily. The United States might be able to build the necessary military power in the region to deter a Chinese war of choice. But the level of dominance needed to stop Mr. Xi from launching a war he sees as necessary might be impossible to achieve.

Reassuring China would require Mr. Biden to reiterate that the United States does not support Taiwanese independence or oppose the island’s peaceful unification with China and that, ultimately, Taiwan’s fate is up to Taipei and Beijing. It would mean moving away from attempts to create international space for Taiwan and chastising Beijing when it pulls away Taipei’s diplomatic partners. The White House would also need to use what leverage it has to discourage members of Congress from visiting Taiwan and threaten to veto provocative legislation.

There would doubtless be blowback in Washington and Taipei, and Mr. Xi may already have made up his mind to seize Taiwan, regardless of the U.S. stance. But a politically neutral position on Taiwan is what the United States has followed for decades. Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and George H.W. and George W. Bush advocated peaceful dialogue between Taipei and Beijing to resolve their differences.

There also are longer-term repercussions to consider: If the combination of deterrence and reassurance fails and China attacks Taiwan, it will set a precedent in which Chinese leaders kill and destroy to achieve their goals. But if a pathway remains for China to eventually convince Taiwan’s people — through inducements or pressure — that it is in their interest to peacefully unify, then that may be a China that we can live with.

In the best-case scenario, the United States and China would reach a high-level agreement, a new communiqué, in which Washington reiterates its longstanding political neutrality and China commits to dialing back its military threats. This would avert war while giving China political space to work toward peaceful unification. That might mean using its clout to isolate Taiwan and eventually convince the island’s people that it should strike a deal with Beijing. But it isn’t Washington’s place to prevent the unification of the two sides — only to ensure that doesn’t happen through military force or coercion.

A war between the United States and China over Taiwan could be the most brutal since World War II. As politically difficult as it may be, U.S. leaders have a duty to try to prevent conflict, and that means speaking more softly but carrying a big stick.

As Sustainable Development Goal 5 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), gender equality is an essential foundation for a prosperous and sustainable world and a core theme that drives the United Nations-adopted 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The world, however, is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030, as the latest Sustainable Development Goals Report indicates. To accelerate progress, we must “recognize that achieving gender equality is not a distant dream but a tangible goal that requires our collective efforts,” said APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin at the opening of the Trans-Altai Sustainability Dialogue (TASD).

Held from June 12-14, 2023 at the State Palace in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, the TASD gathered government officials, scholars, and practitioners from across the United States, Asia, and the Altai region to expedite action on gender equality and sustainable development. The event, organized by the State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia along with APARC, the Ban Ki-moon Foundation For a Better Future, and Ewha Womans University as co-hosts, is a sub-regional convening of the annual Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue, a joint effort of APARC and the Ban Ki-moon Foundation.

APARC initiated the Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue to create a platform for spurring meaningful discussions, research collaborations, and policy partnerships between experts from the United States and Asia to accelerate progress on realizing the SDGs. The TASD built upon the momentum and enthusiasm generated at the inaugural 2022 Dialogue and was held with an eye on the future, as APARC and its partners are preparing for the second annual Dialogue that will be held this coming September, again in Seoul, South Korea.

The TASD provided an opportunity for a new network of partners to explore the intersection of gender equality and economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection — the three core elements of the 2030 Agenda. TASD participants examined issues including policy solutions for promoting women's leadership; gender equality in the labor market and education; gender-based violence and human rights in Mongolia and the region; and Altai studies. Throughout the event, participants proposed actionable strategies to advance progress in gender equality and women empowerment. 

Shin lauded Mongolia’s progress in advancing SDG5, noting that its Parliament's “commitment to becoming a gender-sensitive and human rights-focused institution is genuinely inspiring.” He challenged participants to drive tangible action and address crucial questions, such as: “How can we effectively and holistically measure and evaluate women's and girls’ empowerment? Which interventions work at different levels and contexts? And how can we effectively implement the outcomes of this Dialogue?”

Chairman of the State Great Hural of Mongolia, Gombojav Zandanshatar, a driving force behind the TASD, emphasized the necessity of achieving women’s empowerment. “Men alone cannot solve the global challenges facing the world,” he said. “A new era is dawning where women's voices are becoming more important.” Chairman Zandanshatar, a long-time friend of APARC and the Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies, is a former visiting scholar at the Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). While at CDDRL, Mr. Zandanshatar connected with the Deliberative Democracy Lab and ardently supported its Deliberative Polling® method. In 2017, Mongolia became the first country to legislate Deliberative Polling for constitutional amendments.

On the first day of the TASD plenary, keynote speakers and panelists discussed barriers to gender equality and policies to facilitate a more rapid shift toward empowering all women and girls. Speakers included, among others, Ban Ki-moon, the eighth secretary-general of the UN and the chairman of the Ban Ki-moon Foundation For a Better Future, Kim Youngjoo, deputy speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, and Khurelbaatar Bulgantuya, member of the State Great Hural of Mongolia,  chair of the Sub-Committee on Sustainable Development, and minister for Labour and Social Protection.

In addition to Shin, the Stanford delegation to the TASD included APARC deputy director and Japan Program director Kiyoteru Tsutsui, associate professor of education Christine Min Wotipka, APARC associate director for program and policy Cheryll Alipio, APARC executive assistant Kristen Lee, and APARC incoming predoctoral fellow Marie Wako, a JSD candidate at Stanford Law School.

Wotipka and Ankhbayar Begz, coordinator for the Gender Equality Research Program at the Mitchell Foundation for Arts and Sciences and a former visiting scholar at APARC, presented their research on the gender equality index for universities, a tool to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of gender equality. They discussed why gender equality at universities is especially important, as youth gather and “obtain proper knowledge about gender equality before entering the job market and society, where they will spread the right ideology about gender equality.”

Highlighting the role of youth in driving action to achieve the SDGs, the TASD included young student leaders from Stanford University and Ewha Womans University, who shared their work on women’s agency, voice, and victimization in South Korea’s digital realm, Sri Lanka’s domestic and care labor regime, and Japan’s courtrooms. At the student panel, Marie Wako presented her findings on the effects of female judges in Japanese criminal cases. The impact of a judge’s gender, she said, is most notable in sentencing outcomes in which she found that sentencing for sexual offenses were heavier when female judges are part of the panel of three judges.

To further ties among the TASD participants and showcase sustainable development and tourism initiatives through the promotion and conservation of natural and cultural heritage, the second day of the official event included a visit to Gorkhi Terelj National Park for an introduction to nomadic culture and tradition with folk songs and dances as well as a mini Naadam festival, featuring Mongolian wrestling, horse racing, and archery.  “Let these experiences remind us of the interconnectedness of our planet, the importance of preserving our cultural diversity, and the urgency to act in the face of global challenges,” said Shin at the closing ceremony.

The complete TASD livestream is available via the Mongolian Parliament’s Facebook channel. Additional conference coverage: 

• Mongolian Parliament’s website: here and here
• Mongolian Parliament’s YouTube channel: here and here
• UNDP
• IPU

Stay tuned for news about the second annual Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue, to be held in Seoul, Republic of Korea on September 13-14, 2023, focusing on energy security — Sustainable Development Goal 7.

Last January, Fumio Kishida made his first visit to Washington D.C. as Japan's Prime Minister, reaffirming the strength of the U.S.-Japan alliance. As the U.S.–China relationship continues to fracture, Japan has remained in close alignment with the United States, even signaling a paradigm shift in its recently revised National Security Strategy, naming China an “unprecedented strategic challenge,” and unveiling a record defense budget. “This is a revolutionary event in Japan's security policy," said Professor Ryosei Kokubun about Tokyo’s hike in military expenditure.

Kokubun, the Spring 2023 Payne Distinguished Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and a visiting scholar at APARC, headlined this quarter’s Payne Lecture. Held on May 3, 2023, and co-hosted by APARC and FSI, the event focused on the U.S.-China rivalry and Japan’s position.

The Payne Lectureship at FSI, named for Frank E. Payne and Arthur W. Payne, aims to raise public understanding of the complex policy issues facing the global community and advance international cooperation. The lectureship brings to Stanford internationally esteemed leaders from academia and the policy world who combine visionary thinking and a broad, practical grasp of their fields with the capacity to provide insights into pressing challenges of global concern. Throughout the 2022-23 academic year, the Payne Lectureship hosts experts from Asia who examine crucial questions in U.S.-China relations.

As the president of Japan's National Defense Academy from 2012 to 2021 and a longtime faculty member at Keio University, Professor Kokubun is uniquely qualified to share insights into Japan's perspectives on the rising security fears in the Asia-Pacific region. Following Kokubun's address was a panel discussion with Shorenstein APARC Fellow Thomas Fingar, an expert on China and U.S. foreign policy, and FSI Center Fellow Oriana Skylar Mastro, an expert on Chinese military and Asia-Pacific security. Kiyoteru Tsutsui, director of the Japan Program at APARC and the Center’s deputy director, moderated the conversation.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts’ and guest speakers’ analysis >

The Legacy of "Strategic Engagement

Although recent years have seen an escalation in the tense relationship between China and the United States, Professor Kokubun began his lecture by emphasizing the relatively recent nature of these tensions. He reminded the audience that the years following the formal re-establishment of diplomatic ties between the United States and China in 1979 saw a broad expansion of the U.S.–China relationship on nearly every front, from student exchange to diplomatic cooperation. During that time, Deng Xiaoping led China through the era of “reform and opening up,” integrating China into the global economy. Kokubun emphasized that U.S. leaders had hoped this policy of “strategic engagement” would push China towards democratization and the end of repressive domestic policies, and that, through reform and marketization, China would become more like the United States.

Kokubun depicted the era between 1979 and 2010 as a period of cautious optimism not only between the United States and China but also between China and Japan. Xi Jinping's presidency, however, has seen a complete reversal of this attitude. China's relationships with both Japan and the United States have become strained, and channels for communication and cooperation have steadily diminished. Kokubun pointed out that this has led to a substantial drop in U.S. public opinion of China, asking the audience, “Why is the U.S. so China-hating?” He sees this trend as a function of the failed “strategic engagement” policy. When the policy of engagement did not lead to democratization in China, U.S. officials and citizens felt a sense of betrayal and mistrust. The engagement policy and the hopes that came with it ended under the Trump administration, and Professor Kokubun predicts that the present U.S. hardline stance on China is here to stay.

How Would Japan Respond to a Taiwan Contingency?

In Kokubun’s view, Japan’s main concern is whether or not a Taiwan contingency is a real risk. He noted that the future depends on the decisions of the Taiwanese and Chinese leadership. “Whether Taiwan will move toward independence or move closer to the mainland lies at the crossroads,” he said. He pointed out that Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s president, has not made any hardline statements supporting independence. 

However, even if Taiwan’s government were to shift closer to the mainland, a continuation of the status quo is not guaranteed. Kokubun emphasized the uncertainty of the situation and said that, regardless of how Taiwan’s government acts, China’s actions depend on how Xi sees his opponents’ actions. “The final decision will depend on how Xi Jinping views the future policies of Taiwan and the United States, and whether he sees them as having crossed a line,” said Kokubun. “However, the criteria for that line are also arbitrary and entirely up to Xi Jinping’s judgment.” Ultimately, Kokubun returned to the intractability of the mounting conflict. “The key to the Taiwan issue is one thing: Xi’s resolve. China will never abandon the possibility of an armed invasion of Taiwan.”

Concerns about rising threats from China and North Korea and the alarm raised by the war in Ukraine have put security at the forefront of national consciousness in Japan. In December 2022, Japan’s government announced an enormous increase in national defense spending to 2% of national GDP over a five-year period, which will give the country the third-largest defense budget in the world. “This is a revolutionary event in Japan's security policy," stated Kokubun." Japan has traditionally discussed the threat of North Korea and China, of course, but this has not led to a significant increase in real defense spending or a strengthening of defense capabilities. However, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine...serious discussions about the possibility of a Taiwan contingency began.”

Many experts have speculated as to Japan’s role in a potential Taiwan contingency. Despite Japan’s close ties with Taiwan and longstanding alliance with the United States, Japan’s ability to respond to a Taiwan contingency is severely restricted by the Peace Constitution, which forbids Japan from maintaining offensive capabilities and prohibits offensive actions by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). Though some U.S. officials hope that Japan might defend Taiwan until U.S. forces arrive in the case of a Taiwan contingency, Kokubun noted that “this is completely impossible under the current Japanese legal system, and there is no way to move in that direction under the current circumstances.”

However, were an armed conflict to truly erupt in the Pacific, Japan might have no choice but to get involved. Kokubun said, “For Japan, the question is how to rescue the Japanese in Taiwan,” and if Taiwan were to attack the mainland in retaliation, “how to rescue the five times as many Japanese in China. They are hostages.” President Tsai’s position on retaliation against an invasion of Taiwan has complicated the situation for Japanese leadership. In addition, Chinese leadership has long contended that several Japanese possessions in the Pacific should be returned to Chinese sovereignty, including the Senkaku islands and Okinawa. To emphasize this point, Professor Kokubun cited a conversation he’d had with a high-level official in Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party: “If the U.S. and China really go to war, the battlefield would not be Taiwan, but Okinawa.”

East Asia’s Security Situation

Despite the complications of a Taiwan contingency, Kokubun noted that “if Okinawa or Senkaku islands were attacked, Japan would naturally fight back in close cooperation with the U.S. military. This makes a U.S.-China war very likely.” In Kokubun’s view, due to the absence of communication channels with North Korea and the continuing loss of communication channels with China, “the security environment in East Asia is approaching the worst situation since the end of World War II.” 

“What Japan should do is, on the one hand, strengthen its security deterrence while at the same time strengthening its alliance with the United States, of course, and on the other hand, strengthen its ties with Australia, India, and South Korea, which share the same values,” said Kokubun. “On the basis of this partnership, Japan has no choice but to continue dialogue with China at all levels, along with the rest of the world.”

Finally, Kokubun addressed the logistics of a Chinese occupation of Taiwan, emphasizing that there are already “dissatisfied elements” in mainland China, not only in Tibet but also in low- and middle-class communities, who no longer enjoy the benefits of economic growth. “How much power will it really take to govern a Taiwan filled with people who hate the mainland?” asked Kokubun. He suggested that the Chinese government benefits from maintaining the annexation of Taiwan as a political objective without acting on it. Once the island has been seized, China will no longer be able to rally its population around this national goal. “I think that once the ultimate goal is accomplished, the objective is lost,” said Kokubun. “Taiwan unification seems to me to be the most stable goal as it is.”