“There is a consensus of support of what Ma is doing in Washington and that the overall view is that what he is doing is constructive, smart and strategic,” said Derek Mitchell, senior fellow of the U.S. think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The scholars were speaking at an international forum titled “Taipei-Washington-Beijing Relations: A Common Agenda” held by the Taipei-based think tank Foundation on International & Cross-Strait Studies (FICS) and the CSIS.

Since assuming the presidency May 20, Ma has pursued a “modus vivendi” diplomatic strategy, papering over Taipei’s differences with Beijing to find a mutually beneficial equilibrium.

It has also sought a “diplomatic truce” to end a longstanding tug-of-war with China over each other’s allies and carve out a greater international presence for Taiwan.

The lack of a tangible response to the strategy from Beijing, however, has sparked criticism and suspicions that Ma’s diplomatic approach is merely wishful thinking.

Mitchell urged China to do more to react to Taiwan’s good will.

“China got what it wanted from the Kuomintang government but right now it doesn’t know exactly what to do with it,” Mitchell said, citing the question of Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Assembly as one example of Beijing having yet to decide how much of a presence Taiwan should have in the international community.

He contended that the U.S. should encourage China to recognize that the window of opportunity is closing and tell Beijing it should be thinking about the long-term rather than than trying to wring concessions from Taiwan’s government in the short-term.

Mitchell said Taiwan’s main point of leverage with China is its people, and Taiwan should therefore make a point to Beijing that it should respond to what Ma is doing and to the wishes of Taiwan’s people.

Meanwhile, Mitchell also suggested that Taiwan needs to maintain its high road in serving as a “successful story” in terms of its democracy and open its society to other countries in the world, while continuing to put the ball in China’s court for it to respond responsibly.

Speaking at the same occasion, Douglas Paal, former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and now the vice president for study at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Beijing may have already passively consented to a diplomatic truce, citing as an example China’s lack of action thus far in responding to Paraguay’s interest to switch diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.

Paal contended, however, that in addressing a diplomatic truce and international participation, there has to be an adherence to the ambiguous formula of a one-China principle.

“Success in managing the diplomatic truce is complementary to achieving success in international organizations,” he added.

Paal said Taiwan’s participation in the international community comprises different types of activities, including participation in established international organizations such as those inside and outside the United Nations system and participation in some form of representation in capitals that recognize Beijing.

He also contended that there should be greater freedom of travel for Taiwan’s officials to capitals and states that do not recognize Taipei and for Taiwan’s nongovernmental organizations and civil societies to perform their functions in countries that recognize Bejing.