At a June 6 talk with a delegation from the Mainland Affairs Council, Heritage Foundation research fellow John Tkacik said he didn't understand what people meant by "Taiwan independence." He's even more stumped by some people's insistence that they are not pro-China but simply "oppose Taiwan independence." Tkacik thinks that last phrase sounds synonymous with "surrender," and that Taiwan should be more worried about gradual unification than so-called "gradual independence." After all, Taiwan has its own military, government, stamps and taxation system -- so as far as the US is concerned, Taiwan is already independent.
Tkacik is a US expert on cross-strait issues, and his points should be carefully considered by the government. The following analysis is presented as a reference and reminder to our fellow citizens.
In 1895 China's Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan. Japan was later defeated in World War II, surrendering in 1945. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, General Douglas MacArthur, ordered the commander of the Chinese war zone to arrive in Taiwan and Penghu to accept the surrender of the Japanese army -- but not to accept the handing over of sovereignty. In 1952, Japan ceded Taiwan under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but that treaty did not specify the recipient of Taiwan's sovereignty. From then on, under public international law, the sovereignty of Taiwan has belonged to Taiwan.
Taiwan is already an independent country. The Republic of China was just the government ordered by MacArthur to occupy and govern Taiwan. Under the circumstances, the ROC government should have held elections and adopted a new national name and government structures to reflect the fact that the sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to Taiwan, and not Japan.
But out of selfishness, the government did not so do -- a lapse which is the root of many problems still facing Taiwan. The current campaigns to rectify the national title, adopt a new constitution and revise history and geography textbooks are measures to address and remedy problems left over since that era.
No wonder people such as Tkacik do not understand what "Taiwan independence" means. "Opposing" Taiwan independence is denying the fact that Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign country, regardless of whether this country is called the Republic of China, the Republic of Taiwan or Taiwan.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) often repeat their opposition to "Taiwan independence." While their intention may be to oppose "Taiwan" or a "Republic of Taiwan," by opposing "independence" they are also opposing the "Republic of China." If the two parties oppose only the use of the names "Taiwan" and "Republic of Taiwan," and not the name "Republic of China," then a more accurate way of describing their position is that they oppose name rectification and a new constitution.
This is why Tkacik does not understand their explanation that they are not pro-China, but just oppose Taiwan independence. For the same reason, we wish that politicians from the nativization camp would avoid using political slogans such as "declaring independence and founding a new country." This is very confusing for people outside of Taiwan. After all, Taiwan is already an independent country. If people are not happy with the name or the constitution, then name rectification, amending the constitution, adopting a new constitution and a nativization campaign are the correct terms that should be used to explain the solutions being sought by Taiwanese. As for international recognition of Taiwan as an independent country, that is another question, as well as something that everyone in Taiwan must work hard to achieve.
Another reminder and caution from Tkacik is that Taiwan's biggest crisis is neither from external threats nor the misleading controversy over whether Taiwan should be "independent." Rather, the biggest danger is that the Taiwan government is falling into the trap of "gradual unification."
What is "gradual unification?" It includes the treatment of cross-strait relations as an internal affair, the acceptance of the "one China" principle within Taiwan, the so-called "gradual opening up" of investment in China and cross-strait charter flights. Some of these developments are political and some are economic, but they are closely related and reinforce each other.
On an economic level, "gradual unification" is wearing down the Taiwanese people's vigilance about the threat from China, and blurring the line between friend and foe.
Taiwanese businessmen investing in China at first felt guilty about financing the enemy. But after receiving praise and encouragement from Taiwanese officials, they became seen as pioneers seeking a way out for Taiwan's economy, and then heroes in the cause of the country's economy -- a status evident in the grand reception they receive upon arrival via direct charter flights from the other side of the Strait. After they came back, they were invited to attend large-scale banquets. Even the president attends lavish events in their honor.
It is no exaggeration to say that the entire focus of the government's policy has become China and the Taiwanese businessmen investing there. With such a narrow focus, there is obviously little time devoted to taking care of domestic investment and infrastructure. It isn't that the government machinery isn't moving. Rather, it is moving on behalf of China and Taiwanese businessmen.
For example, the total amount of investment by Taiwanese businessmen has not decreased. It's just that they now invest in China. Last year alone, the government approved as much as US$7 billion in investments in China, accounting for 2.3 percent of Taiwan's GDP. If we take into consideration the fact that foreign investment by countries such as the US and Japan makes up only about 1 percent of GDP, we should see vividly the reality of "gradual unification."
The number of Taiwanese businessmen and employees in China has reached a million. There are industries dominated by Taiwanese businessmen in both southern and central China. Now, China wants to begin organizing Taiwanese businessmen. Associations for Taiwanese businessmen in China all have people from China's Taiwan Affairs Office in key positions, completing the mechanism for exerting pressure on the Taiwan government through the business sector.
The pan-green camp's failure to win a majority of seats in last year's legislative election had nothing to do with erroneous nominations strategies or a poorly-run campaign. Rather, it had to do with the strengthening of the pan blue grassroots due to the government's "gradual unification" policy. The subsequent meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
On June 13, Premier Frank Hsieh (
The pro-unification news media may praise this for demonstrating "pragmatism," but it will further turn cross-strait affairs into domestic affairs. It also represents the normalization of the "one China" principle in Taiwan. Hsieh may have won praise from the pan-blue camp and businessmen, but his policies will push Taiwan further into economic integration and will lead the nation down the path of gradual unification.
It also proves that government policy is being controlled by Chinese officials via the Taiwanese businessmen in China. More compromise, "reconciliation" and "co-existence" of this kind will only put Taiwan in greater danger.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS