The notion that because Taiwan is already independent, it doesn't have to seek independence has been in existence for a long time. However, to determine whether a nation is truly sovereign and independent, it must possess four essential elements that define a state: its own territory, citizenry, government and sovereignty.
Unfortunately, Taiwan does not completely meet these qualifications.
In terms of its territory, as long as the the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) remains unchanged, the territory of the ROC will not be the same as that of Taiwan.
As for its own citizenry, when we look at regulations referring to the "people of the `mainland' area," it should be obvious that the continuing existence of these regulations is sheer absurdity.
In terms of a government, the Constitution states that Taiwan is but "an area" or "a province." This explains why the Taiwan provincial government was reduced to playing a symbolic role instead of being abolished altogether.
Sovereignty has two main meanings: total control over a territory and dealing with other countries on an equal footing.
Unfortunately, according to these criteria, Taiwan cannot be said to be a sovereign state.
Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) allowed China's legislature to pass an "Anti-Secession" Law to deny Taiwan sovereign status. And Beijing's efforts to propagate its "one China" policy all over the world are also intended to suppress and destroy Taiwan's sovereign position in the international community.
Therefore, where the quest for Taiwanese independence once meant to move away from the dispute over whether or not the ROC represents China, now the quest is to shake off the shackles of Beijing's "one China" policy and its brazen claim that the People's Republic of China (PRC) can represent Taiwan.
Those who believe that Taiwan should only seek "normalization" rather than independence have obviously ignored Beijing's efforts to spread its "one China" policy, turn its dispute with Taiwan into an internal matter and nurture pro-China or pro-unification forces within Taiwan.
China's "united front" strategy divides Taiwanese into various political forces -- those seeking independence, those not seeking independence, those opposed to independence and those pursuing unification.
Undoubtedly, Beijing sees its arch-enemies as the pan-green, pro-independence diehards. As for those who believe that Taiwan need not seek independence, Beijing regards them as a clique of secondary enemies that accept Taiwan's de facto independence, but do not seek de jure independence.
Even when some merely seek to "correct the national title," "write a new constitution" or "normalize the country," Beijing still views their efforts as pursuing Taiwanese independence.
But when previous advocates of independence are willing to do a complete about-face -- as seen in the recent remarks of former president Lee Teng-hui (
This must come as a pleasant surprise to China, because the divide between the pan-green and pan-blue camps that was created when former Chinese Nationalist Party chairman Lien Chan (
Therefore, when contemplating the controversy over Lee's recent remarks, we must not let our enemy trap us into unwittingly helping him.
Lo Chih-cheng is the director of the department of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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