The Chinese-language Next Magazine created quite a sensation last week when it ran a front-page headline reading "[Former president Lee Teng-hui (
But in what respect has Lee abandoned Taiwanese independence? We must first discuss what the true meaning and practical implications of "Taiwanese independence" really is before we can make a fair and objective appraisal of Lee's remarks. The most imposing challenge to Taiwanese independence comes from China.
So -- even though in practical terms Taiwan is a country with its own government, territory, citizenry and sovereignty -- it cannot normalize its status and earn recognition in the international community. And because it lacks recognition from the rest of the world, Taiwan is not a "normal" country. Therefore, the most fundamental meaning of "Taiwanese independence" is the need to distinguish that Taiwan is not China.
Based on this principle, we have constantly declared to the international community that there are two separate countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait and each year we knock on the door of the UN. Domestically, we have been striving toward the goals of creating a new constitution and changing the nation's official title.
As Lee says, "We should stop talking about Taiwanese independence." Instead, we should take concrete steps to realize the goal of normalizing our country by applying to join the UN, amending the nation's title and writing a new constitution. There are two strategies for Taiwan to follow in pursuing these goals.
First, the concept of "Taiwanese independence" could logically make people assume that Taiwan is a part of China, that certain factors have led Taiwan to advocate seceding from China but that China will not allow it to do so.
Viewed from this angle, talking about Taiwanese independence falls into the dangerous logic of treating Taiwan as a part of China, which is just what China wants. But if we switch up the terminology and say that we want to realize Taiwanese independence by turning Taiwan into a "normalized country," not only is this a more accurate description of the situation, but it also helps us avoid adopting dangerously muddled logic. In the past few years, haven't Taiwanese grown accustomed to using the phrase "striving toward becoming a normal country?"
Second, in order to prevent domestic and international disturbances from blocking Taiwan on its path to normalization, it's best to just "do" Taiwanese independence rather than talk about it. This has been the pan-green camp's unspoken common understanding for many years and the reason why -- for more than a decade -- we have been taking concrete steps such as applying to the UN and talking about transitional justice, amending the national name and creating a new constitution. Aren't all of these real, practical efforts embarked on with an eye to tangibly realizing Taiwanese independence?
Taiwan Advocates and the Formosan Association for Public Affairs will hold an event on the difficulties and breakthroughs in the creation of a new constitution on March 4. Isn't this symbolic of the combined efforts of Taiwanese both at home and abroad to realize Taiwanese independence?
So how exactly has Lee abandoned Taiwanese independence?
Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.
Translated by Marc Langer
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