Peaceful independence may sound like a utopian dream, but it is the only way for the nation to achieve de jure independence. But it is a plan that will require much wisdom and a solid strategy.
Recent history offers us many examples of independence achieved in a peaceful way and they are worth considering by supporters of Taiwanese independence.
In 1905, Norway won its independence from Sweden. Initially, the king of Sweden intended to suppress the popular movement for an independent Norway by military force. But when Swedish civil society came forward in large numbers in support of the movement, the king changed his plan and accepted the wishes of the Norwegians. The example of Sweden demonstrates that in and of itself, promoting Taiwan's cause domestically and internationally is insufficient.
We need to increasingly recognize the power that exists within Chinese society and open channels of communication with Chinese intellectuals and non-governmental organizations. Only when Chinese become aware that there exist two separate governments on either side of the Taiwan Strait and after they have learned more about the achievements of Taiwanese democracy will a peaceful resolution to the impasse be possible.
Another example is the struggle of three small Baltic countries -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- to gain independence from the Soviet Union. Facing Soviet tanks, unarmed women formed a human shield and prevented the Russians from advancing.
This example shows that non-violent and collective resistance can be powerful enough to resist bullets and tanks. We should therefore actively develop non-violent national defense and peace movements so that Chinese recourse to force would lose all its legitimacy.
During the Lithuanian referendum on independence, more than 76 percent of Russians who had been relocated to Lithuania as part of the Soviet government's immigration policy and their descendants voted in favor of independence. This shows that when democracy has become a way of life, it can create an identity of such strength as to supersede ethnic boundaries. If Taiwanese could have as much confidence in their own system, democracy could reinforce immigrants' identification with Taiwan.
Taiwanese independence should not be a monolithic entity, nor should it be harnessed by an exclusive, chauvinist society. We need more people like former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung (
Supporters of Taiwanese independence should never forget that our initial intention was to establish a "Switzerland in Asia." This beautiful land we care for is more than just a piece of property -- it is a place where people can coexist peacefully while they seek to achieve their dreams.
A movement for independence that has lost sight of its original ideals can only become captive to the colonialist logic of power. Let us therefore make national and international peace our goal and may that be our guide in our quest for independence. Let us come up with an even more pluralist, more inclusive democratic culture and abandon dollar diplomacy and the arms race with China.
When these values are realized, the Taiwanese independence movement will find its vitality and the true meaning of its mission.
Chien Hsi-chieh is the executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS