Robert Tsao (
Tsao has run repeated advertisements promoting the drafting of a "peaceful coexistence law" and holding a unification referendum so that the general public can display its feelings on the issue of unification or independence. The advertisements also said that a more open attitude should be adopted so that the democratic referendum process can be applied toward obtaining public opinion on any given issue.
Any views originating from diverse, autonomous public opinion should be respected. Still, suggesting a referendum on unification can only be considered half correct. Rejecting the option of independence in the referendum fails to consider the feelings of much of Taiwan's public; moreover, it complies with the false premise of peace in China's "Anti-Secession" Law, actively giving up bargaining space while only managing to maintain the status quo.
The cross-strait team of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan presented a "democratic unification, peaceful independence" proposal in June, placing values of democracy and peace before the issues of independence and unity. The point of departure of this proposal is the same as that of Tsao's, and it expresses the same concern regarding the malicious battle between Taiwanese political parties that is concerned exclusively with pan-blue or pan-green rather than right or wrong. At the same time, both Tsao and the proposal hope that the election can be liberated from the standoff between independence versus unification and tension between Taiwanese ethnic groups.
We believe that through establishing democracy and peace as fundamental principles, and through dialogue and respect of differences, which facilitates the rational integration of means of consensus, society can rediscover a common foundation. Tsao's opinion is similar to our belief that if unification is sought, it must be achieved democratically. But this denies the other half of the whole, which is that if independence is sought, it must be achieved peacefully, causing the ensuing debate to sink again into the antithetical pan-blue/pan-green quagmire.
Tsao believes that peaceful independence is not possible. However, there are many successful examples of the weak achieving independence from the strong: the tanks of the Red Army resisted by the peoples of the Baltic States and the recognition of Kosovo's election by the US and the EU, where different candidates uniformly advocated independence from Serbia. Hence independence does not necessarily entail war. The point is not the choice between independence and unification, or whether the powers that be agree with that choice. Instead, the point is whether we can persuade one another democratically and peacefully, and whether domestic consensus rather than the rejection of dialogue can be achieved by the same means, so that a unified entity can be formed with respect to the outside world.
Chen was also only half correct: Peace isn't surrender. Disrespecting differences of opinion and diversity of public expression to the point of blaming them on a pan-blue conspiracy does not accord with the true essence of peace. When only a unification referendum is proposed to the chagrin of pro-independence supporters, the situation must be considered in reverse. For, by the same token, only proposing an independence referendum likewise causes discontent amongst pro-unification supporters. If one is confident that Taiwanese independence is the mainstream public opinion, then the suggestion of a unification referendum should be met with respect.
In fact, Tsao is not unreasonable in worrying that independence could provoke war, as the independence pursued by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is no more than allowing hatred to deepen division and employing the independence/unification issue to manipulate ethnic groups. Their ultimate goal is to obtain votes and to wrestle for political power rather than to wisely garner international sympathy and promote domestic unity.
Consider the successful pursuit of independence by the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, who resisted the Red Army and won the sympathy of the international community through non-violent strategies. Peace is not to surrender, submit or to knuckle under the inequitable status quo, but the actualization of the pursuit for public justice.
If Taiwan wishes to pursue legal independence, the government and the public should proactively participate in international humanitarian, environmental, and peaceful causes in order to emulate the northern European countries and establish cooperative relationships. Taiwan should replace the aggressive, confrontational strategy of the UN bid with soft power, so that we can create an external environment favorable to peaceful independence. At the same time, we should learn lessons on the unification and consolidation of domestic consensus from the experiences of the Baltic states. Only through treating one another with respect and tolerance could the Baltic states have persuaded immigrants from Russia and the Ukraine in all three countries to contribute to the 67 percent majority there in support of independence.
And yet, Taiwanese separatists unfailingly behave with animosity toward others and create ethnic opposition, further intensifying internal damage in a way that is truly unconstructive to the choice of Taiwan's future. The Taiwanese independence movement must not only be an exalted ideal of legal independence, but also incorporate humanistic values of compassion, justice and sincerity in order to persuade the public.
Within the greater principles of democracy and peace, unification and independence are not in opposition. "Peaceful independence and democratic unification" can form a common public consensus. This is the road to reconciling the cross-strait polar opposition of unification and independence, and the way to avoid political mobilization and ethnic animosity.
Chien Hsi-chieh is the executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan.
Translated by Angela Hong
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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
RSS