After news broke of the devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, Taiwanese people generously donated to the relief efforts, in spite of the fact that this vicious “distant relative” and close neighbor has targeted over 1,000 missiles at their country. They did so simply out of humanitarian concern. China, however, continues to obstruct Taiwan’s efforts to join the WHO. The nation’s donations were apparently not enough to buy a letter of indulgence.
Faced with such a big and unfriendly neighbor, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) proposed to set aside disputes in his inaugural address. Seeking common ground in differences may sound like a rational choice. Yet with China claiming Taiwan as its province, any humble wish for peace sounds like a plea for mercy.
If there is truly no cross-strait animosity, how can there be a need for reconciliation? If neither side wants a war, why the rush to sign a truce? What wrong has Taiwan committed to provoke the Chinese? China must have understood long ago that oppressing Taiwan only aggravates the repugnance felt by the Taiwanese public and speeds up the consolidation of national consciousness. A new and imaginary cross-strait community has silently been created, with China as the catalyst.
Looking back on the last fifty years, from the banshan — Taiwanese who went to China to join the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) during Japanese colonial rule — to the arrival of Mainlanders after World War II and the emergence of the terms “Taiwanese businesspeople” and “Taiwan compatriots,” the collective identity has changed from “Chinese” to “Chinese in Taiwan” to “Taiwanese.” But this is just an issue of self-identification. People living in Taiwan never got involved in the struggle between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party, and later, under the KMT propaganda machine, “anti-communist” was not necessarily equal to “anti-China” and there was no need to take a hostile attitude toward the Chinese.
Is it true that Ma’s “three-noes” policy — no unification, no independence and no use of force — will dissolve concerns over “eventual unification?” Also, if China is willing to give Ma a chance, the government should consider three major issues before entering into a dialogue with Beijing.
In the short term, will our economic system be capable of facing China’s dramatic political and economic changes and manipulation? The government should consider whether economic integration with China would develop toward functionalism — easing cross-strait tension — or lean toward mercantilism — eventual economic dependence on China, with the consequence of becoming a political vassal.
In the medium term, what kind of “peace” are we pursuing? It could mean to avoid war, maintain a military balance, bring about disarmament under the direction of the major powers, or pursue neutrality. Or it could mean forming some sort of East Asian security community that includes Taiwan and China, similar to the EU or NATO. In order to answer these questions, the government must have a profound understanding of international developments, especially the influential roles of the US and China in the global arena and the East Asian region.
In the long term, how do we position our country vis-a-vis China, especially after it has become either democratic or affluent or both? We must begin by asking ourselves whether we would want to remain a nation or join China, assuming that China joins the ranks of civilized countries and the international community is willing to ensure and respect the rights of Taiwanese to self-determination.
Shih Cheng-feng is dean of the College of Indigenous Studies at National Dong Hwa University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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