Understanding Taiwan’s opinion polls requires insight and knowledge, not only of the nation’s political history, but also of the political leaning of the polling organizations. In the old days, pro-government publications and government organizations simply tried to elicit praise and support for the authorities.
Democratization in the late 1980s and early 1990s changed all that, although the partisanship in some publications remains, while many people remain wary of answering queries from government agencies for fear of retribution, a leftover from the old days.
It is thus refreshing that some organizations, like the Global Views Survey Research Center and National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center, have been able to develop professional and objective polling techniques, which give a much better insight into the views of the public.
A common refrain from foreign observers is that the majority of Taiwanese are for the “status quo.” This is often used by those aiming to prove that the Taiwanese do not want to “rock the boat” by moving toward either unification or independence.
Indeed, if the question is phrased: “What do you prefer: status quo, independence or unification?” some 50-plus percent of the respondents will opt for the status quo, about a third for independence, while less than 10 percent are for unification.
However, in a July survey, Global Views asked whether the respondents were in favor of independence or not, 49.1 percent said they were supportive of ultimate independence, while 34.4 percent were not. The same question on unification prompted 15.6 percent to support unification, while 69.9 percent voiced opposition.
The conclusion is that, if given a free choice, Taiwanese would opt for their country to be recognized as a full member of the international community.
At present the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is preventing such a choice, but it is also important to realize that often the world seems to have accepted the Chinese discourse on Taiwan. I would argue that we should not look at the matter through Beijing’s glasses all the time, but take a more objective look.
The PRC presents the case that Taiwan “split off” from China in 1949, and that it should be reunified, by force if necessary. The reality is that Taiwan was a Japanese colony until 1945 and was then occupied by the losers in the Chinese Civil War.
Confusion is also generated by the way the US phrases its “one China” policy. All too often this is interpreted to mean that the US considers Taiwan to be part of China. This is not the case. “One China” means that the US recognizes only one government as the government of China. In 1972, the US “acknowledged” the Chinese position, but did not take that as its own. In the Taiwan Relations Act and other statements the US emphasized that its policy was that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and with the assent of the people of Tawain. That is what democracy and freedom are all about.
We could also have a more meaningful discussion on possible solutions if we move away from proxy debates on whether Taiwan is a state or not. By the most basic definition under international law, the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Taiwan is a nation state (it has territory, a stable population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states).
The question is rather, “as what” does it seek recognition? The old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) sought recognition as the government of all of China. In 1991, under then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), it restricted its claims to Taiwan and surrounding islands. This stance was continued under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, although many in the DPP wanted to move toward international recognition as “Taiwan.”
Which route is taken depends on the democratic dynamics in Taiwan itself. The international community needs to ensure that Taiwanese can make their decisions freely, without coercion by Beijing.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS