President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent proposals concerning a possible cross-strait peace accord and his suggestion that such an accord should be put to a public referendum have opened up one of the most central issues in the presidential election campaign — the question of how we define ourselves as a nation.
The pan-blue and pan-green camps hitherto packaged their positions on this issue using various slogans, such as Ma’s “three noes” (no unification, no independence and no use of force) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) “Taiwan consensus.”
The DPP’s way of defining Taiwan within the context of cross-strait relations is that there is one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait and that relations between the two sides are state-to-state relations, while the definition used by Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is that both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” and that relations between the two sides are not state-to-state relations.
The interesting thing is that both camps frequently accuse their rivals of being vague, while insisting that they have made their own position very clear. How can one explain this difference in perception?
The reason might have to do with the fact that the two sides have not touched on the real questions of how we define ourselves as a nation. Looking at the characteristics of Taiwanese society, one finds that there are multiple values and forms of identity.
On environmental issues, we wish we were a north European country. On human rights, we would like to be the US. When it comes to preoccupations of the postmodern era, such as gay and lesbian rights, we would like to be west Europeans. On development issues, we would like to be a developing country. With regard to trade issues, we dream of becoming a commercial hub.
When it comes to agriculture, we would like our country to have a solid farming sector. With regard to taxation, we wish to be a free-market economy. On social security issues, we would like to be a socialist country.
We aspire to be a frontrunner of globalization, but at the same time we want to protect weaker manufacturers and sunset industries. We want everyone to receive education and training — the more, the better — but at the same time we criticize the education system for stifling creativity. Similarly, we would like to be on friendly terms with China, but on the other hand we do not want to get too close.
This multitude of ideas is an extension of the multiple values and forms of identity that shape the way Taiwanese think.
Probably some readers will already have remarked that, while all these values are laudable, there is no existing model to follow if we want to achieve all these values simultaneously. Few if any governments throughout history have ever achieved such a thing, so all these positions just show how strongly people hope to achieve these various values.
In other words, this kind of “postmodern national identity” is essentially pluralistic in nature and has penetrated into all levels of the collective consciousness. When everything is acceptable, nothing is acceptable.
Another, and still more interesting, aspect is that a particular individual might think that something is fine at one point in time, only to reject it the next. In other words, looking at the collection of viewpoints held by a certain individual throughout the course of their life, some will be quite consistent, but sometimes there will be views that contradict each other.
While this is a true reflection of pluralistic values, such viewpoints lack centrality. This lack of centrality is perhaps, on a psychological level, an intentional result of a social backlash against the preceding generation. However, it is also expressed as insensibility and anxiety among people in general, especially the young. This in turn has created a generation that lacks aspirations, beliefs and a sense of achievement.
How, then is a nation defined? In Taiwan’s case, although the cross-strait issue is the elephant in the room, it is crucial to transcend the cross-strait question.
Should Taiwan be neutral and peaceful, like Switzerland? Should it be well planned and orderly like Singapore or free and multicultural like the US? Should it emphasize welfare and care for the environment like Finland or go for industrial transformation and a competitive edge like South Korea?
Maybe we should model ourselves on Hong Kong or Japan, or any number of other territories or countries. Future leaders must come up with answers to this question and Taiwanese must arrive at their own choices as well.
Shao Hsuanlei is an adjunct professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS