Is it any wonder that young Taiwanese are by-and-large unwilling to lay down their lives for national sovereignty? After all, why fight to the death against overwhelming odds for some independence ideal that the rest of the world does not recognize and that the government of the Republic of China (ROC) itself apparently does not support?
The results of a recent groundbreaking survey by the 21st Century Foundation show that almost 60 percent of people born after 1984 said they had the right to refuse conscription in the event of a war with China over independence, while 55.8 percent said taxes should not be increased to buy weapons to enhance national defense. An analysis of the figures suggested that at least 31 percent of those questioned felt Taiwan should surrender rather than mobilize in case of a war.
Media on both sides of the political spectrum are playing up these statistics, but in the end, is it really that much of a surprise?
Why fight for sovereignty when your president does not protect it? President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is happy to have Chinese officials refer to him as Mr Ma, as if he is the general manager of a subsidiary company. He has instructed his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) subordinates to deliver the message to China that the ROC government is willing to accept a “one country, two areas” (一國二區) formula. He is going full speed ahead on cross-strait economic integration, with very little protection of sovereignty.
Why throw your life away on a lost cause when the Constitution itself does not recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty? Sure it recognizes Chinese sovereignty as represented by the ROC, but who still believes that fiction? It is doubtful even Ma believes in this despite his protestations to the contrary. Taiwan rules itself, but so does Palestine, so does Somaliland and so does Hong Kong (to an extent).
Why die for a country whose ruling political party has entered into closed-door negotiations with the enemy to split the proceeds of eventual unification? KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) summits began in 2005, shortly after the re-election of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on a cross-strait standoff ticket. After failing to win the vote, the KMT went its own way, negotiating with China for help to return to power. The KMT, especially now with Ma at the helm, cannot even rule the country without China’s help. How’s that for independence?
Why fight your employer? Taiwan is autonomous, even sovereign, but it is not independent. It is dependent on China for money, cheap labor, economic growth and as a major market for its exports. Those very exports used to only be high-value-added products such as memory chips and LCDs, but increasingly they are raw goods: fruit, fish and other low-value items. Taiwanese used to mainly earn profits by exporting high-tech goods to China or save money by producing goods there for less, but now China is pouring money into Taiwan with tourists and investments. Real-estate is booming, tourism is soaring and banking is set to become an arm of the Chinese financial empire soon.
Why fight for independence when your elders and leaders have already conceded it? Ma and the KMT are doing their best to erode the nation’s ability to defend itself so that nobody ever makes the dumb move of deciding to fight China. Young people see this and respond in kind.
So why should they have the will to fight?
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
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
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
RSS