Former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) recent visit to Japan has sparked a chorus of criticism from President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leaders and the Chinese government, following remarks Lee made on Thursday in the Diet, including the statement: “All Taiwan’s troubles over the past half-century stem from China.”
When Lee was president, his attempts to explain Taiwan-China relations culminated in the “special state-to-state relationship” he referred to in a 1999 interview with German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
Sixteen years later, Lee’s vision has become reality as majority public opinion continues to move away from support for unification and identification with China. A survey conducted last month by the National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center found a record-low 3.3 percent of respondents regard themselves as Chinese, while 9.1 percent support “unification” — also a record low. When the institution first conducted the survey in 1992, 25.5 percent of respondents saw themselves as “Chinese,” while 20 percent favored unification over independence or maintenance of the “status quo.”
Since Ma came to office in 2008, his administration’s sinicization policy appears to have had little impact on majority public opinion, but it has effectively driven the nation into obscurity in terms of its international recognition.
Veteran diplomat Mainland Affairs Council Minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言) summed up the the damage to Taiwan’s international status done by Ma’s rhetoric when he described the remarks of an ambassador from one of the nation’s diplomatic allies.
“I discovered today that you are not an independent country,” the ambassador said when he learned of Ma’s policy of “no independence” — one of his “three noes” pledges, along with “no unification” and “no use of force,” aimed at maintaining the “status quo” in cross-strait relations.
The example shows that although China has never given up its claim of sovereignty, Taiwan must bear some responsibility for being recognized as a sort of Chinese creature, rather than a sovereign state.
Two days after Lee’s speech, Hsia delivered a speech in Greece, in which he said the relationship between Taiwan and China was one “between two regions of one country, with the country being the Republic of China” — rhetoric repeatedly espoused by the Ma administration over the past eight years.
In an attempt to placate China, in 2009 Taiwan did not ask its diplomatic allies to submit a proposal for the nation to be represented at the annual UN General Assembly — which it had done every year since 1993.
In addition, Ma’s administration caved in and Taiwan began to participate in the WHA as an observer under the name “Chinese Taipei” in 2009, an arrangement subject to annual renewal with China’s consent.
Ma also accepted Beijing’s terms for Taiwan’s one-off attendance at the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly in 2013 as a “guest” of the UN body’s council president.
How can the stereotype of the international community regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan be challenged if the nation’s government echoes Beijing’s position?
Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Beijing has shifted its strategy of attempting to annex Taiwan via verbal propaganda to more overt activities.
However, despite the wishes of the public, Taiwan has yet to come up with a viable counter-strategy that would reinforce its status as a separate nation and still remains mired in political infighting.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,