Two opinion pieces in the Taipei Times on Feb. 1 expressed the conception and potential reality of Taiwanese independence, and the need for ensuing community discussion (“Time for serious discussion,” “Justice is about more than just Chiang,” page 8). I wholeheartedly agree with such a prospect.
A discussion of the possibility of Taiwanese independence is long overdue, but will hopefully take place soon. To be sure, such a disputation is hindered in the international world and this complicates matters in Taiwan, but hopefully this actuality will not prevent dialogue on the issue — to say nothing of its eventuality.
It might sound prosaic, but this political idea should be disputed in a free republic. After all, US President Donald Trump is deliberating a border wall with Mexico in the US; the “yellow vest” movement in France has disputed economic justice in the old republic; campaigners in China have sought more freedom and democracy (such as they can); and Iran has pondered the validity of supporting terrorism around the world (such as it will).
These are bureaucratic issues that must take center stage in municipal affairs and so they do around the world. That a key issue like the potential of independence in Taiwan is not at the fore in civic proceedings is a true setback. While understandable given China’s resistance, it is a negative in terms of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration.
In a word, it seems that the Tsai government has not taken this issue seriously enough, nor has it introduced the dialogue needed in Taiwanese culture and politics. (The issue is both political and cultural, reaching across partisan lines and into realms of consciousness and awareness — what is thought, felt and experienced among a people.)
The government’s reluctance is understandable — a conflict with China is something few truly want — but the prospect of independence should not be completely ignored. After all, South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor and Palau, to name only a few recent additions to the world’s independent states, have debated and addressed this issue, and achieved the real deal — actual independence in world affairs.
These achievements have sometimes come by way of violent confrontation, but these peoples were not afraid to take such steps. I myself hesitate to suggest that conflict with China would be acceptable, but it cannot be disregarded forever. Look at what East Timor went through to accomplish its dream. Admittedly, it was done with the cooperation of the UN, which could be a possibility with Taiwan as well.
I have discussed the conception of Taiwanese independence in the Taipei Times and I was in sum in supportive of this vision (“Taiwan independence: It’s in the air,” November 8, 2017). However, it is not that I am an avid supporter of Taiwanese independence. Rather, I feel that such an issue must be acknowledged and addressed by the public of any country.
Communities should have the right to examine such an issue and, although they might not be able to conclude matters absolutely, they must be able to speak their piece, to make their position clear. China, of course, is one nation that objects to this approach.
China’s view is not going to change anytime soon and this will present problems for Taiwan, but most worryingly, this means that debate in a free country is being obstructed by an authoritarian regime. This must surely concern other free countries in the world.
Perhaps we could hope that simply because a debate is being conducted, panic will not erupt in China. Even Chinese might largely agree that this itself is not the real problem. From here they might indeed question their own government’s position (forgive me if this sounds naive).
The idea of Taiwan as a so-called de facto independent state is not satisfactory. There is only one true independence in world affairs, and that is actual independence — read: South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor and Palau. Halfway measures, such as de facto such-and-such will not do.
The continuance of “status quo” relations with China would not result in anything favorable to Taiwan. (A status quo is, by definition, simply a continuation of what has been true before, which, to be sure, is far from advantageous to Taiwan; this is another negative for the Tsai administration).
Other possibilities can be considered: unification with China, or something like “one country, two systems”? It seems unlikely, but probably cannot be counted out. A union with China, possibly with a number of other Asian nations. A good idea, but it seems that Asians do not think this way.
“One country on each side,” “special state-to-state relations,” “one China, each with its own interpretation”? Basically, these are more ill-founded half-measures, just like the aforementioned. Then there was then-president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “diplomatic truce” with China, not a half-bad idea, and in a sense grounded in international law and doctrine.
The problem was that it strayed outside a truce proper and became an opportunistic economic approach, with such buccaneering disagreeable to Taiwanese.
The final consideration is whether the Taiwanese public, by way of a referendum, national vote or possibly a presidential decision, or simply by conveying its opinion in clear terms throughout the citizenry, would actually choose independence. Matters could then get sticky with China, but to repeat, this is exactly what the nations we have examined did in their own announcements, as have numerous other countries.
Needless to say, all of this sources back to China and, to be sure, China would not accept debate of this issue in Taiwan calmly. The same could be said, with some frustration, of a number of other nations. Many countries talk the talk, but do not quite walk the walk when it comes to the possibility of Taiwanese independence.
The US, Japan, and the EU have all balked somewhat when it comes to the actual probability of such an outcome. That is unfortunate, but not unexpected given relations with China, the gorilla in the room.
The discussion should be started among communities in Taiwan, a cooperative, coordinated, reciprocal way that rebuffs and dismisses any authoritarian conceptions — no offense, China.
Hopefully, Taiwanese want an open, peace-minded, egalitarian, wholly free and self-determining consideration of this issue (though it seems they are not enthusiastically supporting it at this time, with conflict looming so large).
Possibly at this point, maybe Japan, the US and the EU could step in, reverse their reluctance and insist that Taiwanese have the right and the prerogative to discuss this issue freely — maybe. And this is when other free countries would hopefully also aid Taiwan.
And maybe, just maybe, China will not disagree, and could allow such a symposium to continue freely — it would not kill you, China.
Hopefully, it will all work out for the best and this political issue could be discussed in unrestricted terms, and soon. Good luck, Taiwan, in your considered, calculated view onto your own future, whatever that may be.
David Pendery is an associate professor at National Taipei University of Business.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US