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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers