Where people are today is a combination of every decision they have made in their lives. Food choices yesterday might not have an immediate effect on health or appearance today, but they have a cumulative effect over time. It is the same with voting decisions.
Taipei City Government spokeswoman Huang Ching-yi (黃?瑩) said this week on a political talk show that independence and unification is a “pseudo-issue.”
“I do not understand what the fuss is about unification and independence. The [same debate] re-emerges once every two years, but Taiwan is not going to become independent or be unified right away because of my vote today,” Huang said.
The issue is an ideological threat issued by politicians to scare voters into supporting them, she said, adding later on Facebook that economic development is what people care about.
However, while the results of a single election might not immediately decide whether Taiwan would become a de jure independent nation or be annexed by China, it is naive to think that the voting decisions of Taiwanese will not decide the nation’s future.
Given the growing disparity between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) over cross-strait policy, with the former becoming more open to unification, it is safe to assume that every electoral victory for a KMT member, especially for high-ranking positions, including the presidency, pushes Taiwan one step closer to China’s clutches.
Likewise, in light of the DPP’s traditional stance toward independence or the “status quo,” a DPP leader steers the nation in the other direction.
Democratic rotation of leadership from KMT to DPP is probably what has kept Taiwan from developing a dangerous level of economic dependence on and political integration with China.
If Taiwanese voters had not believed in the power of their ballots and voted the KMT out in 2016, the rapid growth of economic ties across the Taiwan Strait due to then-president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pursuit of cross-strait rapprochement and economic benefits since 2008 could have prompted both sides to enter the political arena now.
Instead, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) election in 2016 has helped tilt the balance away from China since her inauguration and ensured that Taiwanese can continue to enjoy freedom and democracy.
This is not to say that no DPP politician who warned against the prospect of unification did not do so to drum up support for themselves. Some of them might have been tapping into people’s fear of losing their freedom for selfish reasons, but it does not mean that threats of annexation are not real.
The rhetoric about independence and unification might be old and repetitive, but it is unfortunately a situation every Taiwanese inherited, which is why it is going to be brought up until a resolution on Taiwan’s status is reached.
Dismissing the issue as a far-off problem risks instilling a false sense of security in Taiwanese. Such naive self-deception would only make it easier for Beijing to snatch Taiwan away, even if the process is subtle.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS