The "confederation" with China that KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) advocated prior to the presidential election will be written into the party charter. This concrete declaration is different from former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "state-to-state" model, and much more explicit than the Guidelines for National Unification (國統綱領). Due to the sensitivity of the year-end legislative elections, Lien's advocacy of a confederacy, implying the dawn of negotiations between the two sides, will lead to another wave of unification-independence battles at the end of the year -- something we all await in anticipation.
Ever since President Chen Shui-bian (
Unificationists in Taiwan have for a long time seen so-called confederation as the way to unify the two sides, whereas the Chinese government has long since set the tune by insisting on one country, two systems.
The understanding of a
confederacy among Chinese scholars is that it is not a true unification of two countries, and therefore violates the one country, two systems concept. They believe that, according to international legal theory, a confederation is made up of more than two sovereign countries uniting on the basis of international treaties, and it does not in itself contain the basic requirements for the creation of a nation. A confederation in particular does not possess any powers of enforcement, and countries are free to join or leave. The notion of two sides being joined in a confederation is no different than the idea of "two Chinas," or "one China, one Taiwan."
The Beijing government sees confederation as advocacy for Taiwan independence, but independence advocates see it as capitulation, since the sovereignty of Taiwan's defense and diplomacy will be restricted by China after its establishment. Historically, na-tions that have established confederations have always done so with the goal of establishing a unified country. Does Taiwan really have to be in such a rush to enter into a confederation and speed up China's unification? Confederation is therefore not accepted by the Chinese government, and independence advocates see it as a sell-out of Taiwan in order to achieve rapid unification. Seeing a confederacy as a miracle cure is overly optimistic, and if the KMT writes it into its charter at this time, they will only be giving the DPP a clear theme on which to base its election campaign.
The impasse between the two sides of the Strait stems from the ideological battle over sovereignty. China wants Taiwan to accept the one-China principle and the concept of one country, two systems. It wants Taiwan to capitulate and to reduce Taiwan's government to a local government.
Once Taiwan accepts the one country, two systems concept, the relationship between the two sides will change. It will look more like a confederacy or a commonwealth, even though some Chinese scholars have suggested that Taiwan keep its own defense forces. In Taiwan, however, regardless of whether it is the unificationists advocating a confederation, Chen championing the integrationist stand, or the independence proponents advocating the establishment of a new country, everyone wants to ensure equality between Taiwan and China. The two sides cannot therefore take the first step toward negotiations due to a lack of common ground.
National security, the preservation of national dignity and insistence on equality seem to have become the will of the public. Not even someone in favor of unification dares violate the idea of placing Taiwan first. Whenever there is a call-in TV-program and the opponent is a Chinese scholar, independence and unificationist legislators will always wind up on the same side, opposing the scholar. The cross-strait opinions proclaimed by each political party in Taiwan are not accepted by Beijing and therefore become just election platforms.
Fuzziness and flaccidity become the main characteristics of China policies. Making confederation a part of the KMT charter will not make it the foundation for future negotiations between the two sides, and Lien Chan's advocacy of a confederation will only become the DPP's target in the election battle.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a legislator for the Taiwan Independence Party.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS