In an interview with Bloomberg published on Oct. 23, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
In reality, trading Taiwanese independence for a Chinese promise not to use force would not only fail to protect the status quo, but would also deal a crushing blow to Taiwan's democracy because it casts aside the right of the Taiwanese people to use democratic means to decide their own future.
In the face of China's threat of force, there are no shortcuts -- to be a responsible stakeholder, Taiwan has no choice but to strengthen its national defense, pass the arms procurement bill and deepen security cooperation with the US and Japan in order to truly make the balance of military power across the Taiwan Strait more even.
First, Taiwan's mainstream opinion supports the principle that Taiwan's future should be decided by the Taiwanese people through democratic means. Excluding the independence option could be described as digging up the foundation of democratic self-determination and would leave Taiwan no choice but unification with China.
Ma's position would turn Taiwan's right to democratic self-determination into a bargaining chip when dealing with China. This is a question of democratic principles and is unrelated to the dispute about Taiwan's unification or independence.
Second, swapping Taiwanese independence for a Chinese promise not to use force places the two fundamentally unrelated topics of Taiwan's political behavior and China's threat of force against Taiwan on two ends of the same scale.
The actual result would be that no matter what sort of pressure China applied on Taiwan's international space, no matter how openly they declare that Taiwan is a part of China, as long as China did not actually militarily attack Taiwan, China would not be changing the status quo, and the international community would change tack and ask Taiwan to limit its political actions.
Next would come a debate over what sort of political actions constitute a move toward independence. At that time, the degree of freedom of and space for Taiwanese political reform would drastically shrink, as all actions would have to avoid angering China or provoking them to change the status quo. Naturally, this weakens Taiwan's democracy.
To put it another way, swapping Taiwanese independence for a Chinese pledge not to use military force would effectively close the curtain on Taiwan's political actions and retard Taiwan's democratic development without China ever having to lift a finger.
The key to correcting the faulty logic of Ma and pro-China forces in the international arena lies in making sure things of the same character are placed on the scales. In response to China's military threat, Taiwan should strengthen its ability to protect itself and actively deepen security cooperation with the US-Japanese alliance.
Regarding the political demand that Taiwan not declare independence, it should be pointed out that Taiwan's declarations to defend its sovereignty are responses to Beijing's attacks on Taiwan's participation in the international community and China's declarations that Taiwan is a part of China.
If Beijing stopped saying that Taiwan is a part of China, and stopped trying to extinguish Taiwan's international space, then the Taiwanese people would naturally stop believing that declaring independence was necessary for their self-protection.
Political conflict should be solved through political means, and military threats should be dealt with through strengthening defense capabilities.
In the past 10 years, Taiwan has not declared independence, but China has increased the number of missiles facing Taiwan 20-fold, and the Pentagon has said that the military balance in the Taiwan Strait is already tilting China's way. This is because Taiwan has failed to pass the arms procurement bill and strengthen its defense in order to maintain the present situation in the Taiwan Strait.
As long as Ma continues to beg for Beijing's goodwill by irresponsibly blocking political reform and the arms procurement bill, Taiwan's inability to provide for its own security needs will turn it into an uncertain factor in the Taiwan Strait, and it will forever be unable to become a "responsible stakeholder."
Lai I-chung is the head of the Democratic Progressive Party's department of China affairs.
Translated by Jason Cox
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