In the wake of the recent crackdown in Tibet, which preceded Taiwan’s presidential election, feelings of uncertainty shrouded the people of Taiwan regarding the issue of future cross-strait relations.
With the KMT now in power after eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rule, the thought (or perhaps fear) of unification does not seem so distant. Yet, a lack of understanding could present a barrier for progress in solving the cross-strait issue.
The future of Taiwan, whether unification with China or formal independence, should be decided by Taiwanese.
Taiwanese are distraught each year to find proposals to be considered a “region” of 23 million people in a conventional sense continues to be denied. But we all know this travesty is a result of China’s inferiority complex and the Western powers’ desire for economic access to China.
Yet, perhaps letting go of “Taiwan” may exactly be the key for Taiwan to see China as a true motherland.
I hate to say it, but Taiwanese just do not have a strong attachment to China. Period.
Perhaps the descendants of the KMT do, although they make up about 13 percent of the population.
Despite the proximity of the two states, constant threats from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has further distanced the two. Having spoken to many Chinese regarding this sensitive issue at a world-class university, they simply do not comprehend why Taiwan is seeking independence.
Why are Taiwanese seeking independence when most Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese? The puzzle within the dilemma that baffles our understanding of cross-strait identity has been identified.
“Modern” international norms do not define a state to be ethnically homogeneous or amalgamated. If the people of Taiwan lack an attachment to the PRC, then what good is it to force unification?
Unfortunately, there is a preconceived notion or perhaps even an obsession within the PRC that countries with a ethnic Chinese majority should merge with the motherland to form a supreme nation. Yet this comes at the price of abolishing self-determination and sovereignty.
The existing domestic social turmoil that can’t be contained even with a monopolistic state-run media should be more than enough to caution the PRC against engulfing further chaos.
Why not form a “Chinese Union” with several sovereign states? Why not psychologically examine the consequences of Taiwanese independence rather than deciphering the political aftermath? After all, Taiwan is the only sovereign state that the PRC claims to have jurisdiction over.
While recognizing an independent Taiwan may lead to a domino effect of turmoil in Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet and Qinhai, it may actually be favorable to the PRC.
An independent Taiwan could follow mutual cooperation on social, economic and political issues which will gradually help establish Taiwanese trust in the PRC.
The current deadlock of tension and uncertainty can easily be traded for a newfound respect for a great nation that has decided to wisely give Taiwan what it deserves.
Independence would certainly create a path for a sustainable future and only then could we truly develop an attachment for China.
China needs to improve its global image as the taint has only been overlooked for the benefits of investment.
Yet, considering all reason and cost-benefit analyses, the current rationale for the PRC’s stance toward Taiwan is simply not to lose face.
Kenta Hayashi
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS