For the time being, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is able to evade the controversial proposal to freeze the party’s Taiwan independence clause after DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) sent it to the party’s Central Executive Committee for further discussion at the party congress on Sunday.
Rest assured that the issue is set to cause infighting and fiery debate within the party in the future. When it comes to independence, things have always been complex.
The proposal, drafted by former DPP legislators Julian Kuo (郭正亮) and Chen Zau-nan (陳昭南), called for freezing the so-called independence clause, which refers to the first chapter of the DPP charter that lists the party’s goal as “establishing a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan.” They said that since the DPP maintains that Taiwan is sovereign and independent, and that since the party formed the government of the Republic of China (ROC) for eight years, there is no need for such a clause.
More importantly, freezing the clause would improve the DPP’s ties with Beijing, increase bilateral exchanges and possibly minimize China’s hostile interference with the DPP’s presidential campaign in 2016.
However, it might not make sense to freeze the clause as support for independence has been rising in recent years, particularly among young people, according to the majority of public opinion polls.
As far as the presidential election is concerned, is it possible for the DPP to appeal to China without losing the votes of independence supporters?
The next question is: What does “freezing” the clause mean?
If it means suspending the clause for the sake of winning the trust and goodwill of Beijing, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) said during his visit to Taiwan last month that freezing the clause was not enough and that Beijing would be watching the DPP closely.
If it means that the DPP is to abandon its goal of de jure independence because Taiwan enjoys de facto independence, the party might as well scrap the clause altogether, rather than simply freeze it.
The truth appears to be that even if the DPP has repeatedly said that “the ROC is Taiwan and Taiwan is the ROC,” the party — as well as the majority of its supporters — has never liked the name “ROC.” Some say that the ROC is an historic entity that no longer exists, and even if it did still exist, it would take Taiwan nowhere in the international community.
On this controversial issue, the DPP has to do some soul searching and ask itself the ultimate question: What is the party’s definition of Taiwanese independence?
Former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) put it best the other day, saying that there were probably a dozen different interpretations of independence in Taiwan.
According to Beijing’s definition, Hsieh added, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “no unification, no independence and no use of force” is a form of independence.
The current controversy about independence stems not only from the independence clause, but also several DPP resolutions, including the resolution on Taiwan’s future in 1999, which Tsai and former DPP chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) have said was the most widely accepted consensus among DPP members, and the resolution on making Taiwan a normal country in 2007, which called for renaming the nation as Taiwan.
The issue of independence, which comes back to haunt the DPP every once in a while, seems to reflect the fact that its ambiguity on the issue — intentional or unintentional — has created confusion among its members and the public, and the problem cannot drag on forever.
That perhaps explains why the most important task at the end of the day is not pleasing China, whose position has always been contrary to that of mainstream public opinion in Taiwan, but to provide itself and the public with a confident and clear position.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS