Hoping to address concerns about the direction he is to take the party, newly elected Democratic Progressive Party Chairman William Lai (賴清德), the self-described “political worker for Taiwanese independence,” officially set out his views on the matter.
For Lai, Taiwan is already a sovereign, independent nation, so there is no need to declare independence. Furthermore, the core issue of cross-strait problems derives from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military intimidation of Taiwan.
That Taiwan and the Republic of China (ROC) are inseparable is a pragmatic advocacy of Taiwanese independence that still recognizes the “status quo.” Given the CCP regime’s inherent unreliability and its ambitions to infiltrate the entire world, democratic countries have begun to reach out to Taiwan to establish friendly relations.
The ROC does not have diplomatic relations with most countries, but there is mutual support economically and in national defense. The international community has not abandoned Taiwan, and the countries supporting it are becoming more open and forceful in that regard.
The US does not support Taiwanese independence per se, but recognizes its sovereignty. Taiwan is a democratic nation with US backing and presents the most legitimate push-back to the CCP regime.
The ROC came to Taiwan with US approval, and this support allowed Taiwan to resist annexation by the CCP.
Lai has not abandoned a commitment to Taiwanese independence, and it is not right for commentators to accuse him of doing so. They should recognize that the idea of Taiwanese independence has been intentionally stigmatized by the CCP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and acknowledge that Taiwan has been independent for a long time.
In this way, the CCP cannot claim that it can legitimately annex Taiwan through force.
Chen Chi-nung is principal of Shuili Junior-High School in Nantou County.
Translated by Paul Cooper
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS