In the late 19th century, Taiwan’s eastern region witnessed a series of violent clashes: In Tuku in 1876, the Dagangkou Incident of 1877 and the 1878 Karewan Incident. The events were triggered by the Qing Dynasty’s efforts to build roads and administrative outposts in indigenous territories. What they saw as development, local indigenous peoples experienced as invasion — an erasure of ancestral lands and sacred landscapes.
A similar dynamic unfolded in the north when Liu Ming-chuan (劉銘傳), Taiwan’s first inspector-general during the Qing Dynasty, started building Taiwan’s first railway in 1887, and continued into the 20th century with the construction of highways and industrial zones. Time and again, development plans designed without cultural understanding have been met with local resistance.
Today, the battleground has expanded beyond indigenous rights. Movements to stop the Miramar Resort in Taitung County, dam projects and cement mining, and efforts to protect coral reefs all reflect a growing distrust in top-down development that ignores environmental justice and collective memory. The activities are not anti-progress protests, but calls for genuine participation and respect.
To avoid repeating the cycles of conflict, begin with three fundamental shifts:
First, recognize historical trauma. Resistance often stems not from an aversion to change, but from deep wounds left by past displacements and violence. If policymakers cannot see the scars, they will mistake caution for obstruction.
Second, respect indigenous worldviews. To outsiders, land is a resource, but to indigenous communities, it is a sacred trust — the foundation of identity and survival. It is not a matter of differing opinions; it is a clash of cosmologies. Without mutual understanding, there can be no meaningful dialogue.
Third, implement genuine participatory mechanisms. Consultation must go beyond procedural hearings. Free, prior and informed consent must be more than a checkbox — it must grant agency to local communities, including the right to say no.
Roads can connect places, but they cannot bridge trust. Construction can reshape terrain, but it cannot repair fractured relationships. Taiwan’s future development must not repeat the colonizing patterns of the past. Only through dialogue, respect and shared decisionmaking can we build a land that honors all who call it home.
Tu Hsin-fu is an indigenous affairs advocate.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS