A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN.
Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party, when then-US president George Bush was rumored to have referred to Chen as a “troublemaker” for standing up for Taiwanese sovereignty. Historians would view the COVID-19 pandemic as a watershed moment in which the international community stopped seeing Taiwan as a troublemaker and woke up to the dangerous actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
This narrative arc was traveling in a direction beneficial to Taiwan from that point until recently, when tectonic changes in the international order and the coalition of democratic allies began to make Taiwan’s situation feel once more precarious and uncertain.
The problem with narrative arcs is that they do not always continue on a predictable trajectory. The same thing is happening within Taiwan. What until recently could be perceived as a discernible line from post-World War II majority association with China as the “motherland” to what has been termed “natural independence” — an increased identification among ROC citizens with Taiwan, and a corresponding decline in identification with China.
This process has everything to do with generational transitions, the family environment in which Taiwanese have been raised and changes in the education system. It is the story of how a nation developed an awareness of its own ability to seek to improve its circumstances, and realized the importance of struggling against the system to fight for principles such as freedom, democracy and autonomy.
Until recently, the assumption was that this process of “natural independence” would eventually reach its logical conclusion: All Taiwanese would identify with Taiwan as home, the place in which they and their parents were born, and the ties of older generations with the wave of Chinese who came over from China with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after the war would fade away.
Just as generational change has placed ties with China further in the past, so is it now consigning the will for freedom so evident among the generation that fought for democracy in Taiwan to a distant past.
In “Youth, democracy and identities” (Sept. 11, page 8), Taiwan NextGen Foundation chief officer of operation Elaine Ko (柯亮羽) wrote a thoughtful piece on what she called a “subtle but significant change ... in the normalization of Taiwanese identity.”
One could argue that the overwhelming presence of “natural independence” has diluted the sense of urgency that once sustained it. As Ko wrote: “For those born after democratization, being Taiwanese is simply natural... If identity no longer feels at risk, the motivation to safeguard it may weaken... Democracy is not static; it must be renewed by each generation.”
This drive is diluted, but has not disappeared. Fifteen years ago, the discourse was that the younger generation that would later give rise to the Sunflower movement was politically unengaged. This year, we have seen the “Bluebird movement” and civic participation in the mass recall movement.
It is imperative to foster civic awareness of external threats and a national identity. In a democracy, the dilemma is to do this in a way respecting individual agency and choice, as opposed to ideological indoctrination. That distinction appears clear in principle. In practice, in the era of social media, propaganda and polarization, the line can be blurred.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS