At a June 6 talk with a delegation from the Mainland Affairs Council, Heritage Foundation research fellow John Tkacik said he didn't understand what people meant by "Taiwan independence." He's even more stumped by some people's insistence that they are not pro-China but simply "oppose Taiwan independence." Tkacik thinks that last phrase sounds synonymous with "surrender," and that Taiwan should be more worried about gradual unification than so-called "gradual independence." After all, Taiwan has its own military, government, stamps and taxation system -- so as far as the US is concerned, Taiwan is already independent.
Tkacik is a US expert on cross-strait issues, and his points should be carefully considered by the government. The following analysis is presented as a reference and reminder to our fellow citizens.
In 1895 China's Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan. Japan was later defeated in World War II, surrendering in 1945. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, General Douglas MacArthur, ordered the commander of the Chinese war zone to arrive in Taiwan and Penghu to accept the surrender of the Japanese army -- but not to accept the handing over of sovereignty. In 1952, Japan ceded Taiwan under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but that treaty did not specify the recipient of Taiwan's sovereignty. From then on, under public international law, the sovereignty of Taiwan has belonged to Taiwan.
Taiwan is already an independent country. The Republic of China was just the government ordered by MacArthur to occupy and govern Taiwan. Under the circumstances, the ROC government should have held elections and adopted a new national name and government structures to reflect the fact that the sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to Taiwan, and not Japan.
But out of selfishness, the government did not so do -- a lapse which is the root of many problems still facing Taiwan. The current campaigns to rectify the national title, adopt a new constitution and revise history and geography textbooks are measures to address and remedy problems left over since that era.
No wonder people such as Tkacik do not understand what "Taiwan independence" means. "Opposing" Taiwan independence is denying the fact that Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign country, regardless of whether this country is called the Republic of China, the Republic of Taiwan or Taiwan.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) often repeat their opposition to "Taiwan independence." While their intention may be to oppose "Taiwan" or a "Republic of Taiwan," by opposing "independence" they are also opposing the "Republic of China." If the two parties oppose only the use of the names "Taiwan" and "Republic of Taiwan," and not the name "Republic of China," then a more accurate way of describing their position is that they oppose name rectification and a new constitution.
This is why Tkacik does not understand their explanation that they are not pro-China, but just oppose Taiwan independence. For the same reason, we wish that politicians from the nativization camp would avoid using political slogans such as "declaring independence and founding a new country." This is very confusing for people outside of Taiwan. After all, Taiwan is already an independent country. If people are not happy with the name or the constitution, then name rectification, amending the constitution, adopting a new constitution and a nativization campaign are the correct terms that should be used to explain the solutions being sought by Taiwanese. As for international recognition of Taiwan as an independent country, that is another question, as well as something that everyone in Taiwan must work hard to achieve.
Another reminder and caution from Tkacik is that Taiwan's biggest crisis is neither from external threats nor the misleading controversy over whether Taiwan should be "independent." Rather, the biggest danger is that the Taiwan government is falling into the trap of "gradual unification."
What is "gradual unification?" It includes the treatment of cross-strait relations as an internal affair, the acceptance of the "one China" principle within Taiwan, the so-called "gradual opening up" of investment in China and cross-strait charter flights. Some of these developments are political and some are economic, but they are closely related and reinforce each other.
On an economic level, "gradual unification" is wearing down the Taiwanese people's vigilance about the threat from China, and blurring the line between friend and foe.
Taiwanese businessmen investing in China at first felt guilty about financing the enemy. But after receiving praise and encouragement from Taiwanese officials, they became seen as pioneers seeking a way out for Taiwan's economy, and then heroes in the cause of the country's economy -- a status evident in the grand reception they receive upon arrival via direct charter flights from the other side of the Strait. After they came back, they were invited to attend large-scale banquets. Even the president attends lavish events in their honor.
It is no exaggeration to say that the entire focus of the government's policy has become China and the Taiwanese businessmen investing there. With such a narrow focus, there is obviously little time devoted to taking care of domestic investment and infrastructure. It isn't that the government machinery isn't moving. Rather, it is moving on behalf of China and Taiwanese businessmen.
For example, the total amount of investment by Taiwanese businessmen has not decreased. It's just that they now invest in China. Last year alone, the government approved as much as US$7 billion in investments in China, accounting for 2.3 percent of Taiwan's GDP. If we take into consideration the fact that foreign investment by countries such as the US and Japan makes up only about 1 percent of GDP, we should see vividly the reality of "gradual unification."
The number of Taiwanese businessmen and employees in China has reached a million. There are industries dominated by Taiwanese businessmen in both southern and central China. Now, China wants to begin organizing Taiwanese businessmen. Associations for Taiwanese businessmen in China all have people from China's Taiwan Affairs Office in key positions, completing the mechanism for exerting pressure on the Taiwan government through the business sector.
The pan-green camp's failure to win a majority of seats in last year's legislative election had nothing to do with erroneous nominations strategies or a poorly-run campaign. Rather, it had to do with the strengthening of the pan blue grassroots due to the government's "gradual unification" policy. The subsequent meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
On June 13, Premier Frank Hsieh (
The pro-unification news media may praise this for demonstrating "pragmatism," but it will further turn cross-strait affairs into domestic affairs. It also represents the normalization of the "one China" principle in Taiwan. Hsieh may have won praise from the pan-blue camp and businessmen, but his policies will push Taiwan further into economic integration and will lead the nation down the path of gradual unification.
It also proves that government policy is being controlled by Chinese officials via the Taiwanese businessmen in China. More compromise, "reconciliation" and "co-existence" of this kind will only put Taiwan in greater danger.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS