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.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS