In the past, when observers tried to understand the development of cross-strait relations, the "status quo" was an important option to consider, along with the choices of unification or independence. This was true despite the fact that definition of the status quo was often unclear.
For example, although maintaining the status quo is the basis for stable US-China-Taiwan relations, each of the three countries interprets the status quo quite differently. As a result, whoever can define the status quo becomes the most powerful member of the three-way relationship. In addition to having the power to define the status quo, the question of how to change the status quo or influence the direction in which it changes becomes the goal of the competition for power.
If, within the traditional unification-independence framework, advocating either of the two is an attempt to change the status quo, then opposing either could be seen as supporting the status quo. In other words, if promoting Taiwan independence is an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo, then opposing independence could be an attempt to maintain it.
This interpretation has often been seen since Beijing passed its "Anti-Secession" Law. The law accepts that China and Taiwan are divided, because its emphasis is on preventing formal independence rather than on promoting unification. Looked at in this way, the law is an active attempt to maintain the status quo, and has indirectly come to define it.
After the passage of the Anti-Secession Law, and after former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) visited China, Taiwan was pushed toward unification. As KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said during his visit last week to the UK, if he is elected president, the main goal will be to shape domestic conditions for unification and plant the unification idea deep in every sector of society in order to move from an anti-independence strategy toward a pro-unification push.
This shift, which Ma had also given voice to earlier, so agitated President Chen Shui-bian (
In the past, achieving the conditions to bring about independence were seen as the major force motivating a change to the status quo. This ignored the anti-independence character of the Anti-Secession Law as well as the changing nature of the conditions for a move toward unification that has followed on China's economic development.
This is also why it is no longer just the independence movement that is trying to change the status quo, and why an even greater effort now comes from those who wish to alter the conditions by which unification could take place. This has put the Taiwan independence movement on the defensive and forced it to strive against unification.
The unification-independence war also plays out over the right to define the status quo. Only if we can see beyond pro-unification and pro-independence efforts, and recognize the struggle to define the status quo can we understand Beijing's Anti-Secession Law and Taiwan's anti-unification stance.
If our actions are only decided in response to who is changing the status quo, we will overlook the anti-independence and anti-unification struggle that is going on within the status quo framework, and it will become impossible to understand the character of the current political struggle going on across the Taiwan Strait.
This means that relations between the US, China and Taiwan have moved on to a new battlefield, where the goal is to maintain the status quo but redefine the meaning of that status quo. It is very difficult to say whether anti-unification amounts to an attempt to change the status quo. It could even be seen as an attempt to maintain it.
It is also difficult to say if the anti-independence effort is only an attempt to maintain the status quo, or whether it aims to eventually change it.
The nation's domestic politics have entered a new stage in which the fight is between pro-unification and anti-unification forces. Ma's unification efforts are opposed to Chen's anti-unification efforts, which is becoming the focus of the next stage of politics in Taiwan.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow of the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
RSS