When local newspapers publish poll results, one can be forgiven for looking at them with skepticism.
Most surveys on public attitudes toward Taiwanese identity tend to focus on the "independence versus unification" question. And it is rare that such polls stray from a familiar pattern of asking in a variety of wordings the following question:
"Do you think Taiwan should declare independence, unify with China or maintain the status quo?"
The results of such surveys show that the vast majority of people respond to this question with "maintain the status quo." The figures of a broad range of surveys have been consistent enough to indicate with high statistical probability that the majority of people in Taiwan feel this way.
And why shouldn't they? "Maintain the status quo" is an answer that allows everyone to have their cake and eat it, too. People from Washington to Beijing to Taipei can interpret that answer however they like.
But the problem with all this statistics-mongering -- and the conclusions that people draw from it -- is that it willfully obscures certain realities, chiefly this: Taiwan is independent.
But this tends to be forgotten by the foreign think tanks and experts when they fly into town.
They get to have their three days of meetings with Really Important People and ask Really Important Questions, and then justify their existence by writing books and papers with dramatic sounding titles like Taiwan Island of Ultra Crisis: Super-Armageddon Annihilation Nuclear Death Match USA versus China 2016, in which they inevitably use the aforementioned polls to justify their conclusions.
Their goal, of course, is to support whichever political ideology their organization represents, or more mundanely, to sell books.
The problem is, China is indeed dangerous, and a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would benefit no one. But when one ignores the reality on the ground and dramatizes the potential for conflict, one contributes to an environment in which misunderstanding is rife and paradoxically increases the potential for conflict.
What people in China, Washington and elsewhere must understand about the nature of Taiwanese "identity" is that, regardless of what people here call themselves, virtually everyone accepts that this society is different from China's. More than 111 years of cultural and physical separation, combined with 61 years of autonomous political development, have created two different societies, regardless of how many traits they share.
A recent survey by the Straits Exchange Foundation indicated how wide this gulf has become. More than 60 percent of respondents said they believed China had malicious intent toward Taiwan. Only 15.8 percent of respondents identified themselves as Chinese, while 16.8 percent consider themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese, and 57.8 percent identified themselves as Taiwanese. One might dispute the exact numbers, but anyone who spends time in Taiwan can see the overall picture is accurate.
Some well-intentioned people (as well as a few opportunists) here and abroad have said that what Taiwan needs is some kind of interim non-aggression pact with China. Others say unification is "inevitable" given economic interdependence with China.
But the first assumes that either (a) Taiwanese are willing to sacrifice their political autonomy, or (b) China is willing to compromise. The second ignores the reality that economic interdependence is not an indicator of political dependence.
Dealing with the "Taiwan Issue" requires accepting reality. The reality is that there are two distinct societies on either side of the Strait. One is free and autonomous and doesn't want to be coerced out of its freedom or autonomy. All other formulations are just window dressing.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS