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.
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
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
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS