Former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) comment that it is unnecessary to pursue Taiwanese independence has been misunderstood and distorted by some people claim that he is giving up on independence. But Lee is actually emphasizing that Taiwan is already an independent sovereignty, and that what is important now is to improve the people's livelihoods, build national consciousness, and push for a name change and a new constitution, so that Taiwan can become a normal country.
In recent years, "Taiwan independence" theory and practice has been focused on whether a name change and a new constitution should be seen as declaration of independence, or whether Taiwan is independent, since it remains unable to enter the UN. It is indeed hard to imagine that these issues will be clarified, as there are several different interpretations of de facto and de jure independence.
The call for "Taiwanese independence" may confuse the international community, making them believe that Taiwan is a part of China. Thus, we may all be trapped by Beijing's logic that Taiwan is a part of China. Therefore, from the perspective of ensuring Taiwan's sovereignty, the discourse that the nation is already an independent state that does not have to pursue independence is undoubtedly the most feasible.
Still, we cannot ignore the fact that Taiwan is isolated internationally by China, while at the same time being hampered by the pro-unification camp and its boycotts. If the pro-independence camp ignores reality and gives an inch by looking for compromise, the pro-unification camp will take a foot. But if we face the problem squarely, unification-independence confrontation will occur, causing greater internal conflict. This is the sadness of Taiwan.
Another problem that must not be ignored is the poison left by the half-century-long colonial rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Consequently, any push for a name change and a new constitution would trigger fights between the two camps, proving that this is a real issue. This is why Lee deeply hurt the dark greens' feelings with the comment that the unification-independence issue was a "non-issue."
Nevertheless, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has undeniably treated the "real issue" of independence/unification as a "non-issue" during its seven years in power. For example, before elections, the DPP repeatedly calls for a name change and a new constitution, repeating the "one country on each side" and "Taiwan first" slogans, but then embraces economic integration, the active opening of direct cross-strait links, and reconciliation and coexistence promoting eventual economic unification after elections, forgetting all real issues such as the KMT's stolen assets, transitional justice, name changes, a new constitution and domestic investment.
I agree with the DPP's recent move to change the names of state-run enterprises, but these moves are merely a warm-up for the 2008 presidential campaign. If these steps had been taken in 2000 or 2004, they would have received much greater support.
I believe that for the sake of Taiwan, the argument over "independence" and "real issues and non-issues" inside the pro-independence camp should end now, and pro-green supporters should instead point their guns at the same target. Externally, we have to be aware that Taiwan is already independent; internally, we have to push for a change to the nation's title, a new constitution and domestic investment.
Unification-independence conflicts are inevitable issues in this process. There is no other solution apart from facing them head-on, because there is absolutely no middle path in the pursuit of Taiwan's independence.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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