Understanding Taiwan’s opinion polls requires insight and knowledge, not only of the nation’s political history, but also of the political leaning of the polling organizations. In the old days, pro-government publications and government organizations simply tried to elicit praise and support for the authorities.
Democratization in the late 1980s and early 1990s changed all that, although the partisanship in some publications remains, while many people remain wary of answering queries from government agencies for fear of retribution, a leftover from the old days.
It is thus refreshing that some organizations, like the Global Views Survey Research Center and National Chengchi University’s Election Study Center, have been able to develop professional and objective polling techniques, which give a much better insight into the views of the public.
A common refrain from foreign observers is that the majority of Taiwanese are for the “status quo.” This is often used by those aiming to prove that the Taiwanese do not want to “rock the boat” by moving toward either unification or independence.
Indeed, if the question is phrased: “What do you prefer: status quo, independence or unification?” some 50-plus percent of the respondents will opt for the status quo, about a third for independence, while less than 10 percent are for unification.
However, in a July survey, Global Views asked whether the respondents were in favor of independence or not, 49.1 percent said they were supportive of ultimate independence, while 34.4 percent were not. The same question on unification prompted 15.6 percent to support unification, while 69.9 percent voiced opposition.
The conclusion is that, if given a free choice, Taiwanese would opt for their country to be recognized as a full member of the international community.
At present the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is preventing such a choice, but it is also important to realize that often the world seems to have accepted the Chinese discourse on Taiwan. I would argue that we should not look at the matter through Beijing’s glasses all the time, but take a more objective look.
The PRC presents the case that Taiwan “split off” from China in 1949, and that it should be reunified, by force if necessary. The reality is that Taiwan was a Japanese colony until 1945 and was then occupied by the losers in the Chinese Civil War.
Confusion is also generated by the way the US phrases its “one China” policy. All too often this is interpreted to mean that the US considers Taiwan to be part of China. This is not the case. “One China” means that the US recognizes only one government as the government of China. In 1972, the US “acknowledged” the Chinese position, but did not take that as its own. In the Taiwan Relations Act and other statements the US emphasized that its policy was that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and with the assent of the people of Tawain. That is what democracy and freedom are all about.
We could also have a more meaningful discussion on possible solutions if we move away from proxy debates on whether Taiwan is a state or not. By the most basic definition under international law, the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Taiwan is a nation state (it has territory, a stable population, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states).
The question is rather, “as what” does it seek recognition? The old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) sought recognition as the government of all of China. In 1991, under then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), it restricted its claims to Taiwan and surrounding islands. This stance was continued under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, although many in the DPP wanted to move toward international recognition as “Taiwan.”
Which route is taken depends on the democratic dynamics in Taiwan itself. The international community needs to ensure that Taiwanese can make their decisions freely, without coercion by Beijing.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS