Is it any wonder that young Taiwanese are by-and-large unwilling to lay down their lives for national sovereignty? After all, why fight to the death against overwhelming odds for some independence ideal that the rest of the world does not recognize and that the government of the Republic of China (ROC) itself apparently does not support?
The results of a recent groundbreaking survey by the 21st Century Foundation show that almost 60 percent of people born after 1984 said they had the right to refuse conscription in the event of a war with China over independence, while 55.8 percent said taxes should not be increased to buy weapons to enhance national defense. An analysis of the figures suggested that at least 31 percent of those questioned felt Taiwan should surrender rather than mobilize in case of a war.
Media on both sides of the political spectrum are playing up these statistics, but in the end, is it really that much of a surprise?
Why fight for sovereignty when your president does not protect it? President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is happy to have Chinese officials refer to him as Mr Ma, as if he is the general manager of a subsidiary company. He has instructed his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) subordinates to deliver the message to China that the ROC government is willing to accept a “one country, two areas” (一國二區) formula. He is going full speed ahead on cross-strait economic integration, with very little protection of sovereignty.
Why throw your life away on a lost cause when the Constitution itself does not recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty? Sure it recognizes Chinese sovereignty as represented by the ROC, but who still believes that fiction? It is doubtful even Ma believes in this despite his protestations to the contrary. Taiwan rules itself, but so does Palestine, so does Somaliland and so does Hong Kong (to an extent).
Why die for a country whose ruling political party has entered into closed-door negotiations with the enemy to split the proceeds of eventual unification? KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) summits began in 2005, shortly after the re-election of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on a cross-strait standoff ticket. After failing to win the vote, the KMT went its own way, negotiating with China for help to return to power. The KMT, especially now with Ma at the helm, cannot even rule the country without China’s help. How’s that for independence?
Why fight your employer? Taiwan is autonomous, even sovereign, but it is not independent. It is dependent on China for money, cheap labor, economic growth and as a major market for its exports. Those very exports used to only be high-value-added products such as memory chips and LCDs, but increasingly they are raw goods: fruit, fish and other low-value items. Taiwanese used to mainly earn profits by exporting high-tech goods to China or save money by producing goods there for less, but now China is pouring money into Taiwan with tourists and investments. Real-estate is booming, tourism is soaring and banking is set to become an arm of the Chinese financial empire soon.
Why fight for independence when your elders and leaders have already conceded it? Ma and the KMT are doing their best to erode the nation’s ability to defend itself so that nobody ever makes the dumb move of deciding to fight China. Young people see this and respond in kind.
So why should they have the will to fight?
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS