What do Taiwanese want for their future?
This is a simple question that is being discussed increasingly in Taiwan itself, and it is also the topic of many a seminar in Washington and elsewhere.
The question is generally framed as a choice between maintaining the present “status quo,” going in the direction of a free and independent Taiwan or unification with China.
As I wrote in December last year (“The ‘status quo’ is not good enough,” Dec. 7, 2012, page 8), while the present “status quo” represents a measure of stability at the current time, it is unsatisfactory for two reasons: it continues to relegate Taiwan to a state of diplomatic isolation, while at the same time China is changing the dynamics of the region — and thereby the “status quo” — by its aggressive military expansion.
So, aside from the non-answer that they favor a nondescript “status quo,” what do Taiwanese really want for their future?
An interesting insight was recently presented by Emerson Niou (牛銘實), a professor at Duke University, who analyzed data collected by the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University in October last year.
At a panel discussion on US-Taiwan-China relations organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Brookings Institution in Washington, Niou confirmed earlier polls indicating that during the past few years, support for independence has actually gained popularity in Taiwan and support for unification with China has fallen.
The data showed that, provided there was no gun pointed at the head of Taiwanese, support for independence grew from 65.5 percent in 2008 to 70.3 percent last year. If a move toward independence might lead to an attack by China, then the appetite for independence dropped to a lower, but still significant level of 28.7 percent.
On the other hand, support for unification with China dropped from 11.5 percent in 2008 to 9.1 percent last year.
These figures reflect the views of those who favor unification, even if political, economic and social conditions are significantly different on each side of the Taiwan Strait.
The main conclusion from this presentation was that a sizable majority of Taiwanese prefer independence over unification and that this sentiment is growing, in spite of the more China-friendly policies of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
However, the matter becomes even more interesting in a follow-up question presented by Niou. In the survey, respondents were also asked whether they expected that Taiwan and China would move toward unification or independence.
The surprising answer was that 52.7 percent expected unification, while 31.6 percent expected independence.
This discrepancy between preference (“what we want”) and expectation (“what we expect is going to happen”) is an issue that requires more in-depth analysis.
Do Taiwanese see a rising China that will eventually overwhelm the nation and absorb it into its fold? Do they feel they can do little about it because China is so big and important, and Taiwan is so small and insignificant, and the US is far away and does not care enough?
The answers to these questions are important, as they go to the heart of US policy toward Taiwan, which has always emphasized that a decision on Taiwan’s future needs to be made peacefully and in accordance with the democratic wishes of Taiwanese.
The US needs to make it clear to Taiwanese that they can make a decision on their future freely and in a democratic fashion, without a Chinese gun pointed at their heads.
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.
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