Foreign Policy in Focus - A Think Tank Without Walls

FPIF Commentary

Taiwan's Independence

Ian Williams | December 20, 2006

Editor: John Feffer, IRC

Foreign Policy In Focus

www.fpif.org

China's arguments against Taiwanese self-determination are not particularly legal or ethical. They boil down to the fact that Beijing has over a billion people, a huge economy, and over 900 missiles pointing at the nearby island.

The latter figure, growing by 50 rockets a year, should give a clue to the weakness of Beijing's arguments. In the modern world, few governments can pledge with a straight face to “liberate” an island full of people it pretends are compatriots by blowing them off the map. Equally, while China's “one nation—two systems” transition period for Hong Kong has not been a total failure, Beijing's clumsy interference in Hong Kong's politics and refusal to allow democratic reforms have not done much to reassure the Taiwanese.

There is scope for wrangling on historical and legal claims. But the real question is what status the people of the territory themselves want. Do the people of Taiwan and their democratically elected government have a right to decide their own fate? And will they use that right to get politically closer or more distant from the mainland?

According to modern international practice and the principles of democracy, the Taiwanese do indeed have the right to “declare” what is manifestly already true: that they are an independent, sovereign state. It is also clear that the Taiwanese, on the political level, do not want to be ruled by Beijing. If the threat to the island's (and the islanders') existence were removed, a very strong majority would support outright independence.

This is not just romantic nationalism. The Taiwanese pragmatically believe that falling under Beijing's thumb would be a major step backward for a prosperous democracy of 23 million people, with its developed economy, developed social democracy, and amenities such as a national health system.

Taiwan at the UN

Taiwan has long been trying to shore up its global position by joining international bodies, notably the UN. For the first decade or so of the UN's existence, the “universality” of membership was not at all evident. But now UN membership is generally regarded as a sort of certificate of sovereign statehood. Indeed, after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, every last microstate came rushing for membership precisely to get anti-annexation insurance. Some members barely qualify for sovereignty. For instance, the former U.S. trust territories in the Pacific, such as Palau, the Marshal Islands, and Micronesia, have constitutions that entrust the United States with their defense and with consultation over foreign policy. Such contingent sovereignty is reflected in their lonely UN votes supporting Washington over Israel. Indeed, at the time of their admission to the UN, British diplomats, for the record, queried the degree of the islands' sovereignty.

Add economic autonomy, and Taiwan clearly has more attributes of sovereignty than many UN members. If not for the continuing threat from the PRC, Taiwan's leaders might realistically accept their anomalous status. One only has to think of avian flu to realize that it is not in the global interest for Taiwan to be outside the World Health Organization or any of the other institutions of international standard-setting.

By blocking Taiwan's entry to the UN, China is ignoring the same right to self-determination it proclaimed in its more revolutionary days of anti-colonial struggle. This hypocrisy explains in part why the nagging consciences of the non-aligned at the UN impel them to ensure that the admission of Taiwan is not even on the agenda for discussion, despite clear rules to the contrary. In any debate they would have to acknowledge that Beijing's obdurate stand contravenes not only of the right to self-determination but also of the inviolability of colonial boundaries that most African countries accept.

It is worth considering why the Chinese are so unbendable on this issue. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the Communist Party of China has all but abandoned any social agenda other than the maintenance of power, and that leaves only nationalism as a ruling ideology. The “reunification” with Taiwan is a token over which the cadres in Beijing can jostle for leadership by out-shouting each other.

However, Beijing's claim to sovereignty over the island is not well founded at all, unless you accept it as the successor state to the Middle Kingdom that claimed to rule the world. In historical terms, the mainland's one unquestioned period of control over Taiwan lasted between the end of the Second World War and the ouster of Chiang Kai-shek from the mainland. The islanders were never consulted, and Chiang's Kuo Min Tang (KMT) made sure that their views went unheard by massacring some 30,000 of them beginning February 28, 1947. Even when driven from the mainland in 1949, Chiang's regime maintained its increasingly tenuous claim to be the legitimate government of China, which included Mongolia as well.

Only after Chiang's death did the island move toward democracy and into the real world, by dissolving the all-China shadow government structures maintained by the KMT. Strangely, the comrades in Beijing were happier with an island claiming to represent the whole of China than they are with one that currently purports only to represent itself.

Definitions of Imperialism

In the modern world, with a few notable and messy exceptions such as in the Balfour declaration, irredentist claims based on ancient history have been unsuccessful in the face of popular sovereignty. There is more to a nation state than a shared language, common ethnicity, or certainly former imperial sovereignty.

According to its arguments based on former control, Beijing could seize Vietnam or parts of Korea. Indeed, if reunification of the former Chinese empire is the issue, then China should really consider the examples of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Luckily, there has been no British call for reunification. Austria and a large part of Switzerland speak German, but Germany has not revived calls for anschluss. Spain has learned to live with the absence of most of Latin America.

Historical claims are essentially worthless. In a modern, civilized world, the views of the people themselves matter most. For example, no British government, not even one as control-minded as Tony Blair's, could force Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom if a clear majority of its people wished otherwise. The Chinese leadership, on the other hand, often confuses “terrorism” with “secessionist activities,” which includes simple advocacy of autonomy and independence. As such, the Chinese equivalent of the Scottish Nationalist Party in Beijing would serve time in jail, not in parliament.

Potential Compromises

Although it is not helpful in the adjudication of modern sovereignty claims, history does offer some examples of pragmatic solutions that could produce a degree of mutual satisfaction. For example, if the PRC had demonstrated more trustworthiness over Hong Kong, then something like the “compacts of association” between the Pacific trust territories and the United States would have been conceivable. But it would be a foolhardy Taiwanese leader who would accept even a token garrison from the People's Liberation Army in view of Beijing's recent threats.

Perhaps a more exiguous form of association could be developed on the model of the dominions of the British Commonwealth, where the British head of state is also head of state of Australia, Jamaica, Canada, and New Zealand. For the last half century at least, this arrangement didn't imply any degree of British control and left the various parties harmoniously linked but independent.

However, for all these imaginative solutions, the Taiwanese need reassurance that some powerful members of the global community have the spine to argue with Beijing, to educate its leaders that their eccentrically Sinocentric view of the world is wrong, and to persuade those same leaders that threats of military action are completely counterproductive as well as unacceptable.

Why should the rest of the world care? Last year, the “Responsibility to Protect” accepted by the UN heads of state codified the instinctive feelings of many. The world should not stand by and watch military action crush a vibrant, successful democracy. And in terms of self-interest, Taiwan has wisely and morally eschewed the nuclear option. Faced with a United States in economic thrall to China and increasingly unlikely to back up its security guarantee against China's developing military capacity, Taiwan certainly has a case for pursuing such a deterrent. But the world is dealing with enough threats to the current arms control regimes and does not need another nuclear power.

Taiwan should take the initiative and propose some such pragmatic solutions to the mainland. Although rejected, such proposals would at least have the effect of putting the onus on Beijing. In fact Taiwan could learn some lessons from Cyprus, where the leaders have for years suggested reasonable-sounding solutions they know are, for some obscure reason often barely discernible to outsiders, completely unacceptable to the other side. At the same time, Taiwan should abandon some of the more ritualistic restrictions on trade and travel across the Strait. And Taipei should make plain that it does not hold a “Two China” policy but rather a “one China, one Taiwan” policy. Like Austria and Germany, or Australia and Britain, Taiwan is close to China—but separate.

Ian Williams contributes frequently to Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on UN and international affairs.

Subscribe to
World Beat
FPIF's weekly ezine

Recommended citation:
Ian Williams, "Taiwan's Independence" (Silver City, NM and Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, December 20, 2006).

Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3815

Production Information:
Author(s): Ian Williams
Editor(s): John Feffer, IRC
Production: Chellee Chase-Saiz, IRC

Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.

Name:	Francisco L. Perez	Date: Dec 20, 2006
Even though, I think that Taiwan is better off separated from China, and that Beijing cannot impose its will on the Taiwanese people without their consent, and also feel that Beijing's claim to sovereignty over the island is not as poorly founded as you said, because Taiwan has been populated by Chinese from China, and loosely controled by the Chinese Empire before 1895. This gives China some reasons to "reclaim" Taiwan, and mandates a negotiation under international supervision, and under the principles of peace and respect for the will of the Taiwanese people.

Name:	Simon	Date: Dec 20, 2006
Thank you so much for writing one of the most beautiful latters ever articulated on the topic. The article clearly contrast the fact that the Taiwanese people does have the right to an opinion and that the Chinese government has constantly ignored that this voice exist, as one reads in China Daily or Xinhua articles.

Name:

Lee Wee Shing

Date: Dec 21, 2006

Say, based on your arguments, Hawaii should be a sovereign state, or New Mexico & California should rightly be returned to Mexico, or better still, Alaska should be returned to the Russians. These shall sound fair, shall they not?

Of course, Taiwan should be separated from China, according to the Western geostrategic/geopolitical perspectives/interests. How very convenient & useful to position Taiwan as a permanent, non-sinking aircraft carrier off the coast of China, blocking vital sea lane & choking China off resupplies in time of war. How nice to use Taiwan as a diplomatic trump card to bargain against China on strategic issues in the UN. How beautiful & trendy to project Taiwan as a model of so-called `democracy' to entice the unsuspecting Chinese into open revolt in clamouring for democratic saviour. These Western wicked schemes can go on & on ....... The problems with these wicked Westerners are, they always interprete world events only according to their self-centred visions of themselves, & the most surprising thing is that they expect all the other peoples to subcribe to their same frequency. Just pause for a second & think, what proportion the White race occupies as a percentage with relation to the rest of the world? It is a pittiance mere 17% !! Wetern media hegemony keeps pumping out such propaganda drowning out cries of disagreements from the Third World.

From the Chinese perspectives, these are the White man's blind spots:

Democracy in Taiwan: the experience & exercise in this endeavour have quickly degerarated into a mockery in the so-called President being embroiled in a corruption scandal, parliament being bitterly grid-locked into an unending stand-off between two opposing camps, economic/social & other national agenda being squandered in favour of illusionary/illogical ideological leanings.....,& the list goes on. The net result is Taiwan is being so marginalised from being the `tiger' to the sick `cat' in NE Asia. This is called democracy with Western characteristics when one is not fully ready to embrace it! We will develop our own version of democracy, with our characteristics, & most important of all, in our own pace, without lectures from the wicked West!

Democratic reform in Hong Kong: to us Chinese, HK's return to the motherland serves as such a powerful symbol of the reemergence/rejuvination of an entire race that the talk of alleged loss of freedom/democracy is simply insignificance! How is it that it should be so obsessed with universal sufferage just to elect some pro Western political stooges (people like Martin Lee, Anson Chan, Emily Lau, most of them hold British/Canadian passports & owe their allegiance to America/Britain anyway) instead of more patriotic pro China figures? In fact, patriotic Chinese agonise over why HK does not quickly outlaw dual citizenship, & move decisively to rid HK of any semblance of British colonial influence!

Democracy is only desirable if all the supporting institutions/conditions are ready & in place. Democracy introduced hastily, log-stock-&-barrel of the Western model, shall do untold damage to China, & for that matter, many of the Third World nations. What we really need is democracy with Chinese characteristics !

Name:	Paul Kuo	Date: Dec 21, 2006
"The mainland's one unquestioned period of control over Taiwan lasted between the end of the Second World War and the ouster of Chiang Kai-shek from the mainland." is a true and precise description of Taiwan history. However, the control was in fact rendered by General Mac Arthur who appointed Chiang Kai-Shek to accept Japan's surrender at Taiwan, on behalf of US Armed Forces. The United States now is responsible to give us Taiwanese a declare of Taiwan's position in the world community. This is US's unfinished procedure of 2nd World War.

Name:	Ur Nonsense	Date: Dec 21, 2006
white colonize the whole america and nearly exterminated the indian, and here you say china has no right to claim taiwan? your story just added to my white western propaganda for american people only

Name:

Frank Lin

Date: Dec 21, 2006

To: Lee Wee Shing

I wish to point out several of your arguments that are unjustifiable.

Regardless the "Westerner's perspective", if you study the modern Chinese history carefully, the Chinese government has *never* had any sovereignty rights over the island of Taiwan. The current Taiwanese government is based on the 1912 constitution. It has not been influenced by any Western exertions since 1948. It seemed to me illogical that you think the westerners "enticed" Taiwan to adopt their democractic flavour. The Chinese communist government blatantly dismisses these facts and claims the piece of land that they have never owned. It is a simple and natural response for Taiwanese people not tolerating this kind of daylight robbery.

Again I have to disagree with you completely here. Democracy is an incremental process. Corruptions do exist in every modern government, including the Chinese government. There is a difference, however, under democractic procedures, people have the rights to express what is the best for their country. The same freedom of speech cannot be achieved under imperialistic or dictatorship regimes. Now you have think such "freedom" are "illusionary/illogical ideological leanings", you cannot deny its benefits. For example, if you do not have such freedom, the opposition comments like your post cannot be expressed on this forum.

The word democracy is defined as "People-rule". There is no so-called "Chinese-style" democracy. It is shaped and managed by people of the country. The Chinese may dislike democracy, however, they do not have the right to dismiss Taiwan in enjoying the freedom of people-power.

For Taiwan, fighting for an international recognition is a lonely journey and a constant uphill battle against unrightful pressure from mainland China. Here I wish to express my respect to Mr Williams for his sincere viewpoints on this issue in depth. I believe most Taiwanese people are also grateful for your invaluable insights.

Name:	Wally	Date: Dec 21, 2006
quote: ------------------------------------------------- "based on your arguments, Hawaii should be a sovereign state, or New Mexico & California should rightly be returned to Mexico, or better still, Alaska should be returned to the Russians." by Lee (Li) Wee Shing (Xing), ------------------------------------------ There is no independence movement in Hawaii, Califorina and Alaska etc. People from these states are pround to be American. Also, Washington does not have any missiles aimed at these states.

Name:

Joseph Wang

Date: Dec 22, 2006

The problem with that article is that it ignores nationalist sentiment on the Mainland, and misunderstands the complexity of popular sentiment on Taiwan. Also it attempts to analyze a situation by applying rational rules, which causes problems because 1) other people may not accept those rules and 2) without referring to fundamental issues of "will" and "power" any rules you come up with are disconnected from reality.

With regard to "will" and "power," the basic reality is that public sentiment on the PRC is such that people are willing to fight for and die to keep Taiwan from being independent, whereas the number of people on Taiwan that will fight for and die for independence is relatively small. The other basic reality is that while the major powers of the world will fight in case of an unprovoked invasion by the PRC, no one is willing to fight and die to defend a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan.

The reason that popular sovereignty trumps historical claims is that claims that people are willing to die for trump claims that people are not willing to die for, and any discussion on Taiwan has to take into account the fact that there are huge emotions on this issue among the population of the PRC, and any PRC would be forced to take strong, possibly suicidal, action to prevent "de jure independence".

The other thing that is missing is that while no one on Taiwan wants to be ruled by Beijing, there is a large fraction of the electorate that is against "de jure independence" or "one China, one Taiwan" for emotional reasons, and pushing Taiwan to one of those options rather than keeping the situation ambiguous is extremely destablizing for Taiwan democracy.

Finally, analogies with other situations are useless if you don't take into account "will" and "power". What matters is what people are willing to fight for and what people are willing to die for. The willingness to fight and die for a cause is fundamentally irrational, and therefore trying to come up with a rational rule that explains why one situation is analogous with the next is rather pointless. Also trying to come up with a political sentiment that doesn't take into account "irrationality" is also pointless.

This makes Taiwan different from a lot of other situations, and it also makes this different from other PRC disputes. Askai Chin, the Spratlies, and Senaku/Diaoyutai simply don't arouse the passions that Taiwan does, and this limits and constrains the situation. Also once you recognize that the root causes of political conflict are because of inherent and *necessary* human irrationality, you can come up with solutions that address these issues. No one really cares if Beijing effectively rules Taiwan, what matters are names, flags, and colors, and you can deal with those relatively easily.

Name:	Thomas Lou	Date: Dec 22, 2006
The vague identity of Taiwan in the international community should not be solely blamed on the PRC. From the tone of this article, it seemed that PRC is vilified as the sole contributor to Taiwan's ambiguous status. The economic interests of the United States in PRC should be more emphasised in Taiwan's difficulty in attaining legal status in the international community. Although the United States is entitled to their heavy investments in the PRC, it inevitably makes Taiwan's quest for independent identity more complicated as US position becomes gradually neutralized. PRC is able to prevent Taiwan's entry into international organization partly because of the convenience offered by American neutrality in the cross-strait issue. In conclusion, Taiwan's failure to secure permanent international recognition is the result of the economic collaboration between PRC and the United States. It is difficult to imagine that 900 missiles is really deterrence against "Taiwanese Independence", given that in return the PRC will have to pay a much heavier price for disturbing the peace and disrupt American interests in the Asia-Pacific region. PRC's deterrence will prove to be futile if the United States government somehow realize a connection between "Taiwanese Independence" and American political and economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. But current American government is more interested in the Middle East, hence, the possibility of "independence" and "international recognition" is diminished in Taiwan as the United States is 'not interested' in fuelling a meaningless conflict with the PRC.

Name:	Simon	Date: Dec 23, 2006
Lee Wee Shing's comment is one typical example of ignoring how we 23 million Taiwanese feel, namely that we have the right to our own future and that we have the ultimate say in unification or independence.

Name:

Paul Law

Date: Dec 25, 2006

A fundamental element of government is consent, an idea dated back to Henry Bool at the turn of the century. In this light, no one can lay claim to any region of the world on any ground. Thus, only the Taiwanese people can decide their own political fate. The same argument applies to Chechnya, Quebec, Tibet, Hong Kong, Okinawa, Puerto Rico or Texas. In fact, this is how the American independence came about.

World politics hardly works on moral grounds. Largely because of domestic politics, the Beijing leadership cannot afford to let Taiwan become formally independent, as it will set a precedent for other non-Han minorities in China. The issue that the Taiwanese people have to decide is how their wish not to be ruled by China is to be reconciled with the Chinese claim that Taiwan is politically part of China. The British Commonwealth model is definitely not acceptable to China, for members of the Commonwealth are sovereign having their own foreign policies. Each of them is a member of the United Nations. While China does not object to Taiwan being member of some international organizations, e.g., the World Trade Organization, it has been steadfastly blocking Taiwan’s attempts to join many UN bodies as a sovereign state, e.g., the World Health Organization. The status quo has been around for more than half a century, and China seems to be happy with Taiwan being a de facto independent state. The aspiration to a de jure independence by some Taiwanese politicians will not succeed, for the simply reason that the fundamental part of it is being a member of a world body like the UN and China’s veto power will prevent it from happening. But why should Taiwan seek to join an undemocratic organization like the UN where five nuclear powers rule over all others? Moreover, to the extent that its people can determine their own political life, Taiwan is already independent, regardless of whether anyone formally recognizes it.

Given that an overwhelming majority of the Taiwanese population too is quite content with the problem unresolved, it seems that the current status is the best solution, at least for now. Any change to the status quo, e.g., a declaration of formal independence from Taiwan, would certainly provoke China, with unpredictable consequences. While it is difficult to see far in the future how China resolves the Taiwan issue once it has taken care of its far more difficult domestic problems, the rapprochement of the sort that the current Kuomingtang leadership undertakes seems to be a reasonable one. At least, it establishes a bridge of communication with the Beijing government whereby Taipei may see its thinking and possible reactions.

Name:

Jay

Date: Dec 27, 2006

In response to Lee:

"Say, based on your arguments, Hawaii should be a sovereign state, or New Mexico & California should rightly be returned to Mexico, or better still, Alaska should be returned to the Russians. These shall sound fair, shall they not?"

Your response shows that you have not at all understood the meaning of this article. No, Hawaii should not be a sovereign state, New Mexico & California should not be returned to Mexico, and Alaska should not be returned to the Russians. Why? Because their people do not demand so. That is the entire point of the article. Self-determination. If some day an overwhelming majority of Alaskans want to be Russians, I don't see what Washington DC could do to stop them. In fact, look at the situation with Quebec in Canada. If in a future referendum it turns out that the majority wants to be independent, I'm sure the rest of Canada would respect their wishes. I'm sure Britain would not send their army over to reclaim it either. Historical possesion of a land no longer equals sovereignty. This is no longer the middle ages where kings fought wars to reclaim their land. We are now in the 21st century. China should learn that. What was yours hundreds of years ago does not necessarily belong to you now, otherwise half the world would belong to the British.

In response to your criticism of Taiwan's democracy. It may be rough and volatile, but that is the case with all emerging democracies. The very fact that the President is embroiled in a corruption scandal and that his closest aides and family have been indicted and dealt with according to the law, serves to show that the Taiwanese democracy is not only vibrant but uniquely healthy. Contrast that with other emerging democracies where coups to overthrow your enemies are still the norm. Democracy is not a cure for everything, but it is the best way to ensure a balance between the people and their government, and that governments will not abuse their power and brainwash their citizens with "illusionary/illogical ideological leanings".

Name:

James Dexter

Date: Dec 27, 2006

Interesting stuff.

Looking at the situation from a real-world, geo-political perspective, Taiwan has enormous political/military importance. As Lee said above, the US can definitely use Taiwan in future logistical and strategic military actions, when the current economic dependency goes south, as we are seeing the beginings of now.

China is feeling its potential and other than US interference, they would have invaded Taiwan years ago.

Regarding "what status the people of the territory themselves want", and the "modern international practice and the principles of democracy", what has international law done in the face of scenarios like Iraq and Tibet? Nothing. The precedent is already set; might makes right. The big boys of imperial power, ie, the US and China, don't give a hoot about law or international agreements. So long as they can threaten, invade, overthrow whomever they want, they will. UN be darned.

Unfortunately, in the years to come, with a huge, hungry China (and a compliant Russia) emerging, US hegemony is going to wane. I say unfortunately, not because US domination is so great, but because for us, the little people, and really everyone, this sets the stage for a global future that sees nothing but wars (most likely nuclear) over rapidly depleting resources.

Six billion plus people. Double in 25 years.

Scary stuff. Makes the Tiawan independence thing look kinda silly, huh?

Name:	Johnny Chen	Date: Dec 27, 2006
As a Taiwanese American who experienced the democratic process in the Western world, I strongly feel for the people in Taiwan. Their voices deserve to be heard, they should decide whether to separate or to unify from/with China.

Name:	Taiwan for Taiwanese	Date: Dec 28, 2006
New Mexico can be returned to Mexico if all New Mexicans think and vote on this issue. New Mexico is part of the US, while Taiwan is not part of China (given its de facto independence). De jure independence will be voted favorably by Taiwanese if no international superpowers interfere with Taiwanese' fate. Taiwan is populated by Taiwanese, not Chinese. Taiwanese called themselves Taiwanese, not Chinese (this is an ethnic identity issue).

Name:	Xuetang	Date: Dec 28, 2006
Of course, you hope Taiwan should be an independent country because you are not a Chinese. Your arguments, let's say you have a good will, are not for peace, but war between the two sides of the strait. I hope the US earns more money by selling arms to Beijing and Taipai simultaneously.

Name:

Simon

Date: Dec 30, 2006

I hear people say this all the time, but in theory, if people of California (as a long-time resident of Los Angeles and a proud Taiwanese, not Chinese) wants to be independent, they have the right to exert their rights to self-determination. However, will the 23 million Californians rise up and vote the way we recalled Governor Grey Davis in 2003? Absolutely not! Here's why:

1) The top universities in the U.S. are all along the East Coast: Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell. Only three good schools are in California, Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford and a few others like UCSD and UCLA. If California becomes independent, their children becomes internatinal students and will not get entitled to financial aid nor scholarship from Washington DC like Federal Pell Grant
2) California imports much of its resources such as energy from Pacific Northwest, oil from Gulf of Mexico, pineapples from Hawaii, etc. Imagine having to pay tariffs and transaction costs for all this.
3) In all practicality, there are only two medical schools in California: Loma Linda and Stanford. There are five other schools, but with all practical purposes, those are nearly impossible for residents to California to get in. So most of them end up elsewhere like Mayo Medical College or Albany or University of Maryland, etc. Japan is a country the size of California, but it has more than two medical schools, more like forty schools. So it would be a major healthcare nightmare if California becomes independent.

THEREFORE, while the rights of self-determination exist to Californians, we do not wish independence because it is not practical for us, at least for the moment and for the foreseeable indefinite future.

Taiwan is different. It is governed independently, it has an independent economy that imports and exports from countries like Japan and China, etc. Maybe there is a benefit to being part of China some day, but we Taiwanese prefer not to be part of that.

Of course, if you Chinese want U.S. to accept the 20 million+ Taiwanese as refugees and grant them U.S. citizenship, fine. Show to the rest of the world that you guys are willing to expel the entire native Taiwanese population for that island (whatever that first island chain theory is for). I have so many family and friends from Taiwan who do not want to live in Taiwan because they fear becoming part of China so they live all over the place, South America, Europe, US, Japan, etc. Are they necessarily leading a good life? No. Look at what your government's saber-rattling caused towards lives of so many innocent people who have no interest in politics other than the fact that they wanted to live in their homeland!

Name:	Arthur	Date: Jan 05, 2007
Speaking of democracy, I am disappointed by the politics in Taipei, but fortunately, still believe in the idea of democracy. I hate it when people are speaking of democracy as if it were one thing that has not changed for hundreds of years because democracy "develops" rather than "being imported". There are some speculations that elections in Taiwan would not only solidify and develop the idea of democracy on the island but also on the mainland. For me, it is only true to the first part of the story. I know there is a "face problem" with Chinese leadership and Chinese people concerning the issue of democratization and Taiwan issue, but I really doubt that once Taiwan is part of China under the same name and same government, the island will serve as a catalyst to the democratization of the mainland. I think that the collapse of the democratic institutions will precede the "talked-about-so-much" democratization of China and the peaceful rise. It will never work if this "democracy" is imported from the outside since evryone has to grow with every election, scandals, readjustment, instead of inviting outside model to be faithfully implemented without pondering. "Inside" rather than "outside" well explains the development of democracy in Taiwan as major players in politics have to listen (or at least pretend to listen) to the people. So, I think the problem of China's internal political reform lies in the willingness of the people to strive for change from the inside, not in the resolution of an outside problem. To put it bluntly, "Mind your own business". Please don't blame the discussions in Taiwan about possibilities in the future for the employment of nationalism by China's leadership. I could imagine how difficult it will be to strive for change from within under a tight-controlled government. But things start here, not from the condemnation on the Taiwan "politicians". I know people in Taiwan still have much to learn when they are coping with "disgusting" and "annoying" issues everyday. People in Taiwan have to face the reality that there are so many problems on the island to be solved before they venture any further into the future. The same things happen to the people living in China.

Name:	walter	Date: Jan 06, 2007
If this Chinese person always says that we have influenced China or the white man has influenced Taiwan, this fool should note the minorities of today and how blacks in particular have even greater freedoms. I'm black/Native American and I think Taiwan should not be a part of China. By the way isn't Communism a Russian influence and not Chinese? This person who talks about so-called "white" influence needs to look and do more research. Regardless, Taiwan is not part of China and it is really already independent.

Name:

arn

Date: Jan 10, 2007

Williams attempts to manipulate the issues of independence, democracy, and self-determination to justify the de jure separation of Taiwan from China, when he knows very well that Taiwan's current actual status is that of an American client state--not unlike "independent" nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, etc. that are "protected" by their Anglo-American Godfather. Like these "pseudo-sovereign" nations in the Middle East, Taiwan exists as an unsinkable American aircraft carrier to enable the projection of American imperialist power not only against China but throughout the Asia Pacific region.

More importantly, the broader Anglo-American agenda against China is to destabilize if not balkanize this nation--under the guise of promoting "democracy and self-determination" of course. Don't be surprised if you see Western nations and their stooges increasingly championing the cause of Tibet once again. Like Revolutionary Islam, China is seen by the Imperialist West--particularly America--as a THREAT to Western hegemony and domination, which they will do anything to maintain. Anything.

One can see the true nature of Western-style "self-determination," "independence," and "democracy" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somilia, and other countries that the West has threatened, invaded, colonized, and is actively dismembering. Let us hope that China does not meet a similar fate.

Democracy, Freedom, and other lies are merely the propaganda slogans used by the West and its allies to justify this agenda. As evidenced by the comments of many posters above, citizens of these (Western) imperial democracies actively promote and support these lies to the fullest. They are Crusaders for Democracy cut from the same cloth as their murderous rulers like George Bush, Tony Bliar, John Howard.

Name:

arn

Date: Jan 10, 2007

If Ian Williams and other Western citizens were truly interested in self-determination, independence, and democracy (which they are NOT), they should apply these principles to their OWN countries FIRST, particularly to those nations within your own borders.

-For instance, America could grant independence to the many Native Indian nations who were the original inhabitants of this continent before those Founding Fathers genocided them and stole their land. The USA could also relinquish its rule over Hawaii, which was originally an independent kingdom before the USA staged a coup d'etat to overthrow its government in the 19th Century.

-America should also return Aztlan (i.e. the "American" Southwest and California) back to Mexico from whence it was stolen. Just think, you won't have to worry about so-called "illegal immigrants" anymore.

-England should give independence to Northern Ireland and Scotland--two countries which have been fighting against the "United" Kingdom for years.

-Australia should grant independence to the Aboriginal nations, whose land Australia stole and currently occupies.

-And Canada should give independence to Quebec and the numerous Native Indian nations within its own borders. Etc.

I am confident that great advocates of independence and self-determination like Ian Williams and the people above will wholeheartedly work to support these aforementioned noble causes. In fact, I am shocked that a "progressive," freedom-loving organization like Foreign Policy in Focus has not put THESE issues on its agenda. I wonder why.

A cynical--or perceptive--person might begin to believe that your advocacy of independence and democracy is just another Machiavellian political weapon to be SELECTIVELY used against countries that you don't like (i.e. those nations that resist and oppose Western and American imperialist domination).

Perish the thought.

Name:	Walter	Date: Jan 11, 2007
Actually the United States government has already apolgized to Hawaiians, Native Americans, and other minorites for past treatment. I'm black/Native American and I hold no grudge against my government. Our government is not the best, but let me ask China, where's your apologies to Tibeteans and your own Chinese people! Where is it?! I don't see it. All the Chinese government does is blame foreigners like Japan for their problems when really the problem is China itself! Our nation may have taken over other nations, but we always gave people the right of self-determination. If Texas, New Mexico, or even Hawaii wanted to be free we would give them an atmosphere to at least discuss indepdence. China won't even do that! They isolate Taiwan diplomatically and then worse, they pass laws authorizing force to kill Taiwanese men, women, and children. This is not the China I want to know. This is a China run by selfish men who care nothing about Chinese lives but their own grip on power. Think about it. If a black/Native American guy whose ancestors had been surpressed by the American government in the past, why do I not support China's Communists? Could it be because at least in democracy you can say something against such? You couldn't do that in China. Taiwan is independent already and China really needs to face its own past and respect other peoples within its own territory. Especially the so called "terrorists" which are really Turkish Uighers in Xinjiang Province, and Tibeteans. Should China use force, China would fail terribly. If China wants to sacrifice Chinese lives for Taiwan, I don't mean to be cold, but then so be it.

Name:	Walter	Date: Jan 11, 2007
Also for those who say we should give up our former lands, why don't China right now give up trading with Africa if that's so and stop taking money from Africans! You can't argue this point because it is irrelevant. People are very proud of being American, but Taiwanese on the other hand don't want murdering scumbags to rule over them. Hell I'd rather be under U.S. protection rather than the Communists in China. When push comes to shove, China really has nothing to offer but talks. They talk all day and do nothing. They threaten Taiwan but do nothing because Taiwan is already independent.

Name:

arn

Date: Jan 13, 2007

America's "apologies" are worth less than your lies about weapons of mass destruction. They are pure propaganda.

The issue of America's occupation of Hawaii, First Nations, and Mexican lands is not as issue in the past that can be dismissed with an "apology."

Currently, there is an Hawaiian independence movement that your beloved America has suppressed since the 1960s (if not before) dating back to the infamous FBI CONINTELPRO days, in which the American government spied, harrassed, and yes even murdered radical activists of all stripes. The same could be said for American repression of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and political prisoners like Leonard Peletier.

And then there is the case of Aztlan, which in reality is Mexican land occupied and ruled by America. The fate of this land is not for Americans like you to decide, but Mexico. Indeed, the true illegal immigrants are not the Mexicans who have crossed your phony border, but the Americans who occupy it today.

Maybe is it your America that "needs to respect other people within its own territory"--not to mention respect countries around the world.

Name:

arn

Date: Jan 13, 2007

You keep on bringing up the issue of your Native American/Black identity in order to Play the Race Card and dismiss any criticism of your American Evil Empire.

Like Colon Powell and Condoleeza Rice, you are just as fascistic as these other flag-waving "Proud Americans," who proclaim America's Moral Supremacy, even as America INVADES, BOMBS, AND ATTACKS nations from Iraq to Afghanistan-- slaughtering 100,000s of people in the process.

America is an entity born in genocide, founded upon genocide, and now seeks to spread this genocide around the world in the form of Capitalist globalization.

That is the basis of your American way of life, your wealth, and your prosperity: American Capitalist exploitation and subjugation of the world from Asia to Africa to Latin America to the Middle East.

You see this with American corporations and their exploitation of labor in China. You see this in the form of pampered American consumers like yourself who benefit from this exploitation of this Chinese labor through the products you consume. You see in this form of America's invasion and colonization of oil-producing nations like Iraq in order to STEAL IRAQI OIL. And on and on.

These American crimes will not be swept under the rug with your cheap propaganda about American "democracy and freedom." Your Day of Reckoning is coming. All Americans--Black or White--deserve to be held to account.

Name:

Simon

Date: Jan 18, 2007

btw, for those of you interested, there was a vigorous debate in July 2006 within the U.S. Congress about whether to discuss the idea that Hawaii should become an independent state. I participated in the Federal Marriage Amendment Act with FRC (the only Asian to do so) and their argument that marriage issue was more important was that the Hawaii issue was taking place at the same time even if it sounded a little bit silly. (both didn't get past the cloture btw)

So people can actually talk about self-determination in the U.S., but right now, most Hawaiians don't really want independence at least at the moment.

Name:

sha

Date: Jan 22, 2007

For a democratic election system to work, you have to "eliminate" the people who may vote different than you wanted.

Just check what population of Native Americans? It is under 2.5 million (includes Alaska Eskimos). One reason why huge "undocumented" Mexicans scared white folks to death. If number is unchecked, they have to go back to the old election system--such as black is not counted as a human.

Talk about "genocide", Tibetans are 6M, Uyghurs are 9M now compare the number of Native Americans.

How about all the white people go back where they belong and let native people have their lands in North/South America, Australia, etc.?

Name:	Frank Chen	Date: Feb 09, 2007
Taiwan absolutly belong to Taiwanese.Taiwanese are not Han ethnic.

Name:	Theresnosuchathingastaiwanese	Date: Feb 12, 2007
Might makes right. Absolutely. All these bias, hatred, lies and wishful "thinking" will be smashed by a re-unified China--with Taiwan included and others to follow. These so-called "Taiwanese" are begging for things they don't deserve. They gamble on the selfbelieving bet and will do the double talk once the ace card is turned. As for these "western" analysts who play the cards, they'll hold onto these cards as long and favorably as they can. And just to remind all of you, this won't last long. Chinese owns Taiwan!

Name:	Fan	Date: Feb 28, 2007
Hey... those US guys had already forgot their justification for starting the civil war... just a few states democratically wanted to leave the rule of Washington!!!

Name:	Simon	Date: Mar 01, 2007
Everyone are entitled to your own opinions, but if outsiders (including mainland Chinese) who think that the 23 million Taiwanese people will quietly surrender to the Chinese, they are totally underestimating the spirit and the passion that the Taiwanese have. Taipei and Kaohsiung will surely be a lot worse than what we are seeing in Baghdad...

Name:	denk	Date: Mar 14, 2007
i have been wondering for a long time now, how come every damned thing in china is an international issue to be "discussed" and criticised by the westerners, while issues in india, indonesia, turkey etc are all "internal affairs" to be settled by their respective governments. taiwan, tibet and increasingly xingjiang have been done to death by westerners like ian williams, but i have yet to hear these same "humanrights champions" fussing about the "rights to self determination" for kashmir, assam, nagaland, west papua new guinea, aceh, kurdistan, hawaii, okinawa, ...... i guess the yanks and brits just like china soooooo much, so that one china isnt enough for them, they would rather have china broken into seven parts... heheheh

Name:

denker

Date: Mar 21, 2007

i am really surpirsed that the chinese, meaning the chinese expats or the government in beijing, have not been able to collectively form an organization to counter china-bashing. it's a common fact that all sectors of western society have been caught up in the anti-china hype without really understanding the matters they are so emotional about.

On tibet and tibetan theocratic feudalism, i suggest articles written by michael parenti. on taiwan, i think wikipedia can help the reader, if he looks up the definition of nationality, sovereighnty, culture and of course history in china. i am not being arrogant now, i just think that those who are really interested might like to argue with more precision.

the biggest pro independence argument so far has been the right for self-determination; that it is possible in the US and not in china; and therefore, following the argument of williams and others: china is evil, communism is evil, bla bla bla. the fallacy in this argument is that the time of self-determination in the US took place 150 years ago(the american civil war) and ended when the 50th state was founded (i left out the oil countries with american military, so some may argue that america is still involved in other civil wars = process of self-determination).

the truth behind china-bashing is really a rather well thought containment policy. the american administration has already proclaimed that they will use Taiwan to dampen china's rise. again, this is a proclaimed policy. and of course the chinese, who definitely are not nationalists, are interpreting these measures as imperialistic and automatically think of the opium war, when china was contained (euphemism for destroyed) by the brits drugging the chinese elite.

however, as i mentioned before that china lacks a pr org, the chinese elite is becoming lax concerning the spirit for Taiwan independence. I will not be surprised when Chen declares independence during the olympic games in 2008. Chen knows that China cannot win a war. at the moment, 54% are in favor of independence; once the battle begins and china attacks, inflicting civilian casualties, 95% will be for independence and then the North Korean demarcation zone will move to the Taiwanese straight. the containment policy will be complete, China's rise will be stalled and people will hate china even more.

Name:	Andy Tsai	Date: Apr 07, 2007
I remember my brother said once: "I'd rather kill myself than seeing Taiwan and China reunificated." I immediately replied to him: "I would never waste my life like that, instead I would give up to my last breath to prevent it from happening, to fight against China and to fight for our Independence." You think you chinese would die to keep Taiwan from independence, guess what? I am Taiwanese and I would give every single piece of me for my nation, Taiwan.

Name:

denk

Date: May 06, 2007

ian williams says... China's arguments against Taiwanese self-determination are not particularly legal or ethical. They boil down to the fact that Beijing has over a billion people, a huge economy, and over 900 missiles pointing at the nearby island.

legal? ethical? i like that, i like folks who care about legality and ethics. without which, the world is just a concrete jungle out there. lets see...... hawaii is a war booty. california, texas are war booties. all of usa is a war booty, the largest land grab of the century, the mother of all genocides was commited in "how the west was won" how "legit" or "ethical" is usa as a nation, ? zero, zilch, nada. [http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz03282005] otoh, even hardcore tw separatists admit that tw was once part of china until it was robbed by japan in 1898. china is trying to recover a lost property. i am no expert of international law, but common sense tell me china's claim on tw is a whole lot more "legit" than the yanks' occupation of usa. yet its the yanks of all people [and their indians buddies] who like to question the legitimacy of chinese sovereinty over tw and tibet etc.

a favourite refrain from the tw separatists is that china has lost possession of tw for so long it might as well accept the fact accompli. this is entusiastically endorsed by their mentors in washington, i can see why.

to paraphrase ian william.......the white man's occupation of usa is down right illigit and unethical,they boil down to the fact that white men enjoy such overwhelming superiority in fire power that it would be suicidal for the native americans to try to regain their properties, they might as well accept the fact accompli.

Name:	Richard Chou	Date: May 10, 2007
Communist China will never take over Taiwan. It states that in the Cairo Declaration in 1943 where the Allies decided that '...Manchuria, Formosa... will be returned to the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek'. Nothing there ever mentioned giving Taiwan to the People's Republic under Mao Zedong. The war between the communists and nationalists isn't over yet. If China wants to take over they can. Analysists have quoted that Taiwan 'possesses a military strong enough to defend any invasions from Communist China, but will not be able to take over the Chinese mainland'. Taiwan has over 1.8 million capable military personnel. Add U.S intervention and we'll see China go up in smoke. Giving independence will be the best way.

Name:

Taiwanese

Date: May 10, 2007

In reply to Theresnosuchathingastaiwanese.

Has the government of communist China ever even put a step onto the soil of Taiwan? No! Taiwan is a free independent nation. FOR ALL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE ARGUING - STOP NOW! Taiwan has a president, a flag, its own education system, economic system and everything! There is nothing of correlation to China except for the fact that the taiwanese speak Chinese! There is too much evidence to support this claim!

TAIWAN REMAINS INDEPENDENT OF COMMUNIST CHINA TO THIS DAY AND IT WILL REMAIN SO.

The reason that this debate is happening is the fault of China itself! It is CHINESE OPPRESSION! Just because you have nuclear missiles and a bunch of people with tin hats and rifles doesn't make you destroying the lives of over 22 million people! What is the problem? I just don't get it! The Civil War is over and everything is fine. Has Taiwan even fired a single missile at Chinese communists in vengeance for what they did to the millions of innocent peasants killed mercilessly in the civil war? No! Reconsider the reality! This is the truth!

Name:	World Domination	Date: May 11, 2007
Here's my point of view. 1) China is a big manufacturer country but it lacks high-tech technology so it needs to take Taiwan for its technology & manufacturing capability. Although many developed countries have brought in technology to China. 2) China cannot afford to have Taiwan becoming independence because if it does, then some of the province or state in China might also want to declare independence. 3) China need to grow bigger if it wants to rule the world in the future. It needs more land and resources and labourers. It needs to overcome the US and EU.

Name:	republic of taiwan	Date: May 12, 2007
Taiwan is a country by its own right and will stay that way! Taiwan is indepedent and wil be and is the dignified respected country of THE REPUBLIC OF TAIWAN

Name:	Taiwanese	Date: May 15, 2007
Taiwan will be known as Taiwan, ROC (Republic of China) thank you very much! China should stop its bully-like figure and give Taiwan official recognition. long live the Republic of China (Taiwan)!

Name:	Europeans	Date: May 31, 2007
i'm european. i want to write this message for China communism State. although EU are saying that they support China policy, please dont dream, this is just a fact of speach. China has to know that if they invade Taiwan, all the world will defend help Taiwan to defend itself, even US, EU and African countries will help Taiwan to defend itself, so Chinese dont bother yourself and dont spend your time. if you dare invade Taiwan the US, EU and African countries will attack you to and you will lose everythings. and you will not be a UN security council permanent member anymore and that will be the end. Thank you for your understanding chinese people.

Name:	My name	Date: Jul 17, 2007
Is it possible to have three states across the Taiwan Strait? Namely the PRC, ROC and Taiwan? So political (mainly historical) and legal dispute will be thrown away and everyone's happy about the result. So first there is a state called PRC and one other state called Taiwan that gains independence from the ROC therefore ROC will stay itself in the middle of Taiwan Strait in legal form in between PRC and Taiwan while claiming itslef the Republic of China with no jurisdiction over PRC nor Taiwan. PRC will be happy about it because the One China is still there to govern and Taiwan is happy because it gains independence.

Name:	thabang	Date: Aug 13, 2007
i think taiwan should declare its independence from china because it fulfil the factual criteria of statehood, Taiwan posses (permanent population, effective government, a defined territory and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. taiwan should not wait to be recognised by international community because any state in this community is afraid that if it recognised Taiwan's independence, then China will cease to integrate politically and most especially economically with that particular country.

Name:

In response to Jay

Date: Sep 06, 2007

So you say that California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona do not want independence? Let's give'em the referendum then !!! The demographics there is now totally different from it is 100 years ago, and so have sentiments. I think we Americans are so into independence for other regions of the world, we should start with our own.

Now you say no one in California, or Texas wants independence. That's not what I hear in the barrios and the ghettoes and the inner cities. People are tired of learning white American-centered language and history. They want their language Spanish to become official language. One day they will rise up and demand independence, or autonomy. And let's wait and hear what American government has to say...

Don't forget, America may have declared independence from Britian, but America also crushed the aspirations of the Southern States for independence during the so-called American Civil War.

Name:	anonymous	Date: Sep 10, 2007
Taiwan and China should never join together. First of all China wants Taiwan because they want to own more territory like how they did to Tibet. Also China has crappy economy and they envy Taiwan's well built economy. China should be satisfied with what they have; they already have a big land so why need Taiwan? On the other hand China can't even take care of themselves. By looking at sucky their economy is, they definitely shouldn't be thinking of trying to take over Taiwan.

Name:

ramifications of independence

Date: Sep 18, 2007

If Taiwan officially declares independence, will there be any setbacks aside from the denizens of Taiwan feeling satisfied and China's possible use of force? How will other nations view this?

Hypothetically!, worst case scenario, I can think of, is Xinjiang (most volatile province) emboldening its move for independence and perhaps if other provinces secede, China may, like the former Soviet Union, disintegrate, but foreign investments in China may be affected. Would there be a worldwide economic impact? For sure, US doesn't want the ETIM to establish a vanguard within Xinjiang as long as China still has its foot in the doorstep.

Name:	Anti-Taiwan Independence	Date: Oct 02, 2007
Personally, I do not quite support taiwan's efforts to get independence, despite that I am a 100 percent taiwanese. Yes, I am proud of being a taiwanese, but I feel more confident and proud as a Chinese.

Name:	Freedom to decide	Date: Oct 12, 2007
Though there are almost a hundred independent nations around the world that are smaller than Taiwan in land area, Taiwan itself still cannot get recognition as an independent country. As USA, Australia and New Zealand speaks English, and were once part of Britain, but are now independent, the majority of Taiwanese have the right to decide whether their lives will be better if they are part of communist China, and whether they want to be ruled by Beijing more than 1000 miles away across land and sea.

Name:	Inofficious and unpassionare man	Date: Oct 26, 2007
China likes to make argument of ethnicity to claim Taiwan. Strangely, that same ethnic Chinese ceded Taiwan to Japan to save their own behinds. Qing China's statesman Li Hongzhang said in 1895: "birds do not sing and flowers are not fragrant on the island of Taiwan. The men and women are inofficious and are not passionate either." China wants it back now because ??

Name:	unknown chinese	Date: Oct 31, 2007
At first when the conflict between Taiwan and China happened, I wondered why china couldn't let go of Taiwan, especially when causing all this trouble. But after researching, I understood that if china let go of this (Taiwan) providence, others will want independent too. Then China will fall apart. Please do not insult chinese people or china any more, those who do.

Name:	unknown	Date: Oct 31, 2007
The goverment of Taiwan may want to be independent, but more than 60% of the people did not support Mr.Chang.

Discussion for this article has been closed.

You Might Also Like:

Related Coverage of Asia/Pacific

Why the Afghan Surge Will Fail
Nov 12, 2009

'Legitimacy' in Afghanistan
Nov 12, 2009

North Korea: Journalists vs. Diplomats
Nov 9, 2009

Related China Coverage

Tibet's Dangerous Game
Apr 9, 2008

Is China a Threat?
Feb 7, 2008

Labor in China
Dec 29, 2006