‘Taiwan Independence’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think

By Chieh-ting Yehchieh-ting Yeh /April 11, 2016 / foreignpolicy.com

On February 23, all eyes were on Taiwan’s new Member of Parliament Freddy Lim as he took the podium at the Legislative Yuan for the first time. Lim is now best known as the heavy metal rock star who, following January 2016 elections on the self-governing island of 23 million, became one of five legislators from the nascent New Power Party. A long-time advocate of international recognition for Taiwan and a famous figure among proponents of Taiwan independence, Lim’s first time deposing outgoing Kuomintang Prime Minister Chang Shan-cheng over the legal statehood of Taiwan and China was civil, but provocative: by the end of the session, Chang had admitted that the Republic of China (ROC) regime currently ruling Taiwan is a separate state from the People’s Republic of China.

ROC independence”…It holds that Taiwan is already an independent state, named the Republic of China.

Video clips and reports of Lim’s session were widely circulated, with headlines like “Freddy Says ‘I am for Taiwan Independence.’” While pro-independence advocates may have applauded Lim’s performance, the response from other quarters has been mixed. Tsay Ting-kuei, a professor at National Taiwan University and a long-time hardliner on Taiwan independence who founded the pro-independence Free Taiwan Party, took to on Facebook, Taiwan’s social network of choice, to insist that the New Power Party stands for “ROC independence,” or huadu, and not Taiwan independence, or taidu.

Taiwan independence”…insists that Taiwan is not an independent state unless the Republic of China regime is overthrown and replaced by the Republic of Taiwan.

Within the past year, the term “ROC independence” has come into vogue within political discourse in Taiwan. It holds that Taiwan is already an independent state, named the Republic of China. This position is different from the “Taiwan independence” position, which insists that Taiwan is not an independent state unless the Republic of China regime is overthrown and replaced by the Republic of Taiwan.

The terms are hardly neutral descriptions of political stances. Taiwan independence advocates have increasingly used “ROC independence” as a derogatory label to convey a sense of ignorance, or worse, ideological impurity on the part those who are more moderate and do not yet share their views. Meanwhile, “Taiwan independence” has long been a bête noir in mainland China. As China has grown in economic power and political influence throughout the last four decades, it has been throwing its weight around, denying Taiwan any precedent for statehood and insisting that governments around the world heed its One China Principle. This is well understood as China’s policy priority, and the termtaidu is neuralgic among mainlanders; at first glance, it seems that Taiwan’s Independence movement should be its natural enemy.

But Taiwan’s independence movement is really about state-building and nation-building. The outcome of the current debate within Taiwan about what “independence” means has important implications for China and East Asia policy, both military and economic, in the United States and elsewhere. To understand what motivates the positions behind the labels requires delving into the history behind the Taiwan Independence movement.

In its history, Taiwan has been variously ruled as a colony, a trading post, a frontier province, and a (short-lived) kingdom. The first time Taiwanese activists tried to realize the notion that Taiwanese should govern themselves politically, in the modern sense, was in the 1920s and 30s under Japanese rule. In the teahouses of Dadaocheng in the capital of Taipei, young activists established organizations such as the Taiwanese Cultural Association and the Taiwanese People’s Party to advocate for an elected Parliament. The movement imported the idea of national self-determination from the aftermath of World War I in 1918. This was the beginning of Taiwanese as a distinct ethnic identity, one that would ultimately lead to a distinct political community.

After World War II, the ROC regime, led by Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), took control of Taiwan, even as it also governed, or purported to govern, the Chinese mainland. On February 28, 1947, island-wide riots broke out, ignited by the mistreatment of a street peddler and the killing of protesters by government agents. During what came to be called the 228 Massacres, Taiwanese intellectuals tried in vain to negotiate with the ROC regime for greater self-rule. In response, armed forces swiftly targeted and murdered the offending intellectuals en masse.

Soon after, the Chinese Communist Party defeated the KMT in the Chinese Civil War, taking control of the mainland and establishing the People’s Republic of China in 1949. That same year, the KMT leadership fled to Taiwan, and brought the ROC government with it. Claiming wartime privileges and the 228 uprising as threats, Chiang established a ruthless dictatorship, cracking down on dissenters, including suspected Communists, pro-democracy advocates, and anyone supporting Taiwanese self-determination.

During this time, the idea of political self-rule and self-determination for Taiwan evolved, as its proponents fled or were exiled. Self-determination assumed a concrete form: a revolution to overthrow Chiang’s ROC regime and found the Republic of Taiwan in its stead. This movement became known as “Taiwan Independence.” Work was under way to educate the people of Taiwan to form its own national identity as Taiwanese, which would then support a coup to build a new state for Taiwan.

Taiwan Independence spread across the island and among the Taiwan diaspora. Activists such as Su Beng and Kin Birei fled to Japan, while in the United States, Taiwanese activists formed groups that became the World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI) to carry out armed resistance, such as the assassination attempt on Chiang Ching-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek’s successor, in 1970.

But the idea of armed revolution to overthrow the ROC regime never became reality. Instead, over time, the KMT’s control of Taiwan via the ROC weakened, and civil society on the island became restless. In the 1970s and 80s, dissatisfaction over the lack of environmental rights, women’s rights, labor rights, and farmers’ rights came to the fore, and their proponents eventually formed a coalition with Taiwan independence supporters to create a unified front against the KMT’s authoritarian rule. Taiwan independence, still punishable by death as a crime of sedition, became subsumed under the call for democracy. Read more…


One thought on “‘Taiwan Independence’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think

  1. Wonderfully well-written, and very relevant. I wish more westerners would pay attention to issues like this, which matter. Put all our money and influence to good use for a change (not that we don’t have an outstanding debt to mainland China anyway)


Share your opinions

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s