In an effort to clarify some of the conflicting reports and provide more understanding of the general issue, FCR asked Dr. K.C. Chen, a political science professor at Rutgers University and currently a visiting professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei, to assess this critical issue.
His analysis is accompanied with related comments on the topic by U.S. and local scholars; these have been translated from recent Chinese newspaper forums on the "Taiwan independence" question.
After a long period of speculation, the "Democratic Progressive Party" ("DPP") finally expressed its official position on the issue of "Taiwan independence" at its second party congress in early November 1987. It decided not to include the clause of "Taiwan independence" in its party platform, but it did adopt a resolution stating that "people have the freedom to advocate Taiwan independence. "
Subtle as it is, the position of the "DPP" still remains controversial. The adoption of the resolution is the first step to paving the way for a "Taiwan independence" movement. Should it develop into actual actions, it will be a very dangerous move by a small group of people and the "DPP."
First of all, the rejection of the "Taiwan independence" clause by the "DPP" in its party platform and its adoption of the resolution is a controversial performance in itself. A party platform is an official program which states the party's position and gives guidance for its action. It serves as the party's general guideline until it is officially changed.
A resolution is a party's determination to act or to express its position on a specific issue. It also remains in force until the issue is settled or the party's commitment is fulfilled. Although a party platform is more formal and important than a resolution, both are equally official.
The decision by the "DPP" on the exclusion of the "Taiwan independence" clause in the platform was done under strong internal and external pressures, but its adoption of the resolution was done to appease the minority who insisted on the issue. Such a move was apparently designed to satisfy both the opposers and advocators of the issue. However, the resolution is unequivocally a "DPP" official document; it does not and cannot dilute the party's position and commitment. It has not settled the problem. The issue remains as controversial as before.
Second, the "DPP" performance has revealed once again the problem of a serious internal split among its membership. This is clear from the facts; the vote for the rejection of the "Taiwan independence" clause in its platform was 177 vs. 64, yet the resolution was adopted by the same congress. As a result of this voting behavior, the "DPP" has moved indecisively by trying to move in two directions at the same time.
More seriously, senior Taiwanese politician Yu Teng-fa's strong argument against the idea of "Taiwan independence," and his threat to quit the party if the "DPP" would not agree with him next year, indicates serious disagreement within the party. In such circumstances, if the "DPP" and its followers still state that its "Taiwan independence" idea is supported by the majority of the people, it will not only be deceptive, but also create more internal conflict within the party.
Third, a more serious conflict may well result from such a "DPP" move; that is, probable confrontation between the government and the "DPP." Needless to say, if the "Taiwan independence" idea develops into actual actions in the forms of campaigning and organization, the government, as well as the KMT, will have to employ the constitutional and legal authority granted by the National Security Law to stop it. A serious conflict will unavoidably occur, broadening the line of political and social cleavage. It would have the potential for creating the most confusing and chaotic situation Taiwan has had to face.
Fourth, Peking would surely renew its threat of intervention, and it can be expected that as such a movement developed, the threat would continue to grow. Although it is believed that the armed forces of the ROC are strong enough to defend Taiwan, national security nevertheless would undoubtedly be threatened, and socio-economic order would surely be disturbed under the threat of armed conflict. This is obviously a situation the people on Taiwan do not want.
Fifth, it is certain that foreign investment on Taiwan would be seriously threatened if such internal or external conflict evolved. No foreign country or company would invest because of high risk. If the situation grew into a worrisome stage, foreign investment would be either seriously curtailed or withdrawn, indicating the loss of confidence in Taiwan's peace and stability. Needless to say, such an eventuality would deeply damage Taiwan's prosperity.
Finally, a move toward "Taiwan independence" would not be accepted by the international community. On the contrary, it would create a more difficult situation for foreign countries who have either formal or informal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. As a result, it is very likely that Taiwan would face a period of extreme diplomatic isolation.
In conclusion, it should be said that the major functions of a political party are to represent the people and to serve as the vanguard of the people, working for their interests. Those advocating "Taiwan independence" are but a small proportion of the people. The viewpoint has no claim to representing the majority of the people. Consequently, it is not worthy of the "DPP" to exercise its own vanguard function for such an unjustifiable cause.
It must be pointed out that if any political move runs against the will and interests of the people, it should be rejected. To advocate "Taiwan independence" as discussed above, is such a contrary assertion, and is an action that should be denied. It is a dangerous move that would only bring about conflict and disaster to Taiwan.
Hsu Cho-yun
Professor of History
University of Pittsburg:
If a nation is likened to a human being's life, "Taiwan independence" would be a major change of the nation's physiology, and would be equivalent to the end of life; for asserting "Taiwan independence" is committing suicide.
Of course, people have the freedom of discussing revolution, but the "DPP" is originally a reforming party inside the system, different from a revolutionary party. What they are doing now is logically contradictory.
And how much do they understand the people's will? They mistake the expansion of their activities in the latest one or two years as a signal that they represent a great portion of public opinion. In fact, this is not true. Mainlanders don't agree with the idea of "Taiwan independence," and many Taiwanese don't agree either.
With so much disagreement, serious disturbance will be inevitable. The "DPP's" far-sighted members should courageously stand up and take power from those radical members who are taking advantage of a provincial complex. Actually, in order to maintain the peace of Taiwan, these radicals should be expelled from the party regardless of the cost. This might stop them going further astray or going to even greater extremes.
Yu Ying-shih
Professor of History
Princeton University:
Fundamentally the "DPP" shouldn't mention "Taiwan independence." People can of course assert their freedom of speech, yet there are proper limitations on freedom—at least, it can't betray our national interest.
Asserting "Taiwan independence" can cause serious disadvantages to the current political system, to China, and to Taiwan residents. In fact, it might even invite disasters.
"Taiwan independence" actually has many kinds of explanations. Nowadays, for example, the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan is substantially independent from outside interference, including the United States and Communist China.
But the key to tackling the "Taiwan independence" problem raised by the "DPP," lies in a fully performing democracy. Only a minority of ambitious politicians would insist on "Taiwan independence" based on section ism and try to establish an anti-democratic, autocratic regime. This would definitely cause disorder and segregation. And having the idea of "Taiwan independence" is just a beginning; they would push it forward step by step. The peace talks with the Communists in 1945-1947 provide a precedent that reminds us that the Chinese Communists would "try to squeeze through when there is any opening."
Taiwan is now a democratic, open society. We can allow these people to talk of "Taiwan independence." But the government has to maintain a firm stand, doing things according to laws, and must maintain the dignity of the law. In critical points, the government shouldn't be too soft. For instance, if advocates of "Taiwan independence" have challenged the law, then the government must take legal action uncompromisingly. Where there is no law, there is no democracy. Democracy is the solution to all the problems being faced.
Hungdah Chiu
Professor of International Law
University of Maryland:
This is challenging the National Security Law in public. The idea of "Taiwan independence" cannot possibly gain foreign support. It's impossible for the three most important countries in the world-the United States, Japan, and the Soviet Union-to support this. The United States made it clear in the "Shanghai Communique" that "There is only one China; and Taiwan is an inseparable part of China."
Likewise, Japan in the "Communique on Establishment of Diplomatic Relations" says it also upholds the idea that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China. As for the Soviet Union, it will never irritate the Chinese Communists nor exacerbate their relations with them over the Taiwan problem.
Asserting "Taiwan independence" will definitely cause tension inside the island. The Chinese Communists say they would not tolerate an independent Taiwan. Teng Hsiao-ping has said that he would blockade Taiwan to counter its independence-and a blockade would be a major blow.
The "DPP" members should realize that American foreign policy is decided by the U.S. President, not by Congressmen. Congressmen can speak freely, but not take responsibility for the results of their comments. The Tibetan problem is an obvious case. The United States can only "support its human rights, not its independence."
Chin Yao-chi
Professor of Sociology
The Chinese University of Hong Kong:
Although Taiwan is in a state of transition, "Taiwan independence" absolutely can't be adopted. It not only wouldn't be accepted internationally, but it would also harm both Taiwan and the mainland.
Some people compare Taiwan with Tibet's self-determination. In fact, the two are completely different. If Taiwan becomes independent, the Chinese Communists will have no other choice but to attack us by force. Taiwan and the mainland should instead compete peacefully.
Besides, lots of people in Taiwan still have strong sense of Chinese nationalism. The idea of independence will no doubt exacerbate the tension among people of different provincial origins. Taiwan is now on its way to democracy. Any movement of separatism will make democracy impossible.
Lin Chia-cheng
Professor of Sociology
Soochow University, Taipei:
From the way international politics is actually practiced, there is no feasibility at all for "Taiwan independence." Those who insist on independence can achieve nothing. They can only increase tension and disturb harmony. Therefore, the more responsible people inside the "DPP" shouldn't make independence the party's official purpose.
Su Yung-chin
Professor of Law
National Chengchi University, Taipei:
It's impossible for Chinese to accept "Taiwan independence" because of our culture and tradition. But some people keep submitting their proposal of independence to confuse the majority. This can only cause serious conflicts in our society.
Based on its responsibilities to maintain national security and social order, the government should restrain those people from advocating independence according to law. And if there are actions taken to carry out independence, they should be punished according to criminal law, by either fines or imprisonment.