Taiwan Independence: Historical Inevitabilty, or Modern Artifice?

Taiwan Independence: Historical Inevitabilty, or Modern Artifice?
China Post Editorial
by Bevin Chu
August 9, 2009

Is Taiwan independence an historical inevitability, or a modern artifice? Taiwan independence may be the political Flavor of the Month. Timid poll watchers such as Ma Ying-jeou may be terrified of defying Taiwan independence Political Correctness. But the provenance of Taiwan independence is far more recent, and the historical roots of Taiwan independence are far shallower than champions of Taiwan independence care to admit.

Champions of Taiwan independence have a habit of playing fast and loose with historical facts. They have attempted for example, to convey the impression that Taiwan independence in its current form is the continuation of a centuries old struggle against Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, and Japanese colonialism and imperialism.

They have mendaciously conflated Taiwan independence in its current form with past struggles for Taiwan independence, when in fact past struggles for Taiwan independence had an agenda diametrically opposed to their own.

As even Japanese historians sympathetic to Taiwan independence admit, past struggles for Taiwan independence were not struggles to split Taiwan from China. They were struggles to free Taiwan from Japanese colonial rule and reunite it with the Chinese motherland.

In 1895, Taiwanese, i.e., Chinese people on Taiwan, founded the Taiwan Democratic Republic. The Taiwan Democratic Republic's mission was to forestall impending Japanese occupation and reunite Taiwan with the rest of China.

Alas, these Taiwanese patriots were overrun by Imperial Japan's military juggernaut within a few short months. The only alternative left to Taiwanese patriots, including Taiwanese Aborigines, was guerrilla warfare, which they continued to wage well into the early decades of the 20th century.

In short, the assertion that Taiwan independence in its current form has deep historical roots, is an Orwellian Big Lie.

Former DPP legislator Lin Cho-shui is the Vladimir Lenin of the Taiwan independence movement. He is its chief strategist. He is its master theoretician.

Lin recently published an editorial entitled, "Support for sovereignty and DPP no longer tied." He quoted a recent poll by the magazine Global Views, which said that 82.8% of its respondents considered China and Taiwan separate countries. This constituted an increase of 9.1% since Ma took office, and marked the largest increase in so short a time. Those who opposed reunification increased to 69.9%, while those who favored eventual reunification fell to 12%.

According to Lin, as recently as 2004, public support for reunification and public opposition to reunification was evenly divided at 35% each. Public support for the Pan Blue and Pan Green camps was also evenly divided at just over 30% each.

According to Lin, this changed in 2005. Support for independence slipped from 30% in 2004 to less than 20% in 2005. Support for maintaining the status quo meanwhile, increased. Not until 2007 did support for independence recover. Today, in 2009, opposition to reunification and the view that China and Taiwan are two separate countries has reached new highs.

How ironic. Lin Cho-shui's purpose was to prove how solid support for Taiwan independence was. But in doing so, he merely proved how shallow the roots of Taiwan independence are, and how fickle support for Taiwan independence is.

After all, according to Lin's own analysis, support for Taiwan independence could fluctuate by 10% within the span of one year, then fluctuate by 9% within the span of one year, a mere five years later. After all, these huge fluctuations did not occur five centuries ago, but merely two to five years ago.

Pundits on Taiwan have an expression: "Ming yi ru liu shui," or "Public sentiment is like flowing water." It means that public sentiment, far from being as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar, is as changeable as a flowing current.

Champions of Taiwan independence know that their would be "Nation of Taiwan" is erected not on four centuries of historical inevitability, but on two decades of artificial indoctrination.

Back in 2003 native Taiwanese legislator Lai Shi-bao gave a speech at New Party Headquarters. He said the reason Green Camp leaders were so vehemently opposed to "San Tong," was that they lacked confidence in their own "distinctive Taiwanese ethnic and national identity." They were terrified that if mainland Chinese were allowed to come to Taiwan, the public on Taiwan would have trouble telling "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" apart, and that would be the end of their core justification for independence.

That is why the Taiwan independence movement obdurately opposes ECFA, and demands instead that martial law style restrictions against free cross-Strait exchanges be retained.

That is why the Taiwan independence movement has no qualms about violating the natural rights of individual liberties of Republic of China citizens.

That is why the Taiwan independence movement obsesses over public opinion polls while betraying callous indifference to historical facts.

Taiwan independence, far from being an historical inevitability, is merely a modern artifice.