Support in Taiwan for formal, de jure independence remains limited and highly sensitive to both Chinese pressure and the posture adopted by Washington, according to new academic research examining how shifts in US foreign policy could influence public opinion on the island, a new report issued by Incheon National University in South Korea says.
For decades, the US has adhered to a doctrine of strategic ambiguity over Taiwan, largely acknowledging Beijing’s One China principle while continuing to maintain legal commitments that enable US forces to participate in Taiwan’s self-defence. That stance has broadly been seen as a means of deterring any unilateral moves towards independence in Taipei while also discouraging military adventurism from Beijing the report by Assistant Professor Dr. Kyung Suk Lee in the Department of Political Science and International Studies claims.
According to Lee’s report, the geopolitical environment has now become more fluid. Political leaders in Taiwan have pursued a more distinct international profile as officials in Beijing have reiterated their commitment to eventual reunification as it is termed by China. Yet Washington has also expanded its official-level contacts with Taipei. Against this backdrop, researchers sought to test how alternative US policy signals might affect Taiwanese attitudes towards independence.
The study which was carried out by scholars at both Incheon National University and Sogang University in South Korea was published in the Journal of Chinese Political Science, and surveyed 900 Taiwanese respondents.
Participants were presented with six hypothetical scenarios combining two forms of Chinese pressure; coercive military build-up or direct military strikes, as well as three possible US responses including continued ambiguity, explicit defence commitments, or out and out abandonment of Taiwan.
The results pointed to a public that is pragmatic and essentially cost-conscious. Across all scenarios, the report shows that a clear majority preferred maintaining the status quo of de-facto independence as is, without any formal international recognition. Support for this position stood at 73% under conditions of Chinese coercion and 68%, even in the event of military strikes.
When China was described as engaging in coercive military pressure short of open conflict, clearer US security commitments, however, did see an increase in support for formal independence by respondents, while a signal of abandonment only reduced it. When the possibility of outright military attacks were introduced a noticeable shift was seen. In this scenario, US ambiguity generated a higher degree of support for clear Taiwanese independence than either an explicit pledge to defend Taiwan or a declaration of non-intervention.
In other words, once conflict escalates, clarity does not necessarily stiffen pro-independence sentiment and may in some cases dampen it.
The findings themselves are seen as highlighting two possible dynamics. The most obvious is that Taiwanese respondents prioritise stability and peace over symbolic moves towards outright sovereignty if those moves risk provoking large-scale conflict with Beijing.
Stated independence rather than the de-facto version enjoyed by the nation today, however, whilst a significant factor for some, is not an absolute objective at any cost. Secondly, the impact of US signalling one way or the other is contingent on the type and intensity of any potential Chinese action.
As such, for policymakers in Washington, the implications are delicate on the Taiwan question. Explicit commitments to defend Taiwan may strengthen pro-independence sentiment under limited coercion by China, and in turn this may potentially alter political incentives in Taipei. At the same time though, an outright declaration of non-defence of the island could weaken deterrence while also depressing public confidence.
Once conflict moves beyond coercion to direct attack though, the relationship between US clarity and Taiwanese opinion becomes more complex and far less predictable.
No comments:
Post a Comment