Taiwan faces an identity crisis as genuine global support falls short

In August, the Australian Senate passed a motion affirming that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) did not have sovereignty over Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC).

Two months later, a similar motion failed to pass Taiwan’s parliament.

The motions clarified United Nations Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, which cemented the PRC as China’s legitimate representative, expelling the ROC.

For decades, Beijing has tried to use this resolution to justify its “One China” principle, asserting that Taiwan, which today celebrates its national day, is an inseparable part of the PRC.

The senate motion argued the UN resolution did not explicitly determine Taiwan’s status as part of China.

The fact it didn’t gain traction in Taiwan’s parliament reveals an irony: international voices advocating for Taiwan can sometimes be louder than those within Taiwan itself.

The disconnect between international enthusiasm and Taiwan’s internal politics paints a complex picture of the island’s evolving identity.

In 1949, the Chinese Civil War paused, not concluded.

The Kuomintang (KMT), led by Chiang Kai-shek, retreated to Taiwan, taking with them the title of the “Republic of China” and its military forces. They occupied Taiwan along with the territories of Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland.

Despite this, the ROC continued to represent China at the United Nations.

The animosity between the two authoritarian regimes severed familial ties and created decades of division.

The UN Resolution 2758 was more than a shift in international recognition — it solidified a geopolitical truth that would shape Taiwan’s future.

The CCP’s interpretation of the decision eventually evolved into the “One China” policy — an unyielding stance that has underpinned its foreign diplomacy for over 30 years.

In contrast, Taiwan took a different path. The island underwent a peaceful democratisation process, transforming itself into one of Asia’s few vibrant democracies.

During the past three decades, a Taiwanese identity distinct from China has emerged, nurtured by education and political reforms.

Today, many of its citizens see themselves as “Taiwanese” rather than “Chinese”.

The concept of the ROC, once synonymous with the island’s identity, is increasingly a relic of the past.

Despite the growing sense of a separate Taiwanese identity, the question of Taiwan’s sovereignty remains a tightrope walk.

The government’s hesitation to pass the motion reflects the difficulty of balancing national sentiment with the international risks of declaring independence.

The road to independence

Taiwan’s sovereignty issue is fundamentally a tug-of-war between Beijing’s view of Taiwan as a renegade province and Taipei’s claim as a sovereign democracy.

Although more and more people identify with Taiwan over the ROC, changing the country’s official name remains politically sensitive.

Such a move would be interpreted as an official declaration of independence and ignite fierce political battles domestically.

Despite these challenges, Taiwanese governments have made subtle moves.

The Tsai Ing-wen government began using the term “ROC Taiwan” in official events and documents, including passports, which now prominently feature the word “Taiwan”.

These incremental changes are not just symbolic; they represent a growing emphasis on a Taiwanese identity and a gradual diminishing of the ROC’s relevance.

Her successor, Lai Ching-te, is seen as more assertive, yet he has surprised many with his pragmatism.

Lai’s message has shifted; he now emphasises unity, stating that whether it’s “ROC”, “ROC Taiwan”, or simply “Taiwan”, it is a call for togetherness.

His stance that Taiwan does not need to declare independence because it is already a sovereign state cleverly sidesteps the risk of provoking Beijing while validating the public’s desire to maintain the status quo.

Yet, this political balancing act also reveals Taiwan’s dilemma. Pushing too hard on identity or sovereignty risks alienating centrist voters who may shift their support to the KMT, the party more aligned with China.

The DPP’s focus on Taiwanese identity, while appealing to those advocating for independence, could also backfire in elections.

While Lai from the DPP won the election in January this year, Taiwan’s legislature was controlled by the KMT. 

Taiwan’s democracy, though vibrant, is not without its intricacies, and its future hinges on navigating these tensions.

The Western hypocrisy

Western nations like Australia and the United States, while professing to support democratic values, reveal their contradictions when it comes to Taiwan.

No Western government has established formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, even as they proclaim their support for its democratic system.

This double standard shows that despite the rhetoric, there is a reluctance to confront Beijing directly.

When it comes to the threat of war in the Taiwan Strait, Western politicians often seem more alarmed than the island’s own residents.

More than 61 per cent of surveyed Taiwanese believed China was unlikely to invade Taiwan in the next five years, but saw Beijing as a serious threat to the democratic island nation, according to a poll released by Taiwan’s top defence research think tank this week.

The “drumbeat of war” serves various interests — defence budgets are bolstered, media clicks increase, and politicians gain votes through the spectre of national security threats.

Yet, these voices often drown out the Taiwanese people’s call for peace and international recognition.

It’s important to note that China’s military threats are not new.

Since 1949, the CCP has maintained pressure on Taiwan, yet the level of Western alarmism has fluctuated over decades.

Although moderate voices advocating for peace and stability remain dominant within Taiwan, they fail to capture Western attention.

This creates a vacuum: Taiwan is only acknowledged in global discussions when there is a looming threat from China.

When China reasserts its “One China” principle, few diplomats challenge it by advocating for Taiwan’s right to participate in international bodies like the United Nations.

“If we could see a world where China was as committed to maintaining the cross-Strait status quo as we are, and as committed to preserving peace in the region, the situation would definitely change for the better,” said Ray Lu, Taiwan’s representative in Melbourne.

“If we could arrive at a point where the PRC ceased its constant grey zone activities, including its attempts to coerce and intimidate anyone who acknowledges the simple fact of Taiwan’s independence, then the region and the world at large would be in a much better position.”

China keeps Taiwan in check

If Beijing’s insistence on Taiwan as part of its territory is about sovereignty, then its approach has been selective.

The CCP has ceded land to Mongolia, Russia, and North Korea without much fuss. Taiwan’s situation, however, is treated differently.

The reason? It’s a strategic calculation.

Taiwan serves as a convenient adversary — a manageable conflict that justifies China’s military build-up and nationalist rhetoric without the risk of confronting a powerful rival.

At the heart of the “One China” policy lies the CCP’s insecurity.

For an authoritarian regime, legitimacy is everything, and Taiwan’s existence as a successful democracy threatens that.

If the ROC could be expelled from the UN in 1972, what’s to stop Taiwan from one day reclaiming its seat — or worse, replacing China as the legitimate government?

Before Xi Jinping took China’s top job, Taiwan was a headache that every one of his predecessors wanted to leave to their successors.

None of them wanted to be accountable for starting a war, which would most likely be condemned by the public — a potential risk to the CCP’s regime.

One thing we have overlooked from the history — back in the 1950s and ’60s, the UN debated the ROC’s status annually, with the United States rallying support.

Despite this, Chiang Kai-shek’s refusal of a “Two Chinas” solution has left a legacy that hampers Taiwan’s current efforts to gain international recognition.

Even with Taiwan’s democratic evolution and its citizens’ clear desire for recognition as an independent nation, the past casts a long shadow.

The decisions made in the past continue to complicate Taiwan’s pursuit of legitimacy on the global stage today.

As the geopolitical chessboard shifts, Taiwan remains stuck in a diplomatic limbo — a democracy struggling to be heard in a world where power politics often drowns out the voices of 23 million people.