Former president Lee Teng-hui (
The disputes over sovereignty and independence between these two sides are absolute and definite, leaving no room for ambiguity and compromise. This controversy over national identity and sovereignty is serious but superficial. At a deeper level, China and Taiwan face differences and a clash between old, traditional civilization and new, modern civilization. Though different from the "clash of civilizations" predicted by political scholar Samuel Huntington, they are equally serious, deep and long-standing and must not be neglected.
Early this month, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission sent me to North America to speak to expatriates in Canada at six democracy and peace seminars. My main task was to elaborate on and promote Huntington's theory of the "third wave of democratization," and the trends of globalization, freedom and democracy as proposed by political scientist Francis Fukuyama, the causal relationship between democracy and peace, and the modern, civilized concept that China and Taiwan must resolve their national conflicts by peaceful, not military, means.
This task was clear and the logic seems to be simple and easy to understand. But in fact, I was constantly challenged and questioned by pro-China, pro-unification people. Although I tried my best to offer my answers and explanations, the war of words over a clash of "two civilizations" always ended in disagreement.
After China launched economic reforms, its people have rushed to migrate to democratic and advanced countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and those in Europe. The six cities I visited -- especially Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa -- have attracted a large number of Chinese immigrants since Canada eased its migration policies. Of the 500,000 ethnic Chinese residing in Toronto (including Taiwanese expatriates), 400,000 are from China.
Chinese immigrants in Canada are therefore powerful and influential. Most of them trumpet unification and oppose Taiwan's independence movement. They have organized activities to oppose Taiwan's independence and advocate unification, which are of course backed by the Beijing government. This has become an evident challenge to the national identity of Taiwanese expatriates.
Each of the seminars was attended by Chinese immigrants, who were always eager to attack my theory as soon as I finished my speech. The gist of their arguments is: China's long and glorious history is founded on Chinese people's traditional civilization of unification; over the past several thousand years, nationality, nation and state always override individual freedom, self-determination, human rights and dignity; and therefore, traditional nationalism carries more weight than individuals, freedom, human rights, self-determination and democratism.
Simply put, the state is more significant than people, and sovereignty is more crucial than democracy. This is opposition to democratization in China from the viewpoint of cultural theory.
They also argued that Chinese people are impoverished and poorly educated, and their economic development has fallen behind. Therefore, they said, liberalization and democratization are not suitable for China. In contemporary China, feeding people is the priority; neither freedom nor democracy are important. This is opposition to democratization in China from the viewpoint of economic theory.
This is also the argument and discourse Beijing's communist regime uses to oppose political modernization, liberalization and democratization, oppose Taiwanese people's right to self-determination and oppose holding referendums to make Taiwan an independent country.
There is indeed some logic behind the idea of a clash between traditional and modern civilizations. But against the backdrop of today's speedy developments in liberalization, democratization and globalization, these arguments have become outdated and even fallacious.
Although they could not come up with persuasive reasons after I offered my earnest and detailed explanations, I knew their nationalism was so deep-rooted that they still were not persuaded to understand and support the basic human rights and humanity that Taiwanese people should enjoy to hold referendums and decide Taiwan's future.
It is hard for them to accept the mainstream opinions that Taiwan is not an inalienable part of China and that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state.
After two weeks of speeches, I felt spent and anxious. Since it is difficult enough to convince the millions of Chinese immigrants, how can we persuade the 1.3 billion Chinese people, who have lived under Communist China's authoritarian rule and been brainwashed by "grand unification" nationalism?
A chill runs down my back every time I think about this.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asia Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing