China's "Anti-Secession" Law has revived debates among academics, think tanks, and government experts in Washington about China's rise as a major power and its questionable behavior in dealing with other countries. In Taiwan, the atmosphere is about the dangers of this move by China, and the need for its people and political parties to unify and oppose it. Aside from this, however, has been the largely successful effort by Taiwan to remind the international community of its democracy, and the dangers the unilateral imposition of the law poses to peace in East Asia.
Influencing the international community these days is difficult on almost any subject. In the past, Taiwan largely depended on the US to help gain support in this area. It was nonetheless difficult even with that help, and with the changes that are taking place now, gaining international support has become even more complex and difficult.
In the 1980s, Taiwan's weight in dealing with the international community, including the US, was based on its growing economic strength. Inevitably there were many trade disputes that had to be dealt with, and even more imposing for Taiwan was the task of gaining access to international institutions. Nonetheless, it was the basis for the close relationship between Taiwan and the US.
In the early 1990s, I reported on the rapidly changing political atmosphere in Taiwan. It was clear then that democracy would quickly replace economics as the fundamental basis for the relationship. Unfortunately, while this was praised as being the right thing to do, it also was seen as unhelpful for the US in developing a better relationship with China, and trade therefore continued to be the focus of the bilateral relationship.
There were several actions that took place during this time that demonstrated the difficulties the US would have in coping with Taiwan's democratization. When the National Assembly amended the Constitution to require the direct election of the president, I reported that in the forthcoming 1996 election this would legitimize Taiwan's president. Though important in the nuanced world of cross-strait relations, this change was largely ignored.
The Taiwan Policy Review of 1995 had an excellent summary of the reasons for the review (Taiwan's rise as a democracy), but the results produced in the document did little to show US encouragement for democratization.
The visit to Cornell by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1995 demonstrated that as a democracy, Taiwan felt it had to raise its profile both for domestic political reasons and to strengthen critical international relationships. This of course was in conflict with US policy that Taiwan should keep a low profile to avoid tensions for itself and difficulties for America in the US-China relationship. But more important was the beginnings of greater confidence of voters in Taiwan to openly debate such heretofore sensitive issues as cross-strait relations -- implying that Taiwan's democracy was taking root.
When the new government surprisingly, but peacefully, came to power in 2000, the US' attention was on the problems a pro-independence ruling party would make for US-China relations. As a result, the US intervened in Taiwan's domestic politics even before the new president was inaugurated, to ensure that highly sensitive issues that impacted on US interests were safely managed. While the US hailed the first legitimate turnover of government in Taiwan as a major step forward in its democratization, it was also the beginning of a more involved US policy of intervention that guarded the status quo, but that impacted on Taiwan's democracy as well.
When time came to prepare for the next presidential election, the US again intervened when campaign rhetoric seemed to represent highly sensitive objectives that very likely would lead to dangerous tension between Taiwan and China (and potentially drag the US into war). Here too, an intervention that supported democratic values also blocked legitimate democratic activity.
Balancing the wish for democratic values and the need for security is a dilemma that is not unknown in any democracy. In Taiwan it is especially difficult at a time when the government gives a high priority to pursuing an even greater openness in the democratic process. This is seen in the increased number of people involved in non-governmental organizations and the abundance of public polls, among other activities that more rapidly engage the participation of voters in influencing government policies.
While Taiwan has its problems in legitimately seeking to strengthen its democracy at home, and has even more difficulty seeking support from the international community -- both for understanding its democracy as well as its critical need to keep open its economic relations with them -- helping in the war on terrorism could strengthen Taiwan's position as well.
During this time, US foreign policy places expanding democracy near the top of the agenda, but addressing terrorism is the first priority. The Middle East, as a result, absorbs most of the attention and resources for both priorities.
The US needs help in both eradicating terrorism and in spreading the democratic process to those countries that do not have it. The more that Taiwan can offer its experience in helping the latter, in Asia and elsewhere, the more the international community is likely to know about and support Taiwan's democracy. Its experience in getting a worldwide message to them on the Anti-Secession Law issue is a good beginning.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS