Editor's note: This is an edited version of a speech delivered to the National Press Club in Washington on Oct. 21.
Ladies and gentlemen: I am delighted to have the opportunity to come to the United States of America, a country built upon the spirit of democracy and freedom. Several hundred years ago, your forefathers braved dangers to reach a new land. In 1776, they adopted the Declaration of Independence, which provides that all men have certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are formed to secure these rights upon the consent of the governed.
When our ancestors came to Taiwan, they may not have had a Mayflower Compact, but they possessed the same intention of pursuing freedom and happiness. This ideal of the Taiwanese people was gradually realized, step by step, in 1989, the beginning of Taiwan's democratic era.
As with its economic miracle, Taiwan's democratic reforms have been a success story that has won the attention of the world. During the democratization process, I led a KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] government that listened carefully to the people's demands, to respect the will of mainstream popular opinion and to become the main force for promoting reform. At that time, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) also advocated reform, and therefore both parties, though competitors, worked together shoulder to shoulder on political reform. Through tenacious efforts, authoritarian rule gradually gave way to the boulevard of democracy. The ethnic tensions that materialized in the 1940s also dissolved under the harmony of democracy.
In the year 2000, Chen Shui-bian (
During the last decade of the 20th century, the tidal "third wave of democratization" that began in the early 1970s swept over Taiwan. We accepted our baptism into this third wave of democratization through a "quiet revolution" without bloodshed, though there were inevitable social tensions and conflicts. Taiwan's democratic experience earned the attention of Professor Samuel P. Huntington, the renowned political scientist.
Yet, as Professor Huntington has noted, some of the countries that were part of the "third wave of democratization" face obstacles, and thus, may not become full democracies.
Where do the threats to Taiwan's democracy come from? There are certain political parties in Taiwan that are anti-democratic. These remnants of the authoritarian era, which are unwilling to give up their vested interests or face the fact that authoritarian rule has crumbled, attempt to baffle the people using ideology in an attempt to usurp the choice of the people. In Taiwan, this anti-democratic force is quite rampant and supported by the Chinese totalitarian regime.
China, across the Taiwan Strait, has never wavered from its ambitions to annex Taiwan, although its tactics may have changed. For example, in the past they launched missiles to threaten Taiwan, but the Taiwanese people stood tall.
Now they adopt softer tactics such as economic profits to attract Taiwanese, however the substance is still the same. As long as Taiwan is not subsumed into China, Chinese tyranny will never cease offering incentives and applying coercions. The anti-democratic forces, with their ideological wrappings inside Taiwan, quickly became good friends with the authoritarian Chinese. With the support of the Chinese, their anti-democratic actions become less restrained and less hampered. The interplay of these internal and external factors has led to complexity and confusion in Taiwan's national identity. This is the most significant threat to Taiwan's democracy.
Some Asian leaders advocate so-called "Asian values." Asian traditions are not irreplaceable, yet the political process of some countries shows that "Asian values" ultimately are used as an excuse to deprive the people of human rights, and so become a major stumbling block in their path to full democracy. Fortunately for Taiwan, the influence of Confucian traditions is not entrenched enough to create this problem.
Currently, the major issue for Taiwan to resolve in its path toward full democracy is the confusion in its national identity. Various surveys show that more and more Taiwanese people see themselves as being Taiwanese or do not deny that they are Taiwanese. This is proof of the assimilation of different ethnic groups in Taiwanese society under democracy.
Regrettably, those political groups that have been rejected by the voters use political maneuvers to fracture social harmony and stir dissent over national identity. They want to adopt the "Greater China" ideology -- used in the authoritarian period to amass power -- to subvert modern, democratic Taiwan. Today, their support comes not from domestic voters, but from the hegemonic arguments, military threats and economic tactics of China across the Taiwan Strait.
Undeniably, Chinese national power is growing, and "bringing Qing soldiers through the gate," or using a Trojan horse, which refers to those political groups' cooperation with the communists in order to control Taiwan, worsens the nation's predicament.
For Taiwanese people to overcome these challenges, they must first strengthen national identity. If we look closely at Taiwan, we find that the Taiwanese people of over 50 years ago and the Taiwanese people of 50 years hence have undergone a qualitative change.
In the past, after being brainwashed by outside regimes, Taiwanese had no choice but to deem themselves Chinese. Today, more and more people have come to realize that this was both a fabrication of fact and history.
In reality, during the process of democratic reform in the last decade of the 20th century, we frequently asked ourselves, "Who am I? Who are we?"
Professor Huntington also mentions in his new book, Who are We?, that many countries face various national identity issues, albeit in varying form and substance, adding that in Taiwan, the national identity of the people is in the midst of dissolution and reconstruction.
The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said: "... man, being condemned to be free, carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and himself as a way of being."
Speaking of which, I cannot help but think of the philosophy established by Immanuel Kant's three major critiques. My inspiration from his philosophy is this. Humans must understand their own limitations in order to manage self-reliance and motivation so that life is elevated to a higher purpose and becomes more worthwhile. If we take his analysis to a higher level, we find that what Kant said, "Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," to be very significant. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1966 undoubtedly represent modem interpretations of this proposition. It is the obligation of the Taiwanese people to themselves and the world to strive for the realization of international human-rights standards delineated in these covenants.
"New-era Taiwanese" ought to engage in such philosophical analysis and take action to practice it, starting from invigorating their minds to realize Friedrich Nietzsche's "revaluation of all values" (Umwertung aller Werte) so that they can shape an all-encompassing spiritual transcendence and cultural renewal.
It would not be difficult for such enlightened Taiwanese to break the shackles of historical fabrications and develop a firm and resolute national identity for a democratic Taiwan.
Only upon this new foundation can democracy eradicate lingering ethnic conflict, prevent anti-democratic political forces from stirring up unrest out of self-interest, and stop the political warfare arising from the hegemonic "Greater China" ideology from gaining the advantage.
A national identification based on democracy is the best guarantee for Taiwan's democracy. Like some of the other countries involved in the third wave of democratization, Taiwan has also lapsed into a worrisome democratic cadence in recent years. This is a situation that cannot be ignored by friends who are concerned about Taiwan's democratic development.
In the future, whether the democratic achievements that Taiwan has made in "the third wave of democratization" will be further consolidated or instead take an unfortunate step backward will affect the expansion or contraction of global democratic values. In other words, how democratic countries can support each other deserves everyone's close attention.
From a geopolitical point of view, the strengthening of Taiwan's democracy is an important link in the democratic front line of defense in the Asia-Pacific region. Once this line is broken, it will be devastating for global democracy and peace.
Yet I would like to make an optimistic prediction that the threats to Taiwan's democracy will not be fatal as long as we do not lose confidence in democratic values, as long as our democratic functions do not head off track, as long as our legal institutions improve and as long as the 23 million people of Taiwan eventually deem their national identification with Taiwan to be natural and proper.
At some point in the future, Taiwan will march with even firmer steps toward the goal of becoming a full democracy.
Lee Teng-hui is the former president of Taiwan.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS