In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, the reporter asked President Chen Shui-bian (
"This is not a question of envy," Chen replied, "but rather a question that if the Dalai Lama can, why can't Chen Shui-bian? If the Tibetan government in exile can, why can't the Taiwanese government?"
After the emotions aroused by the Sept. 15 Peace Rally in support of Taiwan's UN membership bid and at a time when Taiwan is facing diplomatic difficulties and strong opposition from the US, which believes that the UN referendum is part of the Democratic Progressive Party's election campaign, we should give serious consideration to what Taiwan's independence movement can learn from its Tibetan counterpart.
Tibet is economically weaker than Taiwan and it is politically much worse off than Taiwan owing to its proximity to China. Nevertheless, Tibet has far stronger support in the international community than Taiwan. While the Dalai Lama was received by US President George W. Bush at the White House, Chen was restricted to a transit stopover in remote Alaska.
What can Taiwan learn from Tibet?
First, the whole Western world has been deeply touched by the Dalai Lama and Tibet, and this has nothing to do with money or clever strategic considerations. Rather, it comes from basic human rights values that in effect are based on Buddhist compassion, and it is the Dalai Lama's interactions with scientists, his publications as well as the lecturing and missionary activities by high Tibetan monks that have affected the Western world so profoundly.
Second, the Dalai Lama's method of relying on social movements is acceptable to the West. For example, there is no tradition of Buddhist nuns in Tibet, which is a situation that the Dalai Lama hopes to change. He therefore organized the first international Congress on the role of Buddhist Women in the Sangha in Hamburg, Germany, in July.
In response to strong opposition from certain Tibetans at the conference, the Dalai Lama did not attempt to use authoritarian power to oppress these dissenters, but rather, he attempted to consolidate consensus through debate. This way of building vision using a top-down approach and encouraging active bottom-up participation are the core values of Western transformation management theory.
In contrast, Taiwan only shouts slogans about Taiwanese independence during election campaigns. The mercurial government policies keep changing and the great political agendas proposed by election candidates are no more than a superficial means in their political struggle and their quest for power. No wonder the US has expressed misgivings about the referendum.
Finally, Tibet's insistence on safeguarding its autonomy echoes the US belief that only by dogged determination to pursue happiness can that goal be achieved. If Taiwan does nothing to back up its professed goals by taking real action, it will never gain the US' understanding.
If Taiwan wants to achieve independence, its leaders must consider proposing a set of values that are universally accepted.
The independence movement should strive to build vision through a top-down approach and encourage active bottom-up participation to build a consensus among Taiwanese and win affirmation from the international community.
Only through determination can we establish an independent, democratic and free country.
Bob Kuo is a professor of Information Systems at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers