While I assume that a majority of Taiwanese do not want to unnecessarily antagonize China, which has hundreds of missiles pointed in their direction, I can certainly understand why they would not want to be residents of China.
One only needs to look at the findings of the Freedom House, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Since 1972, Freedom House has ranked political and civil rights freedom for people around the world.
According to Freedom House, Taiwan was "not free" until the lifting of martial law in 1987 and only achieved a "free" political and civil rights ranking in 1996 when the nation held its first truly free presidential election. China, in comparison, is still "not free."
As far as the supposedly autonomous regions of Tibet and Hong Kong are concerned, Tibetans live in similar "not free" conditions with even a worse score than China itself, and Hong Kong has slipped from a "free" status when it was under British rule to only "partly free," according to Freedom House's findings last year.
In coming up with its rankings, Freedom House evaluates political rights in the following three categories: electoral processes, political pluralism and participation and the functioning of government.
On the civil side it evaluates four items: freedom of expression and belief, freedom of association and organization, the rule of law and personal autonomy and civil rights.
The highest (freest) score a populace can receive is 1/1 (1 in political rights and 1 in civil rights) and the lowest (least free) is 7/7 (7 in political rights and 7 in civil rights).
The US and Tibet have the highest and lowest scores possible respectively. Taiwan (since 1996) and Japan enjoy "free" status, while China is close to the bottom and Hong Kong has moved from free to partly free with a particular decline in political rights since its changeover from British to Chinese control.
Freedom House's data also reveals that although Taiwan is officially recognized by only a small number of countries compared to those that say they recognize only "one" China -- including some which state that Taiwan is part of China -- Taiwanese enjoy political and civil freedoms only experienced by the world's most advanced democracies.
Given the fact that ordinary Taiwanese are able to travel abroad and conduct business with these same democracies and that the US has declared quite firmly that it opposes the use of military force to remove the political and civil freedoms that Taiwanese enjoy, Taiwanese appear to enjoy domestic and international freedoms which are not as negative as some residents perceive.
If one posits that Taiwanese do value their political and civil rights but do not want to antagonize China unnecessarily by declaring independence, should one not also agree that a major issue in Taiwan's elections should be whether candidates favor maintaining the freedoms Taiwanese currently enjoy or are they willing to accept China's political and civil rights standards?
The official name of the Taiwanese government seems less important than whether its leaders are fighting to maintain or even improve upon the nation's political and human-rights records.
If I were Taiwanese I would want the person for whom I am going to vote for president and who is going to represent me in the legislature to answer the following questions:
* Are you committed to continuing the rights of Taiwanese to vote for their president and legislators in totally free, multiparty elections?
* Are you committed to maintaining the nation's air and naval forces at levels strong enough to deter any attempt to prevent the self-determination of free Taiwanese by military force?
* Are you willing to support a "US Relations Act" reciprocating US support for the right of Taiwanese to self-determination by pledging that Taiwan will view any attempt to determine the future of the nation by other than peaceful means -- including by boycotts or embargoes -- a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the Taiwanese people?
* Given that Taiwanese have been free from martial law for more than two decades, have enjoyed high levels of political and civil rights for a decade and are able to travel and do business freely, are you willing to forgo statements and actions challenging other countries' claims that Taiwan is part of China in favor of exerting efforts to ensure that Taiwan's political and civil freedoms continue?
If a candidate is willing to answer these questions affirmatively, I would seriously considering giving that candidate my vote.
Jim Auer is director of the Center for US-Japan Studies and Cooperation at Vanderbilt University.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with