A democracy cannot exist without freedom of expression, just like a body cannot survive without eating. To live, we must eat; to have democracy, we must have freedom of speech.
If the talk of "provocative" behavior toward China that comes from US officials holds water in reference to Taiwanese conducting a referendum, then morality must equally be considered a matter of provocation toward thugs, and democracy itself must be a provocation toward dictatorships.
The day after Taiwan's referendum on applying for UN membership is the 233rd anniversary of the speech by American patriot Patrick Henry in which he coined the famous words "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Henry called on Americans to start a revolution for independence from Britain. Founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were present when Henry made his speech.
The upcoming referendums are expressions of Taiwanese public opinion. The wishes of Taiwanese are simpler and more fundamental than those in the American colonies in the 18th century.
It's a pity that now, more than 200 years after Henry's famous words, the Taiwanese desire to exercise their right to freedom of political expression is met with comments by the US secretary of state to the effect that it is a "provocative policy."
It's truly regrettable that the political ideals behind the creation of the US have fallen so far.
China fears referendums, and US politicians fear Taiwan's UN referendum.
This, however, is not the end for Taiwan's democracy and freedom, but rather a turning point.
The real reason the US is calling the UN referendum provocative is that the legitimacy of the referendum leaves them with no means to reject its outcome. Hence, the referendum has nothing to do with provocation.
Instead, it is Taiwan's best weapon for defending its freedom. Whether Taiwanese will be democratic and free masters of their own fate, or emasculate themselves to become slaves of the US and Chinese will be decided by their courage in using this treasure.
The reason Taiwan has long been on the side of the US is that the two countries share common values and interests. If US politicians want to be Chinese mouthpieces on all kinds of issues and put pressure on Taiwan, then the Taiwanese and the Americans will have fewer shared values and interests.
The US is going too far in transmitting China's edicts.
Washington's behavior might even make Taiwanese wonder if it is, in fact, US politicians who are trying to keep Taiwanese from deciding their own future in order to profit from the dispute and reap benefits from both sides.
By causing this misunderstanding among Taiwanese, US politicians have hurt the Taiwanese public's faith in their country. The result is that Taiwanese are being gradually pushed toward China.
This is a tragedy for Taiwan and it is also damaging to US interests and democracy around the world.
This is perhaps also China's ultimate motive for placing pressure on the US to make Taiwan obedient.
Lin Chia is an independent commentator.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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