Every responsible government has to consider issues such as national security and national interests when making policy decisions.
What sort of decisions are harmful to national security and national interests? There is no clear-cut answer to this question, but what is certain is that the government does not have an absolute say on policies in cases where the government or the majority want to restrict personal freedoms in the name of national security and national interests.
While the government does not have an absolute say on such issues, neither does anyone else — for example, opposition parties or academics. In the end, it is the government that makes the decision.
There is one principle by which a government that espouses liberalism must stand, and this is that the government’s definition of “national security” or “the national interest” cannot cite values that may reasonably be disputed — whether it be establishing the Kingdom of God, reviving Confucianism or achieving the world’s highest GDP per capita. In addition, the government should only restrict personal freedoms when they pose a clear and immediate threat to national security and the national interest.
Although the principles of liberalism do not restrict a government from pursuing goals that may reasonably be disputed, the question is whether basic personal freedoms are restricted. A government has a rather wide scope of power, even to meet goals such as distributive justice, without having to restrict basic personal freedoms.
As soon as a government betrays the principle of liberalism by restricting personal freedoms, even if it claims that it is doing so for national security or interests, its decisions will lack legitimacy.
China seeks to hinder exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer’s activities around the world, so most people would agree that it would have a negative affect on cross-strait relations if the government let Kadeer visit.
Undeniably, cross-strait relations are an important part of our national security and interests, so our government believes that not allowing Kadeer to visit is a legitimate decision with a sound legal basis.
It would be wrong if we focused our debate over this question on whether Kadeer has links to terrorist groups, because this is not the real reason for the government’s decision. Rather, it should be asked whether the government’s decision stands up to the test of the principle of liberalism if the reason for rejecting Kadeer is to avoid hurting cross-strait relations.
If letting Kadeer visit would have the same result as declaring de jure independence likely would — namely, China launching a military invasion — then this would constitute an immediate and clear threat to national security. The government would be justified in blocking her visit.
But that is not the case. Much more likely is that China would take retaliatory measures involving economic losses for Taiwan and less room for Taiwan to maneuver internationally.
How serious the effects of this would be can be discussed, but it definitely would not be as devastating as war.
In defining Taiwan’s national security and interests in terms of cross-strait peace, the government is probably not citing values that may reasonably be disputed. However, in order to comply with the principles of liberalism, the government may only restrict personal freedoms that pose a clear and immediate threat to cross-strait peace.
Allowing Kadeer to visit would not pose an immediate threat to cross-strait peace, and the government’s ban on her is therefore unjustified. Yes, allowing Kadeer to visit would produce clear and immediate negative effects, but those effects would be losses to the economy and Taiwan’s room to maneuver in international affairs.
So if the government were to define national security and interests in terms of the economy and international room to maneuver, and then restrict individual freedoms in the name of national security and national interest, could it say it is not citing values that may reasonably be disputed?
This claim would be unconvincing. A government that truly espouses liberalism should develop cross-strait relations in a way that is beneficial to Taiwan on the condition that basic individual freedoms are respected and guaranteed.
Shei Ser-min is a professor of philosophy at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON AND JULIAN CLEGG
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS