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
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS