Dear President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九),
During the past year, we, the undersigned — scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Asia, Europe and Australia — have publicly expressed to your government our concerns about a number of trends and developments in Taiwan. On Nov. 6, 2008, and again on Dec. 2 in letters to Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), we focused on the issues of erosion of justice, significant flaws in the judicial system and judicial abuses against members of the democratic opposition.
On Jan. 21, 2009, and again on May 21, we addressed two open letters to you, Mr. President, expressing concern about the fairness of the judicial system, as well as erosion of press freedom and democratic checks and balances.
We regret to say that the responses received from Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) did not adequately address the issues raised, nor have we seen any substantive ameliorative steps taken to correct the problems.
Since then, a number of developments have taken place — some positive and some negative — which prompted us to write to you again to express our views on these issues. We wish to reiterate that we raise these points as strong international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation.
We also emphasize that we do not take sides in internal political debates, but do have Taiwan’s international image and credibility as an international partner in mind. Because of the hard work and perseverance of the Taiwanese people, Taiwan was able to make the transition to democracy two decades ago.
We applaud this achievement and strongly believe that this basic fact, democracy, is the strongest card Taiwan can play in building and strengthening its relations with other countries around the world and the strongest protection against outside interference in Taiwan’s internal affairs.
We are sure that you would agree with us that Taiwan’s young democracy can only grow and prosper if it is nurtured through good governance, accountability and transparency based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, justice and human rights. This would also adhere to both the letter and spirit of the two UN human rights covenants signed by you and ratified by the Legislative Yuan, and be enhanced by the implementation of these covenants into national law in accordance with the advice of the International Commission of Jurists.
During the past two decades, Taiwan has made major progress in each of these areas. It thus has been a disappointment for us to see an erosion of justice, a weakening of checks and balances in the democratic system and a decline in press freedom in Taiwan.
These trends are reflected in the significantly downward ratings Taiwan received in the annual reports of international organizations such as Freedom House and Reporters without Borders.
They are also reflected in the expressions of concern by international scholars and friends of Taiwan related to the flaws in the judicial proceedings against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the apparent lack of neutrality in the continuing “investigations” and indictments of other prominent members of the former DPP government. We thus appeal to you again to ensure that measures are taken to ensure the impartiality and fairness of the judiciary.
Good governance, accountability and transparency based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, justice and human rights are all the more essential now that your government is moving Taiwan on a path of closer economic ties with China. We believe that a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but emphasize that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy and human rights in Taiwan itself.
Thus, the process of improving relations with your large neighbor across the Taiwan Strait needs to be an open, deliberative and democratic process, in full consultation with both the Legislative Yuan and the democratic opposition, and fully transparent to the general public.
We are thus pleased to hear that officials of your government have stated that any agreement with China would need to have both a domestic consensus, including approval by the Legislative Yuan, and acceptance by the international community.
We trust this process will be open and consultative in ways that respect the democratic traditions begun so promisingly two decades ago. Indeed, we emphasize that a country can only grow and prosper if it has diversified ties — economically and politically — to other countries.
Too close an embrace with one neighbor will expose that country to the risks of volatility in the neighboring country, in particular if that neighbor remains authoritarian and openly disrespectful of Taiwan’s democratic achievements.
Mr. President, we wish to emphasize again that, as international scholars and writers who have followed, supported and applauded Taiwan’s impressive transition to democracy, we feel strongly that Taiwan should be more fully accepted by the international community as a full and equal partner.
This can only be achieved if Taiwan ensures that its democratic achievements are safeguarded, that its sovereignty, human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected, and that the democratic fabric of society is strengthened so the country is ready to meet the challenges ahead.
Respectfully yours,
NAT BELLOCCHI
Former chairman, American Institute in Taiwan
COEN BLAAUW
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington
GORDON CHANG
Author, “The Coming Collapse of China”
EDWARD FRIEDMAN
Professor of political science and East Asian studies, University of Wisconsin
PETER CHOW
Professor of economics, City College of New York
STEPHANE CORCUFF
Associate professor of political science, China and Taiwan studies,
University of Lyon
MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen
JUNE TEUFEL DREYER
Professor of political science, University of Miami
JOHN TKACIK
Former senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former officer at the Taiwan Coordination Desk, Department of State, Washington
TERRI GILES
Executive director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles
MICHAEL RAND HOARE
Emeritus reader at the University of London
CHRISTOPHER HUGHES
Professor of international relations, London School of Economics and Political Science
THOMAS HUGHES
Former chief of staff to the late senator Claiborne Pell, Washington
BRUCE JACOBS
Professor of Asian languages and studies, Monash University
RICHARD KAGAN
Professor emeritus of history, Hamline University
JEROME KEATING
Associate professor, National Taipei University (retired). David Kilgour
Former member of parliament and secretary of state for Asia-Pacific
(2002-2003), Canada
ANDRE LALIBERTE
Associate professor, School of Political Studies,
University of Ottawa
DANIEL LYNCH
Associate professor, School of International Relations,
University of Southern California
LIU SHIH-CHUNG
Visiting fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington
VICTOR MAIR
Professor of Chinese language and literature, University of Pennsylvania
DONALD RODGERS
Associate professor of political science, Austin College
CHRISTIAN SCHAFFERER
Associate professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, chair of Austrian Association
of East Asian Studies
SCOTT SIMON
Associate professor, University of Ottawa, Canada
MICHAEL STAINTON
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto
PERRY LINK
Professor emeritus of
East Asian Studies,
Princeton University
PETER TAGUE
Professor of law,
Georgetown University
ARTHUR WALDRON
Lauder professor of international relations, University of Pennsylvania
VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG
Professor of political science, University of Richmond
GERRIT VAN DER WEES
Editor of “Taiwan Communique,” Washington
STEPHEN YATES
President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the US vice president for national
security affairs.
Even clumsy communicators occasionally say something worth hearing. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, for example. He has of late been accused of muddling his messages in support of Ukraine and much else. However, if you pay attention, he is actually trying to achieve something huge: a global — rather than “Western” — alliance of democracies against autocracies such as Russia and China. By accepting that mission, he has in effect taken the baton from US President Joe Biden, who hosted a rather underwhelming “summit for democracy” in December. That was before Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine, when rallying the freedom-loving nations
In the past 30 years, globalization has given way to an international division of labor, with developing countries focusing on export manufacturing, while developed countries in Europe and the US concentrate on internationalizing service industries to drive economic growth. The competitive advantages of these countries can readily be seen in the global financial market. For example, Taiwan has attracted a lot of global interest with its technology industry. The US is the home of leading digital service companies, such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The country holds a virtual oligopoly of the global market for consumer digital
Ideas matter. They especially matter in world affairs. And in communist countries, it is communist ideas, not supreme leaders’ personality traits, that matter most. That is the reality in the People’s Republic of China. All Chinese communist leaders — from Mao Zedong (毛澤東) through Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), from Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) through to Xi Jinping (習近平) — have always held two key ideas to be sacred and self-evident: first, that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infallible, and second, that the Marxist-Leninist socialist system of governance is superior to every alternative. The ideological consistency by all CCP leaders,
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.” Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.” First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with
RSS