Last Friday I received an e-mail from Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) responding to “Open letter to Taiwan’s president” (Nov. 13, page 8), which I signed with many other academics. This was one of a series of letters we have written concerning Taiwan’s eroding democratic freedoms, judicial systems and international relations. Su has responded in detail to the previous letters by defending the operations of the government with regard to the judicial system, and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) democratic reforms and policies.
But this time, Su wanted to justify and praise Taiwan’s system by referring to the “international community’s assessments” on these matters. His attempt to defend Taiwan by using international standards actually backfired in several ways.
Let me explain in some detail why I question the minister’s research and the professionalism of the GIO.
First, Su uses faulty methodology to prove his point by not providing a context for his argument. He correctly points out that Freedom House ranks Taiwan among the “free” countries of Asia. In the combined ratings of Political and Civil Liberties, Taiwan scores 1.5. This puts it with Israel, Japan and South Korea. The rank of No. 1 is filled mainly by European countries as well as the US and Canada. What he fails to note is that China is scored 6.5 out of a 7-point ranking. China is paired with Zimbabwe and just below Myanmar and North Korea, who scored a 7.
Why, then, is the Ma administration seeking rapprochement with China? How can a democratic country be so blind as to seek close relations with a government that is one of the most among authoritarian societies in the world? Who will benefit? Which is the likelier scenario — that China will force Taiwan to become less free, or that Taiwan will help China become more democratic?
We can actually see the consequence of this relationship in the Corruption Perceptions for this year. Su claims that Taiwan’s ranking in the report on 180 countries issued by Transparency International rose to No. 37. This statement reveals political alchemy at its best. For instance, Taiwan’s score in 2007 was 34. Numerically it did rise to 37. But the higher a country gets, the greater the index of corruption. Somalia is rated at No. 180. In fact, Taiwan fell into greater corruption by three points.
China, meanwhile, moved from 72 in 2007 to is worst score ever, at 79, this year. By Su’s admission, both “regions” (Taiwan and China) are slouching toward Somalia in the corruption index.
Since we talked about Taiwan’s relations with China in our letter, it is important to place Taiwan in the context of Beijing’s power and influence to control cross-strait dialogue.
One can see this most significantly when analyzing press freedoms. Freedom House reports that China has a system of control that “originated under classic totalitarian conditions” and is being modernized to serve the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership. In 2005, China was ranked as No. 177 out of a total of 194 countries. Freedom House does not include in its analysis China’s policies in Tibet. If Tibet had been considered, China’s ranking would certainly have been even worse.
How can Chinese make a rational and educated decision about policies toward Taiwan when they live in an iron box of propaganda? When Beijing talks about the feelings of the Chinese people, how does the leadership know what the people think if it does not allow certain information to be circulated, or criticism of its policies? And why would Taipei believe that Chinese have any independent ideas about cross-strait relations when they are ruled by a state that is similar to Myanmar and North Korea in preventing its people from having freedom of the press, freedom to form political parties and freedom to live in a system ruled by law?
What Su needs is an international standard for judging how governments treat each other. For instance, when looking at some of the international organizations that the minister mentions, I could not find any place called “Chinese Taipei,” “Chinese Taiwan” or “One China.” Freedom House, unlike Beijing and Taipei, uses the appropriate name of “Taiwan” and not any substitute to evaluate the country’s rights and freedoms. Why can’t the leadership in Taipei conform to this international usage?
Su defends his government’s policies through misuse of documents and through the use of irrelevant documents. It does not matter how democratic Taiwan appears to be. What is important to ask is: What happens when a democracy seeks to join one of the authoritarian countries in the world? Actually, what should be compared are the statistics on the ruling parties of each country. The government of China is ruled by the CCP and not by the people. And the government of Taiwan is slowly reverting to a one-party state. In the Taiwan Strait, it is the leaders of the political parties, not government officials, who negotiate.
From a historical perspective, Su is engaging in the colonization of his country by an empire. No mater how pure the pearl is, when it lands in stomach of the predator, it no longer shines.
Richard Kagan is professor emeritus at Hamline University in St Paul, Minnesota.
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