President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has often said that rapprochement with Beijing would, over time, have a salutary effect on the political situation in China, a theory predicated on the assumption that democracy can be transferred by osmosis.
Although this strategy is worth considering, it also imposes responsibilities on the actor seeking to change the other party. Among them is the need to use carrots and sticks in equal measure.
It is one thing for countries to look the other way when all they seek are lucrative deals with China. Reprehensible as this may be, a narrow, self--interest-first approach to China dovetails perfectly with Beijing’s loathing for foreign meddling in its domestic affairs. In most cases, both parties are perfectly happy to operate under this arrangement.
For some years now, academics and government officials have claimed that market capitalism would force China to democratize, even if this only occurred over time.
However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Chinese Communist Party has managed to embrace capitalism while keeping its hand firmly on the levers of power. What this means, therefore, is that democratizing requires a more sustained and multifaceted approach.
The Ma administration’s strategy could be just that, as it presumes to be in a position to “improve” China. In other words, while other governments can easily separate business from politics, Ma’s strategy of engagement calls, in theory, for a more refined approach.
However, Taipei has so far failed to comment on Beijing’s poor human rights record, with engagement continuing apace even when China broke the tacit rules that underpin Ma’s strategy.
This year alone, Chinese goons have beaten up rights activists and Beijing has ignored the mistreatment of foreign reporters by hooligans, been caught up in a high-profile espionage case against Taiwan and continued to undermine freedom of the press around the world.
While dissidents waste away in jail and national security secrets are smuggled into Chinese hands, senior Chinese officials — some of whom are documented human rights abusers against Falun Gong members, among others — are wined and dined by Ma’s officials as they seed Taiwan with Chinese money to win over “hearts and minds.”
It is hard to take claims by Ma’s circle that it has the rights of Taiwanese and Chinese at heart seriously when the likes of former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) buddies up with provincial repressors-in-chief like Liaoning Governor Chen Zhenggao (陳政高). To be fair, it is equally difficult to swallow the rhetoric of local Democratic Progressive Party politicians who, while claiming to defend Taiwanese democracy against Chinese rapacity, are also rolling out the red carpet for envoys such as Beijing’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), who will visit later this week.
Trade and investment alone will not bring about political liberalization in China. Such a goal will only be achieved by a refusal to compromise on core values. Otherwise, engagement will transform democracies, which by their very nature are malleable, while autocratic China becomes stronger.
For distant countries with few cultural ties to China (and whose territory is not claimed by Beijing), the cost of transformation may appear marginal. However, for Taiwan, human rights and liberty are pieces in a zero-sum game against an opponent that refuses to give even one inch. Compromising, therefore, holds dire consequences for the future of Taiwan as a free society.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS