For the past three decades, successive US presidents have adopted a policy of engagement with China: opening the US market to Chinese products, thus enabling the People’s Republic of China’s rapid economic growth and embracing it as a member of the community of nations, thus enhancing the legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule in the eyes of its citizens. This policy is based on the theory that economic reform will inevitably lead to political liberalization and democratic transformation, and that a democratic China will be friendly toward the US and its neighbors. In this scenario, the US should welcome the emergence of a more powerful China.
However, this theory has not panned out. The CCP abhors democracy, something amply demonstrated by the “Tiananmen Papers” (Andrew Nathan, Foreign Affairs, January-February 2001). According to Nathan, six party elders met with the Politburo’s Standing Committee on June 2, 1989, and decided on the removal of “counter-revolutionaries from Tiananmen Square. Both Li Peng (李鵬) and Li Xiannian (李先念) talked about the Goddess of Liberty statue erected by the students with venom. Wang Zhen (王震) fumed: “Anybody who tries to overthrow the Communist Party deserves death and no burial.”
The CCP abhors democracy for several reasons. First, democratization means the demolition of its monopoly on power (and wealth). Second, once the grip on the means of coercion is lost, emboldened citizens would demand a settlement of accounts for the party’s past sins, such as the tens of millions who perished during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the endemic malfeasance of party officials. Third, the CCP is convinced Western democracy is incompatible with Chinese culture and tradition. Finally, the CCP believes its socialist government is more efficient in achieving national goals such as economic growth, a powerful military and world domination.
During the 2007 session of the National People’s Congress, Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said China would remain at the “primary stage of socialism,” which requires guidance by the CCP, for at least another 100 years.
The preservation of Taiwan as an independent democracy is in accord with the interests of the US and its democratic allies in Asia, precisely because Taiwan’s democracy is a thorn in the side of the CCP.
Taiwan is a beacon of hope for those Chinese who aspire to a more open society that embraces the rule of law, freedom of expression and religion, and in which people can freely elect their officials and representatives at all levels of government. Taiwan’s experience invalidates the fallacy that democratic values are incompatible with Chinese culture.
An independent Taiwan hinders China’s projection of power into the Pacific and Indian Oceans and safeguards vital airspace and sea lines of communication for Japan and South Korea. The preservation of Taiwan’s freedom assists the US in maintaining its economic, political and military presence in East Asia and contributes directly to the peace and stability of the region and beyond.
For the 23 million Taiwanese, retaining their democracy means freedom from the CCP’s repressive rule and preserving the right to live in a free nation where their property, liberty and life are protected. It also ensures Taiwan’s ability as a de facto independent state to contribute to the welfare of the international community by offering technical assistance to developing nations, disaster relief and facilitating the prosperity of the global IT and communications industries through Taiwan’s role as a critical element of the supply chain.
Li Thian-hok is a distinguished fellow of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington.
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