Harvard professor emeritus Ezra Vogel recently visited Taiwan for the release of the Hanzi edition of his new book on former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平). During his visit, Vogel said Taiwan’s democracy was inspiring for China and could serve as a model for China’s democratic development.
While I fervently hope that China will become a democratic country, I cannot agree that the Taiwanese experience can serve as a model. First, Taiwan’s transition to democracy was very much due to the unique situation in Taiwan during the 1980s. The majority of Taiwanese had been disenfranchised during four decades of martial law under the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration and rose up to claim their right to a representative government. It is therefore very much a democracy with a Taiwanese character.
The situation is similar to the US’ experience: Americans are proud of their democracy and how they achieved it. No one on this side of the Atlantic would say that the US was the “first democracy on British soil.” US citizens do not deny their British heritage, or Irish, or Italian, or Afro-American, but emphasize that US democracy is the result of combined influences from many different cultural backgrounds.
The second reason is that the Chinese need to find their own unique way to achieve democracy. This cannot be spoon-fed or “inspired” by an old arch-enemy. Imagine if the US had sent an emissary to London in the early 1800s and told the British that the US presidential model should be inspiring them to do away with the House of Lords and Commons and set up an US-style congressional system. That would not have sat well with the British, who are proud of their history.
A third element of importance here is that of mutual recognition: The UK and the US are now the best of friends because they respect the others’ system of government and recognize each other’s sovereignty. The British queen has been the guest of honor at the White House in Washington, while the US president is a welcome guest in London.
As of now, the situation between Taiwan and China is still less than rosy: the latter claims sovereignty over Taiwan, although in the long history of the island it has never been ruled by China, while Taipei is twisting itself into “mutual non-denial” concoctions which are little understood, even to close observers.
As I have argued before (“Taiwan deserves normalized relations,” March 6, page 8), the best solution is for the international community — including China — to normalize their relations with Taiwan. This requires visionary leadership, in Taiwan itself and among the leaders of the US and Western Europe.
However, it is possible: This year, the US is commemorating the War of 1812, when the British returned to the US and burned down the White House and US Congress. Nobody thought 200 years ago that there would ever be mutual recognition, but now the US and the UK are the best of friends. There are even joyous celebrations in Washington titled “British Invasion Week.”
In the same way, Taiwan and China need to move toward mutual recognition. However, since China is big and Taiwan is small, the international community needs to be more supportive of Taiwan and prevail on China to accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor, just like the British eventually came to terms with the existence of the US.
That would be a good model for China to follow.
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 to 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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
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
RSS