As next year’s presidential election looms, the issue of cross-strait relations is once again being discussed and debated. Putting to one side the conduct of the election, cross-strait relations is an issue of vital concern for the future of Taiwan’s 23 million residents and will have implications for the development of the Chinese-speaking world. The issue demands serious attention.
With the thawing of once-frosty relations between Taipei and Beijing, there has been frequent contact across the Taiwan Strait, as well as political and social changes in both countries. Cross-strait relations must be examined and adjusted accordingly.
There are essentially two directions from which people approach the issue: “unification” on one hand and independence on the other.
The former has to do with nationalism, the latter with freedom.
From a nationalist perspective, cross-strait relations derive from tensions between Taiwanese nationalism and Chinese nationalism, from how they feed off each other and clash.
The former is based upon expansionism, the second upon self-determination. These aspirations significantly inform cross-strait relations to this day. That said, compared with tensions born of nationalism in other places around the world, which mainly derive from ethnic, religious or linguistic differences, the fundamental differences between Taiwan and China are certainly not of this nature.
The most important difference between the two sides is not related to ethnic, religious, linguistic or cultural factors; it stems from desires for freedom, democracy and human rights.
The picture of cross-strait relations changes when seen from the perspective of freedom: The conflict then pits freedom and democracy against autocratic dictatorship.
Taiwan wants to protect its democratic society and the values of freedom and human rights. Behind this is the idea that the tension between the two sides is a localized example of a wider conflict pitting freedom and democracy against autocratic dictatorship that is being played out worldwide.
As a democracy, Taiwan — with its defense of freedom — is in a position to secure the understanding and approval of the international community, which is both beneficial to securing international support and in avoiding internal ethnic conflicts. The nation’s democracy could galvanize people with a shared commitment to protecting freedom and could gain the support of the Chinese-speaking world.
Within the conceptual framework of freedom and democracy versus an autocratic dictatorship, the balance of power is likely to shift slightly in Taiwan’s favor.
This is because freedom, democracy and human rights are universal values that are the shared tongue of the civilized world, which — despite a rather difficult geographic location — have helped create the only free, democratic system in the Chinese-speaking world.
This is the nation’s strength, and a new narrative of cross-strait relations should be founded upon it.
The move from nationalism to democracy is to be the paradigm shift in the narrative informing cross-strait relations. It was German philosopher Immanuel Kant who said, on discoursing about the possibility of perpetual peace between societies, that it could exist only between free, democratic countries.
Post-democratization, Taiwan expects China to choose the same path, so that both sides can pursue perpetual peace and development.
Ho Hsin-chuan is a professor in National Chengchi University’s philosophy department.
Translated by Edward Jones and Paul Cooper
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS