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
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS