Every responsible government has to consider issues such as national security and national interests when making policy decisions.
What sort of decisions are harmful to national security and national interests? There is no clear-cut answer to this question, but what is certain is that the government does not have an absolute say on policies in cases where the government or the majority want to restrict personal freedoms in the name of national security and national interests.
While the government does not have an absolute say on such issues, neither does anyone else — for example, opposition parties or academics. In the end, it is the government that makes the decision.
There is one principle by which a government that espouses liberalism must stand, and this is that the government’s definition of “national security” or “the national interest” cannot cite values that may reasonably be disputed — whether it be establishing the Kingdom of God, reviving Confucianism or achieving the world’s highest GDP per capita. In addition, the government should only restrict personal freedoms when they pose a clear and immediate threat to national security and the national interest.
Although the principles of liberalism do not restrict a government from pursuing goals that may reasonably be disputed, the question is whether basic personal freedoms are restricted. A government has a rather wide scope of power, even to meet goals such as distributive justice, without having to restrict basic personal freedoms.
As soon as a government betrays the principle of liberalism by restricting personal freedoms, even if it claims that it is doing so for national security or interests, its decisions will lack legitimacy.
China seeks to hinder exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer’s activities around the world, so most people would agree that it would have a negative affect on cross-strait relations if the government let Kadeer visit.
Undeniably, cross-strait relations are an important part of our national security and interests, so our government believes that not allowing Kadeer to visit is a legitimate decision with a sound legal basis.
It would be wrong if we focused our debate over this question on whether Kadeer has links to terrorist groups, because this is not the real reason for the government’s decision. Rather, it should be asked whether the government’s decision stands up to the test of the principle of liberalism if the reason for rejecting Kadeer is to avoid hurting cross-strait relations.
If letting Kadeer visit would have the same result as declaring de jure independence likely would — namely, China launching a military invasion — then this would constitute an immediate and clear threat to national security. The government would be justified in blocking her visit.
But that is not the case. Much more likely is that China would take retaliatory measures involving economic losses for Taiwan and less room for Taiwan to maneuver internationally.
How serious the effects of this would be can be discussed, but it definitely would not be as devastating as war.
In defining Taiwan’s national security and interests in terms of cross-strait peace, the government is probably not citing values that may reasonably be disputed. However, in order to comply with the principles of liberalism, the government may only restrict personal freedoms that pose a clear and immediate threat to cross-strait peace.
Allowing Kadeer to visit would not pose an immediate threat to cross-strait peace, and the government’s ban on her is therefore unjustified. Yes, allowing Kadeer to visit would produce clear and immediate negative effects, but those effects would be losses to the economy and Taiwan’s room to maneuver in international affairs.
So if the government were to define national security and interests in terms of the economy and international room to maneuver, and then restrict individual freedoms in the name of national security and national interest, could it say it is not citing values that may reasonably be disputed?
This claim would be unconvincing. A government that truly espouses liberalism should develop cross-strait relations in a way that is beneficial to Taiwan on the condition that basic individual freedoms are respected and guaranteed.
Shei Ser-min is a professor of philosophy at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON AND JULIAN CLEGG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS