These are not good times for liberalism. The attacks of Sept. 11 struck the US -- rightly called the most open of all societies -- in the heart. Not only did thousands of individuals perish in the rubble of New York and Washington but the terrorists also targeted two outstanding symbols of the leading nation of the free world. They accomplished their goal in a truly shocking manner.
Some say it has been the very openness of the US system that invited the terrorists to commit their evil deeds. In the light of this unbearable provocation, it therefore comes as no surprise, that its politicians have already begun to limit this openness. This move has not been confined to the US but may be observed in more or less all Western countries, where the fear of becoming the target of terrorist violence is on the rise.
Civil liberties (for which liberals have fought long political battles), such as the protection of personal data, confidentiality in banking or protection from state surveillance, are seemingly overnight set aside in the interest of more security. For conservatives, who favor a powerful state, this is not a problem. Liberals, though, perceive imminent dangers and note that causing a political overreaction in Western societies was one of the prime objectives of the terrorist onslaught: "The worst and most long-lasting scar from the attacks could be an alteration of the US way of life," says Ivan Eland, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the liberal Cato Institute. "If the attacks result in the curtailment of US civil liberties in the name of increased security, the terrorists' triumph will be complete."
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Due to their stance, to position the defense of the freedom of the individual at the top of political considerations, liberals are often depicted as "softies." Occasionally even liberals' ability to confront terrorism effectively is put into doubt: "The chronic guilt that defines modern liberalism makes liberal politicians fundamentally unable to deal with terrorists," wrote a US scholar some while ago in a paper titled "Liberalism and Terror."
This is certainly an overstatement, if not a defamation of liberal politics. In political practice there exists more than one example that shows liberal politicians are well capable of dealing efficiently with terrorists. One of the instances coming to my mind is Germany's campaign against the so-called Red Army Faction-terrorists, led by an interior minister belonging to the liberal party. More fundamentally, it is incorrect that liberal theory prohibits the curtailment of civil liberties under all circumstances.
While liberals are proud of their tradition of standing in the frontline of protecting the freedom of the individual (including the freedoms of dissenters), this tolerance has its limits, when the very existence of the liberal polity is at stake: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection," writes John Stuart Mill, the leading British liberal thinker. This "doctrine of self-protection" permits infringement of civil liberties, if these are necessitated by the overriding goal to defend the democratic order. I believe, that in today's confrontation with international terrorism we have reached this point.
Developments in international politics, too, are contrary to liberal principles. With Washington solely concerned whether governments are for or against terrorism (and this without prior agreement what terrorism actually means), considerations such as human rights and democracy have ceased to be relevant for the US' foreign policy. The new alliance against terrorism is an alliance of odd bedfellows, definitely not built on a belief in common political values and principles. Warns one US commentator: "The US runs the risk of repeating the mistakes that it made during the Cold War, when the campaign for democracy was repeatedly besmirched and undermined by the very means employed to save it."
In the endless debate regarding suitable means of reacting to the terrorist onslaught, liberals often find themselves in one corner with the so-called "doves," with those who, unlike the "hawks," favor military force only as the last resort, or ultima ratio.
For good reasons, liberals shy away from violence as a means of political conflict. According to their anthropology, humankind is basically rational, and therefore open for other -- and more reasonable -- conflict resolution than warfare and armed battle. But unfortunately, today's world of realpolitik differs from this positive picture. The terrorist's mind may be called absolutist and unappeasable. His goals are not concrete, but vague as he ultimately aspires to no less than the destruction of the Western system. In this context, logically, there is no room for political compromise. Therefore, liberals have thrown their full support behind the notion that part of dealing with terrorism must be military in nature. At the same time they caution the aim of military action should not be revenge, and that innocent civilian lives should be spared. The main priority of military force must be to bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack of all times and all those who have assisted them.
Unfortunately, the terrorist menace is not done away with by neutralizing bin Laden and his thugs. President Bush has said on more than one occasion that we should be prepared for what is termed a long-lasting campaign.
In this context the economic, social and political conditions in those countries, that are the breeding grounds of terrorism must be given special attention: "The greatest long-term challenge for the global community is that of fighting poverty and promoting inclusion world-wide," says James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank. What is the most suitable recipe to alleviate poverty and improve the lot of the miserable societies we are talking about? Here, liberals have a crystal-clear and short answer: democracy and the market economy.
One of the many tragedies of our times is, that many consider these liberal principles not a solution, but actually part of the problem. Quite remarkably, many of the critics of liberalism are found in the West and owe their unprecedented freedom and prosperity to the very liberal traditions they reject.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation in Seoul and a commentator on Korean affairs.
Although former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo — known for being the most pro-Taiwan official to hold the post — is not in the second administration of US president-elect Donald Trump, he has maintained close ties with the former president and involved himself in think tank activities, giving him firsthand knowledge of the US’ national strategy. On Monday, Pompeo visited Taiwan for the fourth time, attending a Formosa Republican Association’s forum titled “Towards Permanent World Peace: The Shared Mission of the US and Taiwan.” At the event, he reaffirmed his belief in Taiwan’s democracy, liberty, human rights and independence, highlighting a
The US Department of Defense recently released this year’s “Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.” This annual report provides a comprehensive overview of China’s military capabilities, strategic objectives and evolving global ambitions. Taiwan features prominently in this year’s report, as capturing the nation remains central to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” a goal he has set for 2049. The report underscores Taiwan’s critical role in China’s long-term strategy, highlighting its significance as a geopolitical flashpoint and a key target in China’s quest to assert dominance
The Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) last week released the latest job vacancy data in Taiwan, which highlighted how many job openings firms had yet to be filled at the end of August last year. The data also revealed how the vacant positions were closely related to the business climate that industrial and services sectors faced at the time. The DGBAS collects data on job vacancies at the end of February, May, August and November every year. The number of job vacancies includes recruits for expanding operations and additional production lines as well as for openings related to
The Legislative Yuan passed legislation on Tuesday aimed at supporting the middle-aged generation — defined as people aged 55 or older willing and able to work — in a law initially proposed by Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Wu Chun-cheng (吳春城) to help the nation transition from an aged society to a super-aged society. The law’s passage was celebrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the TPP. The brief show of unity was welcome news, especially after 10 months of political fighting and unconstitutional amendments that are damaging democracy and the constitutional order, eliciting concern
RSS