US President George W. Bush's second inaugural speech is noteworthy for its lofty vision and moral clarity. He said oppression is always wrong and freedom is eternally right. "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Such exultation of freedom is in line with the US' historical tradition. Even before the US' independence Patrick Henry gave us the famous words: "Give me liberty or give me death." Former president Woodrow Wilson said "The world must be made safe for democracy," while the late president Ronald Reagan averred at the Berlin Wall: "The quest for freedom is the birthright of all humanity."
Some pundits, however, have criticized Bush's idealism as unrealistic and have pointed out that promoting democracy may even be the wrong priority in setting foreign policy. Others are turned off by the stark difference between Bush's optimistic rhetoric and the persistent violence in Iraq. Peggy Noonan, a prominent conservative commentator reminded Bush in the Wall Street Journal: "This is not heaven, it's earth."
Internationally there was unease with the inaugural speech's sweeping goals. Several senior US officials tried to assuage the concerns of friends and foes alike by stressing there has not been any change in existing policy. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Bush's pledge to fight tyranny did not signify a change in policy toward China and North Korea.
Does this mean Bush's freedom speech was merely high-minded inaugural rhetoric with no substantive policy consequences? The answer is clearly no. Bush's vision of advancing democracy is based on the realist's expectation that freedom will reduce terror and democracies tend to be more peaceful. Hence the words: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands ... America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."
The quest to end tyranny across the globe cannot be dismissed as an evangelical dream. When America declared independence in 1776, it was the sole democracy in the world. Now there are some 117.
An inaugural speech may be regarded as a long-range, basic strategic guide for making foreign policy. In applying the guiding principle, adjustment is then made at the tactical level in accordance with the circumstances of each case, and taking into account the exigencies of competing national interests.
For specific policies which Bush will adopt to spread democracy, we must wait for his State of the Union this week. In the meantime, the following are possible implications for US policy toward Taiwan.
First, the US will feel threatened by a rising China with its growing economy and increasingly powerful military so long as China remains a tyranny which violates the basic human rights of its citizens. China will be deemed a strategic competitor, even though the Bush administration has ceased saying so.
Second, Taiwan's democracy as beacon of hope for China's oppressed masses will be important. Taiwan's de facto independence will continue to be crucial to stability and peace in East Asia.
Finally, the US' commitment to help defend Taiwan will remain firm, provided the Taiwanese people demonstrate by words and deeds that they are truly committed to defend their hard-won freedom. As Bush said: "America's influence is considerable and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause ... When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you."
For Taiwan's government, there are several policy implications. First, it should refrain from talk of political integration with China or a future "one China." It should inculcate deeper democratic values in society.
Second, no effort or resources should be spared to strengthen national defense, improve the readiness of the armed forces and prepare the public psychologically for a potential invasion by the People's Liberation Army.
Third, reduce both the outflow of capital, technology and trained manpower to China and take effective measures to stem the influx of Chinese fifth column or special agents into Taiwan. The Constitution needs to be amended to deepen democracy and to improve government efficacy. It would be prudent to persuade both Washington and Beijing of the need and rationale for such constitutional reconstruction.
To evolve into a fully sovereign democracy Taiwan also needs to ultimately discard its old constitutional framework. This undertaking, however, should be commenced after close consultation with Washington and Tokyo and only when Taiwan becomes confident of its ability to overcome Beijing's violent reaction, which could take the form of a multi-pronged massive assault on Taiwan including military, economic, psychological and diplomatic warfare.
These are all urgent tasks since the balance of military and economic power is shifting steadily in China's favor. The status quo cannot be long maintained unless the Taiwanese commit themselves to a democratic future and work hard to attain that goal. Taiwan can have a bright future, but only if the people choose to live on the right side of history, in liberty and with dignity.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS