Following weeks of demonstrations in Egypt that ultimately forced former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to step down on Friday, some commentators have suggested that events in North Africa could serve as a catalyst for discontent with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
There are, however, a number of reasons why this analogy is wrongheaded and Taiwanese not only cannot — but should not — go down that road.
For one, the situations in Egypt and Taiwan are very different. Taiwan does not have a radicalized and easily mobilized political opposition such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which has a long tradition of opposing despotic rule.
The closest Taiwan ever came to having a “radical” underground was in the 1970s, and even then its tactics were largely pacifistic, unlike the violence used by extremist wings of the Brotherhood, one of whose most prominent former members is al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Even at its worst, the repression imposed on Taiwanese during the Martial Law era pales in comparison to that Egyptians have faced for decades. This is not to delve into moral relativism, but merely to shed light on different histories that, in one case, gave rise to radicalism, while in the other led to peaceful opposition. This is also why Taiwan today is a mostly successful democracy, while Egypt remains an unstable society.
Demographics also play a large role. Egypt, with a population of 80.4 million, has about 49.5 million people between the ages of 15 and 64, compared with 16.5 million in Taiwan. Furthermore, more than 10 percent of Taiwan’s population is above 65, while in Egypt it is slightly above 4 percent.
Footage from protests in the two countries highlights the contrasts. In Taiwan, participants are predominantly gray-haired, while in Egypt, they consist mostly of angry youth (unemployment in Taiwan is considered high at 5.2 percent; in Egypt, it is about 10 percent).
The broader geopolitical context is also markedly different. Egypt does not face the threat of military invasion by an external actor should the “wrong” kind of leadership take power. That is not to say Washington or other regional powers would sit back and allow an extreme faction of the Brotherhood to take control of policy in Cairo, but the likelihood of a missile barrage on Egypt or outright invasion by a more powerful state is highly unlikely. Egypt’s territorial integrity and identity are not in question and it does not face an irredentist threat.
There is no doubt, however, that Beijing would react should a similar uprising occur in Taiwan. Widespread instability and chaos so close to home would inevitably prompt a response, lest such developments serve as an inspiration to China’s angry millions. That Beijing considers Taiwan part of its territory would also serve as justification for a decision to intervene and thereby ensure stability on its periphery.
Not only are most Taiwanese largely uninterested in the events that have transpired in North Africa, they do not see a connection between what happened there and their own lives.
As such, Taiwanese remain disinclined to seek the overthrow of the Ma administration. In fact, such an undemocratic course of action would bring nothing but ignominy for Taiwan and undermine what earlier generations sacrificed so much to build.
In many ways, the legitimacy of Taiwan as a de facto independent country is largely predicated on its democratic ideals. If those principles were to be abandoned, the global community would likely have little compunction in allowing China to intervene.
Democracy, warts and all, remains one of Taiwan’s strongest assets — one that must be protected at all costs.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has over the past few months continued to escalate its hegemonic rhetoric and increase its incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. The US, in turn, has finally realized how its “strategic ambiguity” is increasingly wearing thin. Similarly, any hopes the US had that the PRC would be a responsible stakeholder and economic player have diminished, if not been abandoned. Taiwan, of course, remains as the same de facto independent, democratic nation that the PRC covets. As a result, the US needs to reconsider not only the amount, but also the type of arms
Taking advantage of my Taipei Times editors’ forbearance, I thought I would go with a change of pace by offering a few observations on an interesting nature topic, the many varieties of snakes in Taiwan. I will be drawing on my experiences living in Taiwan five times, from my teenage years in Kaohsiung back in the early sixties, to my last assignment as American Institute in Taiwan Director in 2006-9. Taiwan, with its semitropical climate, is a perfect setting for serpents. Indeed, one might say serpents are an integral part of the island’s ecosystem. Taiwan is warm, humid, with lots of
China constantly seeks out ways to complain about perceived slights and provocations as pretexts for its own aggressive behavior. It is both victimization paranoia and a form of information warfare that keeps the West on the defensive. True to form, China objected even to the innocuous reference to Taiwan at April 16’s summit meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. Neither leader’s prepared remarks even mentioned Taiwan, out of deference to the Japanese side. Biden’s opening statement was modest: “Prime Minister Suga and I affirmed our ironclad support for US-Japanese alliance and for our shared security.
There is no ambiguity when it comes to war. Ambiguity begs for certainty and a lack thereof has historically led to war. History is full of examples: Europe’s and the US’ ambiguity as to how they would respond to Hitler’s growing territorial expansion in Europe was certainly a contributing factor to World War II. In the same vein, US ambiguity toward Japan’s expansionist militarism in the 1930s clearly led to the Pearl Harbor attacks that started the war in Asia in 1941. Ambiguity in a world with leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) will inevitably