Successive governments have rightly boasted of Taiwan’s transformation from an authoritarian regime into a vibrant democracy and its peaceful transfers of power. Taiwan has also been heralded within and without as the first (ethnic) Chinese democracy, a beacon not only for those across the Taiwan Strait, but elsewhere in Asia.
The growing commitment to human rights by the citizens of this nation and the government — as evidenced by the passage into law of two key UN covenants and a willingness to tackle abuses internally and condemn those who commit such outrages in other nations — is also noteworthy, even though much remains to be done domestically to improve the treatment of migrant workers, especially in the fisheries industry.
Taiwan is held up both as a model of what is possible and as a rebuke to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its regime in Beijing to whom the merest whiff of criticism is anathema. In particular, under the two Democratic Progressive Party administrations, there has been much talk of using Taiwan’s soft power to counter China’s aggressive posturing and its continuous efforts to block this nation on the international stage.
However, one major “soft power” achievement has come not from the government, but from the grassroots level, although it is one that deserves the government’s full support.
Much has been written about how the Sunflower movement in the spring of 2014 — and its occupation of the Legislative Yuan — had a major impact on the development of the “Umbrella movement” that grew out of the Occupy Hong Kong protests that began in September 2014.
The exchange of ideas and visits between Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and young Taiwanese since 2015 led to an outpouring of support in Taiwan for Hong Kongers during the anti-extradition protests in the territory that erupted a year ago.
While Taiwanese finding common cause with Hong Kongers who want to retain the rights and freedoms that they have enjoyed is easy to understand — for as Hong Kong goes, so could Taiwan — what is really interesting is that young people and democracy advocates elsewhere in Asia are increasingly willing to speak up for Hong Kongers and Taiwanese in the face of China’s blatant oppression, both on the street and over the Internet.
A “Milk Tea Alliance” among netizens in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand and the Philippines emerged this spring, trolling China’s increasingly jingoistic online army that lashes out and threatens celebrities, multinationals and anyone else who directly or indirectly challenges Beijing’s “one China” mantra.
Like the Sunflower movement and pro-democracy supporters over the past year or more in Hong Kong, the alliance is self-initiated and spontaneous, interested in greater democracy in their own countries and others, as well as countering Beijing’s cudgel diplomacy, military assertiveness and regional ambitions, even if their own leaders are hesitant to do so.
Whether it is countering the CCP’s historical claims, China’s aggressive dam-building program that threatens those along the lower reaches of the Mekong River or Beijing militarizing the South China Sea, the power of the #MilkTeaAlliance is growing.
While members of this expanding pan-Asia alliance do not share the same language or culture, they share a conviction that they have the right — if not a duty — to criticize and challenge those in power for the betterment of their nations.
They are the living embodiment of the CCP’s worst nightmare — free-thinking individuals who are not afraid to speak their minds.
Just how much the CCP fears such people was made abundantly clear by Beijing’s overreach in its new National Security Law for Hong Kong, which includes the threat to go after anyone suspected of inciting secession even if they do not reside in the territory.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period