Coinciding with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an uptick in the Taiwanese government’s rhetoric to frame bilateral issues with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and other international issues — often relating to its status — through the binary of a democratic Taiwan versus an authoritarian PRC.
For instance, the Chinese General Administration of Customs has suspended multiple agricultural and seafood imports from Taiwan, ranging from pineapples to grouper, and most recently, more than 2,000 food products after US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taipei last month.
The Democratic Progressive Party-led government politically and socially responded by prefixing exports with labels of freedom and democracy — “freedom pineapples” or “democracy semiconductors” — which is meant to contrast with Chinese authoritarianism.
Various think tanks and op-eds in Chinese-language newspapers seem to subscribe to the notion that Taiwan is fighting at the forefront of Chinese authoritarian encroachment and therefore sees itself as the first line of defense in the global democratic alliance.
As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) warned, should Taiwan fall to China, there would be “catastrophic consequences.”
As a pitch, that is empirically muddled. While it is true the PRC’s ambition of annexing Taiwan is increasingly pronounced and is likely to damage the prospect of regional peace, is there credence to framing this as a democratic versus authoritarian divide as Pelosi, Tsai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) have so vigorously argued? Likely not.
Starting with the basic facts, Taiwan’s already modest group of diplomatic allies, such as Eswatini, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras, are either hybrid regimes that are partly free, or they are authoritarian regimes that are not free. This is inconsistent with Taipei’s claim to stand with the “free” world.
Even if we turn a blind eye to these countries, what about India, Saudi Arabia and Israel, where Taiwanese politicians and think tanks have been calling for warming ties in recent years?
Did they conveniently forget that India has been criticized by academics and activists for emboldening racist rhetoric, becoming a Hindu fascist state that turns a blind eye to the bulldozing of Muslim homes, businesses and mosques?
Saudi Arabia, which is among the worst human rights abusers in the world, executing children, assassinating journalists, jailing women for using Twitter and ceaselessly bombing Yemen, is a country that Taipei Grand Mosque Imam Ibrahim Chao (趙錫麟) believes should be maintaining and strengthening bilateral relations.
Let us not forget Israel, either. The “only democracy” in the Middle East has been extensively criticized and boycotted by academics in Europe and North America for its illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Various European governments, the EU and non-governmental organizations have condemned and documented Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinian rights and civil liberties have been severely eroded.
Last year, Human Rights Watch for the first time published a report labeling Israel an apartheid state.
The case of Israel highlights the more hypocritical aspects of Taiwan’s foreign policy. There are two ironies to unpack here.
First, Taiwan’s claim of being a democratic bulwark, yet it casually overlooks the Palestinian question.
Previously, Taiwanese politicians such as Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and Wu have lauded Israel for its technological, military and economic prowess. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs went as far as to claim that Taiwan and Israel are like-minded countries sharing similar values.
Not once have they displayed concern for the military occupation, the viability of a two-state solution, or the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which is a breach of the fourth Geneva Convention. This irony is amplified by the attention given to Ukraine in the “Taiwan Stands with Ukraine” campaign after the Russian invasion.
What is more inconspicuous is that Zionists often use the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as a deflection. They argue that nobody has ever called the KMT out and has widely accepted its legitimacy over the nation, so what makes Israel any different? Or, why should we focus only on Israel?
Despite the KMT and Israel ticking all the boxes of what constitutes settler colonialism in academia, the only difference is that the KMT has assimilated into Taiwanese society, while Palestinians are still treated as second-class citizens or stateless subjects.
It is ironic that the government and its pro-independence politicians claim to export democratic principles and share like-minded values with Israel, while it simultaneously lambasts the KMT for the misery it inflicted and, more radically, its supporters accuse the KMT of colonizing Taiwan.
The government cannot have its bread buttered on both sides.
Unfortunately, due to Taipei’s limited recognition, it desperately welcomes all forms of international acknowledgment regardless of their background and affiliation.
As a result, the government has frequently taken a conformist stance in exchange for advancing its international position, often at the expense of other oppressed or marginalized groups.
More problematic is how government officials have been co-opted, or been outright oblivious to the track records of countries that do not share the principles and values defended in their foreign policy campaigns.
Taiwan’s strategy in promoting democratic principles as Asia’s so-called “beacon of democracy” is contradictory given its foreign relations. In resolving this contradiction, Taiwan should move away from virtue signaling and adopt a policy of political pragmatism, valuing reality over ideology.
That is not to say that democratic values and humanistic principles should be undervalued or permanently discarded in its foreign policy agenda.
However, the government must maintain a consistent stance. Without the will to safeguard the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy for all, what difference can we claim from autocratic states?
Wei Azim Hung graduated from Leiden University, The Hague, specializing in East Asian studies with minors in Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian studies.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS