The Democratic Progressive Party’s unprecedented third consecutive presidential election victory and winning of 51 seats in the Legislative Yuan, against 52 seats for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), is a resounding vindication of the democracy and sovereignty of 23 million freedom-loving Taiwanese, the bulk of whom were born after Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) regime evacuated to Taiwan in 1949.
The world’s democracies have also rejoiced in the festival of democracy and its triumph in Taiwan. Having failed to influence the election outcome through overt and covert means, Beijing made a virtue out of necessity, saying that it was an internal matter of China. It is high time that China sees the writing on the wall.
The communist regime in Beijing has never ruled Taiwan. On the contrary, it was the KMT that ushered republicanism in China, ending Qing Dynasty rule in the Xinhai Revolution. After defeat in the Chinese Civil War, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) fled to Taiwan. Since then, Taiwan, as the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, has been a self-governing state maintaining its independent status and sovereignty, and has engaged with the outside world.
Until 1971, it was a member of the UN and it continues to be a member of international bodies such as the WTO and APEC. Support for Taiwan by countries who do not have formal diplomatic relations with it has been increasing leaps and bounds, which is evident from the increasing number of parliamentary delegations visiting Taiwan.
It is unsavory that Beijing has been trying to poach Taiwan’s diplomatic allies through coercion and inducement, with Nauru being the latest example. Credit must be given to the remaining diplomatic allies who have stood valiantly with Taiwan and are not falling into Beijing’s trap.
Domestically, Taiwan has undergone a massive democratic transformation after the lifting of martial law in 1987. Its political transformation has been as impressive as its economic transformation. There have been regular and periodic elections to representative bodies starting from municipalities and the Legislative Yuan to the exalted office of the president and vice president.
The respect for the electoral result by all political parties in Taiwan, despite their differences, eloquently speaks to the maturing of its democracy.
Participation in the electoral process is also increasing. Taiwan also enjoys other adjuncts of democracy such as an independent and vigilant judiciary, a free press, as well as a vibrant civil society.
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) tactics of intimidation and coercion have neither been succesful in throwing the election, nor have its “united front” tactics been successful in swinging Taiwan toward China. There is a broad consensus across the political spectrum in Taiwan on Taiwanese identity and its democratic credentials.
International students and academics studying in Taiwan are becoming staunch supporters and goodwill ambassadors of the country. Taiwan’s soft power, its governance model and civic culture are endearing the nation to the outside world as never before. Taiwan might not have many diplomatic allies, but the coalition of democracies is emerging as a bulwark and deterrence against its adversary. Despite not being a member of the UN and its other agencies, Taiwan espouses its laudable ideals and objectives.
Taiwan’s development assistance to other countries who are not even its diplomatic allies and without strings attached speaks to its humanitarian commitment.
It is also high time that the US sheds its policy of strategic ambiguity and switches to a stance of strategic clarity. The declaratory architecture of the Shanghai Communique need not be looked at again. The communique was signed when Taiwan was under martial law and the KMT’s dictatorship, the geopolitical context was that of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. The rapprochement between the US and China hammered out by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger was primarily a response to the geopolitics of the time in which Taiwan’s voice was never heard.
When then-US president Jimmy Carter recognized China in 1979, it was a time when China’s pragmatic leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) was opening China to the outside world and introducing economic reforms and liberalization after decades of economic and political havoc wrought by former CCP chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東). The US facilitated China’s membership into the WTO, enabling China to benefit from economic engagement with the outside world and heavy US investment in China and transfer of advanced technologies.
The US and Chinese economies were integrated to such an extent that it was dubbed as being like “conjoined Siamese twins.” China’s integration with the world economy developed its economy, which in turn emboldened its military, the consequences of which are manifested in its belligerence in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, on the India-China border and also in Hong Kong. China is challenging the rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere, which needs to be checked.
Now the situation has changed. Taiwan should not be held hostage to the machinations of the past. The US itself passed enabling legislation and executive fiats to supplement and complement the gray areas of the Shanghai Communique, such as the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six sssurances.” In 2018, during former US president Donald Trump’s tenure, the US Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act. This legislation facilitates visits by US officials at all levels to Taiwan in conformity with the US’ “one China policy,” as opposed to the CCP’s “one China principle,” which are not the same.
Trump also signed the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act, passed by the US Congress in 2020. This legislation envisages US support for Taiwan’s diplomatic alliances around the world and Taiwan’s participation in international organizations such as the WHA. This progressive trend should continue to give Taiwan its legitimate place in the comity of nations.
Rup Narayan Das is a Delhi-based China academic and a former Taiwan fellow. The views expressed here are his own.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS