A reader complained some days ago that he opened this newspaper to read something pungent editorially about the war on Iraq and was most disappointed to find wishy-washy fence-sitting "lets all hope it is over as soon as possible" platitudes instead. Well, you can't please everyone. But given the lack of local news of substance on which to comment, we thought we might, just for once, address our critics.
Our staff is comprised of people from at least six different nations, and at least half of them are Westerners. It would be interesting to say that debate over the war has raged in our newsroom, but that would not be the case: almost everyone is against it, the US citizens, by the way, most of all. But this is on a personal level. What this newspaper has to think about is not the ideals or prejudices of its own editorial staff but the specific interests of Taiwan in this conflict.
Let us then start with the basics. Taiwan is threatened by Chinese irredentism. It is difficult for the country to defend itself without outside help, and this includes the provision of weapons that Taiwan cannot develop itself and practical military help in the event of an attack. The only country which is likely to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of an attack by China is the US. These are the plain facts, wherever you might stand on the Iraq war or any other of the great geo-political questions of our time. Taiwan cannot stand alone against the huge threat across the Taiwan Strait. There is only one country that is prepared to give it even the weakest of security commitments. That is the US.
Fashionable criticisms of US unilateralism are, therefore, of no interest to Taiwan. Here, the kind of multilateralism espoused in Europe means no more than a large economic area incapable of projecting military power, so in thrall to China's business opportunities that none of its member nations dare grant President Chen Shui-bian (
Closer to Taiwan's concerns perhaps is the talk of the US' trashing of international law in pursuing its attack on Iraq. After all, isn't Taiwan's claim to be treated in the world as the nation it plainly is based on the right of self-determination granted by the UN Charter? Anything that undermines the UN and its charter, some argue, should therefore be viewed as detrimental to Taiwan. The short answer to this is that if the UN lived up to its ideals Taiwan would be a member; that it isn't raises obvious questions about the UN.
So let us be blunt about Taiwan's position. Whatever its chattering classes, which of course include ourselves, might think privately about the war in Iraq, those who want to see this island maintain its independence -- who tend to be of a "liberal internationalist" rather than Chinese nationalist persuasion -- would be ill-advised to bite the hand that defends them.
There are legitimate worries that might be discussed. If the war or its aftermath go badly or simply become too expensive, the US might lose its taste for intervention leaving Taiwan out on a limb. There will be a world after US President George W. Bush leaves office. Whether it is one in which the American people and their government continue to pursue the values that this president -- once ironically thought to be ideology-free -- seek to promote, or one in which the Bush adventure is regarded as a regrettable aberration not to be repeated, is something that will have huge repercussions on Taiwan. That is something we might usefully think about. On the war itself, as Wittgenstein said: "when one cannot speak, one must be silent."
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS