Now, did we hear that right: does the US oppose Taiwan's holding a referendum? Let's try to understand the situation. We were always under the impression that the US is a democracy, which opposes totalitarianism and authoritarianism, and wishes to further the cause of democracy in the world.
Taiwan is a democratic country, which achieved its freedom through the hard work of the people, after 40 years of authoritarian rule. It still hasn't gained a full and equal place in the international community due to the obstruction of China.
Taiwan wants to move forward on the road to democracy by letting its people have a say in major issues affecting their well-being, such as nuclear power, membership in the World Health Organization, and the future status of their country. It seems obvious that the US would be supportive of such a move.
But now we hear that American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal has told President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) that the US opposes the move toward referendums, the prime mechanism used in democracies to let people have their say in major issues. To make matters worse, news agencies quoted an unnamed US official as saying that this "warning" to Chen came after the US and China had exchanged views on Chen's intention to hold a referendum on the nuclear power and WHO issues next March.
We have to ask Paal, whose side are you on? Isn't it totally ludicrous for you as a representative of a democracy to be in cahoots with China and try to impose the dictates of a communist regime on the free and democratic people in Taiwan?
What reason would there be to deny the Taiwanese the right to hold referendums? Opposition from China or "stability" in the Taiwan Strait?
Well, dictatorships are often opposed to democratic mechanisms, but that is indeed one more reason to go ahead, so they learn what democracy is all about. And true stability in the Strait can only be achieved if the people in China would also have the right to voice their views in a referendum. A good way to show them how this works is to let the people in Taiwan give an example.
We may remember that Amer-ican democracy of the 1770s and 1780s was rather "provocative" to King George III, but in the end it certainly improved British democracy and led to a flowering relationship across the Atlantic.
We suggest that the authorities in Taipei push ahead with their referendum, and help give the people a good experience with a free and open dialogue on issues that affect their well-being. A balanced discussion doesn't only involve pushing particular views, but also listening to the other side. This give and take is a two-way street. This process isn't always easy, and doing it well requires lots of experience. The Taiwanese have a right to gain that experience.
This is not the first time Paal has sided with China against democratic Taiwan -- just after he arrived in Taipei, he scolded the government for not moving fast enough on direct links with China. Well, these links are pushing Taiwan into an unwelcome stranglehold with a repressive regime, and it is thus understandable that the government is at least a bit cautious, if not reluctant, to move ahead.
Thus, time and again, Paal seems to display basic instincts in favor of a dictatorial China and against the basic interests of the country in which he is repre-senting -- the US. This is not compatible with the principles and values for which the US stands, and the Bush administration should consider recalling Paal, and replacing him with someone who can more truly represent US principles and values.
Gerrit van der Wees is the editor of Taiwan Communique, a Washington-based publication dedicated to political developments in and around Taiwan.
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