Within less than 24 hours, the topic of peace in the Taiwan Strait came up in two speeches made in the Australian parliament late last week. The first speech was made Thursday by US President George W. Bush, the second was made on Friday by Chinese President Hu Jintao (
In his address, Bush characterized the US and Australia as working with other Asian Pacific nations -- including Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Singapore, to "keep peace [in the] the Taiwan Straits."
Interestingly, Bush failed to include China on the list of nations -- suggesting that China is implicitly understood as the "reason" that efforts must be made to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait. While Taiwan is not mentioned either, it is hard to believe anyone honestly believes that Taiwan is a threat, especially when it needs the assistance of countries such as the US to fend off Chinese threats. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that China's refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan is a ticking time bomb that poses the biggest threat to regional peace.
Bush's remarks are consistent with the reiteration of support for Taiwan he expressed to Lee Yuan-tseh (
"By serving our ideals, we also serve our interests," Bush said earlier in the same speech to the Australian parliament when talking about the "liberation" of Iraqis and Afghanis from "tyranny."
The "ideals" to which Bush referred would, of course, be democracy and freedom. "Interests" would be the containment of violence and chaos in the world. Other countries in the region, indeed the world, must be made to realize that the same is true about upholding peace in Taiwan Strait.
The difference, of course, is that Taiwan is a thriving democracy. To allow or condone Chinese military aggression against this country and the stripping away of our precious freedoms would be an affront to the very democratic ideals the US and Australia espouse.
But the murmur over Bush's appearance had barely quieted when Hu made his appearance in the Australian parliament. Far from talking about democratic ideals and liberation, Hu said that Beijing expected Canberra to play a "constructive role in China's peaceful unification."
This puts Australia in the middle of two different views and positions about the Taiwan issue. Under the circumstances, one must ask: Have the US and China both decided to open up participation in the long-standing triangular deadlock between US, China, and Taiwan?
What will other countries do if they are faced with potential Chinese aggression toward Taiwan and are asked to take sides?
Most countries want to dodge the question, since they do not see -- or do not wish to see -- the long-term implications of the rising power of a totalitarian regime such as China. And if they do see, it is not enough to make them want to do something about it.
Under the circumstances, it is sincerely hoped that more governments and countries will have the courage and the conscience shown by the European parliament, which last week again passed a resolution asking China to withdraw the missiles it has aimed at Taiwan.
Sadly, the indifference shown by most countries -- even important trading partners -- gives us little reason to feel hopeful.
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,