In response to US President George W. Bush's statement last week that he opposes comments or actions by President Chen Shui-bian (
Chen revealed his feelings toward Bush when a CNN correspondent asked if he "felt hurt, frustrated or even infringed by what Bush said." Without challenging Bush as to why he echoed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's (溫家寶) condemnation of Taiwan's attempts to "split with the mother land," Chen said he appreciated the Bush administration's earlier pledge to do "whatever it takes to defend Taiwan" and insisted that US-Taiwan relations were stable.
There is no doubt that the US and Taiwan share universal values of democracy, freedom and hu-man rights, but when it comes to the question of national interests, it is ironic that such an "alliance of values" can be distorted.
The notion that Chen's push for a "defensive referendum" to deter China's missile threat and military force constitutes an explicit action to change the status quo is nonsense.
What exactly is the status quo? Who is entitled to define the status quo? The status quo of the Strait is a world in which an authoritarian regime refuses to renounce the use of force against a democratic country. The status quo is a growing number of missiles deployed alongside China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Bei-jing's relentless efforts to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its own ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."
China's unilateral actions to intimidate Taiwan are clearly changing the status quo and therefore coincide with the situation contained in Article 17 of the Referendum Law (公民投票法),which states that, "the president has the rights to hold a defensive referendum when the nation is faced with an external threat or a change to its sovereignty, through resolution by the Executive Yuan."
Washington may overlook the danger that Chen believes exists and portray Chen's concerns as nothing but election talk. Nevertheless, 23 million Taiwanese cannot wait until such a threat becomes a clear danger.
While the US employs double standards to brand Chen a provocative, reckless troublemaker, whom has been trying to rock the boat of Sino-US relations, it owes both a reason and an apology to Taiwan as to why its people are being deprived of the right to say no to China's saber rattling.
The "alliance of democratic values" between Taiwan and the US should be a respect of people's free will to make their own decisions. The "alliance of democratic values" should not kowtow to an authoritarian leader.
What Bush should really contemplate is the extent to which his administration can strike a balance between safeguarding the US' national interests and a fully fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in building a constructive, candid and cooperative relations with China.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration made the wrong choice when it appeased Beijing at the expense of sacrificing its long-term commitment to Taiwan -- a country that has been steadfastly supporting a US-led campaign on global terrorism and post-Iraq humanitarian aid -- and a country that has been counting on US defense assistance to main-tain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
If international realism is indeed the only rationale behind such immoral treatment of a democratically-elected leader, then please, Mr. Bush, stop talking about how you plan to spread so-called American democracy around the world.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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