If Taiwan was looking for publicity, it has gotten it in abundance as a result of its presidential election. Whether or not the nation wanted this kind of publicity is another question. But the important thing is that the democratic process, with its necessary checks and balances, will resolve the dispute, and hopefully democracy will emerge stronger.
When the administration of US President George W. Bush congratulated President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on his narrow election victory, it wasn't an endorsement of the individual but of the democratic process. It is not surprising, though, that Beijing wasn't amused by Washington's congratulatory message.
The political confusion in Taiwan arising from the presidential election was an ideal opportunity for Beijing to fish in troubled waters. China, therefore, lost no time in warning that it wouldn't sit idly by if the situation got out of control. But the US' congratulatory message spoiled the fun, thus putting Beijing in a foul mood. Washington, in effect, told Beijing to stop manufacturing a crisis as an excuse for intervention.
There are two important elements to the Taiwan situation.
The first is the country's internal political cohesion or lack of it. Although a healthy political debate is the essence of democracy, it needs to be conducted without bringing the process into disrepute.
If the democratic process comes under a cloud, there is a danger of democracy's descending into "mobocracy."
Chen's narrow victory, and the resulting opposition protests, have tended to create a sense of crisis. Even the assassination attempt was regarded by some as a stage-managed affair that was designed to tilt the election result in Chen's favor. Now that these doubts are being sorted out through legal and institutional mechanisms, not much harm is being done to democracy.
But it is important that Taiwan's political class, across the spectrum, create agreed-upon national goals to maintain internal cohesion. Political debate and competition will then center on ways of achieving these goals. For instance, it would be helpful if there were an agreed-upon national position on the question of Taiwanese identity -- whether Taiwan is a sovereign political entity or whether it would rather maintain some ambiguity and determine its status at some future time.
Without an agreed-upon national position on this fundamental issue, Taiwan will remain prone to external manipulation. Its polity will lose direction and become even more fractious. Not surprisingly, Beijing seeks to exploit Taiwan's contradictions to bring about collapse from within.
The second important element regarding Taiwan is the US' commitment to its defense under the Taiwan Relations Act. Beijing believes that because the US is stretched thin because of Iraq and the war on terrorism, China has acquired leverage that it can use to influence the US' foreign and strategic policies, particularly regarding Taiwan. China expects that because of its cooperation with the US on terrorism and North Korea, Washington, at the very least, should contain Chen on the question of Taiwan's independence.
But when Beijing sought to exploit the electoral confusion, Washington wasted no time in setting the record straight by congratulating Chen on his re-election. In other words, China was warned off Taiwan. Therefore, a continued US commitment to the defense of Taiwan is an important prerequisite for Taiwan's identity.
The important question to ask, though, is: Why should Beijing be so obsessed with incorporating Taiwan? In this connection, it is important to remember that the Communist Party in China, under Mao Zedong's (
China's communist oligarchy has always portrayed Taiwan as an unfinished national project. They have no doubt in their collective mind that Taiwan belongs to China. The only question is how China should go about incorporating it. They are also convinced that they alone have the credentials to unify Taiwan with China. In this way, the Chinese Communist Party and the motherland/fatherland have become indistinguishable.
In other words, by appropriating nationalism (on Taiwan and in other matters), China's rulers have created for themselves the illusion of legitimacy. Hence, they don't feel obligated to seek popular legitimacy through the "crude" and "dangerous" instruments of regular elections and political pluralism, which they believe will lead to instability and chaos. And they, as super-patriots, are not in the business of letting down the nation. Indeed, those advocating such a path are considered the enemies of the nation. Such paranoia is reflected in branding democracy advocates in Hong Kong "unpatriotic." But there is a method to such madness. The communist oligarchy knows that it would lose power in the event of multiparty democracy.
They are not about to commit political hara-kiri.
To the Chinese leadership, the existence of Taiwan as a separate political entity with an alternative political model is dangerous blasphemy. That won't be tolerated, even in a "subjugated" (unified) Taiwan, as the Hong Kong example shows us. Thus the notion of Taiwan as China's unfinished national business will continue to be regurgitated by Beijing.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
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