US President George W. Bush's second inaugural speech is noteworthy for its lofty vision and moral clarity. He said oppression is always wrong and freedom is eternally right. "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Such exultation of freedom is in line with the US' historical tradition. Even before the US' independence Patrick Henry gave us the famous words: "Give me liberty or give me death." Former president Woodrow Wilson said "The world must be made safe for democracy," while the late president Ronald Reagan averred at the Berlin Wall: "The quest for freedom is the birthright of all humanity."
Some pundits, however, have criticized Bush's idealism as unrealistic and have pointed out that promoting democracy may even be the wrong priority in setting foreign policy. Others are turned off by the stark difference between Bush's optimistic rhetoric and the persistent violence in Iraq. Peggy Noonan, a prominent conservative commentator reminded Bush in the Wall Street Journal: "This is not heaven, it's earth."
Internationally there was unease with the inaugural speech's sweeping goals. Several senior US officials tried to assuage the concerns of friends and foes alike by stressing there has not been any change in existing policy. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Bush's pledge to fight tyranny did not signify a change in policy toward China and North Korea.
Does this mean Bush's freedom speech was merely high-minded inaugural rhetoric with no substantive policy consequences? The answer is clearly no. Bush's vision of advancing democracy is based on the realist's expectation that freedom will reduce terror and democracies tend to be more peaceful. Hence the words: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands ... America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."
The quest to end tyranny across the globe cannot be dismissed as an evangelical dream. When America declared independence in 1776, it was the sole democracy in the world. Now there are some 117.
An inaugural speech may be regarded as a long-range, basic strategic guide for making foreign policy. In applying the guiding principle, adjustment is then made at the tactical level in accordance with the circumstances of each case, and taking into account the exigencies of competing national interests.
For specific policies which Bush will adopt to spread democracy, we must wait for his State of the Union this week. In the meantime, the following are possible implications for US policy toward Taiwan.
First, the US will feel threatened by a rising China with its growing economy and increasingly powerful military so long as China remains a tyranny which violates the basic human rights of its citizens. China will be deemed a strategic competitor, even though the Bush administration has ceased saying so.
Second, Taiwan's democracy as beacon of hope for China's oppressed masses will be important. Taiwan's de facto independence will continue to be crucial to stability and peace in East Asia.
Finally, the US' commitment to help defend Taiwan will remain firm, provided the Taiwanese people demonstrate by words and deeds that they are truly committed to defend their hard-won freedom. As Bush said: "America's influence is considerable and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause ... When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you."
For Taiwan's government, there are several policy implications. First, it should refrain from talk of political integration with China or a future "one China." It should inculcate deeper democratic values in society.
Second, no effort or resources should be spared to strengthen national defense, improve the readiness of the armed forces and prepare the public psychologically for a potential invasion by the People's Liberation Army.
Third, reduce both the outflow of capital, technology and trained manpower to China and take effective measures to stem the influx of Chinese fifth column or special agents into Taiwan. The Constitution needs to be amended to deepen democracy and to improve government efficacy. It would be prudent to persuade both Washington and Beijing of the need and rationale for such constitutional reconstruction.
To evolve into a fully sovereign democracy Taiwan also needs to ultimately discard its old constitutional framework. This undertaking, however, should be commenced after close consultation with Washington and Tokyo and only when Taiwan becomes confident of its ability to overcome Beijing's violent reaction, which could take the form of a multi-pronged massive assault on Taiwan including military, economic, psychological and diplomatic warfare.
These are all urgent tasks since the balance of military and economic power is shifting steadily in China's favor. The status quo cannot be long maintained unless the Taiwanese commit themselves to a democratic future and work hard to attain that goal. Taiwan can have a bright future, but only if the people choose to live on the right side of history, in liberty and with dignity.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS