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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS