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.
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