China's "Anti-Secession" Law has revived debates among academics, think tanks, and government experts in Washington about China's rise as a major power and its questionable behavior in dealing with other countries. In Taiwan, the atmosphere is about the dangers of this move by China, and the need for its people and political parties to unify and oppose it. Aside from this, however, has been the largely successful effort by Taiwan to remind the international community of its democracy, and the dangers the unilateral imposition of the law poses to peace in East Asia.
Influencing the international community these days is difficult on almost any subject. In the past, Taiwan largely depended on the US to help gain support in this area. It was nonetheless difficult even with that help, and with the changes that are taking place now, gaining international support has become even more complex and difficult.
In the 1980s, Taiwan's weight in dealing with the international community, including the US, was based on its growing economic strength. Inevitably there were many trade disputes that had to be dealt with, and even more imposing for Taiwan was the task of gaining access to international institutions. Nonetheless, it was the basis for the close relationship between Taiwan and the US.
In the early 1990s, I reported on the rapidly changing political atmosphere in Taiwan. It was clear then that democracy would quickly replace economics as the fundamental basis for the relationship. Unfortunately, while this was praised as being the right thing to do, it also was seen as unhelpful for the US in developing a better relationship with China, and trade therefore continued to be the focus of the bilateral relationship.
There were several actions that took place during this time that demonstrated the difficulties the US would have in coping with Taiwan's democratization. When the National Assembly amended the Constitution to require the direct election of the president, I reported that in the forthcoming 1996 election this would legitimize Taiwan's president. Though important in the nuanced world of cross-strait relations, this change was largely ignored.
The Taiwan Policy Review of 1995 had an excellent summary of the reasons for the review (Taiwan's rise as a democracy), but the results produced in the document did little to show US encouragement for democratization.
The visit to Cornell by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1995 demonstrated that as a democracy, Taiwan felt it had to raise its profile both for domestic political reasons and to strengthen critical international relationships. This of course was in conflict with US policy that Taiwan should keep a low profile to avoid tensions for itself and difficulties for America in the US-China relationship. But more important was the beginnings of greater confidence of voters in Taiwan to openly debate such heretofore sensitive issues as cross-strait relations -- implying that Taiwan's democracy was taking root.
When the new government surprisingly, but peacefully, came to power in 2000, the US' attention was on the problems a pro-independence ruling party would make for US-China relations. As a result, the US intervened in Taiwan's domestic politics even before the new president was inaugurated, to ensure that highly sensitive issues that impacted on US interests were safely managed. While the US hailed the first legitimate turnover of government in Taiwan as a major step forward in its democratization, it was also the beginning of a more involved US policy of intervention that guarded the status quo, but that impacted on Taiwan's democracy as well.
When time came to prepare for the next presidential election, the US again intervened when campaign rhetoric seemed to represent highly sensitive objectives that very likely would lead to dangerous tension between Taiwan and China (and potentially drag the US into war). Here too, an intervention that supported democratic values also blocked legitimate democratic activity.
Balancing the wish for democratic values and the need for security is a dilemma that is not unknown in any democracy. In Taiwan it is especially difficult at a time when the government gives a high priority to pursuing an even greater openness in the democratic process. This is seen in the increased number of people involved in non-governmental organizations and the abundance of public polls, among other activities that more rapidly engage the participation of voters in influencing government policies.
While Taiwan has its problems in legitimately seeking to strengthen its democracy at home, and has even more difficulty seeking support from the international community -- both for understanding its democracy as well as its critical need to keep open its economic relations with them -- helping in the war on terrorism could strengthen Taiwan's position as well.
During this time, US foreign policy places expanding democracy near the top of the agenda, but addressing terrorism is the first priority. The Middle East, as a result, absorbs most of the attention and resources for both priorities.
The US needs help in both eradicating terrorism and in spreading the democratic process to those countries that do not have it. The more that Taiwan can offer its experience in helping the latter, in Asia and elsewhere, the more the international community is likely to know about and support Taiwan's democracy. Its experience in getting a worldwide message to them on the Anti-Secession Law issue is a good beginning.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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