In an interview with a Taiwanese radio station, a Chinese democracy activist recently lamented that "you [Taiwanese] live in paradise while we [Chinese] live in hell. There is freedom in Taiwan while there is not any in China."
In addition, a Hong Kong-based teacher also recently wrote in the opinion section of the Liberty Times, "don't forget you are blessed immensely, for the soil beneath your feet has a scent of freedom." Yes, there is no denying that we do possess a degree of freedom. However, I really doubt if we have have 100 percent freedom.
We do enjoy freedom of communication, speech, publication, traveling and relocation, but we do not have the freedom to choose what we really want. Although we can cast our ballots to pick our national leader, legislators, and councilors, we cannot choose to write a Constitution of our own, decide the future of the nation through referendums or change the national title.
Are we considered free if we are denied this freedom to choose? What is freedom? Are we considered free if we are only half or two-thirds free? If a nation is not entitled to write a new Constitution and decide its future through referendums, is it still considered a sovereign and independent nation? If a so-called free and democratic country such as Taiwan does not even have the right to choose what it wants, then we must wonder: What kind of freedom and democracy do we really have and what kind of country is this?
Why is our country only half free? Who made our country this way? Is it because of China's saber-rattling? It certainly is. Is it because of the intervention of the US? It sure is. Currently, it is the US and China that have seriously impacted Taiwan's future. Since the 1990s, China has not changed its overall strategic goal of establishing its hegemony over East Asia. Neither has it ever concealed its ambition to annex Taiwan.
Although the US champions the causes of democracy, freedom and human rights, Washington has never given up its desire to direct Taiwan's future. Their logic is that the fate of Taiwan must be decided by the US and that Taiwan has to follow Washington, DC. In other words, the extent of freedom that the Taiwanese people are allowed to enjoy must be dictated by the US.
Obviously, the wishes of these two powerhouses will have ramifications for the well-being and fate of our country. This is a predicament we are facing and, as some believe, a reality of our situation in the international community that we have no choice but to accept.
Nonetheless, there's a key question to raise: Is toeing the US political line a course that is without danger? How long will the protective umbrella provided by the US be sustained? If our national interests clash with those of the US, will we have to obey Washington? Is it true that a small country like Taiwan does not have any options? What are our advantages?
We are all aware that for Washington, its attempt to protect Taiwan is driven not by the country's achievements in democratization and freedom but by the strategic values that Taiwan represents in the Asia-Pacific, by the interests it enjoys and the leading role it plays in the region. The US also has to face up to China's rise and the fact that China is competing against it for the status of a regional leader in the Asia Pacific.
Under such circumstances, in Washington's eyes, Taipei is merely a pawn to be played at will. If China's military might and economic development have reached such an extent that the US must share with China some of the leading roles it plays or interests it enjoys in the Asia Pacific region, will Taiwan be sacrificed in the process? I do not know for sure. Therefore, I do not believe that following or obeying the US is ultimately to our advantage.
Looking at the history of Latin America, we can understand how greatly the US has intervened in the region. Between the 1950s and 1980s, the US dealt a heavy blow to countries such as Cuba, Bolivia, Peru, Chile and a number of other Latin American countries. The US has never been totally supportive of popular democratic movements or national liberation movements.
The strategy of the US has always been two-faced. On the one hand, the US supports regimes (even authoritarian ones) which are obedient to it, while on the other, it raises the banner of righteousness in seeking to obliterate hostile forces that are seeking national liberation. This is also true of Taiwan. Dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (
I am not promoting anti-Americanism, but neither do I believe that we should have unreasonable expectations of what the US will do for us. Nor should we blindly let ourselves be led by them.
We should challenge the US by asking them: Why will you not sell us offensive weapons to give us the ability to make limited reprisals as a deterrent? Why do you call for a war on terror but at the same time allow China, the world's greatest terrorist, to target 720 missiles at Taiwan and use oppressive terrorist tactics against political dissidents and Falun Gong practitioners? However we may challenge or question the US, we will never change Washington's resolute adherence to its highest principle of protecting US interests.
The US has forcefully demanded that Taiwan not change the status quo, which translates as not disrupting US benefits from the current situation in the Asia-Pacific. This is international political pragmatism. In the eyes of politicians in Washington, freedom, democracy and human rights are just beautiful-sounding words.
Once we understand the nature of this international political pragmatism, we should then ask ourselves: what do we want? Do we want half freedom or two-thirds freedom? Do we want the "limited freedom of choice" that the great powers may deign to allow us? Are we a sovereign nation? If we want 100 percent freedom to choose our nation's future, what should we do so that we no longer have to constantly call for freedom in a world of domineering nations?
I believe that constitutional reengineering and changing the national title are the two most important steps Taiwan can take toward a normalization of its status. They are also strategically necessary to resist the power of large nations. Small nations and large nations do not have parity, and large nations will never pay much attention to the goodwill or pleas of small nations. But when a small nation presents a threat that could hurt their vital interests, then these large countries will review their perception of the small nation.
That is why I believe that when popular support for constitutional reengineering and changing the national title reach a level that China and the US find unbearable, they will make a reassessment of our demands. Only when large nations have no alternative but to sit down and talk to small countries will small countries have an opportunity to seek a path for their own survival.
Freedom must be paid for. Simply calling for freedom in a world dominated by powerful nations will not win you freedom. We have to find our own path to force these major powers to take the issue of the normalization of Taiwan's status seriously. The Palestinian struggle for statehood and Cuba's revolutionary movement may all have adopted extreme methods, but if this had not been done, would the US have even recognized their existence? Would they hear their voice demanding freedom? I really doubt it.
The worst situations are often the best situations for pioneers. We have missed out on growing up in a revolutionary era, but we do live in an age of "new nations." This is the best time for us to do what we have to do. The weak can only rely on their determination to fight it out to the end.
We must do everything in our power to extend the scope of the movement for constitutional reengineering and changing the national title to realize the goal of power residing with the people. We must use the most democratic means and use the united strength of the Taiwanese people to tell the major powers: we have the freedom to choose -- so you should all just shut up!
Michelle Wang is the deputy secretary-general of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Ian Bartholomew
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