Over the past few days people have been expressing their discontent over recent comments by the US State Department and Congress regarding the US' commitment to defend Taiwan if China were ever to attack. While these letters did contain insightful thoughts on Taiwan's political arena and how the US' comments might adversely affect the stalled arms-purchase bill, there is still one more key point that needs to be discussed further: US domestic politics. While it is certain that many comments coming out of Washington were in fact directed at pressuring Taiwan's legislature, others were just statements of fact.
Obviously, just like in most democratic countries, US policy is determined, at least in part, by political will. As long as the public supports it, a government can pretty much do anything it likes. The years since Sept. 11 have proven this, with the military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and the sweeping changes in domestic law created by the Patriot Act. Despite the fact that many people, both in the US and abroad, question the validity and costs of such measures, the public has generally supported the Bush administration, giving it the power to continue with its policies.
While it is true that many US companies will benefit greatly from the sale of arms to Taiwan, that is not what concerns the public most. What concerns Americans most is the safety and well-being of their nation's people. If the US ever had to defend Taiwan in a military conflict, the government would have to be able to explain its decision to the American public.
To see proof of this, all you have to do is look at any US newspaper. Despite the fact the Iraq conflict started a year and a half ago, the deaths of US servicemen killed there still often makes front page news.
So if once again the US were called on to send its sons and daughters into combat, the government would have to be able to explain why. The answer would be that Taiwan is an imperfect though thriving democracy being attacked by a country known for stifling freedom and regularly violating the most basic of human rights.
However, those in Washington speaking out for Taiwan would be hard pressed to explain why Taiwan was not better prepared militarily, especially when China has openly expressed its hostile intent for well over 50 years.
There is a fair chance that, as Taiwan became front-page news, Americans would see that Taiwan was given the chance to defend itself, yet passed it up for several years. Even more compelling would be the fact that the legislative coalition opposing the arms procurement was still chosen by over half of Taiwan's voting public in elections held right in the middle of the impasse. Although the president could quickly commit troops to defend Taiwan, he would risk his political future if he could not convince the American people that such intervention was wanted by the majority of the people in Taiwan. In other words, the US would simply not have the political will to risk the lives of its people for a nation that has refused to defend itself.
The comments made by the US government have come from both a bipartisan Congress and from administration officials, who tend to not develop their policy in concert. Therefore it should not be assumed that US congress members and administration officials were presenting a collective shift in US policy toward Taiwan. They were simply stating a fact that the people of Taiwan should be aware of, while covering their own political careers in case a conflict ever did break out.
While, just like any sovereign nation, Taiwan has the right to negate foreign influence on its domestic affairs, it should respect Washington's desire for Taiwan to be prepared for conflict before it sends its own sons and daughters into the Taiwan Strait.
Daniel Mojahedi
United States
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