Taiwan's democratic system is far from perfect, but it could be much worse, as the coup d'etat in Thailand demonstrates. Yet the Thai coup illustrates two salient points that Taiwanese should bear in mind -- one positive, and one negative.
First, the positive: Taiwanese military leaders were quick to assure the public that, despite the deep political divisions here and the current protests against the president, the military had no intention of directly intervening in political affairs.
There is every reason to believe this is true. If the military had wanted to impose its will on the people, then surely it would have done so in 2000, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lost power, or in 2004, when the results of the presidential election were so bitterly contested.
Taiwan's military gets a lot of flak from a variety of quarters. Local politicians regularly accuse it of partisanship. Think tank ideologues in the US -- who usually know much about the intricacies of Washington, but little about the realities on the ground in Taipei -- continually question the commitment of Taiwan's armed forces to defending their country.
But what all of these critics ignore are the huge strides that have been made in turning Taiwan's military into a professional fighting force that serves the nation, and not just the KMT.
There is no denying that the military and the KMT were once joined at the hip. It is also beyond doubt that much of the military leadership is sympathetic to the pan-blue camp. But, with rare exceptions, senior officers have kept their political views to themselves, and have refrained from political activism.
Keeping the military under firm civilian control is key to maintaining a viable democratic system, a point the Ministry of National Defense seems to understand. It should be applauded for doing so.
But the negative point is also important: One of the telling results of the coup in Thailand is the fact that it has had a limited impact on the Thai economy. Markets fluctuated slightly, while the Thai baht recovered much of the ground it lost after initial news of the coup. Although tourism -- one of Thailand's key industries -- may suffer in the short term, the peaceful nature of the coup means that tourists have little reason to stay away.
This illustrates a reality that Taiwanese would do well to note: The world -- especially the business world -- cares very little about democracy as a principle. Stability is what matters. Many commentators said a repeat of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis was far more worrisome than a mere coup.
The fact that people can watch a military junta topple a democratically elected government with such equanimity is a lesson that should not be lost on other struggling democracies. Democracy can only be guaranteed if people and their leaders are firmly committed to the development of their institutions.
And in Taiwan, few people are truly upset when contemplating the campaign to oust the president.
Anyone who steps back from immediate partisan emotions can recognize that using a Philippines-style "People Power" movement to oust an elected leader is a step backwards for Taiwan. "People Power" may be a viable option for overthrowing a dictatorship. But should it be used to supplant established democratic institutions?
How does one rally people around this abstraction, when the demagogues are running loose in the streets and the president is, in fact, hugely unpopular?
The heartbreaking reality is that few people outside of Taiwan will care if this democracy falls apart. All that will matter is whether it peacefully falls apart.
Is it also true that few Taiwanese will care?
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS