The first meeting between Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and US President Barack Obama at this year’s G20 summit was brief, but they agreed to hold a meeting in Washington this summer that would include detailed discussions on Taiwan.
Two to three days of detailed discussion on Taiwan would have important implications. Given the current chaotic state of affairs, those familiar with the cross-strait situation worry that great changes could be in the making. Would such changes be beneficial for Taiwan? Will Taiwan’s democracy and human rights remain in place?
The Taiwanese public’s concerns are not baseless. A look at the later stages of George W. Bush’s presidency and the current administration shows that the presidents, the departments of state and defense and even the American Institute in Taiwan have ignored the possibility that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) rapid turn toward China may destroy the East Asian order — and they are even applauding him.
By comparison, former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) attempted to match their policies to the policy goals of democracy and human rights in the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), and they acted in accordance with the guidelines for protecting Taiwan agreed to by the US-Japan alliance. Despite this, the US condemned Lee’s “special state-to-state” dictum and Chen’s referendums. This blatant difference in treatment is incomprehensible.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the passage of the TRA. In 1979, the US recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the legitimate representative of China. Looking back another 30 years, we discover that 1949 was the year the PRC was established and the year the Republic of China moved into exile in Taiwan.
The years 1949, 1979 and 2009 represent turning points in the dialogue between the US, China and Taiwan. They also manifest how Taiwan is bound by the China issue as it seeks to have its status determined.
At this crucial time, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been lucky to gain a leader with practical and academic experience in Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文); there are hopes that she will use her expertise in international affairs to handle multifaceted matters within the party, within Taiwan, across the Taiwan Strait, in East Asia and internationally, and reshape the closed, uniform discourse of the past. There are also hopes that she will elevate the pro-Taiwan faction from the level of instinctive grassroots protest to one of leadership and policy direction.
But the last few months have shown that Tsai is following past practice. She showed no concern for the case Roger C.S. Lin et al vs United States of America, an important legal case on the definition of Taiwan’s international status. This, despite the fact that the verdict said the issue could have been addressed in terms favorable to Taiwan if it hadn’t been a political matter and if judicial self-restraint hadn’t demanded a separation of powers. Such lack of concern will hurt the DPP’s ability to set the political agenda.
Tsai did not join Japan in opposing North Korea’s rocket tests. Such silence will not help Taiwan’s attempts to cultivate friendships. Nor has she cited the interests of the US, Japan and other nations when debating the economic cooperation framework agreement. Such omissions will only result in Taiwan fighting China all on its own.
A leader should look past appearances and be aware of the potential for change that occurs every few decades, as well as be able to follow her own path and avoid traps.
I place my hope in the DPP and Tsai but write this to remind them of what needs to be done.
HoonTing is a Taiwan-based freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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,
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
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS