After 100 days in office, US President Barack Obama has used his unique sense of democracy to quietly change the relations the US has with the rest of the world while still battling with economic issues. During his eight years in office, former US president George W. Bush not only turned the world’s economy upside down, he also isolated the US and severely damaged its leading position in the world. In contrast, in only 100 days, Obama has gradually restored the international status of the US and in doing so, he has also brought about a new world order. Some have said that this is due to Obama’s charm, but more correctly it is the result of his special sense of “soft” democracy.
People usually define democracy as a political system that incorporates monitoring, checks and balances and resistance. This is the hard side of democracy. Bush ruled through this kind of hard democracy and tackled domestic and foreign affairs problems in a reckless, confrontational manner. He refused to engage in dialogue with those who would not “cooperate” and this led to a variety of crises at home and abroad.
In addition to this hard side of democracy, there is also a “soft” side that involves respect, communication, dialogue and cooperation. Both hard and soft aspects are indispensable in a democracy.
However, in the current political environment, people stress hard democracy, which in many cases has become the only definition of democracy, while soft democracy has become politically incorrect. It is this one-sided understanding of democracy that has caused world, and in some countries also domestic, order to collapse.
Japan has been stagnant for nearly two decades. The reasons for this are many, but one key factor is the dominance of hard democracy which makes any dialogue and cooperation between factions and political parties nearly impossible. Recent Japanese prime ministers have only lasted in office for a few months. Soft democracy has disappeared and it is becoming harder to find solutions to an increasing number of problems.
Obama has succeeded because he has brought soft democracy back into politics. At international conferences, Obama speaks very little and is instead willing to listen to people from other countries. When he does talk, he is positive, gives praise and is constructive. During the G20 summit, Obama admitted that the US had acted in an arrogant, rude and disinterested manner on many occasions. While in Turkey, he said it was a failure on behalf of the US to not sign the Kyoto Protocol. He relaxed restrictions against Cuba and took the initiative to extend friendship to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is well known for his anti-US views. Obama has also bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. US relations with these nations that in the past have been hostile to the US are gradually improving because of Obama’s use of soft democracy.
Apart from the use of soft democracy, another factor behind Obama’s charisma is his discussion of “values” such as global denuclearization and the curbing of global warming, thus bringing a vision and a way out of the current international situation. Of course, nobody would believe in these values and they would have no effect if they were proposed by hard democrats such as Bush.
However, by his use of soft democracy, listening, respect, dialogue and cooperation, Obama makes us feel that these values have the potential to be realized. Hard democracy can only temporarily uphold the power balance or terror balance, whereas soft democracy can find new solutions and implement values.
By looking at Obama, we can gain some insight into the political situation in Taiwan. Without a doubt, Taiwan is a sacred place for hard democracy. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in opposition, it constantly blocked issues such as the general budget and the president’s nominations for the Control Yuan and had no wish to engage in dialogue. The party also wanted to impeach the president after he committed a policy mistake.
Now that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is in opposition, they have not come up with any meaningful alternatives to the KMT’s policy; they have simply busied themselves opposing this, that and the other. For example, even on the immensely important issue of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement with China, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is only interested in engaging President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in debate rather than communication.
Debate is bound to cause polarization, thus making communication and dialogue increasingly difficult. What hope does a country have when its leaders are unwilling to sit down and discuss issues?
Under such an atmosphere of mutual antagonism, politics become a contest for material resources and when this happens, political parties, factions and even individuals will start to monitor each other, keep checks and balances on each other and resist each other. These are aspects that a democracy must be based on and there is nothing wrong with this.
However, if we only have this kind of hard democracy without the soft aspects of democracy, the result of opposition will be the survival of the fittest, which has nothing to do with values. Taiwan will be unable to find a direction and a path for itself and will start to tread water or even descend into chaos. This is the reason for all the chaos in Taiwan over the past decade, in Japan for the past 20 years and in the US under the eight years of Bush, and it may even be the main reason why the world is in such a messed up state at the moment.
To overcome these problems, we must use hard democracy as a solid base on which to lay more fertile ground for a softer democracy. This is the only hope we have for creating new order and new values.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor in the Graduate School of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS