Every responsible government has to consider issues such as national security and national interests when making policy decisions.
What sort of decisions are harmful to national security and national interests? There is no clear-cut answer to this question, but what is certain is that the government does not have an absolute say on policies in cases where the government or the majority want to restrict personal freedoms in the name of national security and national interests.
While the government does not have an absolute say on such issues, neither does anyone else — for example, opposition parties or academics. In the end, it is the government that makes the decision.
There is one principle by which a government that espouses liberalism must stand, and this is that the government’s definition of “national security” or “the national interest” cannot cite values that may reasonably be disputed — whether it be establishing the Kingdom of God, reviving Confucianism or achieving the world’s highest GDP per capita. In addition, the government should only restrict personal freedoms when they pose a clear and immediate threat to national security and the national interest.
Although the principles of liberalism do not restrict a government from pursuing goals that may reasonably be disputed, the question is whether basic personal freedoms are restricted. A government has a rather wide scope of power, even to meet goals such as distributive justice, without having to restrict basic personal freedoms.
As soon as a government betrays the principle of liberalism by restricting personal freedoms, even if it claims that it is doing so for national security or interests, its decisions will lack legitimacy.
China seeks to hinder exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer’s activities around the world, so most people would agree that it would have a negative affect on cross-strait relations if the government let Kadeer visit.
Undeniably, cross-strait relations are an important part of our national security and interests, so our government believes that not allowing Kadeer to visit is a legitimate decision with a sound legal basis.
It would be wrong if we focused our debate over this question on whether Kadeer has links to terrorist groups, because this is not the real reason for the government’s decision. Rather, it should be asked whether the government’s decision stands up to the test of the principle of liberalism if the reason for rejecting Kadeer is to avoid hurting cross-strait relations.
If letting Kadeer visit would have the same result as declaring de jure independence likely would — namely, China launching a military invasion — then this would constitute an immediate and clear threat to national security. The government would be justified in blocking her visit.
But that is not the case. Much more likely is that China would take retaliatory measures involving economic losses for Taiwan and less room for Taiwan to maneuver internationally.
How serious the effects of this would be can be discussed, but it definitely would not be as devastating as war.
In defining Taiwan’s national security and interests in terms of cross-strait peace, the government is probably not citing values that may reasonably be disputed. However, in order to comply with the principles of liberalism, the government may only restrict personal freedoms that pose a clear and immediate threat to cross-strait peace.
Allowing Kadeer to visit would not pose an immediate threat to cross-strait peace, and the government’s ban on her is therefore unjustified. Yes, allowing Kadeer to visit would produce clear and immediate negative effects, but those effects would be losses to the economy and Taiwan’s room to maneuver in international affairs.
So if the government were to define national security and interests in terms of the economy and international room to maneuver, and then restrict individual freedoms in the name of national security and national interest, could it say it is not citing values that may reasonably be disputed?
This claim would be unconvincing. A government that truly espouses liberalism should develop cross-strait relations in a way that is beneficial to Taiwan on the condition that basic individual freedoms are respected and guaranteed.
Shei Ser-min is a professor of philosophy at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON AND JULIAN CLEGG
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS