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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS