For the past three decades, successive US presidents have adopted a policy of engagement with China: opening the US market to Chinese products, thus enabling the People’s Republic of China’s rapid economic growth and embracing it as a member of the community of nations, thus enhancing the legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule in the eyes of its citizens. This policy is based on the theory that economic reform will inevitably lead to political liberalization and democratic transformation, and that a democratic China will be friendly toward the US and its neighbors. In this scenario, the US should welcome the emergence of a more powerful China.
However, this theory has not panned out. The CCP abhors democracy, something amply demonstrated by the “Tiananmen Papers” (Andrew Nathan, Foreign Affairs, January-February 2001). According to Nathan, six party elders met with the Politburo’s Standing Committee on June 2, 1989, and decided on the removal of “counter-revolutionaries from Tiananmen Square. Both Li Peng (李鵬) and Li Xiannian (李先念) talked about the Goddess of Liberty statue erected by the students with venom. Wang Zhen (王震) fumed: “Anybody who tries to overthrow the Communist Party deserves death and no burial.”
The CCP abhors democracy for several reasons. First, democratization means the demolition of its monopoly on power (and wealth). Second, once the grip on the means of coercion is lost, emboldened citizens would demand a settlement of accounts for the party’s past sins, such as the tens of millions who perished during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and the endemic malfeasance of party officials. Third, the CCP is convinced Western democracy is incompatible with Chinese culture and tradition. Finally, the CCP believes its socialist government is more efficient in achieving national goals such as economic growth, a powerful military and world domination.
During the 2007 session of the National People’s Congress, Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said China would remain at the “primary stage of socialism,” which requires guidance by the CCP, for at least another 100 years.
The preservation of Taiwan as an independent democracy is in accord with the interests of the US and its democratic allies in Asia, precisely because Taiwan’s democracy is a thorn in the side of the CCP.
Taiwan is a beacon of hope for those Chinese who aspire to a more open society that embraces the rule of law, freedom of expression and religion, and in which people can freely elect their officials and representatives at all levels of government. Taiwan’s experience invalidates the fallacy that democratic values are incompatible with Chinese culture.
An independent Taiwan hinders China’s projection of power into the Pacific and Indian Oceans and safeguards vital airspace and sea lines of communication for Japan and South Korea. The preservation of Taiwan’s freedom assists the US in maintaining its economic, political and military presence in East Asia and contributes directly to the peace and stability of the region and beyond.
For the 23 million Taiwanese, retaining their democracy means freedom from the CCP’s repressive rule and preserving the right to live in a free nation where their property, liberty and life are protected. It also ensures Taiwan’s ability as a de facto independent state to contribute to the welfare of the international community by offering technical assistance to developing nations, disaster relief and facilitating the prosperity of the global IT and communications industries through Taiwan’s role as a critical element of the supply chain.
Li Thian-hok is a distinguished fellow of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington.
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