In the past week, presidential candidates have made important speeches and held big rallies to muster support for their campaigns in the run-up to today’s all-important presidential and legislative elections. At the same time, the US has been focused on the Republican Party’s presidential primary in New Hampshire held on Tuesday and it is now eagerly awaiting the next one in South Carolina next Saturday, in preparation for the US presidential elections in November.
The two elections have several things in common; heated debate about the economy, the social system, healthcare, house prices and good governance. However, there are also significant differences: the US is an established power with a global presence that is generally respected, but sometimes challenged by nations with different interests, while Taiwan is a small country, threatened by a giant neighbor that denies its existence as a free and democratic nation, while most of the rest of the world only maintains economic ties and tends to meekly accept Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation.
It is quite remarkable that in spite of all the obstacles, Taiwanese have built such a vibrant democracy. Therefore, It would be good if the US could for a moment turn its attention away from domestic concerns and focus on what is happening in Taiwan today.
The presidential campaign has been a close-run race between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), who favors closer ties with China, and Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), who emphasizes retaining Taiwan’s freedom and democracy.
While the US has officially taken no side in this election, and rightly so, it needs to pay closer attention to the fairness of the election process and the reaction of the People’s Republic of China. I already discussed the first of these in an earlier article (“Neutrality needed from Washington and Beijing,” Dec. 28, page 8). I would like to take this opportunity to say a few more words about what we can expect in terms of cross-strait relations.
If Ma wins, we can expect a continuation of current trends and the nation would likely drift closer to China.
Will this be good for democracy in Taiwan?
It might bring short-term stability, but is it good for the longer-term balance in East Asia?
If Tsai wins and there is a peaceful transition of government, that would demonstrate the vibrancy of democracy in Taiwan and be a beacon of hope for people in neighboring countries, particularly China.
However, in such an eventuality, Beijing’s leaders — who are not very interested in democracy — can be expected to kick up a storm and increase political tension, or threaten Taiwan with economic or even military measures.
The best way for the US to counter such pressure is to make it crystal clear that it stands by Taiwan, that it supports its democracy and will work closely with the nation’s elected political leaders.
The US also needs to stress that during the four-month transitional period until the new administration takes office, all sides must respect the outcome of the elections and support a peaceful transition, without any outside interference.
In this way, we can ensure that Taiwanese have a free choice in decisions that impact their future. This is just as important as the discussions in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 through 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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
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,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS