Coinciding with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an uptick in the Taiwanese government’s rhetoric to frame bilateral issues with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and other international issues — often relating to its status — through the binary of a democratic Taiwan versus an authoritarian PRC.
For instance, the Chinese General Administration of Customs has suspended multiple agricultural and seafood imports from Taiwan, ranging from pineapples to grouper, and most recently, more than 2,000 food products after US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taipei last month.
The Democratic Progressive Party-led government politically and socially responded by prefixing exports with labels of freedom and democracy — “freedom pineapples” or “democracy semiconductors” — which is meant to contrast with Chinese authoritarianism.
Various think tanks and op-eds in Chinese-language newspapers seem to subscribe to the notion that Taiwan is fighting at the forefront of Chinese authoritarian encroachment and therefore sees itself as the first line of defense in the global democratic alliance.
As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) warned, should Taiwan fall to China, there would be “catastrophic consequences.”
As a pitch, that is empirically muddled. While it is true the PRC’s ambition of annexing Taiwan is increasingly pronounced and is likely to damage the prospect of regional peace, is there credence to framing this as a democratic versus authoritarian divide as Pelosi, Tsai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) have so vigorously argued? Likely not.
Starting with the basic facts, Taiwan’s already modest group of diplomatic allies, such as Eswatini, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras, are either hybrid regimes that are partly free, or they are authoritarian regimes that are not free. This is inconsistent with Taipei’s claim to stand with the “free” world.
Even if we turn a blind eye to these countries, what about India, Saudi Arabia and Israel, where Taiwanese politicians and think tanks have been calling for warming ties in recent years?
Did they conveniently forget that India has been criticized by academics and activists for emboldening racist rhetoric, becoming a Hindu fascist state that turns a blind eye to the bulldozing of Muslim homes, businesses and mosques?
Saudi Arabia, which is among the worst human rights abusers in the world, executing children, assassinating journalists, jailing women for using Twitter and ceaselessly bombing Yemen, is a country that Taipei Grand Mosque Imam Ibrahim Chao (趙錫麟) believes should be maintaining and strengthening bilateral relations.
Let us not forget Israel, either. The “only democracy” in the Middle East has been extensively criticized and boycotted by academics in Europe and North America for its illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Various European governments, the EU and non-governmental organizations have condemned and documented Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinian rights and civil liberties have been severely eroded.
Last year, Human Rights Watch for the first time published a report labeling Israel an apartheid state.
The case of Israel highlights the more hypocritical aspects of Taiwan’s foreign policy. There are two ironies to unpack here.
First, Taiwan’s claim of being a democratic bulwark, yet it casually overlooks the Palestinian question.
Previously, Taiwanese politicians such as Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and Wu have lauded Israel for its technological, military and economic prowess. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs went as far as to claim that Taiwan and Israel are like-minded countries sharing similar values.
Not once have they displayed concern for the military occupation, the viability of a two-state solution, or the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which is a breach of the fourth Geneva Convention. This irony is amplified by the attention given to Ukraine in the “Taiwan Stands with Ukraine” campaign after the Russian invasion.
What is more inconspicuous is that Zionists often use the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as a deflection. They argue that nobody has ever called the KMT out and has widely accepted its legitimacy over the nation, so what makes Israel any different? Or, why should we focus only on Israel?
Despite the KMT and Israel ticking all the boxes of what constitutes settler colonialism in academia, the only difference is that the KMT has assimilated into Taiwanese society, while Palestinians are still treated as second-class citizens or stateless subjects.
It is ironic that the government and its pro-independence politicians claim to export democratic principles and share like-minded values with Israel, while it simultaneously lambasts the KMT for the misery it inflicted and, more radically, its supporters accuse the KMT of colonizing Taiwan.
The government cannot have its bread buttered on both sides.
Unfortunately, due to Taipei’s limited recognition, it desperately welcomes all forms of international acknowledgment regardless of their background and affiliation.
As a result, the government has frequently taken a conformist stance in exchange for advancing its international position, often at the expense of other oppressed or marginalized groups.
More problematic is how government officials have been co-opted, or been outright oblivious to the track records of countries that do not share the principles and values defended in their foreign policy campaigns.
Taiwan’s strategy in promoting democratic principles as Asia’s so-called “beacon of democracy” is contradictory given its foreign relations. In resolving this contradiction, Taiwan should move away from virtue signaling and adopt a policy of political pragmatism, valuing reality over ideology.
That is not to say that democratic values and humanistic principles should be undervalued or permanently discarded in its foreign policy agenda.
However, the government must maintain a consistent stance. Without the will to safeguard the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy for all, what difference can we claim from autocratic states?
Wei Azim Hung graduated from Leiden University, The Hague, specializing in East Asian studies with minors in Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian studies.
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
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
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