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.
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