Why civic values are Taiwan’s best defense

In a public debate, the leaders of China and Taiwan reveal what it takes to create a national identity rooted in shared ideals.

AP
Supporters of the opposition Nationalist Party cheer during a November election campaign in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

In a rather public debate, the leaders of China and Taiwan have revealed what it takes to create a national identity rooted in shared ideals. Let’s just say the small island nation off China’s coast won, as its president’s statements make clear.

On Tuesday, President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan gave a New Year’s speech in which she said her 24 million people insist on freedom and democracy, unlike on the mainland. “China has to face the fact that the Republic of China [Taiwan] exists,” she said. It should use “peaceful and equal terms” to deal with differences.

The next day, in a speech solely about Taiwan, President Xi Jinping said in Beijing that “differences in [governing] systems” should not be an excuse against unification, an idea he called “inevitable” and perhaps made possible someday by force. The people of Taiwan are part of the same “family,” Mr. Xi insisted, which he called the “Chinese nation.”

In response, Ms. Tsai then took the high road, far above any claim to shared bloodlines or ancient cultural ties. “Democracy is a value and lifestyle cherished by the Taiwanese people,” she simply said.

Taiwan’s identity, in other words, is rooted in civic ideals such as the rights of individuals and equality of all before law. That fact is clear by the vibrancy of its democracy since 1992. Polls show about half of its citizens see themselves as “Taiwanese only.” Taiwan also notices how China has used threats to clamp down on liberties in Hong Kong since retaking the territory in 1997.

The model of authoritarian rule, an “option” offered to other countries by Xi, is rejected widely in Taiwan. Since the end of a civil war on the mainland in 1949, it has steadily seen itself as free and independent. The island has never been ruled by the People’s Republic of China.

Taiwan’s clarity on the need for shared values rather than common interests to define national identity is a lesson for other peoples in conflict. It may also help explain Britain’s great divide over its 2016 decision to leave the European Union even though it shares so much with the democracies on the Continent. “Our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share,” said Prime Minister Theresa May last year. “We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The debate in Britain is instead mainly over how much to reclaim power over aspects of trade, regulations, and immigrant flows. Civic values are not an issue. In fact, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, says the difficult work to decide on Brexit “is part of the joy and blessing of being a community.”

A values-based debate is essential to peace both within and between nations. With his threat of force to unite Taiwan with China, Xi throws out one key value – respect for the Taiwanese – in making a choice on their future. Yet with due respect for him, the island nation’s leader merely pointed out Taiwan’s democratic character. Point well made.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.