Formosa Foundation

CONFERENCE OVERVIEW

On December 17, the Formosa Foundation and the Sigur Center for Asian Studies at the George Washington University, in conjunction with the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, presented a one-day, international conference on Taiwan’s unique democratic predicament in the face of globalization.  The conference, titled “Can Democracy Survive Globalization? Lessons from Taiwan,” sought to understand the challenges facing democracy in an era of globalization and Taiwan’s unique predicament.

The conference brought together dignitaries and scholars from both the United States and Taiwan to discuss the future of democracy and Taiwan’s role in preserving its democratic institutions.  Featured key-note addresses from Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and former Senator Bob Dole (R-KN) strongly encouraged the United States to support Taiwan.  More than 150 people attended the event, including 13 media outlets.

Taiwan represents one of the greatest paradoxes of democracy in contemporary global politics—praised for its struggle for self-government and a democratic set-up, but not fully recognized by the international community and always in danger of losing sovereignty.  This conference explored the challenges that democracies face, the inconsistencies that are inherent in the global system’s rules of the game, and the importance of international support for Taiwan.

The issues addressed by the conference encapsulate both the theoretical underpinnings and the policy dimensions of Taiwan’s democracy under globalization.  Specific topics included the role of East Asian democracies in maintaining peace in the region, Taiwan’s democratic achievements, self-determination and its fundamental role in democracy, and democracy’s relationship to economic growth.

OPENING SESSION

Dr. David Huang, deputy representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECRO), Taiwan’s de facto embassy in Washington D.C., inaugurated the conference by challenging the panelists to find the opportunities presented by globalization to address China’s affront to Taiwan’s democracy.  Huang explained that, in the era of globalization, the international community should aspire to resolve ongoing disputes democratically through greater transparency and free-competition.  He reported that these principles are consistent with the longstanding trade relationship between the United States and Taiwan which is the centerpiece of the external support needed to sustain Taiwan’s democracy.  Internally Taiwan’s young democracy is still grappling with many challenges like transitional justice, worsening political gridlock, weakening social coherence, and a paralyzing constitutional debate.

Dr. Lung-chu Chen, Chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation and President of UN for Taiwan Alliance, based his remarks on “UN Membership for Taiwan in the New Era of Democracy and Globalization.”  A law professor from the New York Law School and an ardent advocate for Taiwan’s membership in the United Nations, Dr. Chen viewed Taiwan’s exclusion in the global body as a form of political apartheid.  As a free, democratic country and a significant economic and technological power, Taiwan is rated as one of the “Most Free” countries in the Freedom House Annual Report.  And as a member state of the United Nations, Taiwan will be able to share with other member states its remarkable “Taiwan experience” both in economic growth and transition to democracy.  Dr. Chen was convinced that a seat at the UN table would enable Taiwan to be an active and responsible member in the UN system, making significant contributions towards international cooperation in dealing with economic, social, cultural, human rights and humanitarian affairs.

PANEL DISCUSSION I: Globalization and Impact on Taiwan’s Democracy

The first panel, “Globalization and the Impact of Taiwan’s Democracy,” included presentations by renowned experts such as Professor David Steinberg of Georgetown University, Professor Edward Freidman of the University of Wisconsin, Professor Tun-jen Cheng of College of William & Mary, and Professor Donald Rodgers of Austin College.

Professor Steinberg from Georgetown University spoke on “Power and Democracy in Post Confucian Globalized Societies.”  Steinberg described the nexus of power and democracy in post-Confucian societies such as Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and China.  He explained that the contemporary phenomenon in these societies is a Confucian revivalism that resulted, in part, to manage the residual effects of globalization.  The presidents in Confucian societies generally possess more power than in Western countries. Steinberg postulated that this stems from cultural ethics in Confucian philosophy, which strongly emphasizes hierarchy based on family values, which still permeates deeply in the Asian outlook of state-society relations. Civil society acts as a mediatory between the state and public sphere, but civil society in the Western sense is premature in Chinese societies (with the exception of Taiwan).  Steinberg concluded that a different but effective democracy would still develop in the post-Confucian societies.

On “Democracy and Legitimacy: the False Promise of Globalization,” Professor Donald Rodgers presented a series of parameters that acted as prompts for the audience: does globalization help democratization?  Has globalization weakened democratic legitimacy?  Should governments seek legitimacy through democratization?  Rodgers described Taiwan’s democracy as a “constrained democracy.”  He explained that Taiwan under the Kuomintang’s (KMT) one-party rule only strengthened democratization in order to achieve greater legitimacy at home and abroad.  Rodgers’s presentation identified the fundamental fallacy of globalization --the belief that globalization acts autonomously of human agency. On the contrary, Rodgers argues that globalization, as a regime, does not possess specific values, and that it is up to us to instill the values to institutionalize democracy as globalization’s normative value.

Professor Tung-jen Cheng focused on the “Economic Growth and Democratic Practices,” and compared the relationship between economic growth and democratization using South Korea and Taiwan as examples. Cheng argued that the underlying factor behind the notion that democracy contributes to economic slow down is not political but a confluence of economic factors. Prof. Cheng said that Taiwan’s economic integration and trade concentration with less developed countries can have negative impacts on Taiwan’s economy.  Instead, Taiwan should trade more with countries of higher income per capita, and have closer economic integration with the more developed nations.  Unfortunately, political isolation is preventing Taiwan from signing FTA with these countries.

Professor Edward Friedman from the University of Wisconsin, on “the Third Wave of Authoritarianism and China,” pointed out that the view of globalization is misshaped by the Third Wave of Authoritarianism.  Friedman said these authoritarian countries enjoy the advantages of democratic deficits while promoting its economic growth, in the face of obsolesces and impunity from the free world.  The free world’s inaction is indirectly rewarding the behavior of these regimes’ repressive tactics, and in turn stunts their progress to becoming regimes that are more legitimate.

SPECIAL REMARKS: Current State of Democracy

The first panel was followed by special remarks from Dr. Wen-Cheng Lin and Mr. Carl Gershman, each as the head of the premier democratic foundation in Taiwan and the United States: the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy and the National Endowment for Democracy, respectively.

Dr. Wen-cheng Lin, president of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, a nongovernmental organization established in 2003 to promote Taiwan’s democracy to the international community, reminded the audience that Taiwan is a new democracy born during the “Third Wave of Democratization” which was brought about after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union.  Lin pointed out that Taiwan’s remarkable democratization experience can provide a valuable lesson for other emerging democracies throughout the world. Taiwan, however, faces a different challenge that sets it apart from other democracies; it faces an external threat in the form of a rising China that is politically incongruent with international norms.  Lin concluded with an explanation of how Taiwan’s current efforts are geared toward the legalization of democracy, and the removal of the limitations to Taiwan’s democracy, through amending the ROC constitution to reflect the current political realities.
Mr. Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, mapped out the rough political terrain for the advancement of democracy and freedom throughout the world.  Gershman points out that the process of democratization is in recession, in the form of a “reserve wave” manifested by the backlash against democracy assistance in Russia, Venezuela, Belarus and China.  Gershman explained that the underlying force behind the backlash is not globalization, but a combination of independent variables.  These variables include high oil prices, which strengthens autocrats in Russia, Venezuela and Iran. Second, a rise of populism, partly due to deficiencies in democratic transition that contributes to the transient rise in inequality and poverty.  Third, the use by autocrats the pretext of the war on terror to strengthen anti-democratic forces by restricting freedom.  

Gershman warned that the rise of China is of particular concern, especially because of China’s growing influence in international development. China’s strategic economic outpour offers an alternative form of development for autocrats throughout the world, and threatens to derail the carefully crafted design to improve governance.  Gershman said that Taiwan’s experience is emblematic that democracy is tough. Moreover, that transition to democracy is not enough; institutionalization of democratic institutions is a prerequisite for democratic consolidation through gaining the confidence of citizens in a democratic society. Taiwan’s situation now is a function of deep polarization in Taiwan’s society, and Taiwan has “fewer margins for error” because of its precarious relationship with China.

PLENARY ADDRESS – Ambassador James Lilley

Former Ambassador James Lilley spoke on the role of the United States in maintaining the delicate balance in the Taiwan Strait. He offered his invaluable experience in the U.S. Foreign Service as insights to the critical role that the United States can forces play in balancing the countervailing forces to maintaining the status quo. He concluded with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill: “We invariable do the right after we exhaust all options.”

KEYNOTE ADDRESS I – Senator Robert Dole

Former Senator and Majority Leader Robert Dole praised Taiwan’s achievements from a one-party rule to a full-fledged multi-party political system.  Dole pointed out that globalization presents special challenges to Taiwan because China is everywhere on the global stage. Senator Dole offered his preference for U.S. policy focused less on China’s might and more on America’s democratic alliance with Taiwan.  These include a vigorous U.S.-led effort to admit Taiwan as a member of the World Health Organization.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS II – Senator Sherrod Brown

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) addressed the audience about the importance of convincing American elected officials and the public about Taiwan’s miracle and its relationship with the United States.  Brown used himself as an example.  As a first year Congressman, a Taiwanese American came to his office and started to tell him about Taiwan and turned Brown into a strong supporter of Taiwan.  To engender more support for Taiwan and more Taiwan-friendly policy experts, Brown urged the audience, especially Taiwanese Americans, to build relationship with American political activists, elected officials and candidates.

PANEL DISCUSSION II – Democracy and Security in Cross Strait Stability

Mr. Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory, Professor June Teufel Dreyer from the University of Miami, Mr. John Tkacik, Senior Research Fellow from the Heritage Foundation, and Mr. James Mann, renowned journalist, author, and author-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University, joined the panel for a lively conversation about the Taiwan – China relationship and democracy.

Stephen Yates’s speech zeroed in on East Asian democracies and regional peace and the many challenges that they face.  Mr. Yates cited transparency, disaggregating of power, and slow deliberations in decision making with minimal results.  He cited the tensions, almost constant in some democracies, between the demands of the campaigning versus governing as another challenging hurdle in democracies.  Mr. Yates pointed out that in national security decision making in East Asian democracies, deterrence has become another challenge.  If countries that you seek to deter are very readily able to see the division within your policy, your budget, your acquisition process and training of your military because you have an open and transparent process, at times deterrence can become more difficult with democratization.

China’s illiberalism and regional stability were the topic of Dr. June Teufel Dreyer’s remarks.  She quickly established that the optimists’ claim that “as China democratizes it will become more liberal and more willing to accommodate its neighbors” may be premature and regional security more uncertain.  Dr. Dreyer reminded the audience that to most people the definition of stability means the absence of war or, at the very least, the absence of violent confrontation but little of this has concerned China in the last decade. She noted that it was the Chinese general who asked if the US was willing to trade Taiwan for Los Angeles in a nuclear confrontation.

Dr. Dreyer pointed out that stability is also defined as the state of being fixed and if we use that definition the region has not been stable at all.  She said that for all the cant coming out of both Beijing and Washington about “It being bad to disturb the status quo,” China has in fact achieved quite a bit of change to the status quo that is favorable to its international position. 

John Tkacik explored the question of the United States balancing its policy in the Taiwan Strait between democratization and national identity in Taiwan on one side and China on the other.  Mr. Tkacik revealed that the question is quite simple if you view it as not as a problem of Taiwan’s democracy rather see clear that it is China’s threats of war which are the root cause of discord.  No one could dispute that Taiwan has already been independent, de facto, since 1949 and that Taiwan hasn’t been governed by Beijing since 1895 and that Taiwan’s emerging consensus on its national identity is a result of its de facto independent, not as the Chinese communist would suggest, a cause of it.  Beijing threatens war if theTaiwanese people do not submit to China’s demand that they accept Beijing’s sovereignty over their country.  Yet, as Mr. Tkacik pointed out there is no philosophical or theoretical truth to substantiate China’s irredentist claims to Taiwan; it is simply brute force.

In his remarks on U.S. ideas on China’s future, James Mann laid out three different scenarios that get used in American political debates about China and where it is headed.  The first he called the soothing scenario which he described as the most dominate in American political discourse about China.  This view is that China is gradually heading towards political liberalization or democracy and that as China’s economic advances that things are inevitably headed towards political change.  The second is called the collapse scenarios, which is that China is headed for some kind of blowup or disintegration.  The third which he believes is the most likely is simply called the third scenario – in which a continuation of the one-party state that will not allow organized political opposition or freedom of the press will continue for many years to come. 

PANEL DISCUSSION III – Taiwan Policy Road Map for the Next U.S. President

The last panel, presided by Professor Henry Nau of the George Washington University, attempted to put forth suggestions for future U.S. policy on Taiwan. This panel composed of Messrs. Randall Schriver, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, Rupert Hammond-Chambers, President of the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, and Christopher Griffin, Research Fellow from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Discussion from Randall Schriver revolved around the bipartisan study group that was formed last year in an effort to become more proactive in moving the U.S. and Taiwan relationship forward. As the co-chair of that group Mr. Schriver articulated the necessity of having a “play-book” that outlined how a bilateral relationship between the two countries should progress. He emphasized that by creating proactive measures that each new government could follow would enhance the relationship. Mr. Schriver explained that it is vital that a re-articulation of why Taiwan matters to the United States has to be presented to the senior officials in the next government in a cogent and persuasive form in order for them to understand the important of the relationship.

Saying that Taiwan is a democracy is not enough, in Mr. Schriver’s opinion. The bipartisan study group aims to create a more comprehensive and persuasive argument of why Taiwan is important to the United States. That argument would cover security issues, nontraditional security issues; economic issues, global health, and the environment. He pointed out that currently there is no document that articulates why the U.S.– Taiwan relationship is important nor is there any “blue-print” that talks about what is required by both sides.  It is his hope that the study group will be able to change the nature and content of the dialogue by discussing a broader agenda that could be the foundation for improving U.S.-Taiwan relations. 

Rupert Hammond-Chambers, also a member of the bipartisan study group, focused his remarks on the interplay between economics and democracy and how little Taiwan utilizes its economic strength to project its interest. He recommended that Taiwan construct a professional message about Taiwan’s role in the global supply chain that emphasizes how significant the country is economically and the key role that it plays in many things that we consume as citizens in the United States.  

Mr. Hammond-Chambers referred to Taiwan as a country that “bats so much further above its weight than most countries around the world but one that does not share its message in a concentrated way with the world.”  He also proposed that Taiwan and the United States have a trade and industry framework agreement process put into place such as a free-trade agreement. He stresses that an FTA is important to the relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan, important to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and will allow Taiwan to engage in the rapid process that is taking place in the region without being isolated. 

Christopher Griffin pointed out in his remarks that “crisis management is not a foreign policy anymore than I-think-that-I can-always-go-to-the emergency-room is a health plan.”  He was describing the current U.S.-Taiwan relationship and how it is conducted haphazardly.  

Christoher Griffin, another member of the bipartisan study group, spoke on the need for the relationship to be seen as a means to deliver more broadly the public good of security, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, counter-proliferation efforts, counter terrorism efforts and all the other things that make American foreign policy effective in Asia and in the world.  He pointed out that the reason that the U.S.-Taiwan relationship can fulfill this role is because of the degree of cooperation that already exists between the two countries; but enhanced cooperation on these initiatives can and should be achieved.  Taiwan is already a responsible stakeholder and Mr. Griffin stressed that by making it more so would ensure that the United States and Taiwan work together to deliver the public good. 

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the conference was to explore the ways in which globalization has contributed to the creation of this new paradigm, where new democracies and democratic values are challenged every day.  Chinese threats against Taiwan’s democracy only heighten the precariousness of regional security, prosperity, and peace.  Without international support for Taiwan and its democratic gains, promoting democracy anywhere else in the world is severely limited.

The prevailing attitude of the conference is that of cautious optimism toward the opportunities presented by globalization, a reconfirmation of Taiwan’s irreversible path on democracy, and a rebuke to world leaders’ neglect of Taiwan’s relevance and importance on the international stage.

The Formosa Foundation expresses gratitude to all the speakers who participated in this conference.  Their remarks are available in text posted on the Formosa Foundation website.  The Formosa Foundation is thankful for having the opportunity to work with the staff at the Sigur Center for East Asian Studies at the George Washington University.  The Foundation is especially grateful for the generosity of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, without whose financial sponsorship this conference may not have come into fruition.

The conference was held from 9:00 AM to 4:15 PM, inside the Jack Morton Auditorium of the George Washington University, at 805, 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Conference Agenda (PDF) Conference Transcript (PDF)