Feb 520 min read

The Most Transparent Elections in the World? Adam Savit on the Taiwan Model

What can Americans learn from Taiwan when it comes to conducting secure and transparent elections?

In this episode, I sit down with Adam Savit, director of the China Policy Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. He was in Taiwan recently to observe the presidential elections there.

Watch the clip:

What is Taiwan’s significance for the United States? What would Japan do if the Chinese communist regime invaded Taiwan?

🔴 WATCH the full episode (44 minutes) on Epoch Times: https://ept.ms/S0125AdamSavit

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek: Adam Savit, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Adam Savit: Thanks so much for having me. It’s a pleasure.

Mr. Jekielek: Adam, you were in Taiwan for the recent election, and now you’re in Japan. I’ve seen a video of the tabulation of their voting, and it’s an incredible community event. It’s wildly transparent, and we can learn a lot from them. Let’s start here.

Mr. Savit: I did have that thought when I was on the ground, that Americans should actually be jealous of the Taiwanese election process, the entire spirit around it, as well as the technicalities of how they do it. They physically hold up the ballot and look at it. They have observers. That’s how the ballot is counted. They use paper and they use a pencil.

Not only that, they have to show up at the exact precinct that they were notified by mail to come to. It has to be in their hometown. We had a guide helping us out in Taipei, the capital and the largest city. His hometown was way down in southern Taiwan. At some point during the day, he hopped a high-speed rail train that takes about three hours to get all the way down south, and he voted in his home district.

This is not just about inside Taiwan. If you are stationed overseas or working overseas for any reason, you have to physically come back to Taiwan. There’s an absolute regrouping of Taiwanese ex-patriots from the U.S., from Japan, and from wherever they are. There are tens of thousands of Taiwanese businessmen who are in China, because they can’t avoid doing business with China. They’re so physically close.

In the decades preceding the more authoritarian Xi regime, a lot of them went there on business and some of them still remain there. It’s certainly a recognition that the maligned influence of the CCP is still there and they will not take chances with anyone remote-voting from mainland China. They want to see that piece of paper ballot in their hand.

Mr. Jekielek: If you want to vote, you have to go back to Taiwan. I don’t know if it’s necessary for the U.S. to do this, but you can see how that might help you to reconnect with your country and your community. I also noticed that with the vote counting, it’s a big event. People of all ages come out to watch and it’s actually a big spectacle.

Mr. Savit: Absolutely. As foreigners, we were a small delegation of four. The chair of our China Policy Initiative at AFPI [America First Policy Institute], Steve Yates, was leading the delegation. We had a journalist and a pollster, and we were able to observe a great deal.

We were able to get into the party headquarters. On the actual election day, we weren’t able to get into the precinct, but we did watch the returns come in with a group of Taiwanese citizens, again, to emphasize the fact that the returns came in and that they were counted and completed by 8:30 PM on the night of the election.

But we did get to witness how the average people experience their elections. We went to a rally of the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] , which has been the ruling party for eight years and now will be for another four years because their candidate did win the presidency. They claimed there were 100,000 people there. I don’t know about that, but it was a full, mid-sized stadium, with maybe 40,000 to 50,000 people.

In any case, it was very impressive. They’re not quite as rowdy as an American audience because it’s a different culture. Everyone is focused on the same thing and there are these parameters. It almost feels like each candidate is a trained announcer and it’s like a choreographed show.

When we first arrived, we were able to visit the DPP headquarters. Their theme was Team Taiwan, and they had the English letters on their T-shirts. It was a baseball theme, and they had a big baseball diamond in their headquarters. They had all these screens going and they had these themed T-shirts. They came up and handed us these erasers and said, “This is to erase Chinese disinformation.” It was a very vigorous and real engagement of the public for sure.

Mr. Jekielek: The disinformation pushed by the communist regime in mainland China into Taiwan is massive. They have a very strong influence on the largest media who push the Beijing line. But the results of this election are something Beijing didn’t want. Please tell us about this, since you’ve been talking to people on the ground.

Mr. Savit: The results are definitely something that Beijing didn’t want. The DPP won and it is clearly the anti-Beijing party. But you still can’t say they’re pro-independence, because they haven’t come out and said that. Just like the United States has strategic ambiguity, and even though we do support Taiwan, we don’t say that Taiwan is independent, which is our stated policy. The DPP has made that same calculation that it’s needlessly provocative to go all the way and say, “We are an independent nation.”

But yes, Beijing would have preferred the other major party, which is the KMT [Kuomintang], which was the party of Chiang Kai-shek. It was originally the nationalist party on the mainland and our ally during World War II. After World War II, Chiang Kai-shek was facing off against Mao and the Communist Party. That civil war raged until 1949 when Mao and the Communists pushed the nationalists off of mainland China into Taiwan. The KMT is still that original party. It has been called the oldest political party in Asia, and that is probably accurate.

But when it came to Taiwan, that party existed under Chiang’s authoritarian regime. After it formed, Taiwan actually did not have free and open elections for decades. The dictatorship loosened up strings a little in 1986 and had some local elections with a few political parties. But it wasn’t until 1996 that the presidential race was open to other parties.

The KMT were the people that fought a war with the CCP, and they are what’s left of those millions of Chinese who were bumped out of China into Taiwan. They still have a longing that one day, they will connect back with the mainland. They also are not under the illusion that this CCP regime, especially under Xi, who’s gotten more radical, is going to be so beneficial to return to, but they are much more accommodating to China. I did hear people saying, “Hey, China is huge. China is right there across the straits. We’re going to have to live with them, and being needlessly provocative is the wrong tack.”

Mr. Jekielek: We need to talk about this third party, a populist party. But in this case, maybe those labels are not correct. First, let’s talk about the importance of Taiwan to the US-China relationship. The biggest strategic threat to the U.S. is China. Taiwan faces all this propaganda that it will absolutely become part of the mainland, a central theme of Xi Jinping, the Chinese dictator. At the same time, the U.S. is watching and also involved in different altercations around the world. What is the importance of Taiwan to the U.S.? Why should Americans care?

Mr. Savit: I would like to emphasize some of the discourse of the America first movement, which of course AFPI identifies with. Some of it does veer into a cynical and I think incorrect view of Taiwan. Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy recognized that the semiconductors, those advanced microchips that Taiwan specializes in, are of strategic value to the U.S. He said that once that is offshored to the U.S. or to other countries, then we could abandon Taiwan to the predations of China. I think that is absolutely wrong.

Another huge issue is the shipping lanes that run from the Middle East carrying natural gas and oil through the Malacca Straits past Singapore and then to Southeast Asia. These lanes pass right by Taiwan in order to reach our allies, Japan and South Korea, two of the biggest economies in the world.

If that trade is disrupted, there would be massive strategic ramifications for the U.S., both for our economy and military, because if China were to take Taiwan, it would be able to break into the Pacific Ocean. They could send their ships there unimpeded and China could become a blue-water navy, which means deploying their ships all over the world.

Now, the United States is the only true blue-water navy in the world, meaning we deploy in the Middle East, and we deploy in order to protect the shipping lanes in the Red Sea from the Houthis, which leads up to the Suez Canal, which is an absolutely crucial shipping lane for the world. Actually, you could compare that to the waters off Taiwan, except there’s even more volume going through those lanes than there is through the Red Sea. That’s just one huge issue.

Mr. Jekielek: You were talking about the spirit in Taiwan and how this is basically a brand new democracy, 30 years in. There’s this spirit to do the democratic process and do it right. At the same time, this external threat is exerting massive influence through these various business people. There are also these overflights by military jets to remind people who is just across the strait and that you have to play along. It’s a very unusual climate.

Mr. Savit: It is. I wasn’t aware of any overflights while I was there, but the day we landed there was this missile test. It was unclear whether it was a satellite launch or a missile test, but Taiwan has an emergency text and broadcast system, and the English translation of that text said that there was a missile launch. Apparently, in their native language, it actually said a satellite launch, but in international reports, it said missile launch. Whether on purpose or not, that’s cognitive warfare right there, which makes people upset.

As far as the precarious situation that Taiwan is in, I kept thinking of Israel where I have been on the ground before, and it’s a very similar situation. With Israel, you have a relatively small, fragile democracy, but on its land borders it is surrounded by mortal enemies who are wishing them to be gone. With Taiwan, it’s a little different. At least they’re separated by about a hundred miles of sea, and it would take a much more difficult invasion. But Beijing has other methods to use, and yes, they are conducting an election under significant duress.

Maybe two days before, there was this intensity built up around the election. But once the election was over, life went back to normal. Part of that was reflected in the existence of that third party called the TPP [Taiwan People’s Party]. I mentioned the DPP, and they are more aggressive towards China. The KMT is more conciliatory towards China. There is no direct correlation between Left-Democrat, Right-Republican, which an American would understand coming to this political situation. It is largely defined by their relationship to China, because that is the dominant question politically in their lives.

Because of that, for the first time, there’s a fairly large third party, and I agree with the word populist. They’re saying, “Listen, these other parties have been focused on this China threat. Yes, it’s real, but they’ve been ignoring our everyday concerns.” They have the same problems everyone in the world is having now; inflation, cost of living, and healthcare.

They feel that these questions have been ignored, and especially the youth who are disillusioned and also detached from the violent and oppressive history of actually living under the CCP. It’s a populist party and it’s an escapist party. They’re throwing all of these random ideas into a pot, and making promises. They know that as a third party, they'll never actually have to govern, so they really don’t have to go in depth on these policies.

But it was enough that they got a good share of the vote, something like 25 percent. The winner, DPP, was something like 40 percent, and then the KMT was somewhere in the 30s. Now of course, the presidency is winner take all, so the KMT lost that, but we’ve got their parliament.

It’s a strange hybrid system. They do have districts like the U.S. has congressional districts, so they’re geographic. You'll have a vote there where the winner takes all. In that district, the winner wins. If it’s DPP, they get that seat.

They get a presidential vote, they get their local representative vote, and then they get this other party vote. Those party votes are added up and the percentages of those party votes grant them a certain amount of this other pie of legislators. I know it is quite confusing. Actually, there were Taiwanese that we were with who didn’t know how this system worked, much the same way Americans might not know the ins and outs of caucuses and the way electoral votes work.

The DPP came out with 51 seats, the KMT came out with 52 seats, but then there’s 9 seats with that third party, the TPP. This is the first time where no party had a majority, and therefore the TPP will be the kingmakers. The TPP will determine what legislation can be passed and what will come to William Lai, the new president. The DPP is very concerned that will mean that weapon systems from the U.S. will not be funded. They‘ll be cut back or they’ll be removed entirely.

Mr. Jekielek: This is one big question right now in American politics. How much military support should we be providing outside of the country?

Mr. Savit: That’s a real serious question, and we should give consideration to each situation, because each situation is unique. The first thing is that Americans have been having a discourse about for almost two years now on the war in Ukraine. That’s the front burner issue regarding foreign military aid.

Again, I'll go back to our America first frame at AFPI. When this war first started, Russia, unprovoked, attacked and invaded the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Also, Russia is an adversary of the United States, there’s no doubt about that. Ukraine had every right to defend itself. We were right strategically to give some support to Ukraine in the form of arms and in the form of aid.

Along the line, we’ve gotten to the point now where we’re $100 billion-plus into aid for Ukraine. Most importantly, there is no end point. There’s no stated limitation on this aid and there is no goal. What is the metric we use to measure the effectiveness of this aid and when will this aid ever end? That is something to be very concerned about, and that is one situation.

Taiwan is another situation. Again, what Taiwan gets as far as military equipment from the United States is not aid. They’re actually paying for it one way or another. In fact, they have orders backed up. Part of that is due to our supply chains in relation to Ukraine, because so much of our effort has gone there. But it’s also problems with our industrial capacity in general and with our supply chains.

Taiwan is ready, willing and able to pay and to defend itself. It is diversifying now away from huge weapon systems, expensive airplanes, and expensive ships. It is going the route of asymmetrical equipment and asymmetrical strategy. DPP officials were mentioning that standoff weapons that can hit Mainland China will never match the missile fleet of China, but it’s there as a deterrent. Taiwan has proven that they can pay for the weapons. They have a serious plan about how to use the weapons, and it’s really a net benefit for the United States.

Mr. Jekielek: What is the ultimate impact of the election on the U.S. and its allies?

Mr. Savit: It may sound strange, but I don’t think it has a definitive impact. I don’t think it will have an extreme impact on the overall trajectory of this situation. If the KMT got in, they would be a little bit more soft and a little bit more conciliatory towards China. But strangely, a good thing is that Xi has been so extreme that across the political spectrum in Taiwan, as well as the U.S., that these political parties and the average person is realizing the threat.

China is not really going to change its tactics either. It’s still not in their interest to launch a hot kinetic war on Taiwan, because other methods have been fairly successful on their own, like the gray zone tactics. An example would be the satellite missile launch on the day before the election. They are constantly sending dozens of military aircraft as well as seacraft across the demarcation line in the Taiwan Strait. They have a full blitz going on against the Taiwan media. They either own or influence aspects of the traditional Taiwan media.

They have social media influencers. Some of them are openly marked on Twitter. Some are either live propagandists or bots operating on TikTok. I did ask someone on the ground whether TikTok is present in Taiwan, because some of the work we’ve done at AFPI has been to combat TikTok in the United States.

It’s really a conundrum because it brings up questions of corporate independence and persecuting one individual company. It really is a hard nut to crack in a free country like the United States. They said they did have TikTok. They claimed that the Taiwanese government is actually more effective at filtering it to some degree.

I also asked them about WeChat, which is literally a CCP chat client and proven to be a CCP subsidiary. That is even available in Taiwan , which is puzzling. They said that anyone in the know is not using WeChat, but it’s still there as a channel as well.

But even if it’s a known propaganda outlet or it’s a suspect outlet, you’re still getting this propaganda flashing in front of your face. You’re seeing these articles. For us, we can see the filter in English. The Global Times is a big China propaganda outlet. You can go on the internet and you can read that stuff. Hopefully, you understand what you’re reading, but it’s through some sort of a filter.

But they are Mandarin readers, so this stuff is flying in front of them either overtly or covertly. They’re marinating in this Mandarin media environment, where you’ve got 1.3 billion Chinese who are flooding it.

Mr. Jekielek: When you say filter, you mean your own filter-like understanding that some things have political decision-making behind them. This is the challenge with TikTok. By the way, certain TikTok content may appear in one country, but it doesn’t appear in mainland China, and you can draw your own conclusions from that.

There are a number of ATL episodes explaining how TikTok functions. You can also view TikTok as an espionage issue, aside from it being a massive influence issue. Within a fairly short time, American TikTok users are thinking, “Osama bin Laden had some good points in his letter,” not that they’ve ever read it.

These influencers can be dialed up or dialed down in the interest of the Chinese regime, since this company is beholden to the CCP. This is the climate we are in, but most people don’t realize that on the ground. Obviously, TikTok is being used as a massive influence operation in Taiwan, and WeChat could be regarded as surveillance.

Mr. Savit: People may or may not realize these things. But Taiwan is probably the place where they’re most educated on it. The problem is that even if they are educated about TikTok and WeChat, they still use them, because they are addictive. It’s crazy. It’s like you’re compelled to use these apps.

Again, I would point to the more traditional newspaper mastheads like the Global Times. Sometimes I will Google something, I‘ll look at the result, I’ll look at the title, I‘ll look at the little sub headline and then I’ll say, “Oh, that must be…” It will stick in my head in a way. As much as I know that that is CCP propaganda, it made an impression.

Sometimes, you‘ll be reading stuff and then you’ll bring it up in a conversation later. You will ask yourself, “Where exactly did I hear that? Was that true or not true?” That even happens to professionals who are supposed to be very picky with the information that gets through the so-called filter. I can’t imagine being on the ground in Taiwan and reading Mandarin directly, and having all of the CCP’s best propaganda focused directly at you.

Mr. Jekielek: There are these large, well-produced supplements that the China Daily would place in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal with a tiny note saying, “This is sponsored content.” Taiwan is obviously an independent country by any rational measure. At the same time, there is the One China policy, and our doctrine of strategic ambiguity. What are the implications of President Biden saying the U.S. doesn’t support Taiwan independence?

Mr. Savit: There are a couple of issues going on here. Number one, we do have the baseline reality of the One China policy. Since 1979 and under the Taiwan Relations Act, we recognize Beijing as the address for the Chinese state. That has all kinds of awkward implications, because it also obligates us to arm Taiwan or provide Taiwan with the tools needed to defend itself. That’s already an awkward situation, but we also have the issues of the communication style of President Biden. It seems whenever he’s asked, he'll blurt out something different.

Now, in this case, he is actually accurate. We don’t endorse Taiwanese independence. But it’s strategically unwise for the President of the United States to emphasize that, after the party that is more aggressive towards China has just won the election. The President shouldn’t be emphasizing that and stating that emphatically at this point in time. But yes, that is the stated reality of U.S. policy.

Mr. Jekielek: Taiwan is a country with its own governance and robust democracy, as we’ve been discussing in this interview. While it doesn’t have an embassy in the United States, it does have a trade office which effectively functioned as an embassy. From its own perspective, Taiwan has been an independent country for a long time. It actually has nothing to do with Beijing.

Mr. Savit: It is very odd. It exists in this weird falling between the cracks of what a state is. It’s a philosophical question, “What makes a state? Does it need UN recognition? Does it need U.S. recognition, or is it a political unit which has its own elections and has its own army and conducts its own foreign policy?”

Under those definitions, it is a state. That’s part of why even the DPP, which is more independent-minded, finds that it’s not worth it right now to declare independence, because they’re getting a lot of the benefits of independence without that crazy provocation from China.

At the same time, they are pursuing diplomatic priorities. There are a dozen countries that recognize Taiwan as the one China. Indeed, one did drop off as a result of the election and I’m sure the CCP twisted their arm. It’s the country of Nauru and it’s the second least populated country in the world. It’s a Pacific Island country of 15,000 people, but it’s important.

This gets back to the regional strategic picture. Those small Pacific countries are islands that are spread across thousands of miles. They have a few thousand people, but their territory covers thousands of miles. Those thousands of miles are territory that the U.S. military would have to traverse if they need to get over to Taiwan and China in the case of a war. This is our backyard where China can be building military bases. They are trying to do so in the Solomon Islands where Australia used to have some influence, but now China is putting their claws in there.

They are trying to get behind that first layer of defense, which we call the first island chain, consisting of Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Then there’s that second layer of doing a back-around play, which is to influence the Pacific Island nations.

Mr. Jekielek: One leader from one of the states in the Solomon Islands is now no longer in his position because he decided to stand up against the communist regime’s influence in that country. Similarly, Former President Panuelo of the Federated States of Micronesia [FSM], which is much closer to the U.S., also stood up to the CCP. He had stories where the Chinese ambassador to FSM was literally walking behind him and telling him what he should be saying and what positions he should be taking. This is happening in that area right now.

Mr. Savit: That’s very haunting, but I believe it. I think they are called the Compact Countries.

Mr. Jekielek: Correct, that’s exactly right.

Mr. Savit: There are three countries. They are independent countries, but the U.S. is responsible for their defense and some other diplomatic functions. They’re client states in a way. It’s the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. These are three contiguous island states with huge ocean areas around them. If you look at a map, it’s literally in the middle of where we would need to jump to get to China. We ignored these states and were really out to lunch on that question.

Mr. Jekielek: I want to talk about why you are in Japan, and also about this gray zone warfare that the CCP engages in. You mentioned the CCP overflights to remind people who’s in charge and the media control, but there are other elements which are actually physical. For example, a merchant marine from China is very different from a merchant marine from the U.S. You’ve got reinforced hulls and electronics that are built to interface with the Chinese military. The merchant marine from China can function as an arm of the PLA. It’s a model that China applies across the board.

Another issue is Huawei. Why are Huawei products so incredibly cheap all over the world and have established a foothold? It is because there is a strategic imperative and they are not just doing business.

Mr. Savit: Yes, they will literally weaponize every aspect of everything. If you leave any avenue or lane open, they will fill it. I'll call them ingenious on that point. Some people will say they are evil geniuses. They will wait for centuries, rather than just years. I don’t know if they’re really incredible geniuses, or if they simply have the weight of numbers and the weight of will, which creates this totalitarian dictatorship that wants to retain control and expand its control.

Mr. Jekielek: They are also aided by the permissiveness of free nations.

Mr. Savit: Yes, it’s not one-sided. We often say the key to defeating the CCP is American prosperity and bolstering the American homeland and American pride. This is absolutely opportunistic. The U.S. has the potential to have a roaring economy and to have the biggest and best military, which is a deterrent to war. It would not cause war.

We were asleep at the wheel while China came in through research projects and through corporate acquisitions, taking tons of intellectual property through hundreds of thousands of students. It’s an issue that we’ve looked at a great deal at AFPI, along with the question of agricultural and strategic land near our infrastructure and military bases.

Again, who was thinking about this? Who was thinking that they could buy tracks of a few hundred acres that are within five miles of a military base? No one. They saw an opening and they went for it. It’s legal. We are open societies and we don’t think about preventing this. We also have other countries investing in U. S. land.

When we looked at this question. Canada, Germany, and Italy are some of the top investors in U.S. land. What are they using it for? Timber, wine, and that sort of thing. We’re not thinking that someone is going to take this land and do something nefarious with it. That’s exactly where the CCP finds a crack and goes in.

Mr. Jekielek: As we finish up, let’s talk about Japan, obviously an important U.S. ally in Asia. You’re passing through there on your way back to America. Please tell us about Japan.

Mr. Savit: I would like to emphasize that Japan is absolutely key. Of course, for the health of Taiwan itself, their military is key. But Japan is really the top ally in this region and is incredibly important, because it is still the number three world economy. It is democratic, and since World War II has had a strong democratic tradition. It has a direct treaty alliance with the United States. If Japan goes to war, then we go to war.

There’s no question, and many people might not know this, with a Taiwan conflict, Japan would be drawn into that war immediately. People envision just the main islands of Japan. But they have a long archipelago, hundreds of miles of these little islands. The largest one is Okinawa, which people have heard of. They go all the way down to Taiwan, and the last one is only 90 miles off of Taiwan. If China were to invade Taiwan, they would need to neutralize those Japanese islands.

In fact, Japan is fortifying those islands. I talked to some people here who are involved in that, and they’re positioning standoff weapons. On those islands, they are positioning missiles that can reach into China. There’s no question that China will hit those islands.

Also, Japan hosts tens of thousands of U.S. troops. We have huge naval and Air Force bases there. Since we are completely integrated with Japan defense-wise, China will fire on those U.S. bases as well. I just had a discussion today with some retired military officials about communication and coordination between the U.S. and Japanese military. They asked, “What U.S. forces need to be in Japan for this contingency? What is Japan able to contribute?

Since World War II, Japan has had a pacifist constitution. Technically, they’re not even supposed to have a military; an Army, Navy, and Air Force. They actually call it the Japan Self-Defense Force, that’s the way they frame it. But since China has been on the rise and since President Xi especially, they are recognizing that this is a real present threat on their doorstep. They underlined that for me.

They said, “We’re here on the front line. You sit back over there and observe the threat, but we feel this coming down our necks.” There is also North Korea. North Korea is testing missiles that are going over Japan, so they really are a front line state. You can talk about Israel and talk about Taiwan, but Japan is a front line state.

Mr. Jekielek: Adam, this has been a fascinating conversation. Any final thoughts as we finish up?

Mr. Savit: Yes, Since I’m sitting here in Japan and having this experience right now, I know we have great allies here. We have real serious thinkers that are thinking about the future of Japan. I’m also perceiving a real care, affection, and willingness to work with and help the United States. As I said, they are still a powerful country. They understand the threat of China. It’s just been a wonderful, illuminating experience to be able to talk with them. I hope that we will collaborate and confront this problem together.

Mr. Jekielek: Adam Savit, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Savit: Thanks so much for having me.