Say democracy, do realistically: Interplays between Taiwan's democratization and the United States, 1986--2008

In the contexts of America's dissonant attitudes toward Taiwan's democratization and independence over the past two decades, two major research questions are raised in this study: first, why does the more-powerful senior democracy (the United States) not fully support or oppose to some democratizing agendas of the less-powerful junior democracy (Taiwan) if Washington proclaims democracy promotion all over the world? Second, does the United States continue to support Taiwan when its democratization interferes with security and stability in the Taiwan Strait and East Asia?;Based on research questions above, this dissertation concentrates on the role of the United States in Taiwan's democratic development; it examines four American presidencies' reactions to the democratizing agendas on the island: the Reagan (1986-1988), Bush I (1988-1992), Clinton (1992-2000), and Bush II (2000-2008) administrations. In this study, I call upon a theoretical complex of "democracy, realistically" to argue that both Taipei and Washington rephrased democracy and democratization beyond their roots in traditional liberal wisdom, and practiced democratic-democratizing issues pragmatically in accomplishing national interests and shaping their policies toward each other. More explicitly, in other words, both the junior and senior democracies consider the possibilities of liberal democracy realistically when they meet face to face: Taipei uses its democratizing progress to leverage Washington's support for its prevalence over electoral campaigns at home, political competitions (with Beijing) in the Strait, and international expansions abroad (Taiwan's interests); Washington subsumes its support for the island's democratization under its geopolitical concern about maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and East Asia (America's interests). I indicate that there is a significant distinction between a more- powerful senior democracy and less-powerful junior democracies when they develop foreign policies incorporating democracy-democratization agendas. But their logics of and reasons for "saying democracy and doing realistically" are consistent.;The findings of this study suggest that although Washington generally did not support or opposed to the democratizing agendas with disputes on Taiwan independence, Taipei had some room and opportunities to struggle for its autonomy and sovereignty at home and abroad by its conduct of democracy and democratization. On the other hand, Washington could not but make a concession to Taipei. The findings, however, indicate that Taipei's democratic strategy for its sovereignty and international space was greatly constrained by "power politics" ruled by Washington and Beijing. This echoes my theoretical argument that democracies' implementation of democratic and democratizing agendas in shaping foreign policies are reshaped by two principles of the realist school--- the international system is anarchic and states are self-interested .