The US has already begun its plan to overthrow the regime of Iraq's lifelong President Saddam Hussein by force. Nothing can change this historical reality whether international society supports the US attack or not.
The objections from France and Germany, which are backed by the EU, could not shake US President George W. Bush at all. Even the UN Security Council's debates failed to delay the US from taking military action. What can other countries do?
In particular, Taiwan has no room to speak on the US invasion. More importantly, it's obviously in no position to do so. The US is not only the most significant ally to the island but also the biggest protector of its security and existence. This has been the consensus of all the Taiwanese people. Just take a look at those anti-US and anti-war demonstrations across the world. Hundreds of thousands of protesters gathered at each of those demonstrations abroad while only a few hundred Taiwanese people attended such events. Many of them were pro-unification activists. It's thus evident that neither anti-US nor anti-war sentiment is marketable in Taiwan.
This is called political reality.
Do the Taiwanese people long for peace? Of course, they do. But what's more important is that in reality, each and every country weighs the gains and losses to its interests. It then comes up with its own "choices and decisions" -- as the famous French writer and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said.
Taiwan's full support for the US' military action is our only choice, because it tallies with our interests. In fact, not only Taiwan's government but also its various civil groups are aware of this fact. Otherwise, why is Taiwan giving a cold shoulder to the anti-US and anti-war campaign while so many in the rest of the world are taking part in this movement?
Therefore, both deputy secretary-general to the President Joseph Wu's (吳釗燮) pro-US article -- published in the Taipei Times on March 20 -- and the controversial remarks of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) spokesman Richard Shih (石瑞琦), who echoed Bush by urging Saddam to leave Iraq to avert war, in fact reflected mainstream opinion in Taiwan. In terms of what and how exactly top government officials should speak, that is a matter of rhetoric and will not be discussed here.
On the other hand, the anti-US and anti-war opinions of those opposition legislators or the so-called anti-war activists are surprising. Their most laughable opinion is that since Taiwan supports the US military action this time, China is likely to follow this example and attack Taiwan by force in the future. They have made two mistakes by saying so.
First, China never asked for UN approval when it assaulted India and Vietnam by force in the past. Beijing unceasingly threatens to "liberate Taiwan by force." It has even deployed over 400 ballistic missiles along its southeast coast, targeting Taiwan without regard for international society's objections. Therefore, the presumption that China may follow the US example is ill-founded.
Second, the political reality is that the US does not allow China to resolve the Taiwan issue by force, and supporting the US equals supporting Taiwan itself. On the other hand, we may further boost Beijing's arrogance if we go against Washington's move. The pro-unification camp's words and deeds this time serve as examples.
In Wu's pro-US article, he commented that "opposing war and the US should be left to the opposition parties that oppose everything." His words have deep meaning.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of