"Uphold peace across the Taiwan Strait" is perhaps the most popular catchphrase that Taiwanese politicians like to chant nowadays. However, upholding "peace" has also become the most plausible excuse to justify their immorality.
Most Taiwanese are doubtless peace-loving and averse to war because human lives are priceless. Respecting and caring about human life is the most precious quality that the Taiwanese possess and the Chinese government lacks. In view of this, Taiwanese people do not want any war in the Strait.
Although war is abhorrent, the ultimate evils are autocracy and aggression, rather than war itself. If we are peace-loving out of our passion and respect for life, then we have to admit that there is only one cause that can justify war: the protection of human freedom.
If anyone or any country attempts to strip the Taiwanese of their freedom and enslave them to a regime, the Taiwanese will also rise up and fight.
However, in Taiwan nowadays there are no politicians from the governing party willing to promise to fight for the life and freedom of the Taiwanese. Rather, they have followed in the footsteps of the opposition parties and jumped on the "peace" bandwagon.
How can peace be ensured? China's aggression is what threatens peace across the Strait. Unless Beijing is willing to renounce its aggression against Taiwan, there is no way that Taiwan's politicians can guarantee peace.
Defined by the communist regime, the status quo across the Taiwan strait is that the two sides remain in a state of civil war. Moreover, Beijing has never considered the status quo peaceful -- it defines the status quo merely as a ceasefire. Unless Taiwan surrenders or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) disintegrates, Beijing will never be willing to re-define the cross-strait situation. A state of war or at least a ceasefire is the reality of the status quo across the Strait.
The peace-loving Taiwanese do not like this kind of status quo. But they have to understand that there are only two possibilities that can change the status quo: the disintegration of the violence-loving Chinese regime, or the surrender of Taiwan to this autocratic regime. If politicians claiming to be peacemakers fail to strongly demand that Beijing renounce its autocratic rule and practice democracy, they will only lead the Taiwanese to submit themselves to China's authoritarian regime.
The problem is that submission cannot bring lasting peace. Instead, it encourages more aggression and leads to the death of the human spirit. We cannot call the devastation of the soul created by an authoritarian regime a state of peace.
Many Jews who were slaughtered during the Holocaust had put down their guns and submitted to Hitler's aggression. In view of this historical tragedy, former Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol once pointed out that what is more wicked than violence is to succumb to violence.
Such wickedness is now in vogue in Taiwan. Rather than asking Beijing to pursue democracy, politicians only speak about how they can bring peace. But in doing so they are encouraging Taiwanese people to give in to China's tyrannical regime. Although they may cloak their words in the garment of peace, they are advocating a submission to violence.
Capitulation to violence only feeds further tyranny and aggression. It is a pity that both the governing and opposition parties in Taiwan have decided to adopt this morally bankrupt strategy. Whether or not the Taiwanese can resist the siren call of peace will determine the fate of their hard-won freedom and democracy.
Chang Hsi-mo is an assistant professor of interdisciplinary studies at National Sun Yet-sen University
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS