After a six-month-long struggle against cancer, Gerald Segal, Director of Studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, passed away on Nov. 2.
I met Gerald 13 years ago when he was invited to attend an international conference on the Chinese People's Liberation Army at the National Sun Yat-Sen University. He was a rising Asian security strategy researcher and specialist. A quiet and reserved man of slender build who wore glasses, Segal, however, made quite an impression when he spoke at the conference.
He was not an argumentative man, but his unique approach of analyzing problems from unorthodox standpoints won him the recognition of his peers. Academic conferences attended by Segal never had a dull moment and attracted detailed coverages by a large number of media.
Among the many Asia Pacific security strategy issues, Gerald had a passion for those related to China, the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait security strategy. After joining the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, he opened the gate for the research on Asia Pacific security strategies at that institution.
Under the coordination of former director of the Sun Yat-sen Center for Policy Studies, Professor Yang Jih-hsu (
These conferences, held in Hong Kong, Vancouver, Washington and Canberra, among other places, attracted much international attention. While on his sickbed, Gerald suggested inviting important scholars of the Institute for Strategic Studies to visit Taiwan at the time of the next presidential elections for a collective discussion with Taiwan's specialists and scholars about the opportunities and challenges facing Taiwan in the 21st century.
Not only did Gerald have interesting views, he was also an excellent writer. It was his combination of quick and clear thinking and outspoken character that made him such a productive scholar.
During the past 13 years, he finished eight books on China and Asia Pacific security, countless dissertations which appeared in the International Herald Tribune, Wall Street Journal, South China Morning Post and The Straits Times, among other newspapers.
Due to his commitment to freedom and democracy and a deep hatred for totalitarian regimes, many of his articles on China enraged Beijing.
After the June 4 Incident, Gerald was placed on a list of scholars not permitted to enter China. He was one of the few contemporary scholars of China issues who never visited the country.
Gerald's resisted China's efforts to extend the boycott. Before 1997, we held three People's Liberation Army conferences in Hong Kong. Beijing exerted tremendous pressure on the British government in Hong Kong to prohibit the hosting of these conferences. However, the reputation of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and Gerald's friendship with the governor of Hong Kong ensured that Beijing's pressure was ineffective.
Gerald's bravery in fighting evil until the end was demonstrated in his battle against cancer. Even after his relapse, he never ceased brainstorming and writing articles. In October, the journal Foreign Affairs ran the last article published by Gerald before his death. The topic, "Does China Matter?," was most thought provoking and caused quite a stir in academic circles. In fact, people are still talking about the article.
Based on a national strength appraisal index widely accepted by the academic world, Gerald compared the performance of China in terms of politics, economics, military and education with that of other advanced countries. He believed that China was actually a second-rank power and that it has misled the international community with its cunning maneuvers in foreign affairs.
This last strike by Gerald will keep us talking and thinking about him in the days to come.
Andrew Yang is the Secretary General of Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies (
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers