A few days ago, there was a call to pair Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Maybe what Lien meant to say was that the alliance between him and Soong was rock solid, but such a relationship would be better described as an alliance carved in stone.
There is too much tension hidden in the phrase "iron and blood." It is readily associated with triads and their blood oaths. Many KMT revolutionaries were indeed triad members.
Sun Yat-sen (
The alliance of iron and blood between the KMT and the triads had still not been completely dissolved by the time Henry Liu (
Even if we try to offer a more positive interpretation of the meaning of an "alliance made of iron and blood," it still carries a notion of unhappiness and an undemocratic flavor.
The "iron" in the epithet "Iron Chancellor" given to Germany's Otto von Bismarck is a way of describing absolute military power. Is it still appropriate for politicians in a democratic country to harbor such attitudes in the 21st century?
Talk of an alliance made of iron and blood also leads to an easy association with "the deepest mutual sincerity" that former president Lee Teng-hui (
Historically, too many relationships have progressed from the deepest mutual sincerity to heartbroken grief. One example is the relationship between Saigo Takamori and Okubo Toshimichi, two Japanese statesmen from the Meiji era. From childhood, they were the best of friends. Toshimichi, skinny and weak, was often bullied by the other children. Each time he was saved by the sturdy Takamori. Both grew up to become government officials and together they promoted reform.
With the advent of the Meiji Restoration, their relationship ended in heartbreak due to different ideals. Takamori resigned his post and returned to his home in Kagoshima, where he was pushed into starting the Satsuma revolt. When the revolt was put down, he committed suicide. Not long after, Toshimichi was assassinated. Before dying, he uttered the following tragic words: "Saigo, oh Saigo, the great wheel of time crushed your body, then it crushed mine, and it keeps rolling still."
There are many other examples where the outcome of an alliance made of iron and blood was the shedding of blood. One such example was the relationship between Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bucharin and Joseph Stalin. Another was between Wang Ching-wei (
The relationship between Che Guevara and Cuban President Fidel Castro is probably the one that best symbolizes a more positive outcome of an alliance made of iron and blood. The reason why the relationship between these blood brothers from the Cuban revolution can be said to be more positive is that very early on Guevara understood Castro's hypocrisy and arrogance and left for the Congo and then Bolivia to continue his revolutionary mission. In the end, he died in a small village in Bolivia.
It is ironic that a happy ending to an alliance of iron and blood is related to physical distance and not to emotional closeness. This is the way people are. It is a reality that cannot be altered.
Rather than serving the benefit of individuals, a political alliance is often a temporary compromise between two groups of people with competing interests -- bringing together two porcupines spells trouble, but putting several of them in a limited space will result in bloodshed.
There is an old saying that "officials should not entertain personal relationships." The idea was that protocol should be used to restrict military alliances between officials. This must have been based on previous experience. Personal relationships, alliances and revolts are an eternal trio in relationships between officials.
In this democratic era it is more reasonable to talk of politicians coming together as a result of pressures from public opinion or deciding to move apart as a result of trends in public opinion. Please leave all this talk of "deepest mutual sincerity" and "alliances of iron and blood" to the side.
Wu Chin-fa is a columnist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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