War, peace and pacifism
Concerning the letter from Chen Jia-ching (Letter, June 27, page 8) in Oakland, California, I agree completely with the notion that world peace is the most worthy of goals. It is the aspiration of billions around the world, myself included.
Chen states in his letter "it may seem that there are no easy answers to our global conflicts, and that we who advocate disarmament are naive." I totally agree with both statements. There are no easy answers, and Chen and those who advocate unilateral disarmament are naive.
This is not to criticize the concept of disarmament, which by itself is a lofty notion. It is to suggest that disarmament alone will not suffice in this rough and tumble world where rogues and scoundrels have access to nation-destroying weapons, and lack the conscience and civil understanding to inhibit their use, even against a "disarmed" foe.
War will not, by itself, end terrorism; but pacifism will not appease terrorists, unless the idea is to redefine "peace" as "surrender." The things that terrorists want are so ruthless and extreme, to appease them would be to end civilization as we know it. Sacrificing civilization in the name of peace makes no sense to billions of people. To be sure, communication, discussion, conciliation and justice are concepts that will contribute to solving global conflicts. But, as Chen conceded, there are no easy answers, particularly when the adversaries include a ruthless regime based on raw power, brutality and tyranny.
As for conflict in the Taiwan Strait, does Chen truly believe that if the US was not committed to defending Taiwan, that if Taiwan could not defend herself, China would hesitate for one nanosecond to pulverize Taiwan? It would not. It would be wonderful if China would entertain peace with Taiwan, but the only "peace" China has offered is the peace of communist captivity. For tens of millions, that is no peace at all.
Sitting in the anti-war locus in Oakland, it is easy to scoot over to Berkeley or Marin, or elsewhere in the Bay Area and find tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people who share the same views. They are enlightened views to be sure. But there are billions out there around the globe in the midst of raw conflict who experience the ruthless determination and sheer brutality of evil every single day. Those forces of evil do not cower in the face of peace, they quail only in the face of ruthless opposition by civilized society, and that society's actual ability to destroy them in battle. That is the unfortunate truth, the truth the naive and the timid do not wish to (or pretend not to) hear. You might ask the terrified millions in the Sudan whether they would like the UN to send 50,000 peace activists, or 50,000 armed peacekeepers to protect against the janjaweed scourge.
Mahatma Gandhi led a nation of 600 million to throw out the British using non-violent civil disobedience. Of course, even in that mostly non-violent conflict, tens of thousands perished. But the bottom line is that civil disobedience worked because British society is based on precepts of morality and democracy developed after centuries of conflict, and the progress of civil and democratic society. In other words, the British people have a conscience. The same cannot be said of Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Kim Jong-Il, Chinese President Hu Jintao (
If there's anything the Tiananmen Massacre showed us -- and Tibet shows us today -- it is that Communist China will crush its opposition whenever and wherever necessary, given the chance. Tibet sought "peace" through peaceful means -- and has suffered eugenics on a massive scale.
One might deduce that, were Taiwan to give up its defense, it would not survive the first night of disarmament, just like democracy would not survive the first ten minutes of "captivity" under the communist regime.
I understand completely why a pacifist would characterize defense spending as "pointless military buildup." It is of course correct -- in a vacuum. But a stone's throw across the Strait, as opposed to more than 10,000km across the Pacific, facing 500 Chinese missiles, it is hardly "pointless."
Sometimes, to survive, you just have to be prepared to slug it out. Chen is correct that war does not bring much relief. But the avoidance of war through defense often brings a great deal of relief, and sometimes it even produces dialogue and change.
We need pacifism to help navigate the world ship. Over the long run, pacifists will prevent the rest of us from self-destruction. In the short run, though, the rest of us will save civilization from destruction by defending it against ruthless men with ruthless aims.
Lee Long-hwa
United States
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations