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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath