The local media have recently been paying close attention to the unpredictable situation on the Korean Peninsula. The reports generally focus on either North Korea’s military strength or the impact on Taiwan’s economic interests.
However, if we were to expand our view, we would see that the issue offers an opportunity to rethink cross-strait relations.
Having North Korea — which The Economist has called “the nastiest regime on the planet” — as a neighbor must be an endless nightmare for South Koreans. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un might get burned if he continues to play with fire, but it is not unimaginable that Seoul, just 40km from the demilitarized zone, would also get burned.
Even if the crisis is resolved this time, another one will surely follow somewhere down the road.
The threat that North Korea poses is not limited to its military ambition, but also a whole population of brainwashed people living in ignorance and poverty.
The Kim dynasty will collapse sooner or later, but when that happens, South Korea will have a difficult mess to deal with.
For example, western Germany has poured 2 trillion euros (US$2.62 trillion) into eastern Germany since their unification, yet the east continues to lag behind the west in development.
Perhaps that was why former South Korean president Lee Myung-bak restrained himself after two attacks from the north.
In comparison, Taiwanese are lucky in that the regime across the Taiwan Strait is not ruled by hoodlums such as those in North Korea.
Of course, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is not a democratic regime: It is a police state that exercises tight control over freedom of expression, and is merciless in cracking down on dissent.
Those at the top are corrupt, and they show no concern for those at the bottom. Even so, the Chinese regime is behaving relatively rationally in international and cross-strait relations.
Despite its little tricks from time to time, Beijing has in general played the game according to civilized rules.
As long as Taiwanese do not intentionally provoke China, they do not have to lose too much sleep over the 1,000 missiles deployed in China’s Fujian Province.
Nonetheless, it is not something that should be taken for granted.
The older generation still remember that prior to the 1960s, when China was ruled by Mao Zedong (毛澤東), the battle between Taiwan and China was a battle of life and death.
Mao was a dictator who did not care about the millions of Chinese who starved to death. For Taiwan at the time, the shadow of “bloody liberation” loomed large.
After the more pragmatic Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) introduced reforms and promoted an open policy, China turned its focus to economic development. Since then, Chinese authorities have toned down their policy of annexing Taiwan by force.
If then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) had not been willing to accept Beijing’s “olive branch” in a timely manner, the qualitative change in the Chinese Communist Party might not have been enough to escape the standoff between the two sides.
Over the past five years, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has maintained peaceful cross-strait exchanges.
For some people, exchanges with China are like “drinking poison to relieve thirst,” because Beijing’s goal is still “reunification.”
Those who are opposed to cross-strait exchanges accuse Ma of “leaning toward China while selling out Taiwan.” However, the future is unpredictable. Who can guarantee that China will democratize?
No matter what, China is Taiwan’s neighbor. Compared to the possible military conflict that might break out anytime between North and South Korea, Taiwan is better off. South Koreans must be very envious.
Although the Chinese power transition was not democratic, this enlightened autocratic state is very unlikely to produce a little hooligan that strains the nerves of the whole world and even threatens to plunge millions of people into misery.
The Korean war, which ended 60 years ago, gave Taiwan a new lease on life. Luckily the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have now managed to end the risk of war.
In addition to treasuring what we have, we can only pray for the people of North and South Korea.
Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past