Shoring up sovereignty
It must have been hours after the last all-clear siren had sounded before the young boy was escorted home to witness the carnage American bombers had wrought in his corner of the world: The two-story landmark theater building across the street was reduced to smoldering black skeletons; the next-door neighbor’s house disappeared; there was an unexploded ordinance embedded in the dirt floor at the kitchen of his family house.
He overheard grown-ups’ grim recount of death. The year was 1944. The place was a small agricultural town in the middle-western part of Taiwan, where trains running on what at the time was the singular major railroad routinely made stops and the Japanese Imperial Army maintained an airfield about 16km away.
Fast forward to 2012, he held a lengthy conversation in New York with an 89-year-old World War II veteran navigator who was attached to a bomber wing of the US Far-Eastern Expedition Force and who admitted taking part in several bombing missions of the sort.
When questioned of any regret in his wartime role that inflicted Taiwanese civilian deaths, the octogenarian’s response was: “Oops.”
However, this anecdote could serve as a microcosm of the history of Taiwanese: They could be placed in harm’s way at any moment through no fault of their own and with little prospect for redress — a phenomenon emblematic of a people of no nation.
The last point was quickly evinced by Washington’s dispatch of Chiang Kai-shek‘s (蔣介石) rag-tag army to take over the occupation of Taiwan at the end of the war. Within two years, Taiwanese suffered the calamity of the 228 Incident, in which thousands perished at the hands of Chiang’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The brutality was expanded by the imposition of martial law, which lasted 38 years.
It was not until 2016 that Taiwanese disposed of the KMT and took over the reins of the central government. Coming on the heels of this milestone of Taiwan’s sovereignty struggle, Beijing greatly escalated its threats and tightened its screws, lest Taiwanese assimilate their gain.
Throughout, Washington maintains its support of Taiwan’s security, albeit at times more steadfastly than others. Lately, it has been trending upward, seemingly in lockstep with Washington’s solidifying belief that Beijing had been waging a unilateral cold war against the US for years.
A cold war between the two nations, if materialized, promises to bring about a profound impact in the Pacific region. Tossed around freely has been the possibility of regional non-nuclear military confrontations. So far, both sides are posturing in the contested areas as if delineating an arena of battle.
With clashes brewing between the two titans and with a virtual certainty that they would involve Taiwan, it is never too early for Taiwan to lay the groundwork to ensure its survival. It would be a monumental dereliction of duty to do otherwise.
What is inevitable is a sea change in mindset: The assertion that “the status of Taiwan is to be decided by future generations” might fast become mere wishful thinking, because the future could soon be upon us.
In its stead, Taiwanese should resolve to make a formal sovereign democracy the only goal they are striving for. They should also make clear to both foes and friends alike that, toward said end, they are determined to endure all necessary hardship.
Only through an unequivocal commitment can they reassure loyalty and dissuade hostility at the same time. Any half-baked — especially in the face of a war — belief such as “maintaining the status quo” will only elicit the opposite reaction and abate the chance that Taiwan’s sovereignty could emerge with a firmer footing.
Huang Jei-hsuan
Los Angeles, California
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