During the course of the twentieth century, humanity met with suffering brought by two world wars as well as innumerable regional disasters and political and social turmoil. As a result, countless innocent people lost their lives. In these early years of the new century it is our responsibility and duty, as those who have been fortunate enough to survive, to create conditions for a peaceful existence and sustainable development for our children and future generations.
Throughout human history, competition for scarce resources has been the norm, but man has often invited disaster, and even mutual slaughter, by seeking to seize resources by cajolery or coercion, putting lives in jeopardy in the process. Following economic globalization and the invention of weapons of mass destruction, the superpowers have, by waging war, learned how to cooperate to avoid it. Competition between men, however, has never ceased, but only changed in form.
In other words, armed competition has to a certain extent been replaced by technology-based economic competition, but this does not mean that man has given up the idea of solving disputes by force of arms. As I see it, this idea is the greatest obstacle to mankind's pursuit of peace and sustainable development.
The unfortunate incidents that took place in New York and Washington on Sept. 11 once again showed us that human society, after all, is fragile. Our world is still filled with too much hatred and violence. The terrorists stopped at nothing to achieve certain goals, taking so many valuable lives.
We cannot agree with this kind of unqualified killing of the innocent, and it must be condemned. We extend our sincere sympathy and comfort to the people who lost friends and relatives, and hope that they will be able to stand up, be strong and live through this difficult time. As we seek to punish those who masterminded this disaster, however, we also call on the countries concerned to maintain their self-restraint, and not to magnify the problem by fighting violence with violence which will only create more misfortune and hatred.
Humanity cannot continue to blindly put its faith in the violent resolution of disputes. We should also adjust the uninhibited economic competition between nations. At the same time as we give up weapons of mass destruction or high-tech economic competition, our only goal should be to create a sustainable existence and the continued development of humanity. If we can hold onto this idea, I believe that humanity will have a bright future.
It is regrettable that we have not realized this in the past. The development of science and technology should increase the wealth of humanity. We have gone through the industrial revolution over the past 200 to 300 years, invented the engine, the aeroplane, the telephone, television and many other advanced tools of transportation and communication, thus improving man's material life.
But unfortunately only a minority of people have become wealthy from this revolution. Western countries became very rich and expanded outward, colonizing many areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even though these regions eventually won their independence one after the other, most people still lead poor lives in underdeveloped places.
Despite their limited capital and resources, these people have no choice but to imitate the industrialization and modernization of western countries in the hope that they will be able to catch up as soon as possible. Some countries have undoubtedly pursued successful routes toward industrialization and modernization, but a large majority of countries can only struggle on in hunger and abject poverty.
With no way to make a living, the people in these impoverished countries will sooner or later stand up in protest. Not only will they sternly and with a sense of justice demand their right to exist, they may also pursue their own form of justice with the most basic, most barbaric means possible: force of arms. Today, with the world involved in the globalization process, turmoil anywhere on Earth will have a profound effect on world peace.
Even though advanced Western countries and newly industrialized nations have escaped poverty, in the process of global economic competition and efforts to take control of resources, they have instead ignored global environmental protection, wasted natural resources, created air and water pollution, gradually destroyed the earth's ecology and eroded the conditions for human existence. The universally recognized greenhouse effect seems already to be demonstrating its power, causing violent climatic changes that frequently lead to disaster.
This kind of all-out counterattack by nature could not be foreseen at the outset of humanity's excessive development and competition and, in the new century, must become the main focus of human cooperation and reflection. It is unfortunate that humanity, to this day, has still not looked directly and in earnest at this goal, and begun to cooperate unselfishly toward achieving it.
We are still striving for the good life in the here and now by consuming the earth and destroying the necassary conditions for the existence of coming generations. I believe that this way of doing things is immoral and irresponsible. We must cooperate and compete on the premise that sustainable existence and development are imperative, and not destroy the conditions for human existence in the process.
Looking at it from this angle, we should treasure the opportunity offered by the current information and biotechnological revolution. Through a mutual division of labor, cooperation and benevolent competition, knowledge and technologies should be shared in order to create wealth for the world's mostly poor population, while improving the ecological environment for humanity and other life forms.
Looking into the new century, competition between nations does not mean arms races, nor is it a zero-sum game of economic growth or recession. It is even more important that we stop consuming natural resources to find self-fulfillment.
Since many of the problems facing us reach across borders, our solutions to the problems cannot be restricted to any one country. The food shortage, for example, or the greenhouse effect, are problems that know no borders, and we must of course solve them through international cooperation. I think that now that we are all members of the global village, we have no right to use any region, race, national territory or sovereignty as a reason to block an opportunity for cooperation, and allow any kind of mutual problem to become a crisis for all humanity.
Starting from the true meaning of competition and cooperation, it is therefore not difficult for us to consider the main direction which a solution of the Taiwan Strait problem should take. I have always believed that no hatred exists between the people on the two sides of the Strait, and there is no reason for military conflict.
Further, the two sides share the same ancestral origins. We are like brothers, and there is no reason for the stronger to bully the weaker. The leaders on both sides of the Strait should understand that an arms race is not the way to overcome our political divide.
Both sides should first eliminate their animosity and rapidly and on a basis of equality and mutual respect begin a positive dialogue and full exchanges in the spirit of the "one China with each side having its own interpretation" principle of the 1992 consensus.
It is necessary to understand that, given the trend toward globalization, the two sides can face the fierce competition on global markets and have the opportunity to build a strong road toward sustainable human development and permanent world peace only if they complement each other's resources, share each other's interests, and are active in their cooperation.
We must by no means forget, however, that sustainable human existence should be the premise for economic competition and social development. Humanity should unconditionally abandon military force and replace prejudice and hatred with care and love. The people of the world should join hands and bravely strive for peace among humanity and sustainable development.
Yuan T. Lee is president of Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS