Not long ago, I read an article by Yuan T. Lee (
The first group is often cooped up in laboratories or ivory towers engaged in thinking or research, and their thoughts are mainly focused on abstract, pure, rational, perfect, true and beautiful matters. Most philosophers, scientists, religious leaders and artists are part of this group. The second group often deals with business, politics, agriculture, industry and other concrete matters related to daily life, and their thoughts are mainly focused on practical matters, reality, competition, material desires, sexual desires, trickery and deceit. Most political personalities, industrialists, company and factory managers and workers are part of this group.
The thinking of the two groups very often stands in direct contradiction. When the first group talks about current affairs, people of the second group often feel that they are being unrealistic, naive, childish. When the second group talks about current affairs, people of the first group feel that they lack ideals, are too cynical, and unbearably vulgar.
The sparks and flames created when these two ways of thinking collide head-on is the dynamic behind human development and advancement. People of the first group often point out to those in the second group that life is not only about satisfying material and sexual desires, but that there should also be truth, goodness and beauty. People in the second group relentlessly tell those of the first group that they must not forget reality, and that they should not be too unrestrained and creative in their thinking because it's not very realistic.
In reality, when people of the first group leave their laboratories or ivory towers to participate in mundane affairs, they are often not very successful. Great scientists do not necessarily make for great politicians; great philosophers do not necessarily make for great educators; great religious leaders do not necessarily make for great industrialists; nor do great artists necessarily make for great bankers. Albert Einstein would probably not make a great leader for our Cabinet, Albert Schweitzer would probably not be a successful director for our Health Ministry, and Ludwig van Beethoven would probably not be a good director for one of our music departments.
Lee belongs to the first group, but he seems to have a deep interest in the mundane affairs of the second group. He has published learned articles about the China-Taiwan relationship, Taiwan's party politics, investment in China, the direct three links, and even Taiwanese agricultural policies and river dredging. Following the great earthquake on Sept. 21, 1999, he volunteered his services and offered to monitor disaster relief donations.
His article contained two points. One, the use of armed force is the greatest obstacle on mankind's road in the search for peace and sustainable development. Two, Taiwan is a member of the global village, and is no longer allowed to hinder cooperation on the grounds of territory, race, borders or sovereignty.
Just like Sun Yat-sen's (
When he reaches the end [of his article], he changes the topic and begins to consider an overall direction for solving the cross-strait issue. When we're talking about the Taiwan-China relationship, we should be clear on the fact that Taiwan has neither the means nor the strength to threaten China. It is instead China that expands its military might, publicly stating that if Taiwan does not accept its demands, it will attack Taiwan militarily. Lee says that "no deep hatred exists between the two sides, and there is no reason for armed conflict."
Unfortunately, the majority of wars in human history have not come about because of deep hatred. Rather, the reasons have been violent clashes of national interests, inability to compromise between political ideas, or the stubborn stupidity of politicians. If we declare that we don't nourish deep hatred against China, will that soften their resolve and make them desist from the use of arms against Taiwan?
Lee further says that the strong shouldn't bully the weak. If China heard this, they would smile a hypocritical smile, and say that "we will flash our weapons and throw our weight around to scare you into submission."
It is often said that today's stalemate is a result of the two sides not trusting each other. That's right, but how do you build trust when one side constantly issues public threats of armed force?
Lee also advocates an acceptance of the 1992 consensus of One China with separate interpretations, in the belief that this will lead to "equality from this moment on, mutual respect, and initiation of a positive dialogue." Lee emphasizes the so-called one China concept is a phantom created by precisely those stale concepts of territory, race, borders and sovereignty that Lee says should be abandoned. Why does Lee persist in this feudal and backward way of thinking as soon as he turns to talk about China?
He also said that the two sides "share the same ancestral origins" ["same ancestral origins", going back to which period? The period of the Peking man? Isn't it said these days that all men originate from the same source? To bring up the race factor in human relations conflicts just because it's convenient (to the argument) is dangerous and will come back to bite you. Didn't Lee himself oppose race in the beginning of his article]?
Does Lee fully understand how difficult it will be to anticipate the complexity of the negative results once Taiwan accepts the One China principle, how dangerous they will be for Taiwan? Does he really believe that all our problems with China will be resolved as soon as Taiwan accepts One China (or as he has previously advocated, "admit that we all are Chinese?") Doesn't this mean that he is trying to measure the goodness of a crook [China] by a gentleman's standards? When it comes to our relationship with China, which side is it that believes blindly in the use of armed force to solve disputes, and wishes to bully the weak?
The most basic duty of any country, of any government, is to protect its people and territorial integrity. Suppose that Lee was Taiwan's president, premier or commander-in-chief of the armed forces, facing the reality of hundreds of missiles aimed at Taiwan, soon to exceed a thousand with the dozens of new ones being added each year, frequent military exercises, and public statements that Taiwan is the target.
How would he get along with the other side?
Should Taiwan first scrap its army, tell China that this is the right thing to do, and then beg them not to "bully the weak" and to "unconditionally give up the use of armed force, and substitute care and love for prejudice and hatred?"
We often hear politicians self-designated as prophets and sages or sincere peace advocates emphasizing that, in this era of the Global Village, armed force and war is outdated and that mankind should live peacefully together. No one is opposed to this. But they all avoid, or don't hear, or don't reply to one question: how should a peaceful society react if they are openly, directly and immediately threatened by an external armed force? Should they raise the white flag of surrender or should they rise up and defend themselves?
Please do not dismiss this question with the old "use good intentions to negotiate a solution" crap. There are too many historical conflicts that could not be solved with "well-intentioned negotiations." Why else has mankind seen so many wars? Many years ago, Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) was criticized for saying that "democracy does not stop enemy bullets." This saying reveals the helpless situation of a democratic society when faced with an arrogant political power bent on war (ie, "an educated man meeting a soldier will not be able reason with him.").
Lee also mentioned terrorists, saying that they are "totally unacceptable and must be condemned." We don't know Lee's definition of a terrorist, but if one government constantly and publicly threatens another government, saying that if the latter does not agree with its demands, it will initiate an attack, while it in action expands its military preparedness and purchases large amounts of the latest hi-tech arms, including aircraft, warships and missiles, and also holds frequent military exercises to demonstrate its might then, regardless of definition or standards, this kind of behavior absolutely constitutes "terrorist behavior."
The political commentator Paul Lin (
In his discussion of terrorists and his considerations of the relationship with China, Lee does not see this in China's attitude and behavior. He does not mention it with one single word, which is hard to understand. The people of Taiwan live under China's constant military threat. There is no need at all to once again tell them how good it is to "give up arms" and "live peacefully together in the global village." This is precisely what 23 million people dream of doing. Telling them not to want war is a bit like telling a sheep that it should not bite the wolf, when what the sheep want to know is how to protect themselves when the wolves attack.
Twenty years ago, I supervised a thesis at a university in Taiwan. The name of the thesis was How To Realize World Peace. It was a thesis overflowing with tens of thousands of words, and the final conclusion, that "if no one wages war, the world will be at peace," for a moment left me dumbstruck. Regardless of whether they are sincere or just following a fashion, when listening to the high theories of today's peace advocates or citizens of the Global Village and comparing them to that student from 20 years ago, it seems that there has not been much progress at all.
Peng Ming-min is a senior advisor to the president.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS