President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) recently told a Taichung gathering that he had decided to transform the nine-member cross-strait affairs task force into a "cross-strait peace development committee." This committee is intended to issue "cross-strait peace development guidelines" as the basis of implementing government policy to establish cross-strait consensus.
Chen emphasized that while Taiwan is facing Chinese military threats, a diplomatic siege and economic challenges, it could not afford to be divided, and that its people must have a clear concept of national identity and an awareness of potential crisis, and should not mistake an enemy state for one's own country.
The peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait is not only compatible with the interests of Taiwan and neighboring countries, but is also constructive for the entire international order.
Therefore not only has Taiwan long endeavored to protect the stability of the Taiwan Strait, but the international community has given a high priority to the situation here.
Over the past decade, with the end of the Cold-War era and also of the so-called "period of Communist rebellion" that rationalized martial law, the government has long regarded pushing for cross-strait peace as a standing policy.
Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) governments and the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government have demonstrated sincerity in seeking cross-strait peace through action.
Yet these efforts seeking cross-strait peace have been consistently met with a cold shoulder by China. Chen's proposal for "cross-strait peace development guidelines" was no exception. This situation highlights the reality that the potential threat to cross-strait peace comes from China, not Taiwan.
It is very easy to appreciate this fact, since China has never ceased efforts to eradicate Taiwan's sovereignty and to change the sovereign status quo of Taiwan.
China continues to escalate its military threats with no intention to hide its military deployments in this regard. This is not to mention the economic unification propaganda efforts it has waged.
On the surface, China may have sugar-coated its poison, declaring that it will "peacefully unify" Taiwan under a policy of "one country, two systems." In reality, China has always adopted a two-handed policy of peace and war.
On the one hand, it puts on the act of seeking peaceful unification, while on the other hand actively prepares both militarily and economically.
US military officials have said during congressional hearings that the People's Liberation Army is determined to focus on preparing for military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. The quantity and quality of its short-range missiles targeting Taiwan have drastically escalated. Talk about so-called peaceful unification under "one country, two systems" is thus laughable.
Recognizing China's ambition, US warnings against China about using force against Taiwan have become more direct. Not long after the presidential election, the US announced the sale of long-range radar defense systems to Taiwan.
That the US is concerned about imbalanced military power between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait goes without saying. Taiwan hopes to seek peace, yet China is getting ready for use of force.
Under the circumstances, Taiwan has no choice but to continue to strengthen its defensive capability. This is a destiny we cannot escape. Regrettably, the unification camp has accused the government of engaging in an arms race against China, completely ignoring that Chinese military threats are offensive in nature, while our national defense is defensive.
The unification camp has also erroneously claimed that the obstacle to cross-strait peace is the government's refusal to accept the "one China" principle. They echoed the Beijing leadership in saying that if Taiwan accepts this principle and concedes that it is part of China, cross-strait tension will turn into peace.
They must seriously rethink such statements. Such an approach is not seeking cross-strait peace, but surrendering to Chinese threats. Once Taiwan surrenders to China, it can only helplessly sit back and watch. What kind of peace would that be?
The so-called "cross-strait peace" really is peace between two countries. Therefore this kind of peace must be based on reciprocity and equality, and not conditioned on sacrificing Taiwan's sovereignty.
Thus the principle of "unification under one country, two systems" is a complete fraud. It is invasion under the empty slogan of peace, and is more accurately depicted instead as "euthanasia of sovereignty."
So in the process of seeking cross-strait peace, the government must insist on equal footing in sovereignty between the two sides.
Taiwan should continue to seek cross-strait peace and to try to expand its international space simultaneously.
As a sovereign country, Taiwan is entitled to participate in international organizations and to establish formal diplomatic ties with other nations. China seeks to have all of Taiwan's allies sever diplomatic ties, blocking the nation's space for diplomacy.
Under these circumstances, some people actually say that to seek cross-strait peace, the government should not generate friction in the international community.
This is completely reversing cause and effect, as both the cross-strait relationship and international space are critical to Taiwan's future.
"Taiwanese unity, a secure cross-strait relationship, a stable society, and economic prosperity" is how Chen has summarized his policy goals since his re-election. The "cross-strait peace development guidelines" derive from this policy goal. Surely most people agree with the goal of cross-strait peace, and the international community would be more than happy to see it happen.
The government should refrain from wishful thinking and from unilaterally expressing goodwill at all costs, including sacrificing industries, the economy and job opportunities. It takes two to tango. Cross-strait peace is a goal that awaits hard work from both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
If China does not give up its proclaimed right to use force against Taiwan and the "one China" principle, peace will not be easily obtainable.
We believe if China does not reciprocate with basic goodwill, then instead of wasting time on this topic the government might as well put its focus on Taiwanese unity, social stability and economic prosperity, because these issues are not only within our control but are the most powerful bargaining chips in efforts to seek cross-strait peace.
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS