Having annexed the Sudetenland in October 1938, Nazi Germany went on to take over the whole of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Then-British prime minister Neville Chamberlain on March 31 declared that if Germany attacked Poland, Britain would feel bound to lend Poland all the support within its power, and an Anglo-Polish agreement was signed on the same day.
On Sept. 1, 1939, Germany did invade Poland, and the UK declared war on Germany two days later.
However, Britain’s “support” was only to fight the relatively weak German navy in the Atlantic, rather than opening the more important Baltic Sea route. Poland soon became an occupied state and was partitioned under the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, otherwise known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Returning to the present, on Jan. 15, historian Niall Ferguson delivered an online keynote speech at a forum organized by the Taipei School of Economics and Political Science. Ferguson is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a former professor of history at Harvard University, New York University and the London School of Economics and Political Science, and a former senior research fellow at the University of Oxford.
In 2004, he was named as one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people, and his opinions on foreign policy are widely respected.
In his speech, Ferguson said that although the US has over the past three or four years repeatedly amplified its spoken promises to Taiwan, they might not have the desired effect, and it is risky to only rely on spoken pledges.
What happened to Poland in 1939 shows that even when there is a concrete commitment, or a specific signed agreement, it is just as risky as when there is only a verbal commitment, and perhaps more so. With verbal commitments, people still have some sense of uncertainty about the future. This heightens anxiety, leading them to act decisively and appropriately in the face of an immediate threat.
The Yom Kippur War waged by Egypt and Syria against Israel in October 1973 showed that when an enemy begins a war, a country can only rely on itself. Despite initial setbacks, Israel had a strong will to fight and reservists who were promptly deployed to stop its enemies’ advances.
Fortified by an urgent supply of weapons from the US, Israel emerged victorious.
A poll conducted early last month by CommonWealth Magazine found that 63.7 percent of respondents said they were not worried that there would be a war between Taiwan and China in the coming year, while 57.9 percent did not think that China would try to unite with Taiwan by force.
Nearly 60 percent thought that the US would send its armed forces to save Taiwan, and 54 percent thought that the US military could effectively protect Taiwan.
Nearly 60 percent of young people aged 20 to 29 did not reject bringing back military conscription, while 70 percent of all respondents were in favor of it.
Evidently, although people in Taiwan are optimistic about the US coming to their aid in a time of war, they, like the Israelis, are aware of the principle of helping oneself before expecting help from others as they feel uncertain about the future.
At a time when a consensus about bringing back military conscription is gradually forming, Taiwan should initiate the preparations and measures necessary as soon as possible.
To do so would demonstrate the nation’s determination to defend itself, just as a report this month describing navy marines training at the Zuoying Naval Base in Kaohsiung showed the world Taiwan’s willingness to fight.
Sung Chi-cheng is an assistant professor at Shih Hsin University’s Center for General Education and a former colonel instructor at National Defense University’s War College.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS