Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) has said that “voting for the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] means pushing the youth to the war front.”
His remarks are questionable at best and deeply problematic. There is also the possibility that Jaw has an ulterior motive.
China is the only country in the world that is constantly barking at and threatening Taiwan. As a result, if it should ever come to the situation that young Taiwanese are asked to take up arms and fight to the death to protect their country, and the freedoms and way of life that they hold dear, it is quite apparent that their one and only enemy would be China.
It is guaranteed that the only reason for Taiwanese to take up arms would be to stop China from invading Taiwan. It cannot be the other way round.
At a superficial level, the DPP, which has consistently rejected Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formula, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which has said that it wants “exchanges, not war” and believes that there is “one family across the Taiwan Strait,” seem to be different. One way of looking at this is that the DPP’s approach would lead to war, while the KMT’s would promote peace. In this sense, whether the youth goes to war would depend on the ruling party’s stance.
Jaw is calling on young people who do not want to take up arms to reassess their options and vote for the KMT, or arguably the agent of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Taiwan. His intent needs no explanation.
There is no such thing as a free lunch; one could extend this idea and say that free peace is even more unlikely to exist.
At the CCP’s 20th National Congress last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) reiterated the “one country, two systems” formula and said China would not renounce the use of force against Taiwan.
Negotiating peace is just a euphemism for surrender. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that “Ukraine is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space.”
When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, Ukraine had only two options: surrender or fight.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 did not satisfy Putin’s ambitions, and only encouraged him to invade Ukraine. If Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had chosen to surrender on Feb. 24, the war could have been avoided, but only temporarily.
The reason is simple: If Putin had been handed a victory, he could have been emboldened to repeat his tactic of annexing Crimea. Ukraine would have become Russia’s stepping stone to attack other countries, and Ukraine would have still been dragged into a war.
Russia has only a few allies, while many democratic states, such as the US, Japan, Australia, the UK, France, Germany and Finland, stand with Ukraine. Obviously, it is Russia that is caught in a dilemma, struggling to end the war.
Similarly, Beijing claims that “Taiwan is an inherent territory of China.”
If China attacks Taiwan, and the nation surrenders and becomes part of China, a war could be avoided only temporarily, as Xi’s ambition would only intensify, rather than being satisfied. He could continue to advance across the Pacific Ocean, sparking a confrontation with the US. Taiwan would become a pawn of China and fight on the front line against the US.
Taiwanese youth under China’s autocratic rule would undoubtedly engage in hostilities. Waging war against the democratic camp would only be disastrous.
As many leading democratic countries have become wary of China’s ambitions, they have changed their policy of appeasement to confrontation with Beijing.
The DPP as the ruling party openly opposes the “one country, two systems” formula, says no to China, sides with the US and Japan, and safeguards the nation under the aegis of the democratic camp.
This is in stark contrast to the KMT, whose members are pro-China, with some even kowtowing to Beijing. The KMT is dancing to the tune of China and antagonizing the international democratic community.
Taiwanese want freedom and democracy, not autocracy and communism. They must realize that Jaw’s remark is sugar-coated poison.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Sylvia Hsu
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
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
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS