Among the lesser of former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s attributes were a wicked sense of humor and a huge ego.
He once quipped: “We are all worms. But I do believe that I am a glow-worm.”
For his inspired leadership during World War II, we can forgive his hubris. Few have never encountered his famous remarks made when Britain seemed to be staring defeat in the eyes:
“We shall defend our island whatever the cost ... We shall fight on beaches ... landing grounds ... in the fields and in the streets ... in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
The words ooze courage, defiance, inspiration and honesty about the struggle ahead.
Churchill validated the idiom “Cometh the hour, cometh the man.” Are his qualities to remain mere relics of the tragic first half of the 20th century?
I witnessed US Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy say on CNN on Friday that China can invade Taiwan after 2028, when the US has achieved semiconductor independence, adding: “Our goal should not be for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to lose” in Ukraine, but for the US to achieve a working relationship with him.
What can we say? “Cometh the hour, cometh the worm”?
We appeased Hitler for six years.
Since 2000, we have appeased Putin, first giving him free rein to exercise his iron fist in Chechnya and then to invade Georgia in 2008.
In 2001, in the name of free trade ideology, and in the interests of greedy corporations and financiers, we granted China entry to the WTO. Now it uses its wealth and military might as sticks with which to beat the rest of the world, especially Taiwan.
Former US president George W. Bush, the archetypal worm, boasted of his “C”-grade academic record, went to war on a big lie with the dictator of a small country, and declared of Putin: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.”
Electorates in the US and Europe reacted with horror to his Iraq war, and when a true casus belli arose when Syrian President Bashir al-Assad began exterminating his own people, no US or European leader intervened.
Who did? Putin; on the side of the aggressor, al-Assad.
That was on the watch of then-US president Barack Obama, who later stood by as Russia invaded Crimea, as did the British — reliable leaders on European security in the post-World War II era — forsaking the legacy of Churchill and preoccupying themselves with an unedifying squabble over an unedifying, self-defeating policy: Brexit.
Europeans continued to buy Russian energy; commodities once foremost among the prizes sought by Hitler. The road to hell is awash with oil and gas.
Enter former US president Donald Trump and a presidency of many outrages, including bed-sharing with Putin, despite the invasion of Crimea and persistent preparations to invade Ukraine. US President Joe Biden seems to be strengthening US alliances in Asia and assures the world that the US will defend Taiwan, although the White House contradicts him, and he both failed to defend Ukraine, and cut and ran from Afghanistan after a 20-year, multitrillion-dollar engagement.
May the freedom-loving Biden prevail over his weaker alter ego.
Our supine leaders have led us to an abyss, at the bottom of which lies tyranny and suffering.
The hour has come for bold, freedom-loving champions of democracy, civil rights, human rights and the rule of national and international law to reclaim the democratic world. It behooves all democrats to use their votes, activism and freedom of expression to ensure this.
What are we? Men and women, or worms? Let’s do it.
Mark Rawson is a writer, translator and editor based in Taiwan.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS