After the dramatic events of recent weeks, no one can deny that we are living through a historic moment. The international order is transforming before our eyes, leaving everyone shell-shocked and confused. That sort of radical change is not unprecedented.
A similar moment happened in ancient China. The Qin (秦) state was determined to conquer all its rivals and unify the realm. Its main opponent was the Qi (齊) state. The rulers of Qi knew that they could not oppose Qin alone, so they made an alliance with smaller states. Working together, the coalition successfully countered Qin’s aggression for decades. Sound familiar?
Although that collective defense was working well, the ruler of Qi became arrogant and ambitious. He felt that his small allies were useless. Why not make a powerful friend instead? Qi abandoned its alliance and supported Qin instead. The ruler of Qi thought that if two superpowers cooperated, they could conquer smaller states and divvy up the spoils.
That cynical plan soon went awry. Qin used Qi to help it overrun smaller opponents. At first, Qi gained some territory. However, with its previous allies vanquished, Qi found itself isolated and exposed. Qin then turned on Qi and destroyed it. It turned out that abandoning smaller allies did not secure Qi’s safety. On the contrary, it shattered the delicate balance of power and allowed the aggressor to run rampant.
Now the world faces an eerily similar dilemma. US President Donald Trump has signaled his willingness to abandon the US’ NATO allies and support Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. He seems to think that smaller allies are useless parasites and the US has more to gain by befriending other strong countries.
The cautionary tale of Qi and Qin shows how that could backfire. Since World War II, the US (Qi) has used a coalition of allies to oppose Russia (Qin), which has been extremely successful, providing peace and stability. Now Trump is needlessly discarding that arrangement. Americans might regret the results.
Russian President Vladimir Putin does not hide Russia’s strategic goals. He wants to weaken and eventually dissolve NATO. Without a strong alliance to oppose him, Moscow would intimidate Europe and try to reassert control over former Soviet dominions. If the US abandons its European allies, the resulting power vacuum would embolden Russia, much as Qi’s appeasement inspired Qin to become more belligerent.
The historical parallels between the US and Qi serve as a warning. By abandoning smaller allies, Qi did not become more powerful. It merely helped Qin in its own subjugation. Just as Qin’s conquest led to a brutal and short-lived dynasty that soon collapsed, a Russian victory in Ukraine would lead to an unstable and dangerous new world order. It would signal to other aggressive powers, including China, that countries can use military force to redraw borders with impunity. For Taiwan, the implications of Trump’s U-turn on Ukraine are alarming. No one can predict the outcome of the resulting chaos.
Qi’s failure to uphold a united front against Qin was disastrous self-sabotage. Today, the US faces a similar moment of decision. Would it continue to support democratic allies and deter Russian expansionism, or would it seek temporary benefits by siding with an aggressor?
The lesson from history is clear. A defensive coalition can be effective in keeping a belligerent aggressor under control. When a powerful state abandons smaller allies, disaster can result. The US must reaffirm its commitments to those who dare to stand up against expansionist powers. Otherwise, like Qi, the US might find itself more vulnerable when aggressive rivals make it their prime target.
Bret Hinsch is professor emeritus of the Department of History at Fo Guang University.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS