Over the past few months, spontaneous protests have been occurring frequently across Taiwan — whether calling to question the serious ambiguity of the relationship between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or raising concerns over shifts in the opposition’s political direction, civil society has demonstrated a strong sense of autonomy and democratic awareness. All such demonstrations have concluded peacefully and rationally, without any conflicts or violence, serving as successive resilience exercises for the nation’s democratic society.
A truly mature democratic society not only tolerates protests, but requires such mechanisms as channels for relieving public pressure. The key is whether these mechanisms are sufficiently legitimate, a condition that relies on citizens’ power to speak up — something that cannot be decided unilaterally by political parties. Recent demonstrations have shown Taiwanese uniting of their own volition, creating their own signs and slogans, organizing transportation and maintaining order — even voluntarily cleaning up the site after the events wrap up.
None of these events were organized by political parties or the government. Rather, they are the natural result of years of democratic education and civil organization within Taiwanese society.
From a strategic perspective, while these peaceful protests appear unrelated to the issue of national defense, they are the foundation of an asymmetric force against authoritarian interference. A society that can successfully demonstrate the ability to mobilize, coordinate, communicate and exercise self-control during peacetime would be capable of functioning when met with external threats — it might even develop into a grassroots resistance network. The various skills and experiences developed throughout protests — such as communications coordination, sharing resources, spatial organization and legal support — can all be transformed into foundational support capabilities during extraordinary times.
The CCP is accustomed to regarding public protests as the result of external interference, as its ruling logic struggles to comprehend the underlying power of civil autonomy. Therefore, Taiwanese society’s repeated demonstrations of its ability to self-mobilize — organizing protests without relying on political parties, financial support or other external forces — are a source of significant psychological pressure for the CCP. Even if it managed to take over the government or paralyze the military, it would still have a hard time assuming control over such a deeply resilient society.
This has forced Beijing to realize that its true adversary is not limited to Taiwan’s government or military, but the entire civil society — a society well-versed in organization and cooperation, and one that refuses to bow to authoritarianism. In this regard, Taiwanese society’s resilience capabilities act as a deterrent force against the CCP.
Peace has never been achieved through surrender or negotiation alone. Peace is achieved when one’s adversary, after recognizing that the cost of aggression is too high to bear, withdraws. Every peaceful protest in Taiwan is a grassroots democratic exercise, filling energy reserves in preparation for potential times of crisis.
The survival of Taiwan’s democracy depends on Taiwanese society’s ability to demonstrate internal order, autonomous will and collective resilience in the wake of challenges.
We must prepare ourselves to safeguard peace, and spontaneous civil resistance is the start of that preparation.
Yu Ming is an architect.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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.
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
RSS