President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present.
From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That paradigm only began to shift in the early 20th century.
After World War I, leaders began to establish rules to restrain acts of war, but it was not until the end of World War II that the efforts took meaninful shape. Behind this, one fact cannot be ignored: the comprehensive involvement of the US in fundamentally altering the global situation.
The US not only defeated the fascist forces, but also promoted the founding of the UN and established the Bretton Woods system, creating global trade rules and a global security framework.
The process was not driven by idealism alone, but by a combination of US strength, interests and values. In international relations theory, this is referred to as the “Pax Americana”: world order brought by US soft and hard power.
This international order is not perfect, but it has indeed maintained relative peace for nearly 80 years. However, some public opinion in Taiwan takes the opposite view, seeing the US as the source of conflict — an opinion that lacks historical perspective and ignores the harsh realities of geopolitics. Indeed, the US is not infallible, but without the US-led order, could Western Europe have escaped the shadow of the Soviet Union? Could Taiwan enjoy today’s freedom and democracy? Probably not.
The value of peace is often invisible, just as we cannot count how many crimes the police have prevented before they happened, but it is precisely this kind of structural security guarantee that allows us to live our daily lives without war. For Taiwan, such “structural protection” is especially crucial.
Ironically, it is because Taiwan exists within this protection that public opinion can criticize the US without concern. If we do not understand where this protection comes from, it would be difficult to make the right strategic choices when facing risks.
Today, strong isolationist voices have emerged within the US. A return to isolationism would undoubtedly affect the US’ commitments to its allies. For Taiwan, this is not just a matter of “someone else’s politics,” but a real security issue. If the US steps back from its regional role, is Taiwan prepared to face an Asia increasingly dominated by major powers?
History has shown many times that when a leading and benign power retreats, the world order easily descends into chaos. Taiwan, as a small nation on the front line of geopolitics, should see this reality clearly, strengthen cooperation with democratic countries, and reinforce institutional resilience and self-defense capabilities.
Today’s international order is not a given, but is the result of a major power’s willingness to take responsibility.
While we cannot choose our geographic location, we can choose where we stand. Let us not wait until the order collapses to begin missing the seemingly “flawed” peace.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who lectures on international relations.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS