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.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more