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.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS