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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS