Wed, Sep 24, 2025 page8

• EDITORIAL: Attaining prudence and peace

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  In an online interview titled “The Coming US-China Clash Over Taiwan” posted on YouTube, US economist Jeffrey Sachs called for peace.

  “We need above all peace and prudence here, because if it were not for the US meddling, I’m quite sure that across the [Taiwan] Strait there would be a solution to these issues that is peaceful, sensible and especially pragmatic, and if ... politicians in the US are pragmatic and prudent, that peace will prevail,” Sachs said.

  His summary of the historical situation between Taiwan and China, and the US’ involvement, was largely accurate, and he was certainly less overtly proximate to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) version of events than he has been before.

  However, he did repeat the CCP’s mischaracterization of World War II-era agreements as “proving” that Taiwan was ceded to China.

  Sach’s preoccupation has long been with what he considers the folly and arrogance of US foreign policy, and with China. There is no reason to doubt his commitment to peace, but there was something he left out in his summary: recognition of the agency of Taiwanese to decide their own future.

  It is one thing to not want Taiwan to be a pawn in US-China regional hegemonic politics, but the problem is his tacit agreement to allow Taiwan’s future to be decided by one great power while the other stays on the sidelines. Where is the self-determination for Taiwanese?

  Sachs does not want war. Contrary to his suspicions about the prudence of US officials, Washington does not want war, either. Taiwanese certainly do not want war, with the majority in favor of the cross-strait “status quo.”

  Moreover, despite saber-rattling by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Taiwan Strait, neither Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) nor the CCP want war. Initiation of a conflict that would be difficult to contain would be far from prudent. The PLA will continue its pressure to prevent erosion of the CPP’s advantages, but resolution according to international law is Beijing’s most pragmatic option.

  Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) in an article in the Taipei Times (“Why talk about peace now?” Sept. 18, page 8) urged Taiwan to leverage its agency to push more firmly for peace.

  John Cheng, a retired Hong Kong businessman who lives in Taiwan, wrote that there were limits to Lung’s argument (“Let’s talk about peace plainly,” Sept. 19, page 8). In Hong Kong, Cheng saw first-hand the “peaceful, sensible and especially pragmatic” solutions that the CCP might offer Taiwan.

  Monique Chu (朱明琴), a lecturer at the University of Southampton, wrote in an online article published on Thursday last week titled “The Use of Force Against Taiwan as a Contested State: An Analysis of Legality and Great-Power Politics,” that Taiwan’s status as a “contested state” could affect the legality of use of force by the CCP to annex it.

  Chu detailed the distinction between de jure recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign nation — which Taiwan has been unsuccessful with — and de facto recognition through unofficial channels.

  However, while the CCP would frame an invasion as a “domestic action” beyond the scope of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter — which prohibits member states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state — Chu argues that an alternative reading of international law regards “contested” de facto states like Taiwan as also being protected entities, with use of force contravening its rights and security.

  If the CCP were to take the prudent, sensible and pragmatic approach that Sachs hopes for, it would offer a real chance of meaningful dialogue with Taiwan’s elected government.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Two tropical depressions form, one typhoon forecast

  • 2

    Taiwan’s looming labor disaster

  • 3

    Taiwan ships first pomeloes to Malaysia

  • 4

    Taiwan to surpass S Korea wealth

  • 5

    Land and sea warnings issued for Typhoon Ragasa