History is a compass for navigating geopolitical uncertainty and safeguarding political autonomy. When great powers revert to Cold War-style zero-sum thinking, trust collapses, civic space contracts and international norms fracture. The danger deepens when crisis situations are exploited to target dissent under a facade of legality. Post-2019 Hong Kong warns how national security regimes can weaponize law to suppress pluralism, dismantle democratic governance and silence civil society in the name of order.
The erosion of rights in Hong Kong carries profound lessons for Taiwan’s defense of autonomy and the future of cross-strait relations. These lessons are urgently relevant to the nation as it faces mounting military pressure, and legislative disputes over budgets and defense priorities.
Washington’s assertive posture toward smaller states, from military intervention in Venezuela to talk of direct control over Greenland, reveals a recurring dilemma of contemporary geopolitics: External guarantees might secure short-term survival, but can also erode long-term sovereignty and undermine respect for international norms.
Meanwhile, Iran’s youth-led uprisings reflect a global pattern of dissent in which digitally connected and morally driven young people confront regimes that mistake coercion for consent. From Taiwan’s Sunflower movement to protests in Hong Kong and Myanmar, we learn that democratic legitimacy cannot be commanded; it must be continuously earned.
For Taiwan, democratic resilience must be cultivated from the bottom up. Three lessons stand out:
First, democracy thrives on accountability, not fear. Empowering civic institutions is essential to sustaining democratic substance. Democracy is more than periodic elections; it depends on durable mechanisms of checks and balances. Electoral integrity, judicial independence, a free press and a vibrant civil society form the armor against constitutional decay. Where these safeguards weaken, laws cease to protect and instead become a tool of domination. Democratic leadership is grounded in trust and responsibility, not imposed through coercion or emergency rule.
Second, legal clarity and strategic alliances deter aggression more effectively than ambiguity. Deterrence should be embedded in law and multilateralism. Freedom of navigation has long anchored stability in the western Pacific, even as China and the US show tendencies toward unilateral rulemaking. Taiwan’s security and prosperity continue to rest on international norms and coordinated partnerships with like-minded regional actors. While the US’ Taiwan Relations Act might buy time and flexibility for Washington, legal clarity and multilateral commitments generate endurance and deterrence.
Third, youth engagement is foundational to good governance. Tehran’s streets remind us that legitimacy must be interactive and rooted in civic participation. Citizens ultimately measure governments by tangible results: housing affordability, job opportunities and distributive fairness. Taiwan’s experience under Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) authoritarianism offers a sobering lesson: When enforcement power centralizes and accountability blurs, institutions drift from serving the public to ensuring regime survival. Therefore, engaging with young people channels their activism into constructive efforts that strengthen democracy.
In today’s fractured global landscape, Taiwan’s strongest defense is a democracy that citizens can test, contest and reform. Resilience cannot be outsourced. Strategic prudence entails deterring threats wisely, governing transparently and listening seriously to young people whose futures are at stake.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is a professor of history at Pace University in New York.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS