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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS