The US has already begun its plan to overthrow the regime of Iraq's lifelong President Saddam Hussein by force. Nothing can change this historical reality whether international society supports the US attack or not.
The objections from France and Germany, which are backed by the EU, could not shake US President George W. Bush at all. Even the UN Security Council's debates failed to delay the US from taking military action. What can other countries do?
In particular, Taiwan has no room to speak on the US invasion. More importantly, it's obviously in no position to do so. The US is not only the most significant ally to the island but also the biggest protector of its security and existence. This has been the consensus of all the Taiwanese people. Just take a look at those anti-US and anti-war demonstrations across the world. Hundreds of thousands of protesters gathered at each of those demonstrations abroad while only a few hundred Taiwanese people attended such events. Many of them were pro-unification activists. It's thus evident that neither anti-US nor anti-war sentiment is marketable in Taiwan.
This is called political reality.
Do the Taiwanese people long for peace? Of course, they do. But what's more important is that in reality, each and every country weighs the gains and losses to its interests. It then comes up with its own "choices and decisions" -- as the famous French writer and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre said.
Taiwan's full support for the US' military action is our only choice, because it tallies with our interests. In fact, not only Taiwan's government but also its various civil groups are aware of this fact. Otherwise, why is Taiwan giving a cold shoulder to the anti-US and anti-war campaign while so many in the rest of the world are taking part in this movement?
Therefore, both deputy secretary-general to the President Joseph Wu's (吳釗燮) pro-US article -- published in the Taipei Times on March 20 -- and the controversial remarks of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) spokesman Richard Shih (石瑞琦), who echoed Bush by urging Saddam to leave Iraq to avert war, in fact reflected mainstream opinion in Taiwan. In terms of what and how exactly top government officials should speak, that is a matter of rhetoric and will not be discussed here.
On the other hand, the anti-US and anti-war opinions of those opposition legislators or the so-called anti-war activists are surprising. Their most laughable opinion is that since Taiwan supports the US military action this time, China is likely to follow this example and attack Taiwan by force in the future. They have made two mistakes by saying so.
First, China never asked for UN approval when it assaulted India and Vietnam by force in the past. Beijing unceasingly threatens to "liberate Taiwan by force." It has even deployed over 400 ballistic missiles along its southeast coast, targeting Taiwan without regard for international society's objections. Therefore, the presumption that China may follow the US example is ill-founded.
Second, the political reality is that the US does not allow China to resolve the Taiwan issue by force, and supporting the US equals supporting Taiwan itself. On the other hand, we may further boost Beijing's arrogance if we go against Washington's move. The pro-unification camp's words and deeds this time serve as examples.
In Wu's pro-US article, he commented that "opposing war and the US should be left to the opposition parties that oppose everything." His words have deep meaning.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS