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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS