Years from now, we will be pondering the question, "Who lost Taiwan?" Why, in 2004, didn't the Taiwanese vote for the pan-greens, and why did Taiwan not want to beef up its defense, but instead sit and wait for Communist China to deteriorate?
Why did Taiwan not give itself a chance to stand up to Communist China, but allow it to hunt down Taiwan in the international arena and cross the Strait with psychological deception and military warfare?
Why did it not build strong defenses and watch China take the road to self-destruction as a result of the clash of ideologies between old imperialism and modern human freedom; a clash of justice and technological, cultural and humanitarian differences between bankrupt Chinese-style communism and democracy?
We will ask why Taiwan did not build itself up militarily and psychologically, and educate young people about their inalienable rights to self-determination, self-protection and an identity of their own choosing, backed up by modern military technology to see it through.
But, by then, it will all be too late.
The People's Republic of China, fueled by its desire to annex Taiwan, will have been able to put off discontent at home, riding on the euphoria of nationalism after the Olympic Games and with a new status as the menace of the East, holding South Korea and Japan by their throats [through manipulation] of their trade lifeline.
With their "friends" and strategic partners like North Korea, as well as hard-line Islamists, could Europe and America be far behind?
The answer to the question "Who lost Taiwan?" would be quite simple. Because the Taiwanese had the freedom to choose, despite all the deception and intimidation, it will have been the Taiwanese who lost Taiwan. And the free world who helped them.
With foresight like this, what should Taiwanese do differently, if they were given a second chance?
Ming-Chung Chen
Chicago
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS