"Uphold peace across the Taiwan Strait" is perhaps the most popular catchphrase that Taiwanese politicians like to chant nowadays. However, upholding "peace" has also become the most plausible excuse to justify their immorality.
Most Taiwanese are doubtless peace-loving and averse to war because human lives are priceless. Respecting and caring about human life is the most precious quality that the Taiwanese possess and the Chinese government lacks. In view of this, Taiwanese people do not want any war in the Strait.
Although war is abhorrent, the ultimate evils are autocracy and aggression, rather than war itself. If we are peace-loving out of our passion and respect for life, then we have to admit that there is only one cause that can justify war: the protection of human freedom.
If anyone or any country attempts to strip the Taiwanese of their freedom and enslave them to a regime, the Taiwanese will also rise up and fight.
However, in Taiwan nowadays there are no politicians from the governing party willing to promise to fight for the life and freedom of the Taiwanese. Rather, they have followed in the footsteps of the opposition parties and jumped on the "peace" bandwagon.
How can peace be ensured? China's aggression is what threatens peace across the Strait. Unless Beijing is willing to renounce its aggression against Taiwan, there is no way that Taiwan's politicians can guarantee peace.
Defined by the communist regime, the status quo across the Taiwan strait is that the two sides remain in a state of civil war. Moreover, Beijing has never considered the status quo peaceful -- it defines the status quo merely as a ceasefire. Unless Taiwan surrenders or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) disintegrates, Beijing will never be willing to re-define the cross-strait situation. A state of war or at least a ceasefire is the reality of the status quo across the Strait.
The peace-loving Taiwanese do not like this kind of status quo. But they have to understand that there are only two possibilities that can change the status quo: the disintegration of the violence-loving Chinese regime, or the surrender of Taiwan to this autocratic regime. If politicians claiming to be peacemakers fail to strongly demand that Beijing renounce its autocratic rule and practice democracy, they will only lead the Taiwanese to submit themselves to China's authoritarian regime.
The problem is that submission cannot bring lasting peace. Instead, it encourages more aggression and leads to the death of the human spirit. We cannot call the devastation of the soul created by an authoritarian regime a state of peace.
Many Jews who were slaughtered during the Holocaust had put down their guns and submitted to Hitler's aggression. In view of this historical tragedy, former Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol once pointed out that what is more wicked than violence is to succumb to violence.
Such wickedness is now in vogue in Taiwan. Rather than asking Beijing to pursue democracy, politicians only speak about how they can bring peace. But in doing so they are encouraging Taiwanese people to give in to China's tyrannical regime. Although they may cloak their words in the garment of peace, they are advocating a submission to violence.
Capitulation to violence only feeds further tyranny and aggression. It is a pity that both the governing and opposition parties in Taiwan have decided to adopt this morally bankrupt strategy. Whether or not the Taiwanese can resist the siren call of peace will determine the fate of their hard-won freedom and democracy.
Chang Hsi-mo is an assistant professor of interdisciplinary studies at National Sun Yet-sen University
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS