A friend recently sent me an anti-war declaration signed by about 50 academics. It urged Taiwan to avert a US-China conflict by maintaining positive and “equidistant” ties with both countries.
Does “Taiwan” in the document refer to the “Taiwanese government” or the “Taiwanese public”? It also seemed strange to appeal for an “anti-war” stance, as Taiwan does not hold the initiative to start a war.
People posting online labeled three of the initiators of the declaration — National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University professor emeritus Fu Daiwei (傅大為), retired National Chengchi University (NCCU) professor of communications Kuo Li-hsin (郭力昕) and NCCU College of Communications professor Feng Chien-san (馮建三) — anti-US, leftist and even pro-unification.
However, acquaintances of the three would dispute those epithets, and say that they are critical academics and media workers with zero interest in power. They say the three advocate independent thinking, and aim to find a solution that transcends political affiliations, choosing neither unification with China nor Taiwanese independence.
Academia Sinica research fellow Wu Jieh-min (吳介民) slammed the idea: The anti-war movement in Europe and in the US opposed the idea of one nation invading another. As Taiwan is under threat of invasion, it should appeal against invasion, not war.
Since this uses simple logic, it is baffling that “independent thinkers” could not get this idea into their heads.
Or perhaps they have been living inside their own bubble and have long been out of touch with reality.
There is nothing wrong with living inside one’s bubble, as Kuo once said: “I don’t use Facebook or other social media. It saved me a lot of time despite missing out on various pieces of information. I use the time to watch movies, listen to music, take a walk or hang out in taverns.”
It would have been fine if he had followed his own philosophy. Without keeping himself updated on the latest developments in international relations, he put out an anti-war statement that said there are anti-war demonstrations taking place across the globe, from Washington to major European cities.
Is he living in a time capsule?
I live in London, a protest hotspot, but have not seen any anti-war demonstrations of late. All I see are strikes: rail strikes, subway strikes, bus strikes, teachers’ strikes and even nurses’ strikes.
Even if there are anti-war demonstrations in London, there are only sporadic ones related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Many of the protesters were Russian, voluntarily carrying signs that urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to withdraw troops from Ukraine, and protesting its military expansionism, while Ukrainians joined the protest with “anti-invasion” chants.
After all, preventing war is the last thing on the mind of a nation that is occupied with counterattacks and building up defenses.
It would be laudable if the anti-war declaration was meant to rally opponents of war across the globe, but they should be clear on the relationship between the invader and invaded: Anti-war appeals should be initiated by an invading party who holds the power to launch an attack, while the invaded party should promote anti-invasion appeals.
Taiwan would become a global laughingstock if it cannot get the relations straight.
When the BBC spent five minutes reporting on the Taiwanese government’s decision to proceed with its plan to lengthen mandatory military service from four months to one year, the message that the news sent out to the global community is that Taiwan is resolved to defend itself.
If foreign media were now to broadcast Taiwan’s anti-war declaration, the global community would interpret it as nothing but capitulation.
Taiwan can surrender in a bid to sue for peace and autonomy, without the faintest idea if China would deliver its promise.
Even if China made a promise to grant Taiwan peace and autonomy, could Taiwan trust China to hold its pledge knowing what happened to the promise of “50 years no change” for Hong Kong?
Aside from invaders, no one on Earth would wish for war.
However, the academics’ declaration, obsessed with anti-war narratives while ignorant of current international affairs, could easily lead to the opposite.
Perhaps it was not the academics’ intention to call for unification, but the petition could end up becoming a platform and magnet for people seeking that end.
To oppose war, the academics have switched their stance from anti-unification to unification.
If anti-war is equivalent to facilitating unification, then the anti-war declaration cannot represent all Taiwanese, but only be regarded as the anti-war declaration of the pro-unification faction in Taiwan.
The declaration concerns Taiwan’s image and status in the global community. In view of such a critical moment, democratic countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US are watching closely to see if Taiwan is a reliable partner that shares democratic values, or merely an extension of Chinese authoritarianism.
As Kaohsiung Medical University professor Cheng Ling-fang (成令方) made the first critique, and other academics joined in, I hope the public’s stance becomes clearer and more explicit with every debate.
Shih Fang-long is a research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Translated by Rita Wang
original post on: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2023/04/04/2003797274