Lorraine Panby Lorraine Pan
語言:
English /// 中文
Photo Credit: Screenshot
WRITER LUNG YING-TAI has emphasized that for Taiwan, “there can be no democracy without first ensuring peace.” In recent years, Lung has consistently identified herself as “anti-war,” advocating for Taiwan to avoid conflict and seek peace. Similarly, in 2023, four scholars in Taiwan started an advocacy for a “Ukraine-Russia armistice agreement”（烏俄停戰談判）, “opposing a US-China war”（反對美中戰爭）, and “maintaining an equally friendly diplomatic relationship with great powers”（與大國維持友好等距外交）—all under the banner of an anti-war stance.
However, being anti-war means opposing invasion, not opposing resistance. Opposing wars of invasion, opposing military expansion, and opposing authoritarian oppression are all at the core of anti-war principles. In the discourse of these people, now, anti-war has been distorted into asking the oppressed to tolerate the actions of invaders, which has already strayed from the original meaning and value of anti-war.
Trump was once known for his tough stance toward Russia and China, but he has now shifted to blaming Ukraine and calling on Zelensky to take responsibility for a ceasefire. This position ignores Russia’s role as the aggressor in the war and Ukraine’s legitimate right to self-defense. It amounts to urging Ukraine to surrender under the pretext of stopping the war.
It is not difficult to see that some people who identify as anti-Trump and oppose his far-right supporters—claiming to stand against nationalism—nonetheless fall into the same narrative when, in opposing the United States, they immediately shift toward supporting another form of totalitarianism. In 2023, the advocates called for “no US-China war but Taiwan’s autonomy” （不要美中戰爭，台灣要自主）. However, the conflict is not simply a confrontation between the two major powers, the United States and China. This seemingly radical pacifism actually overlooks the fact that the Taiwanese people’s decision to prepare for self-defence is a direct expression of Taiwan’s autonomy; it is a response to the threat of Chinese invasion, not a consequence of Western imperialist intervention.
Although the advocates emphasized that anti-war does not equate to surrender, this general peace advocacy fails to build solidarity with those who oppose Chinese totalitarianism and seek independence and autonomy. This is because it does not address the distinction between invasion and self-defence. Lung argues that Ukraine must take responsibility for its situation, warning Taiwan, “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” This perspective denies Taiwan’s right to self-determination and autonomy in preparing for self-defence. Moreover, the criticism of pro-imperialism essentially implies that those being invaded are incapable of resisting.
Asking the Taiwanese people to disarm while China continues military actions and isolates Taiwan through its international influence reduces the resistance to imperialism to a shallow call without specific actions or meaning. The call for Taiwan to stop provocation effectively asks Taiwan to surrender to totalitarianism and sacrifice its autonomy. Although seeking peace is a seemingly idealized option, dictators will not accept it, and the expectation that those who are under oppression should bear the responsibility for peace is misguided. The advocacy framed in the name of anti-war, along with the ideal of maintaining an equally friendly diplomatic relationship with major powers, can only exist in the realm of imagination. Believing that people can disarm to avoid conflict under the threat of totalitarianism does not protect them; it only leads them into a trap. Taiwan is not calling for war and conflict, but rather preparing to defend itself against invasion.
Supporting Taiwan’s autonomy and anti-war stance means recognizing that national independence and self-defence are fundamental to the autonomy of the Taiwanese people. Taiwan is under the threat of invasion, and emphasizing its autonomy means not treating the Taiwanese as pawns, nor adopting a binary view that they are either being manipulated by China or intervened by the US. Any conflict is difficult to avoid being influenced by external powers and authorities, but the core issue is the defence of the Taiwanese people. Whether Taiwan takes self-defence actions or accepts military assistance from other countries, the legitimacy of their actions will not be diminished.
The anti-Putin, anti-invasion Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot raised $6.7 million for the Ukrainian military to resist the Russian invasion after the war began. Additionally, they have toured multiple times, raising funds for both the Ukrainian military and artists, supporting the Ukrainian people to oppose Russia in various ways. As radical activists and feminists, Pussy Riot does not treat both sides equally; instead, they emphasize the justice of resisting invasion.
Another example is the anti-war Jewish people who support Palestine. Jewish Voice for Peace, one of the largest anti-Zionist organizations, organizes various activities to support Palestinians. They gathered at Trump Tower to show solidarity with the Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who had been arrested, and many were subsequently arrested for their actions. Rather than remaining silent, these Jewish people choose to take risks and speak out because they have recognized the genocide in Gaza and the increasing wave of Islamophobia worldwide. Instead of urging Palestinians to simply seek peace, they oppose the nationalism carried out in their name.
As an activist born in China and now advocating for Taiwan independence, I oppose the downplaying of the threat to Taiwan posed by Chinese totalitarianism in the name of seeking peace. I am not calling for ethnic conflict or hatred, but rather for an acknowledgment of the structural and systemic opposition. China is expanding its opposition to Taiwan in the same way it has targeted Uighurs, Tibetans, Southern Mongolians, Hongkongers, and Chinese dissidents. At this moment, the China’s call for military force to achieve unification (武統) is not the beginning of an invasion, but rather an extension of its long-term campaign of aggression.
The people who resist totalitarianism, within oppressive systems and structures, take risks to oppose it because they recognize the reality of the oppression, not to seek superficial care or empathy. Weakening the autonomy of those who resist, while attempting to weaken totalitarianism through warnings to people under oppression, leads to the result that those struggling in resistance are reduced to shallow complaints. I reject this narrative.
As a sexual minority, a queer, and a person with disabilities, I support the freedom and independence of the Taiwanese people, including their right to resist China’s threats and defend themselves.
The rising tension and anxious atmosphere fuel nationalism, and anti-nationalist people must carefully consider whether weakening invasion by another great power should be viewed as a form of balance and resistance. Building transnational and international solidarity means opposing all forms of oppression, not just Western-centric imperialism.
As leftists, we aim to build a new internationalism that listens to the voices of the oppressed and supports the independence and autonomy of all peoples. We call for a solidarity front grounded in resistance, not the fake peace of tolerance.