appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Dong Lei

Only fools fail to see how very brittle our world is. Technological upheaval, climate instability and geopolitical entropy have rendered the international order fragile. Institutional trust is eroding. In such a time, the wisest act may be restraint.
Yet on November 7 in Brussels, the Taiwanese vice-president stood before a body that styles itself as the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and laid out her views on the dangers of mainland China.
Around the same time in Tokyo, Japan’s new prime minister declared that a mainland Chinese strike on Taiwan could justify Japanese military action. These are not gestures of ambiguity. They are signals – clear, public and provocative.
From Beijing’s perspective, the choreography looks coordinated. Taiwan courts applause, Japan signals readiness and both actions unfold within hours of each other. It feels like encirclement. The symbolism matters. The timing of the two moves counts and the message has been received.
But Beijing ought not overthink things. Today, most major powers are preoccupied with deep structural problems. Europe is internally divided and external pressures have led to its first major rearming since the second world war. The United States is deeply fractured. Russia and Ukraine are locked in territorial absolutism. Japan is hedging. These dancers may share a stage, but they do not share a strategy.
Whether one sees the Taiwanese vice-president’s appearance in Brussels as historic, it was certainly meant to be incendiary to Beijing.

IPAC is a loose group of largely Western parliamentarians with no strategic capacity. Founded in 2020 as a direct response to the end of the political crisis and unrest in Hong Kong, the group symbolises the deep anxieties that Hong Kong’s fate has stirred among some across the region. The tensions in Hong Kong resonate with Taiwan, shaping its posture and perceptions. This linkage underscores a broader regional fragility, where symbolic gestures risk escalating into far-reaching consequences.
However, IPAC has no sovereign mandate, no enforcement power and no ability to safeguard either Taiwan or Hong Kong. To treat its applause as a bulwark against Beijing’s ire is to mistake theatre for diplomacy. Yet the ruling party in Taiwan and its supporters are ecstatic and self-congratulatory.
Beijing, predictably, has responded with indignation. But Taiwan’s leadership remains unmoved. Dialogue is eschewed. Posturing is preferred.
The Brussels episode, however, is not an isolated incident in Taiwanese politics. For example, earlier this year, the ruling party in Taiwan undertook a sweeping effort to recall opposition lawmakers – a manoeuvre that, whatever its procedural legitimacy, reeked of consolidation rather than consensus. The pattern is unmistakable: internal pluralism sacrificed for external projection.

The tragedy here is not merely tactical. It is philosophical. Beijing has not foreclosed negotiation. It has made clear, repeatedly, that it is prepared to engage with any Taiwanese government that refrains from the open pursuit of de jure independence. This is not a semantic quibble. It is the sine qua non of dialogue. The refusal to meet that condition is a choice.
There is precedent for restraint. In 1989, it bears noting that Chinese tanks were not seen crushing protesters. Deng Xiaoping said in a remarkably candid speech to military officers that, “If we had used tanks to crush them, it would have caused confusion throughout the country.” That generation of leaders, for all their imperfections, understood something elemental: that legitimacy is not just asserted through force, but also must be earned through forbearance and deliverance.
Today, China is led by figures steeped in traditional Chinese philosophy – an ethos that may differ from Christian frameworks, but cannot simply be dismissed. China should also remember from its own experience that restraint is not weakness. It can be strength.

Taiwan’s current trajectory – refusing dialogue, consolidating power, courting Western applause – risks everything. It may win headlines in Brussels for a week, but it invites more permanent catastrophe in the Taiwan Strait.
What we need is civilisational thinking: the kind of clarity taught by Chinese philosopher Mencius, who understood that “the people are the most important”.
Taiwan and its allies may wish to defend its dignity. But dignity is not found in defiance alone. It is found in dialogue, in restraint, in the long labour of peace. Otherwise, we could find ourselves in deep trouble soon.


China’s trade limits continue to bite into Japan’s imports of rare earths, other minerals

US space weapons move has ‘broken taboo’, could spark new arms race, Beijing forum told

How will Beijing receive the most senior Taiwan official at Apec events this year?

US weighs delaying Taiwan arms sales until after Apec and G20 summits

Taiwan

Taiwan must exercise restraint, not engage in political theatre

A view of a bridge in Kinmen, against the backdrop of Xiamen, on October 28. Kinmen has long been on the front line of Taiwan Strait tensions. Photo: AFP

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi speaks to the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives in Tokyo on November 7, saying a mainland Chinese attack against Taiwan could justify a Japanese military response. Photo: Kyodo

Taiwanese deputy leader Hsiao Bi-khim attends the European Parliament in Brussels on November 7. Photo: AP

Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) meets former Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou in Beijing on April 10, 2024. Photo: Xinhua

On Taiwan, Japan’s Takaichi shouldn’t play with fire

Illustration: Craig Stephens

On August 31, tourists visit Marco Polo Bridge in Beijing, widely considered as the place where the eight-year war between Japan and China began in 1937. Photo: Eugene Lee

A J-35 stealth fighter jet gets set for an electromagnetic-catapult-assisted take-off from China’s Fujian aircraft carrier, on September 22. Photo: Xinhua

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi (centre) chats to cabinet members before a session to answer questions from the leader of the main opposition party, on November 4. Photo: AFP 

Will China ramp up military activity near Japan over Takaichi’s comments?

The Diaoyu Islands, known as the Senkakus in Japan, have long been a source of tensions between Tokyo and Beijing. Photo: Kyodo

Beijing has condemned Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan as “dangerous provocation”. Photo: AP

Why does the Taiwan issue touch a nerve between Beijing and Tokyo?

Beijing has accused Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi of undermining the political basis of China-Japan relations. Photo: Kyodo

Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi met for the first time in person in South Korea on October 31. The present diplomatic row erupted a week after their meeting. Photo: AFP

Opinion

China Opinion

Taipei’s current trajectory – refusing dialogue, consolidating power, courting Western applause – risks everything


Taipei’s current trajectory – refusing dialogue, consolidating power, courting Western applause – risks everything.


Sanae Takaichi

China-Japan relations

China

Belgium

Japan

Deng Xiaoping

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Taiwan must exercise restraint, not engage in political theatre

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Taipei’s current trajectory – refusing dialogue, consolidating power, courting Western applause – risks everything

Taipei’s current trajectory – refusing dialogue, consolidating power, courting Western applause – risks everything