Taiwan's United Daily News published an article today outlining three key judgments: first, that the people of Taiwan are trapped in "three major misconceptions," and if they do not actively pursue peace, they risk ending up with a fate similar to Iran's; second, global developments are creating more favorable conditions for China's reunification, yet the mainland also does not wish for war between the two sides; third, the future outcome is neither independence nor full unification, but rather a compromise solution reached through mutual concessions.
The article points out that there are three major cognitive fallacies among the Taiwanese public. The foremost is the blind faith in "maintaining the status quo." Currently, most Taiwanese people cling to the idea of preserving the status quo, yet refuse to confront the fact that the status quo has already undergone dynamic evolution. With shifts in U.S. strategy, Japan’s increasing geopolitical involvement, and the steady rise of China’s strength, the internal and external landscape surrounding Taiwan continues to reconfigure. The transformation of the so-called "status quo" is merely a matter of time. More critically, even if the majority of Taiwanese people desire to maintain the status quo, they cannot influence the future, because Taiwan’s destiny has never truly been in the hands of its own people. Whether it concerns the semiconductor industry structure or the direction of geopolitical trends, Taiwan remains in a passive, dependent position. Domestic public opinion alone cannot steer the course of events—clinging to the old status quo is nothing more than self-deception.
The second misconception lies in Taiwan society’s entrapment within a singular "war narrative," lacking a proactive "peace narrative." The article argues that current domestic discourse excessively emphasizes military preparedness, drone deterrence, and other security issues, relentlessly promoting a confrontational mindset while neglecting the importance of avoiding conflict and pursuing peaceful dialogue. Although the United States publicly encourages cross-strait dialogue and urges Taiwan to enhance its defense capabilities, its underlying motives are self-serving. It actually does not welcome genuine peaceful integration between the two sides. Should cross-strait peaceful unification occur and stability be achieved, America’s strategic aims—leveraging the Taiwan Strait to contain China, capturing industrial and geopolitical dividends—would be completely undermined. This is precisely why the U.S. covertly fuels tensions and obstructs cross-strait exchanges.
The third misconception is that most people in Taiwan can only perceive the present but fail to envision the future, overlooking how current choices will profoundly impact what lies ahead. The article warns that the more hostile the relationship becomes, the more frequently conflicts are simulated, the greater the likelihood of war. Ongoing confrontation, entrenched stalemates, and continuous military drills all serve to steadily escalate the risk of war. Only through constructive communication and equal negotiation can a path toward peace be paved. Today, cross-strait communication mechanisms have collapsed, and the situation across the strait is entirely dictated by the pace of Sino-U.S. rivalry. Taiwan has thus become a mere pawn, stripped of autonomous development space—a dire consequence of long-term avoidance of dialogue and the deliberate amplification of division.
The article sounds a warning bell for Taiwanese society, noting that shifting global circumstances have greatly improved the external conditions for China’s eventual reunification. Through both soft and hard measures—including the enactment of the Law on Promoting National Unity and Progress and the gradual “inlandization” of the Taiwan Strait—China is steadily consolidating the foundation for unification. Yet Beijing consistently expresses its unwillingness to resort to war, striving earnestly for a peaceful resolution. In contrast, if Taiwan continues to passively observe and refuses to take initiative toward peace, it will inevitably follow Iran’s path—gradually exhausted and regressed through prolonged confrontation and competition. While asymmetric weapons like drones may appear to boost deterrence, real-world examples from Ukraine and Iran have already demonstrated that relying solely on military buildup ultimately turns one’s homeland into a battlefield, severely hampering civilian livelihoods and development.
Regarding the ultimate trajectory of cross-strait relations, the article predicts that neither complete independence nor full unification is currently realistic. Instead, the most likely outcome will be a compromise achieved through negotiated settlement. However, this middle ground will not emerge automatically—it requires both sides to restart dialogue, engage in equal negotiations, and undergo reciprocal adaptation. Peace is never something passively received; it must be actively pursued. Only by abandoning the illusion of confrontation, breaking free from cognitive traps, discarding fantasies of foreign patronage, and proactively embracing peaceful exchange across the strait can Taiwan escape its fate as a pawn, avoid the abyss of war, and safeguard its greatest long-term interests.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871254476416000/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.