Fu Dawei's Perspective: A Reflection on Anti-War Sentiment in Response to Women's Groups' Anger

On the 6th of last month, a historically significant Taiwanese women's rights organization held a 44th-anniversary appreciation tea party. However, during the event, key members of the women's movement began questioning 'anti-war' positions, expressing anger and advising women to consider, 'What does the Taiwan Strait situation have to do with me?' In response to this challenge from the women's group, I wish to seriously reflect using everyday language, addressing the underlying issues. As one of the initiators of the 2023 Taiwan 'Anti-War Statement,' I would like to share a few thoughts with this women's movement, with which I have previously engaged. The following quotations are primarily drawn from the remarks of an advisor at the tea party.

Professor Shen Xiu-hua shared that on several occasions—while driving or doing other tasks—she felt a deep, overwhelming anger and sorrow arise from within: 'Why can China come and destroy my current sense of security and way of life?' This may indeed be a feeling shared by many women at times. Anti-war advocates must seriously confront such anger and sorrow. A Japanese Marxist once told me that the majority of Taiwan's people have been separated from China for over a century, and their suspicion, anger, and unease toward China—even their desire for independence—should be respected and taken seriously.

Most of the time, Taiwanese people are busy with daily life, raising children, and dealing with countless petty annoyances. When they finally get some leisure and enjoyment, suddenly hearing threats from across the strait about a possible attack makes it difficult not to feel confused and angry. Confusion and anger—alright, let's think: if a stranger suddenly threatened to hit you today, what would your first reaction be? It shouldn't be immediate anger, but rather to ask: 'Why are you hitting me? What did I do?' Suppose you respond, 'I want independence—why can't I? After all, I've been away from home for years.' Then the stranger might counter: 'If Taichung suddenly declared independence from Taiwan, would you agree? If you don't, and you call the police to stop them, won't they get angry and say, 'How can you threaten us?'

We are all busy with life, so when threats come from across the strait, it's understandable to feel upset. But how much do you actually know about China? Who told you about 'authoritarian China'? Do you understand why they are making these threats? If we say, 'Regardless, whenever someone threatens me, I get angry and protest loudly, no matter whether the threatener has a reason or whether I myself have done something wrong,' then this is a knee-jerk reaction—a childish, unreflective behavior.

We are busy with life and claim we don't have time to understand China. We focus on protecting our families, children, and safety, with no time or energy for anything else. Is that really true? Some women have time to travel abroad, invest in stocks, manage family and social relationships, and worry about their children's education and overseas studies. Yet they claim they don't have time to understand neighboring China or to recognize how Taiwan's government has damaged cross-strait relations, potentially endangering their families, children, and property. You say it's irrelevant—'America will help us!' Many already hold U.S. green cards and have transferred assets abroad—both time-consuming and complicated processes. Yet we claim we don't have time to understand China or engage in communication with it. Then, when we hear China is threatening again, we get angry: 'On what basis do they dare do this?'

Faced with the potential threat of war—regardless of who started it or who is at fault—many Taiwanese people, including women, need to make some preparations to guard against the dangers of 'unexpected storms.' My own household has prepared. When 'women in Taiwan must prepare for possible attacks,' are we easily seen by so-called 'anti-war advocates' as betraying feminist anti-war principles? Not necessarily—it depends on why and how we prepare. Preparing for family, children, and the elderly—anticipating no water, no electricity, no phone signals, no food, and the risk of stray bullets during conflict—is something everyone would agree is reasonable. But this is not seeking war or preparing for war; it is 'preparing for chaos.'

Not just women, but all civilians, given that our government and cross-strait relations are deteriorating (the U.S. is unreliable, yet the government blindly aligns with America, saying nothing even as TSMC becomes U.S. machinery), should mentally prepare for 'war chaos.'

Now, if—God forbid—China actually attacks and our military cannot resist, what should we do? Should we stand firmly with the current government and fight to the end in urban warfare? The current opposition KMT leader once said that as long as Taiwan does not declare independence, but China attacks anyway, we will resist to the end. But is that right? The current DPP government has not declared independence, but it has said and done everything resembling independence—treating the mainland as an 'external enemy,' refusing communication, labeling all engagement as 'united front tactics,' rushing to buy weapons from the U.S. daily, and proudly positioning Taiwan as the first island chain in containing China.

If, one day, an accident or unexpected incident triggers China's military advance, should we still stand with such a government and resist to the end? I say no. I believe many Taiwanese women would agree—they would not want to resist alongside a government that is reflexively anti-China after our military fails to hold the line.

Under what conditions, then, would I suggest ordinary civilians rise up and resist resolutely? I say: if the Taiwan government has publicly abandoned 'Taiwan independence,' officially abolished the DPP's independence platform, and has long been willing to negotiate and engage in political dialogue with mainland China—but even then, China seizes an opportunity to attack Taiwan—then, when our military cannot resist and the PLA begins massacring Taiwanese civilians, that is when I would begin to resist resolutely. I have said similar things before and after the 2023 Anti-War Statement.

As citizens of the Republic of China, we must oppose aggression and hegemony and uphold our democratic system—no question. But when Taiwan faces possible invasion, we must first ask: why? Why would that powerful country across the strait do this? What are their reasons? Not simply getting angry whenever a neighbor warns or threatens us, regardless of what we've done in the past. We must, of course, defend our democratic system. When engaging with the mainland, our democratic system is not a bargaining chip.

We have consistently emphasized anti-war, but some friends in the anti-anti-war camp—including certain women's group leaders—have begun spreading false information and lies about us, claiming we want to surrender, that we only accept China's narrative, oppose any military preparation, and blindly follow American anti-war and feminist narratives.

I do not oppose the ROC military having reasonable military preparedness—not only to deter China but also to guard against unreasonable provocations from the Philippines, Japan, or joint attempts to divide ROC maritime rights off the east coast. But I oppose an arms race with China—constantly talking only about military buildup and 'security narratives,' criticizing those who don't obsess over arms as having ulterior motives or labeling them with 'red hats.' More importantly, we must engage in communication and even negotiations with China to ease tensions. Even Clausewitz said, 'War is the continuation of politics by other means.' Why are some in women's groups afraid of political dialogue with China? Afraid to finally end the nearly 80-year civil war? That is the fundamental foundation.

Finally, a common rebuttal whenever we discuss anti-war is what Shen Xiu-hua said: 'Western feminist anti-war discourse often stems from their countries being the aggressors—colonial and imperial powers attacking others—but Taiwan is not; we are the ones being attacked.' Yes, many Western feminists deeply reflect on their nations being the aggressors. But should Taiwanese feminists also reflect on what our nation is doing? Why does the mainland constantly issue threatening rhetoric toward Taiwan? Or do we simply complain like children, 'They're going to attack us!'—even though they haven't?

If the U.S. is imperialist, constantly attacking the weak, why does the Taiwan government emphasize that our relationship with this imperialist 'world bully' is 'rock-solid'? The U.S. does terrible things worldwide, often condemned globally, yet Taiwan dares not speak. Thus, for years, we've been grouped with Israel—America's small hegemon in the Middle East. Why does Taiwan maintain good relations with Israel—including training right-wing assassination groups in Central America with Israel in the past—and even donate money to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, violating international law? So if the U.S. is the aggressor, then Taiwan's DPP-led trend is essentially its frontline pawn.

When the aggressor, American imperialism, threatens China, encircles it via the first island chain, aims missiles from countless U.S. bases in East Asia, imposes economic and technological sanctions, constantly pressures Taiwan to provoke China, supplies weapons, and tacitly approves Taiwan's pro-independence tendencies, statements, and actions (even when Biden opposed it and China warned, Taiwan still welcomed anti-communist figure Pelosi)—what can China do to this pawn of American imperialism? To the women friends who are angry, asking, 'Why can China come and destroy my current sense of security and way of life?'