關於 under threat中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【Joshua Wong speaking to the Italian Senate】#意大利國會研討會演說 —— 呼籲世界在大學保衛戰一週年後與香港人站在同一陣線

中文、意大利文演說全文：https://www.patreon.com/posts/44167118

感謝開創未來基金會（Fondazione Farefuturo）邀請，讓我透過視像方式在意大利國會裡舉辦的研討會發言，呼籲世界繼續關注香港，與香港人站在同一陣線。

意大利作為絕無僅有參與一帶一路發展的國家，理應對中共打壓有更全面的理解，如今正值大學保衛戰一週年，以致大搜捕的時刻，當打壓更為嚴峻，香港更需要世界與我們同行。

為了讓各地朋友也能更了解香港狀況，我已在Patreon發佈當天演說的中文、英文和意大利文發言稿，盼望在如此困難的時勢裡，繼續讓世界知道我們未曾心息的反抗意志。

【The Value of Freedom: Burning Questions for Hong Kongers】

Good morning. I have the privilege today to share some of my thoughts and reflections about freedom, after taking part in social activism for eight years in Hong Kong. A movement calling for the withdrawal of the extradition law starting from last year had escalated into a demand for democracy and freedom. This city used to be prestigious for being the world’s most liberal economy, but now the infamous authoritarian government took away our freedom to election, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and ideas.

Sometimes, we cannot avoid questioning the cause we are fighting for, the value of freedom. Despite a rather bleak prospect, why do we have to continue in this struggle? Why do we have to cherish freedom? What can we do to safeguard freedom at home and stay alert to attacks on freedom? In answering these questions, I hope to walk through three episodes in the previous year.

Turning to 2020, protests are not seen as frequently as they used to be on the media lens, partly because of the pandemic, but more importantly for the authoritarian rule. While the world is busy fighting the pandemic, our government took advantage of the virus to exert a tighter grip over our freedom. Putting the emergency laws in place, public assemblies in Hong Kong were banned. Most recently, a rally to support press freedom organized by journalists was also forbidden. While many people may ask if it is the end of street activism, ahead of us in the fight for freedom is another battleground: the court and the prison.

Freedom Fighters in Courtrooms and in Jail

Part of the huge cost incurred in the fight for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong is the increasing judicial casualties. As of today, more than 10 thousand people have been arrested since the movement broke out, more than a hundred of them are already locked up in prison. Among the 2,300 protestors who are prosecuted, 700 of them may be sentenced up to ten years for rioting charges.

Putting these figures into context, I wish to tell you what life is like, as a youngster in today’s Hong Kong. I was humbled by a lot of younger protestors and students whose exceptional maturity are demonstrated in courtrooms and in prison. What is thought to be normal university life is completely out of the question because very likely the neighbour next door or the roommate who cooked you lunch today will be thrown to jail on the next.

I do prison visits a few times a month to talk to activists who are facing criminal charges or serving sentences for their involvement in the movement. It is not just a routine of my political work, but it becomes my life as an activist. Since the movement, prison visits has also become the daily lives of many families.

But it is always an unpleasant experience passing through the iron gates one after one to enter the visitors’ room, speaking to someone who is deprived of liberty, for a selflessly noble cause. As an activist serving three brief jail terms, I understand that the banality of the four walls is not the most difficult to endure in jail. What is more unbearable is the control of thought and ideas in every single part of our daily routine enforced by the prison system. It will diminish your ability to think critically and the worst of it will persuade you to give up on what you are fighting for, if you have not prepared it well. Three years ago when I wrote on the first page of prison letters, which later turned into a publication called the ‘Unfree Speech’, I was alarmed at the environment of the prison cell. Those letters were written in a state in which freedom was deprived of and in which censorship was obvious. It brings us to question ourselves: other than physical constraints like prison bars, what makes us continue in the fight for freedom and democracy?

Mutual Support to activists behind-the-scene

The support for this movement is undiminished over these 17 months. There are many beautiful parts in the movement that continue to revitalise the ways we contribute to this city, instead of making money on our own in the so-called global financial centre. In particular, it is the fraternity, the mutual assistance among protestors that I cherished the most.

As more protestors are arrested, people offer help and assistance wholeheartedly -- we sit in court hearings even if we don’t know each other, and do frequent prison visits and write letters to protesters in detention. In major festivals and holidays, people gathered outside the prison to chant slogans so that they won’t feel alone and disconnected. This is the most touching part to me for I also experienced life in jail.

The cohesion, the connection and bonding among protestors are the cornerstone to the movement. At the same time, these virtues gave so much empowerment to the mass public who might not be able to fight bravely in the escalating protests. These scenes are not able to be captured by cameras, but I’m sure it is some of the most important parts of Hong Kong’s movement that I hope the world will remember.

I believe this mutual support transcends nationality or territory because the value of freedom does not alter in different places. More recently, Twelve Hongkong activists, all involved in the movement last year, were kidnapped by China’s coastal guard when fleeing to Taiwan for political refugee in late-August. All of them are now detained secretly in China, with the youngest aged only 16. We suspect they are under torture during detention and we call for help on the international level, putting up #SAVE12 campaign on twitter. In fact, how surprising it is to see people all over the world standing with the dozen detained protestors for the same cause. I’m moved by activists in Italy, who barely knew these Hong Kong activists, even took part in a hunger strike last month calling for immediate release of them. This form of interconnectivity keeps us in spirit and to continue our struggle to freedom and democracy.

Understanding Value of freedom in the university battle
A year ago on this day, Hong Kong was embroiled in burning clashes as the police besieged the Polytechnic University. It was a day we will not forget and this wound is still bleeding in the hearts of many Hong Kongers. A journalist stationed in the university at that time once told me that being at the scene could only remind him of the Tiananmen Square Massacre 31 years ago in Beijing. There was basically no exit except going for the dangerous sewage drains.

That day, thousands of people, old or young, flocked to districts close to the university before dawn, trying to rescue protestors trapped inside the campus. The reinforcements faced grave danger too, for police raided every corner of the small streets and alleys, arresting a lot of them. Among the 800+ arrested on a single day, 213 people were charged with rioting. For sure these people know there will be repercussions. It is the conscience driving them to take to the streets regardless of the danger, the conscience that we should stand up to brutality and authoritarianism, and ultimately to fight for freedoms that are guaranteed in our constitution. As my dear friend, Brian Leung once said, ‘’Hong Kong Belongs to Everyone Who Shares Its Pain’’. I believe the value of freedom is exemplified through our compassion to whom we love, so much that we are willing to sacrifice the freedom of our own.

Defending freedom behind the bars

No doubt there is a terrible price to pay in standing up to the Beijing and Hong Kong government. But after serving a few brief jail sentences and facing the continuing threat of harassment, I learnt to cherish the freedom I have for now, and I shall devote every bit what I have to strive for the freedom of those who have been ruthlessly denied.

The three episodes I shared with you today -- the courtroom, visiting prisoners and the battle of university continue to remind me of the fact that the fight for freedom has not ended yet. In the coming months, I will be facing a maximum of 5 years in jail for unauthorized assembly and up to one ridiculous year for wearing a mask in protest. But prison bars would never stop me from activism and thinking critically.

I only wish that during my absence, you can continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong, by following closely to the development, no matter the ill-fated election, the large-scale arrest under National Security Law or the twelve activists in China. To defy the greatest human rights abusers is the essential way to restore democracy of our generation, and the generation following us.

．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．
💪小額支持我的獨家分析及文章：https://bit.ly/joshuawonghk
╭────────────────╮
╞🌐https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf
╞📷https://www.instagram.com/joshua1013
╞📧joshua@joshuawongcf.com
╞💬https://t.me/joshuawonghk
╰────────────────╯

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw

小編快報
《柏林脈動》（The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。

這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。

今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題，作者有五位，分別是：
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使，現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson，以及台灣的龍應台。

德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表，提問是：「面對中國，你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益，即使犧牲經濟利益？」
答案：贊成 76%
反對 19%

小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文，跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好，那那那，那表示你英文很好，你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來

反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天，我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的，用問句來表達自己的悲觀，譬如，「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的，用黑色幽默來表達樂觀，譬如，「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了，沒時間管台灣。」

跟德國一樣，台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差，在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國，中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而，隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張，反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續，而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。

和歐洲一樣，台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時，很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」，當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時，很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是，中國兩者兼備。後果就是，台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。

如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的，你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命，一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨，不管你說它是自願還是被迫，放下了政權，分享權力。沒有流血，昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後，政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。

台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主，時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位，但是，就如同當年對於德國，美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是，在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時，中國也宣布，它在台灣海峽及其領空，要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。

所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅，這個威脅，往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅，卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本，刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功，對台灣的民主制度和機構本身，是個真實的危險。

國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人，其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價，很大的代價，而得到今天的成果。這個成果，太珍貴了，不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。

德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了，如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護，一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解，一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰，又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由，德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員，德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力，發揮最大的影響力。

但是，歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?

首先，如果沒有台灣模式，全世界大概就都得接受一種說法，就是，儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的，而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事：未必如此。

第二，台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯，如果中國是一艘航空母艦，那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員，就人口論，台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國，比波蘭稍小，但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看，台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以，歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?

23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future

Lung Yingtai

On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”

Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.

As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.

Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.

Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.

However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.

Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.

Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.

But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?

The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本：https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf