Does history always favor the victor? With the military outcome of the US-Iraq conflict clear, be it from a desire to curry favor or simply because events have moved on, the voices that accused the United States of hegemony have largely given way to those proclaiming that the dictator Saddam Hussein has got his just deserts. Some in Taiwan are even saying that by overthrowing the Baath regime the US has "set an example" to powers in our own region, and this may maintain regional security by reining in China and North Korea; in future, the US's deterrent power will largely replace the role of the United Nations. Others say that the anti-war protesters were voicing no more than the "craven middle-class values" of people who shrink from making hard choices to solve real problems.

Apart from the increasing prevalence of "pragmatic" views, the alarm caused by SARS has gradually squeezed war news off the media stage. But is military victory the end of the story? Will the factors behind the war, such as the longstanding unequal relationships between states and the power of the strong to coerce the weak, evaporate into thin air as various countries scramble to grab the profits of reconstruction?

Precisely because these inequalities will not disappear, and because the war has not resolved Iraq's "internal" problems, the complex ethnic issues inherited from the past may lead to even greater chaos. Thus as "outsiders" we should not rejoice at others' misfortune, nor should we look at this war only from the perspective of our own national interest. In fact, many of those who took to the streets to oppose the war were not only angry about powerful countries' rationalizations of their resort to violence, but were also expressing grief and indignation on behalf of those who might be killed and injured in the conflict. This is a basic human reaction, but one we will overlook if we approach the issue only with regard to our own national interest. Should Taiwan be thanking all those who have become casualties in the war, because it is their sacrifice that gives this war the power to "set an example" to others?

Perhaps in today's relations between states it is very difficult for the protagonists' imaginations to go beyond pragmatic self-interest. But if other issues which, like war, concern countries and peoples, are considered only from the perspective of the interests of one nation, political party or person, this is very likely to create cultural, social and ethnic divisions, and in the face of such divisions and differences respect for diversity generally goes by the board, easily leading to struggles in which each side believes only it is in the right, and does not shrink from attacking others to protect itself.

To turn to affairs within Taiwan, this kind of outcome is even more apparent. For many years, the conflicts between residents of local and mainland ancestry, between supporters of reunification and independence, and between Taiwan and China have been oversimplified for the purposes of electioneering, usually for motives that are far from admirable. This kind of polarized presentation most often stems from nothing more than politicians' or political parties' own perceived self-interest, but what such ready-made, manipulative, black-and-white views bring about is the entrenchment of opposed positions, avoidance of contact, and a retreat into isolation, inevitably accompanied by antagonism and tension which may turn into open conflict at any time.

Perhaps the SARS outbreak can remind humankind that regardless of ethnic differences, of how powerful a nation may be, and of whether it stands at the center or on the periphery of world affairs, in the face of a tiny virus the divisions and conflicts of the human world are nothing more than a farce. In the face of the disease, ideological and ethnic differences that are often seen as insurmountable, come to appear insignificant.

As well as joining hands to fight the epidemic, perhaps people today also need to be a little "philosophical." This may sound ironic, for the word "philosopher" is often used to describe someone of strange ways and incomprehensible speech. But a common description of philosophers as "aloof from everyday society" might today take on a deeper meaning: that a person is unwilling to accept pragmatic, superficial values lock, stock and barrel, or is unwilling to see everything simply from the point of view of his own selfish interest, or to be fooled by current circumstances, or that in this age of the information explosion in which a plethora of viewpoints are foisted on one, is unwilling to believe everything that is reported in the media.

A thoroughgoing pragmatist is apt to be bound up in the daily round, blinkered, and convinced that only profit and loss are absolute. Let us occasionally be like philosophers--a little reserved and suspicious.