Thursday, March 21, 2013

When Will We See the End of "Dinosaur Judges?"

When Will We See the End of  "Dinosaur Judges?" 
Written by Professor Fung Hu-hsiang
Translated by Bevin Chu
January 30, 2013
Taipei, China 

Translator's Note: The nine year long witch hunt waged by the "justice system" on Taiwan against Fung Hu-hsiang confirms that "democracy" is no guarantee of "freedom and human rights."  Democracy is not government of, by, and for the governed. Democracy is government of, by, and for the governors.

The year 2012 was the Year of the Dragon. The year 2013 is the Year of the Snake. The snake is commonly known as a "little dragon." To the Chinese people, dragons are symbols of good fortune. From the earliest "Book of Changes," dragons have represented stages in a larger process, the so-called "da zai qian yuan, wan wou zi she, nai tong tian." The dragon represents the active and creative Spirit of Life. That is why in Chinese culture the dragon has long occupied a position of respect.

Dinosaurs however, represent the opposite. They represent dull-wittedness, obliviousness, and rigidity. So-called "dinosaur judges" represent the defiance of common sense. They represent monsters who indiscriminately harm innocent people. Today's judiciary has many serious and dedicated "dragon judges" presiding over court cases. Unfortunately, it also has many "dinosaur judges." These self-appointed gods abuse their authority, and give judges as a whole a bad name.

This author once sued Chen Shui-bian for defamation. As a result, Chen served eight months in prison. This author opposes Taiwan independence and champions reunification. His position is clear. As a result, he is deeply hated by advocates of Taiwan independence. He is a thorn in their side. As a result, he has become the victim of a major injustice. His case has dragged on for nine years. This shows just how vindictive these dinosaur judges can be. They have turned the justice system into what Taiwanese industrial magnate Robert Tsao called a "meat grinder." They have turned the justice system into a "Flying Guillotine" that mutilates the innocent.

On January 17, 2012, the China Times published an article by American human rights champion Jerome Cohen. In it Professor Cohen reminded readers never to underestimate the Communist Party, the police, and other government agencies. They have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to twist the meaning of the law, and resort to difficult to detect, illegal means to abuse the powers that in principle are limited by the constitution and the nation's laws.

Alas, Professor Cohen sees only the Chinese Communist Party's human rights violations on the mainland. He turns a blind eye to countless similar violations by the pro-Taiwan independence DPP on Taiwan.

The author is a clear example. In 2004, DPP era "dinosaur prosecutors" and "dinosaur judges" imposed exit restrictions on the author. They deprived the author of his right to travel freely, as guaranteed by the constitution, for seven long years.

That was not all. The author's three daughters and three friends, were cavalierly charged with "perjury" by Shihlin District Prosecutors Office, entirely on the basis of supposition, even before the sentence was delivered and the was closed. Their rush to prosecute was naked political persecution by "dinosaur prosecutors" and "dinosaur judges." 

The United Nations Human Rights Convention, as well as the spirit of the ROC's laws call for the "presumption of innocence." This author was falsely accused in 2004 by a Filipino maid. Until a verdict is handed down, a defendant must be regarded as innocent. Yet the Shihlin District Prosecutors Office cavalierly restricted the author's freedom of travel. The author was scheduled to lead a group of students on a visit to the mainland. The prosecutors claimed this made the author a "flight risk." The presiding judge did not even bother to consult the author for clairfication before cavalierly imposing travel restrictions. Together, they deprived the author of his right to leave the country for seven years.

During this seven-year period, the author made repeated legal appeals. The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that the courts could not "presume a flight risk." That is why it repeatedly remanded the case back to the High Court for retrial. Yet the "dinosaur judges" on the Taiwan High Court, repeatedly cited "maintaining the integrity of the proceedings" as a pretext. They brazenly defied the Supreme Court's instructions. They flagrantly violated of the principle of presumption of innocence. They grossly exceeded their powers. Yet many of these "dinosaur judges" were later rewarded with generous promotions.

In May 2011, the Filipino maid's false accusations were exposed in the international media. As a result she officially pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury. The third time the author was tried, the court summoned three expert witnesses who examined all of the physical evidence. They determined that the author had indeed been unjustly prosecuted. As a result the author was found not guilty. Only then were the long-standing exit restrictions lifted.

The author was acquitted in both the third and fourth trials. Yet without the introduction of any new evidence, "dinosaur prosecutors" in the High Prosecutor Office introduced anonymous letters as evidence, and in flagrant abuse of their power, appealed yet again. 

The author would like to ask the Prosecutor General, can prosecutors really treat anonymous letter as the basis for an appeal? The author would also like to ask the Minister of Justice, is he really unaware of this miscarriage of justice?

The outrages hardly end here. During the fifth trial, "dinosaur judges" utterly ignored the author's acquittal during the third and fourth trials. They obstinately reintroduced the Shihlin District Court's faulty judgment, based on incomplete evidence. They copied directly from it, and created a patchwork quilt legal case. They ruled on the basis of previously discredited evidence. They defied the legal principle that new evidence overrides old evidence. What kind of logic is this? What sort of justice is this?

During the author's fifth trial the presiding judge accused the author of "delaying the legal proceedings," and refused to commute the sentence according to the "speedy trial law." The presiding judge cited the author's request for a continuance during the first trial as pretext. The author was not even informed of the judge's actions in advance. This was tantamount to a sneak attack. Such a flagrant violation of due process contravemes the accused right to be tried in person. It denies the defendant his human rights. What can one call judges such as these, other than "dinosaur judges?"

In another similar situation, the presiding judge failed to inform the author of what was taking place. He cited a Supreme Court case, claiming it constituted evidence. He argued that it was similar in nature, therefore the author was guilty. Procedurally, this was a sneak attack. It deprived the author of his right to a legal defense. It cited only unfavorable cases. It did not cite favorable cases. It was clearly biased. What can one call judges such as these, other than "dinosaur judges?"

In fact, during the second trial, the Supreme Court made clear that the original evidence was riddled with dubious defects. Unless new evidence was presented, the verdict had to be "not guilty." During the third trial, expert witness were called to examine all the evidence. They found that the evidence favored acquital, even more clearly than before. They found that the verdict should have been "not guilty," even more clearly than before. Yet the fifth trial presented no new evidence. Instead, the presiding judge engaged in empty speculation. He treated his empty speculation as "circumstantial evidence." This was a flagrant violation of the rules of evidence. The presiding judge failed to cite any reason for his rulings. As a result, the evidence cited turned into a web  of contradictions. His judgment was based purely on speculation. It was clearly illegal. It was clearly in defiance of common sense. Yet he rendered this outrageous and tyrannical sentence. What can one call judges such as these, other than "dinosaur judges?"

According to the Judicial Yuan website, the presiding judge in this case, was a member of the same clique of judges who outraged the public with their ruling on the "three-year-old girl case." The group's judgment was utterly contrary to common sense. It provoked a public outcry and led to an escalation in public criticism. This judge was clearly a member of this group of "dinosaur judges." Who knew the judge in this case would render all manner of illegal judgments? This was truly regrettable. What can one call judges such as these, other than "dinosaur judges?"

The author has long deferred to his defense attorneys' recommentations. He has put up with these judges' tyrannical behavior. Although the judge in the first trial slammed his fist down on the table and bellowed insults at the author. The author remained silent. But he now sees that his forebearance will not ensure a fair trial. He has no choice but to appeal to the public. He must make the truth behind these dinosaur judges and dinosaur prosecutors public. Only this will enable the public to make a fair evaluation. Only this will compel the courts to redress this judicial farce. If this miscarriage of justice can be made public, it may help promote judicial reform and systemic reform. It may help ensure human rights for the public at large. That would be a blessing, both for the general public and for the nation's system of justice.

「恐龍法官」何時了?

民 國101年是「龍」年, 102年為「蛇年」, 俗稱「小龍」, 「龍」在中國人心中, 本是祥瑞的象徵, 從最早的《易經》, 乾元就用「龍」來代表各種階段型態, 所謂「大哉乾元,萬物資始,乃統天」; 「龍」的本性, 正是代表一種最為活躍創造的生命精神, 所以在中華文化歷史中, 一直非常推崇「龍」。

然而,「恐龍」代表的意思, 卻正好相反; 在眾人心目中, 代表一種遲鈍、顢頇、僵化,所謂「恐龍法官」
 , 更代表一種背離常情、 違反常理常識, 卻又濫害無辜生命的恐怖怪物。 在當今司法界, 雖然有很多認真敬業、 判案合情合理合法的「祥龍」法官, 不幸的是, 同時也有不少自命上帝、 任意濫用生殺大權的「恐龍」法官, 真正堪稱「害群之龍」!

本文作者因為曾經控告陳水扁誹謗案, 令其坐牢八個月, 復因反對台獨、 主張統一, 旗幟鮮明, 所以深遭台獨人士嫉恨, 視為眼中釘, 因而親身經歷重大冤案, 纏訟長達九年之久, 深深看清楚某些恐龍法官惡性重大, 他們不只讓司法成為曹興誠董事長口中的「絞肉
 機」, 更成為殘害忠良的「血滴子」!

民國102年1月17日, 中國時報登出美國人權名教授孔傑榮(Jerome
 Cohen)的大作, 他在文中提醒讀者: 「我們千萬不可以小覷共產黨、 警察和其他部門, 事實已屢屢證明, 他們有能力透過曲解法律, 和採用不易查察、 卻往往非法的手段, 在實踐中恢復被憲法和法律限制的權力。」

然而,孔傑榮教授只看到大陸共產黨統治下的人
 權問題, 卻忽略了台灣在民進黨台獨執政時期, 同樣有很多類似情形。

本文作者就是明顯見證, 從民國93年被民進黨時期的「恐龍檢察官」 與「恐龍法官」限制出境, 無端被剝奪憲法所保障的人權出境自由, 長達7年之久!

另有甚者, 作者的三個女兒與三位朋友, 在全案未定讞之前, 竟被臺灣士林地方法院檢察署用臆測的方法, 輕率的扣上「偽證」罪名, 匆匆起訴, 形成「政治追殺」的恐怖恐龍!

根 據聯合國「人權二公約」, 以及我國法律規定的「無罪推定」精神, 本文作者雖然在民國93年被菲傭誣告, 但在定案之前, 均應視為無罪, 然而臺灣士林地方法院檢察署承辦檢察官, 竟藉口作者會帶學生團參訪大陸, 便輕率的以「有逃亡之虞」聲請限制出境, 加上承辦審判長未向作者問清楚實情, 竟也輕率照准, 就此硬生生的剝奪了作者出境的遷徙人權, 長達七年之久!

在 此七年期間, 筆者屢次依法抗告, 最高法院也多次認為不能 「憑空臆測有逃亡之虞」, 所以多次發回要求高等法院更審, 但臺灣高等法院的「恐龍法官」等, 竟又多次強以「保全訴訟程序」為由, 悍然拒絕最高法院意旨, 不但明顯違反「無罪推定」原則, 而且自我膨漲權力, 這種「恐龍法官」, 後來居然很多都獲高升!

直到民國100年5月, 因為誣告作者的菲傭, 透過跨國視訊, 正式二度向法庭承認誣告, 更(三)審法庭也傳訊三位專家證人, 從種種物證鑑定, 證實本案確為冤案, 所以改判無罪, 才解除了漫長的限制出境。

然而,作者在更(三)、 更(四)審連續獲判無罪之後, 高檢署「恐龍檢察官」居然在沒有任何新證下, 硬用匿名信做證據, 再度濫權上訴!

作者很想請問檢察總長, 檢察官能用匿名信, 做為上訴證據嗎? 也很想請問法務部長, 對於此中的重大冤情, 是否知情呢?

更為過份的是, 更(五)審的「恐龍法官」, 竟然無視更(三)、 更(四)審的無罪判決, 硬是把原先士林地院人證據不全情形下的判決, 重新抄襲、 拼湊成章, 以其舊內容為基礎判刑, 完全違背「新證優於舊證」的法理, 這叫什麼邏輯? 這叫什麼天理!

特 別是,更(五)審的受命法官, 居然在沒有告知作者情形下, 擅自以作者從前更(一)審曾經請假為由, 逕指作者「拖延訴訟程序」, 而拒絕根據「速審法」減刑, 形同突襲偷襲, 如此公然違反程序正義, 違背直接審理原則, 剝奪作者答辯人權, 不叫「恐龍法官」, 又叫什麼?

另 外同樣情形, 受命法官在未告知作者情形下, 自稱引用最高法院定讞的類似案件做為證據, 聲稱因為性質類似, 所以同樣有罪; 非但在程序上同屬突襲偷襲, 剝奪作者的訴訟答辯人權, 而且只舉不利案件, 不舉有利案件, 明顯非常偏頗, 不叫「恐龍法官」, 又叫什麼? 事實上,本案在更(二)審時, 最高法院就已明言, 原先證據諸多可疑瑕疵, 若無新證據補強, 便應判為無罪, 更(三)審更特別傳訊專家證人鑑定種種物證, 強化有利證據, 所以才宣判無罪; 未料本次更(五)審並無任何新證, 受命法官竟然只用臆測方法, 自稱「間接證據」, 明顯違反證據法則, 受命法官而且多處判決未裁理由、 所引事證與卷內矛盾, 並且只用臆測方法作為判決基礎, 明明很多公然違法, 同時違反一般人的常情常理, 卻仍悍然判刑, 如此離譜卻又霸道, 不叫「恐龍法官」, 又叫什麼?

根據司法院網路資料, 本案受命法官, 正是當年轟動社會的「三歲女童案」被批評的同
 組法官, 當初該組判決完全背離常情常理, 引起輿論嘩然、 大加撻伐, 明確命名該組法官為「恐龍法官」, 未料本次該法官在本案中, 又做出種種違背情理的違法判決, 令人真正感慨; 這種「恐龍法官」 何時才能了!

本案長期以來, 作者都聽從律師建議, 對法官的態度忍氣吞聲, 即使從前更(一)審受命法官曾經公然對作者拍桌
 咆哮, 作者也都忍辱沈默, 但如今眼看一路以來的委屈並不能求得公正審判
 , 只有訴諸社會公評, 將本案中很多恐龍法官與恐龍檢察官真相公諸於
 世, 才能讓社會大眾公正評鑑, 也才能讓司法部門重新警惕冤情; 若能因為本案的公開冤情, 促成司法改革能從通盤制度改進, 並對廣大民眾的人權能增進保障, 相信才是真正全民之福, 也才是真正司法之幸!

Thursday, January 31, 2013

The Wealth of Nations



The Wealth of Nations
posted by Bevin Chu
January 31, 2013
Taipei, China

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!


Sunday, January 27, 2013

Keep Them Safe!

Keep Them Safe!
posted by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
January 27, 2013



Demand gun-free zones around Obama and his family. Keep them safe!

Guns Don't Keep Us Safe?

Guns Don't Keep Us Safe?
posted by Bevin Chu 
Taipei, China 
January 27, 2013


Obama: Guns don't keep us safe

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Wake Up America!

 
The Experts Agree... Gun Control Works!!!

Wake Up America!
A letter sent to me by a fellow gun rights defender
posted by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
January 26, 2013

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the other crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the other burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: the authorities will probably plead the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up. Then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the surviving thief is preparing to sue you and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The  District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Enmesh, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by 80 years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.

Nine years later, in Dubliner, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dubliner Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dubliner Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA!

THIS [civilian disarmament] IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
--Samuel  Adams

If you think this is important. please it forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing the very same thing over here. And there are stupid people in congress and on the street who will go right along with him.


"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." 
-- William S. Burroughs, icon of the Beat Generation, one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century


"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."
-- Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Minarchism Always Becomes Maxarchism



Minarchism Always Becomes Maxarchism
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
January 24, 2013

“The end state of every government is tyranny!”
-- John Stovall

Or as The China Desk has noted on various occasions:

“Minarchism always becomes maxarchism.”

“Limited government always becomes unlimited government.”

“The difference between limited government and totalitarianism, is the difference between the caterpillar and the moth.”


“Limited government is merely totalitarianism in its embryonic stage.”

“Limited government is merely the larval stage of totalitarianism.”

Corollaries:

"The freest minarchies become the most vicious tyrannies."  
-- methlyamine

"Limited government is like limited cancer."
-- MoT

"Democracy is the apotheosis of institutionalized slavery."
-- d.c. sunsets

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

Deconstructing Japan’s Claim of Sovereignty over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

Deconstructing Japan’s Claim of Sovereignty over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands
by Ivy Lee and Fang Ming
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 53, No. 1, December 31, 2012.


The China Desk: Ms. Ivy Lee is a brilliant scholar and a personal friend. This is one of the strongest rebuttals of spurious Japanese territorial claims to Diaoyutai penned so far. Highly recommended. 

“The near universal conviction in Japan with which the islands today are declared an ’integral part of Japan’s territory‘ is remarkable for its disingenuousness. These are islands unknown in Japan till the late 19th century (when they were identified from British naval references), not declared Japanese till 1895, not named till 1900, and that name not revealed publicly until 1950." Gavan McCormack (2011)1

Abstract
In this recent flare-up of the island dispute after Japan “purchased” three of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, Japan reiterates its position that “the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts and based upon international law.”  This article evaluates Japan’s claims as expressed in the “Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands” published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan.  These claims are:  the Senkaku/Diaoyu island group was terra nullius which Japan occupied by Cabinet Decision in 1895;  China did not, per China’s contention, cede the islands in the Shimonoseki Treaty; Japan was not required to renounce them as war booty by the San Francisco Peace Treaty; and accordingly Japan’s sovereignty over these islands is affirmed under said Treaty.  Yet a careful dissection of Japan’s claims shows them to have dubious legal standing.  Pertinent cases of adjudicated international territorial disputes are examined next to determine whether Japan’s claims have stronger support from case law.  Although the International Court of Justice has shown effective control to be determinative in a number of its rulings, a close scrutiny of Japan’s effective possession/control reveals it to have little resemblance to the effective possession/control in other adjudicated cases.  As international law on territorial disputes, in theory and in practice, does not provide a sound basis for its claim of sovereignty over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, Japan will hopefully set aside its putative legal rights and, for the sake of peace and security in the region, start working with China toward a negotiated and mutually acceptable settlement.

To read the rest of the article, visit
http://japanfocus.org/site/view/3877

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Bowring's Invented History


Huangyan Island

Bowring's Invented History
June 7, 2012
Taipei, China

The China Desk: Dedicated China-demonizer Philip Bowring, whose work is never done, recently published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “China's Invented History.” Bowring asserts that "Beijing is rewriting the past to justify its expansive claims to disputed waters."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303918204577446202239267134.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Daniel Ong, a Chinese-Filipino, puts Bowring's allegations under the microscope and demolishes them, one by one. The facts are clear. Within the framework of the conventional monopolistic state, the Huangyan Islands belong to China.

Actually, most territorial disputes bedeviling the world, including the recent ones in the South China Sea, are the tragic but predictable result of the conventional monopolistic state and its flawed concepts of "collective ownership."

Free market anarchism, grounded correctly in individual ownership, would have prevented such clashes from arising in the first place. 

The Huangyan Isles
by Daniel Ong


"A little learning is a dangerous thing.” So wrote Alexander Pope in the 18th century. A little learning can even be more dangerous nowadays, when it hides under the cloak of a prestigious publication and is widely disseminated through modern online media. One example of such is Philip Bowring's article “China's Invented History” tackling the China-Philippine conflict over Scarborough Shoal, posted on the website of the Wall Street Journal. The article of Mr. Bowring charges that China is rewriting history to bolster its own claim to Scarborough Shoal (and the Spratly Islands).

Mr. Bowring's main evidence for Chinese historical revision is that Chinese sailors were latecomers to the South China Sea and could not have been the first to discover Scarborough, as China claims. Mr. Bowring presents other arguments to counter the Chinese claim to Scarborough: (1) the Philippines has a stronger claim to Scarborough Shoal on the basis of “geography,” and (2) China is wrong in using the 1898 Treaty of Paris as a basis for its claim.

Let us first consider Mr. Bowring's subsidiary arguments. Mr. Bowring writes that the “Philippine case for Scarborough is mostly presented as one of geography,” and proceeds to cite the oft-repeated figures showing the proximity of Scarborough to Luzon, and the distance of Scarborough from China. He also writes that China avoids these inconvenient geographical facts in pressing its claim.

Mr. Bowring is apparently unaware that the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines has released a position paper on the matter last April 18 (Department of Foreign Affairs, “PH sovereignty based on Unclos, principles of int'l law,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 20 April 2012, A18; “ ‘Panatag is part of Phl territory',” The Philippine Star, 20 April 2012, 10). The position paper stated that Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over “Bajo de Masinloc” or Scarborough is not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Even the Philippine government has already realized that geographic proximity alone is not an adequate basis for claiming sovereignty over territory (Jon M. Van Dyke, “Legal Issues Related to the Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary,” Ocean Development & International Law, Jan 2007, 38(1-2): 159, 193; Louis Henkin, Richard Crawford Pugh, Oscar Schachter, and Hans Smit, International Law: Cases and Materials, 2nd ed., St. Paul: West Publishing, Co., 1987, 290, 306-307).

Mr. Bowring criticizes China for partly basing its claim to Scarborough on the 1898 Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States. This segment is worth quoting in full, if only to demonstrate Mr. Bowring's convoluted logic and his lack of knowledge regarding history in general:

Another unsteady pillar in China's claim to the Scarborough Shoal is its reliance on the Treaty of Paris of 1898. This yielded Spanish sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago to the U.S. and drew straight lines on the map which left the shoal a few miles outside the longitudinal line defined by the treaty. China now conveniently uses this accord, which these two foreign powers arrived at without any input from the Philippine people, to argue that Manila has no claim.

The irony is that the Communist Party otherwise rejects “unequal treaties” imposed by Western imperialists, such as the McMahon line dividing India and Tibet. Does this mean Vietnam can claim all the Spratly Islands, because the French claimed them all and Hanoi has arguably inherited this claim?”


The argument of Mr. Bowring is untenable, in two ways.

(1) In his analysis, China contradicts itself when it rejects other “unequal treaties,” but uses the Treaty of Paris for its purposes. Mr. Bowring seems to imply that the Treaty of Paris is also some sort of “unequal treaty,” since it was concluded “without any input from the Philippine people.”

Mr. Bowring appears to be confused about the concept of unequal treaty. An unequal treaty, in the view of East Asian nationalists, is a treaty which was not negotiated between states treating each other as equals, but imposed upon a weaker state after its military defeat or with further threat of military action by a stronger state. For example, the Treaty of Nanjing signed by China after its defeat in the First Opium War, provided for the cession of Hong Kong Island to the United Kingdom (among other things), and is considered the first of the unequal treaties imposed by foreign powers on China. If the 1898 Treaty of Paris is to be considered an unequal treaty, the stronger state would obviously be the US, and the weaker state in this case would be Spain, which was forced to relinquish the Philippines (plus Guam and Puerto Rico) after its defeat in the Spanish-American War.

Therefore, even if the Treaty of Paris is interpreted to be an “unequal treaty,” what would be in question would not be the proper boundaries of the Philippines, but the validity of the transfer of the Philippines to the United States (just as the issue about the “unequal” Treaty of Nanjing would not be the boundaries of Hong Kong, but the validity of the cession). Even if the Philippines had remained under Spain, or even if the Philippines had successfully won its independence in 1898, the extent of Philippine territory would still not have been greater than what it had been before the Spanish-American War. One good thing about the Treaty of Paris is that it provided a clear delineation in writing of this territorial extent.

(2) Despite all this, one might still argue that the Treaty of Paris was null and void and is not binding on the Philippines, simply because the Philippines was not a participant in the negotiations leading to the treaty. It may be true that the Treaty of Paris was concluded between Spain and the US “without any input from the Philippine people,” but was this treaty later rejected by the Philippines?

The boundaries set by the Treaty of Paris (and by the Treaty of 1900 between the US and Spain, and the Treaty of 1930 between the US and the UK) served as the basis of the definition of Philippine territory in the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines.

One can argue further that the 1935 Commonwealth Government of the Philippines was not a true independent government. However, the definition of Philippine territory in the 1935 Constitution was adopted in the subsequent post-independence Constitutions of 1973 and 1987, and by Republic Act (RA) No. 3046 in 1961 defining Philippine baselines. On the Philippine claim, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas has already written that “We are claiming land areas that are outside the lines drawn by the Treaty of Paris. The challenge for us is to be able to justify our claims under the present state of international law. Merely citing the shape or date of old maps will not settle the issues.” (“Scarborough issues,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 May 2012, A17)

Perhaps the only thing that Mr. Bowring got right was this statement: “The seafaring history of the region at least for the first millennium of the current era was dominated by the ancestors of today's Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos and (less directly) Vietnamese.” This statement at least is supported by current historical and anthropological knowledge. (Victor T. King, “Ethnolinguistic Groups of Southeast Asia,” inSoutheast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, ed. Ooi Keat Gin, pp. 492-498, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2004).

Unfortunately, that's about it; his subsequent statements reveal his limited knowledge about these ancestors of the Southeast Asians. Mr. Bowring writes that “Malay people from what is now Indonesia were the first colonizers of the world's third largest island, Madagascar, some 4,000 miles away,” that “the Madagascan language and 50% of its human gene pool are of Malay origin,” and that “the Malay-speaking, Hindu-ized Cham seagoing empire of central Vietnam dominated South China Sea trade until it was conquered by the Vietnamese.”

Evidently, Mr. Bowring confuses “Malay” with “Malayo-Polynesian;” replacing all occurrences of “Malay” in the previous statements with “Malayo-Polynesian” would make them correct. The concept of “Malay” as a race encompassing the peoples of Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines was an invention of 18th-century European racism (“Malay,” in Barbara A. West, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Volume II, p. 478, New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2009). “Malay people” now refers to people speaking the Malay language, a language which may have existed since before the Christian era, but attested in writing only in the 7th century CE (Hein Steinhauer, “Malay/Indonesian,” in Facts About the World's Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World's Major Languages, Past and Present, ed. Jane Garry and Carl Rubino, pp. 452-453, New York and Dublin: The H. W. Wilson Company, 2001).

Mr. Bowring argues that the Chinese could not have been the first to discover Scarborough, since the dominant seafarers in the South China Sea in the first millennium were the “Malays” (i.e., Malayo-Polynesians). Mr. Bowring believes that because the Malayo-Polynesians were the earlier seafarers, they must have discovered every existing land feature in the South China Sea before others did.

Even if Mr. Bowring is correct, the discovery of Scarborough by Malayo-Polynesians does not mean that it became their territory. A review of the Clipperton Island arbitration case would be helpful (http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup10/basicmats/clipperton.pdf). The Clipperton Island case happens to be very similar to that of Scarborough. Clipperton is a coral atoll; it was and still is uninhabited, is closest to Mexico, and was claimed by both France and Mexico. Mexico argued that Clipperton had been discovered by Spain and therefore had belonged to Spain, and that Mexico succeeded to Spain's rights over Clipperton upon independence in 1836.

The arbiter reasoned that even if it could be proven that Clipperton had been discovered by Spanish navigators, there was no evidence that Spain incorporated it in its possessions, so it could be considered territorium nullius in 1858, when a French naval lieutenant declared French sovereignty over it. Abandonment by France after 1858 (“no positive and apparent act of sovereignty”) was also not considered a factor to extinguish French sovereignty. Although the decision was rendered in 1931, the arbiter decided that based on the facts, sovereignty over Clipperton belonged to France from the date Nov. 17, 1858.

If Mr. Bowring thinks that the “13th-century map” is not sufficient basis for China to claim Scarborough, there are other more recent official acts and proclamations on the part of China. In 1935, China's Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee published a journal listing the approved Chinese and English names of islands and other features in the South China Sea (Li Jinming and Li Dexia, “The Dotted Line on the Chinese Map of the South China Sea: A Note,” Ocean Development & International Law, July-Dec 2003, 34(3-4): 289).

In December 1947, the Chinese government at the time (which is the government now administering Taiwan) officially drew the dashed lines forming a U-shaped boundary around the South China Sea islands (Zou Keyuan, “Historic Rights in International Law and in China's Practice,” Ocean Development & International Law, April-June 2001, 32(2): 161; Peter Kien-Hong Yu, “The Chinese (Broken) U-shaped Line in the South China Sea: Points, Lines, and Zones,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Dec 2003, 25(3): 407). Scarborough Shoal lies within this U-shaped boundary.

In September 1958, China promulgated its “Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on Territorial Sea,” laying claim over the islands in the South China Sea, including Scarborough Shoal (Yann-Huei Song and Zou Keyuan, “Maritime Legislation of Mainland China and Taiwan: Developments, Comparison, Implications, and Potential Challenges for the United States,” Ocean Development & International Law, Oct-Dec 2000, 31(4): 306-307).

In February 1992, China promulgated its “Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,” declaring sovereignty over Scarborough as part of the Zhongsha Island Group. In 1996, China's legislature ratified the UNCLOS, but also declared that China was reaffirming its sovereignty over all the archipelagoes and islands listed in the 1992 Territorial Sea law (Yann-Huei Song and Zou Keyuan, 2000, 309).

As for the Philippines, it made a formal claim to Scarborough only in 2009, when the Philippine Congress passed RA 9522, labeling Scarborough a “‘Regime of Islands' under the Republic of the Philippines” over which the country “exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction.” Before 2009, Scarborough was not considered Philippine territory even by its own Constitutions.

Mr. Bowring writes that “Beijing argues that its 1932 claim isn't bound by the Convention, which came into effect in 1994 since it preceded it. That's a handy evasion, most probably because China knows its case for ownership is weak by the Convention's yardsticks.” These statements actually do not demonstrate China's evasion, but rather Mr. Bowring's ignorance of the UNCLOS.

The jurisdiction of the UNCLOS and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is generally understood to be limited to law of the sea disputes (Zou Keyuan, “The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Procedures, Practices, and Asian States,” Ocean Development & International Law, Apr-June 2010, 41(2): 140). This means that the ITLOS only has jurisdiction over matters covered by the UNCLOS, such as disputes over delimitation of territorial seas and EEZs, and not issues such as which state owns a particular island in the sea. In other words, the UNCLOS deals with maritime boundary disputes, but is has no “yardsticks” when it comes to sovereignty disputes over land territory.

By appealing to the “Convention's yardsticks,” Mr. Bowring probably thinks that the Philippines can rightfully claim Scarborough because it lies within its 200-nm EEZ. Raul C. Pangalangan had already written that it's the other way around—the Philippines has to settle its title to an island first, before the extent of the surrounding territorial sea and EEZ can be determined (“Baselines: A primer for beginners,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 February 2009, A14).

According to Mr. Bowring, China believes that its claim to Scarborough precedes the UNCLOS and is therefore not bound by it. That is absolutely correct: the UNCLOS sets the limits of territorial seas and EEZs; it does not and cannot alter existing state boundaries. This is the same reason why the Philippines cannot claim Taiwan and the Talaud Islands as its territories even if these lie within 200 nm of Philippine coasts.

All that Mr. Bowring's article demonstrates is ignorance of history, anthropology, linguistics, law, and logic.

On the issue of Scarborough Shoal, the evidence suggests that China is not the one guilty of historical revision, and “today's naval arguments won't come to an end” until the guilty side stops rewriting the past.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

It Belongs to China

 
Philippines and Mainland China Clash over Huangyan Islands  

The China Desk: The following is an article published in the Manila Standard Today. The name of the author was shown as "Victor N. Arches of San Juan City, a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who dabbles in history and political science."

Some in the Philippines allege that Arches is a pseudonym, and that Arches is not who he claims to be. But the author's identity is beside the point. The point is whether what he wrote was true. On this point the record is clear. Within the framework of the conventional monopolistic state, Huangyan Island belongs to China.

Actually, most territorial disputes bedeviling the world, including the recent ones in the South China Sea, are the tragic but predictable result of the conventional monopolistic state and its flawed concepts of "collective ownership."

Free market anarchism, grounded correctly in individual ownership, would have prevented such clashes from arising in the first place.

It Belongs to China
By "Victor N. Arches II" 
April 28th, 2012
Manila Standard Today 



http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/04/28/it-belongs-to-china/

The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty.  Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it.  As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).

By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s.  I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.

But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper,  being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim.  This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.”  What kind of double-speak is that?

So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946?  Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory?  Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these?  Out of thin air?

In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area.  In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock.  This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.

All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries.  Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim.  Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.

But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.

On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers.  And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.

Whom are we fooling?

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

The US Massacre Mentality



Captain America: The First Avenger, 2011
Captain America leads the fight for freedom in the action-packed blockbuster starring Chris Evans as the ultimate weapon against evil! When a terrifying force threatens everyone across the globe, the world's greatest soldier wages war on the evil Hydra Organization, led by the villainous Red Skull.
-- Captain America Official Website

The US Massacre Mentality
by Jack D. Douglas
April 10, 2012

The U.S. carried out a systematic program of racial clearing of the valuable land of Native Americans. I don't know of evidence many thought of it as genocide or even ethnic cleansing, though some probably did, since Social Darwinism of various kinds was loose in the world and by the early twentieth century some might have thought of it in genetic terms. I think most of the massacres and policies that led to the rapid dying away of the millions of Native Americans were aimed at getting control of the valuable lands at the local and national level.

There is no question, though, that the national massacre mentality, which later exploded so immensely against other nations, from the Philippines and WWII saturation bombing and burning of all the cities of Germany and Japan (except Kyoto) to Vietnam and the use of economic national strangulation against Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran , existed very early in some U.S. officials at the top. I first became aware of this as a young teenager when I read about four of Kenneth Robert's novels about pre-revolutionary and revolutionary America – Rabble in Arms (my first and favorite), Arundel, Northwest Passage....Northwest Passage contained a bit of a shocker for me. The young hero (?) center piece of the novel who witnesses it all, Langdon Towne, and an old geezer friend join Roger's Rangers on a mission to attack a Huron village on the border. When they get there they attack at dawn and trap the Indians, massacring with abandon. One crazed Ranger is even found later with a head of one of the victims in a sack – he's been eating it. Bit shocking when you've grown up on American State Textbook Fantasies about the Good Americans Saving The World. (I think the victims had sent marauding border parties that killed some frontier Americans, so this was a Reprisal Massacre, which is the way Americans and other nations normally "Justify" their more immense massacres.)

When you get to Jackson's slaughter of the Seminoles in the Florida Glades and the later March of Tears to Oklahoma, etc., which would make Bataan look tame, you realize how horrific the U.S. Racial Clearing was. Sheridan was a late comer. And when you see the massive forcing of native Americans onto useless land that could not support them, imprisoning them in open air concentration camps ("Reservations"), and letting them die away on booze and government handouts that were inherently very unhealthful, Sherman burning a huge swath across Georgia and burning a big city like Atlanta, and the use of vast firepower against Vicksburg and other Southern areas, and Sheridan's slaughters, you know the U.S. ushered in the modern age of total warfare against nations and immense slaughters committed in a rage of moralistic hubris and greed and blood lust.

And look at Lincoln and the other Republicans who made huge land grants to Big Rail Roads in the West of Indian lands the size of France. They gave away those vast lands indiscriminately which continue to this day to vastly enrich some, such as Burlington-Northern under its new names – and the Fascist Hero Buffet who bought the whole gigantic B-N Corp. and much of that huge basin of gas and coal they've found from Canada down into North Dakota. I think that's a case where simple justice would be served immensely by turning that huge area into a Native American Trust Fund for rebuilding their homes and lands and cultures – and help them escape the diabetes and gambling trap.

The British concentration camps in S. Africa and the Nazi Death Camps had their beginnings in the vast annihilation of Christian and Classical Liberal Standards that began in the U.S. and the similar clearings of Native Americans by Spain and local states south of our border (and to a lesser degree in the Russian pogroms against Jews in the nineteenth century).

The late Bill Marina and I started realizing those things, after all that Textbook Fantasy Propaganda, in early high school at Miami Jackson (named after that Seminole mass murderer) , the tenth grade, and began talking about some of it in my tenth grade civics class run by a wonderful teacher, Mrs. O'Hara, dedicated to Liberal Education principles and practices of free speech. We especially talked about the totally unnecessary nuclear bombing of women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once you begin to see those things clearly for what they were, you cannot go back to the mindless American Hero Fantasies and you see more and more clearly how awful the U.S. global empire has been for mankind and finally that it is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced. It took decades to get to that, but, once you can see clearly where before you could not see at all, the awful truth of American guilt dawns slowly on you.

April 10, 2012

Jack D. Douglas is a retired professor of sociology from the University of California at San Diego. He has published widely on all major aspects of human beings, most notably The Myth of the Welfare State.


American Progress, Oil Painting by John Gast (1872)
Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers. Native Americans and animals flee into darkness

The China Desk comments: 

The US Massacre Mentality by Jack D. Douglas is an incisive commentary of how the US government rationalizes atrocities committed against anyone deemed an enemy. 

As long time readers of The China Desk know, I was once the coldest of Cold Warriors, thoroughly indoctrinated with the myth of American Exceptionalism. As late as Desert Storm, I was still willing to rationalize away much of the US government's misdeeds as "regrettable but necessary." 

I awakened from my dream only when Bush Senior's promised Peace Dividend failed to ever materialize. The American Imperium trotted out one rationalization after another to justify its War on Drugs, its War on Terror, its War on the Evil of the Month. The chimera known as the Peace Dividend just kept receding into the future.

But the biggest disillusionment came with Imperium Americanus' unrelenting Cold War against Mainland China, despite the fact that it had abandoned Communism and embraced free markets. That's when it finally dawned on me that the US government's rampant colonialism, imperialism, and racism had no higher purpose. Instead, it was nothing more than naked Social Darwinist aggression.

As Douglas astutely notes:

"Once you begin to see those things clearly for what they were, you cannot go back to the mindless American Hero Fantasies and you see more and more clearly how awful the U.S. global empire has been for mankind and finally that it is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced. It took decades to get to that, but, once you can see clearly where before you could not see at all, the awful truth of American guilt dawns slowly on you." 

So true.

American preoccupation with righting wrongs the world over reflects an desperate effort to assuage a guilty conscience. The American preoccupation with "liberating Tibet" is a textbook case of psychological projection. Redressing historical mistreatment of American Indians would be emotionally upsetting and might open the floodgates to costly demands for reparations. Far cheaper, both morally and fiscally, to go after China, a convenient scapegoat. 

I recently watched all 10 seasons of the enormously entertaining 1995-2005 military procedural series "JAG," in a single, month long sitting.



JAG (TV Series, 1995-2005)
J.A.G. - Military parlance for Judge Advocate General's corps. JAG follows the adventures of Harmon "Harm" Rabb Jr. Given far-ranging powers as a detective, prosecutor, and defense attorney. Harm now works alongside Marine Corps attorney Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie, who shares Harm's desire to seek out the truth in every case and keep the delicate balance between what's good for the military and what's best for the common good.
-- JAG Official Website

As I watched one episode after another of JAG in swift succession, I realized how far I had come over the past two decades. The personal dynamics between the well-drawn, highly attractive characters were no less enjoyable to watch. But the "My country right or wrong" politics of many JAG episodes left me shaking my head. I found it hard to believe that I once subscribed uncritically to that self-congratulatory, "America can do no wrong" mindset. 

Douglas is right. Once one has seen the light, one cannot go back to the mindless American Hero Fantasies.

The film Captain America: The First Avenger, promotes the Myth of American Exceptionalism. But intentionally or otherwise, it simultaneously subverts the Myth of American Exceptionalism. As Dr. Abraham Erskine, the expatriate German scientist tells Steve Rogers, the man he is about to transform into Captain America:

"A strong man who has known power all his life, will lose respect for that power. But a weak man, knows the value of strength, and knows compassion ... You must promise me one thing. That you will stay who you are. Not a perfect soldier, but a good man."

The US government today is like a strong man who has known power all his life. He has lost respect for that power. He has forgotten what it is like to be weak. He has forgotten the value of strength. He does not know compassion. He has not stayed what he once was. He may be a perfect solider, but he is no longer a good man. Dr. Erskine would be dismayed to learn that the country he fled to has become just like the Nazi Germany he fled from.

The official website for Captain America: The First Avenger gushes:

"Captain America leads the fight for freedom in the action-packed blockbuster starring Chris Evans as the ultimate weapon against evil! When a terrifying force threatens everyone across the globe, the world's greatest soldier wages war on the evil Hydra Organization, led by the villainous Red Skull."

Today, the US government hardly "leads the fight for freedom." Today, with its post-9/11 police state measures, it leads the fight against freedom. Today the US government is not "the ultimate weapon against evil!" Today, with its killer drones, it is the ultimate weapon for evil. It is the terrifying force that threatens everyone across the globe. Today the world's greatest solider is the evil Hydra Organization (Military Industrial Complex), led by the villainous Red Skull (Trotskyite Neo-Conservatives).

Conventional monopolistic government, once it acquires power, is the same everywhere. Every government on earth is susceptible to the same absolute corruption by absolute power. The only antidote to this corruption, to statism, and the resulting Chauvinism, jingoism, and delusions of national exceptionalism, is Free Market Anarchism.

Sunday, April 08, 2012

China Does Capitalism Better than America



China Does Capitalism Better than America

The China Desk: Interesting debate on whether China does capitalism better than America. Strictly speaking no nation is doing 100% bona fide capitalism -- laissez-faire capitalism, that is. But the very fact that such a question could be asked is a sad commentary on how far the US of A has fallen. There was a time when no one would have thought to ask such a question. 

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/china-does-capitalism-better-than-america/

Sunday, March 18, 2012

National Strength and National Policy



National Strength and National Policy
各國的國家實力和國家政策
March 18, 2012
Taipei, China

The following is some political humor from Taiwan that has been circulating on the Internet.

FYI.

National Strength and National Policy
各國的國家實力和國家政策

1. 美國: 想打誰,就打誰。
United States: If I feel like attacking someone, I attack them.

2. 英國: 美國打誰,我就打誰。
Britain: If the United States attacks someone, I attack them.

3. 法國: 誰打我,我就打誰。
France: If someone attacks me, I attack them back.

4. 俄羅斯: 誰罵我,我就打誰。
Russia: If someone insults me, I attack them.

5. 大陸: 誰打我,我就罵誰。
Chinese Mainland: If someone attacks me, I insult them.

6. 日本: 誰打我,我就讓美國打誰。
Japan: If someone attacks me, I let the United States attack them for me.

7. 南韓: 誰打我,我就和美國一塊演習。
South Korea: If someone attacks me, I conduct joint military exercises with the United States.

8. 以色列: 誰心裡想打我,我就打誰。
Israel: If someone even thinks about attacking me, I attack them.

9. 北韓: 誰讓我心裡不痛快,我就打南韓。
North Korea: If someone angers me, I attack South Korea.

10. 台灣: 誰讓我心裡不痛快,我就罵馬英九。
Taiwan: If someone angers me, I denounce Ma Ying-jeou.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Communism in China: No Longer a System, Merely an Outdated Brand Name


China adding to Gold Reserves

Communism in China: No Longer a System, Merely an Outdated Brand Name
Eugene Robinson: The China I know
Washington Post
Tuesday, Nov 29, 2011

An incisive quote, from an unexpected source. Chinese intellectuals the world over have known this for some time, but many intellectuals in the US remain blissfully clueless.

"China is governed by a regime that calls itself communist. But ... communism self-immolated two decades ago ... Communism is no longer a system in China. It’s just a brand name that officials haven’t figured out how to ditch."
-- Eugene Robinson, Columnist for the Washington Post

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.jsp?rssid=609&item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinions%2fa-china-that-needs-cheers-not-jeers%2f2011%2f11%2f29%2fgIQAy6CEAO_mobile.mobile&cid=4221523

Saturday, September 10, 2011

9/11: Controlled Demolitions


"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
-- Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes

9/11: Controlled Demolitions
September 11, 2011
Bevin Chu
Taipei, China


It seems incredible, but it has been 10 years to the day since September 11, 2001. Those of us old enough to be aware, have had a great deal of time to contemplate the events that unfolded that day.

Among those who watched the events of 9/11 unfold in real time, right before their eyes, were many of my fellow architects and engineers. Thanks to increasingly powerful Information Technology, we have been able to watch the three World Trade Center towers crumbling to dust, in excruciating slow motion detail, again and again.

Closer scrutiny of the events of 9/11 in the 10 years since has led many of us to some disturbing but unavoidable conclusions. One of these conclusions is that the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 towers could only have been brought down deliberately and with premeditation, by means of controlled demolition.

Modern steel high-rise buildings engulfed in flames may twist and bend out of shape. But they never spontaneously and miraculously disintegrate into thousands of fragments. They never fall straight down at free fall velocity inside their own footprints.

A modern steel high-rise building will disintegrate into thousands of fragments and fall straight down at free fall velocity inside its own footprint, only if it has been subjected to controlled demolition. Only if thousands of cutting charges have been strategically placed and precisely detonated in close succession.

As one critic of the official explanation of the events of 9/11 put it, in wryly roundabout fashion, "No building exhibiting all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, has ever not been a controlled demolition." In other words, if it looks like a controlled demolition, it is a controlled demolition.

The WTC1 and WTC2 towers were struck by aircraft. The WTC7 tower was not. Yet all three towers disintegrated into thousands of fragments and fell straight down at free fall velocity inside their own footprints.

The aircraft strikes did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The fires did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The combination of aircraft strikes and fires did not cause the three WTC towers to disintegrate. The three WTC towers disintegrated as a result of controlled demolitions. The aircraft strikes provided superficially plausible "causes" for the controlled demolitions.

Yes, the political implications are far-reaching and deeply unsettling. After all, if the three WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, then 9/11 was almost certainly an Inside Job, a False Flag Operation, a Reichstag Fire, or as the Project for a New American Century and George W. Bush put it, a "New Pearl Harbor."

Most Americans, however cynical and jaded, cannot bring themselves to believe that "our" government would ever murder 3,000 of its own citizens, with premeditation and in cold blood.

But hard scientific and engineering realities cannot be evaded. There is simply no way around them. As Sherlock Holmes reminded his faithful assistant Dr. Watson, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

Initially I assumed 9/11 was a case of what Chalmers Johnson called "blowback," retaliation for black ops carried out abroad without the knowledge of the American public. I assumed that at worst it was a case of LIHOP, or "Let it happen on purpose." I assumed that key elements within our own government learned of the attacks in advance, but deliberately lowered America's defenses to ensure that the hijacked flights would not be intercepted.

I temporarily set aside my incredulity over the "Pancake Collapse Theory," even though everything I knew about architecture and structural engineering screamed that it couldn't possibly be the explanation.

Why?

Cognitive Dissonance.

Like millions of other fellow citizens, I could not believe "our" government could commit such a horrendous atrocity. Therefore I turned elsewhere for answers.

Eventually however, the knowledge that modern steel high-rise buildings do not suddenly and miraculously disintegrate into thousands of fragments and fall straight down at free fall velocity, forced its way back into my consciousness.

Intractable architectural and structural engineering realities eventually forced me to conclude that 9/11 could only have been a case of MIHOP, or "Made it happen on purpose." I was forced to conclude that key elements within "our" government probably planned the attacks. They carried them out, either on their own or with al-Qaeda, then framed al-Qaeda for them afterwards.

A controlled demolition is a unique and distinctive process. Nothing looks like a controlled demolition except a controlled demolition. If something looks like a controlled demolition, it is a controlled demolition. The destruction of the three WTC towers looked like controlled demolitions, because they were controlled demolitions.

The "Pancake Collapse Theory," promoted by FEMA, PBS, and Popular Mechanics, which purports to explain the destruction of the three WTC towers on 9/11, is riddled with lies and deception.

An objective scientific investigation of the events of 9/11 is essential. The American people have a right to the truth. People the world over have a right to to the truth.

Useful Videos and Web Pages

9/11: Explosive Evidence -- Experts Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4
9/11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Only Demolition and Earthquakes Have Leveled High-Rises
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

N.B.: Some 9/11 Truth Movement figures may be government plants whose function is to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement by advancing arguments that turn out to be non-credible. The only way not to be taken in is to connect the dots for yourself. Evaluate each argument for yourself, on its own merits, independently of who is advancing them.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Liu Jia-chang Threatens to Run for President of the Republic of China



Famed Songwriter and Movie Director Liu Jia-chang proclaimed that if Blue Camp candidates refused to say they were running for "President of the Republic of China," then he would

Liu Jia-chang Threatens to Run for President of the Republic of China
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
August 21, 2011


Famed songwriter and movie director Liu Jia-chang 劉家昌 came out with both guns blazing yesterday evening, at the 18th Anniversary Celebration of the Founding of the New Party.

Unhappy that Blue and Green camp candidates were falling over each other proclaiming that they were running for "President of Taiwan," surprise guest Liu threatened to declare his own candidacy for the upcoming 2012 Republic of China Presidential Election.

Liu said that if by September 20th, none of the candidates made clear that they were running for President of the Republic of China, and not "President of Taiwan," he would throw his hat in the ring. He said that people should not forget who their ancestors are, merely for the sake of a few votes.

Liu said he received an invitation from the Overseas Compatriots Affairs Commission (OCAC) to participate in the centennial ceremonies, and to lead participants in singing Liu's universally recognizable patriotic song, "An Ode to the Republic of China" 中華民國頌,

Liu's "An Ode to the Republic of China" is comparable to "America the Beautiful" in both its spirit and lyrics.

Teresa Teng singing "An Ode to the Republic of China"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JKLagjZWgc
Faith Hill singing "America the Beautiful"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwEzNMg-5ZM&feature=related

But Liu said he saw posters that read "The Centennial of Taiwan's Founding." His reaction was, "Has a Nation of Taiwan really been founded? and flatly turned down the invitation.

KMT Secretary General Liao Liao-yi, who was sitting in the audience, rushed to reassure Liu that KMT candidates Ma Ying-jeou and Wu Dun-yi would absolutely, positively be running for "President and Vice President of the Republic of China."

When confronted by reporters in Tainan the following afternoon, Ma Ying-jeou made a point of saying, "Of course I'm running for President of the Republic of China. From beginning to end I've been running for President of the Republic of China."

Thank you, Maestro Liu, for holding Ma Ying-jeou's feet to the fire, and reminding him that he is the President of China, not the "President of Taiwan."

Thank you, New Party, for keeping the Blue Camp honest.



劉家昌:藍再不說中華民國 我來選總統
聯合報╱記者雷光涵、程嘉文/台北報導
記者潘俊宏/攝影
2011.08.21 04:06 am


資深藝人劉家昌昨晚出席新黨十八週年黨慶大會時重批各黨總統候選人都沒有表態要競選中華民國總統,並表示他不排除以參選的行動來維護中華民國。

「中華民國頌」的創作者劉家昌,昨天在新黨黨慶大會上當著國民黨秘書長廖了以的面說:「秘書長要注意,選中華民國總統,要把國號講出來。」

自稱始終支持新黨理念、但不參與政治的劉家昌說,現在各黨參選人都說選「台灣」總統、說「台灣」加油,「如果大家都選台灣總統,那我來選中華民國總統好了。」

劉家昌對坐在台下的廖了以,說了至少三次「秘書長,對不起哦」,強調若九月廿日前參選人不改口,「我一定選」,「我看不下去!大家不要為選舉,把祖宗忘了。」

廖了以立刻第二度上台表示,「馬英九、吳敦義選的絕對是中華民國總統」,回應劉的抗議,並當場唱起「中華民國頌」。劉家昌稍後表示,這番話不是針對馬英九個人,他對廖了以的回答很滿意。


中時電子報 中時娛樂
中國時報  2011.08.21
劉家昌:馬應喊選中華民國總統
楊毅/台北報導


音樂鬼才、導演劉家昌昨晚出席新黨黨慶大會時火力全開,炮轟目前檯面上要角逐二○一二總統大位的參選人,都是要選「台灣總統」,卻沒有人敢喊出要選「中華民國總統」,並當場向坐在台下的國民黨祕書長廖了以喊話,要廖回去「轉達領導人」,如果九月二十日這個情形仍未改變,他一定參選總統到底。

原本已致詞完畢的廖了以聞訊後趕緊上台滅火,他強調,國民黨提名的正副總統參選人馬英九和吳敦義,「選的絕對是中華民國正副總統」,他還說,自己最會唱的歌就是《中華民國頌》,並當場清唱一段起來。

新黨昨晚舉辦十八周年黨慶大會,黨主席郁慕明會中發表「成年宣言」。他強調,「統一」不是毒蛇猛獸,而是大家無法迴避、必須面對的問題,新黨主張「和而不獨,和而求統」的兩岸政策,其中「和而不獨」是台灣可以做到的,「和而求統」則是中國大陸需要努力的。

郁慕明要求,馬英九總統連任成功後,必須依據國統綱領,強化國家統一委員會的功能,進一步推展「文字、幣制、市場及人力統一」的和平發展。

劉家昌的意外現身,引起現場一陣騷動;他強調,自己從未參與過任何政黨活動,但近來選舉的情況,讓他「實在是看不下去了」。劉家昌透露,他日前接到僑委會的邀請函,邀他參加建國百年晚會,帶領現場合唱《中華民國頌》,但他卻看到海報上寫著「台灣建國一百年」,抨擊「台灣建國了嗎?」因此他斷然拒絕出席。

劉家昌話鋒一轉批評,現在選舉各個政黨喊的都是「台灣加油!」卻絕口不提「中華民國」,但二○一二年選的可是「中華民國總統」,如果大家要選的是「台灣總統」,「那麼中華民國總統就讓我來選」,「大家不要為了一點點選票,就把自己的祖宗都全忘了」。


馬:始終參選的是中華民國總統
2011/08/21 17:46 中央社

(中央社記者張榮祥台南21日電)導演劉家昌批評朝野總統參選人光喊參選台灣總統,不敢講參選中華民國總統。總統馬英九今天表示,「我從頭到尾都是選中華民國總統」。

媒體報導,劉家昌昨晚出席新黨黨慶活動表示,因不滿朝野總統參選人口口聲聲選「台灣總統」,讓他看不下去,如果全部的人都在選「台灣總統」,那他就自己跳出來選「中華民國總統」。

馬總統下午到台南市善化區慶安宮上香祭拜及揭匾,在參觀廟中「台灣孔子」沈光文紀念館後答覆媒體訪問表示,「我當然是選中華民國總統,從頭到尾都是選中華民國總統」。

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card


Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card 
YouTube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-nnaHgVy8A

Caption:
Taiwan, where are you?
Taiwan, what do you want?
Taiwan, where are you going?
What's next?
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!

Soundtrack: 
Cue cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole's rendition of "Over the Rainbow"

Tsai Ing-wen (v.o.)
一九八零年代 / During the 1980s
我是在倫敦經濟學院 / I was at the London School of Economics
我的老師 / My teacher
不斷的啟發我們 / endlessly inspired us
社會中有中一條理性的道路 / Society has a rational path
有一個扛起責任的政府 / a government that bears responsibility 
打造一個均富永續的國家 / that forges an equitable and enduring nation
台灣要走向世界 / Taiwan must walk toward the world
我是台灣人 / I am Taiwanese
我是蔡英文 / I am Tsai Ing-wen

Caption:
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!

Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Indentity" Card
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
July 14, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen, DPP candidate for Republic of China President in 2012, has played the "Taiwanese Identity" card.

Watch this slickly made campaign commercial, commissioned by Tsai Ing-wen's campaign committee. But don't be fooled. The  impeccably professional production values, replete with a cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole's rendition of "Over the Rainbow," mask deeply repugnant psychological attitudes.

Tsai's concluding remarks in the commercial are: "I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen."

Tsai's opponent is incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou (KMT), who was born in Hong Kong.

Many native English speakers unfamiliar with politics on Taiwan, especially those living in the US, may not fully appreciate what Tsai is getting at. They may have difficulty discerning her subtext. They may find it hard to read between the lines.

To better understand what Tsai Ing-wen is really saying, imagine the same commercial in the US, run by white supremacist David Duke, running against a Barack Obama type "outsider," someone cast as "not one of us." Imagine Duke concluding with: "I am American, I am David Duke."

No one would have the slightest difficulty understanding what Duke was getting at. Everyone would know Duke was implying that his opponent was "not an American, not a white American."

And so it is with Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement. They remain motivated, today in 2011, as they have been for the past four decades, by atavistic identity politics and petty ethnic hatred.

The more rabidly fundamentalist supporters of Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement are unguarded in their speech. They scream about how "Taiwanese bulls" will exterminate "Chinese pigs," at the top of their lungs.

Tsai however, gives their barnyard bigotry a kinder, gentler face, the way genteel white supremacists such as Peter Brimelow give white racism a kinder, gentler face.

The sad fact is, DPP leaders and the Taiwan independence movement are motivated at their psychological and emotional core, not by any longing for "democracy, freedom, and human rights," but by their compulsion to craft a "Taiwanese ethnic and national identity."

The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is not practical. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is moral. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is its self-hating "We're Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics.

As Sisy Chen, former DPP Public Relations Director noted, "The DPP is the KKK of Taiwan." As Cheng Li-wen, former DPP National Assembly Member noted, "I never wanted to believe that the DPP was racist, but it is."

Make no mistake. The KMT was indeed at one time guilty of gross abuses. These abuses were committed by a government against its own citizens.

They were typical of abuses committed by countless governments against their own citizens. They must be harshly condemned, and have been harshly condemned, even by KMT leaders.

Tsai, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement, however, knowingly and deliberately misrepresent these abuses. They misrepresent them as abuses committed by "one tribe against another, different tribe."  As abuses committed by "one people against another, different people." As abuses committed by "mainlanders against natives." And ultimately, as abuses committed by "Chinese against Taiwanese."

Why do they engage in this flagrant misrepresentation of the facts?

Because they need a rationale for their ethnic identity based project of nation building, for the creation of a Hoklo Chauvinist themed "Republic of Taiwan," and have no qualms about lying to achieve that goal.

In 2004 for example, a delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to DPP elder Shen Fu-hsiung. Shen was under pressure to spill the beans, and testify that First Lady Wu Shu-cheng had accepted huge cash bribes from a prominent businessman.

What textual truth did these devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."

Tsai Ing-wen has marketed herself as a reformer whose mission it is to upgrade the DPP. Sad to say, she has done no such thing. Instead, the DPP has downgraded Tsai Ing-wen, bringing her down to its level.

Assuming of course that Tsai Ing-wen was not already at their level from the beginning.

The following is a recent UDN News editorial on Tsai Ing-wen's "I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen" campaign commercial.

Decoding Tsai Ing-wen's "I am Taiwanese."
United Daily News editorial
Taipei, China
Translated by Bevin Chu
July 21, 2011


"I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen," This declaration means that "Ma Ying-jeou is not Taiwanese." It means also that "They are not Taiwanese." That is, those who support Ma are "not Taiwanese." Tsai's declaration does not just divide Ma from Tsai. It divides society as well.

Just exactly what is Ma Ying-jeou? According to Green Camp political logic, Ma Ying-jeou is a "mainlander." By implication, Ma Ying-jeou is "Chinese." By further implication, he is a "Chi-Com fellow traveler." Context reveals meaning. Ma Ying-jeou, by implication, is "not Taiwanese." In fact, Tsai's declaration is merely a sanitized version of "Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China." According to Green Camp logic, Ma Ying-jeou stands for a "foreign regime," for "eventual reunification," and for "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Therefore Ma Ying-jeou is "not Taiwanese," By implication he is "Chinese," just like "those people" on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Therefore Green Camp political rhetoric often equates the China Nationalist Party with the Chinese Communist Party. Lashing out at the Kuomintang means lashing out at the Chinese Communists. Sometimes it even equates the Republic of China with the Peoples Republic of China. Opposition to the ROC is hence equated with opposition to the PRC.

The Republic of China government has scant wherewithal currently to represent China as a whole. This is primarily the fault of Beijing. Few people on Taiwan identify themselves as "Chinese." This too is primarily the fault of Beijing. Therefore when Taiwan independence advocates incite "ethnic struggles," they spin them as showdowns between "Taiwanese" on the one side, and "Chinese" on the other. On Taiwan, being labeled "Chinese" is now the equivalent of being a "Chinese" person from the other side of the Taiwan Strait. The term "Taiwanese" is no longer merely an antonym for "Mainlander." That merely invokes the issue of "ethnicity," or more accurately, provincial origin. Today the term "Taiwanese" has been transformed into an antonym for "Chinese." That invokes the issue of "national identity." According to the self-styled "Taiwanese" in today's Democratic Progressive Party, the Republic of China is a "foreign regime." Ma Ying-jeou is a "Territorial Governor," and supporters of the Republic of China are "Chinese." By implication, opposition to Taiwan independence is opposition to Taiwan. Opposition to Taiwan independence is "lack of love for Taiwan." Opposition to Taiwan independence is proof positive that one is "not Taiwanese." This is the clear and unambiguous subtext behind Tsai Ing-wen's declaration, "I am Taiwanese,"

But champions of this rhetorical framework must prove that Taiwan independence is the only way to save Taiwan, and the only way to demonstrate one's love for Taiwan. Unfortunately for them, Taiwan independence is a movement whose time has come and gone. Since martial law was lifted, Taiwan has been subjected to over 20 years of internal and external shocks. These shocks swept Taiwan independence into the dustbin of history. With their ringing declarations that "I am Taiwanese," Tsai Ing-wen and DPP officials are encouraging Taiwan independence supporters to cling to their delusions. They are inciting social divisions. In fact, Tsai and the DPP no longer have the chutzpah to openly champion Taiwan independence. Otherwise, Tsai Ing-wen would have come right out and declared, "I am a champion of Taiwan independence. I am Tsai Ing-wen!"

This is the pathetic reality behind this political farce. Chinese from the other side of the Taiwan Strait have become "Mainland tourists." They have become Taiwan's "sixth ethnic group," second only to foreign spouses. Tsai Ing-wen was encouraging delusions of Taiwan independence. Why else would she revive the long dead Taiwan independence mantra, "I am Taiwanese?" Since she insists on reviving the "I am Taiwanese" mantra, why not use the more common phrase, "My Nation of Taiwan compatriots?" Why not come right out and champion Taiwan independence?

This has long been the plight of the Democratic Progressive Party. It flirts with Taiwan independence, but does not dare openly champion Taiwan independence. Unfortunately, Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped within this dilemma of self-delusion. Tsai Ing-wen opposes the 1992 consensus. She opposes ECFA. She opposes "politically motivated procurements." All her positions are based on Taiwan independence political and economic logic. But when all is said and done, she cannot publicly champion Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped. She can flirt with Taiwan independence, but she cannot openly promote Taiwan independence. In which case, what are we to make of her "Taiwan Next" gimmick?

Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen became Democratic Progressive Party Chairman. She clearly hoped to shrug off this albatrosss around her neck. In March 2009, she issued a manifesto entitled, "Defend Taiwan with a New Concept of Nativism." She said "Some people have unintentionally [sic] defined Nativism far too narrowly. They have invested it with a specific meaning. Their narrow definition of Nativism is at odds with our need to unite for our collective survival." What does Tsai Ing-wen plan to do with her "I am Taiwanese" TV spot, which intentionally defines Nativism ar too narrowly.

DPP officials can no longer talk through their hats. They can no longer treat the term "Taiwanese" as their private property. Taiwan independence advocates can no longer treat the term "Taiwanese" as their private property. Tsai Ing-wen can no longer treat the term "Taiwanese" as her private property. Taiwan independence is an ideology that can only create chaos on Taiwan. It cannot save Taiwan. Therefore, it is not a means by which one can demonstrate "love for Taiwan." Taiwan independence advocates must cease using the terms "Republic of China" and "Nation of Taiwan" to divide the nation, They must cease using the declaration that "I am Taiwanese (whereas you are not)" to divide Taiwan.

Some people may persist in using such terms as "love for Taiwan" and "Save Taiwan" to define who is "Taiwanese." Perhaps we should compare Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Which of the two has demonstrated greater allegiance to the nation's Constitution? Which of the two has crafted a cross-Strait policy that has benefitted the public on Taiwan? Which of the two deserves the honorific "Taiwanese" more? Perhaps we should let the public decide.

Tsai Ing-wen did not say "I am a champion of Taiwan independence, I am Tsai Ing-wen." She was afraid even to whisper it. Why do DPP officials insist on flirting with Taiwan independence, when they are afraid to champion it?

解讀蔡英文的「我是台灣人」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.07.21 02:32 am

「我是台灣人,我是蔡英文」這句話不但意謂「馬英九不是台灣人」,而且意謂「他們不是台灣人」;亦即,支持馬就不是「台灣人」。一手區隔馬蔡,一手撕裂社會。

那麼,馬英九是什麼人呢?依綠營的政治邏輯,由馬英九是外省人,進一步將馬英九推向他是中國人,再進一步更將他推往根本就是中共的同路人。從語境的營造言,將馬英九隱指為不是台灣人,其實只是「中國豬滾回去」的化妝版;在這樣的邏輯下,馬英九是「外來政權」、「終極統一」、「傾中賣台」,所以馬英九不是台灣人,進而將他打成與對岸一樣的「中國人」。因而,在綠營的某些政治操作中,中國國民黨與中國共產黨可以相互代換,所以打國民黨就等於打中共;甚至中華民國與中華人民共和國也可相互代換,所以反中華民國就等於反中華人民共和國。

由於中華民國的「中國代表性」已經幾乎不存在(這主要是北京造成的),所以「中國人」在台灣的身分認同也站不住腳(這也主要是北京造成的);因而,當台獨將台灣的族群鬥爭建構在「台灣人/中國人」的對立之上,在台灣若被指為「中國人」,就成了與對岸一樣的「中國人」。而「台灣人」亦不再只是與「外省人」對稱(這只是族群議題),而是與「中國人」對稱(這就升高為國家認同問題)。所以,在民進黨今日的語境中,所謂的「台灣人」,就是將中華民國視為「外來政權」,將馬英九視為「區長」,將中華民國的支持者視為「中國人」;因此,反台獨就是反台灣,反台獨就是不愛台灣,反台獨就不是台灣人……,這些,皆是蔡英文那句「我是台灣人」的潛台詞。

然而,此一論述若要成立,須先確立「台獨是救台灣與愛台灣的方案」;但經歷解嚴後二十餘年來的內外衝擊激盪,台獨已成歷史泡沫。民進黨及蔡英文現在只是想用「我是台灣人」來煽動台獨的幻覺,與撕裂社會,但已再無能力明目張膽地鼓動台獨;否則,蔡英文就應當直截了當地說:「我是台獨,我是蔡英文!」

這正是這齣政治鬧劇的可悲可痛處。在對岸中國人的「陸客」漸將成為台灣「第六大族群」的今日(次於外配),如果蔡英文不是在操作台獨的幻覺,何必回頭玩弄「我是台灣人」的台獨老梗?而既然要回頭玩弄「我是台灣人」的老梗,更何不乾脆使用民進黨常聞的開場白「咱台灣國的鄉親父老」,而旗幟鮮明地主張台獨?

這是民進黨的一貫困境,玩弄台獨,卻又不敢明白主張台獨;不幸的是,蔡英文今日仍陷此種自欺欺人的困境之中。蔡英文反對九二共識、反對ECFA、反對「政治性採購」,皆是建立在台獨的政經邏輯之上,但她畢竟絕無可能公開聲言主張台獨。所以,蔡英文仍未走出「玩弄台獨,不敢台獨」的宿命,既如此,她所謂的Taiwan Next怎堪設想?

蔡英文三年前剛接民進黨主席時,很明顯地曾想奮力擺脫此一噩運。她在二○○九年三月發表〈以新本土觀捍衛台灣〉專文指出:「有些人無意的(我相信是無意的)把『本土』窄化成一種排他性的觀念;這種窄化的本土詮釋……跟我們團結成生命共同體的需要是矛盾的。」現在,蔡英文要如何面對這支「我是台灣人」的廣告,竟然是如此「有意地」玩弄此種窄化又排他的觀念。

民進黨不可再自說自話地將「台灣人」據為私用,台獨亦無可能將「台灣人」據為私用,蔡英文更何德何能將「台灣人」據為私用。台獨已是「只能亂台、不能救台」的方案,因此亦絕非「愛台灣」的方案;所以,不要再用「中華民國/台灣國」來分裂國家,也不要再用「我是台灣人/你不是台灣人」來撕裂台灣。

如果真要用「愛台灣」「救台灣」來區別誰才是「台灣人」的話,其實,若以馬英九的國憲認同及兩岸政策,與蔡英文的相比較,何者更配稱作「台灣人」,誠可付諸公評。

蔡英文未說出「我是台獨,我是蔡英文」的潛台詞,連偷偷小聲說出也沒有。民進黨,何必還要搬弄「鬧台獨,卻不敢台獨」?

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

When China Rules the World


Martin Jacques, writer and columnist
http://martinjacques.com/synopsis.html

When China Rules the World:
the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World
January 26, 2010


The China Desk Comments: Is Martin Jacques correct? Where is he coming from? Is he a Sinophile, trumpeting Imperium Americanus' imminent eclipse by a rising China? Or is he a Sinophobe, sounding the alarm about a dangerous "China Threat?" The China Desk has many questions. Therefore it is neither endorsing nor condemning Jacques' thesis, but merely presenting it to you for your consideration.

For the record, The China Desk does not believe that any national government should "rule the world." Instead, sovereign individuals should rule themselves. The China Desk believes in "individual sovereignty, universal harmony." The China Desk believes in Free Market Anarchism, the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolized by governments should be turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of the free market.


Biography:

Martin Jacques is the author of When China Rules the World: the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World.

He is a visiting senior fellow at the London School of Economics, IDEAS, a centre for the study of international affairs, diplomacy and grand strategy, and a visiting research fellow at the LSE’s Asia Research Centre. He is a columnist for the Guardian and the New Statesman.

His interest in East Asia began in 1993 with a holiday in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. After that, he found every reason or excuse he could find to spend time in the region, be it personal, for newspaper articles or television programmes.

Synopsis:

For over two hundred years we have lived in a western-made world, one where the very notion of being modern was synonymous with being western. The book argues that the twenty-first century will be different: with the rise of increasingly powerful non-Western countries, the west will no longer be dominant and there will be many ways of being modern. In this new era of ‘contested modernity’ the central player will be China.

Martin Jacques argues that far from becoming a western-style society, China will remain highly distinctive. It is already having a far-reaching and much-discussed economic impact, but its political and cultural influence, which has hitherto been greatly neglected, will be at least as significant. Continental in size and mentality, and accounting for one fifth of humanity, China is not even a conventional nation-state but a ‘civilization-state’ whose imperatives, priorities and values are quite different. As it rapidly reassumes its traditional place at the centre of East Asia, the old tributary system will resurface in a modern form, contemporary ideas of racial hierarchy will be redrawn and China’s ages-old sense of superiority will reassert itself. China’s rise signals the end of the global dominance of the west and the emergence of a world which it will come to shape in a host of different ways and which will become increasingly disconcerting and unfamiliar to those who live in the west.

What they say about When China Rules the World

This important book, deeply considered, full of historical understanding and realism, is about more than China. It is about a twenty-first-century world no longer modelled on and shaped by North Atlantic power, ideas and assumptions. I suspect it will be highly influential.’
Eric Hobsbawm

‘Mr Jacques is right to argue that democracy, as patented by the west, is a product of European history, not a natural phenomenon.
David Pilling, Financial Times

Why China is what it is and what its destination will be are two eternal questions. I agree with Martin Jacques that culture is the key for understanding China. This is, without doubt, one of the best and most serious studies of China I have ever read – a fascinating book.’
Yu Yongding, former Member of the Monetary Policy Committee, People’s Bank of China.

Jacques's book will provoke argument and is a tour de force across a host of disciplines... Jacques's arguments deserve to be heard; they are part of a debate the Western world should be having but for whatever reason - academic orthodoxy, political correctness or fear - has left for another time. By then, if Jacques is right, it will be too late.
Mary Dejevsky, Independent