Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Polls Show Separatist Goals Unpopular

Polls Show Separatist Goals Unpopular
XINHUA online - CHINA VIEW
December 14, 2004
Bevin Chu at a Pan Blue March


XINHUA online - CHINA VIEW: Polls Show Separatist Goals Unpopular


The outcome of the election shows that the majority of Taiwanese want to maintain the political status quo in cross-Straits relations by exerting restraint on Chen's pro-independence coalition consisting of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union. (baidu photo)

[Editor's Note: The above photograph shows Strait Scoop author Bevin Chu at a December 4, 2004 pro reunification, anti independence march organized by the Pan Blue KMT/NP/PFP alliance. The banner reads "Oppose Taiwan independence, Save Taiwan!"]

BEIJING, Dec. 14 -- Taiwan leader Chen Shui-bian's attempt to reap the biggest gains from the polls in Saturday's "legislative" elections was shattered.

Chen's pan-green camp's failure to win a majority at the "parliament" fully demonstrates the unpopularity of the island leader's obstinate separatist stance which runs counter to the common aspiration for cross-Straits peace and stability.

Since Chen took office in 2000 and was re-elected in March, he has done nothing to improve cross-Straits ties.

Before the election, Chen had repeatedly vowed to wrest an absolute majority in the 225-seat "parliament" to facilitate his pro-independence push.

The outcome of the election shows that the majority of Taiwanese want to maintain the political status quo in cross-Straits relations by exerting restraint on Chen's pro-independence coalition consisting of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union.

The voters were alarmed by Chen's rash lurch towards independence, especially his plan to change the name of their overseas representative offices if his party gained control of the legislature.

Chen announced on December 5 a two-year timetable to drop the word "China" from the names of all relevant government agencies and government-controlled enterprises in favour of "Taiwan."

A number of government-run enterprises on the island fear huge rebranding costs if they are forced to remove "China" from their corporate names in favour of "Taiwan."

Chen's political moves have also won the disapproval of the United States, which is opposed to any unilateral steps that would change the cross-Straits status quo.

However, even if the pan-blue coalition of Kuomintang, People First Party and New Party will take advantage of its victory to check and balance the pan-green camp, Chen could still force through his various separatist schemes in the legislature.

Chen should bear in mind that Beijing will never compromise the one-China principle, no matter what stunts he may pull off.

See:
Polls show separatist goes unpopular

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Taiwan's Status is not a Matter of International Law

Taiwan's Status is not a Matter of International Law
Bevin Chu
November 22, 2004

Q: What is Taiwan's status under international law? Who holds Taiwan's sovereignty here in 2004?

A: These questions are red herrings, part of a cynical attempt to deceive uninformed readers into believing that Taiwan does not belong to China.


CIA World Factbook Map of China - The offshore Chinese island of Taiwan is an integral part of China's territory

"In 1895, military defeat forced China to cede Taiwan to Japan. It reverted to Chinese control after World War II."
-- CIA, The World Factbook

"History supports our claim. During the 9 years from 1945 to 1954, ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan was affirmed six times under international law by declarations, treaties, agreements, and acts such as the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese Imperial Rescript, WWII surrender documents from Japan, the actual restoration of Taiwan to the ROC, the Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Therefore, there can be no doubt that Taiwan is ROC territory."
-- KMT International Center, Our Fundamental Position on the Sovereignty of the Republic of China in Taiwan

Taiwan's status is not a matter of international law. China has sovereignty over Taiwan.

Taiwan is China's sovereign territory. Taiwan is one of China's thirty odd provinces and autonomous regions. Taiwan has belonged to China since the Ming dynasty, longer than the United States of America has been in existence. The island of Taiwan was once part of Fujian Province, just as Long Island is part of New York State. In the late Qing dynasty Taiwan was upgraded to the status of a province.

Japan extorted Taiwan at gunpoint from China on April 17, 1895, but was forced to return it to China on October 25, 1945, following Japan's defeat during WWII. October 25 is celebrated annually on Taiwan as Taiwan Retrocession Day.

Japan formally returned Taiwan to China in two official Taiwan Retrocession signing ceremonies, one held in Nanking, the other in Taipei.

Japan knew who Taiwan belonged to when Japan annexed it, and Japan knew whom to return it to 50 years later.

These bilateral, state-to-state Taiwan Retrocession signing ceremonies, like the "System Restore" function in Windows XP, simply undid the provisions of the extortionate Ma Guan Treaty or "Treaty of Shimonoseki."

The so-called "Tai Wan Wei Ding Lun" or "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory" is shameless neocolonialist, neoimperialist sophistry. Together with the Taiwan Relations Act, it amounts to brazen annexation of another nation's sovereign territory.

In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the United States, Great Britain and China jointly agreed that:

"All the territories that Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

On July 26, 1945, the three governments followed this up with the Potsdam Proclamation, which affirmed that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out."

Convoluted and disingenuous claims by "international law experts" involving patently irrelevant claims regarding the Treaty of San Francisco do not merit long-winded refutation. Earnest, detailed refutations would merely lend their specious claims an undeserved aura of legitimacy.

As Ching Cheong, writing in Singapore's Straits Times, correctly notes,

Prior to the Korean War, the US accepted Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. But the fighting that broke out in the Korean peninsula in June 1950 changed the US attitude. Seeing Taiwan's value as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier', a famous characterisation by General Douglas MacArthur, the US began to say that 'the status of Taiwan was undetermined'. To give legal basis to this claim, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan merely committed the latter to surrendering Taiwan but did not specify to whom the island was to be returned. This amounted to a repudiation of US treaty obligations as spelt out in the Cairo and Potsdam instruments.

It is unconvincing to say that when a Chinese territorial issue was at stake, the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, to which the ROC was a signatory, should carry less weight than the San Francisco Peace Treaty to which China was not. In fact, at the time it was signed, Beijing protested against China's exclusion and refused to recognise it.

The separatist movement lost sight of the fact that Japan obtained Taiwan through the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki following the defeat of China in the first Sino-Japanese war (1894-95). Simply put, Japan annexed Taiwan by defeating China, which regained the island by defeating Japan half a century later. This historical fact is so crystal clear that in pre-1945 days, no one in the international community had ever raised doubt about it.

Even though China had to bow to the political reality of the time, the US had, since the early 1970s, ceased to claim that Taiwan's status was undetermined. According to the last batch of declassified documents on former president Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1972, this was one of the pledges the US made to China during the visit. The 1972 Shanghai Communique codified this US position.

"Principle One: There is one China, and Taiwan is part of China. There will be no more statements made to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined."

The "scholars" responsible for the "Tai Wan Wei Ding Lun" are street hustlers. Their tortuous "theories" are the street hustler's classic shell game. They are William Jefferson Clinton's "Oral sex is not sex" and "That depends on the meaning of the word is."

Taiwan's status is not "undetermined." Taiwan's status is settled.

Taiwan's status is not a matter of "international law." Taiwan's status has nothing to do with international law. Taiwan belongs to China. Taiwan's status is a matter of Chinese national law.

The only lingering issue affecting Taiwan's status is the still unresolved Chinese Civil War. The resolution of this war will determine which of two rival Chinese regimes, the Republic of China (ROC) in Taipei, or the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing, has final jurisdiction over the island.

That, however, is purely a domestic Chinese matter.

Taiwan's status is not complicated. Taiwan's status does not need to be "explained." Taiwan belongs to China.


Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts) confronts lawyer Ed Masry (Albert Finney)

As Julia Roberts railed in "Erin Brockovich," (2000, directed by Steven Soderbergh, written by Susannah Grant) "That's the trouble with you lawyers. You take situations that aren't complicated and you complicate them!"

Friday, October 29, 2004

A Wake Up Call for Taiwan Independence

A Wake Up Call for Taiwan Independence
Bevin Chu
October 28, 2004

Executive Summary: Taiwan independence Quislings have just received a long overdue wake up call. The call came from precisely the right quarter, the Bush II administration, the most Sinophobic, most pro Taiwan independence administration in US history. The call came on precisely the right date, October 25, Taiwan Retrocession Day, the date Japan gave Taiwan back to China following fascist Japan's defeat in WWII. Pro reunification commentators, including Yours truly, have been telling Taiwan independence Quislings and Taiwan independence fellow travelers that a sovereign and independent "Republic of Taiwan," aptly abbreviated as "ROT," will never be anything more than a pipe dream. Not surprisingly, they refused to listen. The right message was being delivered by the "wrong" messenger. Now that the Bush II administration has delivered the identical message, albeit for their own motives, the Taiwan independence Quislings had better listen up, or else.


Colin Powell gives Taiwan Independence Quislings a Wake Up Call

Oct 28, 2004
Singapore Straits Times NEWS ANALYSIS
US needed to jolt Taipei awake
America fears island's separatist moves could spark a war
By Ching Cheong, Chief China Correspondent In Washington

TAIWAN suffered its gravest diplomatic setback in two decades when US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated clearly that the island is not independent and so does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation.

He also held out the peaceful unification of China and Taiwan as an eventual outcome, one strongly detested by the separatist movement led by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Do Mr Powell's statements signal a major shift in US policy towards Taiwan?

It is hard to say. After all, the basic premises - the one-China policy based on the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act, as well as dictating a peaceful resolution between both sides of the Taiwan Strait - remain the same. This is why the State Department has come out to say that US policy towards Taiwan has not changed.

Yet it is pretty clear that some parts have been tweaked to curtail the growth of separatism.

Mr Powell has told Taiwan in no uncertain terms that separatism is a dead end. The island's future lies in working out a formula for peaceful unification with China.

Even ardent Taiwan supporters like Mr James Liley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, acknowledged that 'a long-standing position made unnecessarily explicit indicates a change in the mindset'. [emphasis added]

Ms Bonnie Glaser of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, known for her pro-Taiwan stance, also expressed shock.

This fine-tuning of American policy is sufficiently strong to send shock waves across the island.

Foreign Minister Mark Chen admitted that it was the most severe blow to Taiwan, one made worse by the fact that there was no prior warning from the Americans. Mr Chen, who had bragged that he could get pre- and post-visit briefings from senior US officials, was dumbfounded.

Most analysts in Taiwan blame the reckless push by President Chen Shui-bian for de jure independence, which has alarmed Washington, as the root cause of the fine-tuning in American policy.

Mr Chang Yung Kung, the spokesman for mainland affairs for the opposition Kuomintang, said that this showed his earlier prediction that 'hasty independence would lead ironically to hasty unification' was true.

Mr Lin Cho-shui, the DPP's chief theoretician, blamed the President for 'running foreign policy as if conducting an election campaign' and often ignoring the basic rules of diplomatic courtesy.

Some in Taiwan tried to downplay the significance of Mr Powell's remarks, saying that he is unlikely to remain in office after Nov 2, regardless of who wins the presidential election. Others would like to believe that his tough talk was intended to influence December's legislative election.

While the Chen government might try to downplay his remarks, it would be wrong to assume that they do not carry weight.

His statement represents a general realisation in the US that the separatist movement, if unfettered, will likely spark a cross-strait war, one that could embroil the United States. [emphasis added]

President Chen's formulation of 'one country on each side of the Strait', as well as his attempt to call a referendum to announce independence, has upset even traditional supporters in the US Congress and conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the AEI.

Warnings by the Bush administration had fallen on deaf ears. Premier Yu Shyi-kun's recent threat to fire missiles at Shanghai in a retaliatory strike was seen as provocative.

Clearly, the US is unsettled by the likelihood of Taiwan provoking China into starting a war of unification.

This concern is also a bipartisan one. Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry has mentioned while on the campaign trail that China's 'one country two systems' formula might be a worthwhile solution to explore.

As to why Mr Powell chose to make these remarks at this time, a Beijing source told The Straits Times that his remarks showed that the US paid more serious attention to China's May 17 statement than did the Taiwanese.

That statement, issued just ahead of President Chen's inauguration speech, reflected Beijing's resolve to go to war to stop separatism.

'Without the May 17 statement, maybe the US would fail to see the gravity of the situation,' said the source.

On Taiwan's part, its leaders chose to disregard Beijing's resolve. President Chen's Oct 10 speech showed that he still harboured a wish to push his independence agenda further.

Last month, one of his advisers placed full-page advertisements in the New York Times and Washington Post appealing for support for the island's independence cause.

Clearly, the US felt it needed to make a clear statement now. Hence Mr Powell's blunt words.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Richard Gere Gives Taiwan the Old Razzle Dazzle

Richard Gere Gives Taiwan the Old Razzle Dazzle
Bevin Chu
October 14, 2004

Perennial China-basher Richard Gere is at it again. According to an October 5, 2004 Washington Times news article appropriately titled, "Stop Making Sense":

Richard Gere, actor and self-appointed ambassador to the East, weighed in on a burning question in Taiwan: Did the island's leader fake an assassination attempt to win sympathy votes? In an interview airing yesterday, Mr. Gere told Taiwan's TVBS news that he didn't believe President Chen Shui-bian staged the shooting that grazed his stomach during a campaign parade March 19 -- just one day before [election day]. "What I thought was kind of bizarre was that the opposition assumed that he had set it up, in some way had himself shot," Mr. Gere said, shaking his head with a slight laugh. "That doesn't sound right."

Richard Gere's spin control is hard to miss. He's callously attempting to discredit Taiwan's Pan Blue opposition by depicting them as lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists. It won't wash. Hard-working, level-headed, middle and upper middle-class Pan Blue supporters arrived at their conclusions about the March 19 shooting incident the same way as American forensics expert Henry Lee and British forensics expert Steven Vickers. They used their common sense.

When forensic experts struggle to make sense of physical evidence, they cannot avoid considering human motivation. As world famous forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee explained in an interview with Katherine Ramsland of Court TV's "Crime Library: Criminal Minds and Methods":

"I started my career as a police officer and investigator, and then I became a biochemist. The major area for me is putting the case together, how to reconstruct a crime. Laboratory tests are mostly mechanical; you follow the procedure, you get the result. But how you interpret that result becomes crucial. You have to fit it into the whole case scenario. "

How does one interpret Lee's reconstruction of the March 19 shooting incident, and how does one fit it into the whole case scenario?

Put simply, Chen's shooting hoax was a classic Chinese "ku rou ji," literally "bitter flesh strategy," in which an individual deliberately inflicts harm upon himself in order to cast his enemy as evil incarnate.

Chinese originated the term "ku rou ji," but they are certainly not the only people to practice it. We haven't forgotten Bill Clinton's "Wag the Dog" Balkans campaign, have we? As political scientist Michael Parenti noted:

"The Serbs were blamed for the infamous Sarajevo market massacre. But according to the report leaked out on French TV, Western intelligence knew that it was Muslim operatives who had bombed Bosnian civilians in the marketplace in order to induce NATO involvement. Even international negotiator David Owen, who worked with Cyrus Vance, admitted in his memoir that the NATO powers knew all along that it was a Muslim bomb."

What is really "kind of bizzare" is not universal skepticism about the March 19 shooting incident, but Richard Gere's sudden transformation into sob sister Mary Sunshine of the hit musical "Chicago." What really "doesn't sound right" is Gere's sudden attack of acute, possibly terminal, disingenuousness.

See:
Taiwan's Stolen Election Part IV, The Truth Behind Bulletgate

Richard Gere is Billy Flynn, Chen Shui-Bian is Roxie Hart

The movie poster for "Chicago" informs us that "RICHARD GERE is BILLY FLYNN."

The movie poster for "Chicago" further advises us that "IF YOU CAN'T BE FAMOUS, BE INFAMOUS."

Guess what? The movie poster is right, on both counts. Richard Gere is indeed Billy Flynn, and if you can't be famous, you might as well be infamous. In a classic case of life imitating art, the famous Richard Gere is demonstrating to the world that he really and truly is the infamous Billy Flynn.


Richard Gere is Billy Flynn


Chen Shui-bian is Roxie Hart

The lawless Chen regime has recruited Richard Gere to do for Chen what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson, and what Billy Flynn did for Roxie Hart -- "razzle dazzle 'em." Billy Flynn conned a Chicago jury into believing that murderess Roxie Hart and her murder victim "both reached for the gun." Richard Gere wants to con Republic of China voters into believing that Chen Shui-bian's laughably amateurish Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" is

"Understandable, understandable, yes it's perfectly understandable"

and that Chen's obviously self-incriminating behavior in the six months following his staged shooting hoax is:

"Comprehensible, comprehensible, not a bit reprehensible, it's so defensible!"

And why not? After all, as the tagline from "Chicago" reminds us:

"With the right song and dance, you can get away with murder."


Billy Flynn/Richard Gere to Roxie Hart/Chen Shui-bian: "With the right song and dance, you can get away with murder... I don't mean to toot my own horn, but if Jesus Christ lived in Chicago today, and he had come to me and he had five thousand dollars, let's just say things would have turned out differently."

Richard Gere/Billy Flynn's cynical song and dance number "Give 'Em the Old Razzle Dazzle," when applied to Chen's shooting hoax and election fraud, rings with remarkable, unexpected truth.

BILLY FLYNN
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about. It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus. These trials, the whole world, all show business. But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

(singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it,
and the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus, bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if in fact you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em, and they'll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous,
row after row will crow vociferous

Give 'em the old flim flam flummox, fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle,
they'll never know you're just a bagel
Razzle dazzle 'em, and they'll beg you for more!

Give 'em the old double whammy, daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah,
everyone loves the big bamboozler
Give 'em the old three ring circus, stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder,
they'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em, and you've got a romance

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle, razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorceror that you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance,
how can they spot you've got no talent
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star!

Richard Gere/Billy Flynn - Bringing Happiness and Kindness to Other People

"Well you know certainly my studies in Buddhism have made my understanding of emotions much deeper, much more precise. I think a little bit of wisdom has come... Does it make you a better person, yes... anyone who takes their practice seriously cares less about career and more about what kind of happiness and kindness they can bring to other people, which is the most important thing.
-- Richard Gere to World Tibet Network News, March 14, 1999

Or, as Billy Flynn shouted from the rooftops, "All I care about is love!"


Richard Gere/Billy Flynn: "All I care about is love!"

BILLY FLYNN
(singing)
I don't care about expensive things,
cashmere coats, or diamond rings
Don't mean a thing
All I care about is love
That's what I'm here for
I don't care for wearin' silk cravats,
ruby studs, satin spats
Don't mean a thing
All I care about is love
All he cares about is love
Give me two eyes of blue,
softly saying "I need you"
Let me see her standin' there
and honest, mister, I'm a millionaire
I don't care for any fine attire
Vanderbilt might admire
No, no, not me
All I care about is love
All he cares about is love

All he cares about is love
Show me long raven hair
flowin' down, about to there
When I 've seen
her runnin' free
Keep your money,
that's enough for me
I don't care for drivin' Packard cars
or smoking long buck cigars
No, no, not me
All I care about is
doin' the guy in
who's pickin' on you,
twistin' the wrist
that's turnin' the screw
All I care about is love!

Citizens of the Republic of China want to thank Richard Gere/Billy Flynn. They are mightily reassured knowing that for Richard Gere, "what kind of happiness and kindness [he] can bring to other people is the most important thing," and that for Billy Flynn, "All I care about is doin' the guy in who's pickin' on you, twistin' the wrist that's turnin' the screw. All I care about is love!"

Richard Gere/Billy Flynn - Reversing the Roles of Victims and Victimizers

"So the U.S. major media and much of the minor media are not free and independent, as they claim, they are not the watchdog of democracy but the lapdog of the national security state. They help reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
-- Michael Parenti, political scientist

What Michael Parenti said about the US major media applies to the motion picture industry as well, to Hollywood celebrities with political axes to grind.

On election day, March 20, 2004, TVBS, the same cable television network that interviewed Gere, in conjunction with Mitofsky International, the internationally-respected American polling organization, conducted an historic first ever exit poll on Taiwan. The TVBS/Mitofsky International Exit Poll confirmed the nearly unanimous projections of local Taiwan polling organizations.

Chen Shui-bian lost to Lien Chan, 47% to 53%, by a 6% margin.

How trustworthy is the TVBS/Mitofsky Exit Poll? David W. Moore, managing editor of the rival Gallup Poll, testifies in his book "The Super Pollsters" that "[Warren Mitofsky's] caution in projecting winners is a Mitofsky trademark, one which has served him well."

Over the years Warren Mitofsky has conducted 3,000 exit polls. He has been wrong only six times. Are the 53% majority of Republic of China voters who voted for Lien/Soong supposed to believe that on March 20, 2004 Mitofsky was wrong for the seventh time, and that he was off by 6%?

[Update: It turns out Mitofsky Exit Polls have never been wrong. The six times Mitofsky was wrong, were live votes, not exit polls. Hardly the same thing.]

You would never know it listening to Richard Gere/Billy Flynn, but two facts are clear.

One: Lien Chan is legally the president of the Republic of China.

Two: Chen Shui-bian is a former president who insists on maintaining the pretense that he was re-elected to a second term, and who is illegally refusing to vacate the Presidential Palace.


Richard Gere/Billy Flynn: "I didn't ask you if she's guilty. I didn't ask if she's innocent. I didn't ask you if she's a drunk, or a doper. No! All I said was, do you have five thousand dollars?"

According to an October 8, 2004 Agence France-Presse news article, "Gere Caught in Center of Political Spat":

The actor has been asked by the government to attend December's Golden Horse movie festival. But the plan has angered opposition parties who say the "Pretty Woman" star would give the government an unfair advantage ahead of parliamentary elections. An aide to Government Information Office (GIO) head Lin Chia-lung, the official who invited Gere, said it was not clear if he would come but "if he is busy at that moment, he is welcome to visit Taiwan any other time." However Hung Hsiu-chu, a parliamentarian from the Kuomintang, said it was "not proper for (Gere) to come in December as the parliamentary election approaches." She said the Democratic Progressive Party government could "use Gere to boost their profile in the campaigning as he has a lot of fans here." Hung said that Gere "was a good actor but not familiar with Taiwan's politics."

Hung, an eloquent and fiery Pan Blue spokesperson not known for mincing her words, was being exceedingly courteous to a foreign guest clearly abusing his celebrity status. Hung would have been well within her rights to blast Gere for attempting to undermine another nation's electoral process.

In case it isn't abundantly obvious by now, Richard Gere/Billy Flynn's real motive for interjecting himself into Chen's Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" has little to do with championing democracy, and everything to do with demonizing China.

Anyone who abets China's Balkanization by neocolonialist, neo-imperialist forces, Richard Gere/Billy Flynn extolls as a champion of democracy, including an unelected feudal "God-King" named Tenzing Gyatso, and a Made in Taiwan Hitler knock-off named Chen Shui-bian.

Anyone who resists China's Balkanization on the other hand, Richard Gere/Billy Flynn belittles as an enemy of democracy, even the hapless, disenfranchised democratic majority on Taiwan, whose candidate Lien Chan actually won the 2004 presidential election, but who were cheated out an electoral victory they won fair and square.

Rather than right the historic wrongs inflicted by the US government upon aboriginal peoples at home within America's own borders, Richard Gere and other wealthy Hollywood liberals seek absolution on the cheap. They project their liberal guilt as far as possible from home, to the opposite side of the planet, onto a foreign nation, a non-white nation, onto the ever convenient Chinese whipping boy.

Rather than demand that the US government restore the political independence of American Indian tribes, the Kingdom of Hawaii, Alaskan Natives, and retrocede vast territories annexed by naked force from Mexico, Richard Gere and other wealthy Hollywood liberals demand that China, impoverished by a century and a half of struggle against western and Japanese colonial predation, whose geographical boundaries reflect conquest by others rather than conquest of others, meekly submit to demands that it implode like the former Yugoslavia.

At the 53rd Berlin Film Festival Richard Gere told reporters "The Bush administration's plans for war are a bizarre bad dream... I have a feeling that something hidden is at work here that will someday see the light of day... so it's absurd for Bush to say that it's all in the best interest of the Iraqi people."

Richard Gere's observations about Bush were dead on the mark. Gere's observations however, apply equally to Bush puppet Chen Shui-bian and to Gere himself. Chen's plans for a War of Taiwan Independence by 2008 and Bush's promise to "do whatever it took" to back Chen's warmongering are a bizarre bad dream. Behind Chen's rigged "re-election" something hidden is at work that will someday see the light of day. It's absurd for Gere to say that sweeping the damning evidence of Chen's shooting hoax and election fraud under the rug is all in the best interest of the Chinese people on Taiwan.

See:
Hollywood's Tibet
Andrew O'Hehir's scathing review of "Red Corner"
Toward a doctrine of American Indian independence, Indian Country Today, July 21, 2003
The Overthrow of the Monarchy, by Pat Pitzer, Spirit of Aloha, May 1994, the in-flight magazine of Aloha Airlines
PBS, American Experience, Ulysses S. Grant, People and Events, The Mexican American War, 1846-1848

Saturday, October 09, 2004

It Works the Same in Any Country

It Works the Same in Any Country
Bevin Chu
October 08, 2004


Reichsmarshall Hermann Wilhelm Goering

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. "
-- Hermann Goering, (1893-1946) founder of Nazi Germany's secret police, the Gestapo


ROC "President" Chen Shui-bian

"民眾自然不想要戰爭; 不管在俄國, 英國, 美國, 德國。這點大家都瞭解。但政策終究是國家領導人決定的, 並且拖著人民走總是一個簡單的事, 不管是民主, 或法西斯主義的專政, 或議會民主, 或共產主義專政。不管人民有聲音或沒有聲音, 人民總是可以被領導人牽著鼻子走。這非常容易。您只須要告訴人民, 他們被攻擊, 和譴責和平主義者, 由於他們缺乏愛國心和暴露國家於危險。這在任一個國家都有效。"
-- 赫曼戈林, (1893-1946) 納粹德國 蓋世太保 秘密警察 創建者

Monday, September 27, 2004

Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part IV

Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part IV
The Truth Behind Bulletgate
Bevin Chu
September 26, 2004

Executive Summary: On March 19, 2004, according to DPP sound trucks and DPP-funded pirate radio stations, "the KMT and PFP conspired with the Chinese Communist Party to assassinate the Taiwanese peoples' Taiwanese president." Pan Blue voters, who constitute a democratic majority on Taiwan, and whose candidate Lien Chan actually won the March 20, 2004 presidential election, reject this charge as a scurrilous lie. What's the truth? For the answer, read on.

A Rare Consensus

Talking heads on Taiwan say that Pan Green and Pan Blue voters disagree vehemently about what happened on March 19, 2004.

Not so.

Among a populace polarized by sharp political differences, an unexpected consensus prevails on one issue - the March 19 shooting. When it comes to the March 19 shooting, everyone on Taiwan of voting age understands exactly what happened. Everyone who went to the polls the following day, regardless of political affiliation, understands that Chen Shui-bian, realizing a Pan Blue democratic majority was about to toss him out on his ear, staged a phony 11th hour Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" to provoke hatred for his opponents, to elicit sympathy for himself, and provide a smokescreen for flagrant election fraud.

The deep disagreement between Chen's supporters and Lien's supporters is not over their understanding of what happened. Both Chen's supporters and Lien's supporters have the exact same understanding of what happened. The deep disagreement between Chen's supporters and Lien's supporters is over whether to admit the truth about what happened.

The Pan Green parties - the DPP and TSU - needed a pretext by which one of their own could continue to occupy the Office of the President of the Republic of China and misuse the power of the office to overthrow the Republic of China. Having gotten what they wanted, they now want any evidence that the shooting was a hoax swept under the rug, dropped down the memory hole, deleted from the historical record.

The Pan Blue parties on the other hand - the KMT, NP, PFP, and most independents - having been cheated out of an electoral victory they won fair and square, are demanding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They want Chen's laughably amateurish, patently phony "assassination attempt" thoroughly investigated by an independent, multipartisan equivalent of Lyndon Johnson's Warren Commission.

Henry Lee: "This Case Was Not a Political Assassination"

"There is a big difference between this shooting and a political assassination... This case was not a political assassination because a more powerful weapon than a homemade pistol would have been used."
-- Dr. Henry Lee, forensic scientist

Chinese-American forensics expert Henry Lee, Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven, editor of seven Academic Journals, author of 30 books and over 300 articles, has confirmed what everyone on Taiwan knew all along. The March 19, 2004 shooting of ROC president Chen Shui-bian was not an assassination attempt.

Lee was stating the obvious, but knew it had to be said. After all, Lee's previous remarks about Chen's gunshot wounds being "not self-inflicted" had already been deliberately distorted.

When Lee said "Chen's gunshot wounds were not self-inflicted," he meant that Chen Shui-bian did not hold a pistol in his own hand, point it at his own abdomen and pull the trigger. He did not mean that Chen Shui-bian was innocent of perpetrating a hoax.

As anyone with a shred of common sense knows, a political assassin out to eliminate a political target in today's world is not going to fire reduced-charge, low-velocity rounds from a converted, potmetal handgun replica. At the very least he's going to use a scope-sighted sniper rifle firing highly accurate, highly lethal centerfire rounds. If the assassin really means business, he'll do far more than that.

Consider the following genuine assassination attempts, and contrast them with the Chen regime's high school drama club production on March 19, 2004.

On May 23, 1992, anti-mafia crusader Giovanni Falcone and his wife Francesca Morvillo, were speeding down the highway from Palermo International Airport toward the city of Palermo, when the Sicilian mafia detonated 2,200 lbs. of high explosives buried beneath the pavement. The blast left an enormous crater that resembled a meteor strike. The courageous and idealistic Falcone and his wife, along with three bodyguards, were killed instantly.

On February 10, 1998, Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze's motorcade was ambushed in T'bilisi. A team of 10 to 15 assassins raked his limousine with a hail of fire from automatic weapons and RPGs. Two of Shevardnadze's bodyguards and one of the assassins died. Only the armor on Shevardnadze's state of the art Mercedes 600, a gift from Daimler-Benz and a German government grateful for Shevardnadze's contribution to German reunification, saved his life.

Targets of genuine assassination attempts don't stroll leisurely into hospital emergency rooms with superficial "grazing wounds" to the abdomen, especially if they were riding in unarmored open vehicles and not wearing kevlar vests. Targets of genuine assassination attempts, assuming enough remains of their bodies after an attack, get wheeled into hospital emergency rooms on blood-soaked gurneys and are pronounced Dead On Arrival.

Stephen Vickers: "If This Was an Assassination Attempt... They Would Have Succeeded"

Time Running out for Taiwan Shooting Probe - Expert
February 9, 2004
Reuters News

British expert Stephen Vickers, former head of Hong Kong's criminal intelligence bureau, agreed with U.S. forensic expert Henry Lee, brought in to add credence to a government probe, that it was not an attempted assassination. Vickers, who was commissioned by a group of overseas Chinese to investigate whether the election-eve shooting of Chen was staged, said the government probe has not moved forward because it was over-reliant on ballistics evidence.

"There is a real danger of valuable information and data disappearing in the next few weeks simply because the data is six months old," Vickers, president and CEO of International Risk Ltd, told a news conference.

"If this was an assassination attempt by anybody who knew what they were doing, I think they would have succeeded. The level of protection was hopeless and unprecedented."

He said possible explanations put forward for the attack ranged from a top-level conspiracy to underground gambling rings, which had millions of dollars at stake on the outcome of the election. Vickers said the bookmakers' theory was "feasible but probably not possible."

Vickers, who said he had no political affiliations, called for an independent inquiry, echoing demands by the Nationalists.

See:
Expert's Doubts - Ex-HK Police Investigator finds Spate of Unbelievable Episodes, by Tonny Chan
Chen Shooting Suspicious: HK firm, by Paris Lord
Preliminary Findings of an Independent Investigation into the Tainan Shooting Incident, by Steve Vickers
Political Risk Assessment Report on the Aftermath of the Taiwanese Presidential Election, by Steve Vickers

Even Taiwan Independence Fundamentalists Don't Believe Their Own Lie

The DDP's allegation that the KMT, PFP and CCP tried but failed to assassinate Chen Shui-bian, is a Joseph Goebbels' Big Lie, and Pan Green voters know it.

Pan Green voters on Taiwan, like Ku Klux Klan members in the US, are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, but even they are not that dim. They know perfectly well the Pan Blues and the Reds had nothing to do with the March 19 charade.

Even they are bright enough to realize that neither the Pan Blues nor the Reds would attempt to assassinate Chen Shui-bian the day before the election, when every poll showed Lien Chan leading by a generous margin, as much as 10%.

Even they are bright enough to realize that if the Pan Blues or Reds really wanted to assassinate Chen Shui-bian, they would do so only after election day, and only if Chen won, not if he lost.

Finally, even they are bright enough to realize that If the Pan Blues or Reds really tried to assassinate Chen Shui-bian, they would not have failed, they would have succeeded. Their candidate would not be squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace pretending to be the duly elected president, he would be a red stain on the pavement in Tainan.

Human Evidence, not Physical Evidence

Chen Shui-bian faked his own shooting.

We know this not because we can produce physical evidence such as a "smoking gun," in this case a literal "smoking gun." That evidence was long ago dropped into the Pacific Ocean or melted down in a blast furnace, making successful prosecution of the perpetrators well nigh impossible.

Even though the physical evidence made available to world famous forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee strongly supports the Pan Blue version of events, this case is not about the physical evidence. This case is about the human evidence, i.e., motivation.

When police detectives attempt to solve criminal cases they don't examine only the physical evidence, they watch the behavior of the prime suspects. Crimes are committed by human beings, not industrial robots. Human beings typically give themselves away by their behavior following the commission of a crime.

We know Chen Shui-bian faked his own shooting because Chen himself, Chen henchmen Chiu Yi-ren and Wu Nai-ren, and Chen's Democratic Progressive Party have conveniently provided citizens of the Republic of China with more than enough human evidence to determine who perpetrated the March 19 shooting and why.

At 3:15pm on March 19, shortly after the shooting ocurred, Secretary General of the Presidential Office Chiu Yi-ren held a press conference. Chiu appeared before TV cameras and told reporters:

"Zi dan zai zong tong shen shang," meaning "The bullet is (in/on) the president's body."

Chiu repeated his statement three times. The third time he said it, he could no longer suppress his triumphant glee. He smirked uncontrollably, almost breaking into audible laughter. Millions of television viewers on Taiwan witnessed Chiu's disgusting performance. They knew Chiu was jerking the public around somehow. Later that day, they learned just exactly how.

The bullet lodged next to Chen's spinal column, leaving his life hanging by a thread, was never "in" his body at all, it was "on" his body. The bullet had been miraculously trapped in the fabric of Chen's jacket, and merely appeared to be "in" Chen's body because hospital x-ray technicians were so incompetent they took the x-rays with Chen's jacket still on.

Or so Chen would have us believe.

Obviously even Bill Clinton, with his lawyerly "That depends on the meaning of the word 'is'," doesn't hold a candle to Chen regime spinmeister Chiu Yi-ren.

Police and Prosecutors - Actively Doing Nothing

The March 19, 2004 shooting took place six months ago. What have law enforcement officials under the thumb of the Chen regime been doing since then? Have they been investigating, arresting, prosecuting, convicting, and punishing those responsible?

They have not. As anyone who has been following "Bulletgate" knows, for six straight months law enforcement officials on Taiwan have been sitting on their collective ass, doing nothing. They haven't been passively doing nothing, they've been actively doing nothing.

They've been actively doing nothing because they know perfectly well Chen doesn't want this case solved. They know Chen doesn't want the culprits responsible for the March 19 shooting incident investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and punished, because Chen already knows who the culprits are.

The culprits are Chen himself, Chiu Yi-ren, Wu Nai-ren, Chi Mei Hospital owner Hsu Wen-long, and a handful of others in Chen's inner circle.

Law enforcement officials on Taiwan know unless they want to risk their careers or even lives the way idealistic New York Police Department detective Frank Serpico did in 1971, they had better "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

The Big Guilty Sign Around Chen's Neck

"You know, Ray, I'm talking about the gas chamber and you haven't even asked me what this is all about. You got a big guilty sign around your neck."
-- Detective Lieutenant Ed Exley, L.A. Confidential (1997, directed by Curtis Hanson, written by James Ellroy, Brian Helgeland)

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Chen genuinely doesn't know how the miraculously convenient grazing gunshot wound on his belly got there. Let's assume further that the DPP genuinely believes the KMT, the PFP and the CCP tried to murder their party's presidential candidate.

Wouldn't their natural and logical reaction be to vocally demand that the perpetrators be aggressively investigated, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and punished for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder?

Is that what their reaction has been?

Not on your life.

Chen has fallen silent, desperately trying to keep the topic out of the media spotlight. The DPP meanwhile, has been desperately trying to give their pre-election Big Lie a post-election spin. Having milked their scurrilous "KMT/PFP/CCP did it" accusation for everything it was worth prior to election day, they would now have the Taiwan public believe that "a crazed mainlander thug acting on his own" or "a triad head who stood to lose a bet" was responsible.

Chen and the DPP have been shredding the nation's highest laws for the past four years. They don't even bother to deny it. They're proud of it. They freely admit they intend to complete the process by 2006, and declare a "Republic of Taiwan" by 2008.

Yet when confronted with Pan Blue demands to establish an independent investigative body modeled on America's Warren Commission, and to empower it to bring those behind the shooting to justice, Chen and the DPP suddenly insist that to establish such a commission would "trample over the Republic of China Constitution" and "ride roughshod over the Rule of Law."

For five long months Chen and the DPP insisted that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the shooting of the president could be investigated only by the powerless Tainan District Attorney's Office, whose investigators couldn't even gain entry to Chi Mei Hospital the afternoon of the shooting.

Only when Chen saw that a Pan Blue democratic majority in the national legislature had the votes to overcome Pan Green stalling tactics and authorize a genuinely independent, multi-partisan truth commission, did Chen suddenly switch tactics.

Chen attempted to preempt the Pan Blue democratic majority's genuine truth commission with his own counterfeit "truth" commission, based on an executive order issued by Chen himself, headed up by a commissioner appointed by Chen himself, who would answer to Chen himself.

The fox, in short, would investigate the mystery of who broke into the henhouse and devoured all the chickens. Nixon would investigate Watergate. Reagan would investigate Iran-Contra. Clinton would investigate Whitewater. Bush Junior would investigate Halliburton.

Get out your dictionary and look up the word "chutzpah." If you don't see cross references to Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui, and Taiwan independence, complain to the editors.

By fighting tooth and nail to avoid investigating the shooting, and to prevent anybody else from investigating the shooting, Chen and his accomplices have made the Pan Blue camp's case for them.

To paraphrase Ed Exley in L.A. Confidential,

"You know, we're talking about exposing those responsible for shooting you, yet you and your supporters are fighting us every step of the way. You've got a big guilty sign around your neck."

See:
Taiwan at the Crossroads - Postscript - Important Developments on Taiwan in 2004


It's So Damned Obvious

It's so damned obvious, even elementary school children should be able to figure it out. If Pan Green leaders and supporters didn't know in their heart of hearts that Chen Shui-bian was guilty, guilty, guilty, why would both Pan Green leaders and supporters resist seeking the truth so vehemently?

The whole scenario is surreal, comical. We know the score. They know the score. We know they know the score. They know we know that they know the score. Yet they persist in maintaining a disingenuous collective pretense of innocence!

I often confide to opposition comrades that although I always had an extremely low opinion of the populist demagogues in the Pan Green parties, even I never imagined they would sink this low. As low as my opinion of them was, I nevertheless overestimated them. This surprised even me.

Leave aside for a moment the Taiwan independence Quislings' contempt for the Constitution of the Republic of China. Let's pretend for a moment they actually believe their sophistry about the ROC being an "externally imposed political authority."

What happened to their respect for morality and ethics? What happened to their respect for truth and honesty? Were these "externally imposed" values forced on them by the Two Chiangs as well?

The Taiwan independence Quislings' utter contempt for even the basic requirements of civilized human conduct once they usurped political power astonished even me.

Ironically, Taiwan independence fundamentalists, by selling out their own humanity for the sake of a political chimera, have discredited the Taiwan independence movement far more thoroughly than I could ever hope to.

See:
The Gollum and Chen Shui-bian

Chen: "So What? What Can You Do About It?"

"Watergate was all about establishing that even the highest officials are bound by the rules of law, even when they find those rules inconvenient."
-- Philip Lacovara, counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski

One of Chen Shui-bian's favorite expressions is a contemptuous taunt: "Ni neng na wo zhe me yang?" It means "What can you do about it?" as in "So what if I'm in the wrong? I've got you over a barrel. What can you do about it?"

Chen Shui-bian's attitude toward the democratic majority on Taiwan who voted for Lien/Soong but were cheated out of an electoral victory they won fair and square, can be summed up as:

"Everyone knows I staged the March 19 shooting. So what? What can you do about it? Everyone knows the Central Election Committee doctored the final results. So what? What can you do about it? Everyone knows Lien Chan should be sitting in the Presidential Palace, not me. So what? What can you do about it?"

Chen knows that in an economy hollowed out by 16 years of Pan Green misrule, patriotic, law-abiding, middle-class Republic of China citizens can spare only so much time out of their struggle for survival to engage in political protest. Eventually they will have no choice but to throw in the towel.

Chen knows that Taiwan's politically connected, financially flush Quisling nomenklatura, by contrast, can hold out indefinitely, living large off taxes wrung from the hide of these same law-abiding, patriotic, middle-class voters.

If you're wondering why the crowds protesting Taiwan's creeping dictatorship have shrunk to a pitiful few dozens, gathered nightly in front of KMT headquarters, this is the reason why.

Remember this sordid reality the next time you read the glowing references to Taiwan's "freedom and democracy" in the Taipei Times or the Washington Times.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Someone Else for President

Someone Else for President
Bevin Chu
August 17, 2004

Executive Summary: On November 2, 2004, American voters will decide whether George W. Bush gets four more years in the Oval Office or is replaced by Someone Else. Given our two-party duopoly, that Someone Else could only be John F. Kerry, or as he has been billing himself lately, "JFK." Which of the two candidates should Chinese Americans support? That depends on whether you believe in our so-called "Two Party System." I don't, so my answer is going to differ from other Chinese Americans', most of whom endorse mainstream political ideas and candidates.


Tweedledum and Tweedledee, from "Through the Looking-Glass," by Lewis Carrol

They were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other's neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had "DUM" embroidered on his collar, and the other "DEE." 'I suppose they've each got "TWEEDLE" round at the back of the collar,' she said to herself.

Tweedledee and Tweedledumber

I am a libertarian with a small "l," an unapologetic libertarian hardliner.

Democratic and Republican party supporters consider a vote cast for any candidate other than a Democrat or Republican a "wasted vote."

I don't. I consider a vote cast for either of the two major parties a wasted vote. Ralph Nader and the late George Wallace were right. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Neither the Democratic nor Republican party comes remotely close to advocating the America I have in mind. The America I have in mind doesn't inflict tyranny on its citizens. The America I have in mind defends hapless American citizens against ever more flagrant US government tyranny.

The Democratic and Republican parties aren't really two distinct political parties. They're more like the liberal and conservative wings of America's Demopublican (or Republicratic) One Party System.

The "choice" they offer the American public doesn't amount to a real choice. The candidates they foist on the American public every four years are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Or perhaps given Dubya's historic low IQ for an American chief executive, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

Besides, as the old joke goes, "No matter whom you vote for, the government always gets elected. That is the real problem, and it is not the least bit funny.

Having said all that, I would agree that in the critical area of foreign policy Bush is the greater of two evils, and Kerry the lesser. So, yes, I will probably be a little less unhappy if on November 2 Kerry edges out Bush.

King George II: The Greater of Two Evils

Soon after King George II ascended to the throne he swore he would "Do whatever it took [sic] to defend Taiwan

This Bushism, translated into plain English, means the Bush II regime would resort to any means, however despicable, to undermine China's political sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Bush II administration foreign policy is based on the demonstrably false premise that civilizational progress is a social Darwinist zero-sum game in which one nation's gain is another nation's loss.

The Neocon neoimperialists responsible for Washington's international policy insist that for America to win, everyone else must lose, that America can remain rich and strong only as long as other nations remain poor and weak. Correction: as long as other nations can be kept poor and weak.

China's restoration to her historic status as a peaceful economic superpower, in particular, must be "nipped in the bud." China must be prevented from making the critical transition from a pre-industrial to a post-industrial nation, and any pretext however flimsy, is perfectly acceptable. The most shopworn and dishonest of these pretexts is of course, "defending Taiwan's democracy."

The 9-11 catastrophe and Iraq War II forced Dubya to modify his paranoid stance against China, ever so briefly.

Since Chen's fraudulent "re-election," however, Dubya has reverted to form as the capo di tutti capi of the most virulently crypto-racist, anti-Chinese criminal enterprise in modern memory.

Irish Americans, Jewish Americans, and Chinese Americans

Are Chinese Americans right to be concerned about Bush II administration hostility toward China?

Yes they are.

Are Chinese Americans being disloyal to America if they concern themselves with the well-being of China?

No they aren't.

Not unless Irish Americans are disloyal to America for concerning themselves with the well-being of Ireland.

Not unless Jewish Americans are disloyal to America for concerning themselves with the well-being of Israel.

Among those most concerned about the well-being of Israel are Bush II regime Neocons of Jewish descent. If they are not disloyal to America for concerning themselves with the well-being of Israel, then Chinese Americans are not disloyal to America for concerning themselves with the well-being of China.

In the Line of Fire

James Madison, father of the Constitution, said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Recent US history shows that every time unprincipled politicians demonize China, Americans of Chinese descent suffer. The term "unprincipled politicians" is probably a redundancy.

Lee Wen-ho is the most prominent example, but all Americans of Chinese descent are at risk.

During the EP-3 spyplane incident in Hainan Island, a white supremacist National Review Online columnist and numerous white supremacist radio talk show hosts demanded that Chinese Americans - not citizens of the PRC mind you, but American citizens of Chinese descent - be rounded up and herded into Manzanar-style concentration camps.

Are Americans of Chinese descent within their rights to be concerned about virulent Bush II administration animosity toward China?

You're damned right they are.

JFK II: The Lesser of Two Evils?

George W. Bush, true to Chickenhawk form, avoided fighting in the Vietnam War even as he demanded that the Vietnam War be fought. Bush wrangled himself a position in the Texas Air National Guard where he defended the Gulf coast of Texas against the looming threat of an amphibious invasion by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

Three decades later, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, now president Bush emerged from his Saddamite hardened bunker in Nebraska long enough to impersonate Tom Cruise in a scripted "Top Gun" photo op.


New York Post: TOP GUN


Mission Accomplished!

John F. Kerry, by contrast, fought in the Vietnam War even as he fought against the Vietnam War. JFK II earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam.

Even if it turns out that the allegations in the anti-Kerry expose "Unfit for Command" are true, JFK II remains less unfit for command than King George II. Combat veteran Kerry, unlike Chickenhawk Bush, actually fought in a a real war. Combat veteran Kerry, unlike Chickenhawk Bush, was actually wounded by real shrapnel. Combat veteran Kerry has to be more aware than Chickenhawk Bush of the potential consequences of yet another misguided Asian military adventure.

Will all this be reflected in Kerry's foreign policy, specifically Kerry's China policy?

I certainly hope so.

The Kerry election committee and the Democratic Party have specifically omitted any mention of the Taiwan Relations Act from their party platform.

Put a check mark in the Kerry column.

Kerry even floated a trial balloon about urging Taiwan to accept Deng Xiaoping's long-standing offer of One Country, Two Systems.

Put another check mark in the Kerry column. Then remove it immediately because this eminently reasonable proposal was timidly and hastily withdrawn.

Would a Kerry administration feel vulnerable to McCarthyite charges of being "soft on Communism?" Would such an administration overcompensate by being even tougher on China?

Hard to say. It wouldn't be the first time it happened. Remember Harry Truman?

Someone Else For President

Will I vote for Kerry?

No, I won't.

I'm not even sure I will cast my usual quadrennial "wasted" vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. That's how fed up I am with the existing political paradigm.

I will not give JFK II, the lesser of two evils, my endorsement by voting for him. In the event President Kerry shamelessly betrays Candidate Kerry's solemn campaign promises once he gets into office, I don't want to wind up banging my head against the wall chastising myself for being "Stupid, stupid, stupid... "

After all, we haven't forgotten Dubya's oh so folksy, oh so heartfelt, oh so sincere "The United States Must Be Humble" speech already, have we?

I know I haven't.

The bottom line is I simply can't bring myself to say, "Vote for Kerry." What I can say is, "Someone Else For President."

That may not be what many fellow Americans, including some Chinese Americans who enthusiastically support Kerry want to hear, but it'll have to do.

Friday, July 23, 2004

Backtalk! Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not

Backtalk! Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not
July 22, 2004

After reading my article "Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not," a reader who identified himself only as "US," wrote in to express his objections. Put simply, he objected to the fact that I objected to racism.

I feel compelled to make only one point in rebuttal, to ensure that my views are not misrepresented. I wish to stress that everything I advocate is predicated on individual free will. Needless to say "US" is seriously mistaken when he interprets my opposition to racism as Politically Correct top down social engineering.

I am not an advocate of social engineering. I am the farthest thing from an advocate of social engineering. I categorically oppose the initiation of force, no matter how "worthy" the cause. That is why I have always vehemently opposed "Affirmative Action," even though many of its advocates have good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I am a market anarchist who believes in voluntary, contractual solutions to all problems, social, economic, and political. Racists are fully within their legal rights to cling to their atavistic views, providing they refrain from initiating force against others. Racists may be morally repugnant, but not everything morally repugnant should be made illegal. Only the initiation of force should be illegal. It is sufficient that progressive minded individuals ostracize and boycott racists.

"US" obviously missed the entire point of my article, which was that scientifically speaking the concept of "race" is nonsense. There are no "races" today. There is only one race, Homo Sapiens. There is no such thing as "being of mixed race" because there is only one race on the planet that one can belong to. Everyone alive today is "racially pure," because everyones' parents were members of the species Homo Sapiens.

This of course does not mean that racism does not exist. Racism exists even though races don't exist, because racism is a false belief. A false belief is a false belief precisely because it has no basis in fact. Racists hate their fellow human beings based on the false belief that some of them "belong to another race." But the simple fact is, there is no other race for anyone to belong to.

Alert readers will probably be able to read between the lines of his letter and draw their own conclusions about where "US" is coming from. If I had to make a wild guess, I would say that the virulently racist, pseudo-scientific beliefs that "US" feels compelled to defend have cruelly victimized "US" in his own life, leaving him with little sense of self-worth apart from his part "Aryan" racial identity. "US" deserves our compassion, not our hatred.

-- Bevin Chu

See:
Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not

Here is what "US" wrote, verbatim, in toto. I have not altered his text in the slightest, except to format it as HTML:

I just read your writing about race. I'm asian and aryan. I'd like to say that maybe you are a little too pro-race mixing. Your comments about what the kkk (and the like) fear, is race mixing and therefore race mixing is the solution. With all due respect sir you are just as wrong as the kkk. You are speaking like a multi cult version of a race supremist.

The truth is the problem isn't race purity or lack thereof. The true issue is soveriegnty. As much as you have the soveriegn right to belive in and practice race mixing, by that same principal, those that prefer race purity have just a much right as you do.

The problem with 'racists' or racialists is that they arent being allowed to enjoy and excercise thier soveriegn right. The solution isnt FORCING them OR thier children by violence or trickery to breed in a way they don't see as being fit and proper for THIER people.

If you force or espouse the forcing of race mixing then you yourself are no better than the people who use the same tactics to enforce NON interacial breeding. So the issue of race isnt an issue of race at all, its an issue of soveriegnty.

Also, china has beautifull history, cultures, art etc etc.....if we force or trick ALL chinese to mix with non chinese........there won't be ANY chinese left. The day we no longer have asians due to war or disease or race mixing or whatever, is a sad day.

Multiculturalism is the death of all cultures. Diversity should be the cellibration of the similarities AND differences of different races/cultures. Right now in africa there are aproximately 100 different UNIQUE dialects that are dieing off. Forced multiculturalism is killing these extremely rare types of speach.

It would be nice if the world was full of robots with no differences or ambitions........NOT. The great part of being alive is being a part of such a fantastically varying reallity. I dont regret being Aryan, nor do I regret being Asian. I do wish however I could have been one or the other fully because lets face it..theres hardly enough time in ones life to master ONE cultural tradition let alone 2 or 3 or 4.

If someone were to ask me what i think i have gained by being "racially mixed", i'd have to answer "probably not much", meaning i'm just another man. If they were to ask what i think ive lost as a result of being racially mixed i'd have to say "culture". I have none. No relgious ties, no social ties, no traditions etc etc. So not only have i missed out on my beautifull Aryan culture, but also my equally beautifull Asian culture. AND because i was not full white or full asian i never fully fit in with either side, though both sides have always done much to accept me.

I listen to my Asian grandmother talk about her childhood. I listen to my Aryan granfather talk about his childhood. I see how they tried to blend cultures in to a culture of its own, and ultimately how this failed. WHY? Simple, there isnt enough time in a day to observe the traditions of your people when you are made up of more than one type of unique people with unique cultural identities.

My point is each race has its ups and downs but if we all breed into a coffee colored slant eyed caucasoid....what kind of pride in heritage, or what kind of culture would we have then? Probably none. A people with no sense of devotion or honor to anything. A people with no ties to thier past, no visions of the future. In my opinion sir that would make us uninteresting, uninventive, culturless, unmotivated, and quit frankly not worth writing history books about.

My intent was not to offend you. Everyone has a right to thier opinion (theres that soveriegnty again). My point was as a mixed person i can understand why not all people would want to be mixed, i also understand that as much as i have a right to live breath and die, so do pure breeds. As much as I have the right to choose who to associate with and how to raise my child, so does a nazi.

We should learn from eachother, work and play together, yes yes i agree. But if someone doesnt prefer the company of a certain race....do we really have the moral authority to criminalize and demonize them for thier difference? I mean do we kill lions because lions have a tendancy to eat lambs? Do we kill lambs because they have a tendancy to shy away from lions? Do we frankenstien them together (aka mix) to "solve" the "problem"?

Also...if the lions and lambs didnt live together....would there even be a problem? Furthermore, what man alive dead or yet to be born has the god like authority of knowledge to determine all of this? So you see in the end on every issue of morallity etc it really isnt a matter of right or wrong, its amtter of the same old thing......agenda.

Race mixers agenda, racial purist agenda, homosexual agenda, non homo agenda, femanist agenda, non femanist agenda, democrat, republican., left, right, middle, neo con...the list of human ism's is staggering. Ultimately though we are all a bunch of dumb monkeys in an amazing exisistance fighting for domination of and preservation of the agendas of ourselves as individuals and sometimes as groups aka tribes aka races aka etcetc.

We should all fight the good fight but we should never kid ourselves or our 'peoples' about the reallity of the agenda. Thanks for the interesting read.

-- "US"

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not

Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not
Bevin Chu
July 21, 2004

Executive Summary: Race is an illusion, racism is not. Race is an illusion because all hominid species besides Homo sapiens died out 30,000 years ago. Therefore every human being alive today belongs to the same race. Racism unfortunately, is all too real, because racism lingers in the hearts of men.


A Man of the African Race. Standing behind him, author Spencer Wells, another Man of the African Race

"Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin. "
-- Spencer Wells, Population Geneticist

Out of Africa

Spencer Wells is a disciple of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, famed pioneer of "genetic geography." In 2002 Wells produced a two-hour National Geographic documentary entitled "The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey," in which he demolished the myth of race. Only 60,000 years or 2,000 generations ago, the entire human race consisted of 10,000 black Africans living in central east Africa. Everyone alive today is descended from those individuals. This understanding of man's origin is known as "Out of Africa," and has been confirmed by the scientific evidence.


Atlas of the Human Journey - The Genographic Project

See:
The Genographic Project - Human Migration, Population Genetics, Maps, DNA

Multiregional Continuity

The competing alternative to "Out of Africa" is "Multiregional Continuity." Multiregional Continuity, it must be noted, offers cold comfort to white supremacists. Multiregionalists agree that we are all Africans. Multiregionalists merely believe that man migrated out of Africa one million years ago in the form of Homo erectus, rather than 60,000 years ago in the form of Homo sapiens. Either way, the human race is still the African race, and we are still all Africans under the skin.

Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not

Races don't exist; they cannot be scientifically defined. [Cavalli-Sforza's] stance on race has drawn vicious attacks from white supremacists, but its scientific logic, echoed by most in his field, is difficult to rebut. People tend to fixate on external differences -- skin color, facial features, hair texture -- when in fact these are malleable characteristics that evolve relatively swiftly.
-- Mitchell Leslie, The History of Everyone and Everything, Stanford Magazine

"I know perfectly well that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. As a politician I need an idea which enables the order which has hitherto existed on a historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new order enforced and given an intellectual basis. And for this purpose the idea of race serves me well."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in John Toland's biography "Adolf Hitler"


Nelson Mandela and Charlize Theron

What do I mean when I say that race is an Illusion? I mean that the lingering perception among non-scientists that Nelson Mandela belongs to one race, while Charlize Theron belongs to another race, is scientifically incorrect.

Modern biology classifies all living organisms according to the Linnaeus system of taxonomy we first encountered in high school:

Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species

Every human being alive today belongs to the Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primata, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Sapiens.

Every human being alive today is a member of the same species. That species is Homo sapiens. There is no other hominid species to which one can belong.

For the record, this was not always the case. At one time earth was populated by more than one race. The extinction of Neanderthal man, aka Homo neanderthalensis, changed all that.

Nelson Mandela, as the entire world knows, is African.

But so is Charlize Theron.

I don't mean by nationality. I don't mean merely that Charlize Theron is a South African citizen who holds a South African passport.

I mean genetically. I mean that Charlize Theron's genetic roots go back to Africa, just like Nelson Mandela's. The only difference is Nelson Mandela's ancestors remained in Africa, while Charlize Theron's left Africa 30,000 years ago and settled in western Europe.

The same is true of me. As anyone surfing this website knows, I am Chinese. I therefore am the descendant of black Africans who left Africa 35,000 years ago and settled in eastern Asia.

Those who harbor irrational prejudice toward their fellow human beings in the belief they are "members of another race" are acting out of scientific ignorance. Racists may believe they are directing their hatred at "members of another race," but they aren't. There is no "other race" to direct their hatred at. The racists therefore are directing their hatred at members of their own race.

Ku Klux Klansmen and Neo-Nazis who demean fellow human beings with the contemptuous epithet, "niggers," are themselves the descendants of "niggers." Hell, they are "niggers." They are, in a kind of delicious irony, demeaning themselves.

One is tempted to joke that modern day racists were born too late. Thirty thousand years ago, racists would have had a biological pretext for their racial hatred. Neanderthals were indeed a separate species, i.e., "another race."

Please note that I said racists would have had a pretext for their hatred. I did not say they would have had any justification.

Taiwan Independence Fascism and Ethnic Cleansing


Jet Li, a Man of the African Race, and the late Aliyah, a Woman of the African Race
Romeo Must Die (2000, directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak, written by Mitchell Kapner, Eric Bernt)

These findings of modern science, predictably, have so-called "scientific racists'" panties in a bunch. Websites such as Peter Brimelow's VDARE and Jared Taylor's American Renaissance have posted long-winded, self-contradictory rants purporting to "refute" Cavalli-Sforza and Wells.

Unfortunately for these bush league bigots, their "refutations" are in vain. As the quotation from Hitler illustrates, racist demagogues far more charismatic and persuasive than Brimelow and Taylor have already given away the game. Race, as der Furhrer himself admitted in a rare moment of candour, is a political, not scientific construct. Belated efforts by Brimelow and Taylor to apply a scientific gloss to their ugly bigotry are a day late and a dollar short.

That, alas, is not the end of the story.

The sad fact remains that appeals to "racial identity" work. They work because they pander to man's basest, most atavistic instincts.

That was why Adolph Hitler appealed to a fictitious, concocted, ahistorical "Aryan" racial identity.

That is why Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Annette Lu appeal to a fictitious, concocted, ahistorical "Taiwanese" racial identity, and why their appeals have become shriller and more blatant since Chen and Lu's so-called "reelection" on 3/20/2004.

Annette Lu is the Taiwan independence movement's enfant terrible. Lu is notorious for saying out loud what other members of the Taiwan independence nomenklatura are thinking but don't have the guts to make explicit.

Lu recently scapegoated Taiwan's Aborigines, blaming them for overdevelopment, deforestation, soil erosion, and flooding in Taiwan's central mountain range. Aboriginal victims of Tropical Storm Mindulle, Lu declared, deserved no sympathy. They should be shipped off to Central and South America for damaging Taiwan's ecology.

Annette Lu is not the first Taiwan independence leader to play the race card. That distinction belongs to Lee Teng-hui. During the 90s, Lee began suggesting that "mainlanders," so-called, be expelled from Taiwan and sent back to "China," the Taiwan independence Quislings' idiosyncratic term for mainland China.

Annette Lu however, has upped the ante. Lu has recommended that Aborigines be relocated en masse to Central and South America, leaving the island in the hands of those whom Taiwan independence fascists designate as real "Taiwanese," i.e., themselves.

Does the term "ethnic cleansing" ring a bell? It should. It describes perfectly what Lu and her fellow Taiwan independence fascists have in mind for anyone not one of them.

Race: The Final Frontier

"What is race? It is a biologically meaningless category. It is a cultural term that Americans use to describe what a person's ancestry is. But biologically the human species does not have categories. It just has variations as one travels around the world.''
-- Jefferson Fish, psychologist, St. John's University, New York

"Effectively, we're all cousins separated by, at most, a couple of thousand generations. So the next time you're sitting in traffic... try to remember that the driver in front is one of the family."
-- Spencer Wells, Population Geneticist


Frank Gorshin as Bele, and Lou Antonio as Lokai

Star Trek - The Original Series, Episode 70: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (1969, created by Gene Roddenberry )

Synopsis: Bele and Lokai, alien humanoids from the planet Cheron, are mortal enemies. Their hatred for each other leaves Captain Kirk bewildered. Bele and Lokai, after all, look the same. Each is black on one side and white on the other. What reason, Kirk asks, could they have to hate each other? An indignant Bele snarls: "Are you blind? We're nothing alike! I'm black on my right side and white on my left side. He's white on his right side and black on his left side!" When the Starship Enterprise arrives at Cheron, they discover a lifeless planet, annihilated by racial armageddon. Bele and Lokai however have learned nothing. They beam down to Cheron, fighting each other to the death.

Heavy-handed? Preachy? Didactic?

Perhaps. But if any morality tale ever deserved to be told, loudly and repeatedly, this is it.

Consider the following horrific crimes committed long after that Star Trek episode first aired in 1969.

On December 7, 1993, black racist Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island Rail Road commuter train, drew his 9mm semi-automatic pistol and began shooting white and Asian passengers. By the time three male passengers managed to tackle him, Ferguson had shot 25 people, killing six and seriously wounding 19.

On June 7, 1998, white racists Lawrence Russell Brewer, John William King, and Shawn Allen Berry chained black hitchhiker James Byrd Jr. to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him three miles down a rural Jasper, Texas dirt road. By the time their truck rolled to a halt, Byrd's head and one arm had been torn from his body.

The Star Trek episode "Let This Be Your Final Battlefield" was set in Stardate: 5730.2. Let us pray that when Stardate 5730.2 eventually rolls around, the human race is no longer behaving like Bele and Lokai, or Ferguson, Brewer, King, and Berry.

Thursday, July 01, 2004

Neocons and the Forgotten Lesson of Vietnam

Neocons and the Forgotten Lesson of Vietnam
Bevin Chu
June 30, 2004

Executive Summary: The Christian Science Monitor has posted a highly informative introduction to neoconservativism at its website. Included is a 10 question Neocon Quiz that lets readers determine whether they are neoconservatives. Question 2 asks whether the US was right to intervene in Vietnam. Question 3 asks whether the US should intervene in China. Quite inexplicably, the multiple choice answers suggested for China differ dramatically from the multiple choice answers for Vietnam. This discrepancy raises a disturbing question. Have Americans already forgotten the lesson of Vietnam?

Neocon Quiz Question 2

The US campaign in Vietnam was...

[ ] A disaster. What threat did Vietnam pose to American security? More than 50,000 US troops died in support of a theory about "dominoes."

[ ] A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally bankrupt.

[ ] A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war.

[ ] A hard-won victory. US forces paid a high - but necessary - price to contain Communism in Southeast Asia.

Neocon Quiz Question 3

What type of relationship should the US form with China?

[ ] The US must hedge China's rise to great-power status. The policy of preemption includes China, and US military leaders must strategically contain China's armed forces, while US policymakers maintain America's economic preeminence. Above all else, China must not be encouraged to think it can challenge America's superpower status.

[ ] China's bullying - of Tibet, Falun Gong, and Taiwan - is atrocious. America's "normalization" of trade with China has allowed it to continue its human rights abuses, while costing countless American jobs. The US must not sacrifice its moral high ground at the altar of trade.

[ ] China presents great potential dangers - and rewards - to American interests in the 21st century. While the US must affirm China's progressive steps and opening economy, it cannot ignore its repressive human rights behavior, trade violations, and bullying of Taiwan. Ultimately, opening China to American goods and services spreads American values that will influence China for the better.

[ ] The US should neither appease nor aggravate China. China is a bellicose regional power and its human-rights record is appalling. But it doesn't threaten US interests. The US must stop giving China preferential trade treatment and do more to protect American jobs, but it needn't contain or confront China.

See:
Empire builders, Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power, Neocon quiz - Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out

Vietnam Redux

"We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
-- Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense to JFK and LBJ and chief architect of the Vietnam War

I assume you noticed the discrepancy between the two sets of multiple choice answers?

I assume the discrepancy made as little sense to you as it did to me?

Three of the four multiple choice answers for Vietnam rightly characterized US intervention in Vietnam as an unmitigated catastrophe, as a "disaster," a "failure," or a "quagmire."

Three of the four multiple choice answers for China, on the other hand, characterized potentially apocalyptic US military coercion of mainland China as Doing the Right Thing, as "strategic," or "moral," or an "influence for the better."

Even the one multiple choice answer that explicitly rejected military intervention against mainland China, the one least Sinophobic, characterized China as "bellicose" and maintained that China's "human rights record is appalling."

The obvious question is: "Why?"

When Will They Ever Learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
-- Pete Seeger, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone"

Why did the answers suggested for China differ so radically from the answers suggested for Vietnam?

Two possibilities come to mind.

One, the editors of the Christian Science Monitor who formulated the quiz know that neocons have forgotten the lesson of Vietnam and are testing for it.

Two, the editors of the Christian Science Monitor have themselves forgotten the lesson of Vietnam. Both they and the neocon chickenhawks in charge of Bush administration China policy are deluded enough to believe "That was then, this is now," and therefore "This time, it's different."

But is it different? Or is it deja vu all over again?

In 1975, after a decade long struggle, Vietnam defeated America's vaunted military machine, albeit at an appalling cost in Vietnamese lives. Four years later, in 1979, mainland China, in a bloody but short and decisive campaign, defeated Vietnam. In other words, mainland China defeated the nation that defeated the US.

Vietnam never possessed intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching America's population centers. Mainland China, which to its credit has forsworn the first use of nuclear weapons, possesses a second strike deterrent capability. Vietnam's current population numbers a "mere" 82 million. Mainland China's population numbers 1.3 billion.

If the US campaign against Vietnam proved to be a "disaster/failure/quagmire," why wouldn't a US campaign against a far larger, far better armed China be a far worse "disaster/failure/quagmire?"

Wouldn't any US strategic planner in his right mind be more "prudent" about bullying China? Wouldn't he, or she -- not forgetting Condi Rice -- think twice before backing China into a corner, forcing it to defend its territorial integrity?

What threat does a free-market China eager to engage in peaceful trade with America pose to American security? How many US troops will die in support of a theory about a nonexistent "China Threat?" Why isn't the neocon objective of "preventive" military aggression against China "strategically and morally bankrupt?"

Will Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reenact every mistake of his predecessor Robert McNamara? Will Rumsfeld confess, 30 years from today, that "We of the Bush II administration who participated in the decisions on China acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong."

As a perennial optimist, I prefer to see a glass half full. Dubya's obsessive search for monsters to destroy unfortunately, makes it impossible to see anything but a glass completely empty. The neocon inmates in charge of the Bush II foreign policy asylum have forgotten the lesson of Vietnam, assuming they ever understood it in the first place.

For the record, the lesson of Vietnam was this: Unless a foreign nation invades your territory and murders your citizens, leave it alone!

Neocon imperialists consider such a severely constrained foreign policy unthinkable, even outrageous. That's because Neocon advocates of Pax Americana, unlike America's Founding Fathers, have never understood traditional American values, specifically the timeless and enduring value of political noninterference combined with economic engagement.

Speak of the Devil

"Pile on the brown man's burden, compel him to be free;
Let all your manifestoes reek with philanthropy.
And if with heathen folly he dares your will dispute,
Then, in the name of freedom, don't hesitate to shoot."
-- "The Brown Man's Burden" by Henry Labouchere, February 25, 1899 a satirical response to the publication of Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden" in McClure's Magazine

"Only great conceit could inspire a dream of armed world hegemony. The ideology of benevolent American empire and global democracy dresses up a voracious appetite for power. It signifies the ascent to power of a new kind of American, one profoundly at odds with that older type who aspired to modesty and self-restraint."
-- Claes Ryn, Professor of Political Science, Catholic University

No sooner did I post this op ed piece, than I came across this chilling news report, confirming my worst fears:

US plans huge show of force in Pacific, by Ching Cheong
The Straits Times Interactive, June 30, 2004
Seven aircraft carriers to move within striking distance of China; Taiwan forces slated to join in drill

HONG KONG - The United States is planning a massive show of force in the Pacific Ocean near China to register a point with Beijing. In an exercise codenamed Operation Summer Pulse 04, it is expected to arrange for an unprecedented seven aircraft carrier strike groups (CSGs) to rendezvous in waters a safe distance away from the Chinese coastline - but still within striking distance - after mid-July.

This will be the first time in US naval history that it sends seven of its 12 CSGs to just one region. Clearly, given Beijing's repeated warning that it will use force, as a last resort and whatever the cost, to stop Taiwanese independence, the US feels it needs to send Beijing a message.

The US usually despatches one CSG to a trouble spot as a reminder of its presence. It did so several times in the past when tension was high in the Taiwan Strait. It sends two to indicate serious concern, as was the case when China test-fired missiles over the strait in 1996. In a combat situation, it deploys three to four, which was what it did in the Gulf War in the early 1990s and the recent Iraqi war. But never before has it sent in peace time seven CSGs to the same theatre.

The implications for China are grave. This means that if China has to wage war over Taiwan, it has to be able to land and seize control of the island within the first 30 days. Otherwise, under the FRP, six CSGs may well arrive to join in the battle.

"All this leaves China with no choice but to start and end the war with lightning speed" said a Chinese military source.

Politically, Summer Pulse is likely to be seen by many Chinese as naked intimidation.

"This is gunboat diplomacy in the 21st century," the source remarked, adding that it would remind the Chinese people of their century-long deep humiliation by Western powers - and put Sino-US relations at peril.

Just When You Thought It was Safe to Come Out of the Fallout Shelter

"After the Soviets, who I thought were a real threat, collapsed, I expected a much greater demobilization, a pullback of American troops, a real peace dividend, a re-orienting of federal expenditures to domestic needs. Instead, our government turned at once to find a replacement enemy: China, drugs, terrorism, instability. Anything to justify this huge apparatus of the Cold War structure."
-- Chalmers Johnson, LA Weekly - Dissing the Republic To Save It

Just when you thought you were being overly pessimistic, just when you decided "Even Dubya isn't that stupid," you come across a bombshell like Summer Pulse and wonder "Who's advising George W. Bush on China? General Jack D. Ripper?"

The Bush II administration alas, has no shortage of latter day Jack D. Rippers. To see who they are and how they dictate US policy, see the pages below.

See:
Empire builders, Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power, Key Figures
Spheres of influence, Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents, Top neocon think tanks