Friday, April 30, 2004

Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act

Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act
Bevin Chu
April 29, 2004

US Vice-president Dick Cheney recently warned PRC President Hu Jintao that the Taiwan Relations Act, or TRA, "legally obligated" the US government to intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan in the event it was attacked.

In fact the TRA does not "obligate" the US government to intervene militarily in the defense of Taiwan, legally or otherwise. The TRA merely stipulates that the US government shall sell American weapons to Taiwan, and only defensive weaponry at that.

Cheney was either ignorant of the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, or he was merely pretending to be. I'm not sure which is worse. Perhaps the TRA is one of Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns." More likely the TRA is a cautionary tale about the omnipresent hazard of "mission creep."

Compelling Reasons to Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act

Considering how the Taiwan Relations Act has been so loosely interpreted and recklessly applied, congress should scrap it as soon as humanly possible, for a multitude of compelling reasons.

The TRA is an obsolete relic of the Cold War, irrelevant to America's national security in a post-Communist world. That's one compelling reason to scrap the TRA.

The TRA is a blank check made out to Taiwan independence extremists, signed in advance with American GIs' blood, to be cashed not at the discretion of American president George W. Bush, but at the whim of a foreign dictator named Chen Shui-bian. That's another compelling reason to scrap the TRA.

The TRA is not "defending democracy," but propping up a Quisling dictatorship unable to command the loyalty of the ROC's deeply patriotic military personnel. That's yet another compelling reason to scrap the TRA.

If Taiwan ever was a bona fide democracy - and that is debatable - it isn't one today. America's indolent lapdog media is in the habit of characterizing Taiwan's cronyist dictatorship as a "lively / thriving / vibrant democracy." Well Taiwan's "democracy" is lively, thriving, and vibrant no more.

As Pan Blue signs protesting the fraudulent March 20 presidential election correctly declared, "Democracy is Dead" on Taiwan. What 23 million Chinese citizens on Taiwan live under today is a quasi-fascist dictatorship, one that is becoming less quasi and more fascist with each passing week.

Realizing in advance he was going to lose his bid for reelection by a humiliating margin, Chen Shui-bian staged a patently phony Wag the Dog "assassination attempt," then falsified the election results to make it appear as if he won. Chen, for all intents and purposes, staged a coup d'etat. In doing so, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura regressed Taiwan to the level of a Central American or Southeast Asian Banana Republic, and forfeited what meager claim it might once have had to moral and political legitimacy.

To give you a sense of how little legitimacy the pro Taiwan independence Chen regime enjoys, Chen has ordered all ROC Air Force F-16 and Mirage fighters grounded, indefinitely. Despite the very real possibility that the PLA Air Force could attack the island at any moment, no weapons of any kind may be loaded aboard ROC military aircraft until further notice.

Why would Chen hand down such a bizarre and incomprehensible order?

Because the traitorous Chen is terrified of what patriotic ROC Air Force pilots might do to him - shoot down Chen's Air Force One with him onboard, or bomb or strafe the Presidential Palace on Inauguration Day, then defect to the mainland with costly and irreplaceable combat aircraft.

Is such a contemptible regime worth even one American GI's life? If so, tell me his name, and I will notify his next of kin, in advance.

The photo that cost Tami Silicio her job

The Real Reason to Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act

The above reasons for scrapping the Taiwan Relations Act are perfectly sound and powerfully compelling. Anyone of them alone is enough to justify scrapping the TRA, ASAP.

The real reason for scrapping the TRA however, is far simpler and even more fundamental.

The real reason is the TRA is a legal and logical absurdity.

Benevolent Global Hegemonists on the Neanderthal right and Humanitarian Interventionists on the bleeding heart left routinely insist that "The TRA obligates America by law to defend Taiwan."

The obvious response to these New Imperialists, which everyone seems to have missed, is "Who gave you the right to obligate yourself in the first place?"

The Taiwan Relations Act is an Affront to National Sovereignty


Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs, is regarded in Chicano folklore as an area that includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. Spencer believes the aim [of "La Voz de Aztlan," the Voice of Aztlan] is to create a sovereign state, "Republica del Norte," the Republic of the North, that would combine the American Southwest with the northern Mexican states and eventually merge with Mexico.

-- Art Moore,

The Taiwan Relations Act, United States Code Title 22 Chapter 48, enacted 10 April 1979, was an Act of Congress. It is domestic US law. It is not an international treaty.

Does domestic American legislation, enacted unilaterally by the US government without the consent of the Chinese people, legitimize US abetting of ethnic secessionists undermining China's territorial integrity?

In case the answer isn't immediately obvious, let me turn the question around.

Would domestic Chinese legislation, enacted unilaterally by the PRC government without the consent of the American people, legitimize PRC abetting of ethnic secessionists undermining America's territorial integrity?

Republica del Norte

How for example, would the US government feel about a PRC "Aztlan Relations Act?" Suppose the PRC "obligated" itself to intervene if the US government used force to prevent "Republica del Norte" independence? How would Americans react to PRC Vice-president Zeng Qinghong warning George W. Bush that the Aztlan Relations Act "legally obligated" the PRC government to intervene militarily on behalf of Chicano secessionists in the event they were attacked?

Is the answer clearer now?

If so, why wasn't it clear earlier?

When was the Golden Rule repealed?

Do ordinary Americans have any clue as to how angry the US government's abetting of Taiwan independence makes 1.3 billion patriotic Chinese on the Chinese mainland, 6 million more in Hong Kong, not to mention a democratic majority on Taiwan?

Hu Jintao could have told Dick Cheney,

You had no right to "obligate" yourself to meddle in another nation's internal affairs. You "obligated" yourself. Now "unobligate" yourself. End of "obligation."

He however, was too much of a gentleman.

The Real China Threat is China Threat Theorists
China to US: No Violence Against Confederacy
The Hispanic Challenge, by Samuel P. Huntington

Be Careful What You Ask For. You Might Just Get It

Independence: The state or condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control. Political independence is the attribute of a nation or state which is entirely autonomous, and not subject to the government, control, or dictation of any exterior power.
-- Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

Chen Shui-bian and fellow Quisling Lee Teng-hui shrilly insist that "Taiwan is an independent nation." Independent means not dependent. An independent nation is a nation that is not dependent on other nations. An independent nation does not depend on another nation for its military defense. A political entity that depends on another nation for its military defense is not an independent nation. It is not a nation at all. It is a colony, dominion, mandate, possession, protectorate, satellite, or territory of another nation.

If the Taiwan independence nomenklatura genuinely wants the US government to treat Taiwan as an independent nation, they should act like an independent nation. They should stop clinging to America's apron strings, stop hiding behind America's skirts, stop being dependent on the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. They should assume responsibility for their own independent national defense.

If Taiwan independence fellow travelers genuinely consider Taiwan an independent nation, they should treat Taiwan as an independent nation. They should stop treating Taiwan as if it were Guam or Puerto Rico. Taiwan is neither an American protectorate nor an American commonwealth.

Taiwan is part of China. China is a foreign nation. Taiwan is part of a foreign nation. If the US government ever had any plausible excuse to muscle itself in between Beijing and Taipei, it has no longer. Congress should scrap the legal and logical absurdity known as the Taiwan Relations Act, along with the Orwellian "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act," PDQ. Twenty-five years after its passage is much too late. Yesterday is none too soon.

Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute put it succinctly:

"Neither the earlier pro-Taiwan policy nor the latest pro-Beijing posture [advocated by George W. Bush] serves the best interests of the United States. It is not America's proper role to take a position on Taiwan's independence or other issues involving relations between Taipei and Beijing... U.S. leaders should make it clear that Taiwan must bear all of the risks entailed in whatever policies it adopts. In particular, Washington should state that it will not intervene if an armed conflict breaks out between Taiwan and mainland China."

You want independence? You got independence.

Sunday, April 18, 2004

Taiwan is not a Colony or Protectorate of the United States

Taiwan is not a Colony or Protectorate of the United States
Bevin Chu
April 17, 2004

Executive Summary: "Taiwan... is not a colony or protectorate of the United States. The United States should... restrain itself from overly interfering in Taiwan's internal affairs." Who said that? PRC President Hu Jintao? Former ROC Vice-president Lien Chan? Would you believe Koo Kuan-min, Taiwan independence elder and National Policy Advisor to Chen Shui-bian? The giveaway was the wording. A reunificationist would have said "China's internal affairs," not "Taiwan's internal affairs." Either way, the principle remains the same. The United States should not interfere in other nations' internal affairs.

Taiwan Independence Hardliners to US: Don't Interfere in Taiwan's Affairs

Taiwan independence elder Koo Kuan-min

Koo's full statement, issued to the media on Taiwan after meeting with Chen Shui-bian on April 13, was:

"The United States ought to review and revise the policy that has remained unchanged for more than 30 years despite much change in the political situation in Taiwan. Let us remind the United States that Taiwan is an independent, sovereign state and that it is not a colony or protectorate of the United States. The United States should exercise self-restraint and restrain itself from overly interfering in Taiwan's internal affairs."

In case you think Koo was an isolated case, think again.

Fellow Taiwan independence hardliner Wang To-far, chairman of the radical Taiwan Association of University Professors declared:

"Taiwan is not a state of the US, and the US can't prescribe what Taiwan should do. Taiwan should take care of its own national interests."

Chang Cheng-hsiu, fellow hardliner and member of the Examination Yuan, agreed:

"As Taiwan is not a state of the US or a province of China, Chen should craft his address with a view to affirming the country's sovereignty."

Chairman of World United Formosans for Independence Ng Chiau-tong, presidential advisor Chen Lung-chu, and DPP legislator Trong Chai, known as "Cai Gong Tou" or "Referendum Cai" for his decades long push for a referendum on Taiwan independence, all demanded that the US government change its One China policy and not "excessively interfere" with Taiwan's internal affairs.

So What's the Catch?

So what's the catch? Since when has the Taiwan independence leadership not wanted the US to "interfere" on behalf of Taiwan independence?

After all, isn't persuading Uncle Sammy to "interfere" on behalf of Taiwan independence the sole justification for the Taiwan Lobby? Isn't that the reason the Taiwan Lobby squanders a fortune in ROC taxpayer money? To bribe congress to pressure the White House to use American GIs as the Taiwan independence movement's mercenary army?

Of course it is.

Doesn't the Taiwan independence leadership still expect the US Seventh Fleet to steam to the Taiwan Straits?

Of course it does.

Don't Taiwan independence hardliners still expect American GIs to do the fighting and dying in their place?

Of course they do.

So what changed?

What Changed

What changed was Taiwan independence leaders' estimate of their bargaining position. Taiwan independence leaders have arrived at the conclusion they can ignore the US government when it forbids them to take the final, fateful steps toward Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence leaders have decided they can "shine them on."

What caused them to arrive at such a surprising conclusion?

Taiwan independence leaders believe they have the US government's number, in particular the Bush administration's number, therefore they can jerk the World's Only Remaining Superpower around like a puppet.

The string by which the Taiwan independence leadership reckons it can jerk the US Hegemon around like a puppet is Sinophobia, an innocuous sounding term for primitive, irrational animosity against China and the Chinese people, generally passed off as rational ideological opposition.

Chen Shui-bian and his fellow Taiwan independence hardliners have concluded that the Bush administration's Sinophobia makes it a "slave to its animosity." They have concluded they can deliberately provoke a shooting war with Beijing, and no matter how furious the US government might be with them, it will have no choice but to intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan independence because it is obsessed wth containing the "China Threat," slaying the Chinese dragon, stemming the "Yellow Peril."

It doesn't matter that Taiwan is small and America is big. It doesn't matter that Taiwan is weak and America is mighty. It doesn't matter that Taiwan is the tail, and America is the dog. What matters is the Taiwan tail can wag the American dog.

"Interfering" vs. "Overly Interfering"

Koo Kuan-min used the term "overly interfering." Ng Chiau-tong, Chen Lung-chu, and Trong Chai used the term "excessively interfering."

What's the difference between "interfering" and "overly interfering" or "excessively interfering?"

"Interfering" means the US will intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan independence when mainland China attempts to prevent Taiwan's illegal and unconstitutional secession from China. "Interfering" means the US Seventh Fleet will pull the Taiwan independence hardliners' chesnuts out of the fire. "Interfering" is acceptable to Taiwan independence hardliners. "Interfering" is welcome. "Interfering" is expected. "Interfering" is a US duty.

"Overly interfering" or "excessively interfering" on the other hand, means the US government demanding veto power over when and how Taiwan moves toward independence because American fighting men, not "Taiwanese," would return home in flag-draped aluminum caskets. "Overly interfering" is unacceptable to Taiwan independence leaders. "Overly interfering," as Taiwan independence leaders have made clear, is unwelcome and gauche presumption on the part of the US. Their attitude? US leaders should not embarrass themselves by forcing Taiwan independence leaders to remind them a second time.

Paying the Piper, Calling the Tune

"Taipei... is both playing with fire and becoming dangerously distant from its sole protector, the United States... The Bush Administration... has spoken out ever more bluntly in an effort to instill realism into Taipei... Mr. Chen has not only brushed these warnings aside, he has ensured that his partisan press ignores and distorts the Administration's message so that it is never heard or read by his followers. It is becoming clear that words alone may not be enough to convince the Taiwan authorities not to jeopardize the island's future and our own."
-- Former US Ambassador Charles W. Freeman, Jr.

The Taiwan independence leadership wants to be politically independent from China, yet militarily dependent on the US Department of Defense. It wants to be independent and dependent at the same time. It wants wants to have its cake and eat it too.

The Taiwan independence leadership despises the Chinese mainland's former credo of communism, or says it does. In fact, the Taiwan independence leadership believes in free lunches. In fact the Taiwan independence leadership fails to appreciate the Chinese mainland's current credo of capitalism. If it did, it would realize that "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" and that "He who pays the piper, calls the tune."

The US government conversely, needs to understand the full implications of that same truism. The flipside of "He who pays the piper, calls the tune" is "He who calls the tune, pays the piper." The US government insisted on calling the tune in Iraq. Now it is paying the piper, in blood.

Does the US government really want to pay the piper in Taiwan, the way it paid the piper in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and Iraq?

Take the Taiwan Independence Leadership at Its Word

How should the US government respond to the Taiwan independence leadership's newfound assertiveness and defiance?

The US government should take Taiwan independence leaders at their word. It should take Taiwan independence leaders' statements at face value. It should review and revise its three decade old China policy. It should cease treating Taiwan as a "colony or protectorate of the United States" or "a state of the US."

It should, in Koo Kuan-min's words, "exercise self-restraint and restrain itself from overly interfering in Taiwan's internal affairs."

It should, in Wang To-far's words, admit that the US government "can't prescribe what Taiwan should do" and acknowledge that "Taiwan should take care of its own national interests."

It should, in Chang Cheng-hsiu's words, begin "affirming the country's sovereignty."

The US government should, in CATO Institute Vice-president Ted Galen Carpenter's words,

"make it clear that Taiwan must incur all of the risks entailed in whatever policies it adopts. Specifically, Washington should inform Taipei that it will not become involved if an armed conflict erupts between Taiwan and the mainland over the issue of Taiwan's de facto independence."

After all, what is the flipside of "Taiwan is not a protectorate of the United States?"

Isn't it "The United States is not the protector or Taiwan?"

Saturday, April 10, 2004

Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part III

Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part III
The Most Successful Assassination Attempt in Modern History
Bevin Chu
April 09, 2004

Executive Summary: On March 19, 2004, the eve of election day, President Chen Shui-bian and Vice-president Annette Lu were traveling in a motorcade in the DPP stronghold of Tainan. Both Chen and Lu were standing in the rear of an open Jeep Wrangler, clinging to the rollbar. At 1:45 pm, the two candidates were allegedly subjected to a hail of semi-automatic pistol fire from the right shoulder of the roadway. Miraculously, the two candidates received exactly one gunshot wound each. No more, no less. More miraculously, the two candidates received only "flesh wounds," the kind suffered by lantern-jawed leading men in 50s Hollywood movies. Most miraculously of all, the two candidates, who were trailing by 10% in the polls, were "re-elected" by a 0.2% margin the following day, making this failed assassination attempt the most successful assassination attempt in recent memory.

Cui Bono?

The expression "Cui bono?" is Latin, and means "Who benefits," or more literally, "For whose benefit is it?"

Whenever a wealthy individual is found murdered, the first question homicide investigators ask is, "Who benefits?" Anyone who benefits from the victim's unnatural death is added to their suspect list. The main beneficiaries listed in the victim's Last Will and Testament are added to a special short list as the prime suspects.

Who benefits from the "assassination attempt" on Chen Shui-bian?

Chen Shui-bian, who else?

A Smoke Screen for Election Fraud

The "assassination attempt" unquestionably won Chen an undetermined number of sympathy votes. Sympathy votes however were probably not its primary purpose. They were merely a fringe benefit.

The primary purpose of the "assassination attempt" was to serve as a smoke screen for election fraud, allowing Chen to falsely attribute his unbelievable and implausible Reversal of Fortune to "sympathy votes" instead of creative accounting by the Central Election Committee.

The Timing was Too Perfect

The "assassination attempt" on Chen Shui-bian occurred on the afternoon before election day, just late enough to leave the opposition no time to react before the polls opened the next morning.

The "assassination attempt" occurred just late enough to avoid negatively impacting the day's stock market close, but just early enough to make the evening news.

The "assassination attempt" occurred just in time to force the opposition to cancel crucial election eve campaign activities, and to preclude media coverage of opposition campaign activities had they taken place anyway.

The afternoon of the "assassination attempt" pirate radio stations in southern Taiwan dedicated to Taiwan independence accused the KMT and PFP of collaborating with the CCP to "assassinate a Taiwanese president representing the Taiwanese people."

This accusation is so obtuse one despairs for democracy on Taiwan. As noted in Taiwan's Stolen Election, Parts I and II, Lien/Soong were way ahead in the polls. Would anybody in the Pan Blue camp be so stupid as to assassinate Chen/Lu on March 19, when Lien/Soong were leading by a margin of 10%?

Wouldn't such an accusation be more plausible if Chen/Lu had won, and an assassination attempt had been made on March 21? Who's kidding whom?

The Weapon was Too Crude

The weapon used in the "assassination attempt," according to local prosecutors, was a converted handgun replica, firing a handload with only one-third the normal powder charge.

Anyone with an IQ higher than a carrot need only ask himself the following questions.

Q: Doesn't the CCP have thousands of agents on Taiwan?
A: Taiwan independence Quislings and Chinese patriots agree. The CCP has thousands of agents on the island.

Q: Doesn't the CCP have the ability to smuggle vast quantities of small arms and explosives onto the island, including mint-condition, full-automatic assault rifles, machine pistols, RPGs, C4 and Semtex?
A: ROC authorities know only too well the CCP has the ability to provide a team of assassins with whatever weapons or explosives they might need to take out a local target.

Q: If the CCP wanted Chen Shui-bian dead on March 19, does anybody really believe he would he still be breathing two weeks later?
A: Chen Shui-bian would be rotting flecks of flesh splattered over a Tainan roadway. Flies would be nibbling on what little remained of his chubby body.

The Bullet was Too Weak and the Aim Too Low

Chinese-American forensics expert Henry C. Lee is the director of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Laboratory. Lee is a real life version of Gil Grissom, the character played by Wiliam Petersen in the runaway hit TV series, "CSI: Crime Scene Invesigation" (2000, created by Anthony Zuiker). Lee is known for his role in the high profile O.J. Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases.

Lee is currently investigating the March 19 Chen/Lu shooting incident. So far Lee has drawn two conclusions.

One, the wound was not self-inflicted, i.e., Chen Shui-bian did not shoot himself, as no powder burns were in evidence on Chen's clothes.

Two, the shooting was not an assassination attempt, as the ballistic characteristics of the bullet were too weak and the point of aim too low to kill.

In case that went by too fast: The shooting was NOT an assassination attempt.

Lee notes that "One type of speculation is that the Chinese Nationalist Party and the People First Party were behind the shooting." Lee rules this out "because an assassin would have aimed at the chest, heart or used a more powerful gun."

"In my experience, if it was a political assassination, a high-powered rifle would have been used. Even if the assassin opted for a handgun, it would be a high-powered one. If the aim was to kill, why not take it to the extreme?"

Tongue-in-cheek forensic analysis of Chen's "Wag the Dog" assassination attempt, posted on the Internet by local Taiwan wags

The Wounds were Too Light

Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu were both wounded, allegedly by a hail of pistol rounds fired amidst the swirling smoke and deafening cacaphony of noisy firecrackers, blaring loudspeakers, and cheering supporters. Yet neither candidate was killed. Neither candidate was permanently disabled. Neither candidate was seriously wounded. Neither candidate required hospitalization. Neither candidate ever lost consciousness. Neither candidate required more than emergency room outpatient treatment. Both were patched up and released from hospital custody in just one hour.

The day of the "assassination attempt" the Secret Service contingent guarding Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu was reduced [ ! ]. Several agents were sent back to Taipei, along with their weapons and ammunition.

Every day preceding the "assassination attempt" Chen and Lu wore Kevlar vests whenever they appeared in public. Every day following the "assassination attempt" Chen and Lu wore Kevlar vests whenever they appeared in public. Only on the day of the "assassination attempt" did Chen and Lu not wear Kevlar vests when they appeared in public.

The First Lady was Too Calm

The First Lady of the ROC is Wu Shu-chen. At no time following the "assassination attempt" did a tearful, overwrought Wu Shu-chen ever appear before the television cameras, demanding to know her husband's condition, wondering where was the bullet was lodged, or whether he would survive his gunshot wound or wounds.

Why not?

Because the First Lady was inside the loop. She knew in advance the "assassination attempt" was a monumental hoax.

Oddly enough, no one but my mother seems to have noticed this. Not the talking heads on the boob tube. Not the pundits in the print media. Not the spokesmen for the Pan Blue opposition.

My mother noticed it because she recently lost her husband, my father, to brain cancer, and has been tormented by his loss ever since. Wu Shu-chen's apparent indifference to her husband's fate disturbed my mother so much she marched into KMT Headquarters and gave KMT officials an earful. They could only nod their heads in agreement, wondering why such an obvious question never occurred to them.

The Location was Too Convenient

The "assassination attempt" occurred in Tainan, Chen Shui-bian's home town, where it would generate the most sympathy for Tainan's Native Son.

More importantly, Tainan is home to the Chi Mei Hospital. Chen's motorcade drove past the Tainan City Hospital, past the Hsiang-Tai Hospital, the one officially assigned to treat the president and vice-president in the event of a medical emergency, and arrived at the Chi Mei Hospital, five kilometers away.

The Chi Mei Hospital is owned and operated by notorious right-wing tycoon Hsu Wen-long. Hsu is a crony of former president Lee Teng-hui, a friend of neofascist Japanese political cartoonist Kobayashi Yoshinori, and a major financial backer of the Taiwan independence movement. Hsu claims that the Rape of Nanking "never happened," and that "comfort women" rounded up in Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines "eagerly volunteered" and considered their sexual slavery "a high honor."

Would someone like Hsu Wen-long have any qualms about ordering his hospital to participate in a "Wag the Dog" assassination hoax, when the "just cause" was Taiwan independence, and those being duped were "traitors to Taiwan" who advocated reunification with mainland China?

Investigators from the Tainan District Attorney's office who rushed to Chi Mei Hospital were prevented from entering by Chen's Secret Service agents. What were medical personnel inside doing that the DA's investigators couldn't be permitted to see?

Keep reading, and draw your own conclusions.

The Ninth Commandment, according to the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan

As part of his election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.

A furious Chen Yu-hao responded by appearing on television and revealing the ugly truth. Chen Shui-bian had eagerly pocketed a fortune in political contributions from Chen Yu-hao over the past decade.

When Chen Shui-bian tried to deny the charges, Chen Yu-hao revealed that ROC legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, a DPP "elder" with a reputation for honesty within DPP circles was an eyewitness who saw Chen Yu-hao hand First Lady Wu Shu-chen a bag full of cash.

Considering Shen was also Chen Shui-bian's campaign manager, Chen Yu-hao's revelation put Shen in a somewhat awkward position. Rather than lie, Shen went into hiding for the following week.

What happened next was like a scene out of a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick.

A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual truth did these supposedly 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."

Are you getting a sense of the moral character of the people involved in the Taiwan independence movement?

Chen Shui-bian, Repeat Offender

In 1985 Chen Shui-bian was running for Tainan County Commissioner. His three rivals took part in a public debate held at a local elementary school. Chen Shui-bian was a no show. Debate organizers called out his name three times. No response. They declared the debate officially over.

At that moment, Chen appeared, carried in on a stretcher. Chen's aides seized the still live microphone and handed it to Chen, who announced, "I was poisoned by agents of the KMT!"

As you can see, this was not the first time for Chen. Chen pulled this stunt before. Unfortunately the public forgot. Had they recalled Chen's record of shameless deceit, citizens of the Republic of China might have been able to preemptively expose Chen's "Wag the Dog" assassination attempt for what it was.

But then this is all Monday morning quarterbacking.

In the Line of Fire

Let's pretend for a moment we believe Chen Shui-bian when he insists that the assassination attempt was real, and that he more than anyone on the island wants to know who tried to assassinate him.

If that is the case, the president and vice-president could have been killed instantly.

If that is the case, the Secret Service team assigned to guard the two was guilty of gross incompetence.

Wouldn't you expect the officials and agents responsible for such a major screw-up to be reprimanded, reassigned, demoted, or forced to resign?

Is that what happened?

Would you believe the exact opposite?

A week after the "assassination attempt" the Secret Service agents who failed utterly to protect President Chen and Vice-president Lu, and allowed them to get shot, were promoted. Not only were they promoted, they were awarded a bonus of 3,000,000 NT, the first installment of more to come.

Only after opposition leaders pointed out this outrageous inconsistency did key Chen administration officials tender their resignations.

Is it any wonder local TV talkshow hosts joked that had any Secret Service agent taken a bullet for the president, the way Clint Eastwood did in Wolfgang Petersen's "In the Line of Fire," he would have been fired for dereliction of duty!

Elections as Usual during a State of Emergency

But what if Chen didn't fake the assassination attempt?

By now it should be obvious Chen staged his "assassination attempt." Chen did it, just as surely as OJ murdered Nicole. But just for argument's sake, let's suppose the assassination attempt wasn't a hoax.

Even assuming Chen didn't fake the assassination attempt, Chen nevertheless issued an illegal and unconstitutional Emergency Decree, mobilizing 300,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, MPs, and police officers.

Perhaps I should say "immobilizing" 300,000 military and police personnel. These citizens of the ROC were ordered to remain on duty all day election day, denying them their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Leaving to vote was inconceivable. Anyone caught abandoning his post would have been subjected to the harshest possible punishment under military rather than civilian law.

The Republic of China's military and police personnel are predominantly true blue KMT/NP/PFP voters. Their political loyalties are well-known to everyone on the island, Green and Blue alike. The Officer Corps in particular are deeply loyal to the Republic of China, to the ROC Constitution, to Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles, and consider Taiwan independence treason. Their 300,000 votes are 10 times the number of Chen's "official" winning margin.

Chen knows this better than anyone. That's why every time he speaks before ROC military personnel, he never fails to shout "Long live the Republic of China!" and "Long live the Three People's Principles!"

The fact that Chen issued his Emergency Decree without any legal basis is not merely sufficient grounds to nullify the election, it is sufficient grounds to demand his impeachment.

After all, if the country was indeed in a state of national emergency, why did Central Election Committee Chairman Huang Shih-cheng, who takes his marching orders from Chen, insist that everything was normal, therefore the election would take place as scheduled?

Aren't a "State of National Emergency" and "Elections as Usual" mutually contradictory propositions?


A week before the ROC Presidential Election, Koreans impeached Republic of Korea President Roh Moo-hyun. The charges were "illegal electioneering" and "incompetence."

Is that all?

Chen Shui-bian's flagrant lawlessness and gross incompetence make Roh Moo-hyun's offenses look like driving infractions. Were ROC citizens to hold Chen to the same high standards that ROK citizens held Roh, Chen would have been impeached a hundred times since he assumed office on May 20, 2000.

What ills Taiwan today is an advanced case of ROT, the remarkably apt acronym for "Republic of Taiwan." The cure for terminal ROT is a liberal dose of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law, in this case, from the good Doctor Sun Yat-sen, Founding Father of the Republic of China, the first constitutional republic in Asia.

Taiwanese Fascism and US Media Complicity

Several years ago I began characterizing Taiwan independence as a fascist political movement. Some readers probably thought I was exaggerating. Now however, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's "democratic" and "progressive" mask has been cast aside, and its fascist visage is clear for all to see.

Many US journalists see themselves as latter day Carl Bernsteins and Bob Woodwards. They flatter themselves. Few are interested in telling the truth about Taiwan. Most parrot the US government's simplistic catechism, "China bad, Taiwan good." The complex reality of a "China steadily improving, Taiwan rapidly degenerating" serves neither liberals who demand Humanitarian Intervention, nor neoconservatives who demand Benevolent Global Hegemony, so it is self-censored out of existence.

If these cheerleaders for "a growing sense of ethnic Taiwanese national identity" were genuine investigative journalists with moral consciences and historical memories, they would be denouncing this atavistic phenomenon for what it is, the rise of Taiwanese Fascism.

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Backtalk! Revering the Big Men

Backtalk! Revering the Big Men
April 03, 2004

From Kim Yongsan, regarding An American in China
April 03, 2004

As an Chinese in U.S. who have been fed up with the brainwashing of the mainstream media, I have been a devoted reader of your website. Your team bring a fresh breeze to the "media" and help people like me to make sense of the world we are living in. Justin's daily comment is a must read for me and Mr. Chu's pieces about Taiwan is super valuable for me.

However, I am disappointed and amazed by Sascha Matuszak's " An American in China" series. I am not offended by his critism of China, but my the shallowness of his pieces and the nasty attitude he displayed toward the people around him.

China is a big country, and all reasonable Chinese understand that we have our fair share of problems and we have our fair share of nasty people, too. Disclosing them to the public would do a good service to China and to the world.

However, knowing that there are plenty of decent foreigners in China, the kind of nasty freak like Sascha Matuszak is also a common sight in China. I personally have seen plenty of them, too. Just by reading his pieces, one could understand that he is treating the Chinese around him just like a biologist in a zoo. While manipulate the trusting Chinese around him by selling himself as a friend, he is making up stories about them, putting words into their mouthes and selling his trashes to the trusting public in the West who might not have the chance to visit China. He had done nothing to better the understanding of China to the Western public rather than repeating and reinforcing the cliches and prejudice about China.

This current piece about China " Revering the Big Men" is a laughable stock and do not worth refuting. Any sensable person with an reasonable of human complexity, one would understand that China is too complex to be reduced to his cartoonistic "laws" about China.

Reading such trashes about China in the main stream media would not surprise me anymore. But reading it as the only comment about China really disappointed and amazed me.

Bevin Chu replies:

Thank you for your generous praise. It is deeply appreciated.

I have been loath to openly criticize until now, but since you have thrown the ball to me, I must catch it by admitting I share your views. That is why I myself have not read the particular column you mentioned in quite some time.

I must confess you are not alone in your perceptions. I doubt that anyone has failed to detect the columnist's thinly-disguised contempt and hostility for China and the Chinese people. His animus against everything to do with China can hardly be missed, it is so obvious.

The central purpose of is to promote peace for America by discouraging foreign intervention. Past articles by columnists, particulary those by Justin Raimondo, have been eminently fair toward China. Most importantly, they have clearly discouraged foreign military intervention against China. I have openly praised them for that reason.

One has to wonder however, how are the views expressed by the particular columnist you mentioned discouraging foreign intervention? Are wild allegations that 1.3 billion Chinese feel some inordinate admiration for Hitler going to encourage Americans to oppose or demand "preemptive" or even "preventive" war against China? What's next? Demands that Americans avoid "appeasing China," and avoid "the mistake of Neville Chamberlain?"

That is the question every fair-minded individual must ask himself.

The other question that comes to mind is why? Life is short. If the columnist is so filled with animosity for a foreign peoples and their nation, why does he go out of his way to live and work there? Why not live and work at home, with people he doesn't despise? Why not adopt an "Americans will live how Americans live, and Chinese will live how Chinese live" attitude? Isn't that the philosophy? But that of course that presumes the columnist does not have some other agenda altogether.