Sunday, May 28, 2006

The DPP continues down its Suicidal Path

The DPP continues down its Suicidal Path
Bevin Chu
May 28, 2006

In a previous article, "The Beginning of the End, Part VI: The DPP commits Political Suicide," I said that in order to save their political party, the DPP party hierarchy must demonstrate "the vision thing." They must jettison the corrupt, opportunistic Chen, who has run the party's image into the ground. They must forsake Chen's discredited Taiwan independence agenda, which has bankrupted the island's economy. They must embrace former DPP chairman Hsu Hsing-liang's "Da Dan Xi Jing" (Bold Advance Westward), the "West" in this case meaning the Chinese mainland. The DPP party hierarchy knows what it must do, not only to save their political party, but also to save Taiwan.

What has the DPP party hierarchy done?


The overwhelming majority of the DPP's party hierarchy has defaulted on the solemn responsibility of challenging Chen. Lacking the courage to "Speak Truth to Power," they have chosen their own short-term political survival over their party's long-term political fortune. In doing so, they have all but sealed the fate of both the DPP and the Taiwan independence movement. The DPP has committed political suicide.

That was in January 2006. It is now May 2006, and guess what?

Nothing has changed.

Despite the fact that the Taiwan Development Corporation scandal has finally, belatedly, led to the arrest of Chao Chien-ming, "president" Chen Shui-bian's son in law, on charges of insider trading, the DPP party hierarchy still refuses to face the ugly truth.

Chen Shui-bian's son in law, Chao Chien-ming

The ugly truth is that the purportedly "democratic and progressive" DPP has become more corrupt, autocratic and reactionary after a mere six years in power than the much maligned KMT after sixty.

The DPP party hierarchy has not only refused to face the ugly truth, it has formally declared "My president, right or wrong. My party, right or wrong. My ideology, right or wrong."

Don't believe me? Then read on.

DPP caucus promises to support Chen
Published on TaipeiTimes
Saturday, May 27, 2006

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its legislative caucus yesterday unanimously vowed to back President Chen Shui-bian and said they would work together to assist the president in stabilizing the political situation, in the wake of the president's son-in-law Chao Chien-ming's suspected involvement in an insider trading scandal.

As the DPP's reputation and image have been severely tarnished by the scandal, about 30 DPP lawmakers met yesterday to discuss how to heal the party's wounds and halt the emerging split between DPP factions.

After the two-hour meeting, faction leaders held a press conference at the Legislative Yuan to state that they would unite to rebuild people's trust in the DPP and they would try their best to assist the president to get through his current difficulties.

Translation: The DPP party hierarchy will try to sweep the dirt under the rug, put on a happy face, and go on with business as usual.

Taipei Times: Another caucus whip Chen Chin-jun urged DPP members not to be so eager to draw a line between themselves and the president.

"The only solution to the current predicament is to be more united than before. We don't think it is helpful to blame everything on the president," Chen Chin-jun said.

Translation: "You're all accomplices, your hands are as dirty as A-Bian's, so don't think you can get out of this by dropping the dime on A-Bian and singing like canaries."

Taipei Times: The DPP yesterday also issued a public letter signed by DPP Chairman Yu Shyi-kun, Vice President Annette Lu, Premier Su Tseng-chang, and former premier Frank Hsieh, urging all party members to remain calm and united and saying that the DPP will not let them down when eradicating corruption.

Comment: For passionate advocates of Chinese reunification such as myself, the fact that every one of the DPP's leading lights signed such a shameful statement is a positive phenomenon. It means that Taiwan independence leaders have decided that their own short term political advantage is more important to them than the survival of the DPP or the Taiwan independence movement.

The DPP party hierarchy has no chance whatsoever of salvaging the credibility of their one time political star Chen Shui-bian. Chen himself has seen to that. For the past six years, Chen has been busy emptying out the island's coffers, transferring Republic of China taxpayers' hard-earned wealth into the personal accounts of Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura, including of course, the "First Family." That is one of many reasons Chen's approval rating has fallen to 5.8%, according to a poll conducted by DPP's Pan Green ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union.

"President" Chen Shui-bian, feeling the heat

The DPP party hierarchy has little if any chance of salvaging the credibilty of the DPP as a political party, and of Taiwan independence as a political ideal. The DPP party hierarchy itself has seen to that. For the past six years, the DPP party hierarchy has been Chen's accomplice in wholesale Pan Green looting of the Republic of China treasury. Even those who did not actually pocket any booty themselves, are nevertheless guilty of aiding and abetting those who did. Even those who are legally innocent, are morally culpable.

Chao Chien-ming with mother in law and "First Lady" Wu Shu-cheng, the Lady MacBeth of Taiwan

The only chance, if any, that the DPP party hierarchy has of salvaging the DPP as an organized political force, and Taiwan independence as a persuasive political movement, is to draw a clear line between the party and the movement on the one hand, and Chen Shui-bian on the other.

Substantively speaking of course, this is impossible. From the viewpoint of justice, they deserve to go down with Chen Shui-bian.

From the viewpoint of public relations damage control however, they might be able to salvage what remains of their miserable political careers, but only if they get down on their knees and tearfully declare that "I once was lost but now am found, was blind, but now I see."

As we can seen, they have chosen not to. They have chosen not to for two reasons.

One, they are too greedy. Two, they are too cowardly.

Despite a handful of public prosecutors who have recently found the gumption to do what all one thousand of the ROC's public prosecutors should have done years ago, Chen Shui-bian still has a near total lock on the machinery of the central government. Therefore he can still dangle a carrot before the DPP party hierarchy's collective nose, and bring a stick down on the DPP party hierarchy's collective rear.

The DPP party hierarchy and the Taiwan independence nomenklatura have decided therefore that "The only solution to the current predicament is to be more united than before."

The DPP party hierarchy and the Taiwan independence nomenklatura will pay for their myopic decision. They will go down with Chen Shui-bian, as they deserve to, and justice will be served.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Latter Day Colonialists

Published on TaipeiTimes
Letter: Chen deserves our support
By Peter Dearman
Friday, May 26, 2006

As I sat watching President Chen Shui-bian’s son-in-law taken away by police for alleged insider trading, I couldn’t help but notice how much it looked like a Hollywood paparazzi shootout. The flashes were going off so fast it had a stroboscopic effect. I couldn’t help but think that freedom of the press is taken to the extreme here in Taiwan.

This reminded me how I find it ironic that Chen is cast by his enemies as some sort of autocratic manipulator of democracy. Why then, after six long years of being assailed in the press, hasn’t he tried to suppress it just a little? Indeed, for all his arguable failures of leadership, can it be said honestly that he’s ever done anything against the spirit of democracy? Even if you believe he committed electoral fraud through a staged assassination attempt, I would say to you, why then, has he not been caught cheating at anything else? If he has such control over his minions that he can pull off repeated conspiracies (until now), why would he allow his in-laws to get involved in such an ill-conceived investment scheme? Would he not protect his own daughter better if he were the all-controling Godfather his pan-blue opponents make him out to be?

For me, the fact that Chen recently polled an approval rating below 6 percent indicates most of the population can’t recognize a good man when they see one. His vanishing support reminds me of rats deserting a ship. As for Chao Chien-ming, I hope he is kept under safe observation. If I had caused as much trouble to Chen, I worry what I might do to myself.

Peter Dearman

Comment: I started to write a point by point rebuttal of the above letter, sent to the editors of the Taipei Times by a western expatriate Taiwan independence fellow traveler living on Taiwan.

But then I recalled the sound advice I offered readers of my column in my own article, How to Read the Taipei Times. At which point I caught myself and realized that a point by point rebuttal would be nothing but a waste of time and energy.

Anyone who has found his way to The China Desk and is reading this weblog entry is probably sufficiently well-informed about Taiwan to know that the above reader's letter to the Taipei Times is a mind-boggling joke.

Either the reader is utterly sincere, in which case the famous
quotation from Jonathan Swift comes to mind: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Or else the reader is flagrantly dishonest, in which case the almost as famous quotation from comedian Richard Pryor comes to mind: "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

No, I'm not going to bother with a point by point rebuttal. Not when even lifelong Pan Green leaders have openly conceded that the Chen regime, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement have utterly discredited themselves.

Frankly, I would prefer that Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura seek refuge in the rationalizations offered by western expatriate Taiwan independence fellow travelers such as the above reader of the Taipei Times.

As Napoleon Bonaparte wrly advised, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Far be it for me to interrupt my enemy when he is making the mistake of a lifetime. By all means, keep making your mistake, with my blessing.

Instead, allow me to call everyones' attention to an attitude all too prevalent among western expatriates on Taiwan, one betrayed by the above reader's remark:

"For me, the fact that Chen recently polled an approval rating below 6 percent indicates most of the population can’t recognize a good man when they see one."

Did you get that?

So much for these western expatriates' insistence that "Beijing must respect the democratic will of the people on Taiwan! "

Where is their respect for the democratic will of the Chinese people on Taiwan?

So much for these western expatriates' ritual lip service to the democratic universalist article of faith: "Vox populi, vox dei." (The voice of the people is the voice of god.)

What these western expatriates really mean when they preach "freedom and democracy," is that the voice of white western colonial overlords from the "civilized" First World be treated as the voice of god.

Scratch a "Champion of Democracy," and you will find an elitist. Scratch a
western expatriate "Champion of Democracy" on Taiwan, and you will find a colonialist, a contemporary version of the pathetic yet pompous British colonialist so deftly satirized in Somerset Maugham's short stories about expatriate life in the tropics.

No. Point by point rebuttals are pointless. My response to these supercilious latter day colonialists is:

"Do you really have nothing better to do? Go home. Get a life. And allow the Chinese people to live their own."

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

E pluribus unum

Published on TaipeiTimes
Taiwan Quick Take: Independence groups unite
Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Four pro-independence societies said over the weekend they would integrate with several like-minded groups to form a "Taiwan Society" to promote social and political reform. Officials from the Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern Taiwan Societies said they had decided to break down the geographical barriers, and the four societies would instead serve as a platform for efforts to link up with more groups at home and overseas to form the "Taiwan Society." The society is scheduled to be formally launched in Taipei on June 18, with former president Lee Teng-hui to address the inaugural meeting.

I can't be the only one who has noticed the delicious irony.

Think about it. Four pro-separatist groups, the Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern Taiwan Societies decide to "break down geographical barriers," after coming to the realization that only "in unity there is strength."

Maybe they can adopt the motto "E pluribus unum?"

Great Seal of these United States of America

According to Wikipedia:

E pluribus unum was the first national motto of the United States of America. Translated from Latin, it means "From many, one" or "Out of many, one," or in a direct translation, "One out of more." It referred to the integration of the 13 independent colonies into one united country, and has taken on an additional meaning, given the pluralistic nature of American society from immigration. The motto was selected by the first Great Seal committee in 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution. Pierre Eugene DuSimitie're originally suggested E pluribus unum as the motto.

Now all that remains is for them to break down one more geographical barrier, the Taiwan Strait.

Former president Lee Teng-hui is scheduled to deliver an inaugural address. I have a number of quotes he might want to use, and after using them, contemplate their deeper meaning.

Behold they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.
-- Genesis 11:6

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.
-- Psalms 133:1

What ever disunites man from God, also disunites man from man.
-- Edmund Burke

Men's hearts ought not to be set against one another, but set with one another, and all against evil only.
-- Thomas Carlyle

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
-- Benjamin Franklin

One country, one constitution, one destiny.
-- Daniel Webster

The deeper meaning of these quotes is that the real barrier is not geographical. The real barrier is psychological.

The real barrier is not the Taiwan Strait. The real barrier is the psychological barrier in the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's hardened hearts, between those they insist on defining as "us" and those they insist on defining as "them," between those they insist on defining as "Taiwanese, not Chinese" and those they insist on defining as "Chinese, not Taiwanese."

We human beings face a common threat to our survival, the vagaries of nature. As I noted in my previous posting, "A Real rather than Imaginary Threat," the nations of the world ought to unite against this common threat, rather than perceiving each other as threats.

As Benjamin Franklin astutely observed, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Franklin's words were
admittedly uttered in a different context. Nevertheless they remain remarkably apropos.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

What, Me Worry?

What, Me Worry?
Bevin Chu
May 22, 2006

What, me worry?

Do I need to say more?

Saturday, May 20, 2006

A Real rather than Imaginary Threat

A Real rather than Imaginary Threat
Bevin Chu
May 19, 2006

Neoconservative China Threat theorists responsible for America's strategic policy are determined to cast a non-aggressive, free market capitalist China as a "New Evil Empire," and the long-suffering Chinese people as 21st century counterparts of Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes.

Their "China Threat" is an imaginary, rather than real threat.

Other threats meanwhile, such as space rock hitting the earth, are real rather than imaginary threats.

Space rock could hit Earth in April 2036, say experts

Knight Ridder
By Michael Cabbage

Mark your calendar for Sunday, April 13, 2036. That's when a 1,000-foot-wide asteroid named Apophis could hit the Earth with enough force to obliterate a small state.

The odds of a collision are 1-in-6,250. But while that's a long shot at the racetrack, the stakes are too high for astronomers to ignore.

For now, Apophis represents the most imminent threat from the worst type of natural disaster known, one reason NASA is spending millions to detect the threat from this and other asteroids.

A direct hit on an urban area could unleash more destruction than Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Asian tsunami and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake combined. The blast would equal 880 million tons of TNT or 65,000 times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Objects this size are thought to hit Earth about once every 1,000 years, and, according to recent estimates, the risk of dying from a renegade space rock is comparable to the hazards posed by tornadoes and snakebites. Those kind of statistics have moved the once-far-fetched topic of killer asteroids from Hollywood movie sets to the halls of Congress.

"Certainly we had a major credibility problem at the beginning, a giggle factor," said David Morrison, an astrobiologist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California. "Now, many people are aware this is something we can actually deal with, mitigate and defend against."

Deflecting threats

In 1998, lawmakers formally directed NASA to identify by 2008 at least 90 percent of the asteroids more than a kilometer wide that orbit the sun and periodically cross Earth's path. That search is now more than three-quarters complete.

Last year, Congress directed the space agency to come up with options for deflecting potential threats. Ideas seriously discussed include lasers on the moon, futuristic "gravity tractors," spacecraft that ram incoming objects and Hollywood's old standby, nuclear weapons.

To help explore possible alternatives, former Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart has formed the B612 Foundation. The organization's goal is to be able to significantly alter the orbit of an asteroid in a controlled manner by 2015.

"You can watch all of the golf on television you want, but if you want to go out and break par, it's going to take a lot of playing," Schweickart said. "And you're going to learn a lot that you thought you knew, but you didn't."

Throughout their 4.5 billion-year history, Earth and its neighboring planets have been like sitting ducks in a cosmic shooting gallery.

A glance at our moon shows the scars left by countless collisions with asteroids and comets. In fact, the moon is thought to have been created when part of the early Earth was ripped away in a cosmic impact with an object the size of Mars.

Earth also has scars, but most have been hidden by vegetation or eroded by geologic processes such as rain and wind. About 170 major impact sites, including northern Arizona's 4,000-foot-wide Barringer Crater, have been identified around the globe.

Alvarezes' research

Within the past century, an extraterrestrial chunk of rock about 200 feet wide is thought to have caused a 1908 blast near Tunguska, Siberia, that leveled 60 million trees in an area the size of Rhode Island. Researchers theorize the object exploded four to six miles above the ground with the force of 10 million to 15 million tons of TNT.

Few outside scientific circles took the threat posed by near-Earth objects seriously until 1980. Then, Luis and Walter Alvarez published a study based on geologic evidence that concluded a cataclysmic asteroid or comet impact 65 million years ago caused the mass extinction of two-thirds of all plant and animal life on Earth, including the dinosaurs.

Dubbed the Great Exterminator, the colossal object was estimated at 7 miles in diameter and created a blast hundreds of millions of times more destructive than a nuclear weapon. Objects that size are thought to hit Earth about every 100 million years.

NASA scientists studying satellite photos bolstered the Alvarezes' theory with the discovery in 1991 of an impact crater 125 miles wide buried beneath the northwestern corner of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. Three years later, NASA photos of another sort drove home the potential for cosmic collisions in our part of the solar system.

Spectacular images from the Hubble Space Telescope of Comet Shoemaker-Levy's collision with Jupiter showed 21 comet fragments, producing colossal fireballs that rose above the giant planet's cloud deck.

"I think the most important development for getting this (public awareness) going was the Alvarezes' research that the dinosaurs went extinct as the result of an impact," Morrison said. "We were faced with a real example where an impact had done terrible damage."

In 2029, the asteroid will come closer to our planet than the television and weather satellites that beam back signals from 22,300 miles above. Astronomers' big fear is that Apophis will pass through a gravitational "keyhole" that will put it on a collision course with Earth in 2036. "For all practical purposes, it (a mission) would have to be done before the 2029 flyby to take advantage of the leverage afforded by that encounter," said Steve Chesley, an astronomer in the Near Earth Object Program. "That means the 2036 impact needs to be addressed by 2026."

Orbit of Near Earth Asteroid Apophis

Neoconservative China Threat theorists responsible for America's strategic policy are determined to cast China as a "New Evil Empire," and the Chinese people as Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes.

Any sign that the Chinese people are making economic, but particularly scientific and technological progress, is cited as alarming evidence of Barbarians at the Gates and Apocalypse Now.

The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu

The China Threat theorists' anxieties are not reflections of any real world Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu against the "democratic west." The China Threat theorists' anxieties are psychological projections of the Malevolent Global Hegemonists' disowned shadow onto a convenient external screen.

As Wikipedia explains,

Psychological projection (or projection bias) can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others have the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject as oneself. According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals, inanimate objects - even religious constructs - also occurs). The principle of projection is well-established in psychology. Peter Gay describes it as "the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable—too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous—by attributing them to another."

I touched on this phenomenon in my 1999 essay, Hollywood's Tibet, in which I pointed out how Hollywood celebrities desperate to be perceived as
Politically Correct have projected America's collective guilt over its treatment of American Indians onto China.

Psychological projection however, is hardly confined to the Beautiful People in Hollywood. It is if anything, even more commonplace among the Political Class in Washington.

China Threat Theory at its root, is the Benevolent Global Hegemonists' projection of their own malevolent desire for global hegemony onto a strange and exotic people. You know, those mysterious heathens with yellow skin and slanted eyes, always scurrying about, speaking in strange tongues, plotting who knows what against white European civilization.

China Threat Theory, when one stops to think about it calmly and objectively, has no basis in reality. Even Australia, which is far closer to China than the US, and strategically far more vulnerable, considers the China Threat Theory sheer poppycock.

Objectively speaking, what is there to fear about China's recent progress?

Objectively speaking, nothing whatsoever.

China's progress is an integral part of mankind's progress. China's progress doesn't benefit only the Chinese people. China's progress, like America's progress, like Europe's progress, like Russia's progress, like India's progress, benefits mankind as a whole. That progress includes China's astonishingly rapid advances in aerospace technology.

China launches Shenzhou 6

In the science fiction thriller Armageddon (1998, directed by Michael Bay, written by Robert Roy Pool, Jonathan Hensleigh, starring Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler) an asteroid the size of Texas threatens to destroy the planet earth. Only the combined resources of US and Russian space technology succeed in saving all life on earth, including the human race, from extinction.


Armageddon was a terrible movie, but according to respected scientists the movie's premise, that life on earth might one day be extinguished by a stray asteroid, is entirely likely. According to reputable astronomers the asteroid Apophis may well pose a threat to earth in 2036, a mere 30 years from now.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the China Threat theorists have their way. Suppose they succeed in using Taiwan independence as a pretext to launch a "preventive" war of aggression against a peacefully developing China. Suppose they "win" such a war. Suppose they succeed in their quest to "contain China" and set China's development back 30, 40, even 50 years.

What then?

What will Neoconservative China Threat theorists do when another Great Exterminator hurtles toward earth, and they realize too late that crucial Chinese space technology, complementing US and Russian space technology, might have been able to intercept an asteroid or comet and ensure the survival of the human race, including 290 million Americans?

Anyone who snorts at such a suggestion, on the contemptuous assumption that "China doesn't rate," has either forgotten China's countless contributions to world civilization, or was woefully ignorant of them in the first place.

As Professor Robert Temple, a British historian and archeologist notes:

People often speak of the modern world in which we live, and presume that it is a creation of the Western world. But this is not correct. More than half of the basic inventions and discoveries which led to the creation of this modern world are Chinese, and are not Western at all. Indeed, China has produced more fundamental inventions and discoveries than the rest of the world put together. Because so few people realize this, the view of China's place in the modern world is wrongly conceived. Most people in both East and West believe that China is emerging into the modern world. But China is not emerging into anything, it is re-emerging into something which it helped to create in the first place. Nor is China a developing country: it is a re-developing country. For two thousand years, China was developed while most of the rest of the world was undeveloped. It was richer, it was stronger, it was bigger, it could feed itself better, it could build more things of greater magnitude, and it could explore when it wanted to.


The US government is squandering astronomical sums that American taxpayers can ill afford, to wage a nominally defensive, but in fact offensive war of aggression against China. In doing so, it is forcing the PRC government to respond by diverting sums mainland Chinese taxpayers can ill afford, into defending China's territorial integrity from the American Empire.

The so-called China Threat is an imaginary rather than real threat. A killer asteroid, once thought of as nothing but grist for the science fiction movie mill, is a real rather than imaginary threat.

Instead of pretending that it is defending America against a non-existent China threat, the US government should facilitate private sector cooperation between American and Chinese scientists and engineers to defend America, China, and the rest of the world from a scientifically verifiable threat of annihilation from outer space.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Chen's Approval Rating at 5.8%

Chen's approval rating at 5.8 percent
Bevin Chu
May 17, 2006

TSU poll shows Chen's approval rating at 5.8 percent
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

President Chen Shui-bian's approval rating has dropped to a new low of just 5.8 percent, with 88 percent of respondents dissatisfied with the performance of Chen's administration over the past six years, according to the results of a survey released yesterday.

The survey was conducted by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) -- the Democratic Progressive Party's ally in the pan-green camp -- on 69 civic groups from May 5 through May 12.

The respondents gave the administration's overall performance a failing grade of 57.5 percent.

Ho Min-hao, head of the TSU's policy committee, said the survey results reflected the government's failure to pay attention to domestic affairs.

While 64 percent of respondents thought that the government has not worked hard enough to improve the nation's economy over the past six years, 72 percent were dissatisfied with the deteriorating law and order situation, the survey found.

Seventy-three percent of the respondents said they thought that the average citizen's life is not that good, and 63 percent said they were unhappy with the government's failure to take care of disadvantaged groups.

As many as 81 percent of the respondents doubted the integrity of officials in Chen's administration, and 90 percent think Chen should take responsibility for the corruption cases involving government officials that have occurred over the past six years.

Ninety-one percent of the respondents were supportive of the Cabinet's decision to suspend Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Kong Jaw-sheng from his duties over his suspected role in a government procurement scandal.

In addition, 10 percent said that they were in favor of enacting a new constitution.

Comment: For six years, Taiwan independence media spin controllers have been dismissing Pan Blue majority opposition criticism of Pan Green government as "chang shuai tai wan" (poormouthing Taiwan).

Pan Blue majority opposition commissioned polls were automatically dismissed as push polls, despite the fact they were uncannily accurate, and in fact, matched the poll results of confidential, Eyes Only polls commissioned by the DPP leadership.

But now the Deep Green Taiwan Solidarity Union has published its own poll, and the results are even less flattering to its fellow Pan Green ally, the DPP than Pan Blue camp polls.

Chen Shui-bian, the "Son of Taiwan," received a 5.8% approval rating, not according to the Deep Blue New Party, not according to the KMT, not according to the PFP, but according to its own Pan Green ally, the TSU.

How are Taiwan independence media spin controllers going to rationalize this away?

Frankly, I hope they try. Frankly, I hope they bury their heads in the sand like ostriches. Frankly, I hope they play the McCarthyite Red Scare card.

Because if they do, they will only accelerate the rate at which the Chinese people on Taiwan forsake Taiwan independence rabble-rousers, Taiwan independence political parties, and Taiwan independence ideology.

Bear in mind that most Pan Green camp polls, particularly those published during an election campaign, are nothing more than push polls.

So how does one tell when a Pan Green poll is actually a scientific poll and not a push poll?

Simple. One compares it to Pan Blue camp polls conducted around the same time.

The results of the above mentioned TSU poll largely conform to the results of the below
illustrated poll released by the Pan Blue oriented United Daily News on May 18, 2006, therefore the TSU poll is probably on the up and up.

United Daily News Poll, May 18, 2006

The title at the top of the chart reads "Changes in Satisfaction Ratings for the DPP." The red line tracks increasing public dissatisfaction with DPP. The green line tracks decreasing public satisfaction with DPP. The dates along the bottom are Year of the Republic dates. The date on the far right "955" is the "95th Year of the Republic, May" i.e., May 2006.

Sad, isn't it, that the Pan Green camp has so thoroughly discredited itself, that its allegations can only be believed when they are confirmed by the Pan Blue majority opposition?

Notice that according to the Taiwan Solidarity Union poll, a mere 10% of the public favors the authoring of a new "Taiwanese Constitution" to replace the Chinese Constitution already in place?

You know the Deep Green TSU is being uncharacteristically honest when it announces a poll result so obviously unfavorable to its own Taiwan independence agenda.

So why did the TSU do it?

The TSU did it because although the TSU and the DPP are Pan Green camp allies, they are also Pan Green camp rivals.
The TSU hopes to profit from the potential dissolution of the DPP as an organized political party. The TSU is behaving like a shark ready to feed on a wounded member of its own kind.

The TSU wants to persuade the public that if it was the leader of the Pan Green camp instead of the DPP, these numbers would be different. The TSU wants to persuade the public that if it was the leader of the Pan Green camp instead of the DPP, Taiwan independence would be a reality instead of a rapidly receding pipe dream.

That of course is nonsense. TSU godfather Lee Teng-hui had 12 long years during which he could have declared Taiwan independence at any time

But he never did.

Rectifying a Non-Error

Rectifying a Non-Error
Bevin Chu
May 17, 2006

US postal service rectifies Web site references to nation
Taipei Times
By Nadia Tsao
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

The United States Postal Service (USPS) has agreed to revise all references to the nation [sic] on its Web site from "a province of China" to "Taiwan" as requested by the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA), the Washington-based pro-Taiwan independence group said.

The postal service also issued an apology for having referred to Taiwan as a Chinese province, it added.

FAPA sent a letter to the postal service early last month at the request of its members. The letter stated that as an enterprise established by the US Congress, the postal service should abide by the rules and regulations of the US State Department, referring to a 1996 State Department memorandum that requests all relevant US government agencies and officials to refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan."

In a letter to FAPA dated May 9, the postal service stated that it regretted the error.

Comment: I know how one rectifies an error. But how does one rectify a non-error?
I know that one should regret an error. But how does one regret a non-error?

Taiwan is a province of China. The Republic of China Constitution that is the basic law on the Chinese island of Taiwan says so clearly in black and white. So when Google and the USPS referred to Taiwan as "a province of China," they were absolutely correct. They had nothing to regret, nothing to rectify, and nothing to apologize for.

See: Google is still Right, Taiwan is still a Province of China

Ironically Google, which is under attack from the US federal government for allegedly caving in to pressure from Beijing, showed more respect for the truth than the USPS when Google refused to "rectify" its non-error, but instead bypassed the problem by removing all references completely.

Maybe the Hawaiian independence movement can now demand that the USPS stop referring to Hawaii as the 50th state of the union, and correctly refer to it as the Kingdom of Hawaii?

See: The Overthrow of the Monarchy

Now that would truly be rectifying an error. Now that would truly be something worth apologizing for.

Come to think of it, maybe now the US federal government can start treating all 50 states as sovereign and independent nations, as specified in the Articles of Confederation?

But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

The Unprofessionalism of Professional Journalists

The Unprofessionalism of Professional Journalists
Bevin Chu

May 16, 2006

In the past, the major media
were the gatekeepers of public information. They wielded the power of veto over anyone who aspired to reach large numbers of the public.

With the advent of the Internet however, their defacto monopoly over the public forum has evaporated into thin air.

They know it, and they don't like it one bit.
That's why "professional journalists" such as Ted Koppel have been so resentful of "amateurs with PCs."

Ted Koppel

Here's what Koppel said in 1997:

Reporting is not really about, 'Let's see who can get the first information to the public as quickly as possible. It's about: 'Let's see who can get the information to the public - as soon as we have had a chance to make sure the information is accurate, to weigh it against what we know, to put it in some sort of context.' Only when you're satisfied as a professional journalist that you've got the story and the facts have been verified, only then can you go with it. If we are moving into an era in which reporters are pressured to get it online before we have a chance to check and edit the material - if speed is the main criteria of putting something online - then I think that's dangerous. Ultimately, a journalist has a responsibility to separate truth from rumor. There's always going to be room for the outlet that says, `We're not worried about geting it first, we're about getting it right.'

What Koppel said was right in principle. What Koppel said was right in the abstract.

The problem is that Koppel isn't addressing the real issue.
The problem isn't that "professional journalists" don't get it first. The problem is that "professional journalists" don't get it right, even when they get it last. The problem is that Koppel's "professional journalists" get it wrong, first, last, and always.

For the past decade, for example, Koppel's so-called "professional journalists" have been getting the Taiwan independence issue dead wrong.

The Taiwan independence movement is not an idealistic and progressive political movement, but a bigoted and reactionary political movement. Only recently has this ugly truth become too obvious for the major media to hide. Only recently, therefore, have Koppel's "professional journalists" been getting the Taiwan independence issue right.

Meanwhile, someone such as myself, who was not a "professional journalist," was getting the Taiwan independence issue right, for over a decade.

Anyone who doubts this claim need only read my online articles going back to the mid 90s. I hate to say "I told you so," but the fact is I did.

How did I do it? Was it some special genius on my part?

Hardly. All I did was look at the facts and listen to my conscience.

Why didn't Koppel's "professional journalists" get the Taiwan independence issue right?

They didn't get the Taiwan independence issue right because they turned a blind eye to the facts and a deaf ear to their consciences.

As political scientist Michael Parenti notes:

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.

Today, a decade later, the true face of the Taiwan independence movement has been exposed, not due to the major media, but in spite of the major media.

How sad.

As I see it, here is where honest amateurs have an indispensable role to play. Honest amateurs can expose the "professional journalists" for what they are, purveyors of the Big Lie. Koppel's talk about "professional journalists" who conscientiously engage in "fact-checking" is self-serving eyewash.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Phase Out US Commitment to "Defend Taiwan"

Phase Out US Commitment to "Defend Taiwan"
Bevin Chu
May 15, 2006

Hu Jintao and George W. Bush

The quasi-conservative, quasi-libertarian Cato Institute has reiterated a policy recommendation that every US legislator ought to take to heart. It has wisely recommended that the US phase out its long-standing commitment to "defend Taiwan."

I did not put the words "defend Taiwan" in scare quotes frivolously. I put them in scare quotes for a good reason. To refer to US policy as "defending Taiwan" rather than "aggressing against China" is Orwellian Newspeak.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the US government's motive may have been to "defend Taiwan," rather than to use Taiwan as an expendable pawn in its effort to strategically "contain" China, but no longer.

If the US government's intentions were that benevolent once, they are benevolent no more. Today, right wing think tanks such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) don't even bother concealing their real motive for aiding and abetting the Taiwan independence movement, the Tibetan independence movement, Falun Gong, and "useful idiots" such as Wang Dan, Wei Jingshen, and Harry Wu.

Their real motive is to use these subversive elements within China as pretexts for economic, diplomatic, and if the opportunity presents itself, military intervention against China. Their real motive is to prevent China from ever becoming an economically prosperous, technologically advanced, First World nation comparable to the United States.

Some Americans, out of a misguided sense of what constitutes patriotism, may be tempted to endorse such strategies. That would be a mistake of the first order, both morally and practically.

Morally, such a malicious strategy of subversion is unworthy of America, a nation founded on the benevolent premise of peaceful trade for mutual benefit, not the malevolent "zero sum game" premise of social Darwinism.

Practically, such a strategy of containment might work against relatively small nations such as Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but they cannot possibly succeed against a nation the size of China.

If US political leaders maliciously attempt to keep a peacefully developing China down regardless, they will only squander America's national strength while transforming China into a resentful strategic rival when it could have and would have become a profitable trading partner.

Below is the Cato Institute article in question, with my editorial comments, both negative and positive.

May 15, 2006
The Bush Administration Snubs Taiwan
by Ted Galen Carpenter
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
This article appeared on on May 12, 2006.

Cato: It was only a few years ago that Republicans castigated the Clinton administration for the way it treated Taiwanese leaders who had stop over visits to the United States during trips to countries that maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan’s official name).

Those criticisms were warranted. Clinton officials treated both current Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian and his predecessor, Lee Teng-hui, as pariahs. During their stopovers, they were prevented from even meeting with members of Congress or the media–much less being allowed to give public speeches. Republicans accused the administration of kowtowing to China, which claims that Taiwan is merely a renegade province.

Comment: Those criticisms were not warranted. If a nation has recognized one political authority as the legitimate government of another nation, it ought to act in a manner consistent with that recognition. It ought not to deviously play one side against the other.

Cato: When it came into office, the Bush administration vowed to treat the leader of a sister democracy with far more consideration. And it did. The reception accorded Chen during his stopovers throughout Bush’s first term was cordial and respectful, despite strong objections from China. Chen routinely interacted with journalists, members of Congress, and public audiences while in the United States.

Comment: "Sister democracy" my foot. One expects democratic universalist tripe such as this from Frances Fukuyama, but the quasi-libertarian Cato Institute ought to know better. Shame on you. As George Washington admonished, "There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

Cato: Washington’s reaction was very different, however, regarding Chen’s latest trip in early May. This time, U.S. officials even refused his request to land in New York City for a refueling stop on his way to Central America. Indeed, they indicated that all airports in the United States would be off limits. They did offer to let him stop in Alaska, provided that he have no interaction with the public.

There appear to be two major reasons for Washington’s hostile response.

Throughout his presidency, Chen has pushed the envelope on Taiwanese independence, often infuriating Beijing and heightening tensions in the Taiwan Strait. He also has tended to blind side the United States with his initiatives–most notably with his decision in early 2006 to abolish the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines. That action sent a blunt message to Beijing that Taiwan was not interested in political reunification with the mainland, now or in the future.

Chen’s behavior has produced rising annoyance in the State Department and even in the White House. U.S. officials have been looking for a way to administer a public rebuke to Chen, and it appears that they found one.

The other reason for snubbing Chen on his latest visit appears to be a calculation that the gesture would increase the likelihood that Beijing would be more supportive of U.S. calls for pressure on Iran in the ongoing nuclear crisis. If that was Washington’s expectation, it is extremely naive. China has an array of reasons for not wanting to antagonize Iran. A U.S. decision to snub Taiwan’s leader is far too limited a concession to sway Beijing’s decision.

Comment: Nonsense. This "explanation" parrots Taiwan Lobby media spin control. Taiwan independence Quislings hope to nudge the US back towards the illegal Chen regime by such indirect condemnation of Washington disguised as direct condemnation of Beijing. Ironically, such charges can only anger the Malevolent Global Hegemonists in the Bush administration, who consider themselves the Masters of the Universe. Any suggestion that Beijing has enough clout to coerce them into snubbing the Taiwan independence nomenklatura in Taipei is considered an affront to their manhood.

Cato: In any case, it is a shabby way for the United States to treat the leader of another democracy. Granted, it would have been improper for the administration to have formally recognized the visit or to have held meetings between executive branch officials and Chen. Washington maintains diplomatic relations with China, not Taiwan, and it does not dispute Beijing’s claim that China is part of Taiwan.

But Chen should have been accorded the respect and consideration given to any other distinguished foreign visitor.

Comment: The "leader of another democracy" who has been treated shabbily is Lien Chan, who won the 2004 ROC presidential election, but whom the Bush administration cheated out of office when it reneged on its promise to support the Pan Blue KMT/PFP alliance's demand for another election.

Cato: Washington’s conduct also smacked of crude interference in Taiwan’s internal political affairs. The treatment accorded Chen contrasted sharply with that accorded Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou, the leader of the opposition Kuomintang Party, during his trip to the United States a month earlier. Ma was allowed to make public speeches and was given very cordial receptions throughout his visit. Those contrasting actions convey a not-very-subtle message that Washington would like to see Ma as the next president of Taiwan.

Comment: Surprise, surprise, surprise. Doesn't Cato, which is supposed to be anti-interventionist, or at the very least, non-interventionist, realize that it is US insistence on having it both ways that leads to damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemmas like this?
Cato needs to heed its own advice, cease its mealy-mouthed fence-straddling, and have the guts to commit itself fully to an anti-interventionist, or at the very least, non-interventionist foreign policy.

See: Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act

Cato: The current policy toward Taiwan is the worst possible combination. Washington maintains an implicit commitment to defend the island if China ever decides to use force to compel reunification. That is an increasingly dangerous and unwise commitment–especially as China’s economic and military power continues to mount. [emphasis added]

At the same time, U.S. leaders seem to believe that the defense commitment entitles Washington to meddle in Taiwan’s political affairs, seeking to affect the outcome of the island’s next presidential election in 2008.

A better course would be to phase-out the defense commitment [emphasis added] while showing proper respect for Taiwan’s elected leader. The latest incident suggests that Washington’s policy badly needs re-calibration.

Comment: Finally, Cato puts its finger on the crux of the matter: "A better course would be to phase out the defense commitment."

Phasing out any US commitments to "defend Taiwan" is not merely the "better course," it's the only course.

Never mind Cato's eyewash about "showing proper respect for Taiwan's elected leader." Chen Shui-bian is not "Taiwan's elected leader" in the first place. Lien Chan is the Republic of China's duly elected leader. Showing undeserved respect for unconstitutional usurper and US puppet Chen Shui-bian amounts to showing disrespect for Lien Chan, the Republic of China's actual leader, and the 53% majority of the electorate on Taiwan who voted for him.

See: Taiwan's Stolen Election

Monday, May 15, 2006

The Son of Taiwan accosts the First Lady of America

The Son of Taiwan accosts the First Lady of America
Bevin Chu
May 15, 2006

哥國大典 扁握蘿拉手要求合照
At Costa Rican Ceremony A-Bian grabs Laura Bush's Hand demanding a Photo Op

United Daily News Reporter Liu Yong-hsiang

"President" Chen Shui-bian at Costa Rica President Arias's Inauguration Ceremony, pressures US First Lady Laura Bush to shake hands with him while she is still applauding. Associated Press

"President" Chen succeeds in pressuring Laura Bush to shake his hand, while his translator captures the moment. Agence France Presse

Comment: Chen Shui-bian, aka "A-Bian," apparently felt he hadn't offended the Bush administration enough by bailing out on US State Department personnel at the eleventh hour, after his request for transit through Alaska had already been approved.

Upon spying Laura Bush at Costa Rican President Arias' inauguration ceremony, Chen Shui-bian got it into his head to accost her, twice. Once at the beginning of the playing of the Costa Rican national anthem, and once again at the conclusion.

Video footage of the incident told the whole story, as the above still photos cannot. Anyone who knows anything about body language knows exactly what happened.

Diplomatic protocol prohibits a man from approaching a woman and pressuring her to shake one's hand. Any exchange between a man and a woman must be initiated by the woman, not the man. Laura Bush kept applauding, hoping "this person" would go away, sparing himself and her any embarrassment. When A-Bian refused to take the hint, she reluctantly shook his hand.

Not only did A-Bian shake Laura Bush's hand longer than was appropriate and longer than she was comfortable with, he trapped her right hand with his left hand in addition to his right, adding to her discomfort.

Not content with committing his diplomatic gaffe once, A-Bian rushed over to Laura Bush again as the Costa Rican national anthem concluded and repeated it a second time.

One can only imagine what George and Laura Bush said to each other later in the privacy of the White House about her encounter with this gauche buffoon.

This international faux pas, captured by the AP and AFP, was not merely a breach of etiquette, it was a highly revealing indicator of the deep ambivalence within the Taiwan "independence" Quisling mindset.

On the one hand Taiwan independence Quislings insist that they are proudly independent. On the other hand, they desperately crave affirmation and approval from certain significant others to whom they feel congenitally inferior, specifically former colonial master Japan and current imperial puppetmaster America.

As I wrote in "Diaoyutai and Pan Green Self-Delusion":

Nothing is wrong with Taiwanese (Chinese people on Taiwan) wanting to stand tall, walk out into the sunlight, and enjoy respect. This is a perfectly laudable, completely understandable, highly desirable goal.

During KMT Party Chairman Lien Chan's stunningly successful "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland, CCP Party Secretary Hu Jintao explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of Taiwanese wanting to "dang jia zuo zhu" (be masters in their own home).

Demands from Taiwanese for respect are not a problem. Within the framework of One China, as former PRC Premier Zhu Rongji once underscored, all kinds of concessions can be made, because any concessions would be made to one's fellow countrymen.

Demands for respect are a problem only when, as George Washington put it, "ambitious, corrupted, or deluded (i.e., Japanized) citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation (Japan)... betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country (China)."

Respect entails self-respect. Before others will respect you, you must first respect yourself. Self-respect in turn, entails self-affirmation. If one respects oneself, one will have no hesitation affirming who one is.

A reluctance to affirm who one is, a determination to pretend one is something one is not, is symptomatic of a deep-seated lack of self-respect. If one is reluctant to affirm who one is, if one is determined to pretend one is something one is not, one has already invalidated oneself at one's very core. Nothing one can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.

The reluctance of Pan Green Quislings to affirm that they are Chinese, their stubborn insistence that they are "Taiwanese, not Chinese," their pathetic attempts to spin themselves as "quasi-Japanese," are all symptoms of the Pan Green Quislings' profound lack of self-respect. Pan Green Quislings who refuse to affirm who they are, who insist on pretending they are something they are not, have already invalidated themselves at their very core. Nothing they can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.

The Laura Bush handshake fiasco was merely one more example of the humiliations Taiwan independence Quislings are doomed to inflict upon themselves as long as they refuse to confront the neurotic contradiction at the core of their "Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics.

See: Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome









2006/05/10 聯合報

Sunday, May 14, 2006

The Taiwan Independence Quislings' Affront to Alaskan Dignity

The Taiwan Independence Quislings' Affront to Alaskan DignityT
Bevin Chu
May 14, 2006

The Taiwan News, like the Taipei Times, is a mouthpiece for the Taiwan independence movement.

To be fair, the Taiwan News is slightly less biased than the Taipei Times. The Taipei Times usually spikes any story unfavorable to the Taiwan independence movement, hoping it will never see the light of day.

The Taiwan News is marginally more willing to publish news unfavorable to the Taiwan independence movement, or in Ted Turner's priceless formulation, "news that we don't think the public ought to see."

Otherwise, these two Taiwan based Engish language newspapers are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

"Time to sock it to the U.S.", an editorial by Ryan Chieh, editor of the Taiwan News, offers us a revealing glimpse into the infantile, self-centered, narcissistic mindset of a typical member of the Taiwan independence nomenklatura.

Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Time to sock it to the U.S.
2006-05-09 / Taiwan News
Contributing Writer Ryan Chieh, editor, Taiwan News Weekly Magazine

Less than 12 hours before leaving on an eight-day trip to allies Paraguay and Costa Rica, President Chen Shui-bian decided to reject Washington's offer to refuel in Anchorage, Alaska. Taiwan tried unsuccessfully to arrange transit stops in higher profile U.S. cities and felt the offer of Anchorage was an affront to the country's dignity.

US Postal Service Alaska Stamp

Comment: The US offer of transit through Anchorage, Alaska was indeed an affront. The US intended it as an affront, and the Chen regime took it as an affront, just as the US intended. But it was not "an affront to the country's dignity." It was an affront to Chen's "dignity." It was an affront to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's "dignity." It was an affront to the Taiwan independence movement's "dignity."

I put the word dignity in scare quotes because Chen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement have no dignity left to affront. Taiwan independence fellow travelers in the US may not have gotten the word yet, but in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people on Taiwan, the Chen regime, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement long ago forfeited any dignity they might once have had.

Don't believe me?

Then believe the lower echelon DPP officials who blasted
Chen, upper echelon DPP officials, and hardline Taiwan independence "elders" for thoroughly discrediting both the DPP as political party and Taiwan independence as a political ideal during a recent DPP political strategy conference.

Believe the DPP's own confidential, in-house public opinion poll, later leaked to the press, which revealed an 18% approval rating for Chen and an 18% approval rating for the DPP.

Believe the political analysts of all political colors on Taiwan who suspect the 20 year young DPP may not survive past 2008.

But returning to my original point, why did the Chen regime, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement take the offer of transit through Alaska as an affront to their dignity?

Did the Pan Green camp take the offer of transit through Alaska as an affront solely because the US prohibited Chen from deplaning, from staying overnight, from holding press conferences and staging photo ops?

No. The Pan Green camp took the offer of transit through Alaska as an affront because Alaska was, as they loudly protested, not "mei guo ben tu," i.e., not part of the American mainland, not part of the continental United States, not part of America Proper.

Because Alaska was not contiguous with the "Lower Forty-eight," Chen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement consider Alaska less than fully a part of America, and therefore the offer of transit through Alaska was "an affront to their dignity."

If you think I'm putting words in their mouths, read on.

Taiwan News: Taiwan's democratically elected president was not allowed to set foot on continental U.S. soil, [emphasis added] or to stay overnight in Anchorage or to address overseas Taiwanese groups ... Regardless of whatever reason the U.S. had for acting in this way, all of Taiwan's people should express their dissatisfaction and let the American government know that such treatment is unacceptable ... a president of a sovereign country who followed diplomatic courtesies in applying for a stopover, was stunningly restricted to a distant northern land [emphasis added] by U.S. officials ... The country's people should express their indignation to the American government in protest.

Comment: One of the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's loudest grievances is that in 1895, the mainland Chinese treated the Taiwan region of China as less than fully a part of China. A
century later, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura cites this as one of its "justifications" for demanding Taiwan independence.

The reality, of course, was nothing of the sort. The reality was that a newly industrialized and vastly more powerful Japan held a gun to China's head and forced an agrarian China to make a heart-rending "Sophie's Choice." When the militarily overmatched Qing court was forced to cede Taiwan to Japan, an outraged Chinese people considered the loss of sovereign Chinese territory an intolerable injustice that had to be redressed, sooner if not later.

Fast forward one hundred years. When Chinese patriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait insist that Taiwan must be reunified with the Chinese mainland, sooner if not later, they are restating their long held position that Taiwan is an integral part of China, and demonstrating unwavering consistency on the matter of China's territorial integrity.

Yet here we are in 2006, and what do we have but Taiwan independence Quislings meekly handing over Diaoyutai, a Taiwanese island of inestimable value, to Japan without even a whimper, let alone a fight. And they have the audacity to fault the Qing court for not putting up enough of a fight against Japan in order to hold on to Taiwan? At least the Qing court put up a fight.

Yet here we are in 2006, and what do we have but Taiwan independence Quislings, many of whom are US citizens, living on "mei guo ben tu," the American mainland, the continental United States, America Proper, holding the very view of Alaska that they accuse Chinese of holding about Taiwan in 1895.

The Alaskan Independence Party considers Alaska to be "a distant northern land" not part of "continental US soil." The Alaskan Independence Party however means this in a positive sense. The Alaskan Independence Party considers the Sovereign State of Alaska to be an independent nation, as specified in the Articles of Confederation.

Alaskan Independence Party's View of Alaska's Relationship to the US

Taiwan independence Quislings also consider Alaska to be "a distant northern land" not part of "continental US soil." Taiwan independence Quislings however, mean this in a negative sense. Taiwan independence Quislings consider Alaska to be of lesser status than the "Lower Forty-eight" because, as they loudly protested, Alaska is not "mei guo ben tu," not part of the American mainland, not part of the continental United States, not part of America Proper.

Alaskan Independence Party Bumper Sticker

The State of Alaska's proud inhabitants, both those who advocate independence, and those who advocate remaining in the Union, should "express their indignation to the DPP government in protest. " Time to sock it to the Taiwan independence nomenklatura.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

World is Stuck with "Him"

World is Stuck with "Him"
Bevin Chu
May 10, 2006

China Post Editorial
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
World is stuck with 'him'

Chen Shui-bian, "Commander in Chief "

China Post:
The China Post has received many letters to the editor, urging President Chen Shui-bian to resign as soon as possible for the good of his family, his party and his country because his poor performance has done enough damage to them all already. Two more years of suffering are simply too much. Chen's traditional supporters are also deserting him; his approval rating has sunk to the lower teens. But to the dismay of everybody, an early departure of Chen is unlikely. According to the Constitution, the president can be impeached or recalled, but the thresholds are too high to even be contemplated.

Comment: The China Post notes that "According to the Constitution, the president can be impeached or recalled, but the thresholds are too high to even be contemplated." The China Post is correct.

The constitution the China Post is referring to however, is not the Republic of China Constitution according to Original Intent and Strict Construction. The constitution the China Post is referring to is Lee Teng-hui's "amended" constitution, a legal counterpart to Viktor Frankenstein's reanimated monster. Lee created this affront to constitutionalism and the rule of law during his imperial presidency, for two purposes.

First, to ensure that Lee himself could do whatever he damn well pleased and never fear impeachment or recall.

Second, to transform the Republic of China Constitution into an abomination that inspires only disgust, providing a convenient pretext for the eventual authoring of of a "Republic of Taiwan Constitution" to take its place.

China Post: To impeach the president, the motion must be initiated by at least half, and endorsed by two-thirds of the total members of the Legislature and then, presented to the 15-member Council of Grand Justices for adjudication.

To recall the president, it requires initiation by one-fourth and endorsement by two-thirds of the total members of the Legislature and finally, approval by 50 percent of the valid ballots cast by at least 50 percent of eligible voters in a national referendum.

Comment: Why? Why such ridiculously high thresholds for the impeachment and recall of a president? One need not be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall to realize that legal thresholds as absurdly high as these make whoever is elected president utterly unimpeachable and unrecallable.

During Lee Teng-hui's reign the Taiwan independence nomenklatura blocked an eminently sensible New Party amendment requiring run-off elections and an absolute majority to elect a president, but rammed through a string of amendments that included this outrageous supermajority threshold for the impeachment or recall of a president.

Democratic universalists assure the world that "Democracies, in contrast to other political systems, respect the will of the people."

Really? Then why did "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui make it harder for the people to rid themselves of him than to elect him?

Shouldn't it be as easy, if not easier for the people to rid themselves of an elected official, than to put him or her in office in the first place?

Chen Shui-bian was elected president by a 39% plurality in 2000 through a direct vote. If a 39% plurality was considered enough to install him in office, why isn't a simple majority, also through a direct vote, enough to "uninstall" him from the same office? Wouldn't that be more "democratic?" Wouldn't that be real "democracy?" Why would "champions of democracy" oppose such an arrangement? Why have "champions of democracy" opposed such an arrangement?

What possible explanation can there be for such a baffling and illogical arrangement, except that aspiring dictators want to make it as easy as possible for themselves to get into office, but as difficult as possible for betrayed and disillusioned voters to remove them from office once they are in?

Why would any sitting president "amend," i.e., pervert, sabotage, undermine, the constitution of the nation he is presiding over in such a manner?

Why else, except to transform a perfectly good constitutional republic into a democracy and oneself into democracy's worst by-product, an elective dictator? Why else, except to transform the Republic of China, a perfectly good constitutional republic, into a "Democratic Republic of Taiwan?"

Has anyone forgotten this was the handiwork of the Taiwan independence Quisling whom Newsweek magazine anointed "Mr. Democracy?"

China Post: That leaves the last resort -- demonstrating people power to force the president to resign, as happened in the Philippines and Thailand. Taiwan's people are ready to do that, but they dread to see Chen's deputy as their next leader.

Comment: This, needless to say, is precisely what "champions of democracy," i.e., aspiring elective dictators, count on. They know perfectly well that People Power takes an eternity to kick in and take effect. People have jobs to go to and lives to live. They don't have either the time or energy to take to the streets in protest every time elected officials engage in power grabs.

When they do eventually take to the streets, it is invariably as a last, desperate resort. It is invariably because by then they are "mad as hell, and not going to take it any more!"

Long before that however, democratically chosen elective dictators will have already gotten everything they wanted from democracy, the worst political system ever tried.

People who still believe in democracy at this late date need to disabuse themselves of the fairy tale notion that "Democracy is a political system of the people, by the people, and for the people." Democracy is no such thing. Democracy is a political system of an elective dictatorship, by an elective dictatorship, and for an elective dictatorship.

It is time for intellectuals, at least those worthy of the name, to give serious thought to adopting a radically new political system to replace democracy. It is time for cutting edge intellectuals to consider the adoption of market anarchism, the best political system ever tried.

Until then, intellectuals in politically mature nations of the world should insist on the second best political system every tried, a constitutional republic.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Journey to Nowhere, the Return Trip

Journey to Nowhere, the Return Trip
Bevin Chu
May 08, 2006
Taiwan leader responds to US snub with global odyssey
By Kathrin Hille in Taipei
Published: May 9 2006 01:32 | Last updated: May 9 2006 01:32

FT: Taiwan’s international isolation became all the more evident last week when the island’s president, on his way to Paraguay, scrapped a planned stop in Alaska. Mr Chen Shui-bian opted instead for a stopover – later aborted – in Beirut, a detour via Abu Dhabi and refuelling in Amsterdam. Analysts said Mr Chen’s odyssey also highlighted the risk that the president could become unpredictable during his last two years in office. They said he might be increasingly willing to risk the ire of the US – Taiwan’s sole protector against threats from [mainland] China and its single most important unofficial ally – if it helped his political agenda. Mr Chen’s detours were organised after Washington offered no more than refuelling in Anchorage or Hawaii for his trip, a substantial downgrade compared with previous US transits when he was allowed to spend a few days in the country, hold meetings and give speeches. Expressing his anger over what he considered to be a clear snub, Mr Chen reciprocated with his strange, intercontinental tour. “The more we get frustrated, the braver we have to be,” he said on Taiwanese television.

Taiwan independence True Believers raging against the US

Comment: Taiwan independence Quislings are now blasting the Bush administration over its deliberately humiliating offer of transit through Alaska. I hesitate to say so, but I couldn't have manifested a more positive development if a Jinni had emerged from a lamp and granted me three wishes.

The reason I hesitate to say so, is that I have never forgotten Napoleon's famous advice, "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."

Taiwan independence Quislings are making the biggest mistake of their life. Their only chance of carving a chunk out of China's sovereign territory and relabeling it the "Republic of Taiwan," is to remain servile and obedient puppets of Washington's Malevolent Global Hegemonists, no matter how badly they are treated in the process. Actually, it is an increasingly remote chance, but it is their only chance. Without the direct military intervention of the their puppetmasters in Washington, Taiwan "independence," if you can call it that, has a "Chinaman's chance" of success.

When Chen thumped his chest and insisted that “The more we get frustrated, the braver we have to be,” what he said in Chinese was "yue cuo, yue yong," which literally translated means, "the greater the frustration, the greater the courage." But since the word for "frustration" in Chinese is a homonym of the word for "error," Pan Blue pundits wasted no time mocking Chen's bravado as "the more serious the error, the greater the foolhardiness."

As their pathetically naive protest signs reveal, Taiwan independence True Believers don't understand their designated role in the Malevolent Global Hegemonists' New Cold War against China. They don't realize they are nothing more than Uncle Sammy's sacrificial pawns. They actually believe "You need Taiwan more than Taiwan needs you."

The only reason I have gone ahead and pointed out the Taiwan independence Quislings' catastrophic mistake, is that the Taiwan independence nomenklatura is not about to correct its mistake based on what some Deep Blue pundit says on the Internet, no matter how widely his weblog is read.

FT: Ties with Washington have been less than smooth since Mr Chen angered Beijing by proposing constitutional reforms and holding a referendum on cross-Strait issues in 2004. “The big question now is whether he is spinning out of control,” said a US expert on Taiwan affairs. Mr Chen is struggling in his final term, which ends in May 2008. His approval ratings have plummeted, while the opposition’s legislative majority means that most of his policies have been blocked, raising the possibility that he may leave office without having achieved anything. Some analysts said this makes populist appeals to Taiwanese nationalism, even if they result in rising tensions with China and a rift with the US, one of the few choices Mr Chen has left.

Comment: As Hermann Goering, (1893-1946) the founder of Nazi Germany's secret police, the Gestapo put it, "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."

Lee Teng-hui and especially Chen Shui-bian have been dragging the people along, bringing them to do their bidding, telling them they are being attacked, and denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the island to danger. As Goering shrewdly noted, it is a simple matter and works the same in any country.

Charles W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, warned about this alarming development in a speech he delivered on June 25, 2004:

It is in our interest to convince Taipei that it is both playing with fire and becoming dangerously distant from its sole protector, the United States. It is not in our interest for Beijing to accomplish this for us by upping the military threat to Taiwan or taking a bite out of the island. The Bush Administration, as recently as yesterday, has spoken out ever more bluntly in an effort to instill realism into Taipei and to deter it from taking steps that will provoke such unilateral action by Beijing. 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; punitive actions may be required.

The Bush administration's denial of transit through the lower 48 is just such a belated and frankly long overdue "punitive action."

FT: US officials indicated that the Anchorage offer that infuriated Taipei so much reflected a lack of confidence in Mr Chen. Analysts said that when he had been given more favourable treatment, he had made his stopovers a “political show” for domestic consumption, and Washington did not trust Taipei to steer clear of similar action this time. “Mr Chen has managed to widely erode support in the most pro-Taiwan administration in recent memory,” said the US expert. When Mr Chen earlier this year broke a promise not to scrap an advisory body responsible for working towards unification with China, US delegates were assured by his aides in private that his other commitments – such as refraining from declaring independence – were still valid. However, Washington subsequently found it impossible to get a personal confirmation of this from him. “He says one thing and does another,” said the US expert. “He behaves like a lawyer”

Comment: For once, an alleged "US expert" on Taiwan affairs actually lives up to the appellation. Whoever this unnamed US expert is, he actually understands Chen Shui-bian's exasperatingly stubborn and appallingly selfish psychology, as few so-called experts on China do.

When this unnamed US expert says that Chen "says one thing and does another" and that "he behaves like a lawyer," he isn't merely telling another lawyer joke, he's revealing that he has Chen Shui-bian profiled every bit as accurately as Pan Blue political analysts on Taiwan, who have long accused Chen and other Pan Green lawyers turned politicians of displaying a classic "luu shi xing ge" (lawyer's personality).

This US expert correctly notes that “Mr Chen has managed to widely erode support in the most pro-Taiwan administration in recent memory.”

How did this come about?

Ironically, this came about precisely because the Bush administration was "the most pro Taiwan [independence] administration in recent memory." This came about because the Bush administration handed the Chen administration a blank check by vowing to "do whatever it took [sic] to defend Taiwan."

Bush wrote the check. Chen merely cashed it.

See: The Taiwan Tail wags the American Dog

FT: Randall Schriver, former deputy assistant secretary of state, said US-Taiwan relations would now enter a “cooling-off period”, and Taipei needed to engage in close communication with Washington to stop an emerging “negative cycle” in bilateral ties.

Comment: From the Taiwan independence Quislings' perspective, Schriver is right on the money. Assuming the Taiwan independence nomenklatura is still serious about realizing its treasonous ambition of Balkanizing the Chinese nation, it ought to first cool off, then kiss up to its puppetmasters in Washington. But I'm guessing, as well as hoping, it won't happen. The individuals who comprise the Taiwan independence nomenklatura are far too myopic, and more importantly, far too selfish to step forward and stop the emerging downward spiral in puppet to puppetmaster ties. They have had six years to engage in self-retrospection as the Pan Blue opposition pointed out their mistakes. Is two more years really going to make any difference?

FT: Mr Chen’s chosen route for his return journey from Paraguay will be the first test whether Taipei is ready to do so. As of yesterday, the government had not made it clear whether the president would stick to plans for a transit through Anchorage tomorrow.

Comment: The latest word as of the afternoon of Tuesday May 9, is that Chen has decided not to kiss and make up with the Bush administration. He intends to continue thumbing his nose at the Bush administration and to return in the same direction he came. Needless to say, this pundit welcomes his decision. I look forward eagerly to hearing State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack refer to Chen Shui-bian as "it."

Chen Shui-bian recently compared the relationship between his Pan Green Quisling regime in Taipei and Bush's Malevolent Global Hegemonist regime in Washington with the relationship between the two main characters in Ang Lee's film Brokeback Mountain.

Chen's clueless analogy may turn out to be more ironically appropriate than even he imagined. Brokeback Mountain depicted a hopeless and doomed relationship that ended in tragedy when one of the two parties died a violent and unnatural death. Between the Pan Green Quislings in Taipei and the Malevolent Global Hegemonists in Washington, whom do you imagine is going to die a violent and unnatural death? I know whom I'm betting on. How about you?