The China Desk

The Narcissism of Small Differences

2009-11-01T16:14:00.025+08:00

The Narcissism of Small Differences
by Bevin Chu
November 1, 2009

Taiwan Independence Movement Banner reading: "Taiwan on one side, China on the other"

Champion of a "Taiwanese, not Chinese" ethnic and national identity desperate not to be mistaken for a "Chinaman."

The China Desk: I recently stumbled across the following item of black humor about "The Narcissism of Small Differences." Founder of Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud once noted that people often feel greater hostility towards those slightly different from them, than those dramatically different from them.

Freud considered this an example of narcissism, because the emotional distress that individuals afflicted with the Narcissism of Small Differences is the result of looking into a mirror but seeing an intolerable blemish on one's own face.

Hence the incomprehensible and irrational hostility self-styled champions of a "Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and political identity" feel towards "Chinese" (i.e., fellow Chinese on either Taiwan or the Chinese mainland).

Champions of a "Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and political identity" are deathly afraid of being "mistaken for Chinese." God forbid anyone should lump intrinsically superior "Taiwanese" together with superficially similar, but congenitally inferior "Chinese."

The narcissism of small differences most often applies to politics, but one of the best jokes on the subject pertains to religion.

The Narcissism of Small Differences

I was walking across a bridge one sunny day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over to him and said: 'Stop. Don't do it.'

'Why not?' he asked.

'Well, there's so much to live for!'

'Like what?'

'Are you religious?'

He said: 'Yes.'

I said. 'Me too. Are you Christian or Muslim?'

'Christian.'

'Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?''

'Protestant.'

'Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?'

'Baptist.'

'Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?'

'Baptist Church of God.'

'Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?'

'Reformed Baptist Church of God.'

'Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?'

He said: 'Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915.'

I said: "Die, you heretic scum!" and pushed him over the railing.

Is Taiwan's Status Undetermined?

2009-10-11T08:34:00.008+08:00

Is Taiwan's Status Undetermined?
by Bevin Chu
October 11, 2009

Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Soong Mei-ling at the Cairo Conference

On September 11, former Republic of China President Chen Shui-Bian was convicted on four counts of corruption, and given a life sentence.

Chen is now demanding that the U.S. Court of Appeals order his release, arguing that the United States still has authority over the island of Taiwan.

Chen says that under the terms of a 1951 peace treaty with Japan, the United States remains the "principal occupying power" of Taiwan, and that as president of the Republic of China, it was his duty to accept orders from U.S. military officials.

Chen says that because of his unique relationship with the United States Military Government for Taiwan, he enjoys immunity from prosecution by the very government for which he was president for eight years.

Chen, in short, has invoked the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory."

Does Chen's argument have any merit?

None whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

The so-called "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory" is sheer sophistry, and amounts to a brazen attempt to annex another nation's sovereign territory.

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

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

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

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

Those who allege that "Taiwan's status is undetermined" ritually invoke the Treaty of San Francisco of September 8, 1951. But this treaty is not binding on China, because neither the Republic of China government in Taipei or the Peoples Republic of China government in Beijing signed it.

What is binding, is the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, which was signed by Yeh Kung-chao, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of China, and Isao Kawada, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of Japan, in Taipei, on April 28, 1952.

Treaty of Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Article 4 of this treaty clearly and unambiguously states that:

"It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war."

In other words, the Makuan Treaty of 1895 (aka Treaty of Shimonoseki) has been rolled back, and Taiwan, including Diaoyutai, as well as Penghu, revert to China.

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

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

It is unconvincing to say that when a Chinese territorial issue was at stake, the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, to which the ROC was a signatory, should carry less weight than the San Francisco Peace Treaty to which China was not.

Simply put, Japan annexed Taiwan by defeating China, which regained the island by defeating Japan half a century later. This historical fact is so crystal clear that in pre-1945 days, no one in the international community had ever raised doubt about it.

The 1972 Shanghai Communique codified this US position.

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

Taiwan's status is not "undetermined." Taiwan belongs to China.

Russians Not Forced to Detour during 9/21 Earthquake

2009-09-18T07:54:00.036+08:00

Russian Search and Rescue Team on a Mission in 2008

China Desk: During the 9/21 Earthquake of 1999, Taiwan independence propagandists disseminated a Big Lie. They alleged that Russian rescue workers were forced to detour around mainland Chinese airspace, delaying their arrival on Taiwan, possibly costing human lives. This allegation was a flagrant lie.

Below is a letter from Julian Clegg to the Taipei Times refuting this urban legend, which stubbornly persists even though it was discredited a decade ago.

The Moscow correspondent for the China Times who refuted this urban legend, was Arkady Borisov. His name in Chinese is 包理述 (Bao Lishu).

The Chief Coordinator of the Russian Emergency Assistance Team (Emercom) when the 9/21 Earthquake struck, was Vladimir Boreiko. His name is also Latinised as Boreyko and is given in the China Times article as 博雷科 (Boleike).

Media Myth Lives On:
Russians Not Forced to Detour during 9/21 Earthquake
by Julian Clegg, Taipei
September 18, 2009

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/09/18/2003453864

Monday marks the 10th anniversary of the 921 Earthquake of 1999. Members of rescue teams who came to Taiwan’s aid after the quake have been invited to attend a series of commemorative events this week.

On Sept. 25, 1999, four days after the earthquake, the Taipei Times ran an article entitled “Taipei accuses China of exploiting quake.” The newspaper followed the government and Chinese-language media in reporting “a Russian earthquake relief mission en route to Taiwan was forced to make a lengthy detour over Siberia because [mainland] China refused to allow the Russian plane carrying the team to pass through its airspace.”

On April 1 this year, the Taipei Times reported that “a group of Russian search and rescue workers that helped local teams during the 921 Earthquake in 1999 will come to Taiwan this September to take part in an event commemorating the 10th anniversary of the quake ... At the time, Russia dispatched a group of 83 professional search-and-rescue personnel to help in the search for survivors. Because of [mainland] China’s refusal to allow Russian planes to fly through its airspace, the help was delayed for 12 hours.”

I must point out that this accusation, though widely believed by people in Taiwan, is untrue.

When the accusation first appeared in the media, I felt doubtful for three reasons. First, different media disagreed widely about the length of the delay. Second, according to my understanding of relations between Russia, [mainland] China and Taiwan, I thought it unlikely that [mainland] China would refuse such a request. Third, the source of the report was said to be a Russian-language newspaper Segodnya (Today). I found this odd because it is very rare for Taiwanese media to report stories from the Russian media, especially when the original article is in Russian.

Out of curiosity, I visited the Russian trade office on Xinyi Road to ask whether the reports were true. The Russian trade representative and other staff said they had not heard of it.

The Russian representative said: “Not everything you read in the newspapers is always true.”

He explained that he had played a key role in facilitating the rescue mission. He assured me that the Russian team had never requested to fly through [mainland] Chinese air space, since the quickest and most efficient way for them to come here was to follow their established domestic route from Moscow to the Russian Far East, and from there across the sea to Taiwan.

He said the route from Russia to Taiwan was registered with international aviation authorities, although it was not in commercial use. It had only been used once before, for a private flight to Taiwan by Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who visited Taiwan from Oct. 18 to Oct. 22, 1998.)

The trade representative said [mainland] China could not have refused permission for the Russian plane to fly over [mainland] China, because the Russians never made any such request.

Following those reports in 1999, however, Taiwanese politicians, including then foreign minister Jason Hu (胡志強) and then Taoyuan County commissioner Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), publicly condemned [mainland] China for its supposed callousness in delaying the Russian rescue mission,.

The incident was cited as a pretext for refusing material aid, such as tents, prefabricated houses and so on, from [mainland] China, and turning down Beijing’s offer to send a medical team, although a cash donation from [mainland] China was accepted. Incidentally, Taiwan also refused aid offered by the Philippines.

After leaving the Russian trade office, I told what I had heard to Time magazine’s Taiwan correspondent Donald Shapiro, and called in to Li Ao’s (李敖) television call-in program and another call-in program on radio.

On Oct. 1, 1999, Taiwan’s representative office in Moscow invited members of the rescue team, who had just returned to Russia, to dinner.

Arkady Borisov, Moscow correspondent of the China Times, asked the rescue team whether it was true that they had been refused passage through [mainland] Chinese airspace. Team leader Vladimir Boreiko replied that it was not true, and proceeded to give the same account that the Russian representative in Taipei gave to me. This report appeared in the China Times on Oct. 3, 1999, and is still available online.

These are the facts of the matter as far as I know. Anyone who is still in doubt will have a chance to ask the Russian rescue team members during their visit to Taiwan this week.

JULIAN CLEGG
Taipei

China Desk: below is the China Times article mentioned in Julian Clegg's letter. This China Times article, submitted by Russian reporter Arkady Borisov, refuted this Taiwan independence Big Lie back in 1999, less than two weeks after the quake struck.

俄救難隊：救人第一是我們唯一信念
中時電子報
1999.10.03

http://forums.chinatimes.com.tw/report/921_quake/88100334.htm

【本報駐莫斯科特派記者包理述特稿】台灣九二一大地震發生之後，俄國緊急事務部自然災難預測中心立即向部長紹伊古提交報告，估計死亡人數為二萬人。經總理普丁的許可，紹伊古下令派遣救難專機到台灣。對俄國來說，此次迅速主動反應，是空前的對台灣友好行動。俄羅斯各界人士也紛紛致電致函給北莫協辦事處表示慰問，俄國媒體也非常關注，大幅報導台灣災情。這次「九二一震災」在一定的程度上顯示，俄國政府及民間對台灣的態度比以前不一樣了，兩國實質關係已有所提升。

十月一日北莫協莫斯科辦事處特別宴請剛從台灣返國的俄羅斯救難隊員，以對救災勇士表示敬佩與感謝之意。救難隊員宴中對新聞界也透露了一些有意思的細節，及對台灣地震的觀感。

針對有報導說「中共不允許俄羅斯救援團飛越中共領空，延誤了救援團體來台進行救難工作的時效」，俄國救難隊副隊長博雷科說，這是報導無中生有。根據規定，俄國救難隊收到通知之後，卅分鐘內應該出發赴災區。當時，俄國專機根本也不打算利用中國大陸的「空中走廊」，一開始要飛莫斯科－新西伯利亞－海參崴－日本領空－台灣的航線；救難隊是因等台灣方面同意等了好久，因此才耽誤了時間。不過，這是完全正常的，因為災情存在一定程度的不可預見性，政府需要時間來了解情況，然後才決定需不需要國際援助。上次俄國救難隊要赴土耳其救災，也差不多等了這麼多時間。

赴台灣救難隊員剛參加過土耳其大地震和莫斯科公寓爆炸搶救工作，精神上已疲累不堪，從莫斯科出發飛了十八個小時，抵台一下飛機後，就不眠不休的投入救災。他們說：「我們唯一的信念就是救人第一。」但他們對這次台灣救災工作不是很滿意，因為沒有救出任何生還者。

俄國隊被分派到倒塌的東勢鎮地標「王朝大樓」是有如廢墟一般，專家認定大樓內沒有生命跡象，但考慮到「道德因素」及受難者家屬的情緒，仍夜以繼日的繼續進行搜救。

一些救難隊員對台灣建築的堅固印象深刻，增加搜救的困難度。他們說，一開始在王朝大樓發現了二名罹難者屍體壓在亂石堆中，但是經過二十小時才能夠排除障礙物，順利挖出。

這些俄羅斯救難隊員都說：「台灣人都以非常溫暖的情緒對待我們」，對此印象極佳。博雷科先生特別向多日陪同他們的外交部工作人員蔣嘉一、徐瑞文等表示感謝。為了幫忙翻譯，他們經常隨同搜救人員進入傾倒的大樓內，俄文翻譯徐小姐每天只睡一個小時。

俄國救難隊隊長普拉特先生說，台灣官方已請求俄羅斯專家協助訓練中華搜救隊隊員，並已獲得緊急事務部長紹伊古的同意。

Him Mark Lai, Dean of Chinese American History

2009-06-11T13:08:00.010+08:00

The China Desk: The following is a eulogy to Him Mark Lai, written by my good friend Ling-chi Wang, who considers Lai the "Dean of Chinese American History."

I never knew Lai. My own political views are quite different from Lai's. Lai was a socialist. I am a free market anarchist.

But I do share one thing with Lai and my friend Ling-chi. I share their sworn hostility toward racism and racial inequality.

Him Mark Lai helped set the record straight about the history of ugly bigotry against ethnic Chinese in America. And for that he deserves the highest recognition.

-- Bevin Chu

Him Mark Lai, 1925-2009: the Dean of Chinese American History
by Dr. Ling-chi Wang,
Professor of Asian American Studies
UC Berkeley

Him Mark Lai, 1925-2009: the Dean of Chinese American History

Him Mark Lai, an internationally renowned archivist and historian of Chinese America and a highly respected leader of the community, died peacefully on Thursday, May 21, after a long struggle with cancer and other complications. For his immense contributions to Chinese American history, Prof. L. Ling-chi Wang of Asian American Studies at UC Berkeley called him “the Dean of Chinese American history.” He was 84 years old.

Him Mark Lai was born on November 1, 1925 in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Lai was the first in his family to begin life in America. His mother, Dong Hing Mui, was raised in Guangzhou while his father Maak Bing—from Chunghaa Village, Nam Hoi county—entered the United States under the paper name of Lai. But he passed his true ancestral roots to his five children by giving them each the middle name of Mark.

Since his childhood in Chinatown, he was an avid reader and collector of books in both Chinese and English. Like many Chinatown children before World War II, he started schooling at both Commodore Stockton Elementary School and Nam Kue Chinese School. From there, he went to Francisco Junior High School and Galileo High School. He excelled in both public and Chinese schools. During his final year at Galileo High, he also won a citywide essay contest for which he was honored at a student body rally.

Upon graduation from high school, he expressed his desire to go to college. However, his father urged him to go for a job in the city’s shipyards, pointing out that racism had prevented his own employer, a university graduate, from working in his profession. Him Mark refused and his irresistible desire was supported by his mother. Toward this end, he worked part time for 25 cents an hour at a sewing factory while attending first in the City College of San Francisco for two years. He completed his mechanical engineering degree at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1947.

Between work and study, Him Mark found time to join the San Francisco chapter of the Chinese League for Peace and Democracy, an organization opposed to American interference in China’s Civil War, 1945-1949. In late 1949, he started volunteering for the Chung Sai Yat Po, the first daily paper to support the new People’s Republic of China, and became also a member of organizations active in persuading students to return to China to serve the new government. He also joined the Chinese American Democratic Youth League, more familiarly known as Mun Ching, where he met Laura Jung, a young new immigrant, whom he eventually married in 1953. Laura became his life-time companion and steadfast supporter and collaborator in his work on Chinese American history until he died. Since he never learned how to drive, his countless research trips criss-crossing the U.S. could not have been accomplished without the ever-present love, care, and devotion of Laura.

With his hope of returning to China thwarted, he settled for a job in Bechtel Corporation as a mechanical engineer. The profession provided him both security and income and allowed him to pursue his real passion: the study of Chinese history and culture. During the McCarthy era in 1950s, introducing the Chinese community to the songs, music, folk dances, and vernacular dramas of the New China through Mun Ching—now renamed the Chinese American Youth Club—proved immensely satisfying despite the cost of constant FBI surveillance and intimidation. In the process, he also gained mastery of both spoken and written Chinese, skills turned out to be most useful for his later interest in doing research in Chinese American history.

When Mun Ching lost its clubroom in 1959 and was forced to close, Lai felt intellectually restless. The following year, he enrolled in a course, “The Oriental in North America,” a relatively new course taught by Stanford Lyman at the University of California Extension in San Francisco, which exposed him for the first time to the histories of the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos in America. He subsequently read a half dozen or so titles on Chinese in America published in the early 1960s and joined the Chinese Historical Society of America soon after its founding in 1963.

These events, together with contemporaneous changes in the status of minorities spurred by the Civil Rights movement, led Lai towards developing a Chinese American identity and history. In 1967, he accepted an invitation by the East/West, the Chinese American Weekly, a Chinese bilingual weekly published and edited by Gordon Lew, to write a series of articles on Chinese American history. This marked the beginning of his interest and devotion to reclaiming Chinese/American experience—a fortuitous confluence of his passion for history and his deep commitment to his bicultural heritage and democratic principles.

His most significant contributions to Chinese American history fall in three broad categories: research and publications; archival collections; and nurturing and mentoring of young Chinese American historians.

In all, he published and edited ten books and more than one hundred articles in English and Chinese on all aspects of Chinese American life. His East/West articles—revised and annotated—became the basis for the classic A History of the Chinese in California, A Syllabus, coedited with Thomas W. Chinn and Philip P. Choy, as well as for the first Chinese American history course in the United States, which Lai team taught with Choy at San Francisco State College in Fall 1969. Their joint teaching resulted in another classic Outlines: History of the Chinese in America. Lai’s first scholarly essay, “A Historical Survey of Organizations of the Left Among the Chinese in America,” published in the Fall 1972 issue of the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars—together with subsequent revisions—remains a standard reference. So do Island: Poetry and History of Chinese Immigrants on Angel Island 1910-1940, co-authored/translated with Genny Lim and Judy Yung; Lai’s “Chinese on the Continental U.S.” in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups; his From Overseas Chinese to Chinese American: a History of the Development of Chinese during the Twentieth Century (in Chinese) and articles in the Encyclopedia of Chinese Overseas and Huaquiao Huaren baike quanshu [Encyclopedia of Chinese and people of Chinese descent overseas]. Under his guidance and editorial leadership, no less then ? volumes of monographs, entitled, Chinese America: History & Perspectives, have been published. Each monograph contained original historical studies on subjects in Chinese American history by historians, young and old. Among his most important books is Becoming Chinese Americans: A History of Communities and Institutions, published in 2004.

To dig up the ignored and buried past, Him Mark Lai collected archival materials from Chinese American individuals and organizations across the nation, rescuing documents and old Chinese-language books and newspaper collections from dumpsters, second-hand and rare books stores. With Laura, he traveled to archives and Chinese/American communities on both sides of the Pacific, interviewed hundreds of people, and gathered valuable historical materials. Through his tireless search and rescue came two very important published bibliographies of Chinese newspapers and Chinese language materials: Chinese Newspapers Published in North America, 1854-1975 co-complied with Karl Lo in 1977 and A History Reclaimed: An Annotated Bibliography of Chinese Language Materials on the Chinese in America in 1986. Both are considered indispensable tools and sources for Chinese American history. Five years ago, he decided to donate his entire personal collection of rare documents and journals, monographs and books to the Chinese American Archival Collection in the Asian American Studies Collection in the Ethnic Studies Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Through a generous grant from the National Archives, the entire collection is now processed, catalogued and digitized and available to the public at:

http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt7r29q3gq.

Besides being a historian and archivist, Him Mark Lai was a generous and effective teacher, always ready to share his wealth of knowledge and collection with anyone interested into doing research on Chinese American history. He taught occasional courses in Chinese American history in the Asian American Studies Programs at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley. He provided guidance to hundreds for graduate students and scholars throughout the U.S. and across the globe. It would not be an exaggeration to say that virtually ever dissertation and book on the subject in the past thirty years is indebted to his research, collection materials, or guidance.

Beyond his contributions to Chinese American history mentioned above, Him Mark Lai also maintained his cultural and political commitment to the Chinese American community. For thirteen years, he coordinated a group that produced Hon Sing, a weekly radio program of news commentary, community announcements, and Chinese music under the auspices of the Chinese for Affirmative Action; and he served multiple terms on the boards of many organizations—such as the Chinese Culture Foundation and the Chinese Historical Society of America—often assuming the responsibilities of president. He also encouraged and brought to light new research by others through his decades of work on the editorial committees of Amerasia Journal and other publications.

Not widely known to the public is his lifelong quiet, but consistent support for racial equality and justice for Chinese Americans. He always supported the progressive, and quite often, unpopular, but just causes in the Chinese American community, even though he rarely played a visible role in these struggles.

Finally, Him Mark Lai was a tireless promoter of better understanding and friendly relation between the U.S. and China. He understood the importance of this relationship to the interests and welfare of Chinese Americans and he consistently supported events and projects promoting better relations between the two countries.

In conclusion, Him Mark Lai will long be remembered as the historian who rescued Chinese American history from oblivion and restored Chinese American experience as an integral part of not just U.S. history but the history of modern China.

A memorial service and celebration of Him Mark Lai’s life will be held at the Chinese Culture Center at 750 Kearny Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on Saturday, June 20 at 2:30 p.m., followed by dinner at Gold Mountain Restaurant, 644 Broadway, at 5 p.m.

In lieu of flowers, please send donations to the “Him Mark Lai Digital Archive Project” of the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA), the “Him Mark Lai Heritage Fund” of the Chinese Culture Foundation (CCF), Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), or the charity of one’s choice.

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?

2009-03-04T09:46:00.008+08:00

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?
Nanfang Daily
March 3, 2009
Translated by Bevin Chu
http://chinanews.sina.com

Love without a Heart: Ai, or "Love," in Simplified Chinese

Love with a Heart: Ai, or "Love," in Traditional Chinese

The China Desk: Taiwan independence demagogues have long denounced Chinese reunification as "surrender to Beijing."

Really?

Champions of free market capitalism, including myself, like to joke that "The Cold War is over. We won."

The USSR lost the Cold War to the USA. The PRC lost the Cold War to the ROC.

Beijing was forced to admit that it lost to Taipei. Beijing was forced to admit that it was defeated by Taipei in the War of Economic Systems. Deng Xiaoping on the Chinese mainland, was forced to adopt the free market capitalism practiced by Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo on Taiwan.

So who surrendered to whom?

If that isn't enough, now Beijing is being forced to admit that it lost to Taipei in the War of Characters.

So who says reunification means "surrender to Beijing?"

Closer examination suggests that reunification means "victory over Beijing."

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?
Nanfang Daily
March 3, 2009
Translated by Bevin Chu
http://chinanews.sina.com

Pan Qingling, a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Committee Member, has proposed that the nation phase out the use of Simplified Chinese characters in stages, and resume the use of Traditional Chinese characters within ten years, for three reasons.

One. The adoption of Simplified Chinese characters in the 1950s, during the last century, was too crude. It constituted a violation of Chinese writing, both artistically and scientifically. For example, the Traditional Chinese character for "love" includes the character for "heart." Upon simplification, the result is "love without a heart."

Two. It was once said that Traditional Characters were too complex, too hard to learn, too hard to write, and not conducive to popularization. But now most people use computers. No matter how complex the characters might be, they are no more difficult to type. This is no longer a problem.

Three. Resuming the use of Traditional Chinese characters is beneficial to reunification. The Taiwan region still uses Traditional Chinese characters, and refers to them as "Standard Characters." This has deep implications. The use of "Standard Characters" as an intangible cultural heritage exerts a form of pressure on the mainland.

全國政協委員潘慶林建議恢復使用繁體字

南方日報

2009年03月03日 03:33

http://chinanews.sina.com

全國政協委員潘慶林提出，建議全國用10年時間，分批廢除簡體漢字，恢復使用繁體字，原因有三:

1 上世紀50年代簡化漢字時太粗糙，違背了漢字的藝術和科學性。比如愛字，繁體字裡有個“心”，簡化後，造成“無心之愛”。

2 以前說繁體字太繁瑣，難學難寫，不利於傳播，但是現在很多人都是用電腦輸入，再繁瑣的字打起來也一樣，所以這個問題已經漸漸不存在。

3 恢復使用繁體字有利於兩岸統一。現在台灣依然用繁體字，並稱其為“正體字”，深有意味，還要為“正體字”申請非物質文化遺產，給祖國大陸方面造成了壓力。

Barack Obama, Washington's Answer to "Hancock?"

2009-01-21T01:04:00.004+08:00

Barack Obama, Washington's Answer to "Hancock?"
Bevin Chu
January 20, 2009

Is Barack Obama Washington's answer to Hollywood's "Hancock?"

Popular films, as Jungian psychologists know full well, are highly revealing indicators of society's "Collective Unconscious."

What do the recent spate of superhero movies from Hollywood reflect, but America's desperate yearning for a messiah, a savior, or angel, such as the post-modern angel in "Hancock," played by Will Smith?

Is Barack Obama Washington's answer to Hollywood's "Hancock?"

Barack Obama, Washington's Answer to Hollywood's Hancock?

Will Smith as Superhero "Hancock"

Update October 10, 2009:

Gasps as Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize
By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers Karl Ritter And Matt Moore, Associated Press Writers

OSLO – The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.

China Desk: Apparently even the Nobel Prize Committee judges are not immune from the yearning for a messiah.

They have essentially awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in advance, in the hope that Obama will deliver on his implied promise.

Let's hope they're not disappointed.

The Sound of the New Party has a New Home!

2008-11-30T17:01:00.006+08:00

Sound of the New Party Radio Broadcast Series:
Learning English by Following Politics
看政治學英文系列

The Sound of the New Party has a New Home!
Bevin Chu
November 30, 2008

The Sound of the New Party Radio Broadcast Series: Learning English by Following Politics now has a new home.

Beginning December 1, 2008, the contents of the weekly Monday evening series will be posted at:

The Sound of the New Party
http://soundofnewparty.wordpress.com/

Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and Balances

2008-11-20T22:40:00.012+08:00

Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and Balances
Bevin Chu
November 20, 2008

Special Posting for Mr. Christopher DiFranco's Social Studies Class at Georgetown Middle/High School in Georgetown, Massachusetts.

Georgetown Middle/High School, Georgetown, Massachusetts

See: The Myth of Checks and Balances
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/02/myth-of-checks-and-balances.html

Additional Closely Related Articles:

See: The Non-Aggression Axiom
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-03_011_the_non_aggression_axiom.mp3

See: Economic Selections, not Democratic Elections
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/03/economic-selections-not-democratic.html

See: Frogs and Fraud, a Fable
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/08/frogs-and-fraud-fable.html

See: How Democracy Really Works
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-democracy-really-works.html

See: The Founding Fathers' Next Step
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/09/founding-fathers-next-step.html

Tibet: True or False?

2008-07-01T09:28:00.004+08:00

Tibet: True or False?
by Mila Marcos and Michel Collon
July 1, 2008

Tibet is an Integral Part of China

"Historic Tibet": the megalomanical "Greater Tibet" territorial claims of Tibetan independence ultranationalists

The China Desk: Below is a highly informative Q&A Session on Tibet. FYI.

URL:
http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php?dateaccess=2008-06-26%2014:54:30&log=articles

IMPRIMER MAINTENANT !
TIBET : true or false?
Test how the media informed you
Mila Marcos and Michel Collon

The goal of these media tests is neither to shock nor create a scandal. All beliefs deserve respect. The goal is to allow each of us to determine for ourselves a decisive question: is what I believe based on reliable information? Or did someone try to manipulate public opinion on these big questions?
What makes a good judge? Someone who listens attentively to the contending parties, leaves her prejudices outside, makes up her own mind, and checks the reliability of each document, of each witness. Wouldn't a media reader or viewer find it helpful to follow this same method?

1. "BEFORE THE CHINESE INVASION, THE TIBETAN PEOPLE LIVED IN HARMONY WITH THEIR NOBILITY IN A SOCIAL ORDER INSPIRED BY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS."

FALSE. Religious doctrines imposed the superior position of the rich noble and the inferior position of the impoverished peasant, the low-ranking monk, the slave and all women, presenting this ranking as the inevitable outcome of karmic virtues and vices of successive former lives.

This religious ideology justified a feudal class order: serfs worked without pay for life on the grounds of the lord or the monastery, unable to move without permission. All life events--marriage, death, birth, a religious festival, to own an animal, to plant a tree, to dance, or to enter or leave prison--were pretexts for heavy taxes. Debts passed from father to son and to grandson. Those who failed to pay were reduced to slavery.

Fugitives and thieves were tracked by a small professional army. Favorite punishments: tearing out the tongue or the eye, slicing the tendon at the knee, etc. There tortures were not ended until 1959, at the time of democratic reforms decided in Beijing.

2. “IN 1951, CHINA INVADED TIBET.”

FALSE. The term “invasion” assumes that there are two countries. However, since the 13th century, the Mongols had annexed Tibet to China. As of the 17th century, it was one of the eighteen provinces of the Chinese Empire. And each new Dalai Lama received his “seal” of office from the Chinese Emperor.

At the end of the 19th century, the British Empire invaded Tibet and installed its trade representatives there. The thirteenth Dalai Lama took advantage of this to assert Tibet's independence. No Chinese party nor any country in the world took this request seriously. As of 1949, the U.S. State Department still declared Tibet and Taiwan integral parts of China.

This all changed when, led by Mao Zedong, China became socialist. The same U.S. State Department then wrote: “Tibet has become strategically and ideologically important. Since the independence of Tibet can aid the fight against Communism, it is of our interest to recognize it as independent rather than regarding it as belonging to China.” But, it added: “The situation would change if a government in exile is created. In this case, it is in our interest to support it without recognizing Tibet's independence. To recognize the independence of Tibet, yes or no, is not the true question. It is about our attitude towards China.”

3. “AS SOON AS SOCIALIST CHINA TOOK OVER THE DIRECTION IN 1951, THE DALAI-LAMA AND THE TIBETAN NOBILITY LOST ALL THEIR POLITICAL POWER IN TIBET."

FALSE. In 1951, Beijing and the local government of Tibet signed an accord on the peaceful liberation of Tibet. The Dalai Lama wrote a poem about the glory of President Mao Zedong and telegraphed him: “The local government, the lamas and the lay population of Tibet unanimously support the accord of 17 articles." It is within this framework that the Peoples Liberation Army entered Tibet.

The agreement foresaw the continuation of serfdom in Tibet under the authority of the Dalai Lama. The monasteries, the Dalai Lama and the officials would keep their possessions: 70 percent of the land. Beijing would control military questions and international relations. The local Tibetan government, composed of lamas and lords, negotiated and accepted the agreement. The Dalai Lama took the post of vice-president of the Parliament of all China, which he accepted without problems.

4. ”IN 1959, 83.000 DIED IN THE BATTLE OF LHASA.”

FALSE. To understand the sequence of events: while in Tibet, eastern feudalism continued, in the neighboring provinces where minorities Tibetans coexist with of Han, Hui, Yi, Naxi, Qiang, Mongols…, land reform got underway at the beginning of the 1950s. The lands of the great landowners were confiscated and redistributed to the poor peasants. With few conflicts, as the socialist State pays an income to the ex-owners. Resistance came from Tibetan lamas and nobility in these areas. They refuse to give up their privileges.

In 1956, they launched an armed rebellion starting from the monastery of Litang in Sichuan province. After skirmishes with the Red Army, a part of the Tibetan elite of Sichuan flees to Tibet and spreads rumors of “red terror.” From the beginning, the CIA financed and supported the uprising. Armed militia were trained in Colorado, parachuted into Tibet, and supplied with weapons by air. The bloody events of this period were indeed a struggle of the privileged classes, organized by the CIA.

In 1959, the rumor that,“The Chinese will kidnap the Dalai Lama,” sparked a large demonstration in Lhasa. In reality, the CIA had already organized the Dalai Lama's flight towards India. The demonstrators lynched some Tibetan officials, and the Red Army crushed the riot. How many deaths in Lhasa? Three thousand according to testimonies collected by the political economist Henry Bradsher (pro-independence). Sixty-five thousand, claimed the Dalai Lama in 1959. Then, it will pass to eighty-seven thousand. However, at that time Lhasa only had a maximum of forty thousand inhabitants. It is true that after the riot, ten thousand Tibetans were sent to spend eight months doing forced labor to build the first hydro-electric power station in Ngchen. But the unsubstantiated figures continued to circulate. In 1984, the Tibetan government in exile used the figure of « 432.000 Tibetains dead during the battles with the Red Army between 1949 and 1979 » !

5. “INDIA INITIALLY REFUSED TO GRANT THE DALAI-LAMA POLITICAL ASYLUM."

TRUE. Starting in 1949, the United States tried to convince the Dalai Lama to go into exile, with the assistance of his two brothers (recruited by the CIA in 1951) and of the German adviser Heinrich Harrer (former SS). It would take ten years before he agreed to take refuge in India with the layer of privileged dignitaries who will make up the exiled Tibetan community.

But neighboring India hardly wanted to grant him asylum. President Eisenhower then proposed to introduce 400 Indian engineers to U.S. nuclear technology. The Indian leader Nehru accepted this deal. In 1974, first Indian A-bomb was given the cynical nickname of “smiling Buddha”.

6. “THE CHINESE OCCUPATION CAUSED THE VIOLENT DEATH OF 1.2 MILLION TIBETANS."

FALSE. Two major facts contradict this figure, which the Western world has accepted without proof for thirty years.

1. The Tibetan population pyramid in 1953 was estimated as at maximum 2.5 million inhabitants in Tibet and in neighboring provinces. If 1.2 million Tibetans had been killed between 1951 and the beginning of the 70s, most of Tibet would have been depopulated. And there would be a great imbalance between men and women. But demographers note no such anomaly and the population doubled to almost six million Tibetans in China today.

2. The only person who had access to the files of the Tibetan government in exile was Patrick French, when he directed Free Tibet in London. Documents in hand, French concluded that the evidence of the “ Tibetan genocide” had been falsified. The battles of 1959 had been counted several times and the figures of deaths added in the margins afterwards. He denounced this falsification, but the figure continued to circulate in the world…

7. “RELIGIOUS PRACTICE WAS PROHIBITED DURING THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION.”

TRUE. Between 1966 and 1976, all religious practices were prohibited not only in Tibet, but in all China. The monasteries were closed, the monks had to return to their families of origin and devote themselves to productive work, primarily farming. It is not true that all the temples and monasteries were "razed to the ground." But the Red Guards, young Tibetan intellectuals who followed the general movement in China, destroyed many objects of worship.

When that turned chaotic, the army stepped in and restored social and economic order. The Chinese government publicly admitted the errors of this period and financed the restoration of all Tibet's religious patrimony. The monasteries were repopulated. Two thousand lamaseries were restored and are functioning in China.

8. “THE DALAI-LAMA IS A SORT OF POPE OF WORLD BUDDHISM.”

FALSE. The Dalai Lama represents neither Zen Buddhism (Japan), nor Southeast Asian Buddhism, nor Chinese Buddhism. In fact, Tibetan Buddhism represents less than 2 percent of the world's Buddhists. In Tibet itself, there are four separate Buddhist sects, the Dalai Lama belonging to one of them, the gelugpa (yellow bonnets).

When he visited London in 1992, the largest British Buddhist organization accused him of being a “pitiless dictator” and an “oppressor of religious freedom.” This “Pope” seems to have few religious disciples, but many political followers…

9. “THE DALAI LAMA CLAIMS A QUARTER OF CHINA'S TERRITORY.”

TRUE. Although he had recently said he would be satisfied with a kind of autonomy, in his books, he claims a “Grand Tibet,” double the size of that where the Dalai Lamas exerted local political power in the past. This territory would incorporate the whole province of Qinghai and the parts of the provinces Gansu, Yunnan and Sichuan, in which one finds Tibetan minorities among other nationalities.

By what methods? By driving out the non-Tibetan populations? Practicing ethnic cleansing? Yes. The Dalai Lama declared textually in the U.S. Congress in 1987: “7.5 million settlers must leave.” It is not a question of settlers, because the populations of these areas have been mixed for centuries. In any case, this expansionist project would carry out what all the colonial powers have sought to do for 150 years: to dismember China.

10. “DONATION FROM CHARITABLE AND HUMANITARIAN NGO'S FINANCE THE TIBETAN MOVEMENT.”

FALSE. The Tibetan movement indeed receives such gifts, but its principal financier is the government of the United States. Between 1959 and 1972, the CIA poured $1.7 million into the “Tibetan government in exile” and $180,000 dollars per annum for the Dalai Lama. This he denied for a long time, but ended up acknowledging it.

From then on and still today, the payments were more discreet, through cover organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, Tibet Fund, State Department's Democracy Bureau… Another important sponsor: George Soros through Albert Einstein Institute, directed until recently by ex-colonel Robert Helvey of the U.S. secret services.

11. “THE SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DALAI LAMA IS JUSTIFIED BY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES."

TRUE. Ruling U.S. circles see China as their principal enemy. Now China is certainly an essential economic partner, but also, in the long term, a principal factor resisting U.S. world domination. The USA predict that China will catch them up as a world power about 2030. They must then absolutely prevent Asians from creating a Common Market tied to China that would evade U.S. control.

These people dream that they can break up China as they did the USSR. Their goal is to control the economic wealth, the labor power and the largest market of the world. To weaken China, the U.S. has a two-track strategy. On the one hand, to encircle China with military bases. In addition, to encourage separatist movements and all kinds of opposition. They begin with media demonization campaigns. That's why they invest greatly in the question of Tibet.

12. “THE DALAI LAMA PUBLICLY DEFENDED THE FORMER FASCIST DICTATOR OF CHILE AUGUSTO PINOCHET.”

TRUE. British police arrested Pinochet in England, based on an international warrant for crimes against humanity issued by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón. In this occasion, the Dalai Lama actively recommended the British government to release him and stop him from being tried. Pinochet also was a long-term employee of the CIA.

The Dalai Lama is indeed a pawn of the United States. In 2007, George Bush presented the Dalai Lama a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award given by the U.S. Congress. His holiness praised Bush for his efforts in the whole world on behalf of freedom, democracy and human rights. He called the United States “a champion of democracy and freedom.”

13. “REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS GIVES DISINTERESED SUPPORT TO THE DALAI LAMA."

FALSE. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) presents itself as a defender of freedom for journalists, and many of its small contributors believe they are supporting an independent and objective organization. But the funds for helping oppressed journalists amounts to only 7 percent of the total budget. The remainder goes to political campaigns.

Behind these campaigns is dirty money. Actually, the boss at RSF, Robert Ménard, uses a double standard when he defends human rights. He criticizes Venezuela and Cuba by distorting facts? Why? He received financings from the Cuban counterrevolutionaries in Miami. He criticizes China for his policy in Tibet? Why? He received 100.000 dollars from the anti-communists of Taiwan. On the other hand, he is more than timid towards the United States, which killed the greatest number of journalists these last few years. Why? He is financed by the CIA through the NED as we already mentioned.

Similarly, Ménard forced RSF to cease criticizing the French media. Why? He is supported financially by the largest French media and some large multinationals. Moreover, the NMPP (owned partially by Lagardere) distribute his albums free. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Ménard had to admit in 2001: “How, for example,could we organize a debate on the concentration of the press and then ask Havas or Hachette to sponsor it?”

Despite all these suspect financial arrangements, the majority of the mass media continue to relay Ménard's words massively. On the other hand, UNESCO ceased supporting him, explaining that, “RSF had shown on several occasions an absence of ethics by treating certain countries with very little objectivity.”

14. “CHINA IS COMMITTING CULTURAL GENOCIDE IN TIBET.”

FALSE. Actually, Tibet for a long time has been an autonomous area. Since the 1980s, the culture and the religion of Tibet are practiced freely, children are bilingual, institutes studying Tibet have been opened, lamas, including young children, fill the monasteries. In the streets, believers happily spin their prayer wheels. The language Tibetan is spoken and written by many more people than before the revolution. There are a hundred literary magazines in Tibet. Even Foreign Office magazine, close to the U.S. State Department, acknowledged that 60 to 70 percent of the civil servants are from the Tibetan ethnic group and that bilingualism is common.

In addition, Tibetan culture also experienced new growth in the remainder of China, especially in the fields of language, literature, studies of the everyday life and traditional architecture. China published major collections of books, newspapers and magazines in the Tibetan language. Many publishing houses exist not only in Tibet but also in Beijing. “Cultural genocide” is a political propaganda myth.

15. “THE CONFRONTATIONS OF MARCH 14, 2008 IN LHASA OCCURRED BECAUSE THE POLICE FORCE AND THE CHINESE ARMY VIOLENTLY REPRESSED A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION."

FALSE. All the Western witnesses present on the spot, including journalist James Miles (The Economist) and many tourists attest to it: the violence was started by young Tibetans who the lamas encouraged to commit destructive acts.

These were criminal acts programmed in a racist manner. Several groups, all armed in the same manner (Molotov cocktails, stones, steel bars, and butcher's knives), all operating in the same way, were spread around Lhasa, and sowed panic by attacking Han (Chinese) and Hui (Moslems). Civilians were burned alive, others beaten to death or cut up. Nineteen died and more than three hundred were wounded. Schools, hospitals and hotels were attacked. Many older Tibetans aided the victims and saved lives.

When these racist violences were exposed, the partisans of the Dalaï-Lama claimed that it was all the work of Chinese soldiers disguised as monks, circulating an alleged “satellite” photograph that was supposed to prove it. We showed that this photograph was a coarse forgery.

The police force and the Chinese army initially remained extremely passive before intervening in force to put an end to the riots. How many became victims there at this time? The Western media spread the figure (“hundreds”) advanced by the partisans of the Dalai Lama.
Some of those the Tibetan government in exile declared “dead” are quite alive today in Tibet. Others were called “Dupont, Charleroi” without being more precise. Other names raised do not exist. The argument goes on.

Translated from French by John Catalinotto

Taipei Reaffirms Sovereignty over Diaoyutai, Finally!

2008-06-14T07:03:00.008+08:00

Taipei Reaffirms Sovereignty over Diaoyutai, Finally!
Bevin Chu
June 14, 2008

Diaoyutai belongs to China, Map of Diaoyutai printed on Taiwan

Diaoyutai belongs to China, Map of Diaoyutai printed on the Chinese Mainland

The ROC government in Taipei has reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, finally.

It's about time.

For the past 20 years, Taipei has allowed Japan to get away with behaving as if the Diaoyutai Islands (in Hanyu Pinying), or "Tiaoyutai Islands" (in Wade-Giles), and the territorial waters surrounding it, belonged to Japan.

For eight years, Chen Shui-bian has never made a peep when Japanese warships drove Taiwan Chinese fishing boats from Chinese territorial waters.

During his 12 years in office, Chen's predecessor Lee Teng-hui was even worse. Lee openly and explicitly declared that Diaoyutai belonged to Japan!

Now however, three weeks into Ma Ying-jeou's term, a incident that during Lee Teng-hui's term or Chen Shui-bian's term would have been swept under the rug, has brought the issue of China's sovereignty over Diaoyutai into the spotlight.

Now, finally, we have an opportunity to get at the truth.

See China Desk articles on Diaoyutai: http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/04/japanese-historians-view-of-diaoyutai_09.html
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/12/millions-for-defense-but-not-one-cent.html
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2005/07/diaoyutai-and-pan-green-self-delusion.html

See also: http://blog.yam.com/dili/article/5442557

Executive Director Huang Hsi-lin 黃錫麟 of the Diaoyutai Islands Action Coalition 保釣行動聯盟 thanks the ROC Coast Guard 海巡隊 for its escort mission - The 12 members of the Diaoyu Islands Action Coalition made a successful circumnavigation of the Diaoytai Islands on June 16th. They returned safely to Ruifang Sheng Ao Harbor in Taipei County 北縣瑞芳深澳漁港

Taipei reaffirms sovereignty over Tiaoyutai Islands
Friday, June 13, 2008
The China Post news staff

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Taiwan reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Tiaoyutai Islands for the first time in at least ten years yesterday, two full days after a 270-ton sports fishing boat sank in a collision with a Japanese maritime defense frigate over their waters.

President Ma Ying-jeou, once a Tiaoyutai warrior, had a statement issued by his spokesman Wang Yu-chi reaffirming the eight islets, some 120 miles northeast of Keelung, are part of the territory of the Republic of China.

No official statement on the Tiaoyutais has been made over the past ten years, and it seems that Taipei has tacitly given up sovereignty over the small archipelago, which the Japanese call the Senkaku Islands.

China, along with Taiwan and Japan, claims sovereignty over the islets under whose waters lie vast natural gas and oil reserves waiting to be tapped.

"We have never changed our determination to insist on protecting our sovereignty over the Tiaoyutais," the Office of the President said in the statement. "Nor will we change."

The islets are designated as Daxi li (ward) of Touzheng Township in the county of Yilan, the statement declared.

"This stand is fully understood by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs," the statement went on, adding: "It (the foreign ministry) will comply."

On the other hand, the statement said, "We will lodge a strong protest with the Japanese government for its patrol vessel hitting and sinking our fishing boat and detaining its skipper."

"We also demand Japan release the skipper at once and pay compensation," the Office of the President said. "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is negotiating with the Japanese side on the basis of the above-mentioned principle," it added.

Moreover, the statement said, "We also demand that the National Coast Guard Administration strengthen its organization and equipment at once to enhance its function of safeguarding our sovereignty and fishing rights."

As an aside, Wang Yu-chi said in releasing the statement there never is a change in President Ma's strong determination to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty over the Tiaoyutais, which is spelled Diaoyutais in pinyin. China uses that name.

"He was a hot-blooded youth," Wang said of President Ma when he spearheaded the campaign to protect the Tiaoyutais in the early 1970s.

At that time, Ma said he would risk going to war with Japan to safeguard the eight islets.

"President Ma is a hot-blooded middle-ager now," Wang said.When the dispute over the sovereignty broke out while he was mayor of Taipei, Ma criticized President Chen Shui-bian for not standing up against Japan.

Wang explained Ma did not respond immediately to the incident, in which none were wounded, because as head of state, he had better let his Cabinet take care of it.

The fact, however, is that the public reacted too strongly for the president and his foreign minister to appear like pushovers.

There were 13 sports fishermen along with a three-man crew aboard the fishing boat Lien Ho. They were all thrown overboard in the collision Tuesday morning, but were rescued by the Japanese patrol ship Koshiki.

They were all taken to Ishigaki jima, one of the southernmost isles of the Ryukyus. The 13 deep-sea anglers were released later and came back to Keelung aboard a NCGA cutter Wednesday. Two crew members flew back to Taipei from Okinawa yesterday morning.

Chou Hsi-wei, magistrate of Taipei, accompanied Mrs. Ho Hung-yi, wife of the Lien Ho skipper, in meeting with Premier Liu Chao-schiuan, who promised whatever possible government help to get her husband back as soon as possible.

Liu said he instructed the foreign ministry to demand that Japan release the skipper, make compensation, and apologize for the incident.

"Should there be no goodwill response," Premier Liu threatened, "we do not rule out possibilities of resorting to other means."

He did not elaborate.

The magistrate of Taiwan's most populous county, which has jurisdiction over Juifang, the home port of the Lien Ho, went to the Taipei office of the Interchange Association, Japan's de facto embassy, to lodge a protest.

There was a crowd before the Japanese office protesting against "the arrogant bullying" of the Lien Ho crew and sports anglers.

Lawmakers of both the ruling and opposition parties unanimously condemned the foreign ministry for buckling under Japanese pressure.

Democratic Progressive Party legislators demanded that Francisco Ou step down as foreign minister to take responsibility.

"Where's the hot-blooded youth called Ma Ying-jeou now?" asked Yeh Yi-tsin, DPP legislative caucus deputy whip.

Kuomintang lawmaker Lin Yu-fang demanded that Chen Chao-min, minister of national defense, be prepared for war.

His colleague, Chang Suo-wen, charged the foreign ministry with ordering the NCGA cutters to stay away from "the Japanese territorial waters," precluding their timely assistance to the Lien Ho.

Another Kuomintang legislator, Liao Chen-ching, insisted that the Legislative Yuan adopt a resolution condemning the "Japanese bullying action."

"We should all go to the Taipei office of the Interchange Association to protest," Chang urged.

Phoebe Yeh, spokeswoman for the foreign ministry, denied any such order was issued. But she admitted the cutters were told to stay 12 nautical miles away from the Tiaoyutais.

Tsai Ming-yao, a foreign ministry Japanese affairs coordinator, said he was to blame for telling the cutters to stay away.

"My judgment was a wrong one," Tsai said. "I am responsible."

"Visiting China" Right All Along

2008-06-06T08:57:00.006+08:00

"Visiting China" Right All Along
Bevin Chu
June 6, 2008

A note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Don't backpedal, for Christ's sake. "Visiting China" was right all along. The name of the nation is "Republic of China."

The Republic of India is India. The Republic of Korea is Korea. The Republic of China is China.

Therefore when foreign dignitaries arrive in Taipei, they are indeed "visiting China."

Flip-flopping Undermines Ma Administration's Credibility
United Daily News reporter Wang Guangci
A Translation
June 6, 2008

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs instructed its overseas offices to replace the expression "fang hua" (visiting Taiwan) with "fang hua" (visiting China). Only three short hours after the media reported this policy change, Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou performed a 180 degree about face. Three days ago, during a press conference, Ou stressed that future foreign policy would be "flexible and pragmatic." Sure enough, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has set a new standard for "flexibility and pragmatism."

Whether to refer to the visits of foreign guests as "visiting Taiwan" or "visiting China" involves sensitive domestic political considerations. Such decisions ought to made with care. It is unlikely that Ou made such a policy decision by himself.

Minister Ou said, "Calling a halt to this change was my personal decision." Does that mean the original decision was also the Minister's personal decision? Both foreign and domestic policy decisions ought to be made be in accordance with certain standards. Rapid flip-flopping on major policy decisions can only undermine the Minister's crediblity and damage the Minister's prestige.

朝令夕改自傷威信
【聯合報╱記者王光慈】
2008.06.06 02:42 am

外交部通電外館以「訪華」取代「訪台」被媒體披露後，外交部長歐鴻鍊的態度在短短三個小時內，卻有一百八十度大轉變。對照三天前歐鴻鍊與媒體茶敘時，強調未來推動外交政策將採「靈活、彈性」原則，外交部果然劍及屨及，再創劉內閣經典代表作。

外賓來台應用「訪台」或「訪華」，牽涉到國內政局的敏感神經，本來就應慎重。這樣的決策，恐怕不是歐部長一人說了算。

歐部長說，「喊停是我自己的思考。」所以當時決定，也是部長個人意志嗎？政策的制定，無論是對外推行或對內運作，都須依照規則標準。政策朝令夕改，官員無所適從，對部長的威望實是一大重創。

公文書稱外賓訪「華」政院：非政策指示
【中央社╱台北五日電】
2008.06.05 10:29 pm

外交部日前通電駐外人員在公文書對外賓來訪，「適宜」稱「訪問中華民國」或「訪華」，引發外界去台灣化疑慮。新聞局長史亞平今天表示，這不是行政院的政策指示或基調，也不是去台灣化，行政院長劉兆玄已指示外交部通盤研究、妥善處理，未來對名稱使用可以討論出大家普遍的用法。

外交部日前通電外館請駐外人員在公文書於外賓來訪時，「適宜」稱「訪問中華民國」或「訪華」，但未嚴格規定不能使用「訪台」。外交部長歐鴻鍊下午指出，將再通電外館，把這項指令「暫緩實施」，等到國內有共識後再說。

史亞平晚間受訪表示，這不是行政院的政策指示或基調，出現此一公文，可能是幕僚希望政府在對外文件上有統一的名稱，但外界有不同意見，外交部也予暫緩，行政院長劉兆玄已指示外交部，通盤研究，妥善處理，未來對於名稱使用可以討論出大家普遍的用法。

外界質疑外交部的作法是去台灣化，史亞平表示，這不是去台灣化，外界想太多，外交部是涉外機構，必須處理國家重要文件、條約、締約書、備忘錄等，還有參與國際組織會提到國家名稱，因此必須優先處理這類問題。

她解釋，外交部長年因應不同國際情勢、兩岸情勢，我們的國家對外該怎麼稱呼？外交部每隔一陣子都會檢討對外名稱使用問題，以參與國際組織為例，外交部會權衡國際局勢、兩岸情勢，提出正式名稱的建議方案並列出優先順序，再根據國內外局勢選擇適用且大家能接受的名稱。

史亞平指出，外交部有統一的作法後，各部會若與國際組織簽署備忘錄或重要文件，要用何種名稱，都會先報外交部，採取統一名稱。

台『訪台』改『訪華』規定因綠營反對暫緩實施
北京新浪網 (2008-06-05 18:20)

　　環球時報•環球網消息：香港中評社5日報導，在綠營人士強烈反彈下，台當局『外交部長』歐鴻煉當天說，『外交部』近日會發電報通知各『外館』，暫緩實施先前發布的『公文書適宜使用外賓訪華』的指令。

　　台當局『外交部』日前通電『外館』，請駐外人員在公文書提到在外賓來訪時，『適宜』稱『訪問中華民國』或『訪華』。

　　歐鴻煉5日下午召開記者會說，這是配合新當局的政策基調，在『總統府』未統一規定下，『外交部』先行的『權宜過渡』措施，他已建議台當局高層宜統一規範，讓各『部會』有所依循。

　　他說，上述的電報並未禁止『外館』人員使用『訪台』的寫法，以前民進黨執政時，他在『外館』接到的指示就是要用『訪台』，他不清楚當時內部對此有沒有共識。

　　歐鴻煉表示，既然現在外界對這件事有不同意見，新當局自然要多聽民意，『外交部』近日會再發電報通知各『外館』，暫緩實施上述指令，等內部v釵@識後再決定。(環球網周選彬)

　　更多精彩內容閱讀登錄環球網(www.huanqiu.com)

訪華？訪台？
【聯合報╱黑白集】
2008.06.09 03:07 am

外交部通令外館，今後外賓來訪，以「訪華」取代「訪台」；卻又在輿論質疑下，於幾小時內緊急喊卡。此事顯示出新部長歐鴻鍊可能根本未能領會馬政府的國家論述及兩岸論述，事態嚴重。

台灣政治問題的癥結，在民進黨將「中華民國」與「台灣」操作成敵對的概念；遂使台灣成為「鄉土沒有國家／國家沒有鄉土」的政治煉獄。經歷解嚴後「李扁時代」二十年來的衝撞，馬英九宣示「台灣在語義上等於中華民國」，劉兆玄亦說「中華民國就是台灣」，這些正是為「鄉土結合國家／國家結合鄉土」所作的努力。也就是說，民進黨的國家論述，問題不在鼓吹「台灣」，而在「去中華民國化」；同理，馬政府的國家論述只是反對「去中華民國化」，但絕對維護「台灣」。馬英九說，可以稱他「台灣的總統」，但他不是「台灣國的總統」。

外交部倘能通曉這套論述的變遷沿革，就絕不會發出以「訪華」取代「訪台」的通令。馬政府決定將「台灣郵政」改回「中華民國郵政」，但在英文的國號後面保留（Taiwan），這應是「鄉土結合國家」的設計。另者，據說中華民國護照封面加註Taiwan，亦將保留，也可作如是觀。

在這套論述思維下，歐鴻鍊說，不稱「中國」而稱「中國大陸」或「大陸」，是因避免「兩國論」，這種說法就可能亦有偏差；官方不稱「大陸」為「中國」，應是緣於「一中各表」，而非避諱「兩國論」。失諸毫釐，差以千里。

如今是「維持現狀」的時代，輿論早將「台／美／中」琅琅上口；若依歐鴻鍊的主張，難道要改口稱「華／美／中」？此事讓人窺見外交部長的腦袋，令人大驚失色！

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

2008-05-28T07:13:00.025+08:00

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance
Bevin Chu
May 28, 2008

One of Zheng He's Treasure Ships next to Christopher Columbus' Santa Maria

Retired Royal Navy submarine commander Gavin Menzies is the author of the controversial book "1421: The Year China Discovered America."

Menzies has now written another, equally controversial book, entitled "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance."

Mainstream Western academics and intellectuals have purportedly "debunked" Menzies' claims, known as the "1421 Hypothesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421_hypothesis

I however, am intrigued by Menzies' claims, and eager to see and hear more.

Whether Menzies' claims are true will hopefully become clear over time.

What dismays me about Menzies' self-styled "debunkers" is not their intellectual disagreement, but their emotional outrage.

Menzies asks some tough questions, such as:

"How do you discover a place for which you already have a map?"

and

"Why were the straits named after Magellan when Magellan had seen them on a chart before he set sail?"

Leave aside for the moment whether Menzies' answers to these questions are correct. Turn instead to why Menzies' "debunkers" are so affronted that such questions would even be asked.

Leave aside for a moment history, and turn to psychology.

Read their "rebuttals." Read between the lines. Note the hysterical tone of some of their responses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies

Why are these mainstream Western academics and intellectuals so offended by the idea that a Chinese navigator, rather than an Italian navigator, first discovered America, or that a Chinese navigator, rather than a Portuguese navigator, first circumnavigated the globe?

Chinese Navigator Zheng He

Italian Navigator Christopher Columbus

Portuguese Navigator Ferdinand Magellan

Has a sacred cow been gored? Has an article of faith been questioned? Has their comfortable Eurocentric world view been shaken to its very foundations?

In the cult science fiction film The Planet of the Apes (1968, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, written by Pierre Boulle, Michael Wilson, and Rod Serling) we humans got a sense of what it would be like if apes were to replace us at the top of the food chain. We humans were aghast as we watched apes rule the planet.

I get the feeling that Menzies' "debunkers" feel the same way about the suggestion that Chinese navigator Zheng He discovered America and circumnavigated the world.

These mainstream Western academics and intellectuals seem unwilling to admit into their consciousness the very thought of a world in which Westerners are not the driving force behind every major event in history.

These mainstream Western academics and intellectuals seem unwilling to countenance the very idea of a world stage on which Westerners are not the leading men and leading ladies, and non-Westerners are not the bit players.

Whether Menzies' claims will ever be substantiated is one thing.

But the shrilly defensive reaction from Western "Defenders of Civilization as We Know It" is something else altogether.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

The size of Zheng He's ships may have been exaggerated. I don't know.

But suppose they were? Zheng He's ships could have been far smaller than Menzies postulates, and still sailed to America, or even circumnavigated the globe.

After all, Columbus and Magellan managed to perform these feats using far smaller ships. Why couldn't Zheng He have performed them, only earlier?

Ming dynasty maritime technology was more than capable of accomplishing these feats. Whether Chinese navigators bothered to carry them out is a separate matter.

An excerpt from '1434'

Greetings!

We are delighted to enclose below an excerpt from Gavin's new book, 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance.

One thing that greatly puzzled me when writing 1421 was the lack of curiosity among many professional historians.

After all, Christopher Columbus supposedly discovered America in 1492. Yet 18 years before he set sail, Columbus had a map of the Americas, which he later acknowledged in his logs. Indeed, even before his first voyage, Columbus signed a contract with the King and Queen of Spain that appointed him Viceroy of the Americas. His fellow ship's captain, Pinzon, who sailed with him in 1492 had too seen a map of the Americas -- in the Pope's library.

How do you discover a place for which you already have a map?

The same question could be asked of Magellan. The straits that connect the Atlantic to the Pacific bear the great Portuguese explorer's name. When Magellan reached those straits, he had run out of food and his sailors were reduced to eating rats. Worse, they were convinced they were lost.

Esteban Gomez led a mutiny, seizing the San Antonio with the intent to lead part of the expedition back to Spain. Magellan quashed the mutiny by claiming he was not at all lost. A member of the crew wrote , "We all believed that [the Strait] was a cul-de-sac; but the Captain knew that he had to navigate through a very well concealed strait, having seen it in a chart preserved in the treasury of the King of Portugal, and made by Martin of Bohemia, a man of great parts."

Why were the straits named after Magellan when Magellan had seen them on a chart before he set sail? Once again, it doesn't make sense.

The paradox might be explained had there been no maps of the straits or of the Pacific - if, as some believe, Magellan was bluffing about having seen a chart. But there were maps. Waldseemueller published his map of the Americas and the Pacific in 1507, thirteen years before Magellan set sail. In 1515, four years before Magellan sailed, Schoener published a map showing the straits Magellan is said to have
"discovered."

The great European explorers were brave and determined men. But they discovered nothing. Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the globe nor was Columbus the first to discover the Americas So why, we may ask, do historians persist in propagating this fantasy? Why is the "Times History of Exploration," which details the discoveries of European explorers, still taught in schools? Why are the young so insistently misled?

After 1421 was published, we set up our website, www.1421.tv, which has since received millions of visitors. Additionally we have received hundreds of thousands of emails from readers of 1421, many bringing new evidence to our attention. Of the criticism we've also received, the most frequent complaint has concerned my failure to describe the Chinese fleets' visits to Europe when the Renaissance was just getting underway.

Two years ago, a Chinese Canadian scholar, Tai Peng Wang, discovered Chinese and Italian records showing beyond a doubt that Chinese delegations had reached Italy during the reigns of Zhu Di (1403 - 1425) and the Xuande Emperor (1426 - 1435). Naturally, this was of the greatest interest to me and the 1421 team.

Shortly after Tai Peng Wang's 2005 discovery, Marcella and I set off with friends for Spain. For a decade, we've enjoyed holidays with this same group of friends, travelling to seemingly inaccessible places - crossing the Andes, Himalayas and Hindu Kush, voyaging down the Amazon, journeying to the glaciers of Patagonia and to the High Altiplano of Bolivia. In 2005 we walked the Via de la Plata from Seville, from which the Conquistadores sailed to the New World, north to their homeland of Extremadura. Along the way, we visited the towns in which the Conquistadores were born and grew up. One of these was Toledo, painted with such bravura by El Greco. Of particular interest to me were the mediaeval pumps by which this fortified mountain town drew its water from the river far below.

On a lovely autumn day, we walked uphill to the great cathedral that dominates Toledo and the surrounding countryside. We dumped our bags in a small hotel built into the cathedral walls and set off to explore. In a neighbouring Moorish palace there was an exhibition dedicated to Leonardo da Vinci and his Madrid codices, focusing on Leonardo's pumps, aqueducts, locks and canals -- all highly relevant to Toledo.

The exhibit contained this note: "Leonardo embarked upon a thorough analysis of waterways. The encounter with Francesco di Giorgio in Pavia in 1490 was a decisive moment in Leonardo's training, a turning point. Leonardo planned to write a treatise on water."

This note puzzled me. I had been taught that Leonardo had designed the first European canals and locks, that he was the first to illustrate pumps and fountains. So what relevant training had he received from di Giorgio, a name completely unknown to me?

My research revealed that Leonardo had owned a copy of di Giorgio's treatise on civil and military machines. In the treatise, di Giorgio had illustrated and described a range of astonishing machines, many of which Leonardo subsequently reproduced in three-dimensional drawings. The illustrations were not limited to canals, locks and pumps; they included parachutes, submersibles tanks and machine guns as well as hundreds of other machines with civil and military applications.

This was quite a shock. It seemed Leonardo was more illustrator than inventor and that the greater genius may have resided in di Giorgio. Was di Giorgio the original inventor of these fantastic machines? Or did he, in turn, copy them from another?

I learned that di Giorgio had inherited notebooks and treatises from another Italian, Mario di Jacopo ditto Taccola (called Taccola "the jackdaw"). Taccola was a clerk of public works living in Siena. Having never seen the sea or fought a battle, he nevertheless managed to draw a wide variety of nautical machines - paddle wheeled boats, frogmen and machines for lifting wrecks together with a range of gunpowder weapons, even an advanced method of making gunpowder. It seems Taccola was responsible for nearly every technical illustration that di Giorgio and Leonardo had later improved upon.

So, once again, we confront our familiar puzzle: How did a clerk in a remote Italian hill town, a man who had never travelled abroad nor obtained a university education, come to produce technical illustrations of such amazing machines?

This book attempts to answer that and a few related riddles. In doing so, we stumble upon the map of the Americas that Taccola's contemporary, Paolo Toscanelli, sent to both Christopher Columbus and the King of Portugal, in whose library Magellan encountered it.

Like '1421', this book is a collective endeavour that never would have been written without the help of thousands of people across the world. I do not claim definitive answers to every riddle. This is a work in progress. Indeed, I hope the reader will join us in the search for answers and share them with us - as so many did in response to '1421.'

However, before we meet the Chinese squadron upon its arrival in Venice and then Florence, a bit of background is necessary on the aims of the Xuande Emperor for whom Grand Eunuch Zheng He served as ambassador to Europe. A Xuande imperial order dated 29th June 1430 stated:

"The New Reign of Xuan De has commenced and everything shall begin anew. But distant lands beyond the seas have not yet been informed. I send Eunuchs Zheng He and Wang Zing Hong with this imperial order to instruct these countries to follow the way of heaven with reverence and to watch over their people so that all might enjoy the good fortune of lasting peace."

The first three chapters of this book describe the two years of preparations in China and Indonesia to fulfil that order, which required launching and provisioning the greatest fleet the world had ever seen for a voyage across the world. Chapter 4 explains how the Chinese calculated longitude without clocks and latitude without sextants -prerequisites for drawing accurate maps of new lands. Chapters 5 and 6 describe how the fleet left the Malabar Coast of India, sailed to the canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea, then down the Nile into the Mediterranean. Some have argued that no Chinese records exist to suggest Zheng He's fleets ever left the Indian Ocean. Chapters 5 and 6 document the many records in China, Egypt, Dalmatia, Venice, Florence and the Papacy describing the fleets' voyage.

In Chapter 21, I discuss the immense transfer of knowledge that took place in 1434 between China and Europe. This knowledge originated with a people who, over a thousand years, had created an advanced civilisation in Asia; it was given to Europe just as she was emerging from a millennium of stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire.

The Renaissance has traditionally been portrayed as a rebirth of the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome. It seems to me the time has come to reappraise this Eurocentric view of history. While the ideals of Greece and Rome played an important role in the Renaissance, I submit that the transfer of Chinese intellectual capital to Europe was the spark that set the Renaissance ablaze.

When you have read the book, please tell us whether you agree.

Gavin Menzies
New York
17th July 2007

Sharon Stone Calls China Earthquake Karma

2008-05-27T11:54:00.027+08:00

Sharon Stone Calls China Earthquake Karma
Bevin Chu
May 26, 2008

Heart of Stone? The China Desk likes Sharon Stone, and certainly hopes not

Sharon Stone Calls China Earthquake Karma
Hollyscoop.com
May 26, 2008

http://www.hollyscoop.com/sharon-stone/sharon-stone-calls-china-earthquake-karma_16155.aspx

Sharon Stone made a not so smart statement while on the red carpet in Cannes. She was asked if she had heard about the disaster that hit China recently, and her answer was:

"Of course I have. Well you know at first I thought I'm not happy with the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans….and I've been concerned with should we have the Olympics because they're not being nice to the Dalai Lama who's a good friend of mine. And then all this earthquake and stuff happened and I thought, 'Is that Karma, when you're not nice and the bad things happen to you?'"

Well that's one way of looking at things, Sharon. Although, we don't think most people agree with that way of thinking. She tried redeeming her comment afterwards but you can't take what you said back.

The China Desk responds: Sichuan Province is just to the east of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Many Tibetan-Chinese live in western Sichuan, in what Tibetan independence advocates claim is "part of Greater Tibet."

With the number of dead approaching 100,000, a not insignificant number of quake victims were Tibetan-Chinese. If the May 12 Wenchuan Earthquake was "karmic payback" against "Chinese," which Ms. Stone erroneously equates with "Han-Chinese," how does Ms. Stone explain all the dead and injured Tibetan-Chinese?

Applying Ms. Stone's logic, should we conclude that Tibetan-Chinese who died in the earthquake were victims of "karmic payback" for the egregious sins of the Tibetan independence movement?

Some Tibetan-Chinese don't admit to being Chinese. Instead, they demand a Tibetan variant of South Africa's former system of Apartheid. They demand political independence from a polyglot, multi-ethnic China, on the basis of their "Tibetan" ethnic identity.

Not only do they demand political independence, they demand that other regions of China to which Tibetan-Chinese have migrated be incorporated into their "Greater Tibet."

In case you think I'm kidding, take a gander at the "Greater Tibet" territorial claims made by Tibetan independence ultranationalists below.

"Historic Tibet": the megalomanical "Greater Tibet" territorial claims of Tibetan independence ultranationalists

According to Tibetan independence advocates, anywhere ethnic Tibetans live ought to be part of "Greater Tibet."

"Lebensraum" anybody?

I guess Oberscharfuhrer Heinrich Harrer of the SS really did a thorough job of inculcating his young charge Tenzing Gyatso with Nazi concepts of race and territoriality after all.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Harrer and his young disciple:

Heinrich Harrer's Nazi past was unknown until a 1997 article [appeared] in the German magazine Stern. Harrer became a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA, or "Brownshirts") in October 1933, when the Nazi Party (NSDAP) was illegal in Austria. He held the rank of Oberscharführer (Sergeant). In March 1938, Austria was annexed by the German regime, as a part of Grossdeutschland ("Greater Germany"). Harrer joined the Schutzstaffel (SS, or "Blackshirts") that same year and was photographed with Adolf Hitler.

Harrer became a friend of the young Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, who had summoned him to the Potala Palace after having seen him repeatedly in the streets below the palace through his telescope. Harrer taught the Dalai Lama (who was eleven years old when they met) much about the outside world and effectively served as his tutor. The Dalai Lama has often credited Harrer's later writings about Tibet as having helped focus international attention on the plight of the Tibetan people after Communist Chinese control.

-- Wikipedia

Okay, I'll cop to it. Sharon Stone is one of my favorite actresses, and to paraphrase Jimmy Carter, I have lusted after her in my heart.

Ms. Stone is both beautiful and intelligent. But the Myth of Shangri-la and Tibetan Independence Political Correctness have her so brainwashed, she is no longer capable of thinking for herself.

Isn't it time Western camp followers of "The Dalai Lama" (shades of "The Donald") ran some long overdue reality checks on their borrowed "spiritual faith?"

A friend in the San Franciso Bay Area had this to say:

The epicenter of the 8.0 Ms Sichuan earthquake was in the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, where the ethnic Tibetan population is 53.72%. Videos and criticisms of her comments quickly spread across the web.

I also checked the distribution of ethnic minorities maps in National Geographic magazine's special edition on China and my own book, and confirmed that the area is indeed inhabited by Tibetans. So my response to Sharon Stone is, if God intended this as karma against the Hans, then:

1. God would have put the earthquake somewhere else, somewhere inhabited primarily by Hans, like Shanghai, Beijing, or the Dongbei;

Or, even better,

2. God would have struck down only Hans and Qian minorities, and left all Tibetans standing.

I think China should publish the number of ethnic Tibetans killed. It would be something like 10,000 or more, and show some of the casualties (I saw a Tibetan village on TV, and many of the buildings featured had the distinctive Tibetan designs and Burgundy red color paint of the Tibetans) in Tibetan clothes clutching prayer beads, just to silence the low IQ Sharon Stone, even though they say she has high IQ in reality.

Again, I am acting only as a neutral but scientific person, not because I am pro-CCP OK? I am pro-truth and common sense.

Epicenter of Sichuan Earthquake. The Tibet Autonomous Region borders on Sichuan. Tibetan-Chinese in Sichuan and the Tibet Autonomous Region figured significantly among the dead and injured (Note the ubiquity of Taiwan independence influences? Whoever made this map made Taiwan slightly darker than the Chinese mainland. Because it wasn't quite as dark as Russia, Korea, Vietnam and other neighboring nations, even I didn't catch it! Fortunately a fellow reunificationist noticed it and brought it to my attention.)

Backtalk: What Do You Want From Us?

2008-05-18T06:14:00.027+08:00

Backtalk: What Do You Want From Us?
May 18, 2008

This advertisement for soap uses the theme of the White Man's Burden, encouraging white people to teach cleanliness to members of other races
-- Wikipedia

Almost on cue, almost as if to prove the very point made in the widely circulated article, "What Do You Want From Us?" a number of Bearers of the White Man's Burden have condescended to set the poor, benighted Chinese people straight on the World As It Really Is.

One of them posted a long-winded "rebuttal" to my article here:
http://www.onlyredheadintaiwan.com/2008/05/responding-to-chinese-poem-on-worlds.html

The Only Redhead in Taiwan [sic!] yet another predictable "China is bad" blog by yet another expat Taiwan independence fellow traveler

You read that right. He really did name his blog "The Only Redhead in Taiwan."

Try not to laugh too hard. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

But I really can't blame you. These 21st century versions of pith helmeted 19th century Bearers of the White Man's Burden really are full of themselves, aren't they?

Note how he chose to define himself in relation to the public on Taiwan? Remember, he chose to define himself in this manner, not me.

He seems utterly oblivious of his own colossal presumption. He actually believes his narcissistic view of himself as some sort of sharp-eyed, worldly wise, infinitely patient observer of the human folly swirling around him.

For these Bearers of the White Man's Burden, everything is about them. They are the leading men in the human drama unfolding on this planet. They are the Masters of the Universe. They are the final arbiters of Eternal Verity.

The "little brown brothers" are quaint extras, local colour, to be lifted up out of backwardness by these White Knights in Shining Armor.

See:
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2000/08/white-knight-third-world-damsel-in.html

I considered taking some time out to rebut his "rebuttal" line by line, point by point. As readers of the China Desk know, I've done that with Taipei Times editorials often in the past. But that would have been a few hours taken away from learning a new aria or show tune.

Would it be worthwhile?

Not really.

Besides, readers are smart enough to make up their own minds, not on debating skill, but on objective merits.

Read "What Do You Want From Us?" Watch the video versions of "What Do You Want from Us?" posted at YouTube.

Then read the "rebuttal" by the aforementioned Bearer of the White Man's Burden, whereby he magnanimously removes the blinders from our eyes.

Ask yourself if he didn't unwittingly demonstrate precisely the point he was attempting to deny, that he and his ilk are determined to "make China wrong" and that he and his ilk "just don't get it?"

Upton Sinclair once quipped that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Permit me to paraphrase Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his self-image depends upon his not understanding it."

What Do You Want From Us?

2008-05-03T07:19:00.020+08:00

What Do You Want From Us?
Bevin Chu
May 3, 2008

"What Do You Want From Us?" is a thought-provoking piece that has been widely circulated on the Internet. The author has apparently chosen to remain anonymous.

It has also been made into video versions. Here are some of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rApn09pRZCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW5AA1xWIck&feature=related

I have posted my own, slighted edited version of it below.

The original version has also been posted here for comparison.

Sun Yat-sen, Father of Modern China, revered both on the mainland and on Taiwan. Original brush painting by Sun reads: 天下為公 (Tian Xia Wei Gong), loosely translated as "The Universal Brotherhood of Man," the traditional Chinese view of the world

What Do You Want From Us?
Revised Version by Bevin Chu

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, you called us the Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the Next Superpower, you call us the China Threat.
When we closed our doors, you demanded we open them so you could import your drugs.
When we embrace free trade, you blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, your marched in your troops and demanded your share of the booty.
When we try to put the pieces back together, you scream "Free Tibet! Invasion!"
When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communists.
When we embrace capitalism, you hate us for being capitalists.
When our population reached one billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we were abusing human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debt.
When we build our industries, you call us polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it genocide.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were in chaos, you demanded the rule of law.
When we uphold law and order, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to enjoy free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed xenophobes.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
Well, we don't hate you either. But do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said, we have AFP, BBC, and CNN
What do you want from us? Really?
Think hard before you answer, because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough. Enough hypocrisy is enough.
We want One World and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Marble is big enough for all of us.

What Do You Want From Us? [Traditional Chinese]

你們要我們怎麼著？

我們被稱為“東亞病夫”時，說我們危險。
我們要做下一個超級大國了，說我們威脅

我們閉關時，你們偷運毒品來打開市場。
我們擁抱自由貿易了，你們怪我們搶走了你們的飯碗。

我們四分五裂時，你們大兵開進要你們公平的份額。
我們把打碎的碎片拼到一起時，你們高叫“自由西藏”！“那是入侵”。

所以我們嘗試了共產主義，你們恨我們是共黨。
所以我們擁抱了資本主義，你們恨我們是資本家。

然后我們有了10億人，你們說我們在毀滅這個星球。
然后我們就限制我們的數量，你們說這是踐踏人權。

我們窮的時候，你們認為我們是狗，
我們貸款給你們時，你們又怪我們讓你們欠了債。

我們建立我們的工業時，你們說我們污染。
我們把貨物賣給你們時，你們責怪我們讓全球變暖，
我們買石油時，你們說那是剝削和種族滅絕。

我們陷入混亂時，你們要我們法治。
我們維護法律和秩序反對暴力時，你們說那是侵犯人權。

我們沉默時，你們說你們要我們有言論自由。
我們不再沉默了，你們說我們被洗腦了。

你們為什麼這麼恨我們？我們問。“不”，你們回答，“我們不恨你們。”
我們也不恨你們。但是，你們理解我們嗎？“當然理解，”你們說，“我們有CNN, BBC和CBC。”

但是怎麼搞的，我們仍然覺得，你們西方人不喜歡我們。
你們到底要我們怎麼著？

我的朋友，你們真的到底要我們怎麼著？

Big Blue Marble, Western Hemisphere

Big Blue Marble, Eastern Hemisphere

What Do You Want From Us?
Original Version by Anonymous

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
We don't hate you either, But, do you understand us?
Of course we do, you said,We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
What do you really want from us?
Think hard first, then answer... Because you only get so many chances.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.

The Epoch Times' Old Stance on China Not Unexpected

2008-05-02T09:31:00.003+08:00

The Epoch Times' Old Stance on China Not Unexpected
by Bevin Chu
May 2, 2008

The Epoch Times, the US Central Intelligence Agency's unofficial mouthpiece, is parroting the Tibetan independence movement party line. This is not surprising at all.

The Epoch Times is the post Cold War equivalent of the Cold War era People's Daily. Rebutting the Epoch Times would be like shooting fish in a barrel, and I have better use of my time.

Enough said.

Backtalk: China's Claims to Tibet have Greater Validity than US Claims to California

2008-05-02T06:00:00.005+08:00

Backtalk: China's Claims to Tibet have Greater Validity than US Claims to California
May 1, 2008

Hello Mr. Chu:

I read your thought-provoking "China's Claims to Tibet have Greater Validity than US Claims to California." Below are some linked articles that critique the Western media coverage of the Tibetan riots/Olympics protests and expose the geopolitical designs that are being pushed by the USA and its allies.

These articles are really an eye-opener and contradict much of what the Mainstream 'free press' depicts. The GlobalResearch.ca and German-Foreign-Policy-com pieces are especially insightful.

In fact, the Western media's coverage was so disingenous that some Chinese students started a website to counter them:
http://www.anti-cnn.com

Regards,
D. Paik

Risky Geopolitical Game: Washington Plays ‘Tibet Roulette’ with China
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8625

China and America: The Tibet Human Rights PsyOp
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8673

Western Media Fabrications regarding the Tibet Riots
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8697

Operations Against China
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56147

The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145
http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/thread-481-1-1.html

The Role of the CIA: Behind the Dalai Lama's Holy Cloak
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/160163
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=586331

Tibet: Will the USA Launch a New Secret War “Under the Roof of the World”?
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1289

Chinese Tibet and European political performances
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1320

Trouble in Tibet
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2507/stories/20080411250713100.htm

Behind the anti-China Olympics campaign
http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/viewthread.php?tid=50&extra=page%3D1

China's Claims to Tibet have Greater Validity than US Claims to California

2008-04-29T11:22:00.003+08:00

China's Claims to Tibet have Greater Validity than US Claims to California
by Bevin Chu
April 25, 2008

Above is a news article entitled "Plebiscite Coming on Mexico’s Claim to California?" by Sacramento Union columnist Liam Weston.

Weston notes with indignation and alarm that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believe the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico.

Weston concludes that "Our government has not considered the longer-term consequences of immigration policies that no longer require assimilation as the cost of U.S. citizenship or residency."

But Mexican migration to the southwest in recent decades is not the reason Mexicans believe the southwest rightly belongs to Mexico. Mexicans believe the southwest rightly belongs to Mexico because the US extorted it from Mexico at gunpoint in 1848.

In 1844, President James K. Polk... wanted to lay claim to California, New Mexico, and land near the disputed southern border of Texas. Mexico, however, was not so eager to let go of these territories... Determined to acquire the land, he sent American troops to Texas... to provoke the Mexicans into war. When the Mexicans fired on American troops in April 25, 1846, Polk had the excuse he needed. [Some] Americans simply thought it was wrong to use war to take land from Mexico. Among those was Second Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant... he would later call the war "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."
-- PBS Online, People & Events: The Mexican American War, 1846-1848

Many Hollywood stars live in California, in what Mexicans consider northern Mexico. Quite a few of these stars are self-righteously demanding that China accede to the demands of Tibetan nationalists for a "Greater Tibet."

These Hollywood stars neither know nor care that Mexican claims to California have far greater validity than Tibetan nationalists' claim to a "Greater Tibet." Or conversely, that China's claims to Tibet have far greater validity than US claims to California.

These Hollywood stars, who hold deeds to high-priced real estate in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, and Malibu, will probably say that "Too much time has passed. What's done is done. California is now irrevocably a part of the United States. You can't turn the clock back."

But the United States annexed California in 1848, a mere 160 years ago. If the passage of 160 years must be accepted because "Too much time has passed. What's done is done," then Tibet, which became part of China 737 years ago, is even more "irrevocably a part of China."

If "You can't turn the clock back" because "Too much time has passed, and what's done is done," then why are these Hollywood stars attempting to turn the clock back for the Tibetan region of China, but not for the California region of the US?

CIA World Factbook correctly acknowledges that Tibet is an integral part of China

In fact, China's vastly more compelling claim to Tibet doesn't end there. As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

China did not acquire Tibet by invading Tibet and annexing Tibet. Tibet became part of China when the Mongol Empire, with Tibetan collusion, invaded and conquered Song dynasty China during the 13th century.

Once the Mongolians completed their conquest of "Han China," they used Tibetans to control the Hans. The Mongolians established a three-tiered hierarchy. The top tier was the conquering Mongolians, the middle tier was their Tibetan allies, and the bottom tier was the conquered Hans.

Far from being innocent victims, Tibetans were accomplices in the Mongolian conquest and subjugation of China -- as China was defined in the Song dynasty.

Many Dalai Lama acolytes don't even know that the honorific title "Dalai," as in "Dalai Lama," is not even a Tibetan word. It is a Mongolian word. It was first conferred upon leaders of Tibet's lamaist theocracy by the ruling Mongolians during the Yuan dynasty. It was later conferred upon Tibet's theocrats by the ruling Hans during China's Ming dynasty, and the ruling Manchus during China's Qing dynasty.

That's right. The Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China.

When the Mongolian-dominated Yuan dynasty collapsed, the Han-dominated Ming dynasty inherited the realm of the Yuan dynasty, including sovereignty over Mongolia and Tibet.

The bottom line? China's claims to Tibet are, if anything, far more compelling than US claims to California.

Either the US owns California, or it doesn't. If the US owns California, then China owns Tibet. If the US feels it has a strong case for the ownership of California, then China has an infinitely stronger case for the ownership of Tibet.

Below you will find the text of the aforementioned news article.

NEWS: SPECIAL FEATURE
letters from Abroad

Plebiscite Coming on Mexico’s Claim to California?
By LIAM WESTON
Sacramento Union Columnist
April 18, 2008

Depicted in this image released last week by the Mexican advertising firm of Teran/TBWA is an advertisement created for Swedish Absolut Vodka that ran in Mexico showing a map of the border of Mexico and the United States where it stood before the Mexican-American War of 1848. The Absolut Vodka company apologized for the ad campaign amid angry calls for a boycott by U.S. consumers. (AP Photo/Teran/TBWA)

Around the world, the United States has supported enclaves of people seeking self- determination. We have provided support to people looking to secede in the Jammu/ Kashmir region of India, East Timor of Indonesia, Bosnia and even a province of Spain in the 1970s—just to name a few.

The United States supports resolutions within the United Nations calling on sovereign countries to hold a “plebiscite” – a type of referendum – to allow areas of their country to decide whether they can become independent or secede and join a neighboring country. While many Americans do not know the position our country has taken, it is well remembered by the nations whose territories we advocated should be reduced to accommodate an ethnic minority’s ambition for secession.

Spaniards remember the forced separation of their Province of Western Sahara from Spain in 1975 as if it happened yesterday. India is still fighting United Nations resolutions supported by the United States calling for a plebiscite in the Jammu/ Kashmir region. Even our closest allies like Israel have been told to shed territories they gained in war and cede control because an ethnic minority does not support their national government.

Separation Anxiety

While these situations are certainly complex and not all similar, they do represent a general trend of American foreign policy practiced by our State Department.

A recent Absolut Vodka advertisement in Mexico that showed the American southwest as part of Mexico calling it “absolut Mexico” caused quite an uproar in the U.S. press. It surprised me that so many people are learning for the first time that our nation’s sovereignty is in question.

For years, the “re-conquista” movement in California and across the southwest has been gaining momentum. However, the vodka advertisements appear to be the first nationwide reaction to the radical view. What has been propelling them forward is the direct involvement by the Mexican government in our internal affairs. If current trends continue, a call for a plebiscite over Southern California is not out of the question.

I say this because some members of the California State Legislature already represent districts in Los Angeles County where so few constituents are U.S. citizens that voter turnout is sparse. This hasn’t gone unnoticed in Mexico.

Mexico claims the right to interfere in our internal politics as more of its citizens move across the border and establish residency. When Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico, he regularly referred to the “120 million” Mexicans he represented. At the time, Mexico’s population was only 100 million but he explained he also represented 20 million Mexican living inside the United States.

In 1998, the Mexican Congress passed a law allowing Mexicans nationals to retain their citizenship even after pledging allegiance to the United States when becoming U.S. citizens. The law, called Mexican Nationality Law, even allows immigrants who already became naturalized U.S. citizens before 1998 to become legal Mexican citizens retroactively.

Two years ago, the Mexican Congress passed an absentee voting law to accommodate these many new citizens of their country. Now, Mexican citizens living permanently inside the United States may participate regularly in Mexico’s national elections. There have also been initiatives inside the Mexican Congress to add seats for representatives from districts in areas like California. Imagine a Mexican legislator telling a U.S. Congressman that he received more votes in the district and is therefore the democratically elected representative of, say, Los Angeles?

Claiming California

It took the Absolut Vodka advertisement for our national media to even discuss this issue. Many Americans were shocked to learn that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believed the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico. Our government has not considered the longer-term consequences of immigration policies that no longer require assimilation as the cost of U.S. citizenship or residency. Mexico, on the other hand, has considered the consequences carefully and is taking action.

Most of the ingredients the U.S. State Department considers necessary before calling for a plebiscite are already here: A large population of unassimilated foreign nationals and another government pretending to be their voice. The ingredient still missing is civil unrest or severe economic conditions that aggravate the delicate political situation.

It is not my intention to be an alarmist since I do not know if it will take ten years or 50 years before the inevitable California plebiscite is demanded by Mexico. However, the irreparable harm being done to our claim of national sovereignty through uncontrolled immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately.

Jaw Shao-kang: Why should you vote for the New Party?

2008-01-05T23:40:00.000+08:00

趙少康：為什麼要投給新黨？
新黨晚會
台北大安公園
2008年1月5日
19:00 -- 22:00

YouTube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HL_lKb4ink

Jaw Shao-kang: Why should you vote for the New Party?
New Party Political Rally
Taipei Daan Park
January 5, 2008
19:00 -- 22:00

Prevent Election Fraud on Taiwan 全民防作票

2008-01-04T23:36:00.001+08:00

全民防作票 Prevent Election Fraud on Taiwan
Bevin Chu
January 4, 2008

The 319 Shooting Incident - A Wag the Dog "Assassination Attempt" staged by Chen Shui-bian as a superficially plausible pretext for massive election fraud

Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party are set to lose big in the upcoming January 12, 2008 Republic of China Legislative Elections, and the March 22, 2008 Presidential Election.

Not that very lame duck "President" Chen Shui-bian gives a damn. Chen only gives a damn about the looming debacle to the extent that it affects him.

Republic of China kleptocrat Chen Shui-bian has committed so many crimes during his eight years in the Presidential Palace, he is terrified he will end up like former Republic of Korean kleptocrats Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo.

As a result, he is desperately seeking ways to either:

1. remain in office indefinitely by provoking an incident within the island that would justify declaring martial law and naming himself "President for Life"

2. extort a promise of political asylum from the US by threatening to precipitate a military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait with Beijing

3. rig the election so that DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh "wins" and becomes president, then pardons Chen as a quid pro quo

In the event Chen chooses the third option, he will attempt to commit massive election fraud, even more extreme than the election fraud he committed in 2004, when he did away with roughly a million Lien Chan ballots, then declared himself the winner.

To understand how Chen will probably go about committing election fraud, and therefore how to prevent it, see the following instructional film, created by a small group of dedicated Pan Blue comrades.

全民防作票 Prevent Election Fraud on Taiwan 1 of 3 [in Mandarin]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw8l9UnWWsQ

全民防作票 Prevent Election Fraud on Taiwan 2 of 3 [in Mandarin]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dB5O88rml4

全民防作票 Prevent Election Fraud on Taiwan 3 of 3 [in Mandarin]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw8l9UnWWsQ

The People who count the Votes

2007-12-25T12:42:00.000+08:00

The People who count the Votes
translated by Bevin Chu
December 25, 2007

Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
约瑟夫斯大林, 蘇聯第1任蘇共中央總書記

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
-- attributed to Joseph Stalin

"投票的人什麼都不決定。數票的人決定一切 "
-- 约瑟夫斯大林

Executive Yuan Secretary General Chen Ching-chun, one of "the people who count the votes," threatens local election officials belonging to the 18 Pan Blue governed counties and municipalities with removal from office, replacement by others, criminal prosecution, and draconian punishments if they don't meekly implement the ruling DPP's "single-stage balloting procedure." Chen denounces a KMT newspaper ad (left hand) exposing the ruling DPP's determination to have the DPP controlled Central Election Committee "count" the votes, and asserts that the government is upholding the ROC Constitution (right hand)

William M. "Boss" Tweed (1823 - 1878) Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York's 5th district
特威德老大 (1823 - 1878) 美因侵吞公款身敗名裂的知名政治人物

Inscription on ballot box: In counting there is strength
票櫃上的標語 : 數票就是力量

"As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?"
-- Boss Tweed

"只要選票是我來數的, 你能拿我這麼樣? "
-- 特威德老大

香港文匯報 [2006-11-27] 美報諷扁「特威德老大」

後人對特威德老大的印象，大多來自這幅漫畫作品。畫中的特威德自信滿滿地說：「只要計算選票的人是我，你又能怎樣？」

【本報訊】據聯合報26日消息：《紐約時報》在一篇發自台北的報道中指出，最近台灣爆發「總統國務機要費」案及首長特別費案，使台灣的民主政治遭到嚴厲考驗。

報道說，台灣政壇向來充斥口水戰與肢體衝突，近來尤甚。曾被視為「台灣之子」的陳水扁，而今卻被指為「特威德老大（Boss Tweed）」（美因侵吞公款身敗名裂的知名政治人物，1868年到1870年之間，時任紐約州參議員特威德藉職務之便竊取紐約市政府至少2,500萬美元的公共經費，使紐約市政府赤字激增）。檢方指他涉及機要費案，並起訴扁夫人吳淑珍，案子預定12月開始審理。在野的國民黨對機要費案本來見獵心喜，不料現任台北市長的黨主席馬英九也被指涉及首長特別費案而陣腳大亂。

紐時指出，民進黨內部分人士對陳水扁感到失望甚至厭惡，不過仍然維持表面上的團結，以抵制在野黨所提的罷免案。

Error Alone

2007-11-29T09:33:00.000+08:00

Error Alone
Quote of the Day
translated by Bevin Chu
November 29, 2007

Thomas Jefferson

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia - 1787

只有錯誤才需要政府來支持。真相自己站的住腳。
-- 美國的第三任總統湯瑪斯傑弗遜, 筆記關於弗吉尼亞州- 1787 年

Minister of National Defense Lee Tien-yu 李天羽 , a gutless "milicrat," supports an error by obeying a man instead of the law

Is It still The China Post? Or is It now The Taiwan Post?

2007-11-02T11:39:00.000+08:00

Is It still The China Post? Or is It now The Taiwan Post?
Bevin Chu
November 2, 2007

Today's China Post carried an article on the blow up between Lien Chan and Ma Ying-jeou.

In the article, entitled "Ma upholds 'one-China' principle with various definitions," dated Friday, November 2, 2007, the China Post news staff wrote:

"Opposition presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou clarified yesterday that he has always supported the idea of "national unification" between Taiwan and China [sic!] as well as a document backing the "one-China" principle reached by Taipei and Beijing in 1992."

The China Post. Or is it the Taiwan Post?

For the China Post to refer to the Chinese mainland as "China," and to Taiwan as if it were a separate and independent nation, is both ludicrous and appalling.

Have the editors forgotten that the name of their paper is "The China Post?"

The China Post is a paper located on Taiwan. It is rightly named the China Post because Taiwan is an integral part of China.

Strictly speaking, the ROC and the PRC are not really nations, but governments. Governments are not nations. Nations are not governments.

China is the name of the nation. The ROC and the PRC are governments that control different parts of China, but neither government is equivalent to the nation of China, qua nation.

If the China Post is so far down the "ben tu" path that it considers the Chinese mainland "China," and the Taiwan region of China a separate and independent nation, then why is it still referring to itself as "The China Post?" Why hasn't it changed its name to "The Taiwan Post?"

The blow up between Lien and Ma was precipitated by Ma Ying-jeou's craven retreat from the KMT's core value of "One China."

Ma has of course denied that the omissions mean anything.

But actions speak louder than words. If the omission of "National Reunification" and the "92 Consensus" was "no big deal," then why were they not left in?

Obviously getting rid of the two clauses was a big deal for Ma Ying-jeou.

For the past two years, Ma has been falling over himself in a desperate and pathetic attempt to transform himself from a citizen of the Republic of China to a presidential candidate for the "Nation of Taiwan."

Both the China Post and Ma Ying-jeou need to take a long hard look at where they're headed.

As the the admonition carved on the "pai lou" (entrance gate) of a local Taiwan monastery puts it:

"Ku hai wu bian, hui tou shi an" (The raging sea is boundless, but behind you is the shore)

Taiwan is already in the United Nations

2007-10-14T10:18:00.000+08:00

Taiwan is already in the United Nations
by Dennis Zhu
translated by Bevin Chu

Election season is here. The Green camp never seems to tire of trotting out the "Join the UN" issue. Nor is the Kuomintang willing to take a back seat. For this round it has steeled itself, and decided to play the game out to the bitter end. But if we look at the issue in all seriousness, the "Join the UN" issue is phony through and through.

China (the mainland plus Taiwan) is a founding member of the United Nations. Prior to 1971, the Republic of China represented China in the United Nations. After 1971, the People's Republic of China successfully replaced the Republic of China, becoming China's (the mainland plus Taiwan) legitimate representative in the United Nations. The various mainland provinces and Province of Taiwan, have from beginning to end, remained integral parts of China, so naturally they have been inside the United Nations. If Taiwan wants to join the United Nations, it must first separate from China, only then will it have any basis for joining the United Nations. If it hasn't declared independence, yet hopes to join the UN, that is a self-contradictory position that the international community cannot accept.

The Republic of China government, not Taiwan, was forced out of the United Nations in 1971. The challenge today is to convince the Beijing authorities to allow the Taiwan authorities to join China's delegation in the United Nations, to join forces with the mainland, and practice the diplomacy befitting a great nation.

Taiwan, a Province of China, is already in the UN

台灣仍在聯合國
祝仲康

選舉將屆，綠營又不厭其煩的祭出「入聯」議題，中國國民黨為了不甘示弱，這回吃了秤砣鐵了心，決定奉陪到底。但若認真計較起來，其實「入聯」是個如「真」包換的假議題。

中國（大陸加台灣）是聯合國創始會員國之ㄧ，民國六十年以前由中華民國作為中國在聯合國之代表。之後，中華人民共和國成功取代中華民國，成為中國（大陸加台灣）在聯合國之合法代表。大陸各省與台灣省,自始至終均為中國之ㄧ部分，自然始終處於聯合國之內。台灣若要加入聯合國，必須先宣布脫離中國，然後才具備加入聯合國之基礎，若未宣布獨立而妄想加入，是與現狀矛盾而無法為國際社會所接受的。

民國六十年自聯合國被逼退的實為中華民國，而非台灣。為今之計，應是如何說服北京當局同意台灣亦能派遣人員加入中國駐聯合國代表團，以兩岸之力，共辦大國外交。

Taipei European School New Campus Dedication Speech

2007-10-14T00:41:00.000+08:00

Taipei European School New Campus Dedication Speech
Ma Ying-jeou
October 17, 2007

In May of last year (2006) Principal John Nixon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs European Affairs Director Wang Yu-yuan, and I participated in the Taipei European School's Wen Lin School District Relocation and Groundbreaking Ceremony. Today I am happy to be able to participate in the Taipei European School's New Campus Dedication Ceremony, to be a witness to the Taipei European School's shining future.

One. European Unification — A Model of Ethnic Integration

The Taipei European School is a very special school. It was established in 1990. Its predecessor was the Taipei German School, the English School, and the French School. In 1992 the three were combined into one. In 2003 its name was changed to the Taipei European School. The school was divided into German, English, and French Departments. It recruited preschool through high school students. Teaching was conducted in German, English and French. It had nearly a thousand students from 50 countries around the globe, and nearly 200 teachers. It was a miniature global village, a microcosmic version of our earth.

The establishment of the Taipei European School is a shining example of ethnic integration. As we know, this is the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Union. In 1957 six European countries signed the Treaty of Rome. Europe began its journey toward integration. Despite long standing cultural and linguistic differences, Europe found common ground in values such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law, equality, and human rights. In January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union. Now the European Union includes 27 countries. Its total population is 500 million. It has become the world's largest economic and trading entity. European Union members include nations in Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe. It has 23 official languages. During Europe's integration, nations set aside their differences. They promoted mutual welfare and harmony. The European Union is more than an example for the world to emulate. It is an example for Taiwan to emulate.

Two. Economic Relations between the Republic of China and the European Union

According to European Union estimates, the Taiwan region of the ROC is the European Union 10th biggest supplier. It is the European Union's 14th biggest trading partner. Excluding the European continent, it is the European Union's 10th biggest trading partner. Within Asia it is the European Union's 5th biggest trading partner. In 2006 exports to the European Union amounted to 26 billion Euros, an increase of 9.7%. European Union exports to Taiwan amounted to 13 billion Euros, an increase of 1.5%. In 2006 total trade amounted to 39.4 billion Euros, an increase of 6.8%. Compared to peak trade totals of 43 billion Yuan in 2000, Taiwan's exports to the European Union in recent years has slowed. In 2006 this led to a Taiwan to European Union trade deficit of 13 billion Euros, an increase of nearly 20% compared to 2005.

In terms of investments, the European Union established a new high in 2006. Its investments in Taiwan exceeded 7 billion Euros (Ministry of Economic Affairs figures). In 2006 over half of the ROC's foreign investment came from the European Union. One reason was many subsidiaries on Taiwan stransferred their technology to their European headquarters. Another was that several new investments on Taiwan went forward. Estimates for total European Union investment in Taiwan approach 15 billion US Dollars. Over half from Holland (9 billion US Dollars). Next come the UK (4 billion US Dollars) and Germany (1.7 billion US Dollars). Total European Union investments on Taiwan in 2006 surpassed even those by the US and Japan. The European Union has become the ROC's biggest foreign investor, accounting for as much as as 20% of all foreign investments.

In terms of personnel exchanges, in 2006 visitors from Taiwan to European Union countries increased almost 10% compared to 2005. Over 330,000 visas were issued, a new high. Students going to the European Union to pursue advanced studies also increased, exceeding 12,000 in 2006. The number has doubled since a decade ago. An estimated 25,000 or more students from Taiwan are currently attending school in Europe.

Three. Strengthen the Economy. Connect with the Asian Pacific Region. Adopt a Global Outlook.

Taiwan's economic performance has deteriorated badly since 2000. We were once the first of the Four Asian Tigers. We are now the last. We have steadily slipped in international competitiveness. According to Switzerland's International Institute for Management Development (IMD), mainland China surpassed Taiwan in global competitiveness for the first time this year. Last year we ranked 17th. This year we dropped to 18th. Mainland China meanwhile, advanced from 18th to 15th. The consensus is Taiwan's competitiveness has fallen primarily due to unsound government policy.

I believe we must improve the economy and create employment opportunities. My basic view is:

First. Economic matters should be dealt with by economic means. When Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell visited some time ago, I consulted with him regarding Taiwan's economic development, and that is what he said.

Second. To resuscitate Taiwan's economy requires "pragmatic opening." The Democratic Progressive Party's seven year long Closed Door Policy has seriously impacted normal business development, and cannot be allowed to continue.

Third. Non economic factors that affect economic development must be eliminated. On the one hand we must establish a model for political party cooperation. This will ensure domestic political stability. On the other hand, we must sign a peace agreement with the mainland predicated on "peaceful co-existence and mutual prosperity." This will promote cross Straits economic and trade normalization.

Fourth. Economic development must take into consideration issues of fairness, justice, and sustainable development. Since the Democratic Progressive Party has been in power, the gap between rich and poor has reached new highs. We must reduce this disparity. At the same time, we must also take into account environmental protection issues. We must fulfill our responsibilities as members of the Global Village.

In accordance with these four premises, we hope to strengthen Taiwan, connect with the Asian Pacific Region, and adopt a Global Outlook. Our blueprint for economic development has three goals. They are to transform Taiwan into a global center for innovation, an Asian Pacific economic and trade hub, and a transshipment center for Taiwan businesses.

Our goal is: Six percent annual growth after 2008. A per capita income of US$20,000 by 2011. 100,000 employment opportunities. An unemployment rate below 3%. In short, we must recreate a prosperous Taiwan "knee deep in money."

In order to achieve these goals, we must first accomplish two important tasks.

(1) Open up Three Links and Direct Flights

If I am elected, I will promote direct cross Straits sea and air links as swiftly as possible. This will expedite cross Straits exchanges, save time and money, and hopefully allow Taiwan to become a springboard by which European businesses can advance to the Chinese mainland.

(2) I will promote the normalization of cross Straits relations, predicated on "peace and prosperity."

In addition to President Chen Shui-bian's Five Noes, I have proposed "Five Desires," predicated upon the 92 Consensus. These include: restarting cross Straits negotiations, signing a cross Straits 30 to 50 year peace agreement, normalizing cross Straits economic and trade and moving toward a cross Straits common market, increasing the ROC's international space and strengthening cross Straits cultural exchanges, enabling mainland high school students to attend university on Taiwan. I believe we can achieve mutual trust with the mainland, and with peace and prosperity as our twin goals, establish a win/win cross Straits relationship. Taiwan business investments on the mainland will operate under a deregulated policy of "open as the rule, managed as the exception." This will enable businesses to develop freely.

Fourth. Conclusion

When I held the post of Taipei mayor, I deeply respected the Taipei European School. When the Taipei European School needed to build a new campus, we provided close cooperation. I wanted Taipei to provide a quality environment that would allow international talent to come to Taiwan to live and work, and not worry about their children's schooling.

I hope the establishment of the Taipei European School will enable more international talent to live on Taiwan, attract more international talent to Taiwan, and thereby turn Taipei into an international village. Thank you all.

10月17日
台北歐洲學校新校區開幕典禮參考稿

去（2006）年5月與倪克森（John Nixon）校長及外交部歐洲司司長王豫元一同參加台北歐洲學校文林校區遷建動土典禮，今天很高興能夠來參加台北歐洲學校新校區的開幕典禮，見證台北歐洲學校新校區的未來。

一、歐洲整合—族群融合的典範

台北歐洲學校是一個很特別的學校，成立於1990年，前身為台北德國學校、英國學校及法國學校，於1992年整合，2003年再更名為台北歐洲學校（Taipei European School），學校裡分為德國部、英國部、法國部及高中部，不但招收幼稚園到高中的外籍學生，校內教學亦包括德語、英語和法語三種語言，學校擁有來自全球50個國家近千名的國際學生及近2百名教職員，是一個小型地球村，也是全球的縮影。

台北歐洲學校的成立，恰好展現了族群融合的典範。我們知道，今年剛好是歐盟成立50年，1957年歐洲六國簽署羅馬條約後，歐洲走上整合之路，在多元文化、語言與傳統中，歐洲找出共同的自由、民主、法治、平等及人權等價值。2007年1月羅馬尼亞和保加利亞加入歐盟之後，如今歐盟已擴增至27國，總人口5億，已成為全球最大經濟體與貿易實體，歐盟成員除了遍及中西歐地區之外，更深入中歐及東歐地區，光官方語言就有23種，歐洲在整合過程中，捐棄前嫌，提升彼此的福祉與和諧，不但是全球學習的對象，也是台灣借鏡的對象。

二、台灣與歐盟經濟交流現況

根據歐盟統計，台灣是歐盟第10大供應商，是歐盟全球第14位貿易夥伴，在歐陸以外地區，台灣是歐盟第10大貿易伙伴，在亞洲國家中為歐盟第5大貿易伙伴。2006年台灣對歐盟出口金額達260億歐元，成長達9.7％，歐盟對台灣出口金額為130億歐元，成長1.5％；2006年貿易總額達394億歐元，成長6.8％，與2000年貿易總額高峰期—430億元比較，似乎近年來台灣對歐盟出口成長較為趨緩，使得2006年台灣對歐盟逆差130億歐元，較2005年增加近20％。

在投資方面，歐盟2006年對台灣投資金額創新高，突破70億歐元（經濟部統計），2006年台灣的外來投資，半數以上來自歐盟，原因在於許多既有台灣分公司將資產技術轉移至歐洲總部，以及數項新投資案在台進行所致。總計歐盟在台投資已累積至150億美元，其中逾半來自荷蘭（90億美元），其次分別為英國（40億美元）與德國（17億美元），歐盟累計投資台灣金額，2006年甚至超越美國與日本，成為台灣最大外資，比例高達20％。

在人員交流方面，2006年台灣前往歐盟國家的台灣旅客人次較2005年增加逾10％，簽證核發數便超過33萬份，創下歷史新高，前往歐盟深造的台灣學子人數也不斷升高，2006年超過1.2萬人，較10年前成長一倍，估計現在有2.5萬名以上的台灣學生在歐洲就學。

三、壯大台灣、結合亞太、佈局全球

從2000 年以來，台灣經濟表現比以前差很多。從前我們是亞洲四小龍的第一名，現在變成最後一名，在國際競爭力上也一步步下滑，今年瑞士洛桑管理學院（IMD）的世界競爭力排名，大陸第一次超越台灣，我們去年17名，今年倒退到18名，大陸卻從18名進步到15名。一般認為台灣競爭力下滑，主要是因為政府政策不正確所致。

我認為我們當前要改善經濟，創造就業機會。我的基本理念是：

第1，經濟的事盡量照經濟的法則來做。前一陣子經濟大師諾貝爾獎得主孟岱爾（Mundell）來台時，我向他請教有關台灣經濟發展的問題時，他就是這樣說的。

第2，要救台灣經濟必須「務實開放」。民進黨的鎖國政策七年多下來，嚴重影響企業正常發展，不能再持續下去。

第3，影響經濟發展的非經濟因素需要排除。一方面要建立政黨合作模式，讓國內政治穩定，另一方面要和大陸在「和平共榮」的前提下，簽訂和平協議，推動兩岸經貿正常化。

第4，經濟發展必須兼顧公平正義和永續發展。民進黨執政以來，貧富差距創歷史新高，我們必須縮短這個差距，同時，還必須重視綠色環保的問題，以善盡地球村成員的責任。

在這四個基本理念的前提下，我們希望能壯大台灣、結合亞太、佈局全球。我們的經濟發展藍圖有三個願景，那就是把台灣發展成：全球創新中心、亞太經貿樞紐及台商營運總部。

我們的目標是：在2008年後每年經濟成長6％，2011年時每人平均所得兩萬美元，並創造10萬個就業機會，使失業率降到3％以下。簡單的說，我們要再創「台灣錢淹腳目」的繁榮景象。

為了達成前述目標，我認為有兩項重要的工作要先做。

（一）開放三通直航

我若當選，一定儘速推動兩岸海空直航。讓兩岸往來更為便利，節省時間及金錢，同時，也希望台灣能夠成為歐商前進大陸的跳板。

（二）在「和平、繁榮」的前提下，促進兩岸關係正常化

除了陳水扁總統的五不（Five no’s）之外，我提出「五要」主張，包括在九二共識下，重新啟動兩岸談判、兩岸簽署30~50年和平協議、兩岸經貿正常化並邁向兩岸共同市場、台灣國際空間及加強兩岸文化交流，讓中學生可以來台灣讀大學。我相信我們可以和大陸取得互信，雙方可以在「和平」（peace）和繁榮（prosperity）的兩大目標下，為企業界創造一個雙贏的兩岸關係。台商對大陸投資，則採取「原則開放、例外管理」的鬆綁政策，讓企業可以自由發展。

四、結語

我在擔任台北市長時，便非常重視台北歐洲學校，台北歐洲學校要興建新校區，我們極力配合，就是希望台北提供一個良好的環境，讓國際人才來台灣居住與工作時，不用擔心小孩就學的問題。

希望台北歐洲學校的成立，能夠讓更多的國際人才居住在台灣，吸引更多的國際人才到台灣居住與工作，使台北成為一個國際村。謝謝各位！