The China Desk

Communism in China: No Longer a System, Merely an Outdated Brand Name

2011-11-30T19:13:00.005+08:00

China adding to Gold Reserves

Communism in China: No Longer a System, Merely an Outdated Brand Name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

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

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

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

9/11: Controlled Demolitions

2011-09-10T08:10:00.116+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

Cognitive Dissonance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useful Videos and Web Pages

9/11: Controlled Demolition Comparison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=0ptvvbaR0-U
9/11 Truth In 9 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0K4GY7TK28&feature=player_embedded
Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded
Debunking Nova's Pancake Theory of WTC using Common Sense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC359633F1FFAFA50
WTC - NOVA Why The Towers Fell - Another Big Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmCEtG2gUCI&feature=related
9/11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
9/11 Research: Other Building Collapses
Only Demolition and Earthquakes Have Leveled High-Rises
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

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

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

2011-08-21T21:11:00.043+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

馬：始終參選的是中華民國總統
2011/08/21 17:46 中央社
（中央社記者張榮祥台南21日電）導演劉家昌批評朝野總統參選人光喊參選台灣總統，不敢講參選中華民國總統。總統馬英九今天表示，「我從頭到尾都是選中華民國總統」。

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

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

Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card

2011-07-14T09:51:00.032+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When China Rules the World

2010-01-26T08:26:00.011+08:00

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

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

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

Biography:

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

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

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

Synopsis:

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

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

What they say about When China Rules the World

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

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

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

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

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?"

2009-01-21T01:04:00.008+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.

China Desk Update (2011.12.12): The inevitable disappointment has since set in and is now well advanced. Consider the following excerpts from an article by Gene Healy.

Now It's 'Obama the Irrelevant'
by Gene Healy
DC Examiner
December 6, 2011

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13913

Obama's current difficulties were entirely predictable, however. It isn't just that he's been a terrible president, it's that no earthly figure could deliver the miracles he promised: among other things, "a complete transformation of the economy, "care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless," to "end the age of oil in our time," begin to heal the very planet and, perhaps most unrealistically, "fundamentally change the way Washington works."

Like they say, though, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Since Obama has stoked irrational public expectations for presidential salvation in virtually every public policy area, it's hard to feel sorry for him.

The Framers' envisioned a modest constitutional "chief magistrate," who would secure the rule of law, not overturn it. But decades of longing for a national redeemer have turned the presidency into a constitutional abomination: an office that promises everything and guarantees nothing, save public frustration and the steady growth of federal power.

The quest for "transformational figures" and "redemptive presidents" reflects a dangerous, adolescent view of the presidency. If only it were limited to the lad-mags.

China Desk: If only it were limited to the comic books, or "graphic novels."

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！

Ang Lee's Chinese roots fuel cultural controversy in Taiwan

2007-10-05T06:42:00.000+08:00

Ang Lee's Chinese Roots fuel Cultural Controversy in Taiwan
Bevin Chu
October 5, 2007

Ang Lee receives another Golden Lion Award at the Venice Film Festival, this time for "Lust, Caution"

The following Associated Press article on famed Chinese director Ang Lee is better than most. Most major media reporters in the West parrot the ruling DPP's official line with every line they write. The following AP article parrots the ruling DPP's official line only every other line.

The ruling DPP has shamelessly exploited Lee's hard-earned global fame to promote its artificially concocted "Taiwanese, not Chinese" ethnic and cultural identity.

Academy Award winning auteur Ang Lee has never been happy about being abused this way, especially since his feelings about cultural identity are nothing like the ruling DPP's.

But Lee, in contrast with politically oriented directors such as Oliver Stone, focuses on character development rather than ideological conflict. As such, the soft-spoken Lee has refrained from openly complaining about having his personal fame exploited by the ruling DPP, and his actual views on cultural identity grossly misrepresented.

To its credit the following IHT article on Lee exposes the DPP's opportunistic exploitation of Lee's achievements, which are individual, not collective achievements.

To its discredit however, it continues to convey a misleading impression of the political situation on Taiwan.

To correct this impression, I have added my own comments to the article.

International Herald Tribune
Ang Lee's Chinese roots fuel cultural controversy in Taiwan
The Associated Press
Monday, September 17, 2007

TAIPEI, Taiwan: As Taiwan's government ratchets up a campaign to emphasize its cultural separateness from China, one of the island's internationally famous cultural icons insists his mainland Chinese roots have played a major role in his film-making.

The China Desk: AP's title for this news article implies that Ang Lee is "Taiwanese, not Chinese," but has "Chinese roots." No such thing. Ang Lee doesn't "have Chinese roots." Ang Lee, like all 23 million citizens of the Republic of China, is Chinese.

Some citizens of the Republic of China do not want to be Chinese. They want to redefine themselves as "Taiwanese." But the fact is they haven't succeeded in doing so. Not yet anyway. So until they do so, they and everyone else on Taiwan will remain Chinese, i.e., citizens of the Republic of China.

"Taiwan" doesn't have a government, unless one is referring to the Taiwan Provincial Government, which has been "frozen" since 1998. The government that exercises jurisdiction over the island of Taiwan is the Republic of China government. Today, most nations, including the UN, no longer recognize the Republic of China government.

But those nations that do recognize the Republic of China government, consider it the legitimate government not only of Taiwan, but of the whole of China, including the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao.

In any event, it is simply wrong to refer to the Republic of China government as "Taiwan's government." The Republic of China government governs Taiwan, to be sure. But it is not "Taiwan's government." It is quite literally "China's government."

Taiwan is hardly the only territory it governs. It also governs the Penghu Archipelago, which is an entirely separate territory not part of Taiwan. It even governs portions of the mainland Chinese province of Fujian, such as Jingmen and Mazu, and portions of Hainan Island, such as the Dongsha and Nansha Islets in the South China Sea.

Lust, Caution (2007, directed by Ang Lee, written by Eileen Chang, James Schamus)

IHT: "A big part of (my culture) is Chinese tradition from my parents, from school, so that is who I am," said Ang Lee, director of the Oscar-winning "Brokeback Mountain." Lee's spy thriller "Lust, Caution" won the top Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival earlier this month.

"I grew up in Taiwan, but you know where my ideas, my brushstrokes came from," he said.

Lee was born on the island 53 years ago, after his parents fled the 1949 communist victory in a civil war on the Chinese mainland. Their generation of immigrants — about 15 percent of Taiwan's 23 million people — tends to pay homage to Chinese roots, seeing the island as a strong repository of China's cultural and historical tradition.

The China Desk: My late father used to mock the "2 million mainlanders" factoid. The "2 million mainlanders" factoid is based on the estimated number of individuals who migrated from mainland China to Taiwan between 1945 and 1949, when the population of Taiwan was a mere 6 million.

The population of Taiwan is now 23 million. Yet Taiwan independence spin controllers have continued to talk of "2 million mainlanders who withdrew to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek's troops in 1949."

On the one hand, the presumption is that the 2 million mainlanders did not bear a single child. On the other hand, any children born are counted as "native Taiwanese," inflating the numbers for "native Taiwanese" and capping in perpetuity the number of "mainlanders."

That would be fine, except that every time an election rolls around these children of the "2 million mainlanders" are instantly reclassified as "wai sheng di er dai" (second generation mainlanders) instead of "first generation Taiwanese," and excluded from the ranks of "zheng gang de tai wan ren" (authentic Taiwanese).

IHT: But descendants of those who came from the mainland in the 17th and 18th centuries, and form the island's majority, think of themselves as primarily Taiwanese. Many play down their Chinese connections.

The China Desk: Wrong, wrong, wrong! Some, not all, descendants of those who came from the mainland in the 17th and 18th centuries, and form the island's majority, think of themselves as primarily Taiwanese. Some, not all, play down their Chinese "connections," i.e., identity.

Political pundits on Taiwan have a saying: "min yi ru liu shui" (the will of the people is like running water). Depending upon when one asks the question: "Do you consider yourself Chinese, Taiwanese, or both Chinese and Taiwanese?" one will get any number of different answers.

Actions speak louder than words. Judging by actions and not words, only Deep Green Taiwan independence hardliners, who constitute a mere 15 to 20 percent of the island's population, truly consider themselves "Taiwanese, not Chinese."

IHT: The identity question is fast becoming a major issue in Taiwanese politics, with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party or DPP pushing separateness from China, while the main opposition Nationalists seek eventual unification with the communist colossus 160 kilometers (100 miles) to the west.

Lee has not spoken out publicly on politics, but "Lust, Caution" is a paean to his Chinese background.

Set against the backdrop of Japanese-occupied Shanghai during World War II, it is based on a short story by famed Chinese writer Eileen Chang.

The film — casting mostly [mainland] Chinese and Hong Kong actors and actresses — marks Lee's return to Chinese-language films after the highly acclaimed "Brokeback Mountain," set in the American west.

The China Desk: Mainland China is not "China." China is mainland China plus Taiwan, plus Hong Kong, plus Macao, plus numerous offshore islands in the Western Pacific.

Until the Taiwan independence movement succeeds in founding a sovereign and independent "Republic of Taiwan," Taiwan will remain a province of China, under the jurisdiction of either the Republic of China government in Taipei, or the People's Republic of China government in Beijing.

Therefore mainland Chinese actors, within the context of the IHT article, should not be referred to as "Chinese actors," since this misleadingly implies that Taiwanese actors are not Chinese actors.

IHT: Taiwan has its own rich cultural tradition.

The China Desk: This remark is disingenuous Taiwan independence spin control. It implies that Taiwan's "rich cultural tradition" is not part of China's rich cultural tradition.

Taiwan does indeed have "its own rich cultural tradition," but only in the sense that Bordeaux "has its own rich cultural tradition."

Just as Bordeaux's rich cultural tradition is part of France's rich cultural tradition, so Taiwan's rich cultural tradition is part of China's rich cultural tradition.

IHT: In the decades following the end of a half-century of Japanese colonial rule in 1945, the mix of newer Chinese immigrants and local talent turned the island into a hotbed of cultural innovation, from movies and pop songs to stage shows, at a time when [the mainland region of] China was being torn apart by violent political movements.

The China Desk: The newer Chinese were not "immigrants." They were migrants.

Japan extorted Taiwan from China at gunpoint in 1895. Japan retroceded (gave back) Taiwan to China in 1945. By 1945 Taiwan was already Chinese territory.

One does not "immigrate" to another part of one's own nation. One immigrates only to foreign nations.

Australians who move from Sydney to Hobart are not "immigrating" to Tasmania. They are migrating from one region of Australia to another region of Australia.

And so it was with Chinese who migrated from the mainland region of China to Taiwan between 1945 and 1949. They were not "immigrating" anywhere. They were migrating from one region of China to another region of China.

IHT: Taiwanese film critic Liang Liang said the island played a key role in preserving China's cultural heritage. He praised Lee's cinematic works "as an embodiment of this shining legacy."

Liang blasted the DPP for trying to represent Lee as an avatar of a distinctly Taiwanese culture.

"The Taiwan government [i.e., the ruling DPP regime] should feel ashamed as it tried to make use of Lee's international fame," he said.

The China Desk: When Taiwan independence spin controllers speak of a "distinctly Taiwanese culture" they mean a "distinctly Taiwanese national culture that is not Chinese." In this sense, there is is no "distinctly Taiwanese culture." The culture of Taiwan is not distinctive enough to qualify as "distinctly Taiwanese."

Taiwanese culture is Fujian's Hoklo culture and Canton's Hakka culture, with a dash of Aboriginal culture. Taiwanese culture is only distinct enough to qualify as a regional Chinese culture.

The differences between the culture of Taiwan and the culture of the mainland are almost too small to be of significance. The differences between Xinjiang and Canton, for example, are far greater than the minute differences between Taiwan and Fujian.

Lust, Caution Stars Tony Leung Chiu Wai and Wei Tang

IHT: Following Lee's acceptance of the Golden Lion prize, Taiwanese officials nicknamed him "the glory of Taiwan." They offered him a subsidy of up to 80 million New Taiwan dollars (US$2.4 million; €1.7 million) for his next production, and campaigned for an Oscar nomination for "Lust, Caution" in the category of best foreign film.

The China Desk: Ang Lee, who is "wai sheng di er dai" (second generation mainlander) would not be referred to as "The Glory of Taiwan" if he were a Pan Blue legislator or pundit, instead of a largely apolitical film maker. If Ang Lee were a KMT or New Party legislator or pundit, "Taiwanese officials" would be calling him very different names. Names such as "Chinese pig" or "Mainlander pig," and demanding that he "Get the hell back to the mainland."

IHT: Lee has long played [sic] homage to both his Taiwanese and Chinese roots in several films, including the 2000 Oscar-winning martial arts hit "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

The China Desk: "both his Taiwanese and Chinese roots"? What kind of asinine conceptual muddle is this? Does a Frenchman from Bordeaux "pay homage to both his Bordeaux and French roots"? Ang Lee's "Taiwanese roots" are Chinese roots. There is no such thing as "Taiwanese roots" that are not simultaneously Chinese roots.

IHT: His international success contrasts sharply with the generally unhealthy state Taiwan's film industry.

Once seen as a world leader, it faltered badly in the 1990s, unable to compete at the box office with big-budget Hollywood films.

Some critics blame Taiwan's government for the decline, saying its insistence on emphasizing distinctly Taiwanese heroes limited local films' appeal in the broader Chinese-language market.

The China Desk: And so they should. Political Correctness is the serial rapist that strangles creativity in the arts. For all its very real faults, the KMT did a terrific job of nurturing Taiwan's fledgling film industry. Once Taiwan independence fundamentalists usurped power, it was all over.

IHT: But Taiwan government spokesman Shieh Jhy-wey brushed the criticisms aside.

"Taiwan's freewheeling democracy has worked as an incubator for talents like Ang Lee," he said.

The China Desk: Nonsense. What little help Ang Lee got was provided by the state owned film industry established by the KMT during the Two Chiangs Era. The ruling DPP never did anything to help Ang Lee become the internationally renowned director that he is today.

Just as it never did anything to help New York Yankees star pitcher Wang Chien-ming, also a "wai sheng di er dai" (second generation mainlander), also touted as "The Glory of Taiwan," become the Major League baseball star that he is today.

The rulling DPP is merely attempting to take credit for after the fact. Hence Taiwanese film critic Liang Liang's fully justified outrage.

Populism, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy: The Fulfillment, not Betrayal of Democracy

2007-09-29T09:45:00.000+08:00

Populism, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy: The Fulfillment, not Betrayal of Democracy
Bevin Chu
September 30, 2007

The "Goddess of Democracy" has feet of clay

Democracy, we are told, is hallowed.

Democracy, we are told, is sacred.

Democracy, we are told, must not be betrayed by populism (rule by the mob), by plutocracy (rule by the rich), or by oligarchy (rule by the few).

In fact, democracy is not hallowed.

In fact, democracy is not sacred.

In fact, democracy has never been "in danger of being betrayed" by populism, by plutocracy, or by oligarchy.

Democracy has never been in danger of being betrayed by populism, by plutocracy, or by oligarchy, because democracy is populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy.

Populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy can never "betray democracy," because populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy is the fulfillment of democracy.

To paraphrase the Army recruiting slogan, populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy is democracy "being all that it can be."

The moth in another guise

The caterpillar in another guise

Populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy is merely the moth/caterpillar. Populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy is merely democracy at a later stage of development.

Democracy is the merely the caterpillar/moth. Democracy is merely populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy at an earlier stage of development.

The essence of democracy is the violation of the natural rights and political liberty of the individual by the collective.

"Democracy," as Benjamin Franklin astutely noted, "is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

This brutal rape of the individual is given a veneer of moral legitimacy by pro forma rituals such as voting and term limits, none of which alter the fundamental immorality at democracy's core.

Going through such ritual motions as voting merely adds a layer of hypocritical pretense to the process.

The ugly reality is that the collective has imposed its will upon the individual by means of brute force, the same way that a rapist imposes his will upon his victim.

I'm stronger than you. Therefore you can either submit, or be physically overpowered or even murdered.

The only difference is that society has "normalized" democracy's systematic rape of the individual by the Leviathan State.

It has not "normalized" the rape of women by men. Or at least not as openly.

Ted Bundy (2002, directed by Matthew Bright, written by Stephen Johnston and Matthew Bright)

Big Brother is Watching You, from George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984"

Democracy is not "the end of history as such."

Democracy is not "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution."

Democracy is not "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government," political scientist Frances Fukuyama and his fellow Neoconmen to the contrary notwithstanding.

Democracy is merely cannibalism with better table manners. Democracy is merely cannibals learning to use the proper knife or fork as they devour their fellow man.

"Saturn devouring his children", Francisco de Goya

Democracy is merely cannibalism with the proper knife and fork

Why are we surprised that democracy has "degenerated" into populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy?

Democracy is destined to morph into populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy. Just as the caterpillar is destined to morph into the moth.

Shouldn't we be more astonished if democracy failed to "degenerate," i.e., metamorphose into populism, plutocracy, and oligarchy?

Libertarian Purity Test

2007-09-10T08:11:00.000+08:00

Libertarian Purity Test
Bevin Chu
September 10, 2007

Market anarchist Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Caplan has posted a useful "Libertarian Purity Test" at his website.

See:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

As Caplan explains:

"This is the Libertarian Purity Test, which is intended to measure how libertarian you are. It isn't intended to be any sort of McCarthyite purging device -- just a form of entertainment, hopefully thought-provoking. I like it a lot better than the more famous "World's Shortest Political Quiz" because I haven't stated the questions with any intent to give an upward bias to a test-taker's score, and because it gives a clearer breakdown between hard and soft-core libertarians. Enjoy, suggest your friends try it out, and see how you compare to other test-takers."

Market anarchists and non market anarchists alike may want to check it out and see how they score.

Chinese Liberalism vs. Western Authoritarianism

2007-09-06T19:22:00.000+08:00

Chinese Liberalism vs. Western Authoritarianism
Bevin Chu
September 7, 2007

"It is by no means easy to feel one's way into such a remote and mysterious mentality as that underlying the I Ching. One cannot easily disregard such great minds as Confucius and Lao-tse, if one is at all able to appreciate the quality of the thoughts they represent; much less can one overlook the fact that the I Ching was their main source of inspiration. I know that previously I would not have dared to express myself so explicitly about so uncertain a matter. I can take this risk because I am now in my eighth decade, and the changing opinions of men scarcely impress me any more; the thoughts of the old masters are of greater value to me than the philosophical prejudices of the Western mind".
-- Carl Jung, famed Swiss psychologist

300 (2006) directed by Zack Snyder, written by Zack Snyder & Kurt Johnstad

The Asiatic hordes arrive on the doorstep of the Civilized World!

Dilios: For 500 years they've served the dark will of Persian kings. Eyes as dark as night . Teeth filed to fangs. Soulless. The personal guard to King Xerxes himself. The Persian warrior elite. The deadliest fighting force in all of Asia. The Immortals ...

... commanded by a ruthless and decadent Oriental Despot

... who "hates our freedoms"

Faceless ciphers, devoid of humanity and individuality

Monstrous subhumans

Queen Gorgo: Freedom is not free, it requires great sacrifice. The price is paid in blood.

King Leonidas: A new age has begun, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.

King Leonidas: This is where we hold them! This is where we fight! This is where they die!

Dilios: The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one. Good odds for any Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a world brighter than anything we can imagine. Give thanks men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! To Victory!

See:
The '300' stroke, Hamid Dabashi writes on pride, prejudice, Persia and other empires

Let's try a little experiment.

Sit down in front of your PC and Google the words: "authoritarianism, liberalism, Western, Chinese".

Type them into the search box in any order you choose, hit return, and see what you get.

Come to think of it, save yourself the trouble. I'll tell you what you'll get.

Except for a link to this article, and a solitary Wikipedia article on "Chinese liberalism," you will get page after page on "Western liberalism" and "Chinese authoritarianism".

Every one of these pages will assume that the West is heir to a noble tradition of democracy and republicanism rooted in Periclean Greece and Republican Rome. Every one of these pages will demand that a "congenitally authoritarian" China emulate the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave by adopting "American style democracy."

Never mind that the Founding Fathers of these United States made quite clear that they detested democracy, and went to great pains to note that they founded a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Every one of these pages will assume that China is heir to an ignoble tradition of "Oriental Despotism". Every one of these pages will demand that China jettison its benighted "Oriental Despotism" in favor of enlightened "Western Progressivism".

Never mind that China's unfortunate "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a Western European political invention, devised in Great Britain by two progressive Western European political philosophers named Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

As the old joke goes, "When you assume, you make an ass of you and me."

Economic history tells us a different story. It tells us that China, for much of her history, was as free or even freer than the West, "Athenian democracy" and "Roman republicanism" to the contrary notwithstanding.

China is the most populous nation in the world. More to the point, China has been the most populous nation in the world for most of recorded history. Most people are aware of this. But most people aren't aware of its political implications.

Economics tells us that only a society that is free is capable of generating sufficient wealth to support a large population. Large human populations are simply unsustainable without freedom. Any society that limits freedom, limits economic productivity. Any society that limits economic productivity, limits its population, through a process called famine.

Without knowing anything else about a civilization, one can confidently conclude that if a civilization has a large population, it is free or was free in the recent past. This is not feel good speculation. This is hard economic fact.

And so it is with China.

China was a hereditary monarchy for millennia. But China was hardly alone. China in this respect was no different from Europe before The Enlightenment. China had her "Mandate of Heaven". Europe had her "Divine Right of Kings". China had her Son of Heaven. France had her Le Roi Soleil (Sun King).

Where was the legacy of Athenian democracy then? Where was the legacy of Roman republicanism then? Nowhere to be found.

In fact, the Chinese people often enjoyed a high degree of de facto freedom under China's nominally "absolute" monarchy, as evidenced by the popular expression "Tian gao, huang di yuan", meaning "Heaven is high, and the emperor is far away."

This de facto freedom enabled the Chinese people to prosper and multiply, and enabled China to become the most populous nation in the world.

To be sure, the freedom the Chinese people enjoyed was not unbroken. It came and went, just as freedom came and went in the West. But when it came, it was real. And when it went, it was missed.

Between 1958 and 1961, a Western political system introduced into China by champions of Western style political reform caused widespread famine, resulting in an estimated 30 million deaths. The name of this Western political system was Marxism-Leninism.

The champions of Western values responsible for this man made catastrophe tried to blame Mother Nature, referring to it as the "Three Years of Natural Disasters". More disinterested, less self serving observers say the disaster was 35% natural misfortune, and 65% the folly of central planning.

Rabid Sinophobes would have us believe that China has never been free, that it has been either authoritarian or totalitarian for the entirety of its 5,000 year history.

But three short years of totalitarianism caused the death of 30 million Chinese. If China was no freer during the remaining 4997 years of her history, how did she get to be most populous nation on earth? Obviously these self appointed "champions of freedom and human rights" are asking us to ignore a total non-compute.

In case anyone thinks the de facto freedom individual Chinese enjoyed in ancient times was mere accident, mere happenstance, mere serendipity, think again.

Ancient China had no lack of philosophical arguments for individual liberty. Western critics of "congenitally authoritarian" China to the contrary notwithstanding, the earliest arguments in favor of small government (limited government, or minarchism) and no government (anarchism), were advanced by Chinese, not Western political philosophers.

The ancient Chinese philosophers Laozi (老子), Zhuangzi (莊子), Bao Jingyan (鮑敬言), and Sima Qian (司馬遷) were the first explicit champions of libertarianism and anarchism in recorded history.

As the late, great Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard wrote in Chapter One of his book, "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought":

The Taoists (Daoists) were the world's first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society.

Laozi 老子 (Lao Tzu), the World's First Libertarian

To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy taxation and war. "The people hunger because theft superiors consume an excess in taxation" and, "where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow."

The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then the world "stabilizes itself."

As Lao Tzu put it: "Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves."

Zhuangzi 莊子 (Chuang Tsu), the World's First Individualist Anarchist

Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369—c.286 BC) built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. Chuang Tzu, who wrote in allegorical parables, was the first anarchist in the history of human thought. Chuang Tzu's fame spread far and wide throughout China.

Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu's devotion to laissez-faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

Chuang Tzu concluded, the world "does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed."

Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages.

Bao Jingyan 鮑敬言 (Pao Ching-yen), China's own "V"
no image available

Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth century AD. In the earliest days, wrote Pao, "there were no rulers and no officials. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they grandly achieved their own fulfillment." In the stateless age, there was no warfare and no disorder.

Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they "could give free rein to all desires." Furthermore, the government's institutionalization of violence meant that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded on a much larger scale.

To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers, Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.

Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.

Sima Qian 司馬遷 (Ssu-ma Ch'ien), the World's First Laissez-Faire Economist

The distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145-c.90 BC) was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise.

He saw that specialization and the division of labor on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion. To Sima this was the natural outcome of the free market. "Does this not ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?" Furthermore, prices are regulated on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves and reach a proper level.

But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Sima perceptively, "what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies?" What need indeed?

Sinophobic "champions of freedom and human rights" assume that China is heir to a long and unsavory tradition of "Oriental Despotism". They demand that Beijing jettison its "Oriental Despotism" in favor of "Western Progressivism"

Their simplistic calculus is:

China is Communist
Communism is authoritarian
China is congenitally authoritarian

The first problem with this facile calculus is that Chinese Communism was not a Chinese form of authoritarianism. It was a Western form of authoritarianism, correction, Western form of totalitarianism, imported into to China.

In a sense, it was a lot like the opium imported into China at gunpoint by Great Britain. To turn Karl Marx's aphorism back on him, "Marxism was the opiate of Western style reformers." Today of course, the opium being imported into China by Western reformers is not Marxism, but another defective and dysfunctional political system known as "democracy", or is it "Democracy"?

The second problem with this facile calculus is that China is not "congenitally authoritarian". China does not need to emulate an "intrinsically liberal" America. China boasts an ancient and venerable tradition of liberal political thought all its own.

Did I say liberal political thought? That is far too mild. That is damning with faint praise.

Ancient China boasts a legacy of hardcore individualist thought, libertarian thought, anarchist thought. This priceless legacy may serve China well in the coming century. More importantly, it may serve mankind well in the coming millennia.

Who knows? The day may come when Googling the words: "authoritarianism, liberalism, Western, Chinese" may yield page after page on "China's Historic Contribution to Global Freedom in the 23rd Century."

See:
It all began, as usual, with the Greeks: Taoism in Ancient China, by Murray N. Rothbard

He's Acting Pretty Normal Today

2007-09-06T09:05:00.001+08:00

He's Acting Pretty Normal Today
Anonymous
Rewritten by Bevin Chu
September 06, 2007

One day President Chen Shui-bian inspected a mental hospital.

The mental patients lined up along the corridors, grinning broadly, waving wildly, shouting: "Long live Chen Shui-bian! Long live Chen Shui-bian!"

One mental patient however stood arms crossed, with a sullen expression on his face, totally ignoring A Bian.

A Bian noticed this and asked the director of the mental hospital: "What's wrong with that patient? Why isn't he cheering? Is he not feeling well?"

The director answered: "Him? Oh no, he's acting pretty normal today."

Robert De Niro as Paul Vitti in "Analyze That!"

他今天精神非常正常！
由匿名
2007.09.06

有一天陳水扁總統前往某家精神病院視察。

所有的病患都站在走廊上高聲歡呼：「陳水扁萬歲！陳水扁萬歲！」

只有一名病患面無表情，對總統不理不睬。

陳水扁看到了，於是問院長說：「那位病人為什麼不對我歡呼呢？」

院長：「因為他今天精神非常正常！」

A Head Full of Rocks

2007-09-05T22:46:00.000+08:00

A Head Full of Rocks
Anonymous
Rewritten by Bevin Chu
September 4, 2007

A manufacturer on Taiwan invents an IQ Testing Machine. He provides a prototype to the Republic of China Presidential Office. Presidential Advisor Chiu Yi-jen decides to give it a try. He puts his head in the machine. The machine announces in a mechanical voice "IQ: 86." Chiu frowns, displeased. Vice President Annette Lu, never a shrinking violet, decides to give it a try. The machine says "IQ: 94." Lu frowns darkly. Chen Shui-bian, seeing a gathered crowd, asks what's going on, so they tell him. But as soon as he puts his head in the machine, it goes berserk. Lights flash, sirens wail, and the machine says "Warning! Warning! Do not put rocks in this machine!"

After this embarrassment, the manufacturer accelerates development, and turns out a second version. Chiu tries again. The machine says "IQ: 96." Chiu frowns, saying "Close, but no cigar." Lu tries again too. The machine says "IQ: 104." Lu purses her lips but says nothing. A Bian thinks to himself: It's been improved, I might as well give it another try. So he puts his head in the machine again. The machine remains silent for what seems an eternity. Finally it says "I know this rock!"

Having made central government officials look bad twice in a row, the manufacturer hires a team of outside experts. They develop a third version. Chiu gives it another try. The machine says "IQ: 106." Chiu smiles, "That's more like it." Lu also gives it another try. The machine says "IQ: 114." Mollified, Lu says "Yes, I agree." They inform Chen. This time, A Bian decides to play it safe. Instead of putting his head in the machine, he orders Chiu to put in a rock. The machine goes berserk. Lights flash, trumpets blare, and the machine intones "Greetings Mr. President! We await your orders!"

"Presidential Advisor" Chiu Yi-jen

"Vice President" Annette Lu

"President" Chen Shui-bian

Digital IQ Testing Machine, Made in Taiwan

政治笑話
石頭腦袋陳水扁
由匿名
2007. 09.04

某廠生產了一種智商測試儀，獻給總統府。邱義仁要試一試，把腦袋往裡面一伸，機器說「智商85」，小邱很高興。呂秀蓮腦袋放裡面，機器說「智商90」呂也很高興。陳水扁見大家這麼高興致，也去試一試。腦袋往裡面一伸，機器說「儀器珍貴，請大家小心使用，請不要往裡面放石頭」。

上次事件發生後，廠家急忙升級，很快推出了2.0版本。於是，邱再來一試，機器說「智商90」，邱大喜「長了5分」。呂來一試，機器說「智商95」，呂也大喜。阿扁一看，心想這次應該沒問題了，也來一試。機器半天不說話，最後終於說：「這塊石頭好面熟」。

連續兩次讓中央領導出醜，廠家立刻高薪聘請專家，進行第三次升級。經過N位專家努力，終於推出了3.0版。於是，邱又來一試，機器說「智商95」，邱大喜「這次測得準」。呂來一試，機器說「智商100」，呂也大喜，也說「現在才測得準」。大家都叫阿扁來試一試，這回阿扁學乖了，先叫人往裡面放一塊石頭看機器的反應。只見機器立刻打出10個大字「歡迎陳總統光臨指導」。

Of Geeks and Wonks

2007-09-01T09:43:00.000+08:00

Of Geeks and Wonks
Bevin Chu
September 01, 2007

Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of www.Mises.org

"A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks" by Jeffrey Tucker, editorial vice president of www.Mises.org., is one of the best articles ever posted at LRC.

It neatly sums up the psychological and philosophical dichotomy between Pragmatists and Idealists.

It correctly affirms that despite appearances, Pragmatists do not have their feet on the ground, and Idealists do not have their heads in the clouds.

It has far-reaching implications for the Democratic status quo and the inevitable Market Anarchist political future.

Market Anarchist Geeks may strike Democratic Wonks as Ivory Tower Utopians. But in fact Market Anarchist Geeks grasp the comparative merits of political systems far better than "realpolitik" Democratic Wonks.

Market Anarchist Geeks know that the structural defects built into conventional monopolistic forms of government such as Democracy doom them to eventual, inevitable failure. They know that in the long term, mankind will have no alternative but to adopt Market Anarchism, the only political system completely consistent with natural rights and individual sovereignty.

See:
A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks, by Jeffrey Tucker

Saint Peter's Ceiling Fan

2007-08-25T17:00:00.001+08:00

Saint Peter's Ceiling Fan
Anonymous
Rewritten by Bevin
August 25, 2007

A man died and went to Heaven. As he stood before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he noticed a wall of clocks behind him.

He asked, "What are all those clocks for?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie Clocks. Everyone on Earth has one. Each time you tell a lie, the hands on your clock move forward a notch."

"Oh," said the man, pointing at a clock frozen at 12:00, "whose clock is that?"

That's George Washington's. The hands on his clock have never moved. That means he was completely honest."

"I see," said the man. "And whose clock is that?"

St. Peter replied, "That's George W. Bush's."

"Why does his clock read 11:59:59? Surely he isn't more honest than George Washington?

St. Peter explained, "You misunderstand. He's told so many lies during his presidency that one more lie and the clock will have come full circle."

"Where's Chen Shui-Bian's clock?" asked the man

And St. Peter replied, "A-Bian's clock is in my office. I'm using it as a ceiling fan!"

"Son of Taiwan" by Chen Shui-bian, chronic and habitual liar

This joke has been making the rounds on Taiwan. It true that anybodies' name can be plugged into the joke. However people will only laugh if that person is known to be a liar.

Caption: Just so you know, the official language of Heaven is Aramaic.

What? Not "Taiwanese?"

Better warn the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan.

The Presbyterian Church in Taiwan is almost a caricature of the hypocritical colonialist missionary depicted in literature and film.

It has been meddling in China's domestic politics for nearly a century, driving a wedge between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan by instilling hatred for mainland Chinese in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people on Taiwan.

In their fanatical quest to divide China, ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan have even advocated violating the Ninth Commandment, which states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

I wrote about this in Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part III

The Ninth Commandment, according to the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan

During his 2004 re-election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.

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

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

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

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

A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual truth did these supposedly devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."

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

聖彼得的風扇
由匿名
2007.08.25

某人死後來到天國，在天國門口遇到了聖彼得，同時看見聖彼得後面的一大片牆上掛滿了時鐘。

他問道：「那些時鐘是作什麼用的？」

聖彼得回道：「那些都是記錄扯謊的鐘，每個人一生都跟隨著一個扯謊的鐘，他每扯一次謊時鐘的指針就動一小格」

「喔！」這人回應，並指著一個仍停留在十二點的鐘問：「那個鐘是誰的呢？」

「那是喬治·華盛頓的，它的指針從未動過，這表示他一生都沒扯過謊，是個很坦誠的人」

「我明白了」此人說道「那個鐘又是誰的呢？」

聖彼得回道：「那是喬治布希的」

「為什麼他的鐘指到11點59分，難道他此喬治·華盛頓誠實？」

聖彼得又回答：「錯了！這表示他在總統任內謊言不斷，再加上一次就可以回到12點了」

「那陳水扁的鐘在哪裡呢？」這人問道

聖彼得回應道：「阿扁的鐘在我辦公室，我把它裝在天花板上當風扇用了!」

Taoism in Ancient China

2007-07-27T09:40:00.000+08:00

Taoism in Ancient China
Murray Rothbard

The following is an extended quote from Chapter One of the late, great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard's book, "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought", from a section entitled "Taoism in Ancient China".

1.10 Taoism in Ancient China

The only other body of ancient thought worth mentioning is the schools of political philosophy in ancient China. Though remarkable for its insights, ancient Chinese thought had virtually no impact outside the isolated Chinese Empire in later centuries, and so will be dealt with only briefly.

The three main schools of political thought: the Legalists, the Taoists, and the Confucians, were established from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC. Roughly, the Legalists, the latest of the three broad schools, simply believed in maximal power to the state, and advised rulers how to increase that power. The Taoists were the world's first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society, and the Confucians were middle-of-the-roaders on this critical issue. The towering figure of Confucius (551 — 479 BC), whose name was actually Ch'iu Chung-ni, was an erudite man from an impoverished but aristocratic family of the fallen Yin dynasty, who became Grand Marshal of the state of Sung. In practice, though far more idealistic, Confucian thought differed little from the Legalists, since Confucianism was largely dedicated to installing an educated philosophically minded bureaucracy to rule in China.

Laozi 老子 (Lao Tzu), the World's First Libertarian

By far the most interesting of the Chinese political philosophers were the Taoists, founded by the immensely important but shadowy figure of Lao Tzu. Little is known about Lao Tzu's life, but he was apparently a contemporary and personal acquaintance of Confucius. Like the latter he came originally from the state of Sung and was a descendant of lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty. Both men lived in a time of turmoil, wars and statism, but each reacted very differently. For Lao Tzu worked out the view that the individual and his happiness was the key unit of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy taxation and war. "The people hunger because theft superiors consume an excess in taxation" and, "where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow."

The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then the world "stabilizes itself."

As Lao Tzu put it: "Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…"

Deeply pessimistic, and seeing no hope for a mass movement to correct oppressive government, Lao Tzu counseled the now familiar Taoist path of withdrawal, retreat, and limitation of one's desires.

Zhuangzi 莊子 (Chuang Tzu), the World's First Individualist Anarchist

Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369—c.286 BC) built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. The influential Chuang Tzu, a great stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was therefore the first anarchist in the history of human thought. The highly learned Chuang Tzu was a native of the state of Meng (now probably in Honan province), and also descended from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang Tzu's fame spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the Ch'u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang Tzu bearing great gifts and urging him to become the king's chief minister of state. Chuang Tzu's scornful rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the evils underlying the trappings of state power and the contrasting virtues of the private life:

A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward, and the office of chief minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me. I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my awn amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will [be free] to satisfy my own purposes.

Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu's devotion to laissez-faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

But while people in their "natural freedom" can run their lives very well by themselves, government rules and edicts distort that nature into an artificial Procrustean bed. As Chuang Tzu wrote, "The common people have a constant nature; they spin and are clothed, till and are fed … it is what may be called their 'natural freedom.'" These people of natural freedom were born and died themselves, suffered from no restrictions or restraints, and were neither quarrelsome nor disorderly. If rulers were to establish rites and laws to govern the people, "it would indeed be no different from stretching the short legs of the duck and trimming off the long legs of the heron" or "haltering a horse." Such rules would not only be of no benefit, but would work great harm. In short, Chuang Tzu concluded, the world "does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed."

Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, though of course these were arrived at independently.

Bao Jingyan 鮑敬言 (Pao Ching-yen), China's own "V"
no image available

Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth century AD, and about whose life nothing is known. Elaborating on Chuang-Tzu, Pao contrasted the idyllic ways of ancient times that had had no rulers and no government with the misery inflicted by the rulers of the current age. In the earliest days, wrote Pao, "there were no rulers and no officials. [People] dug wells and drank, tilled fields and ate. When the sun rose, they went to work; and when it set, they rested. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they grandly achieved their own fulfillment." In the stateless age, there was no warfare and no disorder:

Where knights and hosts could not be assembled there was no warfare afield … Ideas of using power for advantage had not yet burgeoned. Disaster and disorder did not occur. Shields and spears were not used; city walls and moats were not built … People munched their food and disported themselves; they were carefree and contented.

Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they "could give free rein to all desires." Furthermore, the government's institutionalization of violence meant that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded on a much larger scale. As Pao put it:

Disputes among the ordinary people are merely trivial matters, for what scope of consequences can a contest of strength between ordinary fellows generate? They have no spreading lands to arouse avarice … they wield no authority through which they can advance their struggle. Their power is not such that they can assemble mass followings, and they command no awe that might quell [such gatherings] by their opponents. How can they compare with a display of the royal anger, which can deploy armies and move battalions, making people who hold no enmities attack states that have done no wrong?

To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers, Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.

Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. In a happy and stateless world, declared Pao, the people would naturally turn to thoughts of good order and not be interested in plundering their neighbors. But rulers oppress and loot the people and "make them toil without rest and wrest away things from them endlessly." In that way, theft and banditry are stimulated among the unhappy people, and arms and armor, intended to pacify the public, are stolen by bandits to intensify their plunder. "All these things are brought about because there are rulers." The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.

Sima Qian 司馬遷 (Ssu-ma Ch'ien), the World's First Laissez-Faire Economist

The only Chinese with notable views in the more strictly economic realm was the distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145-c.90 BC). Ssu-ma was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise. This was similar to the Taoist view, but Ssu-ma, a worldly and sophisticated man, dismissed the idea that people could solve the economic problem by reducing desires to a minimum. People, Ssu-ma maintained, preferred the best and most attainable goods and services, as well as ease and comfort. Men are therefore habitual seekers after wealth.

Since Ssu-ma thought very little of the idea of limiting one's desires, he was impelled, far more than the Taoists, to investigate and analyze free market activities. He therefore saw that specialization and the division of labor on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion:

Each man has only to be left to utilize his own abilities and exert his strength to obtain what he wishes … When each person works away at his own occupation and delights in his own business, then like water flowing downward, goods will naturally flow ceaselessly day and night without being summoned, and the people will produce commodities without having been asked.

To Ssu-ma, this was the natural outcome of the free market. "Does this not ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?" Furthermore, prices are regulated on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves and reach a proper level.

But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Ssu-ma perceptively, "what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies?" What need indeed?

Ssu-ma Ch'ien also set forth the function of entrepreneurship on the market. The entrepreneur accumulates wealth and functions by anticipating conditions (i.e., forecasting) and acting accordingly. In short, he keeps "a sharp eye out for the opportunities of the times."

Finally, Ssu-ma was one of the world's first monetary theorists. He pointed out that increased quantity and a debased quality of coinage by government depreciates the value of money and makes prices rise. And he saw too that government inherently tended to engage in this sort of inflation and debasement.

The ROC vs. the PRC

2007-07-24T07:38:00.000+08:00

The ROC vs. the PRC
Bevin Chu
July 24, 2007

The ROC vs. the PRC: Obviously, the ROC is not "Taiwan," and the PRC is not just the mainland portion of China. The major difference is the de jure status of Mongolia.

Many "Sinologists" (China experts) commit a universal and unforgivable blunder. They erroneously use the term "Republic of China" as if it referred only to the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan, and the term "China" as if it referred only to the mainland portion of China.

Ordinary Americans can be forgiven for dismissing these distinctions as unworthy of their attention, but "China experts" should know better. These constitutional law distinctions lie at the very heart of the cross-straits conflict, and could spell the difference between continued peace and nuclear catastrophe.

These legal distinctions are not subject to "interpretation." They are explicit provisions of the Republic of China Constitution. Taiwan independence leaders know this better than anyone else. They know it, and they hate it. They might try to deceive Americans about Taiwan's current status. They might repeat the catechism, "Taiwan is already independent!" But in their heart of hearts they know that until and unless they author an new constitution and declare formal independence, Taiwan will remain an integral part of China.

See:
The Name Game: From ROC to ROT?
East and West Germany, East and West China
The Republic of China is not Taiwan

Legend Details

Black dotted lines are political boundaries drawn by the ROC. The formal names of these political entities are in black text.

Red solid lines are political boundaries drawn by the PRC. The formal names of these political entities are in red text.

White areas represent the territories claimed by the ROC but not the PRC.

Republic of China
36 provinces
14 municipalities
2 areas
1 special administrative region

People's Republic of China
23 provinces
4 municipalities
5 autonomous regions
2 special administrative regions
1 territorial base

Includes Chongqing as a municipality and Gansu-Qinghai border change

Source: Wikipedia, translated into English by Pryaltonian from the Chinese Wikipedia.

On the Tenth Anniversary of Hong Kong's Retrocession

2007-07-08T13:35:00.001+08:00

On the Tenth Anniversary of Hong Kong's Retrocession
Bevin Chu
July 8, 2007

Ten years ago, on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong, a region extorted from China at gunpoint by the relentlessly expansionist British Empire was finally returned to China.

Hong Kong, China

Unequal Treaty of Nanking ceding Hong Kong to the British, signed at gunpoint aboard the HMS Cornwallis in 1842

When I say Hong Kong was returned to China, I mean it was returned to the Chinese nation, not to any particular political authority.

Some western colonialists and imperialists lament that "Hong Kong was handed over to the Butchers of Beijing."

Nonsense.

Suppose Qing dynasty China had sailed halfway around the globe to Britain in 1842, forced the British to buy opium from China, then annexed the southern England seaport of Southampton, and turned it into a Chinese colony?

Southampton, England

Titanic Leaving Southampton Dockside Wednesday April 10, 1912

Now suppose that a century and a half later China returned Southampton to Britain? Would these same western colonialists and imperialists lament that "Southampton was handed over to Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher?"

Land annexed by a foreign aggressor must be returned to the nation from which it was seized. The issue is which nation owns the land, not which political authority is in power.

Which political authority is in power in China at the moment of return is a separate issue, and is no excuse not to return stolen real estate.

Besides, as the following June 1997 Asiaweek article reveals, Hong Kong was hardly ruled as benevolently as western colonialists and imperialists would have the world believe.

See: When Eccentrics Ruled the Roost

Asiaweek story
When Eccentrics Ruled the Roost
Far away from London under the dazzling tropical sun, Hong Kong's first governors turned to treachery, warmongering and not a little backbiting
By Arthur Hacker

Asiaweek: When Eccentrics Ruled the Roost

THERE IS A POPULAR two-dimensional image of the British colonial in the early days of Hong Kong: he is depicted as a crimson-faced, gin-swilling planter or army colonel with a gigantic white mustache who waves a fly whisk and brays "boy" in a loud, plummy voice. Actually, this sort of creature was a rarity in Hong Kong -- though Sir Henry Pottinger, the Colony's first Governor (1843-1844) and previous Administrator (1841-1843), had some of the qualifications. He was a heavy drinker, had once been a colonel in the 5th Bombay Native Infantry and sported an impressive mustache.

That, however, is where his resemblance to the Colonel Blimp stereotype ended. Pottinger spoke with a soft Irish brogue and as a teenager had been a remarkably daring spy. His brush with espionage began in 1810, after London caught wind of a plan by France and Russia to form an alliance to invade British India through Persia. Disguised first as a Tartar horse dealer and later as a holy man, young Pottinger successfully blarneyed his way through Sind and Baluchistan, which were not a part of British-held India at the time. Pottinger's mission was a great success, although in the end the French Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, gave up the idea of invading India and attacked Russia instead.

On becoming Governor of the new colony, Pottinger was obliged by the Charter of Hong Kong of 1843 to establish two civilian bodies, the Executive and Legislative Councils. Pottinger had a military background and did not take kindly to being advised by civilians. He was able to frustrate the concept of a two-council administration by a simple device: he appointed the same people to both bodies.

The councils were small and -- happily for Pottinger --never met due to the lack of a quorum. One member, John Morrison, a brilliant young Chinese linguist, died within a few days of his appointment. Another councilor, the colorless former Administrator, Alexander Johnston, went on a very long sick leave. As Pottinger was a major-general, and the sole remaining councilor, the redoubtable William Caine, only a humble major, the Governor was able to do exactly what he wanted, often with disastrous results.

Pottinger's cavalier approach to government caused enormous problems. All treaties are unequal, but some treaties are more unequal than others. The Commercial Treaty of the Bogue in 1843 was unique because the English and the Chinese versions were different. The Chinese Commissioner, Keying (Qiying), was alleged to have surreptitiously inserted a number of trade regulations into the Chinese text that were not in the agreed English version. This created chaos in shipping and trade, but Pottinger, although embarrassed at being misled, did not seem to harbor any resentment toward Keying over the incident. He treated it as a part of the political game and they occasionally got drunk together. Pottinger even named his son after the Chinese Commissioner.

Gutzlaff tried to save the souls of those he was poisoning

Keying inserted his secret clauses after the final draft had been approved, but the blame for the incident fell rather unfairly on the shoulders of the interpreter, Robert Thom, who with Morrison had prepared the original document. There was a critical shortage of interpreters at that time because it was a capital offense in China for a Chinese to teach a foreigner the language. Pottinger wanted Thom as his Chinese Secretary. But when Thom was sent to the new northern Treaty Port of Ningpo, Pottinger had to make do with the Rev. Karl Gutzlaff.

A former Pomeranian saddle maker, Gutzlaff arrived in the Portuguese enclave of Macau in 1831. He was a missionary and printed thousands of religious tracts, which he gave to his converts to distribute. These venal "rice-Christians" sold them back to the printer, who resold them to Gutzlaff. This tended to frustrate his hopeless grand design "to evangelize en masse a great nation." Early in his career he had acted as an interpreter on an opium ship owned by Jardine, Matheson & Co., and helped to smuggle the drug into China. With one hand Gutzlaff sold illegal opium and with the other he handed out religious tracts designed to save the souls of the Chinese he was poisoning. When Gutzlaff died he was discovered to be extremely rich.

Incidentally, the opium trade was not confined to the British. The leading American opium firm was Russell & Co. Its taipan was an old sea captain named Warren Delano. He was at one time the American vice-consul in Canton (Guangzhou) and was a staunch Republican. His political philosophy is best summed up by his somewhat bigoted statement, "I will not say that all Democrats are horse thieves, but it does seem that all horse thieves are Democrats." He was rather upset when his daughter married a Democrat, James Roosevelt. Her son, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, became the 32nd U.S. president. He was also a Democrat.

-- Arthur Hacker, a longtime resident of Hong Kong, is a historian and artist

The Angel of Austria's Jews

2007-07-08T09:44:00.001+08:00

The Angel of Austria's Jews
by Mark O'Neil
South China Morning Post

Ho Fengshan, The Angel of Austria's Jews

Comment: JourneyEast is a China oriented website designed and maintained by a good friend of mine, a talented professional web designer in San Francisco.

I revisited her site recently and noticed an excellent article worth recommending.

Apparently China had its own counterpart to Oskar Schindler, John Rabe, and Minnie Vautrin. He was Ho Fengshan, the Republic of China Consul General to Vienna, Austria.

Ho saved the lives of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Austrian Jews just prior to WWII.

June 7, 2007, is the 70th anniversary of the June 7, 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The Seven Seven Incident, as it is also known, was a fierce battle between the defending Chinese National Revolutionary Army and the invading Japanese Imperial Army that marked the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945).

That makes today as good a day as any to read about an unsung Chinese hero of WWII.

Read all about it at:
The Angel of Austria's Jews

Americans fly the flag for July 4, as long as it’s not made in China

2007-07-05T07:57:00.000+08:00

Americans fly the flag for July 4, as long as it’s not made in China
Tom Baldwin in Washington
From The Times
July 5, 2007

Stars and Stripes and the Statue of Liberty

Comment: This article provides a sobering insight into what is wrong with many Americans' understanding of America's values, especially on the Fourth of July, a day on which America's values ought to be more clearly understood than any.

If America stands for anything, it stands for the rights of the individual.

What are those rights?

Those rights are explicitly enumerated in many of the state constitutions. They are the right to "life, liberty, and property."

Rhode Island was the very first state to declare independence from the British Empire. As Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island, puts it:

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property... "

A flag is a piece of colored fabric.

Americans fly these pieces of colored fabric on the Fourth of July to celebrate their hard-won right to life, liberty, and property.

If Americans do not have the right to use their own hard-earned money to purchase a piece of colored fabric, then hang that piece of fabric on a pole in their own front yard, then what has happened to those precious rights?

If Americans can be thrown in jail for 90 days or fined US$1,000, merely because a piece of fabric that they purchased with their own money, and displayed in their own front yard, met with the disapproval of their "public servants," then what has happened to the very rights all those fluttering flags were meant to celebrate?

I can't be the only person who has noticed the irony, can I?

From The Times
July 5, 2007
Americans fly the flag for July 4, as long as it’s not made in China
Tom Baldwin in Washington

As if raising and waving millions of Stars and Stripes was not patriotic enough at Independence Day celebrations yesterday, the flags now have to be made in the US.

The state of Minnesota has taken the most draconian action, requiring all US flags sold in the state to be of American manufacture. Violations of the law, which comes into force at the end of the year, will be punished by a $1,000 (￡495) fine or 90 days in jail.

From this month, schools and colleges in Arizona are being forced to equip every classroom with a US-made Stars and Stripes – sometimes known as “Old Glory”.

Tennessee state law already stipulates that any US flag bought with public money cannot be imported from another country, while similar Bills are being considered by legislators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Such measures chime with the protectionist mood sweeping America. The Democrats, in particular, have become increasingly concerned about preserving manufacturing jobs that they believe are being destroyed by free trade and cheap foreign imports.

In this cause Old Glory has, as ever, emerged as a potent symbol. Last year Republicans failed by a single vote to get the two-thirds majority they needed in the US Senate for a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag.

The sponsor of the Minnesota legislation, the Democratic state congressman Tom Rukavina, said that his Bill was inspired by seeing flags made overseas during a memorial service for the victims of September 11, 2001.

Yesterday he was handing out 1,000 miniature flags – presumably US-made – at Independence Day parades in his district. “The biggest honour that you can give the flag is that it be made by American workers in the United States of America,” he said.

“Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country . . . I think this Bill is about jobs, jobs for Americans.”

His proposal was backed by fellow congressman Larry Howes, a descendant of Betsy Ross, the Revolutionary War seamstress who, according to American mythology, was instructed by George Washington to sew the first Stars and Stripes on to a piece of cloth. “It’s time to bring the flag home,” Mr Howes said.

Not surprisingly, the series of new laws is supported by the Flag Manufacturers’ Association of America. It has complained about a flood of US flags, valued at $5.3 million, imported mostly from China last year.

The Chinese, whose high-speed response to market demands has made US industry look leaden-footed in recent years, appear to have spotted a gap in the market after the 9/11 attacks. In 2000 America imported $748,000 of US flags, mostly from Taiwan [the Taiwan region of China]. In 2001, however, that figure rose to $51.7 million – mostly from China [the mainland region of China].

The Biggest Obstacle to Freedom

2007-06-25T22:23:00.000+08:00

The Biggest Obstacle to Freedom
Bevin Chu
June 25, 2007

The biggest obstacle to freedom is not logical, but psychological. We the Sheeple are accustomed to Big Brother's definition of freedom, as carved on the face of the Ministry of Truth:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

We cannot imagine life without government. We cannot imagine not having to pay taxes. We cannot imagine not being told what to do. We dismiss as "lunatic fringe" those who suggest that maybe, just maybe, we could actually live our lives perfectly well without Big Brother watching over us. Genuine freedom, not the slavery passing for freedom that we know under democracy and other forms of dictatorship, elective and non-elective, is quite literally unimaginable to us.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994, directed by Frank Darabont, written by Stephen King and Frank Darabont): Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

Voter/taxpayers in "advanced democracies" are little different from the prison inmates in The Shawshank Redemption. Both voter/taxpayers within democracies, and inmates within prisons are thoroughly "institutionalized."

Voter/taxpayers within democracies are institutionalized first by the psychological bars within their minds, then in the event some of them wise up to the scam, by physical bars around their bodies.

Inmates within prisons are institutionalized first by the physical bars around their bodies, then with the passage of the years, by the psychological bars within their minds.

104 EXT -- PRISON YARD BLEACHERS -- DUSK (1954) 104

ANDY
I just don't understand what happened in there, that's all.

HEYWOOD
Old man's crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse, is what.

RED
Heywood, enough. Ain't nothing wrong with Brooksie. He's just institutionalized, that's all.

HEYWOOD
Institutionalized, my ass.

RED
Man's been here fifty years. This place is all he knows. In here, he's an important man, an educated man. A librarian. Out there, he's nothing but a used-up old con with arthritis in both hands. Couldn't even get a library card if he applied. You see what I'm saying?

FLOYD
Red, I do believe you're talking out of your ass.

RED
Believe what you want. These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. After long enough, you get so you depend on 'em. That's "institutionalized."

JIGGER
Shit. I could never get that way.

ERNIE
(softly)
Say that when you been inside as long as Brooks has.

RED
Goddamn right. They send you here for life, and that's just what they take. Part that counts, anyway.

Andy Dufresne and Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding, inmates of Shawshank Prison, played by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman

Champions of democracy smugly assure us that democracies, unlike other forms of dictatorship, are "responsive to the will of the people" and "provide for peaceful regime change."

Oh, really?

As Ron Paul noted in his recent debate with other 2008 GOP presidential candidates, 70% of the American people oppose Gulf War II and want the troops to come home, yet the Bush II regime remains stubbornly indifferent to their clearly expressed wishes.

So where is democracy's "responsiveness to the will of the people?"

The only candidate with the guts to openly oppose the war and who has explicitly sworn to end it if elected, is libertarian Ron Paul. Guess what? He is being shut out of future debates. Both the liberal and conservative wings of America's Demopublican one party system intend to trot out someone "mainstream" who will parrot the same Chickenhawk policies as Bush II.

So where is democracy's "provision for peaceful regime change?"

Apparently any regime change under a democracy must be non-peaceful, just like under other forms of dictatorship. Unless one is willing to resort to the desperate extreme of non-peaceful regime change, one is just going to have to lump it.

The cruel irony is that democracy makes regime change even more difficult than under other forms of dictatorship. Democracy's bogus claim that it provides for peaceful regime change inside the system makes the Great Silent Majority unwilling to sign on to non-peaceful regime change, even when peaceful regime change under a democracy is impossible. Democracy's bogus reputation for "accountability" enables an unresponsive regime to dig its heels in even more deeply, enriching the "players" who know how to work the system, and impoverishing the nominal "masters of the nation."

The result is an elective dictatorship, even less responsive to the Will of the People than other forms of dictatorship, and even less susceptible to regime change, peaceful or otherwise.

That is why a benevolent dictatorship such as Singapore's can sometimes be better than a democratic dictatorship such as Taiwan's, Indonesia's, or the Philippines'.

The Shawshank Redemption: Andy Dufresne "de-institutionalizes" himself

The solution to the problem of dictatorships is not to pick and choose among different forms of dictatorship, including democratic dictatorships.

The solution is to reject all forms of dictatorship. The solution is to "de-institutionalize" ourselves.

The solution is to choose free markets, to privatize each and every function "normally" provided by government monopolies, including the police, the military, and the courts. The solution is to choose free market anarchism.

But that requires that we overcome the biggest obstacle to freedom, fear. That requires that we psychologically "de-institutionalize" ourselves, the way Andy Dufresne physically "de-institutionalized" himself in The Shawshank Redemption.

We must conquer our fear of the unknown. We must reclaim our hope for the future. We must reject the attitude embodied in the expression "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

As the tagline from the film put it so well: Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

US is "Really in Trouble" says Bloomberg

2007-06-20T10:10:00.000+08:00

The New York Times
June 19, 2007
U.S. Is ‘Really in Trouble,’ Says Bloomberg, Sounding Like a Candidate
By DIANE CARDWELL

Comment: The US is really in trouble. Bloomberg is right about that much.

The solution however is not "Bloomberg for President!" any more than it was "Perot for President!" Pinning ones' hopes for the future of America on some "Third Force" is too little, too late. Even a dyed in the wool minarchist libertarian like Ron Paul can't fix the system from within.

That's because the system is broken, and broken beyond repair. New personnel plugged into the old structures will result in a marginal improvement at best. Probably not even that.

The root of the problem is that the "client-agent" relationship between the citizen of a democracy and the elected officials of a democracy, his so-called "public servants," is not really the relationship between a client and his agents. It is not really the relationship between a master and his servants.

It is merely a progressive sounding veneer applied to the surface of the old subject-monarch relationship. A citizen of a democracy is merely an imperial subject who has euphemistically been spun as the "true master of the nation." The elected chief executive of a democracy is really a monarch who has euphemistically spun as a "servant of the people."

A real client retains the power to fire his agent at his individual discretion.

Can a citizen fire his "public servant" at his individual discretion?

I don't mean "censure" him. I don't mean "impeach" him. I mean fire him. Can a citizen fire a "public servant" the way a private sector client can fire a private sector agent, i.e., a real servant?

No?

Then you already have your answer to why governments remain chronically unresponsive to the "Will of the People" in the US and other "advanced" democracies.

The New York Times
June 19, 2007
U.S. Is ‘Really in Trouble,’ Says Bloomberg, Sounding Like a Candidate
By DIANE CARDWELL

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., June 18 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, sounding every inch the presidential candidate he insists he is not, [told] a crowd of Google employees that the nation was “really in trouble.”

In unusually stark terms, Mr. Bloomberg expressed his frustration with the state of the nation.

Mr. Bloomberg also took a swipe at the presidential candidates of both parties, saying they were not offering serious ideas about improving public education or lowering street crime.

He ended the day in Los Angeles, where he assailed what he called the “swamp of dysfunction” in Washington.

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo

2007-06-14T20:25:00.001+08:00

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo
By Sorcha Faal
June 13, 2007

Comment: Foreign political leaders are finally catching on. They are finally becoming aware of the American Imperium's long obvious Achille's heel. They are beginning to realize that when the American Imperium sanctimoniously accuses other nations of colonialism and imperialism, it is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to its own, far more egregious colonialism and imperialism.

Mexico, prior to the unequal Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

I've made an issue of this at The China Desk in recent years, but not out of any prejudicial "Blame America First" mentality. As my fellow alumni from the 60s know perfectly well, I was never one of the "America Stinks" crowd. I began criticizing the US government only belatedly, well after the end of the Cold War. I began doing so only in response to the relentless demonization of an increasingly liberalized post Communist China by Taiwan independence and Tibetan independence fellow travelers.

Neocon China Threat theorists point accusing fingers at China for its territorial claims in the South China Sea. But as the name of that body of water clearly denotes, it is squarely in China's own backyard.

The US government by contrast, lays claim to Pacific islands as far away as Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and Guam, on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean. These islands were long ago settled by other peoples, and had their own cultural traditions and their own political systems. They are, not to put too fine an edge on it, currently under colonialist and imperialist occupation. And I haven't even mentioned lands within the continental US stolen from the American Indians.

The sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii, currently under US Occupation

Guam: Why does this Island on the opposite side of the Pacific this belong to the US?

By contrast, China's claims to uninhabited islets in the South China Sea, quite close to the Chinese mainland, far closer to the Chinese mainland than Guam or even Hawaii are to the US mainland, are far more geographically plausible, not to mention far more historically justifiable.

China's Nansha Islands, which western colonialists persist in referring to as the "Spratly Islands"

One can't help asking, just exactly who's the colonialist? Who's the imperialist?

So why aren't celebrity China bashers Richard Gere and Steven Seagal railing against the US government's annexation of territories that rightly belong to its southern neighbor Mexico, or the US government's continued occupation of the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii?

Could it be that these wealthy and privileged Hollywood luminaries are more Chauvinistic and less humanistic than they would have the world believe, and hold the US government to more lenient standards than they hold governments headed by "wogs" (wily oriental gentlemen)?

The US government has been remarkably successful in playing Rudyard Kipling's "Great Game of Empire." It has managed to divide and conquer one potential strategic rival after another, citing the very rationale the Russians are using against the US right now.

The Conquest of Aztlan: Mexico is reclaiming its former territory

Republica del Norte circa 2080 AD?

When the Russians call the US government on its annexation of territory belonging to Mexico, which is ironically being rapidly repopulated by Mexicans and other Hispanics, they are merely giving the US government a taste of its own medicine. They are merely saying "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo
By Sorcha Faal
June 13, 2007

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during a press conference held in Sweden today, threatened the breakup of the United States by stating that an American unilateral recognition of Kosovo as an independent Nation ‘could’ prompt Russia to do the same for California ‘should they request it of us’.

Foreign Minister Lavrov’s stunning comments were said to be in response to President Bush’s declaration on Kosovo, and as we can read as reported by Pakistan’s Daily Times News Service in their article titled "US ready for showdown with Russia on Kosovo independence", and which says:

"The United States is pressing for a quick UN vote on Kosovo, but is ready to take on Russia’s threat of a veto and move on to unilaterally recognise the Serbian province’s right to independence.

US President George W Bush on Sunday chose Tirana as a backdrop to make an urgent call for Kosovo’s independence, refusing an “endless dialogue” on the future of the UN-run province.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “will be moving hard to see if we can’t reach an agreement” in the UN Security Council between US and Europeans which are for Kosovo’s independence, and Russia, which is against.

“And if not, we’re going to have to move,” said Bush. “Independence is the goal, and that’s what the people of Kosovo need to know.”

Though technically a Serbian province, Albanian-majority Kosovo has been UN-run since the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation assault in mid-1999."

Kosovo, a Province of Serbia: Not the US's to give away

To the outrage of the Serbian Nation towards the unprecedented remarks by the American President we can read as reported by the Australian News Service in their article titled "Serbia 'disgusted' with Bush Kosovo call", and which says:

Belgrade was "disgusted" with US President George W. Bush's call for Kosovo to quickly be granted independence, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said, insisting Washington had no right to give away Serbian territory.

“The United States has a right to support certain states and nations in accordance with its interests, but definitely not by giving away as a gift something which does not belong to it,” Mr Kostunica said.

Mr Kostunica's strongly-worded reaction came a day after Mr Bush underscored the need to speed up the process of granting the ethnic Albanian majority province independence under a United Nations plan vehemently opposed by Belgrade and its ally Moscow."

To Russia’s President Putin’s stance on Kosovo we can see as reported by the Turkish Weekly News Service in their article titled "Russia: Is Moscow Prepared To Make Stand On Kosovo?", and which says:

"One day after the Group of Eight (G8) summit wrapped up in Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin met on June 9 with Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica on the sidelines of an economic forum in St. Petersburg.

Afterward, Putin told reporters that it was "with pleasure" that he had informed Kostunica of the outcome of the G8's negotiations on the future status of Kosovo.

It was a deadlock -- with Russia once again rejecting a UN Security Council draft proposal that would grant a form of internationally supervised independence to the province, which has an ethnic-Albanian majority.

Russia has thrown its weight behind its longtime ally Serbia, which strongly opposes formally losing the breakaway province of Kosovo. And despite growing pressure from many UN members -- particularly the United States -- Moscow seems determined to stand its ground."

Foreign Minister Lavrov’s equating of the United States State of California with Kosovo does appear to be apt, as like the breakaway Serbia Province being controlled by Muslim Gangs, California is, likewise, controlled by Mexican Gangs, with the California Department of Justice stating that the number of these gang members in California are estimated at a staggering 300,000 [2004].

To the dangers of the Muslim Gangs who have taken control of Kosovo under the protection of NATO, and known as the ‘Islamic Mafia’, we can read:

"FBI has recently announced that ethnic Albanian gangs, including immigrants from Kosovo, are replacing the Italian La Cosa Nostra mafia as the leading organized crime outfit in the US.

According to a CNN report the FBI "Officials said ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro" make up the emerging American criminal cartel and "represent a major challenge to federal agents because of their propensity for violence and brutality." This statement comes several months after Amnesty International declared NATO-administered Kosovo province a hotbed of organized crime activity."

It is, also, most curious that President Bush was received by the Albanian criminal Nation with ‘wild’ enthusiasm and cheering crowds, who, according to some news report, stole his watch while he shaking hands with them.

To the greater danger, however, facing the United States is the growing independence movement in California being led by the Nation of Aztlán, and which is described as:

"The Nation of Aztlán is a Latino patriot and independence organization headquartered in Whittier, California, United States. Its platform states that United States must return the land that was stolen from Mexico during the Mexican-American War and which it calls "Aztlan territory" in order to form an independent nation.”

Russian Military Analysts, in their reports, state that California does indeed contain those elements needed for an independence movement, which include: 1.) A large armed militia (gangs) separate from and in conflict with US government control. 2.) A growing illegal migrant base willing to displace the local population. 3.) A foreign state on their border sympathetic to their cause, in this case Mexico.

To what the American people in California could expect, should Russia recognize them as an independent Aztlan Nation, we cannot see it being any less traumatic to them than that faced by the Serbian peoples in Kosovo, and as we can read:

"Serb leaders in the breakaway Kosovo province Thursday accused four European countries and the United States of assisting ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo by handing them immigrant visas. Marko Jaksic, president of the Alliance of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo, said the US, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland were among the countries which helped Kosovo minority Serbs to emigrate, paving the way for Kosovo independence, demanded by majority ethnic Albanians.

“What is happening now is just a perfidious continuation of ethnic cleansing,” Jaksic said. Referring to the fact that over 200,000 Serbs have fled Kosovo since it was put under United Nations control in 1999, he said the international community would do better to rebuild their destroyed homes and facilitate their return, if it really wanted to live up to its declared goal of a multi-ethnic Kosovo."

© June 13, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

Be sure to check out Dateline Taipei

2007-06-14T13:25:00.000+08:00

Dear Readers,

Be sure to check out my new blog, Dateline Taipei

Introduction to Dateline Taipei explains what it's all about

Bevin Chu,
Author of The China Desk

China's Rise is a Fact. How will Taiwan Cope?

2007-06-07T13:42:00.001+08:00

Caption: China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?

On June 7, 2007 a local Taiwan television talk show asked its guests a question: "China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?"

The fact that it would ask such a patently absurd question shows that much of the intelligentsia on Taiwan is pretty far gone. Bear in mind I'm not talking only about Deep Green Taiwan independence fundamentalists such as Trong Chai. I'm not even talking about Pale Green "liberal democrats" such as Hu Chung-hsing. I'm talking about any number of Pale Blue talking heads. Out of pity I will not identify them by name.

Let me put it this way. Say you live in San Francisco, and an American television talk show asks the question: "Silicon Valley's rise is a fact. How will San Francisco cope?"

Wouldn't you do you a double take? Wouldn't you respond, "What kind of idiotic question is that? Why is Silicon Valley's rise a problem that San Francisco must cope with? Silicon Valley is an integral part of California. Silicon Valley's rise is a benefit to all of California, including the entire Bay Area, including San Francisco. What the hell are you talking about?"

Of course you would.

By the same token, any right thinking citizen of the ROC living in the Taiwan region of China would respond, "What kind of idiotic question is that? Why is the rise of the mainland region of China a problem that Taiwan must cope with? The rise of the mainland is a benefit to all of China, including the Taiwan region of China. What the hell are you talking about?"

Taiwan is part of China. That does not mean it is ruled by the current government in Beijing. Being ruled by the government in Beijing is not synonymous with being part of China. Like Germany before German reunification, China has two governments. One government of China is located in Beijing. The other government of China is located in Taipei. The Taiwan region of China is ruled by the government of China located in Taipei.

The rise of China is not a problem that Taiwan must "cope with." It is a positive development that Chinese people living in the Taiwan region of China will benefit from and ought to celebrate. The question the organizers of the show should have asked is "[Mainland] China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan benefit and celebrate?" The fact that it didn't, reveals how lost the intelligentsia on Taiwan is, even many Pan Blues.

The fact that even a Pale Blue oriented television network such as TVBS would ask: "China's rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?" shows that much of the intelligentsia on Taiwan has already been successfully indoctrinated with Taiwan independence Political Correctness.

Joyce C. Huang is a renowned native Taiwanese author and political commentator. She is the "Sophie Scholl of Taiwan." As Huang and I have pointed out in our writings, Taiwan today is in many respects like Germany in the 1930s.

Just as even "Good Germans" bought into Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, so even "Good Taiwanese" have bought into Pan Green Hoklo fascist propaganda over the past decade. And just as Germany eventually needed a "de-Nazification" program to restore it to normality, so one day Taiwan will need a "de-Nativization" program to restore it to normality.

One Man, One Gun

2007-05-04T09:19:00.001+08:00

One Man, One Gun
by Bevin Chu
May 04, 2007

Pai Ping-ping: "I can accept abolishing the death penalty, but I demand the same rights as Americans. One man, one gun. When my life is threatened, we'll shoot it out and see who's left standing."

Pai Ping-ping is a well-known television personality on Taiwan. A decade ago, she was an enthusiastic supporter of the DPP as a political party, and of Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian as political leaders.

Then she got wise.

In April 1997, Chen Ching-hsing, Lin Chun-sheng, and Kao Tien-min, a trio of Taiwan independence thugs, Deep Green supporters of the DPP, kidnapped Pai Ping-ping's 17 year old daughter Pai Hsiao-yen, and held her for ransom.

Pai Ping-ping raised the five million US dollars the kidnappers demanded and repeatedly attempted to turn the money over to them. But the kidnappers sadistically tortured and murdered her daughter anyway, then dumped her body in a rural drainage ditch, on the premise that "dead girls tell no tales."

It is said that "A fool who persists in his folly will become wise." Many supporters of Taiwan independence are now former supporters of Taiwan independence. By persisting in their folly they have become wise.

China, including the Taiwan region of China, has never acknowledged the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Many societies, as divergent as Afghanistan and Switzerland, have cultural traditions that acknowledge this natural right of individual human beings. China, it pains me to say, has not been among them.

Pai however, has become very wise indeed. Not only has she forsaken Pan Green ideology, she now explicitly champions the right to keep and bear arms.

Pai is hardly a "deep thinker." She is not a constitutional scholar or a civil rights lawyer. She is a TV personality who is for the most part "famous for being famous."

That someone like Pai would have the uncommon sense to recognize that armed self-defense is a fundamental human right, is immensely encouraging. This is particularly true in the wake of the 32 shooting deaths at Virginia Tech, when many Americans have lost sight of this simple truth that the Founding Fathers considered self-evident.

One can only hope that Pai's conversion to champion of the right to keep and bear arms is the first of many to come, not only in the Taiwan region of China, but in China as a whole.

One can only hope that Pai's conversion is not merely the first of 23 million, the Chinese population on Taiwan, but the first of 1.3 billion, the population of China as a whole.

See:
An interview with John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime
Gun control myths: Part III

The Presidential Pardon / Furious Backlash!
Pai Ping-ping: This can't be the President's Legacy
translated by Bevin Chu
April 25, 2007

The Presidential Pardon / Furious Backlash!

President Chen Shui-bian intends to issue a nationwide presidential pardon. As soon as the news got out, victims' families reacted angrily. Pai Ping-ping, whose daughter Pai Hsiao-yen was murdered ten years ago, angrily denounced the proposed pardon as callous indifference to the feelings of decent, law-abiding citizens. She also urged President Chen to reconsider, pointing out that if Chen Ching-hsing, her daughter's murderer was still alive, her tax money would be supporting him for the rest of his life.

Although her tone was moderate, the content of Pai Ping-ping's statement was direct and sharp. She occasionally choked up as she attacked President Chen's nationwide mass pardon.

Pai Ping-ping: "Abolishing the death penalty means life sentences. If Chen Ching-hsing, the man who murdered Pai Hsiao-yen were still alive today, I would have to work hard earning money paying taxes to support him for a lifetime. What kind of society is that?"

Pai Ping-ping: "I can accept abolishing the death penalty, but I demand the same rights as Americans. One man one gun. When my life is threatened, we'll shoot it out and see who's left standing."

On the 10th anniversary of Pai Hsiao-yen's kidnap/murder, Pai Ping-ping's mood remains as intense as back then. The sense of helplessness felt by crime victim family members can only be imagined.

Source: TVBS

Original Chinese below:

總統特赦／痛批赦免！
白冰冰：不會是總統政績
2007-04-25 17:58

陳水扁總統將推動全國性赦免，消息一出，就引起受害者家屬的反彈，10年前女兒白曉燕遇害的白冰冰，痛批這是不顧善良百姓的感受，也在錄影現場懇求陳總統三思，白冰冰還比喻，如果陳進興沒有死，不就等於拿納稅錢，養他一輩子。

藝人白冰冰：「我覺得，赦免案這一件事情，不會是陳總統在位8年的政績。」

語氣很婉轉，白冰冰話的內容卻是直接犀利，帶點哽咽，反擊陳總統擬推動的全國大赦免。白冰冰：「廢除死刑的配套措施，就是終生監禁，今天殺白曉燕的陳進興(如果)不死，我白冰冰得努力賺錢，繳稅金去養他一輩子，那是那門子的社會？」

才走上街頭，連署死刑不能廢，現在，白冰冰再抗上大減刑，喪女之痛還在，不滿情緒發難。白冰冰：「我接受廢除死刑，但是我能不能要求跟美國一樣，一個人配給我們一支槍，我生命有威脅的時候，大槍拼小槍，贏的人算。」

白曉燕案10週年，白冰冰情緒依舊激昂，受害者家屬的心情無奈，可想而知；比白曉燕再早一個10年，新竹學童陸正的綁票撕票案，也是父親陸晉德一輩子的痛，得知減刑消息，氣得話都快講不清楚，開罵！

陸正父親陸晉德：「怎麼你現在受到國法懲罰，忽然說要減刑，那有這種道理，我們政府到底是為善良的百姓做事情，還是說要站在罪犯那一邊呢？」

聽的出忿忿不平，還有無力感，質疑，司法怎麼給正義交代？看來，赦免爭議一時不會平息。

新聞來源：TVBS