Market Anarchism, the Solution to the Dilemma of Taiwan Independence
Bevin Chu
March 23, 2006
Market Anarchism in One Easy Lesson
In order to better understand how market anarchism would solve the dilemma of Taiwan independence, we need to first remind ourselves what market anarchism is.
Market anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, is essentially classical liberalism, paleo-conservativism, and "minarchist" libertarianism taken to its logical and radical conclusion. One might say that classical liberalism, paleo-conservativism, and "minarchist" libertarianism go ninety percent of the way to total liberty. Market anarchism goes all the way.
As Wikipedia explains, anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy based on an uncompromising respect for individual sovereignty and an unyielding prohibition against the initiation of force. Anarcho-capitalists embrace laissez-faire capitalism and consider the state an illegitimate monopolist and systematic violator of individual rights. To anarcho-capitalists, a legitimate political system can emerge only from private property and voluntary contractual agreements between sovereign individuals.
Under anarcho-capitalism, all goods and services, even law enforcement, would be provided by the free market. Anarcho-capitalists believe in courts, military, and police forces only if they are established and funded on a purely voluntary basis. Coercion of any kind is unacceptable, and undermines the legitimacy of a political system from its very inception. According to Gustave de Molinari, the father of market anarchism, "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries."
Private systems of justice and defense already exist. They emerge spontaneously wherever the market is free to compensate for the failure of the state: private arbitration, private security firms, neighborhood watch groups, and so on. These private courts and private police are often referred to as Private Defense Agencies, or PDAs. Anarcho-capitalists would replace the coercively established and coercively funded legal apparatus of the state with voluntarily established and voluntarily funded Private Defense Agencies that use physical force only in self-defense, and only against those who initiate it.
The Icelandic Commonwealth
Thomas Whiston is a free market economist with George Mason University. In his article, "Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government," Whiston provides us with insights into the truly remarkable Icelandic Commonwealth political system.
The Icelandic Commonwealth or Icelandic Free State, which flourished between 930 and 1262, offers modern libertarians a well-documented, real world example of how a market anarchist political system worked in the past, and how it can work again in the future, if only we can bring ourselves to "think outside the box," if ony we can disabuse ourselves of Frances Fukuyama's delusion that western liberal democracy is the final form of human government.
The Icelandic Commonwealth was a single, unified nation with a single, overarching constitution, but a multiplicity of "competing governments," all of which had jurisdiction over the same territory.
Instead of public property, i.e., "government property," the Icelandic Commonwealth had only private property. The entire island was privately owned by one private citizen or another.
As difficult as it may be for us to grasp, the Icelandic Commonwealth had no executive and no judiciary.
Instead of a judiciary, the Icelandic Commonwealth had private courts. Members of these private courts were chosen after a crime was committed. The defendant and plaintiff each had the right to pick half the arbitrators.
One of the few permanent officials was the "law speaker." His duty was to memorize the laws, recite them back, and to provide advice on legislative matters.
Instead of a king, the Icelandic Commonwealth had a multitude of chieftans. These chieftans were not regional warlords. These chieftans were not local authorities. These chieftans were leaders of de facto central governments in competition with other chieftans' central governments. Each chieftans' jurisdiction was not a part of Iceland, but all of Iceland.
These chieftans were not conventional heads of government. After all, we are talking about anarchism, and anarchism means "no government." These chieftans were heads of Private Defense Agencies.
These chieftans were not dukes, earls, and barons. They were not hereditary aristocrats. Their authority was not conferred upon them at birth by virtue of their ancestry. Their authority was provisional, conferred upon them by citizens who signed "law enforcement service contracts" with them. Their authority was subject to unilateral revocation any time by their clientele.
A citizen of the Icelandic Commonwealth unhappy with the service provided by one chieftan did not need to emigrate to a different jurisdiction in order to live under a different political authority. Like any customer of any service industry, he merely needed to take his business elsewhere, to another chieftan. If that chieftan disappointed him, he could reassign his contract for law enforcement services to yet another chieftan, ad infinitum.
Think of it as switching your cable television, cellphone, or Internet service provider at will, whenever your current provider's service fails to meet with your satisfaction.
This option of switching governments, or rather, "law enforcement service providers" at an individual citizen's discretion without having to pull up roots and emigrate to a foreign country, was the key to making the system work. This option provided de facto political secession all the way down the level of the individual, and made the term "civil servant" a comforting reality instead of a cruel hoax.
Market Anarchism works, Naysayers are Wrong
Naysayers of market anarchism, including the late Ayn Rand, have trotted out a wide range of theoretical arguments purporting to prove that market anarchism can never work.
The only problem with the naysayers' learned arguments is that market anarchy has worked. The market anarchist Icelandic Commonwealth worked for over three centuries. The constitutional republican United States worked for only two centuries. Did the United States work? If working for two centuries means that the United States worked, then working for three centuries means the Icelandic Commonwealth worked.
The United States worked as long as it remained a constitutional republic. Once it degenerated into a democracy, sometime during the Progressive Era and the New Deal, it stopped working. The Icelandic Commonwealth worked as long as it remained a market anarchy. Once it degenerated into a theocracy, sometime around 1200, it stopped working. The Icelandic Commonwealth worked longer than the United States. While the Icelandic Commonwealth worked, it worked even better than the United States.
Naysayers of market anarchism who claim to have proven that market anarchism can't work remind me of the aeronautical engineers who proved that bumblebees can't fly. The fact is bumblebees have flown. Bumblebees can fly. The fact is market anarchism has worked. Market anarchism can work.
The aeronautical engineers who "proved" that bumblebees can't fly were merely being funny. Ayn Rand and her "intellectual heirs" were not.
The extraordinary history of the Icelandic Commonwealth demonstrates in actual practice and not mere theory that every function that the Conventional Wisdom insists must be provided coercively by a state monopoly can be provided voluntarily by private entrepreneurs, without violating the prohibition against the initiation of force.
Due to widespread semantic sloppiness, the neutral term "anarchy" has become conflated with the pejorative term "chaos." But the term anarchy, properly understood, does not mean chaos. It means "no government."
Does no government mean chaos? It does not. It just means an absence of government. An absence of government is fully compatible with social order. In fact, an absence of government is highly conducive to enhanced social order. As the Daoist sage Laozi wisely observed, "The people are difficult to govern because of the excessive agency of their superiors in governing them. It is through this that they are difficult to govern."
The presumption that an absence of government equals chaos is a myth perpetuated by obdurate statists. Anarchy need not be a Hobbesian state of nature, with a war of all against all, but rather extended periods of peace and prosperity.
See:
Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
China's Quasi-Anarchism, Proto-Anarchism
I propose a market anarchist solution to the perplexing problem of Taiwan independence, inspired by the medieval era Icelandic Commonwealth. No one has ever advanced such a proposal before. You read it here first.
A market anarchist solution for the problem of Taiwan independence would begin with the half-century old cross-Straits status quo.
What is the cross-Straits status quo?
The status quo in the Taiwan Straits is not Lee Teng-hui's "Two States" or Chen Shui-bian's "One Country each Side." The status quo is not "One China, One Taiwan," or even "Two Chinas." The status quo in the Taiwan Straits is "One Country, Two Systems," with the key proviso that the "One Country" is the neutral term "China," rather than the loaded terms "Republic of China" or "People's Republic of China"
The fact that the term One Country, Two Systems is disliked even by some Pan Blues does not alter the facts. Pan Blues who are allergic to the term One Country, Two Systems because it was formulated by the PRC rather than the ROC are free to substitute the terminology of the '92 Consensus, "One China, Different Expressions." It amounts to the same thing.
For those unfamiliar with the 1992 Consensus, it stipulates that "There is only one indivisible China. This China includes both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Beijing will refer to this China as the People's Republic of China. Taipei will refer to this China as the Republic of China. Chinese citizens ruled by the PRC government in Beijing will recognize it as China's government. Chinese citizens ruled by the ROC government in Taipei will recognize it as China's government."
The political structure of the Icelandic Commonwealth was "One Country, Many Governments." Each of these governments claimed sovereignty over all of Iceland, and exercised jurisdiction over all of Iceland.
The political structure of a China divided by the lingering Cold War "Mexican Stand-off," is "One Country, Two Governments." Each of these governments claims sovereignty over all of China, but exercises jurisdiction over only part of China.
China resembles medieval Iceland in that China has competing governments claiming sovereignty over all of China. China differs from medieval Iceland in that China's competing governments are unable to exercise jurisdiction over all of China.
The obvious conclusion? In order to transform China into a modern version of the Icelandic Commonwealth, China's competing governments must be allowed to exercise jurisdiction over all of China, in addition to claiming sovereignty over all of China.
The Market Anarchist Chinese Commonwealth
The newly reunified nation could be renamed the Chinese Commonwealth, the Chinese Free State, or just plain China. Just as we no longer need the terms West Germany and East Germany now that Germany has been reunified, so we would no longer need the names Nationalist China and Communist China, or Republic of China and People's Republic of China once China is reunified.
The constitutions of the ROC government in Taipei and the PRC government in Beijing are "minarchist," limited government constitutions, in principle if not necessarily in practice.
The Constitution of the newly reunified Chinese Commonwealth would be a market anarchist, no government/competing governments constitution.
Citizens of the Chinese Commonwealth would never pay another dime in taxes to any government, central, provincial, or local, because there would no longer be any government, central, provincial, or local. There would only be one unified nation consisting entirely of privately owned property, in which citizens would voluntarily contract with Private Defense Agencies for law enforcement services.
Taiwan independence advocates would relinquish all demands for political independence from the Chinese Commonwealth. They would cease and desist all attempts to undermine the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Chinese nation.
In return, the Constitution of the Chinese Commonwealth would authorize all political parties to reorganize themselves as Private Defense Agencies. The Taiwan based Democratic Progressive Party would be free to offer its law enforcement services anywhere in China, including the Chinese mainland. The mainland based Chinese Communist Party would be free to offer its law enforcement services anywhere in China, including Taiwan.
The right to establish Private Defense Agencies and to enter the law enforcement service industry would of course not be restricted to political parties. I mention political parties merely to illustrate one of many possibilities.
Anybody would be free to establish a Private Defense Agency and offer law enforcement services to the public. Entering the law enforcement service industry would be a purely economic decision.
Subscribing to any law enforcement service provider would also be a purely economic decision. Citizens would subscribe to those Private Defense Agencies that offered the most satisfactory service for the most reasonable rates.
The cross-Straits status quo, "One Country, Two Governments," is already halfway to market anarchism. All that remains is to go the rest of the way. All that is necessary to transform today's China into a modern version of the Icelandic Commonwealth is to take "One Country, Two Governments" to its logical and radical conclusion and create "One Country, Many Governments."
Why Wait for Beijing? Let's Roll!
Beijing won't go for it, you say, therefore the market anarchization of China is a pipe dream?
When did Beijing's unwillingness to do anything become a problem? The Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong rejected free market capitalism for the Chinese mainland, but the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo implemented free market capitalism on Taiwan anyway, and Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao on the Chinese mainland eventually followed suit. The CCP used to stand for the Chinese Communist Party. Now it stands for the Chinese Capitalist Party.
Besides, haven't Taiwan independence Quislings and Taiwan independence fellow travelers alike been telling the world that "democratic and progressive" Taiwan has exterted enormous internal political pressure on Beijing via the power of example? Were these just empty boasts, or where they for real?
Taiwan independence Quislings have been chafing at the bit, eager to get the secessionist ball rolling. That being the case, why wait for Beijing? As Todd Beamer told fellow captives aboard UAL Flight 93; "Let's roll!"
Why not liberate ourselves from our statist captors in Taipei and Washington first? Why wait for the Chinese mainland to make the first move? Why not recognize the right of sovereign individuals to secede from the Taiwanese kleptocracy and the American Leviathan first? Why not implement market anarchism in the "Free Region of China" and the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" first? Why not show those uptight, repressive Commie bastards how "democratic and progressive" we are?
Beijing is unwilling to take the first step? No problem. We'll go first. They can catch up later.
Unfortunately, as libertarians know only too well, even the moderate "minarchist" policy proposals advanced by the Libertarian Party of the United States are considered beyond the pale by the conservative Republicans, moderate centrists, and liberal Democrats who comprise the Great Silent Majority in the US and other "advanced democracies." Never mind any political proposals containing the term "anarchist" in them!
During the bitter post 3/20 election protests in 2004, many Pan Blue protestors suggested that rather than suffer passively as Pan Green Quislings engaged in creeping secession from China, the Pan Blue democratic majority on Taiwan ought to seize the initiative and declare an independent loyalist Chinese republic in the northern half of the island, confirm Lien Chan as Pan Blue president, pay taxes to Pan Blue officials, and leave Taiwan independence Quislings in the south to starve themselves to death with their economically suicidal protectionist policies.
If Taiwan independence Quislings are serious about honoring the "Right to Self-Determination," they can start by honoring the Pan Blue camp's desire not to be ruled by a treasonous "Vichy China" led by corrupt Taiwan independence Quislings.
The Real Reason for Taiwan Independence
Taiwan independence Quislings claim that the reason they collaborate with rabid Sinophobes in the US and Japan to split Taiwan off from the rest of China, over the objections of a democratic majority of Chinese citizens on Taiwan, not to mention an even larger democratic majority on the Chinese mainland, is that they demand "Freedom and Democracy." They say they can't enjoy Freedom and Democracy as long as Taiwan remains a part of China.
If that's their objection to remaining part of China and for demanding a government of their own, I have good news. Market anarchism can give them what they say they want, without absolutely no need to betray their country.
Notice I said, "what they say they want." Allow me to make a prediction. Rather than welcome a peaceful alternative to bigoted, unsavory "Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics, and racially-motivated "Taiwanese, not Chinese" nation building, Taiwan independence Quislings will trot out a million reasons why they will not settle for anything less than a separate "Nation of Taiwan." They will do so because the desire for Freedom and Democracy is not their real reason for demanding Taiwan independence.
When Japanophile Quisling Lee Teng-hui makes his case for an independent Taiwan, he tells western liberals that his demand is motivated by political idealism, not racial hatred. In other words, he lies. Lee knows what's Politically Correct. Lee knows what will ingratiate himself with progressive "Make the world safe for democracy" Wilsonian internationalists. That's why he dutifully recites the mantra they are waiting to hear: "We demand Freedom and Democracy."
But what's the real reason Taiwan independence Quislings demand Taiwan independence?
Back in the early 90s, a Japanese MP interviewed Lee Teng-hui. In "Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui's Tears," the MP told the Japan Daily Post:
"Lee Teng-hui received a Japanese education during [the] Japanese occupation. His older brother was a soldier in the Japanese Imperial Army and died in action. The result is Lee Teng-hui is in his own heart and in his own eyes even more Japanese than the Japanese. His yearning and homesickness for Japan is intense."
Lee Teng-hui knows he can't tell western liberals the truth. He knows they would run from him faster than you can say "PW Botha" or "Pauline Hanson." Lee Teng-hui, or should I say "Iwasato Masao," knows he can't tell sympathetic western liberals the real reason he is obsessed with separating Taiwan from the rest of China is that he despises China, hates the people of China, and considers them congenitally inferior to the people of Japan. He dreams of making his mark in Japanese history as the national hero who enabled Japan to annex Taiwan a second time.
Most Taiwan independence sympathizers have heard only the feel-good Freedom and Democracy catechisms regurgitated for their benefit by Cassidy and Associates, the Taiwan Lobby's high-priced PR firm. They have never attended any of the Nuremberg Rallies held by the Pan Green parties on Taiwan and gotten an earful of the racist remarks Taiwan independence demagogues Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian make before wildly cheering Taiwan independence fundamentalists.
Little wonder the idealistic Sisy Chen, former DPP Public Relations Chief and one of the DPP's shining stars, eventually parted company with the Taiwan independence movement and concluded that "The DPP is the KKK of Taiwan."
The reality is Taiwan independence Quislings such as Lee Teng-hui, whom clueless Newsweek reporters canonized as "Mr. Democracy," don't give a damn whether people on Taiwan live under "Freedom and Democracy." I'm not saying they resolutely oppose Freedom and Democracy. I'm saying Freedom and Democracy is not their highest priority. They recite the Freedom and Democracy mantra only because they know Taiwan independence fellow travelers like to hear it.
As their repressive and dictatorial behavior since "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian became the "Il Duce of Taiwan" reveals, they care only about indoctrinating Chinese people on Taiwan with their artificially fabricated, self-hating, "Taiwanese, not Chinese" race consciousness. They care only about founding a race-based "Nation of Taiwan" in which the three-fourths Hoklo majority of "zheng gang de tai wan ren" (genuine Taiwanese), rule the roost, and any minority unhappy about being forced to live under petty tribalist Hoklo Chauvinism can lump it.
See:
Japan has no balls, Lee says
Independence for Me but not for Thee
Market Anarchism, the Solution to a Global Problem
Patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and China's mainland face a challenge akin to the challenge faced by Frodo Baggins and the Fellowship of the Rings in JRR Tolkien's epic novel, "The Lord of the Rings."
First, they must defend the political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Chinese nation against coordinated "Divide and Conquer" tactics by Neo-imperialists from without and Quislings from within.
Second, they must accomplish this defense without sacrificing the individual liberty and individual sovereignty of 1.3 billion Chinese citizens. As James Madison warned, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." This is true even of an unprovoked, unavoidable war of self-defense.
Like Frodo Baggins and the Fellowship of the Rings, modern Chinese have been reluctantly saddled with the One Ring [Democratic Universalism],
an instrument of absolute power that could allow Sauron, the dark Lord of Mordor [Dubya, the dark Lord of the New World Order],
and his accomplice Saruman [Junichiro Koizumi],
to rule Middle Earth [the Middle East / Central Asia / China, the Middle Kingdom] and enslave its peoples.
Like Frodo and the Fellowship, modern Chinese must take the One Ring [Democratic Universalism]
to Mount Doom, where it first was forged, and destroy it forever [refute and neutralize Democratic Universalism's hypnotic and evil spell at its source],
all the while combatting internal dissension [Boromir, who represents exasperatingly naive democracy activists on the Chinese mainland, and Gollum, who represents vicious ethnic separatists on Taiwan]
and the corrupting influence of the One Ring itself [the seductive influence of political power which overwhelmed even the pure of heart Frodo Baggins]
with the knowledge that the course of future history [a peaceful 21st century globalized world] hangs in the balance.
Enter market anarchism. Market anarchism not only has the potential to resolve China's most serious dilemma, it has the potential to resolve America's dilemmas, the former Yugoslavia's dilemmas, Iraq's dilemmas, the world's dilemmas.
A Dangerous Opportunity
The Chinese term for "crisis" is a compound noun combining the terms "danger" and "opportunity." A crisis is a "dangerous opportunity." A crisis is an opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade.
The danger in the cross-Straits crisis is all too obvious and all too possible. The obvious danger is that rabid Sinophobes in the US and Japan will eventually play the "Taiwan Card" as their pretext for a preventive war of aggression against China. The prospect of nuclear armageddon involving 1.3 billion Chinese and 290 million Americans, provoked by a 20% minority of Taiwan independence fundamentalists indoctrinated with an ersatz "Taiwanese national consciousness," is too appalling to contemplate.
The opportunity in the cross-Straits crisis is not so obvious and not so possible. The not so obvious opportunity is that this crucible of conflict will provide an answer to a question that has bedeviled mankind since the beginning of time -- how to reconcile the requirements of collective security with the requirements of individual liberty.
The challenge for libertarian anti-colonialists/anti-imperialists in every nation in an increasingly globalized world is to delink patriotism from statism.
Market anarchism does just that. Market anarchism successfully delinks benign patriotism from malignant statism. A successful market anarchist solution to the problem of a Divided China would offer patriots the world over a means of safeguarding their national sovereignty and territorial integrity against Neo-colonialist, Neo-imperialist "Divide and Conquer" tactics from without, without compromising the individual liberty and individual sovereignty of their fellow citizens within.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Oppose Separatism, Save Taiwan, Squash Chen Shui-bian!
Oppose Separatism, Save Taiwan, Squash Chen Shui-bian!
Press Release for The Alliance for the Reunification of China
English Translation by Bevin Chu
March 18, 2006
Chen Shui-bian's current "Terminate Unification" charade, (Terminate the National Unification Council, terminate the National Unification Guidelines), signals that he is taking another dangerous step towards his goal of dividing China.
His behavior is malicious, provocative, and destructive in the extreme. It inflicts grave harm on the people of China, including the Chinese people on Taiwan.
Since 1945, following Japan's surrender and Taiwan's retrocession to China, the territory on both sides of the Taiwan Strait has belonged to the Chinese people in common. A subsequent civil war between the Chinese Nationalists and the Chinese Communists has not altered China's sovereignty. This is the One China Principle recognized by the international community and by the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Beginning this year, Chen Shui-bian, after suffering a long string of setbacks, began upping the ante in his reckless game of "Terminate Unification, author a Constitution," displaying callous indifference to the express will of the people.
He did this to escape the ugly scandals in which he had become enmeshed, and to spare himself from the humiliating effects of having lost the respect of the people.
By willfully announcing the termination of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, overturning his solemn "Five Noes" political pledge, repudiating the One China Principle, he has attempted to hijack and defraud the people of Taiwan.
We solemnly warn Chen Shui-bian: The people's desire for peace, their yearning for security, their pursuit of the ideal of national reunification, absolutely, positively will not be hijacked. China's reunification cannot be thwarted.
We also warn anti-Chinese elements within the US and Japan: The Taiwan problem is China's internal affair, a vestige of the Chinese Civil War. The solution to the Taiwan problem is an internal Chinese matter, one not subject to meddling by foreign powers.
We must also remind Taiwan's political parties: You have a responsibilty to history and to the people. You have a duty to remain steadfast in your pursuit of peaceful reunification, and to reject unhealthy dependence upon outside powers in your search for solutions.
The issues at hand are transcendent issues of right and wrong, on which weakness and impotence are not options. You must stand your ground as leaders of the Chinese nation. Only then can you rally the people to our common cause, and resolve the crisis provoked by Chen Shui-bian's irresponsible behavior.
反分裂、救台灣、 聲討陳水扁 聲明
陳水扁日前操弄的「終統」鬧劇 (終止國統會運作、終止國統綱領適用)，標誌著他向分裂祖國的方向又跨出危險的一步。此項行為對於包括台灣人民在內的中國人民，是一極其惡意的挑釁與破壞，嚴重損害了中華民族的利益。
自一九四五年日本戰敗投降後，台灣重歸中國版圖，兩岸的領土主權即屬兩岸人民共同所有。其後雖經國共內戰，但並未改變主權狀況。此即為國際及兩岸人民所公認的「一個中國」原則。
今年初以來，陳水扁在連番受挫之後，為了擺脫弊案纏身、民心日失的窘境，非但不能反躬自省，反而變本加厲地玩起「終統、制憲」的政治狂賭。陳水扁全然不顧民意的反對，悍然宣布終止「國統會」和「國統綱領」，推翻「四不一沒有」的政治承諾，這不但意味著對「一個中國」基本原則的否定，更是對台灣人民的綁架和詐欺。
我們嚴正告誡陳水扁：人民求和平、求安定、追求國家統一的意志，是絕無可能綁架的。中國的統一，是不可阻擋的。我們也要警告美國、日本的反華勢力：台灣問題是中國內戰的遺留問題。台灣問題的解決，是中國的內部事務，外國勢力不得干涉！
我們也要提醒台灣各政黨：要對歷史負責，對民族負責。要堅定追求和平統一的決心，徹底拋棄依賴外力、以求苟安的不健康的心態，在大是大非的問題上不可軟弱無力，要站穩中國人的立場。如此才能號召全民共同奮鬥、共同化解陳水扁所挑起的危機！
共同聲明團體：
中國統一聯盟、勞動黨、夏潮聯合會、台灣地區政治受難人互助會、辜金良文化基金會、人間出版社、《海峽評論》雜誌社、《遠望》雜誌社、人間報導學社、反軍購大聯盟、《批判與再造》雜誌社、全球保釣行動聯盟
學界：
張麟_、許介麟、楊克平、王津平、王曉波、紀欣、毛鑄倫、陳欽銘、曾祥鐸、吳瓊恩、湯紹成、胡卜凱、李壽林、王仲孚、楊志誠、潘朝陽、李功勤、劉義鈞、郭中一、呂欽文、劉廣定、花俊雄、張九、張震元、歐陽承新、歐陽又新、葉先揚、葉先覺、沈己堯、劉文超、陳癸淼、翁啟元、黃企之、龔忠武、吳士謨、蔡金樹、陳卓、黃光國、陳毓鈞、陳炎坤等教授
文化界、社運界：
陳映真、藍博洲、許金玉、范振國、鍾喬、黃志翔、莫那能、詹澈、林彩美、韋大中、賴燦德、梁幼祥、張聿文、陳映朝、陳福裕、盧淦金、汪立峽、曾健民、朱炳文、黃邦政、黃錫麟、李文吉、林憲、許承宗、張寶樂、金介壽、唐曙、王娟萍、王武郎、詹士慶、黃瑞我、王春生、李明儒、鍾俊陞、李競芬、連石磊、上官百成
海外團體：
北加州中國和平統一促進會、紐約中國和平統一促進會、華盛頓中國和平統一促進會、美洲中華青年促進中國和平統一聯合會、全美中華青年聯合會、華夏政略學會、南加州中國和平統一促進會（全球發燒連署中）
本聲明自即日起擴大個人及團體連署中，歡迎各界積極參與連署
Press Release for The Alliance for the Reunification of China
English Translation by Bevin Chu
March 18, 2006
Chen Shui-bian's current "Terminate Unification" charade, (Terminate the National Unification Council, terminate the National Unification Guidelines), signals that he is taking another dangerous step towards his goal of dividing China.
His behavior is malicious, provocative, and destructive in the extreme. It inflicts grave harm on the people of China, including the Chinese people on Taiwan.
Since 1945, following Japan's surrender and Taiwan's retrocession to China, the territory on both sides of the Taiwan Strait has belonged to the Chinese people in common. A subsequent civil war between the Chinese Nationalists and the Chinese Communists has not altered China's sovereignty. This is the One China Principle recognized by the international community and by the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Beginning this year, Chen Shui-bian, after suffering a long string of setbacks, began upping the ante in his reckless game of "Terminate Unification, author a Constitution," displaying callous indifference to the express will of the people.
He did this to escape the ugly scandals in which he had become enmeshed, and to spare himself from the humiliating effects of having lost the respect of the people.
By willfully announcing the termination of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, overturning his solemn "Five Noes" political pledge, repudiating the One China Principle, he has attempted to hijack and defraud the people of Taiwan.
We solemnly warn Chen Shui-bian: The people's desire for peace, their yearning for security, their pursuit of the ideal of national reunification, absolutely, positively will not be hijacked. China's reunification cannot be thwarted.
We also warn anti-Chinese elements within the US and Japan: The Taiwan problem is China's internal affair, a vestige of the Chinese Civil War. The solution to the Taiwan problem is an internal Chinese matter, one not subject to meddling by foreign powers.
We must also remind Taiwan's political parties: You have a responsibilty to history and to the people. You have a duty to remain steadfast in your pursuit of peaceful reunification, and to reject unhealthy dependence upon outside powers in your search for solutions.
The issues at hand are transcendent issues of right and wrong, on which weakness and impotence are not options. You must stand your ground as leaders of the Chinese nation. Only then can you rally the people to our common cause, and resolve the crisis provoked by Chen Shui-bian's irresponsible behavior.
反分裂、救台灣、 聲討陳水扁 聲明
陳水扁日前操弄的「終統」鬧劇 (終止國統會運作、終止國統綱領適用)，標誌著他向分裂祖國的方向又跨出危險的一步。此項行為對於包括台灣人民在內的中國人民，是一極其惡意的挑釁與破壞，嚴重損害了中華民族的利益。
自一九四五年日本戰敗投降後，台灣重歸中國版圖，兩岸的領土主權即屬兩岸人民共同所有。其後雖經國共內戰，但並未改變主權狀況。此即為國際及兩岸人民所公認的「一個中國」原則。
今年初以來，陳水扁在連番受挫之後，為了擺脫弊案纏身、民心日失的窘境，非但不能反躬自省，反而變本加厲地玩起「終統、制憲」的政治狂賭。陳水扁全然不顧民意的反對，悍然宣布終止「國統會」和「國統綱領」，推翻「四不一沒有」的政治承諾，這不但意味著對「一個中國」基本原則的否定，更是對台灣人民的綁架和詐欺。
我們嚴正告誡陳水扁：人民求和平、求安定、追求國家統一的意志，是絕無可能綁架的。中國的統一，是不可阻擋的。我們也要警告美國、日本的反華勢力：台灣問題是中國內戰的遺留問題。台灣問題的解決，是中國的內部事務，外國勢力不得干涉！
我們也要提醒台灣各政黨：要對歷史負責，對民族負責。要堅定追求和平統一的決心，徹底拋棄依賴外力、以求苟安的不健康的心態，在大是大非的問題上不可軟弱無力，要站穩中國人的立場。如此才能號召全民共同奮鬥、共同化解陳水扁所挑起的危機！
共同聲明團體：
中國統一聯盟、勞動黨、夏潮聯合會、台灣地區政治受難人互助會、辜金良文化基金會、人間出版社、《海峽評論》雜誌社、《遠望》雜誌社、人間報導學社、反軍購大聯盟、《批判與再造》雜誌社、全球保釣行動聯盟
學界：
張麟_、許介麟、楊克平、王津平、王曉波、紀欣、毛鑄倫、陳欽銘、曾祥鐸、吳瓊恩、湯紹成、胡卜凱、李壽林、王仲孚、楊志誠、潘朝陽、李功勤、劉義鈞、郭中一、呂欽文、劉廣定、花俊雄、張九、張震元、歐陽承新、歐陽又新、葉先揚、葉先覺、沈己堯、劉文超、陳癸淼、翁啟元、黃企之、龔忠武、吳士謨、蔡金樹、陳卓、黃光國、陳毓鈞、陳炎坤等教授
文化界、社運界：
陳映真、藍博洲、許金玉、范振國、鍾喬、黃志翔、莫那能、詹澈、林彩美、韋大中、賴燦德、梁幼祥、張聿文、陳映朝、陳福裕、盧淦金、汪立峽、曾健民、朱炳文、黃邦政、黃錫麟、李文吉、林憲、許承宗、張寶樂、金介壽、唐曙、王娟萍、王武郎、詹士慶、黃瑞我、王春生、李明儒、鍾俊陞、李競芬、連石磊、上官百成
海外團體：
北加州中國和平統一促進會、紐約中國和平統一促進會、華盛頓中國和平統一促進會、美洲中華青年促進中國和平統一聯合會、全美中華青年聯合會、華夏政略學會、南加州中國和平統一促進會（全球發燒連署中）
本聲明自即日起擴大個人及團體連署中，歡迎各界積極參與連署
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
A Slap heard across the Pacific
A Slap heard across the Pacific
The US Hegemon disciplines its Unruly Taiwan Puppet
Bevin Chu
March 14, 2006
You've heard of "the shot heard around the world?" Well now listen to "the slap heard across the Pacific."
On Thursday March 3, 2006, the Bush administration gave "President" Chen Shui-bian a slap across the face so hard and so loud it was heard across the Pacific.
Winston Churchill once said, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Paraphrasing Churchill, "Never in the field of international relations was so hard a slap delivered by so powerful a hegemon to so unruly a puppet."
Let's look at what happened.
The Slap
Wednesday March 3, 2006
Statement by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State
Senior Taiwan Officials' Comments On National Unification Council
'We have seen reports that senior Taiwan officials have said, with respect to the National Unification Council, that there is no distinction between "abolish" and "ceasing activity" and that the effect of Taiwan's action earlier this week was to abolish the Council. We have been informed, however, that the reports misquoted Taiwan officials.'
'We expect the Taiwan authorities publicly to correct the record and unambiguously affirm that the February 27 announcement did not abolish the National Unification Council, did not change the status quo, and that the assurances remain in effect. Our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was that the action Taiwan took on February 27 was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, as Chen Shui-bian made clear in his 7-point statement.'
Whaaap!
In case you're still wondering just exactly when the US hegemon gave its unruly puppet "President" Chen Shui-bian the back of its hand, that was it.
Ereli concludes.
'Abrogating an assurance would be changing the status quo, and that would be contrary to that understanding. We believe the maintenance of Taiwan's assurances is critical to preservation of the status quo. Our firm policy is that there should be no unilateral change in the status quo, as we have said many times.'
What just happened?
What just happened was that Taiwan's ostensible "guardian," i.e., "one responsible for the care and management of an incompetent or a minor," was forced to publicly discipline its willfully disobedient ward, the pro independence Pan Green "Taiwan authorities."
What happened seldom happens in international relations, certainly not between "friendly," never mind "allied" regimes. Such a public scene seldom happens for the simple reason that both the hegemon and puppet are usually content to read their lines, and not reckless enough to begin ad libbing.
What happened was that both the guardian, George W. Bush, and the ward, Chen Shui-bian, both decided one after the other to depart from the script and begin ad libbing.
George W. Bush decided to ad lib on April 25, 2001, during an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, when he said "Yes, we do [have an obligation to defend Taiwan], and the Chinese must understand that," and added for good measure that the United States would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
Since then, Chen Shui-bian, the "Son of Taiwan," has been treating the Commander in Chief of the World's Only Remaining Superpower as his patsy, and American GIs as the Taiwan independence movement's toy soldiers.
The slap heard across the Pacific was delivered by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman for the State Department, as George W. Bush's belated punishment for Chen's impertinence.
The slap heard across the Pacific was not delivered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or by Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, or by Under Secretary for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, or by Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs Josette S. Shiner, or by Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, or by Under Secretary for Management Henrietta H. Fiore, or by Under Secretary for Global Affairs Paula J. Dobriansky, or by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, or even by Counselor of the Department Dr. Philip D. Zelikow.
The slap heard across the Pacific was deliberately delivered by a mere "Deputy Spokesman" to remind the "Son of Taiwan" what his status is relative to the "Leader of the Free World."
Readers accustomed to speaking and writing in plain English, who are not versed in the language of diplomacy may have missed the significance of the shockingly brusque language. For professional diplomats to use such language is unheard of, except when delivering an ultimatum to an enemy nation.
The Language of Diplomacy
The language of diplomacy is the language of nuances. As Paul Sharp, a British-born political scientist at the University of Minnesota says:
"I think it's not so much that we are all trapped in our cultural prisons and therefore are unable to reach agreement with each other. Because very often countries, when they want to reach agreement, find these sorts of obstacles no problem at all and they work their way through. There's two dangers. One is that international politics, despite what our governments say, is still power politics. So countries are maneuvering for advantage over each other and will exploit language nuances at times to gain advantage. But, I would say more importantly than that, the real danger is when countries think they have reached an agreement. They go away thinking that they've agreed to something, they think that the other side has the same conception of the agreement, and then there's regrets down the line."
Sharp is of course referring to honest misunderstandings.
The National Reunification Council fiasco, was anything but an honest misunderstanding. The National Reunification Council fiasco was a dishonest misunderstanding. The Chen regime exploited "language nuances" to get a leg up on the Pan Blue majority on Taiwan and the CCP on the Chinese mainland.
The Chen regime did this by willfully and knowingly deceiving the Bush administration, leaving it with the impression that Taipei and Washington had reached an agreement, and that both sides had the same conception of the agreement.
Let's review the State Department's diplomatic, correction, not so diplomatic language and see what the Bush administration really said.
Diplomatic Language: "We expect the Taiwan authorities publicly to correct the record and unambiguously affirm that the February 27 announcement did not abolish the National Unification Council, did not change the status quo, and that the assurances remain in effect."
Plain English: When we say we "expect" you to correct the record, we don't mean we'd really appreciate it if you could clear up this troublesome matter at your earliest convenience. We mean, you had damn well better explain yourself, now! When we refer to you as "the Taiwan authorities" we are telling you in no uncertain terms that you are not a sovereign and independent nation as you claim, but merely what Beijing insists on calling you, a local authority of China, i.e., "the Taiwan authorities." The expression Beijing uses being "Tai wan dang ju." When we say "unambiguously" we mean no more goddamned word games. Don't even think about jerking us around again. We've had it with you.
Diplomatic Language: "Our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was that the action Taiwan took on February 27 was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, as Chen Shui-bian made clear in his 7-point statement."
Plain English: When we say "our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was ... not to change the status quo," we mean you looked us straight in the face and lied to us. When we refer to you as "Chen Shui-bian," not "President Chen Shui-bian," not even "Mr. Chen Shui-bian," we are letting you know in no uncertain terms that you had better remember who the hell you are and what your place is in the pecking order.
See:
The Taiwan Tail Wags the American Dog
The Hegemon and the Puppet
Make no mistake about it, America's Benevolent Global Hegemonists and Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura have long been using each other to get what they want, at China's expense.
Benevolent Global Hegemonists have been using Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura to keep China artificially divided and strategically weakened. They use Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura to "contain" the alleged "China Threat" and "Yellow Peril." The fact that there is no China Threat or Yellow Peril is beside the point. The point is to win Rudyard Kipling's Great Game of Nations, on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, and any pretext that gives them an edge will do.
Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura meanwhile, have been hiding behind the Benevolent Global Hegemonists' skirts as they engage in "creeping independence" from China. They have calculated that America's Benevolent Global Hegemonists are such slaves to their habitual hatred of China, and harbor such permanent, inveterate antipathies toward China, they will put up with all sorts of exasperating antics on the part of Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura as long as doing so enables them to keep China down.
The Benevolent Global Hegemonists however, expect Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura to remember who's who. The Benevolent Global Hegemonists' overarching premise is:
I'm the hegemon. You're the puppet. You take your marching orders from me. Yes, of course we're putting on a show for the benefit of Chinese reunificationists on the mainland and on Taiwan. Yes, of course we're running a good cop/bad cop routine for the benefit of the CCP in Beijing and the KMT led Pan Blue democratic majority on Taiwan. Yes, of course, I want you to make trouble for China and prevent China from reunifying peacefully along the lines of Germany. But only when I say so. I decide when you take action. I decide what action you take. Not you. Who the hell are you? You just make sure you keep up your protection payments, er, follow through on buying the weapons you agreed to take off my hands. And maybe, just maybe, I'll help you out when the time comes. Got it?
Taiwan independence Quislings, during heated confrontations with mainland China and the Pan Blue opposition, are in the habit of puffing out their chests and loudly proclaiming "Tai wan ren yao zun yan!" (Taiwanese demand to be treated with dignity!), "Tai wan yao dui deng!" (Taiwan demands equal status!), and the one that always makes me shake my head, "Tai wan you xian!" (Taiwan uber alles!/Taiwan above all!).
What Taiwan independence Quislings demand is one thing. What they got was something else altogether.
What they got was:
Whaaap!
The slap heard across the Pacific.
The Gap leading to the Slap
What led up to the slap heard across the Pacific?
To understand what led up to the slap heard across the Pacific, attune yourself to the "language nuances" while you read the following daily press briefing held at the State Department the day before, on March 2.
Thursday March 2, 2006
Statement by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Comments Regarding the Status of the National Unification Council
Question: Sorry. I have one question about Taiwan. After the U.S. expressed a certain level of relief or a satisfaction about Taiwan's authority, not abolishing the Unification Council. Some officials in Taiwan stated that there's no difference between abolish and cease to function. The reality is the Council is terminated and President Chen hardly made any compromise. He still did what he said he would do. So is there any gap between the U.S. understanding and Taiwanese understanding about the wording in the final outcome?
Mr. Ereli: No. There's no -- there shouldn't be any gap or difference of opinion here. President Chen's assurances were quite clear that the NUC had not been abolished. We've seen the reports of comments attributed to other party officials. We've been informed by the Taiwanese that these officials have been misquoted and the reports are not accurate. And it is our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan that the action they took on February 27th was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, and that was made clear in a statement by President Chen and that -- We have every confidence and assurance that President Chen -- the statements made by President Chen are reflective of his policy and his party's policy.
Question: And have you reached out then to express your displeasure about his cabinet members or officials to have a statement like that?
Mr. Ereli: We think that the statements and assurances of the president are -- as I said, reflect the policy and position of the government and those in the president's party.
As you can see, the Chen regime might have gotten away with it, except that Presidential Office Secretary-General Chen Tang-shan and National Security Council Secretary-General Chiu Yi-jen couldn't resist gloating about their "triumph" to Taiwan independence True Believers, assuring them that "cease to function" was the same as "abolishing" the National Unification Council and National Unification Guidelines. These undisciplined loudmouths, who are Taiwan's counterparts to Australia's resident fishwife, Pauline Hanson, really don't get that they are living in the Information Age, the Age of the Internet.
Needless to day, word quickly got back to the State Department and the White House, and the Bush administration went through the roof.
According to a March 5, 2006 Central News Agency report entitled "US academic warns about US frustration over NUC":
Some people in Taiwan are too carried away with what they consider a "victory" ... and risk damaging an understanding between Washington and Taipei ... a US expert in cross-strait issues said on Friday.
"When the US negotiated the language used in President Chen's seven-point statement, it obviously felt that, whatever the nuances of the Chinese-language version, the ambiguity of the English permitted the interpretation that the NUC and Guidelines had not been abolished," said Alan Romberg, director of East Asian Studies at the Henry L. Stimson Center.
"Since then, however, some people in Taipei have trumpeted their `victory' too loudly, even to the point of seeming to equate `cease to function' and `abolish.' The impression among many in Washington is that there has been a breach of faith and that Taipei's claim of `maintaining the status quo' rings hollow. Some people in Taipei have trumpeted their `victory' too loudly."
Chen announced last Monday that the NUC would "cease to function" and the unification guidelines would "cease to apply," a move which he insisted "does not involve changing the status quo." The announcement came nearly one month after Chen proposed that the country should seriously consider "abolishing" the council and guidelines. Not "abolishing" the NUC and guidelines was one of the promises that Chen made in his inaugural addresses of 2000 and 2004.
The US has repeatedly emphasized that it takes those assurances seriously and that it opposes any unilateral change in the cross-strait status quo. In an immediate reaction to Chen's announcement, US State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said the US understanding of the meaning of ceasing the NUC's function is that "it has not been abolished. It's been frozen." However, there have been reports quoting senior officials in Taiwan as saying that there is no distinction between "abolish" and "cease to function" and that the effect of Taiwan's action earlier this week was to abolish the NUC.
Although informed that the officials were misquoted, Ereli issued a rare statement in written form on Thursday ... The statement ... has revealed an "underlying level of US frustration" in its dealings with Taiwan over the NUC episode ... "Any further statements from Taipei on this or other cross-strait issues will be very closely scrutinized."
Independence, Dignity, and Equality
Once the State Department and the White House got wise to the devious little word game the Chen regime was running on the World's Only Remaining Superpower, the Bush administration wasted no time "reaching out to express its displeasure," and to give its puppet a hard, and loud slap in the face.
Taiwan independence Quislings insist that they must win political independence in order to experience dignity and equality.
One has to wonder, is this the "independence, dignity, and equality" Taiwan independence Quislings demand?
Is this the "independence, dignity, and equality" Taiwan independence Quislings have settled for?
The US Hegemon disciplines its Unruly Taiwan Puppet
Bevin Chu
March 14, 2006
You've heard of "the shot heard around the world?" Well now listen to "the slap heard across the Pacific."
On Thursday March 3, 2006, the Bush administration gave "President" Chen Shui-bian a slap across the face so hard and so loud it was heard across the Pacific.
Winston Churchill once said, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Paraphrasing Churchill, "Never in the field of international relations was so hard a slap delivered by so powerful a hegemon to so unruly a puppet."
Let's look at what happened.
The Slap
Wednesday March 3, 2006
Statement by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State
Senior Taiwan Officials' Comments On National Unification Council
'We have seen reports that senior Taiwan officials have said, with respect to the National Unification Council, that there is no distinction between "abolish" and "ceasing activity" and that the effect of Taiwan's action earlier this week was to abolish the Council. We have been informed, however, that the reports misquoted Taiwan officials.'
'We expect the Taiwan authorities publicly to correct the record and unambiguously affirm that the February 27 announcement did not abolish the National Unification Council, did not change the status quo, and that the assurances remain in effect. Our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was that the action Taiwan took on February 27 was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, as Chen Shui-bian made clear in his 7-point statement.'
Whaaap!
In case you're still wondering just exactly when the US hegemon gave its unruly puppet "President" Chen Shui-bian the back of its hand, that was it.
Ereli concludes.
'Abrogating an assurance would be changing the status quo, and that would be contrary to that understanding. We believe the maintenance of Taiwan's assurances is critical to preservation of the status quo. Our firm policy is that there should be no unilateral change in the status quo, as we have said many times.'
What just happened?
What just happened was that Taiwan's ostensible "guardian," i.e., "one responsible for the care and management of an incompetent or a minor," was forced to publicly discipline its willfully disobedient ward, the pro independence Pan Green "Taiwan authorities."
What happened seldom happens in international relations, certainly not between "friendly," never mind "allied" regimes. Such a public scene seldom happens for the simple reason that both the hegemon and puppet are usually content to read their lines, and not reckless enough to begin ad libbing.
What happened was that both the guardian, George W. Bush, and the ward, Chen Shui-bian, both decided one after the other to depart from the script and begin ad libbing.
George W. Bush decided to ad lib on April 25, 2001, during an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, when he said "Yes, we do [have an obligation to defend Taiwan], and the Chinese must understand that," and added for good measure that the United States would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
Since then, Chen Shui-bian, the "Son of Taiwan," has been treating the Commander in Chief of the World's Only Remaining Superpower as his patsy, and American GIs as the Taiwan independence movement's toy soldiers.
The slap heard across the Pacific was delivered by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman for the State Department, as George W. Bush's belated punishment for Chen's impertinence.
The slap heard across the Pacific was not delivered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or by Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, or by Under Secretary for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, or by Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs Josette S. Shiner, or by Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, or by Under Secretary for Management Henrietta H. Fiore, or by Under Secretary for Global Affairs Paula J. Dobriansky, or by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, or even by Counselor of the Department Dr. Philip D. Zelikow.
The slap heard across the Pacific was deliberately delivered by a mere "Deputy Spokesman" to remind the "Son of Taiwan" what his status is relative to the "Leader of the Free World."
Readers accustomed to speaking and writing in plain English, who are not versed in the language of diplomacy may have missed the significance of the shockingly brusque language. For professional diplomats to use such language is unheard of, except when delivering an ultimatum to an enemy nation.
The Language of Diplomacy
The language of diplomacy is the language of nuances. As Paul Sharp, a British-born political scientist at the University of Minnesota says:
"I think it's not so much that we are all trapped in our cultural prisons and therefore are unable to reach agreement with each other. Because very often countries, when they want to reach agreement, find these sorts of obstacles no problem at all and they work their way through. There's two dangers. One is that international politics, despite what our governments say, is still power politics. So countries are maneuvering for advantage over each other and will exploit language nuances at times to gain advantage. But, I would say more importantly than that, the real danger is when countries think they have reached an agreement. They go away thinking that they've agreed to something, they think that the other side has the same conception of the agreement, and then there's regrets down the line."
Sharp is of course referring to honest misunderstandings.
The National Reunification Council fiasco, was anything but an honest misunderstanding. The National Reunification Council fiasco was a dishonest misunderstanding. The Chen regime exploited "language nuances" to get a leg up on the Pan Blue majority on Taiwan and the CCP on the Chinese mainland.
The Chen regime did this by willfully and knowingly deceiving the Bush administration, leaving it with the impression that Taipei and Washington had reached an agreement, and that both sides had the same conception of the agreement.
Let's review the State Department's diplomatic, correction, not so diplomatic language and see what the Bush administration really said.
Diplomatic Language: "We expect the Taiwan authorities publicly to correct the record and unambiguously affirm that the February 27 announcement did not abolish the National Unification Council, did not change the status quo, and that the assurances remain in effect."
Plain English: When we say we "expect" you to correct the record, we don't mean we'd really appreciate it if you could clear up this troublesome matter at your earliest convenience. We mean, you had damn well better explain yourself, now! When we refer to you as "the Taiwan authorities" we are telling you in no uncertain terms that you are not a sovereign and independent nation as you claim, but merely what Beijing insists on calling you, a local authority of China, i.e., "the Taiwan authorities." The expression Beijing uses being "Tai wan dang ju." When we say "unambiguously" we mean no more goddamned word games. Don't even think about jerking us around again. We've had it with you.
Diplomatic Language: "Our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was that the action Taiwan took on February 27 was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, as Chen Shui-bian made clear in his 7-point statement."
Plain English: When we say "our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was ... not to change the status quo," we mean you looked us straight in the face and lied to us. When we refer to you as "Chen Shui-bian," not "President Chen Shui-bian," not even "Mr. Chen Shui-bian," we are letting you know in no uncertain terms that you had better remember who the hell you are and what your place is in the pecking order.
See:
The Taiwan Tail Wags the American Dog
The Hegemon and the Puppet
Make no mistake about it, America's Benevolent Global Hegemonists and Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura have long been using each other to get what they want, at China's expense.
Benevolent Global Hegemonists have been using Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura to keep China artificially divided and strategically weakened. They use Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura to "contain" the alleged "China Threat" and "Yellow Peril." The fact that there is no China Threat or Yellow Peril is beside the point. The point is to win Rudyard Kipling's Great Game of Nations, on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard, and any pretext that gives them an edge will do.
Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura meanwhile, have been hiding behind the Benevolent Global Hegemonists' skirts as they engage in "creeping independence" from China. They have calculated that America's Benevolent Global Hegemonists are such slaves to their habitual hatred of China, and harbor such permanent, inveterate antipathies toward China, they will put up with all sorts of exasperating antics on the part of Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura as long as doing so enables them to keep China down.
The Benevolent Global Hegemonists however, expect Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura to remember who's who. The Benevolent Global Hegemonists' overarching premise is:
I'm the hegemon. You're the puppet. You take your marching orders from me. Yes, of course we're putting on a show for the benefit of Chinese reunificationists on the mainland and on Taiwan. Yes, of course we're running a good cop/bad cop routine for the benefit of the CCP in Beijing and the KMT led Pan Blue democratic majority on Taiwan. Yes, of course, I want you to make trouble for China and prevent China from reunifying peacefully along the lines of Germany. But only when I say so. I decide when you take action. I decide what action you take. Not you. Who the hell are you? You just make sure you keep up your protection payments, er, follow through on buying the weapons you agreed to take off my hands. And maybe, just maybe, I'll help you out when the time comes. Got it?
Taiwan independence Quislings, during heated confrontations with mainland China and the Pan Blue opposition, are in the habit of puffing out their chests and loudly proclaiming "Tai wan ren yao zun yan!" (Taiwanese demand to be treated with dignity!), "Tai wan yao dui deng!" (Taiwan demands equal status!), and the one that always makes me shake my head, "Tai wan you xian!" (Taiwan uber alles!/Taiwan above all!).
What Taiwan independence Quislings demand is one thing. What they got was something else altogether.
What they got was:
Whaaap!
The slap heard across the Pacific.
The Gap leading to the Slap
What led up to the slap heard across the Pacific?
To understand what led up to the slap heard across the Pacific, attune yourself to the "language nuances" while you read the following daily press briefing held at the State Department the day before, on March 2.
Thursday March 2, 2006
Statement by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Comments Regarding the Status of the National Unification Council
Question: Sorry. I have one question about Taiwan. After the U.S. expressed a certain level of relief or a satisfaction about Taiwan's authority, not abolishing the Unification Council. Some officials in Taiwan stated that there's no difference between abolish and cease to function. The reality is the Council is terminated and President Chen hardly made any compromise. He still did what he said he would do. So is there any gap between the U.S. understanding and Taiwanese understanding about the wording in the final outcome?
Mr. Ereli: No. There's no -- there shouldn't be any gap or difference of opinion here. President Chen's assurances were quite clear that the NUC had not been abolished. We've seen the reports of comments attributed to other party officials. We've been informed by the Taiwanese that these officials have been misquoted and the reports are not accurate. And it is our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan that the action they took on February 27th was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, and that was made clear in a statement by President Chen and that -- We have every confidence and assurance that President Chen -- the statements made by President Chen are reflective of his policy and his party's policy.
Question: And have you reached out then to express your displeasure about his cabinet members or officials to have a statement like that?
Mr. Ereli: We think that the statements and assurances of the president are -- as I said, reflect the policy and position of the government and those in the president's party.
As you can see, the Chen regime might have gotten away with it, except that Presidential Office Secretary-General Chen Tang-shan and National Security Council Secretary-General Chiu Yi-jen couldn't resist gloating about their "triumph" to Taiwan independence True Believers, assuring them that "cease to function" was the same as "abolishing" the National Unification Council and National Unification Guidelines. These undisciplined loudmouths, who are Taiwan's counterparts to Australia's resident fishwife, Pauline Hanson, really don't get that they are living in the Information Age, the Age of the Internet.
Needless to day, word quickly got back to the State Department and the White House, and the Bush administration went through the roof.
According to a March 5, 2006 Central News Agency report entitled "US academic warns about US frustration over NUC":
Some people in Taiwan are too carried away with what they consider a "victory" ... and risk damaging an understanding between Washington and Taipei ... a US expert in cross-strait issues said on Friday.
"When the US negotiated the language used in President Chen's seven-point statement, it obviously felt that, whatever the nuances of the Chinese-language version, the ambiguity of the English permitted the interpretation that the NUC and Guidelines had not been abolished," said Alan Romberg, director of East Asian Studies at the Henry L. Stimson Center.
"Since then, however, some people in Taipei have trumpeted their `victory' too loudly, even to the point of seeming to equate `cease to function' and `abolish.' The impression among many in Washington is that there has been a breach of faith and that Taipei's claim of `maintaining the status quo' rings hollow. Some people in Taipei have trumpeted their `victory' too loudly."
Chen announced last Monday that the NUC would "cease to function" and the unification guidelines would "cease to apply," a move which he insisted "does not involve changing the status quo." The announcement came nearly one month after Chen proposed that the country should seriously consider "abolishing" the council and guidelines. Not "abolishing" the NUC and guidelines was one of the promises that Chen made in his inaugural addresses of 2000 and 2004.
The US has repeatedly emphasized that it takes those assurances seriously and that it opposes any unilateral change in the cross-strait status quo. In an immediate reaction to Chen's announcement, US State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said the US understanding of the meaning of ceasing the NUC's function is that "it has not been abolished. It's been frozen." However, there have been reports quoting senior officials in Taiwan as saying that there is no distinction between "abolish" and "cease to function" and that the effect of Taiwan's action earlier this week was to abolish the NUC.
Although informed that the officials were misquoted, Ereli issued a rare statement in written form on Thursday ... The statement ... has revealed an "underlying level of US frustration" in its dealings with Taiwan over the NUC episode ... "Any further statements from Taipei on this or other cross-strait issues will be very closely scrutinized."
Independence, Dignity, and Equality
Once the State Department and the White House got wise to the devious little word game the Chen regime was running on the World's Only Remaining Superpower, the Bush administration wasted no time "reaching out to express its displeasure," and to give its puppet a hard, and loud slap in the face.
Taiwan independence Quislings insist that they must win political independence in order to experience dignity and equality.
One has to wonder, is this the "independence, dignity, and equality" Taiwan independence Quislings demand?
Is this the "independence, dignity, and equality" Taiwan independence Quislings have settled for?
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Backtalk - Is Taiwan Independence an Option?
Backtalk - Is Taiwan Independence an Option?
Bevin Chu
March 8, 2006
A professor of history at an American university in the New England area wrote in to say:
"Quislings? I have to confess that I don't follow your argument. How is someone who wants self-determination for Taiwan akin to Quisling, who cooperated with German occupiers? Isn't the chief reason that Taiwan doesn't have independence simply that the PRC has threatened to incinerate the island in case it declared independence? And why must a nation have one state? Germans, for example, have Germany, Austria, and Switzerland -- and, as you mentioned, Chinese have more than one state as well."
My reply:
I didn't expound on the "Quisling" aspect of my argument because I already made this point many times in earlier articles. I assumed readers were familiar with previous articles in which I explain in considerable detail who the Taiwan independence movement "elders" are and why they and their disciples have earned the epithet "Quislings."
Quislings are individuals who help an enemy nation rule their own homeland. The original Quisling, Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian, helped Nazi Germany rule Norway.
Taiwanese independence movement "elders" are Chinese counterparts to Norway's Vidkun Quisling. Chinese Quislings on Taiwan helped fascist Japanese rule Taiwan following the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, during Japan's subsequent 50 year colonial occupation of Taiwan between 1895 and 1945, and during the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. Chinese Quislings are currently attempting to help right wing elements in Japan separate Taiwan from China a second time.
Who are these Taiwan independence "elders?" They are people such as "Deep Green" Taiwan independence hardliners Ku Kuan-min and "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui.
Ku Kuan-min's father Ku Hsien-rong opened the city gates of Taipei for the Japanese Imperial Army occupation force in 1895 and showed them the way into the city. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, a collaborator. The Japanese colonial government rewarded the Ku family by granting family members exclusive franchises that eventually made them billionaires. One of the many businesses the Ku family engaged in was selling Chinese women into sexual slavery. They recruited destitute young women on Taiwan under false pretenses, telling them they would serve as as cooks or maids to Japanese personnel in the Pacific Theater. When they arrived they found themselves pressed into sexual slavery, to be gang raped by Japanese soldiers up to 60 times a day. Refusal meant torture, mutilation, and execution.
Quislings? Yes, I would say they qualified as Quislings. Wouldn't you?
Your analogy with Austria and Switzerland might be more or less applicable to Singapore, but not to Taiwan. Ethnic Chinese Singaporeans emigrated to a foreign country, Malaya, later Malaysia. They were later expelled from Malaysia against their will, to become the Republic of Singapore. Chinese have never claimed that Singapore is part of China. It isn't.
Taiwan is different. Taiwan is an integral part of China that was stolen from her at gunpoint. Justice was restored when Taiwan was retroceded to China following Japan's defeat in WWII. Ever since then the island has remained an integral part of China.
China became temporarily divided in 1949 due to the Cold War, but that division is a purely internal division. China is currently divided in a manner similar to the way North and South Korea is divided, and the way East and West Germany used to be divided before German reunification.
See:
East and West Germany, East and West China
Taiwan independence Quislings have no leg to stand on in this civil war between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan independence Quislings are parasitic, opportunistic elements attempting to exploit the unfortunate Cold War capitalist vs. communist division to establish a puppet regime, nominally independent but in fact a joint US/Japanese forward outpost against China. Why should China tolerate such a development? Would any other nation?
One article that may help explain the mindset of Taiwan independence Quislings is:
Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome
Regarding Switzerland, the simple fact is the relationship between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan is nothing like the relationship between Germany and ethnic German regions of Switzerland. Switzerland parted company with the Holy Roman Empire back in 1315, long before Germany even came into existence.
Taiwan, by contrast, is an integral part of China that was extorted from her by force quite recently by historical standards, and retroceded to her even more recently, well within the living memory of millions of Chinese today. Taiwan's relationship to mainland China is nothing like Switzerland's relationship to Germany.
Nor is China's claim to Taiwan based on blood ties, but on universally agreed upon rights to national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Unless the other nations of the world are willing to forsake such claims themselves, China cannot be expected to do so unilaterally.
The professor went on to add:
"Don't you think that Communism is an issue here? Surely rule by the CCP isn't a good prescription."
My reply:
The fact is Beijing has no desire whatsoever to use military force against Taiwan. They have no desire to "deprive Chinese on Taiwan of their freedom." The whole Taiwan independence issue is one giant Excedrine headache for them. They have their hands full solving serious economic problems on the mainland. The last thing they need is to be distracted by trouble on Taiwan.
Even the Taipei Times, a Taiwan independence mouthpiece, is aware of the array of daunting problems the mainland Chinese authorities face.
See:
Editorial Cartoon
All Beijing wants is for the island of Taiwan to remain under a loose umbrella of "One China." This "One China" doesn't even have to be the People's Republic of China (PRC). Beijing can live with the 1992 Consensus, in which both sides agreed that "There is only one indivisible China. This China includes both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Beijing will refer to this China as the People's Republic of China. Taipei will refer to this China as the Republic of China. As long as Taipei doesn't move toward independence, Beijing will not take any military action."
All Beijing wants is for Taiwan not to become a foreign country. All they want is Taiwan not to become a nominally "independent" nation that is in fact a military forward base for right wing elements in the US and Japan, and a critical link in a strategic ring of containment along China's eastern seaboard. Beijing is willing to tolerate de facto independence as long as a future German style peaceful reunification can be reasonably assured.
Beijing does not want to have to occupy Taiwan. They don't need the hassle of being responsible for it. Especially now that Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have run the Taiwan economy into the ground. If Beijing were forced to assume responsibility for Taiwan's future now, they would inherit this mess and be unfairly blamed if they couldn't pull Taiwan out of its economic doldrums any time soon.
But if Taiwan independence zealots force their hand, they will act.
As far as "Communism" on mainland China is concerned, the shoe, ironically, is on the other foot. Based on objective, quantitive measures such the relative size of the public sector and the amount of government taxation, mainland China is actually freer economically than the United States. In fact, many diehard socialists are deeply disappointed with the CCP for totally abandoning Marxism-Leninism. The CCP's current position is that they are practicing "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." Translation: They are practicing "Free market capitalism with face-saving characteristics."
The professor seemed to think I was "soft on Communism."
Hardly. Like Chalmers Johnson, Joe Sobran, and the late Jude Wanniski, I was a Cold Warrior to the right of Richard Nixon. Like Chalmers Johnson, Joe Sobran, and the late Jude Wanniski, I stopped being a Cold Warrior when the Cold War ended.
The Cold War is over. We won. They lost. The Communists are now playing our game, the game known as free market competition. It's a rough game, as anyone who has ever watched the reality TV series "The Apprentice" can testify, but at least it's peaceful.
Communism? Communism is dead. The only place where Communism is still practiced are Cuba and North Korea. It's time we stopped fighting the Cold War and starting enjoying the Peace Dividend.
By god, we sure as hell earned it.
Bevin Chu
March 8, 2006
A professor of history at an American university in the New England area wrote in to say:
"Quislings? I have to confess that I don't follow your argument. How is someone who wants self-determination for Taiwan akin to Quisling, who cooperated with German occupiers? Isn't the chief reason that Taiwan doesn't have independence simply that the PRC has threatened to incinerate the island in case it declared independence? And why must a nation have one state? Germans, for example, have Germany, Austria, and Switzerland -- and, as you mentioned, Chinese have more than one state as well."
My reply:
I didn't expound on the "Quisling" aspect of my argument because I already made this point many times in earlier articles. I assumed readers were familiar with previous articles in which I explain in considerable detail who the Taiwan independence movement "elders" are and why they and their disciples have earned the epithet "Quislings."
Quislings are individuals who help an enemy nation rule their own homeland. The original Quisling, Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian, helped Nazi Germany rule Norway.
Taiwanese independence movement "elders" are Chinese counterparts to Norway's Vidkun Quisling. Chinese Quislings on Taiwan helped fascist Japanese rule Taiwan following the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, during Japan's subsequent 50 year colonial occupation of Taiwan between 1895 and 1945, and during the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. Chinese Quislings are currently attempting to help right wing elements in Japan separate Taiwan from China a second time.
Who are these Taiwan independence "elders?" They are people such as "Deep Green" Taiwan independence hardliners Ku Kuan-min and "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui.
Ku Kuan-min's father Ku Hsien-rong opened the city gates of Taipei for the Japanese Imperial Army occupation force in 1895 and showed them the way into the city. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, a collaborator. The Japanese colonial government rewarded the Ku family by granting family members exclusive franchises that eventually made them billionaires. One of the many businesses the Ku family engaged in was selling Chinese women into sexual slavery. They recruited destitute young women on Taiwan under false pretenses, telling them they would serve as as cooks or maids to Japanese personnel in the Pacific Theater. When they arrived they found themselves pressed into sexual slavery, to be gang raped by Japanese soldiers up to 60 times a day. Refusal meant torture, mutilation, and execution.
Quislings? Yes, I would say they qualified as Quislings. Wouldn't you?
Your analogy with Austria and Switzerland might be more or less applicable to Singapore, but not to Taiwan. Ethnic Chinese Singaporeans emigrated to a foreign country, Malaya, later Malaysia. They were later expelled from Malaysia against their will, to become the Republic of Singapore. Chinese have never claimed that Singapore is part of China. It isn't.
Taiwan is different. Taiwan is an integral part of China that was stolen from her at gunpoint. Justice was restored when Taiwan was retroceded to China following Japan's defeat in WWII. Ever since then the island has remained an integral part of China.
China became temporarily divided in 1949 due to the Cold War, but that division is a purely internal division. China is currently divided in a manner similar to the way North and South Korea is divided, and the way East and West Germany used to be divided before German reunification.
See:
East and West Germany, East and West China
Taiwan independence Quislings have no leg to stand on in this civil war between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan independence Quislings are parasitic, opportunistic elements attempting to exploit the unfortunate Cold War capitalist vs. communist division to establish a puppet regime, nominally independent but in fact a joint US/Japanese forward outpost against China. Why should China tolerate such a development? Would any other nation?
One article that may help explain the mindset of Taiwan independence Quislings is:
Taiwan Independence and the Stockholm Syndrome
Regarding Switzerland, the simple fact is the relationship between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan is nothing like the relationship between Germany and ethnic German regions of Switzerland. Switzerland parted company with the Holy Roman Empire back in 1315, long before Germany even came into existence.
Taiwan, by contrast, is an integral part of China that was extorted from her by force quite recently by historical standards, and retroceded to her even more recently, well within the living memory of millions of Chinese today. Taiwan's relationship to mainland China is nothing like Switzerland's relationship to Germany.
Nor is China's claim to Taiwan based on blood ties, but on universally agreed upon rights to national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Unless the other nations of the world are willing to forsake such claims themselves, China cannot be expected to do so unilaterally.
The professor went on to add:
"Don't you think that Communism is an issue here? Surely rule by the CCP isn't a good prescription."
My reply:
The fact is Beijing has no desire whatsoever to use military force against Taiwan. They have no desire to "deprive Chinese on Taiwan of their freedom." The whole Taiwan independence issue is one giant Excedrine headache for them. They have their hands full solving serious economic problems on the mainland. The last thing they need is to be distracted by trouble on Taiwan.
Even the Taipei Times, a Taiwan independence mouthpiece, is aware of the array of daunting problems the mainland Chinese authorities face.
See:
Editorial Cartoon
All Beijing wants is for the island of Taiwan to remain under a loose umbrella of "One China." This "One China" doesn't even have to be the People's Republic of China (PRC). Beijing can live with the 1992 Consensus, in which both sides agreed that "There is only one indivisible China. This China includes both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Beijing will refer to this China as the People's Republic of China. Taipei will refer to this China as the Republic of China. As long as Taipei doesn't move toward independence, Beijing will not take any military action."
All Beijing wants is for Taiwan not to become a foreign country. All they want is Taiwan not to become a nominally "independent" nation that is in fact a military forward base for right wing elements in the US and Japan, and a critical link in a strategic ring of containment along China's eastern seaboard. Beijing is willing to tolerate de facto independence as long as a future German style peaceful reunification can be reasonably assured.
Beijing does not want to have to occupy Taiwan. They don't need the hassle of being responsible for it. Especially now that Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have run the Taiwan economy into the ground. If Beijing were forced to assume responsibility for Taiwan's future now, they would inherit this mess and be unfairly blamed if they couldn't pull Taiwan out of its economic doldrums any time soon.
But if Taiwan independence zealots force their hand, they will act.
As far as "Communism" on mainland China is concerned, the shoe, ironically, is on the other foot. Based on objective, quantitive measures such the relative size of the public sector and the amount of government taxation, mainland China is actually freer economically than the United States. In fact, many diehard socialists are deeply disappointed with the CCP for totally abandoning Marxism-Leninism. The CCP's current position is that they are practicing "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." Translation: They are practicing "Free market capitalism with face-saving characteristics."
The professor seemed to think I was "soft on Communism."
Hardly. Like Chalmers Johnson, Joe Sobran, and the late Jude Wanniski, I was a Cold Warrior to the right of Richard Nixon. Like Chalmers Johnson, Joe Sobran, and the late Jude Wanniski, I stopped being a Cold Warrior when the Cold War ended.
The Cold War is over. We won. They lost. The Communists are now playing our game, the game known as free market competition. It's a rough game, as anyone who has ever watched the reality TV series "The Apprentice" can testify, but at least it's peaceful.
Communism? Communism is dead. The only place where Communism is still practiced are Cuba and North Korea. It's time we stopped fighting the Cold War and starting enjoying the Peace Dividend.
By god, we sure as hell earned it.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Is Taiwan Independence an Option? Part II
Is Taiwan Independence an Option? Part II
No, Individual Independence should be an Option
Bevin Chu
March 6, 2006
The Democratic Progressive Party's Demagogic Populist Propaganda
H.L. Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
Tsai Huang-liang is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Culture and Information Department. In other words, he is their chief demagogue.
On February 27, 2006, Tsai Huang-liang posted an article at the Taipei Times, posing the rhetorical question, "Would Ma allow vote on nation's future?" In posting the article and posing the question, Tsai was fulfilling his duty as chief demagogue. He was preaching Taiwan independence doctrines he knew to be untrue to Taiwan independence fundamentalists he knew to be idiots.
Rhetorical Traps
Tsai's smarmy, self-righteous question for KMT Chairman and 2008 presidential hopeful Ma Ying-jeou was a rhetorical trap intended to achieve one of two results.
One, Tsai was trying to pressure Ma Ying-jeou into conceding "Of course I would allow a vote on the nation's future, after all there are many possible options for Taiwan's future. The 23 million people on Taiwan should decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification, independence, or maintaining the status quo."
If Ma were to yield to such pressure and make such a public declaration, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura would have extorted a strategic concession from the undisputed leader of the Pan Blue alliance, for which there would be hell to pay down the road. Ma would either have to repudiate his initial concession, in which case he would come across as weak and indecisive, or he would have to make endless future concessions consistent with his initial concession, in which case the both the Kuomintang and the Republic of China would be forever lost.
Two, if Ma Ying-jeou remained sufficiently alert to steer clear of Tsai's rhetorical trap, Tsai would attempt to make Ma's refusal to take the bait appear guiltily evasive.
If this sounds like a case of "you can't win for losing," you're right. Finding oneself trapped in such a no-win situation is the predictable result of ideological confusion. Ideological confusion leads to ideological self-doubt. Ideological self-doubt leads to ideological evasion. Ideological evasion leads to ideological passivity, to a cringing, defensive political posture in which one waits to be hit and is too cowed by "unearned guilt" to even complain.
The only escape from such a dilemma is to stop defending and start attacking. In politics as in sports, the best defense is a good offense.
To stop defending and start attacking however, one must first clarify ones' own ideological position and confirm that one holds the moral as well as practical high ground. Only then can one seize the initiative and go on the offensive.
Let's see how Tsai is guilt-tripping Ma Ying-jeou with Taiwan independence Political Correctness, and how Ma Ying-jeou can turn things around.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang notes that 'During Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's tour of Europe, the KMT placed an advertisement in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper), stating that, "The Chinese Nationalist Party firmly believes that, in keeping with the spirit of democracy, there are many options for Taiwan's future, be it reunification, independence or the status quo. It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."'
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Let's not mince words. Tsai may be wrong about everything else, but he's right about the ill-conceived KMT ad. The KMT ad in the Liberty Times was a fiasco. It "gave away the store." KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou had to repudiate it, and having repudiated it, must not second-guess himself.
"In keeping with the spirit of democracy?"
What democracy? The Republic of China is not a democracy. It is a republic, a constitutional republic.
Under a democracy, there are indeed "many options for the nation's future," because under a democracy anything goes. A democracy, as Thomas Jefferson warned his fellow Americans, "is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." History has since proved Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers right, many times over. Perhaps the most sobering proof that democracy is nothing more than mob rule surfaced in 1935, when an economically prosperous, culturally advanced Western European democracy enacted the infamous Nuremberg Laws, stripping away the rights of a defenseless minority.
Under a republic, on the other hand, there are very few "options for the nation's future," because under a republic, not everything goes. Under a republic "options for the nation's future" are severely limited by the nation's constitution. Under a constitutional republic, explicit constitutional constraints protect minorities and individuals from capricious mob passions.
For the record, the Constitution of the Republic of China, like the constitution of most nations, does not include the option of independence.
For the record, America's Articles of Confederation do not include provisions for political independence either, for the simple reason that the several states were already sovereign and independent. Article II stipulates instead that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Modern Americans have forgotten that each of the states is technically a nation unto itself. We are reminded of this fact when state officials ritualistically refer to their state as the "sovereign state of Maryland" or the "sovereign state of Virginia."
What modern Americans refer to as "America" or "the USA" is technically a confederation of independent states. Retaining pre-existing sovereignty and independence within a confederation such as these United States of America, is an entirely different matter from acquiring independence from a pre-existing unitary state such as China.
Tsai Huang-liang insists that "It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."
Does Tsai Huang-liang not know that the choice was made by the people? The choice was made by the people in 1912, when the Constitution of the Republic of China was enacted, just as the choice was made by the American people in 1789, when the Constitution of the United States of America was enacted.
Unless the alternative under consideration is market anarchism, in which we are talking about a whole other ballgame, then the Constitution of the United States is a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is over 200 years old isn't a problem. It merely needs to be honored instead of ignored. It isn't a "living, breathing document" with "penumbras and emanations" that need to be "interpreted." It's written in English, not Chinese.
Sun Yat-sen is the George Washington of modern China. Sun modeled the Constitution of the Republic of China on the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution of the Republic of China is also a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is nearly 100 years old isn't a problem either. It too merely needs to be honored instead of "amended" irresponsibily on an annual basis. The Constitution of the Republic of China is a One China Constitution. There is no Two Chinas Constitution. There is no One China, One Taiwan Constitution. It doesn't need to be "interpreted." It's written in Chinese, not English.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There are] fundamental differences between the KMT's and the DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: God, I hope so. I certainly hope there are "fundamental differences between the KMT's and DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy." God forbid that the KMT's approach to Taiwan's future and to "democracy" bear any resemblance whatsoever to the DPP's.
The KMT's approach to the future of Taiwan is embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was authored by KMT party founder Sun Yat-sen. The Republic of China, or ROC, has democratic features, but it is not a democracy. It is, as its name implies, a republic. A republic is governed by its constitution.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, or ROC, Taiwan is a province of China. According to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, or PRC, Taiwan is also a province of China. Both the ROC and PRC consider Taiwan a province of China.
Every one of the 25 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC government in Taipei considers Taiwan a province of China. Every one of the 165 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the PRC government in Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China. The United Nations considers Taiwan a province of China. The whole world considers Taiwan a province of China. The KMT's approach to the future of Taiwan respects both this undeniable political reality and the ROC Constitution.
The DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan on the other hand, is reflected in its 1999 Resolution on Taiwan's Future. The DPP's Resolution on Taiwan's Future asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China. It is neither a province nor a special administrative region of China."
The DPP's Resolution on Taiwan's Future is what Chinese refer to as "zi qi, qi ren" or "self-deception, and deception of others." It is a futile attempt by the DPP to convince themselves and the outside world that Taiwan is not an integral part of China.
Unfortunately, try as they might, DPP officials have never been able to convince even themselves that "The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China." They know "it just ain't so," and the knowledge sticks in their craw. That's why they keep returning to previous, more extreme demands for a "Taiwanese Constitution" in 2006, and a formal declaration of Taiwan independence in 2008.
See:
He Who tells a Lie
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There is] an issue even more crucial ... namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism that respects the public's decision. Ma has not clearly said whether the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan, or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latter violates the first principle of democracy [ ! ] ... The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means of] a referendum on sovereignty ... Ma ... has no clear stance on this issue ... [He] should declare ... whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to decide their own future in a referendum."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they insist that "including the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait violates the first principle of democracy?" What kind of arrant nonsense is this? According to the constitutions of both the ROC government in Taipei and the PRC government in Beijing, the territory and populace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of the same nation. By what right does a Quisling nomenklatura on one side of the Strait deny hundreds of millions of fellow citizens on the other side of the Strait the right to determine the future of their own nation?
What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they make the ringing declaration: "The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means] of a referendum on sovereignty?" Who are "the people" they refer to? Are they all of the people, or just some of the people?
Do they mean the DPP has, unbeknownst to libertarians the world over, suddenly joined the ranks of principled and consistent champions of the Right to Self-Determination? Does the DPP now champion the right of everyone, not just themselves, to secede from whatever political entity they currently live under?
Do they mean the Quisling DPP regime's "democratic" and "progressive" referendum on sovereignty will guarantee the right of others to secede from the DPP's newly founded "Nation of Taiwan?"
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Aborigines to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own "Kaosha Republic?"
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Hakka minority to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own Hakka republic?
The Chinese province of Taiwan is divided into 23 counties. The KMT, NP, and PFP control 17 counties. The DPP controls only six counties. The northern and eastern two-thirds of Taiwan's land area is under Pan Blue control. Taitung County, in gray, is controlled by independents who are part of the Pan Blue alliance. The outer islands, in orange, blue, and yellow are controlled by the People First Party, the Kuomintang, and the New Party respectively.
The December 2005 Municipal Elections: Pan Blue Triumph, Pan Green Debacle
Do Tsai and the DPP mean the DPP now champions the right of "Greater China" patriots to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own loyalist Chinese republic comprising the 17 Pan Blue controlled counties?
Not on your life.
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will continue misusing Republic of China citizens' hard-earned taxes for the next two years, indoctrinating Republic of China citizens into thinking of themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese." At the end of that period, in 2008, they will provoke a military crisis, declare a "state of national emergency," then stampede the public into rubberstamping formal independence in the name of an ersatz "Taiwanese patriotism."
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will magnanimously "permit" Republic of China citizens to participate in an elaborate charade to found a "Nation of Taiwan," period. Loyal Republic of China citizens unhappy about suddenly and involuntarily transformed into "citizens of the Republic of Taiwan" will just have to lump it.
In short, the DPP's Potemkin Referendum will ensure "independence for me, but not for thee." It will ensure "secession for me, but not for thee." It will ensure "self-determination for me, but not for thee." This, the DPP apparently feels, does not "violate the first principle of democracy." This, the DPP apparently feels, qualifies as "allowing the people of Taiwan to decide their own future in a referendum."
See:
Independence for Me but not for Thee
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang maintains that "Prior to the public's making a decision, all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however, still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration that the public's decision will be respected. Finally, all groups must accept the results of a democratic and public decision ... any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in favor of Taiwan's independence or give in to China's missile threat."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai and the DPP insist that "all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions."
If only they meant it. Unfortunately, they don't.
What do Tsai and the DPP actually mean? They mean that all options that enable them to get what they want should be open, and there should be no biases or conditions that prevent them from getting what they want. Taiwan independence Quislings are not champions of the Right to Self-Determination. Taiwan independence Quislings are champions of the Right to Self-Determination for Taiwan independence Quislings.
Tsai and the DPP assert that "there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment."
Excuse me, but unless Tsai and the DPP are willing to forgo enacting an "Anti-Secession Law" of their own, unless they are willing to guarantee the right of others to secede from their "Nation of Taiwan," at others' discretion, not the DPP's, unless they are willing to forgo national unity and territorial integrity for their newly founded "Nation of Taiwan," unless they are willing to see their own "Nation of Taiwan" disintegrate before their very eyes, then they had best shut their traps, cease their yammering about "no biases or conditions," and stop pretending that they occupy the moral high ground on the issue of the Right to Self-Determination.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang concludes by saying that "The question of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation's future in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai's statement is of course, far too myopic and narrow-minded.
The real question is how to let sovereign and independent individuals decide their own futures in an unbiased manner, whether through referenda or other means. This is far more important than accepting any collective's demands for nation-building. And if truth be told, it is a question in far more urgent need of a response from Tsai Huang-liang than from Ma Ying-jeou.
Should Taiwan independence be an option?
No. Not if one has one iota of respect for Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law.
If the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland cannot be faulted for insisting that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world must respect China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
If, on the other hand, the nations of the world are serious about phasing out constitutional republicanism, then let it be for the sake of something truly worthy, for market anarchism, and not for the Taiwan independence movement's atavistic, race-based, petty tribalist "nation-building."
No, Individual Independence should be an Option
Bevin Chu
March 6, 2006
The Democratic Progressive Party's Demagogic Populist Propaganda
H.L. Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
Tsai Huang-liang is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Culture and Information Department. In other words, he is their chief demagogue.
On February 27, 2006, Tsai Huang-liang posted an article at the Taipei Times, posing the rhetorical question, "Would Ma allow vote on nation's future?" In posting the article and posing the question, Tsai was fulfilling his duty as chief demagogue. He was preaching Taiwan independence doctrines he knew to be untrue to Taiwan independence fundamentalists he knew to be idiots.
Rhetorical Traps
Tsai's smarmy, self-righteous question for KMT Chairman and 2008 presidential hopeful Ma Ying-jeou was a rhetorical trap intended to achieve one of two results.
One, Tsai was trying to pressure Ma Ying-jeou into conceding "Of course I would allow a vote on the nation's future, after all there are many possible options for Taiwan's future. The 23 million people on Taiwan should decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification, independence, or maintaining the status quo."
If Ma were to yield to such pressure and make such a public declaration, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura would have extorted a strategic concession from the undisputed leader of the Pan Blue alliance, for which there would be hell to pay down the road. Ma would either have to repudiate his initial concession, in which case he would come across as weak and indecisive, or he would have to make endless future concessions consistent with his initial concession, in which case the both the Kuomintang and the Republic of China would be forever lost.
Two, if Ma Ying-jeou remained sufficiently alert to steer clear of Tsai's rhetorical trap, Tsai would attempt to make Ma's refusal to take the bait appear guiltily evasive.
If this sounds like a case of "you can't win for losing," you're right. Finding oneself trapped in such a no-win situation is the predictable result of ideological confusion. Ideological confusion leads to ideological self-doubt. Ideological self-doubt leads to ideological evasion. Ideological evasion leads to ideological passivity, to a cringing, defensive political posture in which one waits to be hit and is too cowed by "unearned guilt" to even complain.
The only escape from such a dilemma is to stop defending and start attacking. In politics as in sports, the best defense is a good offense.
To stop defending and start attacking however, one must first clarify ones' own ideological position and confirm that one holds the moral as well as practical high ground. Only then can one seize the initiative and go on the offensive.
Let's see how Tsai is guilt-tripping Ma Ying-jeou with Taiwan independence Political Correctness, and how Ma Ying-jeou can turn things around.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang notes that 'During Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's tour of Europe, the KMT placed an advertisement in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper), stating that, "The Chinese Nationalist Party firmly believes that, in keeping with the spirit of democracy, there are many options for Taiwan's future, be it reunification, independence or the status quo. It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."'
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Let's not mince words. Tsai may be wrong about everything else, but he's right about the ill-conceived KMT ad. The KMT ad in the Liberty Times was a fiasco. It "gave away the store." KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou had to repudiate it, and having repudiated it, must not second-guess himself.
"In keeping with the spirit of democracy?"
What democracy? The Republic of China is not a democracy. It is a republic, a constitutional republic.
Under a democracy, there are indeed "many options for the nation's future," because under a democracy anything goes. A democracy, as Thomas Jefferson warned his fellow Americans, "is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." History has since proved Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers right, many times over. Perhaps the most sobering proof that democracy is nothing more than mob rule surfaced in 1935, when an economically prosperous, culturally advanced Western European democracy enacted the infamous Nuremberg Laws, stripping away the rights of a defenseless minority.
Under a republic, on the other hand, there are very few "options for the nation's future," because under a republic, not everything goes. Under a republic "options for the nation's future" are severely limited by the nation's constitution. Under a constitutional republic, explicit constitutional constraints protect minorities and individuals from capricious mob passions.
For the record, the Constitution of the Republic of China, like the constitution of most nations, does not include the option of independence.
For the record, America's Articles of Confederation do not include provisions for political independence either, for the simple reason that the several states were already sovereign and independent. Article II stipulates instead that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Modern Americans have forgotten that each of the states is technically a nation unto itself. We are reminded of this fact when state officials ritualistically refer to their state as the "sovereign state of Maryland" or the "sovereign state of Virginia."
What modern Americans refer to as "America" or "the USA" is technically a confederation of independent states. Retaining pre-existing sovereignty and independence within a confederation such as these United States of America, is an entirely different matter from acquiring independence from a pre-existing unitary state such as China.
Tsai Huang-liang insists that "It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."
Does Tsai Huang-liang not know that the choice was made by the people? The choice was made by the people in 1912, when the Constitution of the Republic of China was enacted, just as the choice was made by the American people in 1789, when the Constitution of the United States of America was enacted.
Unless the alternative under consideration is market anarchism, in which we are talking about a whole other ballgame, then the Constitution of the United States is a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is over 200 years old isn't a problem. It merely needs to be honored instead of ignored. It isn't a "living, breathing document" with "penumbras and emanations" that need to be "interpreted." It's written in English, not Chinese.
Sun Yat-sen is the George Washington of modern China. Sun modeled the Constitution of the Republic of China on the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution of the Republic of China is also a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is nearly 100 years old isn't a problem either. It too merely needs to be honored instead of "amended" irresponsibily on an annual basis. The Constitution of the Republic of China is a One China Constitution. There is no Two Chinas Constitution. There is no One China, One Taiwan Constitution. It doesn't need to be "interpreted." It's written in Chinese, not English.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There are] fundamental differences between the KMT's and the DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: God, I hope so. I certainly hope there are "fundamental differences between the KMT's and DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy." God forbid that the KMT's approach to Taiwan's future and to "democracy" bear any resemblance whatsoever to the DPP's.
The KMT's approach to the future of Taiwan is embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was authored by KMT party founder Sun Yat-sen. The Republic of China, or ROC, has democratic features, but it is not a democracy. It is, as its name implies, a republic. A republic is governed by its constitution.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, or ROC, Taiwan is a province of China. According to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, or PRC, Taiwan is also a province of China. Both the ROC and PRC consider Taiwan a province of China.
Every one of the 25 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC government in Taipei considers Taiwan a province of China. Every one of the 165 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the PRC government in Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China. The United Nations considers Taiwan a province of China. The whole world considers Taiwan a province of China. The KMT's approach to the future of Taiwan respects both this undeniable political reality and the ROC Constitution.
The DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan on the other hand, is reflected in its 1999 Resolution on Taiwan's Future. The DPP's Resolution on Taiwan's Future asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China. It is neither a province nor a special administrative region of China."
The DPP's Resolution on Taiwan's Future is what Chinese refer to as "zi qi, qi ren" or "self-deception, and deception of others." It is a futile attempt by the DPP to convince themselves and the outside world that Taiwan is not an integral part of China.
Unfortunately, try as they might, DPP officials have never been able to convince even themselves that "The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China." They know "it just ain't so," and the knowledge sticks in their craw. That's why they keep returning to previous, more extreme demands for a "Taiwanese Constitution" in 2006, and a formal declaration of Taiwan independence in 2008.
See:
He Who tells a Lie
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There is] an issue even more crucial ... namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism that respects the public's decision. Ma has not clearly said whether the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan, or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latter violates the first principle of democracy [ ! ] ... The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means of] a referendum on sovereignty ... Ma ... has no clear stance on this issue ... [He] should declare ... whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to decide their own future in a referendum."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they insist that "including the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait violates the first principle of democracy?" What kind of arrant nonsense is this? According to the constitutions of both the ROC government in Taipei and the PRC government in Beijing, the territory and populace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of the same nation. By what right does a Quisling nomenklatura on one side of the Strait deny hundreds of millions of fellow citizens on the other side of the Strait the right to determine the future of their own nation?
What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they make the ringing declaration: "The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means] of a referendum on sovereignty?" Who are "the people" they refer to? Are they all of the people, or just some of the people?
Do they mean the DPP has, unbeknownst to libertarians the world over, suddenly joined the ranks of principled and consistent champions of the Right to Self-Determination? Does the DPP now champion the right of everyone, not just themselves, to secede from whatever political entity they currently live under?
Do they mean the Quisling DPP regime's "democratic" and "progressive" referendum on sovereignty will guarantee the right of others to secede from the DPP's newly founded "Nation of Taiwan?"
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Aborigines to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own "Kaosha Republic?"
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Hakka minority to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own Hakka republic?
The Chinese province of Taiwan is divided into 23 counties. The KMT, NP, and PFP control 17 counties. The DPP controls only six counties. The northern and eastern two-thirds of Taiwan's land area is under Pan Blue control. Taitung County, in gray, is controlled by independents who are part of the Pan Blue alliance. The outer islands, in orange, blue, and yellow are controlled by the People First Party, the Kuomintang, and the New Party respectively.
The December 2005 Municipal Elections: Pan Blue Triumph, Pan Green Debacle
Do Tsai and the DPP mean the DPP now champions the right of "Greater China" patriots to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own loyalist Chinese republic comprising the 17 Pan Blue controlled counties?
Not on your life.
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will continue misusing Republic of China citizens' hard-earned taxes for the next two years, indoctrinating Republic of China citizens into thinking of themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese." At the end of that period, in 2008, they will provoke a military crisis, declare a "state of national emergency," then stampede the public into rubberstamping formal independence in the name of an ersatz "Taiwanese patriotism."
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will magnanimously "permit" Republic of China citizens to participate in an elaborate charade to found a "Nation of Taiwan," period. Loyal Republic of China citizens unhappy about suddenly and involuntarily transformed into "citizens of the Republic of Taiwan" will just have to lump it.
In short, the DPP's Potemkin Referendum will ensure "independence for me, but not for thee." It will ensure "secession for me, but not for thee." It will ensure "self-determination for me, but not for thee." This, the DPP apparently feels, does not "violate the first principle of democracy." This, the DPP apparently feels, qualifies as "allowing the people of Taiwan to decide their own future in a referendum."
See:
Independence for Me but not for Thee
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang maintains that "Prior to the public's making a decision, all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however, still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration that the public's decision will be respected. Finally, all groups must accept the results of a democratic and public decision ... any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in favor of Taiwan's independence or give in to China's missile threat."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai and the DPP insist that "all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions."
If only they meant it. Unfortunately, they don't.
What do Tsai and the DPP actually mean? They mean that all options that enable them to get what they want should be open, and there should be no biases or conditions that prevent them from getting what they want. Taiwan independence Quislings are not champions of the Right to Self-Determination. Taiwan independence Quislings are champions of the Right to Self-Determination for Taiwan independence Quislings.
Tsai and the DPP assert that "there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment."
Excuse me, but unless Tsai and the DPP are willing to forgo enacting an "Anti-Secession Law" of their own, unless they are willing to guarantee the right of others to secede from their "Nation of Taiwan," at others' discretion, not the DPP's, unless they are willing to forgo national unity and territorial integrity for their newly founded "Nation of Taiwan," unless they are willing to see their own "Nation of Taiwan" disintegrate before their very eyes, then they had best shut their traps, cease their yammering about "no biases or conditions," and stop pretending that they occupy the moral high ground on the issue of the Right to Self-Determination.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang concludes by saying that "The question of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation's future in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai's statement is of course, far too myopic and narrow-minded.
The real question is how to let sovereign and independent individuals decide their own futures in an unbiased manner, whether through referenda or other means. This is far more important than accepting any collective's demands for nation-building. And if truth be told, it is a question in far more urgent need of a response from Tsai Huang-liang than from Ma Ying-jeou.
Should Taiwan independence be an option?
No. Not if one has one iota of respect for Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law.
If the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland cannot be faulted for insisting that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world must respect China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
If, on the other hand, the nations of the world are serious about phasing out constitutional republicanism, then let it be for the sake of something truly worthy, for market anarchism, and not for the Taiwan independence movement's atavistic, race-based, petty tribalist "nation-building."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)