Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not
Bevin Chu
July 21, 2004
Executive Summary: Race is an illusion, racism is not. Race is an illusion because all hominid species besides Homo sapiens died out 30,000 years ago. Therefore every human being alive today belongs to the same race. Racism unfortunately, is all too real, because racism lingers in the hearts of men.
A Man of the African Race. Standing behind him, author Spencer Wells, another Man of the African Race
"Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin. "
-- Spencer Wells, Population Geneticist
Out of Africa
Spencer Wells is a disciple of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, famed pioneer of "genetic geography." In 2002 Wells produced a two-hour National Geographic documentary entitled "The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey," in which he demolished the myth of race. Only 60,000 years or 2,000 generations ago, the entire human race consisted of 10,000 black Africans living in central east Africa. Everyone alive today is descended from those individuals. This understanding of man's origin is known as "Out of Africa," and has been confirmed by the scientific evidence.
Atlas of the Human Journey - The Genographic Project
See:
The Genographic Project - Human Migration, Population Genetics, Maps, DNA
Multiregional Continuity
The competing alternative to "Out of Africa" is "Multiregional Continuity." Multiregional Continuity, it must be noted, offers cold comfort to white supremacists. Multiregionalists agree that we are all Africans. Multiregionalists merely believe that man migrated out of Africa one million years ago in the form of Homo erectus, rather than 60,000 years ago in the form of Homo sapiens. Either way, the human race is still the African race, and we are still all Africans under the skin.
Race is an Illusion, Racism is Not
Races don't exist; they cannot be scientifically defined. [Cavalli-Sforza's] stance on race has drawn vicious attacks from white supremacists, but its scientific logic, echoed by most in his field, is difficult to rebut. People tend to fixate on external differences -- skin color, facial features, hair texture -- when in fact these are malleable characteristics that evolve relatively swiftly.
-- Mitchell Leslie, The History of Everyone and Everything, Stanford Magazine
"I know perfectly well that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as race. As a politician I need an idea which enables the order which has hitherto existed on a historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new order enforced and given an intellectual basis. And for this purpose the idea of race serves me well."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in John Toland's biography "Adolf Hitler"
Nelson Mandela and Charlize Theron
What do I mean when I say that race is an Illusion? I mean that the lingering perception among non-scientists that Nelson Mandela belongs to one race, while Charlize Theron belongs to another race, is scientifically incorrect.
Modern biology classifies all living organisms according to the Linnaeus system of taxonomy we first encountered in high school:
Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species
Every human being alive today belongs to the Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primata, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Sapiens.
Every human being alive today is a member of the same species. That species is Homo sapiens. There is no other hominid species to which one can belong.
For the record, this was not always the case. At one time earth was populated by more than one race. The extinction of Neanderthal man, aka Homo neanderthalensis, changed all that.
Nelson Mandela, as the entire world knows, is African.
But so is Charlize Theron.
I don't mean by nationality. I don't mean merely that Charlize Theron is a South African citizen who holds a South African passport.
I mean genetically. I mean that Charlize Theron's genetic roots go back to Africa, just like Nelson Mandela's. The only difference is Nelson Mandela's ancestors remained in Africa, while Charlize Theron's left Africa 30,000 years ago and settled in western Europe.
The same is true of me. As anyone surfing this website knows, I am Chinese. I therefore am the descendant of black Africans who left Africa 35,000 years ago and settled in eastern Asia.
Those who harbor irrational prejudice toward their fellow human beings in the belief they are "members of another race" are acting out of scientific ignorance. Racists may believe they are directing their hatred at "members of another race," but they aren't. There is no "other race" to direct their hatred at. The racists therefore are directing their hatred at members of their own race.
Ku Klux Klansmen and Neo-Nazis who demean fellow human beings with the contemptuous epithet, "niggers," are themselves the descendants of "niggers." Hell, they are "niggers." They are, in a kind of delicious irony, demeaning themselves.
One is tempted to joke that modern day racists were born too late. Thirty thousand years ago, racists would have had a biological pretext for their racial hatred. Neanderthals were indeed a separate species, i.e., "another race."
Please note that I said racists would have had a pretext for their hatred. I did not say they would have had any justification.
Taiwan Independence Fascism and Ethnic Cleansing
Jet Li, a Man of the African Race, and the late Aliyah, a Woman of the African Race
Romeo Must Die (2000, directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak, written by Mitchell Kapner, Eric Bernt)
These findings of modern science, predictably, have so-called "scientific racists'" panties in a bunch. Websites such as Peter Brimelow's VDARE and Jared Taylor's American Renaissance have posted long-winded, self-contradictory rants purporting to "refute" Cavalli-Sforza and Wells.
Unfortunately for these bush league bigots, their "refutations" are in vain. As the quotation from Hitler illustrates, racist demagogues far more charismatic and persuasive than Brimelow and Taylor have already given away the game. Race, as der Furhrer himself admitted in a rare moment of candour, is a political, not scientific construct. Belated efforts by Brimelow and Taylor to apply a scientific gloss to their ugly bigotry are a day late and a dollar short.
That, alas, is not the end of the story.
The sad fact remains that appeals to "racial identity" work. They work because they pander to man's basest, most atavistic instincts.
That was why Adolph Hitler appealed to a fictitious, concocted, ahistorical "Aryan" racial identity.
That is why Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Annette Lu appeal to a fictitious, concocted, ahistorical "Taiwanese" racial identity, and why their appeals have become shriller and more blatant since Chen and Lu's so-called "reelection" on 3/20/2004.
Annette Lu is the Taiwan independence movement's enfant terrible. Lu is notorious for saying out loud what other members of the Taiwan independence nomenklatura are thinking but don't have the guts to make explicit.
Lu recently scapegoated Taiwan's Aborigines, blaming them for overdevelopment, deforestation, soil erosion, and flooding in Taiwan's central mountain range. Aboriginal victims of Tropical Storm Mindulle, Lu declared, deserved no sympathy. They should be shipped off to Central and South America for damaging Taiwan's ecology.
Annette Lu is not the first Taiwan independence leader to play the race card. That distinction belongs to Lee Teng-hui. During the 90s, Lee began suggesting that "mainlanders," so-called, be expelled from Taiwan and sent back to "China," the Taiwan independence Quislings' idiosyncratic term for mainland China.
Annette Lu however, has upped the ante. Lu has recommended that Aborigines be relocated en masse to Central and South America, leaving the island in the hands of those whom Taiwan independence fascists designate as real "Taiwanese," i.e., themselves.
Does the term "ethnic cleansing" ring a bell? It should. It describes perfectly what Lu and her fellow Taiwan independence fascists have in mind for anyone not one of them.
Race: The Final Frontier
"What is race? It is a biologically meaningless category. It is a cultural term that Americans use to describe what a person's ancestry is. But biologically the human species does not have categories. It just has variations as one travels around the world.''
-- Jefferson Fish, psychologist, St. John's University, New York
"Effectively, we're all cousins separated by, at most, a couple of thousand generations. So the next time you're sitting in traffic... try to remember that the driver in front is one of the family."
-- Spencer Wells, Population Geneticist
Frank Gorshin as Bele, and Lou Antonio as Lokai
Star Trek - The Original Series, Episode 70: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield (1969, created by Gene Roddenberry )
Synopsis: Bele and Lokai, alien humanoids from the planet Cheron, are mortal enemies. Their hatred for each other leaves Captain Kirk bewildered. Bele and Lokai, after all, look the same. Each is black on one side and white on the other. What reason, Kirk asks, could they have to hate each other? An indignant Bele snarls: "Are you blind? We're nothing alike! I'm black on my right side and white on my left side. He's white on his right side and black on his left side!" When the Starship Enterprise arrives at Cheron, they discover a lifeless planet, annihilated by racial armageddon. Bele and Lokai however have learned nothing. They beam down to Cheron, fighting each other to the death.
Heavy-handed? Preachy? Didactic?
Perhaps. But if any morality tale ever deserved to be told, loudly and repeatedly, this is it.
Consider the following horrific crimes committed long after that Star Trek episode first aired in 1969.
On December 7, 1993, black racist Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island Rail Road commuter train, drew his 9mm semi-automatic pistol and began shooting white and Asian passengers. By the time three male passengers managed to tackle him, Ferguson had shot 25 people, killing six and seriously wounding 19.
On June 7, 1998, white racists Lawrence Russell Brewer, John William King, and Shawn Allen Berry chained black hitchhiker James Byrd Jr. to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him three miles down a rural Jasper, Texas dirt road. By the time their truck rolled to a halt, Byrd's head and one arm had been torn from his body.
The Star Trek episode "Let This Be Your Final Battlefield" was set in Stardate: 5730.2. Let us pray that when Stardate 5730.2 eventually rolls around, the human race is no longer behaving like Bele and Lokai, or Ferguson, Brewer, King, and Berry.
Neocons and the Forgotten Lesson of Vietnam
Bevin Chu
June 30, 2004
Executive Summary: The Christian Science Monitor has posted a highly informative introduction to neoconservativism at its website. Included is a 10 question Neocon Quiz that lets readers determine whether they are neoconservatives. Question 2 asks whether the US was right to intervene in Vietnam. Question 3 asks whether the US should intervene in China. Quite inexplicably, the multiple choice answers suggested for China differ dramatically from the multiple choice answers for Vietnam. This discrepancy raises a disturbing question. Have Americans already forgotten the lesson of Vietnam?
Neocon Quiz Question 2
The US campaign in Vietnam was...
[ ] A disaster. What threat did Vietnam pose to American security? More than 50,000 US troops died in support of a theory about "dominoes."
[ ] A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally bankrupt.
[ ] A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war.
[ ] A hard-won victory. US forces paid a high - but necessary - price to contain Communism in Southeast Asia.
Neocon Quiz Question 3
What type of relationship should the US form with China?
[ ] The US must hedge China's rise to great-power status. The policy of preemption includes China, and US military leaders must strategically contain China's armed forces, while US policymakers maintain America's economic preeminence. Above all else, China must not be encouraged to think it can challenge America's superpower status.
[ ] China's bullying - of Tibet, Falun Gong, and Taiwan - is atrocious. America's "normalization" of trade with China has allowed it to continue its human rights abuses, while costing countless American jobs. The US must not sacrifice its moral high ground at the altar of trade.
[ ] China presents great potential dangers - and rewards - to American interests in the 21st century. While the US must affirm China's progressive steps and opening economy, it cannot ignore its repressive human rights behavior, trade violations, and bullying of Taiwan. Ultimately, opening China to American goods and services spreads American values that will influence China for the better.
[ ] The US should neither appease nor aggravate China. China is a bellicose regional power and its human-rights record is appalling. But it doesn't threaten US interests. The US must stop giving China preferential trade treatment and do more to protect American jobs, but it needn't contain or confront China.
See:
Empire builders, Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power, Neocon quiz - Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out
Vietnam Redux
"We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."
-- Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense to JFK and LBJ and chief architect of the Vietnam War
I assume you noticed the discrepancy between the two sets of multiple choice answers?
I assume the discrepancy made as little sense to you as it did to me?
Three of the four multiple choice answers for Vietnam rightly characterized US intervention in Vietnam as an unmitigated catastrophe, as a "disaster," a "failure," or a "quagmire."
Three of the four multiple choice answers for China, on the other hand, characterized potentially apocalyptic US military coercion of mainland China as Doing the Right Thing, as "strategic," or "moral," or an "influence for the better."
Even the one multiple choice answer that explicitly rejected military intervention against mainland China, the one least Sinophobic, characterized China as "bellicose" and maintained that China's "human rights record is appalling."
The obvious question is: "Why?"
When Will They Ever Learn?
Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
-- Pete Seeger, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone"
Why did the answers suggested for China differ so radically from the answers suggested for Vietnam?
Two possibilities come to mind.
One, the editors of the Christian Science Monitor who formulated the quiz know that neocons have forgotten the lesson of Vietnam and are testing for it.
Two, the editors of the Christian Science Monitor have themselves forgotten the lesson of Vietnam. Both they and the neocon chickenhawks in charge of Bush administration China policy are deluded enough to believe "That was then, this is now," and therefore "This time, it's different."
But is it different? Or is it deja vu all over again?
In 1975, after a decade long struggle, Vietnam defeated America's vaunted military machine, albeit at an appalling cost in Vietnamese lives. Four years later, in 1979, mainland China, in a bloody but short and decisive campaign, defeated Vietnam. In other words, mainland China defeated the nation that defeated the US.
Vietnam never possessed intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching America's population centers. Mainland China, which to its credit has forsworn the first use of nuclear weapons, possesses a second strike deterrent capability. Vietnam's current population numbers a "mere" 82 million. Mainland China's population numbers 1.3 billion.
If the US campaign against Vietnam proved to be a "disaster/failure/quagmire," why wouldn't a US campaign against a far larger, far better armed China be a far worse "disaster/failure/quagmire?"
Wouldn't any US strategic planner in his right mind be more "prudent" about bullying China? Wouldn't he, or she -- not forgetting Condi Rice -- think twice before backing China into a corner, forcing it to defend its territorial integrity?
What threat does a free-market China eager to engage in peaceful trade with America pose to American security? How many US troops will die in support of a theory about a nonexistent "China Threat?" Why isn't the neocon objective of "preventive" military aggression against China "strategically and morally bankrupt?"
Will Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reenact every mistake of his predecessor Robert McNamara? Will Rumsfeld confess, 30 years from today, that "We of the Bush II administration who participated in the decisions on China acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong."
As a perennial optimist, I prefer to see a glass half full. Dubya's obsessive search for monsters to destroy unfortunately, makes it impossible to see anything but a glass completely empty. The neocon inmates in charge of the Bush II foreign policy asylum have forgotten the lesson of Vietnam, assuming they ever understood it in the first place.
For the record, the lesson of Vietnam was this: Unless a foreign nation invades your territory and murders your citizens, leave it alone!
Neocon imperialists consider such a severely constrained foreign policy unthinkable, even outrageous. That's because Neocon advocates of Pax Americana, unlike America's Founding Fathers, have never understood traditional American values, specifically the timeless and enduring value of political noninterference combined with economic engagement.
Speak of the Devil
"Pile on the brown man's burden, compel him to be free;
Let all your manifestoes reek with philanthropy.
And if with heathen folly he dares your will dispute,
Then, in the name of freedom, don't hesitate to shoot."
-- "The Brown Man's Burden" by Henry Labouchere, February 25, 1899 a satirical response to the publication of Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden" in McClure's Magazine
"Only great conceit could inspire a dream of armed world hegemony. The ideology of benevolent American empire and global democracy dresses up a voracious appetite for power. It signifies the ascent to power of a new kind of American, one profoundly at odds with that older type who aspired to modesty and self-restraint."
-- Claes Ryn, Professor of Political Science, Catholic University
No sooner did I post this op ed piece, than I came across this chilling news report, confirming my worst fears:
US plans huge show of force in Pacific, by Ching Cheong
The Straits Times Interactive, June 30, 2004
Seven aircraft carriers to move within striking distance of China; Taiwan forces slated to join in drill
HONG KONG - The United States is planning a massive show of force in the Pacific Ocean near China to register a point with Beijing. In an exercise codenamed Operation Summer Pulse 04, it is expected to arrange for an unprecedented seven aircraft carrier strike groups (CSGs) to rendezvous in waters a safe distance away from the Chinese coastline - but still within striking distance - after mid-July.
This will be the first time in US naval history that it sends seven of its 12 CSGs to just one region. Clearly, given Beijing's repeated warning that it will use force, as a last resort and whatever the cost, to stop Taiwanese independence, the US feels it needs to send Beijing a message.
The US usually despatches one CSG to a trouble spot as a reminder of its presence. It did so several times in the past when tension was high in the Taiwan Strait. It sends two to indicate serious concern, as was the case when China test-fired missiles over the strait in 1996. In a combat situation, it deploys three to four, which was what it did in the Gulf War in the early 1990s and the recent Iraqi war. But never before has it sent in peace time seven CSGs to the same theatre.
The implications for China are grave. This means that if China has to wage war over Taiwan, it has to be able to land and seize control of the island within the first 30 days. Otherwise, under the FRP, six CSGs may well arrive to join in the battle.
"All this leaves China with no choice but to start and end the war with lightning speed" said a Chinese military source.
Politically, Summer Pulse is likely to be seen by many Chinese as naked intimidation.
"This is gunboat diplomacy in the 21st century," the source remarked, adding that it would remind the Chinese people of their century-long deep humiliation by Western powers - and put Sino-US relations at peril.
Just When You Thought It was Safe to Come Out of the Fallout Shelter
"After the Soviets, who I thought were a real threat, collapsed, I expected a much greater demobilization, a pullback of American troops, a real peace dividend, a re-orienting of federal expenditures to domestic needs. Instead, our government turned at once to find a replacement enemy: China, drugs, terrorism, instability. Anything to justify this huge apparatus of the Cold War structure."
-- Chalmers Johnson, LA Weekly - Dissing the Republic To Save It
Just when you thought you were being overly pessimistic, just when you decided "Even Dubya isn't that stupid," you come across a bombshell like Summer Pulse and wonder "Who's advising George W. Bush on China? General Jack D. Ripper?"
The Bush II administration alas, has no shortage of latter day Jack D. Rippers. To see who they are and how they dictate US policy, see the pages below.
See:
Empire builders, Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power, Key Figures
Spheres of influence, Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents, Top neocon think tanks
Independence for Me but not for Thee
Bevin Chu
June 16, 2004
Executive Summary: Several years ago, New Party legislator Fu Kuen-chen appeared on a TV talk show with Democratic Progressive Party legislator Lin Cho-shui. Fu, a highly respected international law expert educated at the University of Virginia, confronted Lin, a rabidly Sinophobic Taiwan independence hardliner. Fu pointed out that if Taiwan independence secessionists genuinely believed the justifications they cited for political independence from China, then they were obligated to honor similar demands for political independence from Taiwan. If Lin and his cohorts denied such demands, they forfeited the right to secede from China. How did Lin respond? Lin assured Fu that Taiwan independence leaders, being liberal idealists, would allow anyone who wanted to secede from Taiwan to do so.
In other words, Lin lied.
Time Will Tell
Years have passed, and the proof that Lin lied is clear for all to see.
The proof that Lin lied is contained within the following news reports, one from Singapore's Straits Times, the other from Agence France-Presse.
The Straits Times Interactive, June 16, 2004
Chen crushes "republic" of aborigines
by Lawrence Chung
Taipei forcibly evicts hundreds who settled on leased government land as their "country within a country"
TAIPEI - President Chen Shui-bian, widely believed to want independence for Taiwan, has, ironically, denied the same to a group who are the original Taiwanese - the aborigines.
His government, on learning that hundreds of them have formed their own "Kaosha Republic," ordered a crackdown, sending in 500 armed police to disperse them from a site they have claimed as the seat of their republic. The police raided the 6ha site in southern Kaohsiung county early yesterday, ordering the inhabitants to evacuate before four bulldozers tore down the more than 270 illegal structures.
The residents claimed they had been tricked by Chen aides, who had told them that if they supported his re-election, their "republic" would be legalised and they could each get a small piece of land.
"A-Bian told us he would establish 'country within country' relations with the aborigines if we voted for him," said Mr Tang Chao-cheng, a self-proclaimed "Speaker" of the "Taiwan People Parliament."
"Now that he got his second term, he no longer cares whether we are alive or dead," said Mr Tang.
The angry residents tried to block the bulldozers and had to be forcibly removed from the scene.
"Give me back my home. We have no place to go," cried an elderly woman.
[The] Kaosha Republic... had its own flag and anthem, and a temporary government and parliament.
Israeli Army bulldozes Palestinian Homes, Palestinian Youth runs from Bulldozed Home
Police dismantle aboriginal 'republic'
2004-06-16, Agence France-Presse
Police clashed with aboriginal people yesterday when they tore down a complex of makeshift wooden houses where the ethnic islanders had founded a self-proclaimed independent state. In a pre-dawn blitz, hundreds of riot police armed with four bulldozers moved in on the so-called "Kaosha Republic" created last year by hundreds of aboriginal people in Kaohsiung county. The residents clashed with police as they attempted to stop the 270 homes being pulled down.
"We have no place to live. We have no money to rent a house," a woman said in tears as she saw her home being destroyed.
Several angry protesters burnt the election flag of President Chen Shui-bian.
"What is the government for? It has not taken care of the aboriginal people, has it?"
To vent their anger, the residents spat on a huge photo featuring Chen.
I Told You So
Chinese Community Forum was a highly active but now defunct online electronic forum, established by overseas Chinese scholars, devoted to issues of importance to Chinese intellectuals the world over.
In January and February 1999 I posted two articles at CCF, "Taiwan Independence, Objection Sustained," and "Rebuttal to a Taiwan Independence Fellow Traveler." In them I predicted that Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura would hypocritically refuse to grant others the same right to political secession that they so righteously demanded from Beijing.
In "Taiwan Independence, Objection Sustained," I predicted that:
Having secured their independence, Taiwan secessionists would compel any unwilling minority within the boundary which voted against independence to accept the pro-independence outcome, by force if necessary.
I posited a hypothetical string of events, that went like this:
One: Beijing finds itself temporarily distracted by a crisis in Xinjiang or Xizhang. Taiwan independence elements seize the opportunity to establish a "Republic of Taiwan."
Two: Loyalist elements in northern Taiwan counter the Taiwan independence move by holding an identical "national referendum," open only to those inside a new boundary line they have drawn up around metropolitan Taipei, where opposition to Taiwan independence is most heavily concentrated.
Three: They successfully establish a loyalist "Chinese Republic," an unhappy minority of pro-Taiwan independence voters inside this new "Chinese Republic" is outvoted.
Four: Elements of the Hakka minority and the Nine Aboriginal Tribes, formerly content to be part of a tolerant, multicultural China, are now wary of a Minnan-dominated "Republic of Taiwan." Each establishes its own nation, carving up this offshore island of China into ten more "sovereign republics."
Five: Initially triumphant but now stymied Taiwan independence plotters, having finally realized their cherished "Taiwan Dream" after four decades of scheming, have two ways to respond.
Response A: They recognize the right of the eleven new republics to do exactly what they themselves just did. They sit by and watch idly as their newly founded "Republic of Taiwan" breaks apart before their very eyes.
Response B: They invade Taipei to prevent "splittism," Beijing's term for separatism. They do exactly what they condemn Beijing for threatening to do if Taiwan declares independence, resort to military force to preserve national unity.
What do they do?
No one familiar with the mindset of militant DPP and TAIP secessionists can have any illusions about what their response would be. It is not as if they haven't made their unalloyed fanaticism perfectly clear in public debates on Taiwan television talk shows. It should be clear now that Taiwan independence advocates have no right to complain when Beijing adopts the very same policies they would if the unity of a "Republic of Taiwan" were threatened by secessionist movements.
See:
Taiwan Independence, Objection Sustained
In "Rebuttal to a Taiwan Independence Fellow Traveler," I wrote:
The "right to self-determination" is a double-edged sword. If Mr. Walsh wishes to invoke it, he had better be prepared to accept its implications in full. He cannot restrict its application only to regimes he personally approves of. Otherwise he is merely arguing that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. A principled defense of the right to self-determination would authorize ever smaller political entities to secede from whatever political entity they currently belong to, stopping only at the level of the individual citizen. This means, theoretically at least, every property owner on earth would be legally and morally entitled to hold a "national" referendum, with himself as the sole voter, declare his own private plot of land a sovereign republic, and refuse to pay taxes to the nation, the state or province, the city or county in which he (formerly) resided. Not surprisingly, no government on earth is willing do more than pay hypocritical lip service to the concept.
As a libertarian and borderline anarchist I assure Mr. Walsh I on the other hand, have no objection whatsoever to such a global scenario. If this were what secessionists the world over actually advocated, I would be ecstatic.
But this is not what they want. What they want are merely smaller -- but not freer -- tribalist collectives tailored to suit their personal ethnic prejudices. Woe to any genuine liberty loving individualists unfortunate enough to find themselves trapped in such "independent republics." They can look forward to being treated the way German Jews were treated by the Nazis, or the way ethnic Chinese-Indonesians are treated by rabid Indonesian bigots.
See:
Rebuttal to a Taiwan Independence Fellow Traveler
Taiwan Independence, Fake vs. Real
Ben tu hua is usually translated as "nativization," or more euphemistically as "localization." Ben tu hua is an article of faith for Taiwan independence fundamentalists. It is also a code word for "qu zhong guo hua" or "desinicization."
Most Taiwan independence supporters are Minnan-speaking Han Chinese. They migrated from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou in southern Fujian province to China's offshore province of Taiwan over the past several centuries. The culture they brought over with them is mainstream Han Chinese culture. For them to shrilly demand desinicization is a joke without a punchline.
Taiwan's true natives, the aborigines, constitute roughly 2% of the island's population. They arrived on Taiwan during prehistoric times, an estimated 10,000 years ago. Taiwan's aborigines are the only people on Taiwan qualified to demand "nativization."
A genuinely localized, nativized, desinicized, politically independent "Republic of Taiwan" would require the repatriation of Minnan-speaking Han Chinese to mainland China, and the restoration of the land to Taiwan's aborigines. That would be true "ben tu hua."
As I have struggled to convey for years, Taiwan independence has never been an intellectually rigorous political movement. Coherent thought has never been the Taiwan independence fundamentalist's strong suit.
No One is Gloating
Fast forward to June 16, 2004. What is self-styled "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian doing? He is applying overwhelming force to prevent the only authentic "Taiwanese" on the island from achieving true "Taiwan independence." He is driving them off their own land with his jack-booted thugs, then leveling their homes with bulldozers a la Ariel Sharon.
Keep this in mind as you wade through the mendacious rationalizations for Taiwan independence, so-called, served up by Taiwan independence mouthpieces such as the Taipei Times and the Taiwan News.
Being proved right is not necessarily a gratifying experience. Being proved right when one's predictions are that justice will prevail can be immensely gratifying.
Being proved right when one's predictions are that injustice will persist, is deeply discouraging. Anyone who is not a misanthropist would much rather be proved wrong.
So it has been with uncannily accurate predictions by Fu Kuen-chen and myself concerning Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura. We knew they would Do the Wrong Thing, and lo and behold, they did.
Taiwan Independence, Immoral and Impractical
Bevin Chu
June 08, 2004
Taiwan Independence is Immoral
Taiwan independence is immoral. Taiwan independence is motivated not by a love of "freedom and democracy," but by an obsessive hatred of "the other." Taiwan independence candidates win votes not by implementing progressive reforms, but by inciting ethnic hatred. As former DPP Public Relations Director Sisy Chen observed, "The Democratic Progressive Party is the Ku Klux Klan of Taiwan." This darkness at the heart of Taiwan independence constitutes an irredeemable moral defect. It exposes the high-minded justifications for Taiwan independence as hollow impostures, and nullifies the Taiwan independence movement's claims to the moral high ground.
Taiwan Independence is Impractical
Taiwan independence is impractical, for the same reason it is immoral. It is impractical because the Taiwan independence leadership's irrational bigotry compels it to act in defiance of the rational self-interest of 23 million Chinese on Taiwan. The Taiwan independence nomenklatura's monomaniacal preoccupation with identity politics and nation building invariably leads it to "cut off its nose to spite its face."
Consider this recent bombshell, set off by the American Chamber of Commerce Taipei, and reported by the China Post.
Taiwan Risks Becoming Irrelevant: AmCham
By Jane Rickards
China Post, June 2, 2004
The American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei warned yesterday that Taiwan must open direct transport links with [mainland] China or risk losing its status as one of the region's key economic players. In its 2004 Taiwan White Paper, the chamber said closer economic ties with [mainland] China were crucial to the island's future competitiveness.
"Increasingly it is the quality and the variety of links across the Taiwan Strait that for multinational companies determine whether Taiwan will remain an important economic player. Taiwan's proximity to [mainland] China must be embraced as an economic strength and not just guarded against as a political risk." said AmCham President Andrea Wu.
Taiwan needed to protect its own security, but if Taiwan became more powerful economically, other countries would be more likely to concern themselves with Taiwan's security issues.
Restrictions on the flow of people, good and capital across the Taiwan Strait diluted Taiwan's attractiveness as a hub which could form a springboard into regional markets.
"Without the links Taiwan's plans to develop the island as a regional hub are also in jeopardy."
Taiwan might be geographically close to [mainland] China but the increased time and expense caused by the lack of direct transport links had already become a serious impediment to business and was forcing many multinational companies to relocate Greater China Operations from Taipei to Hong Kong, Singapore or Shanghai.
"A position on a map means little if goods and people have to take circuitous routes to reach their destination... it has moved from being a travel schedule annoyance primarily for CEOs to a major time and cost factor for top and middle managers of [companies of] all sizes."
The absence of links also tarnished Taiwan's international business image, symbolizing Taiwan's self-isolation from [mainland] China and daily reminding local and international business people that the government was acting to hinder, not facilitate business operations.
AmCham Chairman Richard Vuylsteke pointed out that if Taiwan was to be a regional hub, it would need to be a major location for conferences meetings and training, yet visa and work-permit restrictions were restricting technically-skilled and professional Chinese from working in Taiwan.
"The interesting thing is that meetings, conferences and training, which all should be heavy-duty activities here... are declining in number because companies big and small, have got PRC nationals or Indians or Filippinos working for them. If they can't get visas here, they go someplace else. Or they train someplace else."
Living in Denial
Taiwan independence leaders know what they must do to look after the economic well-being of 23 million Chinese on Taiwan. God knows they ought to.
AmCham just told them what they must do. AmCham has been telling them what they must do for the past five years, since the release of AmCham's first annual "Business Confidence Survey" in 1999.
If that isn't enough, the New Party has been telling them what they must do for the past ten years, since it was founded in 1993.
How have Taiwan independence leaders responded?
They threw fits of apoplexy. They called the idealistic New Party "wai sheng zhu" (mainlander pigs), "zhong gong dai yan ren." (Chi-Com mouthpieces), and "zhong gong tong lu ren" (Chi-Com fellow travelers). They accused the New Party of "shi bai zhu yi" (defeatism), of "chang shuai tai wan" (poor-mouthing Taiwan), and of "bu ai tai wan" (not loving Taiwan).
In past years AmCham, concerned about offending the ruling Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian administrations, worded its solemn advice in exceedingly diplomatic terms.
Not this year. This year AmCham issued an ultimatum. This year AmCham in essence gave notice to the Chen administration,
"You'd better wise up, or we're out of here. This is your final warning."
How did Taiwan independence leaders respond?
Taiwan independence leaders, with exasperating predictability, shined everyone on.
Yan Ching-chang, Chen administration representative to the WTO, breezily dismissed AmCham's report. Yan accused anyone who believed Taiwan would marginalize itself if it refused to establish direct links with the Chinese mainland of "lacking self-confidence."
AmCham, as in years past, found itself talking to a brick wall.
Identity Politics Uber Alles
Why do Taiwan independence leaders refuse to listen? More importantly, why do they refuse to act?
Taiwan independence leaders refuse to listen or act because they have decided in advance they're going to redefine themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese," all other considerations be damned.
Taiwan independence leaders refuse to listen or act because the mere thought that reunification with "Chinese" on the mainland might be in the best interests of "Taiwanese" on Taiwan overwhelms them with disgust.
Taiwan independence leaders refuse to listen or act because like ostrichs with their heads in the sand, they are hoping their self-created dilemma will magically go away.
Reality Bites
Ever closer economic links between culturally dissimilar, politically unrelated nations do not necessarily foreshadow political integration. Ever closer economic links between the US and Japan for example, hardly imply that the US and Japan are about to form some novel political union.
Ever closer economic links between political entities such as East and West Germany, North and South Korea, or Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, on the other hand, most emphatically do imply eventual political reintegration.
Taiwan's economic survival necessitates ever closer, ever more direct cross-straits links. Without them, Taiwan is doomed.
Unfortunately for Taiwan independence zealots, closer, more direct cross-straits links are anathema to their politics of hate. Most Chinese on Taiwan emigrated from southern Fujian during the Qing dynasty. Close contact with Minan dialect-speaking Chinese from southern Fujian would quickly discredit the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's Big Lie. Brainwashed supporters of Taiwan independence would soon realize, "You lied to us. Taiwanese are Chinese!"
As it is, astonished "tai shang" (Taiwan merchants) arriving in Fujian have been overheard marveling, "Did you know they speak Taiwanese on the mainland too?"
Without government-enforced apartheid, irrational hatred of fellow Chinese on the Chinese mainland would quickly evaporate, starving the already creaky Taiwan independence political machine of essential fuel.
A Growing Sense of Taiwanese National Indentity?
Taiwan independence zealots, needless to say, know all this. The prospect of Chinese from both sides of the Taiwan Strait engaging in commerce, making friends, marrying, bearing children, raising them as proud citizens of peacefully reunited China, gives Taiwan's Quisling elite nightmares. That's why they've dragged their feet on direct links for 16 years.
Former ROC legislator Lai Shi-bao (New Party) is currently an economic advisor to Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou. Lai is one of the most highly respected lawmakers on Taiwan. Last year at New Party Headquarters, Lai gave a lecture on cross-Straits relations. Lai, who is a Minan dialect-speaking "native Taiwanese," observed sardonically that Taiwan independence leaders lacked confidence in the grass-roots appeal of their own ideology. Taiwan independence leaders feared if "Chinese" arrived on Taiwan in large numbers, "Taiwanese" wouldn't be able to tell the two apart, and that would be the end of Taiwan independence as a political movement.
So much for the "growing sense of Taiwanese national identity" routinely reported in the fellow traveler US press.
As I noted in a 2001 op ed piece, "Taiwan Independence, RIP," Taiwan independence is a lost cause. The only question remaining is will it die a quick and merciful, or a painful and lingering death. It looks like the answer is going to be the latter.
See:
Taiwan Independence, R.I.P.
A is A
The late Ayn Rand was a genius. Nevertheless she was mistaken about a number of issues. She tragically underestimated the importance of the human heart relative to the human mind.
Rand was right about one thing however. She was right about the fallacy of the "moral-practical dichotomy." She was right when she insisted that the moral is the practical, and the practical is the moral. Reality, as Rand correctly inferred, is reassuringly consistent.
Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan independence fundamentalism is every bit as impractical as Mao Zedong's hardline Marxism-Leninism. Both regimes flouted the laws of the marketplace. Both regions paid a heavy price. One point three billion Chinese on the mainland paid dearly for Mao's irrationality. Twenty-three million Chinese on Taiwan continue to pay dearly for Chen's irrationality.
The immorality of Taiwan independence ensures that it will forever remain impractical. The impracticality of Taiwan independence conversely, underscores the sad fact it is inherently immoral.
The Gollum and Chen Shui-bian
Bevin Chu
May 09, 2004
The "GollumBian" Submitted by K. Tan from Singapore
(animated gif - If image of GollumBian is static, reload page or click on image to start animation)
The Gollum and Chen Shui-bian, in their up moods
You've heard of "The Devil and Daniel Webster?" Well, meet "The Gollum and Chen Shui-bian."
Chen, in case you were weren't sure, is the creature in the suit.
The timely moral of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (The Fellowship of the Ring 2001, The Two Towers 2002, The Return of the King 2003, directed by Peter Jackson, written by J.R.R. Tolkien), is that lust for power transforms a human being into a monster.
"And the Ring passed out of all knowledge. until, when chance came, it ensnared a new bearer! The Ring came to the creature Gollum, who took it deep into the tunnels of the Misty Mountains. And there, it consumed him. The Ring brought to Gollum unnatural long life. For five hundred years it poisoned his mind. And in the gloom of Gollum's cave... It waited."
-- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring
The Taiwan Tail Wags the American Dog
Bevin Chu
May 05, 2004
Executive Summary: For the past two years Chen Shui-bian, aka "A-Bian," has been playing George W. Bush, aka "Dubya," for a fool. This smarmy little buffoon, with his pasty white "wei yu du," ("tunafish belly") has been able to treat 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. Why has Chen been able to get away with this? Because on April 25, 2001, George W. Bush unwittingly issued the Taiwan tail an open invitation to wag the American dog.
DVD Cover Art for the uncannily prophetic Political Satire, Wag the Dog
Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog.
-- "Wag the Dog" (1997, directed by Barry Levinson, written by Larry Beinhart and Hilary Henkin)
Dubya issues A-Bian a Blank Check
Bush pledges whatever it takes to defend Taiwan
April 25, 2001
CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday said that the United States would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself" in the event of attack by [mainland] China.
Bush's comments were made during an interview taped for ABC's Good Morning America. Asked if Washington had an obligation to defend Taiwan, Bush said: "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that." Asked whether the United States would use "the full force of the American military," Bush responded, "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
"If China decides to use force, the United States must help Taiwan defend itself," then Governor Bush said on March 2, 2000.
Bush restated that under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the United States would help Taiwan defend itself. Asked whether the full force of the US military would be used to protect Taiwan, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, "Obviously, he's not ruling it out... he's saying whatever it took."
Bush said it was time to remove the ambiguity about US policy toward Taiwan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz are outspoken advocates of removing Washington's ambiguity when it comes to defending Taipei from Beijing.
Slaves to Their Animosity
The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz thought they were talking exclusively to Beijing. They completely forgot Taipei was hanging on every word they uttered.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz thought they were merely delivering a "long overdue" and "well-deserved" ultimatum to the "Bullies of Beijing." They never realized that such an ultimatum to Beijing was a two-sided coin, a double-edged sword.
It never occurred to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz that such an ultimatum was simultaneously a blank check made out to Taiwan independence opportunists ever eager to harness US rightwingers' habitual hatred of China for their own ends.
Taiwan independence Quislings have, as the old joke among Sinologists or "China experts" goes, long been "ready to fight to the last American GI."
Did I say ready to fight to the last American GI? Former US ambassador Charles W. Freeman has rightly complained that Taiwan independence Quislings are unseemingly eager to fight to the last American GI.
See:
Taiwan Independence and Free Lunches
Sino-American Relations and the Taiwan Issue, by Charles W. Freeman, Jr.
As American Founding Father George Washington so presciently observed, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were "slaves to their animosity" of an imaginary "Yellow Peril" and a non-existent "China Threat."
How does one avoid being a slave to ones' habitual hatred or habitual fondness?
Simple.
Emancipation Proclamation
A passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest... where no real common interest exists... betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
In order for the US government to cease being a slave to its habitual hatred or habitual fondness, America's political leaders must exclude permanent, inveterate antipathies against political entities such as mainland China, and passionate attachments for others such as Taiwan.
In order for These United States to cease being an American dog wagged by a Taiwan tail, America's political leaders must cultivate just and amicable feelings for all.
America's political leaders must repudiate the crudely Manichean "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" mindset expressed in George W. Bush's post 9-11 speech before a joint session of Congress.
As George Washington admonished future generations of Americans 208 years ago,
"Permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded... in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
Then and only then, will America's political leaders emancipate the Republic of the Framers from self-destructive, self-imposed slavery to special interests, foreign and domestic.
I said it was simple. I didn't say it was easy.
Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act
Bevin Chu
April 29, 2004
US Vice-president Dick Cheney recently warned PRC President Hu Jintao that the Taiwan Relations Act, or TRA, "legally obligated" the US government to intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan in the event it was attacked.
In fact the TRA does not "obligate" the US government to intervene militarily in the defense of Taiwan, legally or otherwise. The TRA merely stipulates that the US government shall sell American weapons to Taiwan, and only defensive weaponry at that.
Cheney was either ignorant of the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, or he was merely pretending to be. I'm not sure which is worse. Perhaps the TRA is one of Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns." More likely the TRA is a cautionary tale about the omnipresent hazard of "mission creep."
Compelling Reasons to Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act
Considering how the Taiwan Relations Act has been so loosely interpreted and recklessly applied, congress should scrap it as soon as humanly possible, for a multitude of compelling reasons.
The TRA is an obsolete relic of the Cold War, irrelevant to America's national security in a post-Communist world. That's one compelling reason to scrap the TRA.
The TRA is a blank check made out to Taiwan independence extremists, signed in advance with American GIs' blood, to be cashed not at the discretion of American president George W. Bush, but at the whim of a foreign dictator named Chen Shui-bian. That's another compelling reason to scrap the TRA.
The TRA is not "defending democracy," but propping up a Quisling dictatorship unable to command the loyalty of the ROC's deeply patriotic military personnel. That's yet another compelling reason to scrap the TRA.
If Taiwan ever was a bona fide democracy - and that is debatable - it isn't one today. America's indolent lapdog media is in the habit of characterizing Taiwan's cronyist dictatorship as a "lively / thriving / vibrant democracy." Well Taiwan's "democracy" is lively, thriving, and vibrant no more.
As Pan Blue signs protesting the fraudulent March 20 presidential election correctly declared, "Democracy is Dead" on Taiwan. What 23 million Chinese citizens on Taiwan live under today is a quasi-fascist dictatorship, one that is becoming less quasi and more fascist with each passing week.
Realizing in advance he was going to lose his bid for reelection by a humiliating margin, Chen Shui-bian staged a patently phony Wag the Dog "assassination attempt," then falsified the election results to make it appear as if he won. Chen, for all intents and purposes, staged a coup d'etat. In doing so, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura regressed Taiwan to the level of a Central American or Southeast Asian Banana Republic, and forfeited what meager claim it might once have had to moral and political legitimacy.
To give you a sense of how little legitimacy the pro Taiwan independence Chen regime enjoys, Chen has ordered all ROC Air Force F-16 and Mirage fighters grounded, indefinitely. Despite the very real possibility that the PLA Air Force could attack the island at any moment, no weapons of any kind may be loaded aboard ROC military aircraft until further notice.
Why would Chen hand down such a bizarre and incomprehensible order?
Because the traitorous Chen is terrified of what patriotic ROC Air Force pilots might do to him - shoot down Chen's Air Force One with him onboard, or bomb or strafe the Presidential Palace on Inauguration Day, then defect to the mainland with costly and irreplaceable combat aircraft.
Is such a contemptible regime worth even one American GI's life? If so, tell me his name, and I will notify his next of kin, in advance.
The photo that cost Tami Silicio her job
The Real Reason to Scrap the Taiwan Relations Act
The above reasons for scrapping the Taiwan Relations Act are perfectly sound and powerfully compelling. Anyone of them alone is enough to justify scrapping the TRA, ASAP.
The real reason for scrapping the TRA however, is far simpler and even more fundamental.
The real reason is the TRA is a legal and logical absurdity.
Benevolent Global Hegemonists on the Neanderthal right and Humanitarian Interventionists on the bleeding heart left routinely insist that "The TRA obligates America by law to defend Taiwan."
The obvious response to these New Imperialists, which everyone seems to have missed, is "Who gave you the right to obligate yourself in the first place?"
The Taiwan Relations Act is an Affront to National Sovereignty
Aztlan
Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs, is regarded in Chicano folklore as an area that includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. Spencer believes the aim [of "La Voz de Aztlan," the Voice of Aztlan] is to create a sovereign state, "Republica del Norte," the Republic of the North, that would combine the American Southwest with the northern Mexican states and eventually merge with Mexico.
-- Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com
The Taiwan Relations Act, United States Code Title 22 Chapter 48, enacted 10 April 1979, was an Act of Congress. It is domestic US law. It is not an international treaty.
Does domestic American legislation, enacted unilaterally by the US government without the consent of the Chinese people, legitimize US abetting of ethnic secessionists undermining China's territorial integrity?
In case the answer isn't immediately obvious, let me turn the question around.
Would domestic Chinese legislation, enacted unilaterally by the PRC government without the consent of the American people, legitimize PRC abetting of ethnic secessionists undermining America's territorial integrity?
Republica del Norte
How for example, would the US government feel about a PRC "Aztlan Relations Act?" Suppose the PRC "obligated" itself to intervene if the US government used force to prevent "Republica del Norte" independence? How would Americans react to PRC Vice-president Zeng Qinghong warning George W. Bush that the Aztlan Relations Act "legally obligated" the PRC government to intervene militarily on behalf of Chicano secessionists in the event they were attacked?
Is the answer clearer now?
If so, why wasn't it clear earlier?
When was the Golden Rule repealed?
Do ordinary Americans have any clue as to how angry the US government's abetting of Taiwan independence makes 1.3 billion patriotic Chinese on the Chinese mainland, 6 million more in Hong Kong, not to mention a democratic majority on Taiwan?
Hu Jintao could have told Dick Cheney,
You had no right to "obligate" yourself to meddle in another nation's internal affairs. You "obligated" yourself. Now "unobligate" yourself. End of "obligation."
He however, was too much of a gentleman.
See:
The Real China Threat is China Threat Theorists
China to US: No Violence Against Confederacy
The Hispanic Challenge, by Samuel P. Huntington
Be Careful What You Ask For. You Might Just Get It
Independence: The state or condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control. Political independence is the attribute of a nation or state which is entirely autonomous, and not subject to the government, control, or dictation of any exterior power.
-- Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition
Chen Shui-bian and fellow Quisling Lee Teng-hui shrilly insist that "Taiwan is an independent nation." Independent means not dependent. An independent nation is a nation that is not dependent on other nations. An independent nation does not depend on another nation for its military defense. A political entity that depends on another nation for its military defense is not an independent nation. It is not a nation at all. It is a colony, dominion, mandate, possession, protectorate, satellite, or territory of another nation.
If the Taiwan independence nomenklatura genuinely wants the US government to treat Taiwan as an independent nation, they should act like an independent nation. They should stop clinging to America's apron strings, stop hiding behind America's skirts, stop being dependent on the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. They should assume responsibility for their own independent national defense.
If Taiwan independence fellow travelers genuinely consider Taiwan an independent nation, they should treat Taiwan as an independent nation. They should stop treating Taiwan as if it were Guam or Puerto Rico. Taiwan is neither an American protectorate nor an American commonwealth.
Taiwan is part of China. China is a foreign nation. Taiwan is part of a foreign nation. If the US government ever had any plausible excuse to muscle itself in between Beijing and Taipei, it has no longer. Congress should scrap the legal and logical absurdity known as the Taiwan Relations Act, along with the Orwellian "Taiwan Security Enhancement Act," PDQ. Twenty-five years after its passage is much too late. Yesterday is none too soon.
Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute put it succinctly:
"Neither the earlier pro-Taiwan policy nor the latest pro-Beijing posture [advocated by George W. Bush] serves the best interests of the United States. It is not America's proper role to take a position on Taiwan's independence or other issues involving relations between Taipei and Beijing... U.S. leaders should make it clear that Taiwan must bear all of the risks entailed in whatever policies it adopts. In particular, Washington should state that it will not intervene if an armed conflict breaks out between Taiwan and mainland China."
You want independence? You got independence.
Taiwan is not a Colony or Protectorate of the United States
Bevin Chu
April 17, 2004
Executive Summary: "Taiwan... is not a colony or protectorate of the United States. The United States should... restrain itself from overly interfering in Taiwan's internal affairs." Who said that? PRC President Hu Jintao? Former ROC Vice-president Lien Chan? Would you believe Koo Kuan-min, Taiwan independence elder and National Policy Advisor to Chen Shui-bian? The giveaway was the wording. A reunificationist would have said "China's internal affairs," not "Taiwan's internal affairs." Either way, the principle remains the same. The United States should not interfere in other nations' internal affairs.
Taiwan Independence Hardliners to US: Don't Interfere in Taiwan's Affairs
Taiwan independence elder Koo Kuan-min
Koo's full statement, issued to the media on Taiwan after meeting with Chen Shui-bian on April 13, was:
"The United States ought to review and revise the policy that has remained unchanged for more than 30 years despite much change in the political situation in Taiwan. Let us remind the United States that Taiwan is an independent, sovereign state and that it is not a colony or protectorate of the United States. The United States should exercise self-restraint and restrain itself from overly interfering in Taiwan's internal affairs."
In case you think Koo was an isolated case, think again.
Fellow Taiwan independence hardliner Wang To-far, chairman of the radical Taiwan Association of University Professors declared:
"Taiwan is not a state of the US, and the US can't prescribe what Taiwan should do. Taiwan should take care of its own national interests."
Chang Cheng-hsiu, fellow hardliner and member of the Examination Yuan, agreed:
"As Taiwan is not a state of the US or a province of China, Chen should craft his address with a view to affirming the country's sovereignty."
Chairman of World United Formosans for Independence Ng Chiau-tong, presidential advisor Chen Lung-chu, and DPP legislator Trong Chai, known as "Cai Gong Tou" or "Referendum Cai" for his decades long push for a referendum on Taiwan independence, all demanded that the US government change its One China policy and not "excessively interfere" with Taiwan's internal affairs.
So What's the Catch?
So what's the catch? Since when has the Taiwan independence leadership not wanted the US to "interfere" on behalf of Taiwan independence?
After all, isn't persuading Uncle Sammy to "interfere" on behalf of Taiwan independence the sole justification for the Taiwan Lobby? Isn't that the reason the Taiwan Lobby squanders a fortune in ROC taxpayer money? To bribe congress to pressure the White House to use American GIs as the Taiwan independence movement's mercenary army?
Of course it is.
Doesn't the Taiwan independence leadership still expect the US Seventh Fleet to steam to the Taiwan Straits?
Of course it does.
Don't Taiwan independence hardliners still expect American GIs to do the fighting and dying in their place?
Of course they do.
So what changed?
What Changed
What changed was Taiwan independence leaders' estimate of their bargaining position. Taiwan independence leaders have arrived at the conclusion they can ignore the US government when it forbids them to take the final, fateful steps toward Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence leaders have decided they can "shine them on."
What caused them to arrive at such a surprising conclusion?
Taiwan independence leaders believe they have the US government's number, in particular the Bush administration's number, therefore they can jerk the World's Only Remaining Superpower around like a puppet.
The string by which the Taiwan independence leadership reckons it can jerk the US Hegemon around like a puppet is Sinophobia, an innocuous sounding term for primitive, irrational animosity against China and the Chinese people, generally passed off as rational ideological opposition.
Chen Shui-bian and his fellow Taiwan independence hardliners have concluded that the Bush administration's Sinophobia makes it a "slave to its animosity." They have concluded they can deliberately provoke a shooting war with Beijing, and no matter how furious the US government might be with them, it will have no choice but to intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan independence because it is obsessed wth containing the "China Threat," slaying the Chinese dragon, stemming the "Yellow Peril."
It doesn't matter that Taiwan is small and America is big. It doesn't matter that Taiwan is weak and America is mighty. It doesn't matter that Taiwan is the tail, and America is the dog. What matters is the Taiwan tail can wag the American dog.
"Interfering" vs. "Overly Interfering"
Koo Kuan-min used the term "overly interfering." Ng Chiau-tong, Chen Lung-chu, and Trong Chai used the term "excessively interfering."
What's the difference between "interfering" and "overly interfering" or "excessively interfering?"
"Interfering" means the US will intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan independence when mainland China attempts to prevent Taiwan's illegal and unconstitutional secession from China. "Interfering" means the US Seventh Fleet will pull the Taiwan independence hardliners' chesnuts out of the fire. "Interfering" is acceptable to Taiwan independence hardliners. "Interfering" is welcome. "Interfering" is expected. "Interfering" is a US duty.
"Overly interfering" or "excessively interfering" on the other hand, means the US government demanding veto power over when and how Taiwan moves toward independence because American fighting men, not "Taiwanese," would return home in flag-draped aluminum caskets. "Overly interfering" is unacceptable to Taiwan independence leaders. "Overly interfering," as Taiwan independence leaders have made clear, is unwelcome and gauche presumption on the part of the US. Their attitude? US leaders should not embarrass themselves by forcing Taiwan independence leaders to remind them a second time.
Paying the Piper, Calling the Tune
"Taipei... is both playing with fire and becoming dangerously distant from its sole protector, the United States... The Bush Administration... has spoken out ever more bluntly in an effort to instill realism into Taipei... Mr. Chen has not only brushed these warnings aside, he has ensured that his partisan press ignores and distorts the Administration's message so that it is never heard or read by his followers. It is becoming clear that words alone may not be enough to convince the Taiwan authorities not to jeopardize the island's future and our own."
-- Former US Ambassador Charles W. Freeman, Jr.
The Taiwan independence leadership wants to be politically independent from China, yet militarily dependent on the US Department of Defense. It wants to be independent and dependent at the same time. It wants wants to have its cake and eat it too.
The Taiwan independence leadership despises the Chinese mainland's former credo of communism, or says it does. In fact, the Taiwan independence leadership believes in free lunches. In fact the Taiwan independence leadership fails to appreciate the Chinese mainland's current credo of capitalism. If it did, it would realize that "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" and that "He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
The US government conversely, needs to understand the full implications of that same truism. The flipside of "He who pays the piper, calls the tune" is "He who calls the tune, pays the piper." The US government insisted on calling the tune in Iraq. Now it is paying the piper, in blood.
Does the US government really want to pay the piper in Taiwan, the way it paid the piper in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and Iraq?
Take the Taiwan Independence Leadership at Its Word
How should the US government respond to the Taiwan independence leadership's newfound assertiveness and defiance?
The US government should take Taiwan independence leaders at their word. It should take Taiwan independence leaders' statements at face value. It should review and revise its three decade old China policy. It should cease treating Taiwan as a "colony or protectorate of the United States" or "a state of the US."
It should, in Koo Kuan-min's words, "exercise self-restraint and restrain itself from overly interfering in Taiwan's internal affairs."
It should, in Wang To-far's words, admit that the US government "can't prescribe what Taiwan should do" and acknowledge that "Taiwan should take care of its own national interests."
It should, in Chang Cheng-hsiu's words, begin "affirming the country's sovereignty."
The US government should, in CATO Institute Vice-president Ted Galen Carpenter's words,
"make it clear that Taiwan must incur all of the risks entailed in whatever policies it adopts. Specifically, Washington should inform Taipei that it will not become involved if an armed conflict erupts between Taiwan and the mainland over the issue of Taiwan's de facto independence."
After all, what is the flipside of "Taiwan is not a protectorate of the United States?"
Isn't it "The United States is not the protector or Taiwan?"
Taiwan's Stolen Election, Part III
The Most Successful Assassination Attempt in Modern History
Bevin Chu
April 09, 2004
Executive Summary: On March 19, 2004, the eve of election day, President Chen Shui-bian and Vice-president Annette Lu were traveling in a motorcade in the DPP stronghold of Tainan. Both Chen and Lu were standing in the rear of an open Jeep Wrangler, clinging to the rollbar. At 1:45 pm, the two candidates were allegedly subjected to a hail of semi-automatic pistol fire from the right shoulder of the roadway. Miraculously, the two candidates received exactly one gunshot wound each. No more, no less. More miraculously, the two candidates received only "flesh wounds," the kind suffered by lantern-jawed leading men in 50s Hollywood movies. Most miraculously of all, the two candidates, who were trailing by 10% in the polls, were "re-elected" by a 0.2% margin the following day, making this failed assassination attempt the most successful assassination attempt in recent memory.
Cui Bono?
The expression "Cui bono?" is Latin, and means "Who benefits," or more literally, "For whose benefit is it?"
Whenever a wealthy individual is found murdered, the first question homicide investigators ask is, "Who benefits?" Anyone who benefits from the victim's unnatural death is added to their suspect list. The main beneficiaries listed in the victim's Last Will and Testament are added to a special short list as the prime suspects.
Who benefits from the "assassination attempt" on Chen Shui-bian?
Chen Shui-bian, who else?
A Smoke Screen for Election Fraud
The "assassination attempt" unquestionably won Chen an undetermined number of sympathy votes. Sympathy votes however were probably not its primary purpose. They were merely a fringe benefit.
The primary purpose of the "assassination attempt" was to serve as a smoke screen for election fraud, allowing Chen to falsely attribute his unbelievable and implausible Reversal of Fortune to "sympathy votes" instead of creative accounting by the Central Election Committee.
The Timing was Too Perfect
The "assassination attempt" on Chen Shui-bian occurred on the afternoon before election day, just late enough to leave the opposition no time to react before the polls opened the next morning.
The "assassination attempt" occurred just late enough to avoid negatively impacting the day's stock market close, but just early enough to make the evening news.
The "assassination attempt" occurred just in time to force the opposition to cancel crucial election eve campaign activities, and to preclude media coverage of opposition campaign activities had they taken place anyway.
The afternoon of the "assassination attempt" pirate radio stations in southern Taiwan dedicated to Taiwan independence accused the KMT and PFP of collaborating with the CCP to "assassinate a Taiwanese president representing the Taiwanese people."
This accusation is so obtuse one despairs for democracy on Taiwan. As noted in Taiwan's Stolen Election, Parts I and II, Lien/Soong were way ahead in the polls. Would anybody in the Pan Blue camp be so stupid as to assassinate Chen/Lu on March 19, when Lien/Soong were leading by a margin of 10%?
Wouldn't such an accusation be more plausible if Chen/Lu had won, and an assassination attempt had been made on March 21? Who's kidding whom?
The Weapon was Too Crude
The weapon used in the "assassination attempt," according to local prosecutors, was a converted handgun replica, firing a handload with only one-third the normal powder charge.
Anyone with an IQ higher than a carrot need only ask himself the following questions.
Q: Doesn't the CCP have thousands of agents on Taiwan?
A: Taiwan independence Quislings and Chinese patriots agree. The CCP has thousands of agents on the island.
Q: Doesn't the CCP have the ability to smuggle vast quantities of small arms and explosives onto the island, including mint-condition, full-automatic assault rifles, machine pistols, RPGs, C4 and Semtex?
A: ROC authorities know only too well the CCP has the ability to provide a team of assassins with whatever weapons or explosives they might need to take out a local target.
Q: If the CCP wanted Chen Shui-bian dead on March 19, does anybody really believe he would he still be breathing two weeks later?
A: Chen Shui-bian would be rotting flecks of flesh splattered over a Tainan roadway. Flies would be nibbling on what little remained of his chubby body.
The Bullet was Too Weak and the Aim Too Low
Chinese-American forensics expert Henry C. Lee is the director of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Laboratory. Lee is a real life version of Gil Grissom, the character played by Wiliam Petersen in the runaway hit TV series, "CSI: Crime Scene Invesigation" (2000, created by Anthony Zuiker). Lee is known for his role in the high profile O.J. Simpson and JonBenet Ramsey cases.
Lee is currently investigating the March 19 Chen/Lu shooting incident. So far Lee has drawn two conclusions.
One, the wound was not self-inflicted, i.e., Chen Shui-bian did not shoot himself, as no powder burns were in evidence on Chen's clothes.
Two, the shooting was not an assassination attempt, as the ballistic characteristics of the bullet were too weak and the point of aim too low to kill.
In case that went by too fast: The shooting was NOT an assassination attempt.
Lee notes that "One type of speculation is that the Chinese Nationalist Party and the People First Party were behind the shooting." Lee rules this out "because an assassin would have aimed at the chest, heart or used a more powerful gun."
"In my experience, if it was a political assassination, a high-powered rifle would have been used. Even if the assassin opted for a handgun, it would be a high-powered one. If the aim was to kill, why not take it to the extreme?"
Tongue-in-cheek forensic analysis of Chen's "Wag the Dog" assassination attempt, posted on the Internet by local Taiwan wags
The Wounds were Too Light
Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu were both wounded, allegedly by a hail of pistol rounds fired amidst the swirling smoke and deafening cacaphony of noisy firecrackers, blaring loudspeakers, and cheering supporters. Yet neither candidate was killed. Neither candidate was permanently disabled. Neither candidate was seriously wounded. Neither candidate required hospitalization. Neither candidate ever lost consciousness. Neither candidate required more than emergency room outpatient treatment. Both were patched up and released from hospital custody in just one hour.
The day of the "assassination attempt" the Secret Service contingent guarding Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu was reduced [ ! ]. Several agents were sent back to Taipei, along with their weapons and ammunition.
Every day preceding the "assassination attempt" Chen and Lu wore Kevlar vests whenever they appeared in public. Every day following the "assassination attempt" Chen and Lu wore Kevlar vests whenever they appeared in public. Only on the day of the "assassination attempt" did Chen and Lu not wear Kevlar vests when they appeared in public.
The First Lady was Too Calm
The First Lady of the ROC is Wu Shu-chen. At no time following the "assassination attempt" did a tearful, overwrought Wu Shu-chen ever appear before the television cameras, demanding to know her husband's condition, wondering where was the bullet was lodged, or whether he would survive his gunshot wound or wounds.
Why not?
Because the First Lady was inside the loop. She knew in advance the "assassination attempt" was a monumental hoax.
Oddly enough, no one but my mother seems to have noticed this. Not the talking heads on the boob tube. Not the pundits in the print media. Not the spokesmen for the Pan Blue opposition.
My mother noticed it because she recently lost her husband, my father, to brain cancer, and has been tormented by his loss ever since. Wu Shu-chen's apparent indifference to her husband's fate disturbed my mother so much she marched into KMT Headquarters and gave KMT officials an earful. They could only nod their heads in agreement, wondering why such an obvious question never occurred to them.
The Location was Too Convenient
The "assassination attempt" occurred in Tainan, Chen Shui-bian's home town, where it would generate the most sympathy for Tainan's Native Son.
More importantly, Tainan is home to the Chi Mei Hospital. Chen's motorcade drove past the Tainan City Hospital, past the Hsiang-Tai Hospital, the one officially assigned to treat the president and vice-president in the event of a medical emergency, and arrived at the Chi Mei Hospital, five kilometers away.
The Chi Mei Hospital is owned and operated by notorious right-wing tycoon Hsu Wen-long. Hsu is a crony of former president Lee Teng-hui, a friend of neofascist Japanese political cartoonist Kobayashi Yoshinori, and a major financial backer of the Taiwan independence movement. Hsu claims that the Rape of Nanking "never happened," and that "comfort women" rounded up in Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines "eagerly volunteered" and considered their sexual slavery "a high honor."
Would someone like Hsu Wen-long have any qualms about ordering his hospital to participate in a "Wag the Dog" assassination hoax, when the "just cause" was Taiwan independence, and those being duped were "traitors to Taiwan" who advocated reunification with mainland China?
Investigators from the Tainan District Attorney's office who rushed to Chi Mei Hospital were prevented from entering by Chen's Secret Service agents. What were medical personnel inside doing that the DA's investigators couldn't be permitted to see?
Keep reading, and draw your own conclusions.
The Ninth Commandment, according to the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan
As part of his election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.
A furious Chen Yu-hao responded by appearing on television and revealing the ugly truth. Chen Shui-bian had eagerly pocketed a fortune in political contributions from Chen Yu-hao over the past decade.
When Chen Shui-bian tried to deny the charges, Chen Yu-hao revealed that ROC legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, a DPP "elder" with a reputation for honesty within DPP circles was an eyewitness who saw Chen Yu-hao hand First Lady Wu Shu-chen a bag full of cash.
Considering Shen was also Chen Shui-bian's campaign manager, Chen Yu-hao's revelation put Shen in a somewhat awkward position. Rather than lie, Shen went into hiding for the following week.
What happened next was like a scene out of a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick.
A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual truth did these supposedly devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."
Are you getting a sense of the moral character of the people involved in the Taiwan independence movement?
Chen Shui-bian, Repeat Offender
In 1985 Chen Shui-bian was running for Tainan County Commissioner. His three rivals took part in a public debate held at a local elementary school. Chen Shui-bian was a no show. Debate organizers called out his name three times. No response. They declared the debate officially over.
At that moment, Chen appeared, carried in on a stretcher. Chen's aides seized the still live microphone and handed it to Chen, who announced, "I was poisoned by agents of the KMT!"
As you can see, this was not the first time for Chen. Chen pulled this stunt before. Unfortunately the public forgot. Had they recalled Chen's record of shameless deceit, citizens of the Republic of China might have been able to preemptively expose Chen's "Wag the Dog" assassination attempt for what it was.
But then this is all Monday morning quarterbacking.
In the Line of Fire
Let's pretend for a moment we believe Chen Shui-bian when he insists that the assassination attempt was real, and that he more than anyone on the island wants to know who tried to assassinate him.
If that is the case, the president and vice-president could have been killed instantly.
If that is the case, the Secret Service team assigned to guard the two was guilty of gross incompetence.
Wouldn't you expect the officials and agents responsible for such a major screw-up to be reprimanded, reassigned, demoted, or forced to resign?
Is that what happened?
Would you believe the exact opposite?
A week after the "assassination attempt" the Secret Service agents who failed utterly to protect President Chen and Vice-president Lu, and allowed them to get shot, were promoted. Not only were they promoted, they were awarded a bonus of 3,000,000 NT, the first installment of more to come.
Only after opposition leaders pointed out this outrageous inconsistency did key Chen administration officials tender their resignations.
Is it any wonder local TV talkshow hosts joked that had any Secret Service agent taken a bullet for the president, the way Clint Eastwood did in Wolfgang Petersen's "In the Line of Fire," he would have been fired for dereliction of duty!
Elections as Usual during a State of Emergency
But what if Chen didn't fake the assassination attempt?
By now it should be obvious Chen staged his "assassination attempt." Chen did it, just as surely as OJ murdered Nicole. But just for argument's sake, let's suppose the assassination attempt wasn't a hoax.
Even assuming Chen didn't fake the assassination attempt, Chen nevertheless issued an illegal and unconstitutional Emergency Decree, mobilizing 300,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, MPs, and police officers.
Perhaps I should say "immobilizing" 300,000 military and police personnel. These citizens of the ROC were ordered to remain on duty all day election day, denying them their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Leaving to vote was inconceivable. Anyone caught abandoning his post would have been subjected to the harshest possible punishment under military rather than civilian law.
The Republic of China's military and police personnel are predominantly true blue KMT/NP/PFP voters. Their political loyalties are well-known to everyone on the island, Green and Blue alike. The Officer Corps in particular are deeply loyal to the Republic of China, to the ROC Constitution, to Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles, and consider Taiwan independence treason. Their 300,000 votes are 10 times the number of Chen's "official" winning margin.
Chen knows this better than anyone. That's why every time he speaks before ROC military personnel, he never fails to shout "Long live the Republic of China!" and "Long live the Three People's Principles!"
The fact that Chen issued his Emergency Decree without any legal basis is not merely sufficient grounds to nullify the election, it is sufficient grounds to demand his impeachment.
After all, if the country was indeed in a state of national emergency, why did Central Election Committee Chairman Huang Shih-cheng, who takes his marching orders from Chen, insist that everything was normal, therefore the election would take place as scheduled?
Aren't a "State of National Emergency" and "Elections as Usual" mutually contradictory propositions?
ROC, ROK, and ROT
A week before the ROC Presidential Election, Koreans impeached Republic of Korea President Roh Moo-hyun. The charges were "illegal electioneering" and "incompetence."
Is that all?
Chen Shui-bian's flagrant lawlessness and gross incompetence make Roh Moo-hyun's offenses look like driving infractions. Were ROC citizens to hold Chen to the same high standards that ROK citizens held Roh, Chen would have been impeached a hundred times since he assumed office on May 20, 2000.
What ills Taiwan today is an advanced case of ROT, the remarkably apt acronym for "Republic of Taiwan." The cure for terminal ROT is a liberal dose of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law, in this case, from the good Doctor Sun Yat-sen, Founding Father of the Republic of China, the first constitutional republic in Asia.
Taiwanese Fascism and US Media Complicity
Several years ago I began characterizing Taiwan independence as a fascist political movement. Some readers probably thought I was exaggerating. Now however, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's "democratic" and "progressive" mask has been cast aside, and its fascist visage is clear for all to see.
Many US journalists see themselves as latter day Carl Bernsteins and Bob Woodwards. They flatter themselves. Few are interested in telling the truth about Taiwan. Most parrot the US government's simplistic catechism, "China bad, Taiwan good." The complex reality of a "China steadily improving, Taiwan rapidly degenerating" serves neither liberals who demand Humanitarian Intervention, nor neoconservatives who demand Benevolent Global Hegemony, so it is self-censored out of existence.
If these cheerleaders for "a growing sense of ethnic Taiwanese national identity" were genuine investigative journalists with moral consciences and historical memories, they would be denouncing this atavistic phenomenon for what it is, the rise of Taiwanese Fascism.
Backtalk! Revering the Big MenApril 03, 2004 From Kim Yongsan, regarding An American in ChinaApril 03, 2004As an Chinese in U.S. who have been fed up with the brainwashing of the mainstream media, I have been a devoted reader of your website. Your team bring a fresh breeze to the "media" and help people like me to make sense of the world we are living in. Justin's daily comment is a must read for me and Mr. Chu's pieces about Taiwan is super valuable for me.However, I am disappointed and amazed by Sascha Matuszak's " An American in China" series. I am not offended by his critism of China, but my the shallowness of his pieces and the nasty attitude he displayed toward the people around him.China is a big country, and all reasonable Chinese understand that we have our fair share of problems and we have our fair share of nasty people, too. Disclosing them to the public would do a good service to China and to the world.However, knowing that there are plenty of decent foreigners in China, the kind of nasty freak like Sascha Matuszak is also a common sight in China. I personally have seen plenty of them, too. Just by reading his pieces, one could understand that he is treating the Chinese around him just like a biologist in a zoo. While manipulate the trusting Chinese around him by selling himself as a friend, he is making up stories about them, putting words into their mouthes and selling his trashes to the trusting public in the West who might not have the chance to visit China. He had done nothing to better the understanding of China to the Western public rather than repeating and reinforcing the cliches and prejudice about China.This current piece about China " Revering the Big Men" is a laughable stock and do not worth refuting. Any sensable person with an reasonable of human complexity, one would understand that China is too complex to be reduced to his cartoonistic "laws" about China.Reading such trashes about China in the main stream media would not surprise me anymore. But reading it as the only comment about China really disappointed and amazed me.Bevin Chu replies:Thank you for your generous praise. It is deeply appreciated.I have been loath to openly criticize until now, but since you have thrown the ball to me, I must catch it by admitting I share your views. That is why I myself have not read the particular column you mentioned in quite some time.I must confess you are not alone in your perceptions. I doubt that anyone has failed to detect the columnist's thinly-disguised contempt and hostility for China and the Chinese people. His animus against everything to do with China can hardly be missed, it is so obvious.The central purpose of Antiwar.com is to promote peace for America by discouraging foreign intervention. Past articles by Antiwar.com columnists, particulary those by Justin Raimondo, have been eminently fair toward China. Most importantly, they have clearly discouraged foreign military intervention against China. I have openly praised them for that reason.One has to wonder however, how are the views expressed by the particular columnist you mentioned discouraging foreign intervention? Are wild allegations that 1.3 billion Chinese feel some inordinate admiration for Hitler going to encourage Americans to oppose or demand "preemptive" or even "preventive" war against China? What's next? Demands that Americans avoid "appeasing China," and avoid "the mistake of Neville Chamberlain?"That is the question every fair-minded individual must ask himself.The other question that comes to mind is why? Life is short. If the columnist is so filled with animosity for a foreign peoples and their nation, why does he go out of his way to live and work there? Why not live and work at home, with people he doesn't despise? Why not adopt an "Americans will live how Americans live, and Chinese will live how Chinese live" attitude? Isn't that the Antiwar.com philosophy? But that of course that presumes the columnist does not have some other agenda altogether.
