Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried
Bevin Chu
August 2, 2005
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-- Winston Churchill
Executive Summary: As the preceding quotes suggest, Winston Churchill was deeply ambivalent about democracy. On the one hand, he was not about to regurgitate the civics class twaddle we all ingested about Democracy with a capital D. On the other hand, he could see no better alternative. Alas, Churchill's political education was incomplete. The great statesman, for all his far-ranging political knowledge, was wrong. Democracy is not "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Democracy is the worst form of government ever tried, period. Democracy ranks among the gravest threats to individual rights and individual liberty in human history. Democracy is, in certain respects, even worse than absolute monarchy. Ignorant and arrogant modern day "champions of democracy" need to get a clue. Assuming they are sincere when they sound off about valuing the sovereign individual above the ominipotent state, then the people they most need to educate about democracy are not the leaders of the PRC in Beijing, but themselves.
Modern Ignorance, Modern Arrogance
Modern day "champions of democracy" consider democracy, or liberal democracy, (or is it Liberal Democracy?) their secular religion, and "free and fair elections" their holiest of sacraments. Let's hear what some of them have to say about their religious faith.
According to the right wing, global interventionist Freedom House, which purports to employ "rigorous analytic standards" in its annual reports on the state of freedom in the world:
"Democracies... are political systems whose leaders are elected in competitive multi-party and multi-candidate processes in which opposition parties have a legitimate chance of attaining power or participating in power. Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded... by... Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right... Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It... promote[s] human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs."
According to the federal Leviathan's compulsory, involuntary, decidedly unfree, taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, whose motto is "Supporting freedom around the world":
"The Endowment is guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values... the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East."
According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wang Dan, of Tiananmen notoriety:
"We make no attempt to conceal the aim of the current student movement, which is to exert pressure on the government to promote the progress of democracy. People's yearning for democracy, science, human rights, freedom, reason, and equality, which lack a fundamental basis in China, have once again been aroused."
According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wei Jingsheng, author of "The Fifth Modernization":
"People need prosperity... to pursue their first goal of happiness, namely freedom. Democracy means the maximum attainable freedom so far known by human beings. It is quite obvious that democracy has become the goal in contemporary human struggles."
What can one say in response to these "champions of democracy," except that they are wrong, wrong, wrong? Freedom House is wrong. The National Endowment for Democracy is wrong. Wang Dan is wrong. Wei Jingsheng is wrong.
Freedom House for example, purports to employ "rigorous analytical standards" in its self-congratulatory annual ritual of passing judgment on the nations of the world.
One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Bush II's post-911 "Secure Homeland" as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 1 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while awarding mainland China, which takes from "Unfree" Chinese less than a third of what the US federal government takes from "Free" Americans in taxes, a rating of 7 for Political Rights and 6 for Civil Liberties.
One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Taiwan, with its unelected US puppet squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace since May 20, 2004, as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 2 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while classifying transparent, uncorrupt Singapore as "Partly Free" and awarding it a rating of 5 for Political Rights and 4 for Civil Liberties.
The "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed were apparently double standards.
It's bad enough that flagrantly biased judgment calls such as these cast doubt on Freedom House's integrity. What's worse is they cast doubt on Freedom House's grasp of political science, of cause and effect, of the catastrophic consequences of imposing defective political systems such as democracy upon hapless human populations.
Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, Wang Dan, and Wei Jingsheng are united in their ignorant conflation of liberal democracy with political liberty, and their arrogant demand that China adopt their failed and discredited system of government.
Free market economist Thomas Sowell had some choice words for this kind of facile thinking: "To include freedom in the... definition of democracy is to define a process not by its actual characteristics... but by its hoped for results."
Ancient Wisdom, Ancient Humility
Modern champions of democracy, who fancy themselves courageous defenders of the American political ideal, have either totally forgotten or never learned what America's Founding Fathers knew two centuries ago -- democracy is the worst form of government ever tried.
Don't believe me? Consider the following quotes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution
"A Democracy is the most vile form of government there is!"
-- Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, champion of the American Revolution
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
-- James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
-- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835
Surprised? You shouldn't be, not if you know your political history.
America's Founding Fathers were visionary political philosophers confronted with the most daunting task imagineable. Their task was not merely to found a new nation, but to invent a new system of government. They diligently researched history to learn what to do. History rewarded them. It taught them not only what to do, but even more importantly, what not to do. The most important thing they learned not to do, was to adopt democracy, the worst form of government ever tried.
Given the Founding Fathers' fully warranted fear and loathing of democracy, we should not be surprised that the Constitution of the United States does not contain a single solitary reference to the word "democracy," but instead stipulates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."
The distinction between a democracy and a republic is hardly trivial. That the distinction between a democracy and a republic could inspire the Founding Fathers to such passions speaks volumes. The Founding Fathers considered the distinction between a democracy and a republic to be the distinction between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty.
Not so Ancient Wisdom, Not so Ancient Humility
The following are excerpts from a 156 page citizenship manual issued by the US War Department, November 30,1928, explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The Franklin Delano Roosevelt White House later ordered all copies of this manual withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and all US Army posts and destroyed without explanation:
Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.
CITIZENSHIP
This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
CITIZENSHIP Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].
CITIZENSHIP Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the direct rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
[That was 1928. By 1952 however, the new Army Field Manual read:]
"Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run - and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.
-- The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual, issued June 1952
As we can see, after being subjected to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's fascistic New Deal, the once free American people forgot their constitutional republican roots, and allowed themselves to be led down the populist democratic path toward slavery.
Heaven protect China from Democracy
That modern day "champions of democracy" are so woefully ignorant about something that America's Founding Fathers knew backwards and forwards, makes one want to weep with despair. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Mankind was supposed to become more sophisticated with the passage of time, not more simple-minded. Mankind was supposed to profit from precious wisdom acquired at immense cost in human lives, not blank it from memory within a few short generations.
That modern Chinese intellectuals would wind up reflexively parroting pro-democracy slogans is deeply discouraging, but is at least understandable. Democracy after all, is a western innovation. Chinese intellectuals eager to be perceived as progressive and forward thinking can be forgiven for conflating western progress in general with western democracy in particular.
But what excuse do American intellectuals have? The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not foreign history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not Chinese history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is the vital core of America's proud history.
Demands from Chinese citizens on the mainland for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are entirely legitimate. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Idealistic PRC leaders at the central government level are pressing for such reforms themselves.
Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are also entirely legitimate. Ironically, the current ROC government on Taiwan is far less committed to the Rule of Law than the current PRC government on the Chinese mainland.
Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adopt democracy before they are willing to see the two sides reunited however, are myopic folly, especially coming from Pan Blue political leaders.
Demands from foreign governments for the PRC government to adopt democracy are the most despicable of all. Demands from foreign governments that China be saddled with the worst form of government ever tried, can rightly be construed as overtly hostile gestures and looked upon askance.
Heaven protect China from Democracy!
The Best Form of Government ever Tried
Democracy, as we have seen, is the worst form of government ever tried. But what is the best form of government ever tried?
The best form of government ever tried, sadly, has largely been lost to mankind's collective memory. The best form of government ever tried flourished on Iceland between 930 and 1262.
It is time the modern world reclaimed the best form of government ever tried and gave it another chance. But that is the subject for another essay altogether.
See:
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part II
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part III
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/03/market-anarchism-solution-to-dilemma-of.html
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
The Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan
The Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan
The Framing of Fung Hu-hsiang
Bevin Chu
July 25, 2005
Fung Hu-hsiang, the Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan, and his daughter, Fung Fu-hua
Question: If a government wishes to maintain a "democratic and progressive" face to the outside world, but also wishes to silence a troublesome, high-profile critic, what should it do?
Answer: It should frame him for a sex crime, of course.
Convicting a hated political enemy of a political crime elevates him to the status of a martyr. It transforms him into a hero, even a legend, among his peers. It attracts additional supporters to his cause. Demands for his release become a rallying cry for the political opposition.
Successfully framing one's political enemy of a sex crime, on the other hand, reduces him to the level of a pervert. It transforms him to a social pariah, even among his staunchest political allies. It deprives him of political and even moral support, leaving him isolated and unable to strike back.
Society considers sex crimes especially repugnant. This makes a sex crime the ideal crime with which to frame a political enemy, while avoiding the appearance of persecuting him for political motives.
Are ruling regimes aware of this difference in public reaction? You bet they are.
Have ruling regimes taken advantage of this difference in public reaction? You bet they have.
The ruling regime in Malaysia took advantage of the public's repugnance with sex crimes five years ago, when it persecuted former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, the most prominent critic of the Mahathir Mohamad regime. Anwar was convicted of sodomizing his male chauffeur and sentenced to nine years in prison. In 2004, a post-Mahathir court reversed the conviction and restored Anwar's innocence.
The ruling regime on Taiwan is taking advantage of the public's repugnance with sex crimes today, persecuting former vice-presidential candidate/legislator Elmer Fung Hu-hsiang, the most prominent critic of the Chen Shui-bian regime and the Lee Teng-hui regime that preceded it. Fung was convicted of raping his family's Filipino maid and sentenced to four years in prison.
Fung of course never raped anyone. The crime Fung was convicted of never happened. The only person raped during this mockery of justice was the accused, Fung Hu-hsiang. He was raped by Chen Shui-bian's kangaroo court. The illegal and illegitimate Chen Shui-bian regime framed him for a sex crime in order to exact revenge upon its most hated political enemy.
Many people have forgotten that Chen Shui-bian once served an eight month prison term for libel. Chen, you can be certain, never forgot. The man Chen libeled, the man who filed a successful libel suit against him, the man responsible for Chen doing time, was Fung Hu-hsiang. No one else has ever made Chen pay such a high price for his irresponsible behavior. Chen, as those close to him know, is not one to leave such a score unsettled.
The fact is that Fung Hu-hsiang's "rape" case should never have gone to trial, let alone concluded with a guilty verdict. The prosecution's case against Fung was a joke. Any judge in any one of the 50 states of the union would have immediately thrown it out of court for insufficient evidence, and sternly reprimanded the prosecution for wasting the court's valuable time. Taiwan alas, is not a state of the union, as much as some Taiwan independence zealots might wish it were.
Rose, the Filipina maid who originally accused Fung of raping her, later recanted her testimony, in toto. Wracked with guilt for having victimized an innocent man, she confessed that acquaintances goaded her into pointing the finger at Fung. She made this confession with legal counsel at her side. Her confession was witnessed by Philippine government officials and the Republic of China's official representative to the Philippines.
Chen Shui-bian's "Star Chamber" responded to this astonishing and unwelcome development by refusing to even acknowledge her recantation. It refused even to look into the matter. Instead, it dismissed her recantation out of hand as "hearsay evidence without legal force." After all, it already had the verdict Chen wanted. The last thing it wanted was to sift through a lot of inconvenient facts.
Often the most serious obstacle standing in the way of understanding a foreign country is not what one doesn't know, but "what one knows that just ain't so." This is especially true of Taiwan. Many westerners genuinely believe that Taiwan is a democracy. Sad to say, that just ain't so.
By 1996, Taiwan had become an "elective dictatorship." By 2004, after Chen Shui-bian stole the election, Taiwan became a "non-elective dictatorship." Taiwan today is a system under the Rule of Men, not the Rule of Law. More precisely, Taiwan today is a system under the Rule of One Man, Chen Shui-bian. Taiwan's judiciary is not an independent branch of government, but the obedient tool of an Imperial Executive. The outrageous verdicts of Taiwan's courts in response to the 319 Election Lawsuits have borne that out. So has the outrageous verdict of Taiwan's court in the Fung Hu-hsiang "rape" case.
The internal affairs of sovereign and independent foreign nations are normally not the concern of the US government. The Chen Shui-bian regime however, is an exception. The Chen regime, like the regime of the Shah of Iran, is a client of the United States. Republic of China citizens on Taiwan voted the Chen regime out of office in 2004 by a 53 to 47% margin. The Chen regime remains in office only because the Bush II administration rubber-stamped Chen's "re-election" and strong-armed the actual winners Lien Chan and James Soong into accepting the Chen regime's illegal power grab. As such, the United States government, the "World's Champion of Human Rights," bears a grave moral responsibility to right the wrongs inflicted by the Chen regime upon its own citizens.
A good place to begin would be righting the wrong done to the principled and courageous opposition leader Fung Hu-hsiang, the Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan.
The Framing of Fung Hu-hsiang
Bevin Chu
July 25, 2005
Fung Hu-hsiang, the Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan, and his daughter, Fung Fu-hua
Question: If a government wishes to maintain a "democratic and progressive" face to the outside world, but also wishes to silence a troublesome, high-profile critic, what should it do?
Answer: It should frame him for a sex crime, of course.
Convicting a hated political enemy of a political crime elevates him to the status of a martyr. It transforms him into a hero, even a legend, among his peers. It attracts additional supporters to his cause. Demands for his release become a rallying cry for the political opposition.
Successfully framing one's political enemy of a sex crime, on the other hand, reduces him to the level of a pervert. It transforms him to a social pariah, even among his staunchest political allies. It deprives him of political and even moral support, leaving him isolated and unable to strike back.
Society considers sex crimes especially repugnant. This makes a sex crime the ideal crime with which to frame a political enemy, while avoiding the appearance of persecuting him for political motives.
Are ruling regimes aware of this difference in public reaction? You bet they are.
Have ruling regimes taken advantage of this difference in public reaction? You bet they have.
The ruling regime in Malaysia took advantage of the public's repugnance with sex crimes five years ago, when it persecuted former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, the most prominent critic of the Mahathir Mohamad regime. Anwar was convicted of sodomizing his male chauffeur and sentenced to nine years in prison. In 2004, a post-Mahathir court reversed the conviction and restored Anwar's innocence.
The ruling regime on Taiwan is taking advantage of the public's repugnance with sex crimes today, persecuting former vice-presidential candidate/legislator Elmer Fung Hu-hsiang, the most prominent critic of the Chen Shui-bian regime and the Lee Teng-hui regime that preceded it. Fung was convicted of raping his family's Filipino maid and sentenced to four years in prison.
Fung of course never raped anyone. The crime Fung was convicted of never happened. The only person raped during this mockery of justice was the accused, Fung Hu-hsiang. He was raped by Chen Shui-bian's kangaroo court. The illegal and illegitimate Chen Shui-bian regime framed him for a sex crime in order to exact revenge upon its most hated political enemy.
Many people have forgotten that Chen Shui-bian once served an eight month prison term for libel. Chen, you can be certain, never forgot. The man Chen libeled, the man who filed a successful libel suit against him, the man responsible for Chen doing time, was Fung Hu-hsiang. No one else has ever made Chen pay such a high price for his irresponsible behavior. Chen, as those close to him know, is not one to leave such a score unsettled.
The fact is that Fung Hu-hsiang's "rape" case should never have gone to trial, let alone concluded with a guilty verdict. The prosecution's case against Fung was a joke. Any judge in any one of the 50 states of the union would have immediately thrown it out of court for insufficient evidence, and sternly reprimanded the prosecution for wasting the court's valuable time. Taiwan alas, is not a state of the union, as much as some Taiwan independence zealots might wish it were.
Rose, the Filipina maid who originally accused Fung of raping her, later recanted her testimony, in toto. Wracked with guilt for having victimized an innocent man, she confessed that acquaintances goaded her into pointing the finger at Fung. She made this confession with legal counsel at her side. Her confession was witnessed by Philippine government officials and the Republic of China's official representative to the Philippines.
Chen Shui-bian's "Star Chamber" responded to this astonishing and unwelcome development by refusing to even acknowledge her recantation. It refused even to look into the matter. Instead, it dismissed her recantation out of hand as "hearsay evidence without legal force." After all, it already had the verdict Chen wanted. The last thing it wanted was to sift through a lot of inconvenient facts.
Often the most serious obstacle standing in the way of understanding a foreign country is not what one doesn't know, but "what one knows that just ain't so." This is especially true of Taiwan. Many westerners genuinely believe that Taiwan is a democracy. Sad to say, that just ain't so.
By 1996, Taiwan had become an "elective dictatorship." By 2004, after Chen Shui-bian stole the election, Taiwan became a "non-elective dictatorship." Taiwan today is a system under the Rule of Men, not the Rule of Law. More precisely, Taiwan today is a system under the Rule of One Man, Chen Shui-bian. Taiwan's judiciary is not an independent branch of government, but the obedient tool of an Imperial Executive. The outrageous verdicts of Taiwan's courts in response to the 319 Election Lawsuits have borne that out. So has the outrageous verdict of Taiwan's court in the Fung Hu-hsiang "rape" case.
The internal affairs of sovereign and independent foreign nations are normally not the concern of the US government. The Chen Shui-bian regime however, is an exception. The Chen regime, like the regime of the Shah of Iran, is a client of the United States. Republic of China citizens on Taiwan voted the Chen regime out of office in 2004 by a 53 to 47% margin. The Chen regime remains in office only because the Bush II administration rubber-stamped Chen's "re-election" and strong-armed the actual winners Lien Chan and James Soong into accepting the Chen regime's illegal power grab. As such, the United States government, the "World's Champion of Human Rights," bears a grave moral responsibility to right the wrongs inflicted by the Chen regime upon its own citizens.
A good place to begin would be righting the wrong done to the principled and courageous opposition leader Fung Hu-hsiang, the Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Diaoyutai and Pan Green Self-Delusion
Diaoyutai and Pan Green Self-Delusion
Bevin Chu
July 7, 2005
Executive Summary: In 1895, a militarily powerful, territorially expansionist, post-Tokugawa Japan held a gun to China's head and forced the Manchu court to sign the Makuan Treaty, ceding the island of Taiwan to Japan. Pan Green Quislings have since turned the treaty into a key justification for Taiwan independence. China relinquished Taiwan far too readily, they argue. Who wants to be associated with such a gutless nation? Far wiser to identify with the winning side, Japan. Fast forward to 2005. Fate, in its infinite wisdom, has presented the Pan Green Quislings with the same dilemma as the Qing court. A militarily powerful, territorially expansionist, post-Cold War Japan is holding a gun to the Chen regime's head and demanding that it cede the Taiwanese island of Diaoyutai. Pan Green Quislings, who long ago tranferred their loyalties to Japan, are bewildered. Japan, in their hearts and minds, is their adopted country. Why is it treating them so shabbily? Pan Green Quislings just don't get it. Individual exceptions aside, Japan has never considered the Chinese people on Taiwan "their people." They have always considered them a genetically inferior subject race. The Pan Green Quislings' infatuation with Japan is a one-sided, unreciprocated love affair. Taiwan is a "valued ally of Japan" only in the Pan Green Quislings' dreams. Pan Green Quislings will never enjoy the dignity they demand until they do the very thing they consider inconceivable -- return to the motherland and reaffirm their identity as Chinese.
The Treaty of Shimonoseki and Taiwan Independence Victimology
On April 17, 1895, a newly industrialized Meiji Japan held a gun to China's head and forced the technologically eclipsed, militarily defenseless Qing court to sign the humiliating Makuan Treaty, or Treaty of Shimonoseki. Among its many concessions, the treaty ceded the Chinese island of Taiwan to Japan.
Fast forward 110 years, to 2005.
The Pan Green political leadership has turned the Makuan Treaty into a cornerstone of Taiwan independence victimology. These "yong gan di tai wan ren" (brave Taiwanese) insist that the motherland was too cowardly and sacrificed Taiwan too readily. Therefore, they argue, Chinese on Taiwan should feel nothing for the motherland except contempt. Chinese on Taiwan should henceforth think of themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese." "Taiwanese" should establish their own nation independent of "wai lai zheng quan" (foreign political authorities), i.e., their own motherland's. "Taiwanese" should firmly align themselves with "strategic ally" and "fellow democracy" Japan. Only then will "Taiwanese" be able to "zhan qi lai" (stand tall), "zou chu qu" (walk out into the sunlight), and enjoy "zun yan" (respect).
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
Taiwanese fishing ships have repeatedly been expelled or detained by Japanese patrol vessels over the past two years after Japan readjusted and expanded its exclusive economic zone to as close as 37km off the coasts of Ilan and Hualien counties.
-- Fisherman's family asks for help to pay Japanese fine, Central News Agency, June 21, 2005
The Diaoyutai Islands
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Promised Land. Reality reared its ugly head. "Strategic Ally" and "fellow democracy" Japan annexed the Taiwanese island of Diaoyutai, along with waters a mere 37km off the northern coast of Taiwan. Japanese Coast Guard vessels intercepted Taiwanese fishing vessels found in "Japanese waters." Armed Japanese Coast Guard personnel arrested Taiwanese fishermen, forced them to kneel before their captors, slapped them in the face, spit on them, and screamed racial epithets in their ears. Japanese authorities impounded Taiwanese fishing boats and levied fines amounting to tens of thousands of US dollars on their owners.
How have Pan Green political leaders responded? Former president and Pan Green Godfather Lee Teng-hui declared that "Diaoyutai belongs to Japan." "President" Chen Shui-bian declared that "The issue of fishing rights must be delinked from the issue of territorial sovereignty," implicitly conceding Japan's annexation of Taiwanese territory. "Vice-president" Annette Lu attempted to divert public anger from Tokyo to Beijing, in defiance of the fact that it was Japan, not mainland China that had annexed Taiwanese territory and abused Taiwanese fishermen. "Premier" Frank Hsieh, clueless about the fact that Taiwanese fishing boats have had GPS for years, offered to provide Taiwanese fishermen with GPS so they wouldn't "inadvertently stray into Japanese waters." Minister of Defense Lee Jye rejected demands from Taiwanese fishermen for ROC Navy intervention, complaining that "We can't fight Japan because the ROC military can never win against Japan's Self-Defense forces."
Diaoyutai Belongs to Taiwan, not Japan
The answer to the question, "To whom does Diaoyutai belong?" is: "Diaoyutai belongs to Taiwan."
Diaoyutai (in Hanyu Pinying) or Tiaoyutai (in Wade-Giles) is part of Touchen Township. Touchen township is part of Yilan County. Yilan County is part of the Province of Taiwan. The Province of Taiwan is part of the nation of China. The official website of the Republic of China Post Office lists the postal code for the island as "290, Diaoyutai Archipelago."
Pale Green Taiwan independence Quislings will argue that Taiwan does not belong to the People's Republic of China. Deep Green Taiwan independence Quislings will argue that Taiwan does even not belong to the Republic of China. Both arguments are irrelevant. Both arguments are beside the point. The current conflict between Taiwanese fishermen and the Japanese Coast Guard is not about whether Taiwan is part of the PRC or the ROC. The current conflict between Taiwanese fishermen and the Japanese Coast Guard is about whether Diaoyutai is part of Taiwan or Japan.
Even Pan Green Quislings cannot argue that Diaoyutai does not belong to Touchen Township. Even Pan Green Quislings cannot argue that Touchen Township does not belong to Yilan County. Even Pan Green Quislings cannot argue that Yilan County does not belong to Taiwan. Pan Green Quislings will argue that Taiwan does not belong to China, but even Pan Green Quislings cannot convincingly argue that Diaoyutai belongs to Japan.
For that matter, even right wing Japanese militarists cannot argue that Diaoyutai belongs to Japan. In 1931, while Taiwan was under Japanese occupation, Taipei County and Okinawa Prefecture quarreled over the jurisdiction of Diaoyutai. A Tokyo court decided in favor of Taipei County. This proves that even during Japanese occupation Daioyutai was part of Taiwan. Therefore when WWII ended in 1945, and in accordance with the Cairo Conference Japan returned Taiwan and Penghu to China, it was simultaneously obliged to return Diaoyutai - a part of Taiwan - to China.
Whether one is a Pan Blue defender of the Republic of China, or a Pan Green agitator for a would-be "Republic of Taiwan," one fact is beyond dispute. Diaoyutai is not part of Japan. Diaoyutai is part of Taiwan. Officials of the government of the Republic of China, and even would-be officials of a would-be "Republic of Taiwan" are legally and morally obligated to defend Diaoyutai against Japanese attempts at annexation.
Taiwanese fishermen are so disgusted with the Pan Green leadership's pusillanimous response to Japanese bullying, they have threatened to fly PRC flags instead of ROC flags, knowing that the Japanese Coast Guard is more deferential, less contemptuous toward mainland Chinese fishing boats under the protection of the PLA Navy.
However contemptuous one might feel about Li Hongzhang and the Qing court, they at least fought a war and were defeated before surrendering precious national territory. Pan Green Quislings are giving up without even a fight!
For additional evidence that Diaoyutai belongs to China, see:
Tiaoyutai is Chinese Territory!
Japanization and Pan Green Self-Delusion
War preparations made it necessary for Japan to change its colonial policy in Taiwan... In 1935 Admiral Seizo Kobayashi was appointed governor-general. Japanization ["huang min hua"] was his top priority. Admiral Kobayashi kicked off his Japanization campaign on April 1, 1937 by banishing Chinese from all publications in Taiwan. The campaign aimed at assimilating Taiwan Chinese through requiring them to use Japanese alone in their daily lives, Japanizing their names, and adopting Shintoism and Japanese customs. Taiwan Chinese were encouraged to wear kimono, visit Shinto shrines regularly, and otherwise look every inch like Japanese. Compulsory attendance at Shinto shrines was rigidly enforced. Every Taiwanese household was required to display a kamidana (god shelf) with a miniature Shinto shrine containing taima, a paper charm with the name of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu Omikami on it. Celebration of Chinese festivals was discouraged... Indoctrination in the Japanese spirit was a required course in schools of all levels. Army officers on active duty supervised military training at middle schools and above.
-- Plan started to found Asia's first republic, by Joe Hung, China Post, 2002
That the Pan Green leadership has found itself in its current quandary is hardly an accident. That the Pan Green leadership has painted itself into its current political corner is the predictable result of Pan Green self-delusion, in turn the poisonous legacy of late occupation era Japanization.
Consider the following June 26, 2005 Liberty Times editorial, entitled "Distinguishing friends from foes."
"Taiwan must learn to recognize its friends from its foes [sic] ...if Taiwan cannot distinguish between friend and enemy it may be cast aside by allies and create an opportunity for its enemies to close in. Who are Taiwan's friends? In the international community where self-interest tops everything else, the friendship of Taiwan's allies is especially precious... the US and Japan... share common strategic interests and are therefore close partners with us... the joint US-Japanese declaration that the Taiwan issue is of strategic importance is further evidence of this partnership. Who are Taiwan's enemies? The People's Republic of China is the enemy... The fishery dispute with Japan did not begin yesterday... But the friendship of the two countries should outside differences of opinion, and negotiaing a mutually beneficial solution is the way to resolve the situation.[sic]"
Or consider the following July 9, 2005 Taiwan News editorial entitled "Love and hate in Taiwan-Japan ties."
"The people of Taiwan must take clear stock of who presents the greatest threat to their democratic way of life or, in brief, just where our real enemies are. Displaying weakness toward one's genuine foes and turning a fierce and hate-filled face toward Japan, which is now on balance Taiwan's friend in international and security affairs, is not the best way to promote Taiwan's overall interests, including the maintenance of our autonomy, our democratic political system or the economic welfare of our citizens. In this current flap over fishing rights, the Taiwan people can choose to use love or to use hate toward the people of Japan. Our decision whether to use the spirit of "love" to find a way to mutually live and fish together or adopt a stance of "hate" or exclusion of compromise will display the political wisdom of the Taiwan people and may exercise a lasting influence the future relations between our two countries.[sic]"
Never mind the Pan Green Quislings' embarrassingly inept "Chinglish," or "Chinese English." Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' really serious self-delusions.
Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' desperate, one-sided love affair with Taiwan's past colonial exploiter and present foreign aggressor, Japan. Just look at the Pan Green Quisling's pathetic conviction that acquiescing in Japan's annexation of Diaoyutai is an acceptable trade for "mutual security," against their own countrymen, no less. Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' unrealistic hope that Japan will come riding to the rescue if they ever declare formal independence. Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' willful blindness to the fact that right wing Japanese militarists hold Taiwanese in utter contempt, and are merely using their former colonial subjects as expendable pawns against their hated strategic rival, China. Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' refusal to acknowledge that ever since the Meiji Restoration, when Japan's economy surpassed China's for the first time in history, right wing Japan militarists have considered the Chinese people congenitally inferior, Taiwanese (Chinese on Taiwan) included.
Governor-General Kobayashi, who inaugurated the colonial authority's Japanization campaign on April 1, 1937, apparently had a sense of humor. April 1st, after all, is April Fools Day. Kobayashi told Chinese on Taiwan that "Although Chinese were congenitally inferior to Japanese, Chinese who repudiated their Chinese identities would be promoted to Japanese, Second Class." In short, Kobayashi perpetrated the biggest, most successful April Fools Day joke in the world. Sixty-eight years later, Taiwan independence Quislings who watch passively as Japan gobbles up Taiwanese territory before their eyes, still haven't gotten the joke.
Respect, Self-Respect, Self-Affirmation
It is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another... it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character... There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists... leads also to concessions to the favorite nation... by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained... it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country... Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter... Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people...
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
George Washington, a visionary genius who won the Thirteen Colonies' independence from their exploitive colonial master, the virtually invincible British Empire, understood the harsh realities of international power politics. The passage from Washington's Farewell Address, written 209 years ago, could well have been composed written in direct response to the Pan Green Quislings' fawning adoration of Japan and shrill enmity toward their own motherland and their compatriots.
Nothing is wrong with Taiwanese (Chinese people on Taiwan) wanting to stand tall, walk out into the sunlight, and enjoy respect. This is a perfectly laudable, completely understandable, highly desirable goal.
During KMT Party Chairman Lien Chan's stunningly successful "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland, CCP Party Secretary Hu Jintao explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of Taiwanese wanting to "dang jia zuo zhu" (be masters in their own home).
Demands from Taiwanese for respect are not a problem. Within the framework of One China, as former PRC Premier Zhu Rongji once underscored, all kinds of concessions can be made, because any concessions would be made to one's fellow countrymen.
Demands for respect are a problem only when, as George Washington put it, "ambitious, corrupted, or deluded (i.e., Japanized) citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation (Japan)... betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country (China)."
Respect entails self-respect. Before others will respect you, you must first respect yourself. Self-respect in turn, entails self-affirmation. If one respects oneself, one will have no hesitation affirming who one is.
A reluctance to affirm who one is, a determination to pretend one is something one is not, is symptomatic of a deep-seated lack of self-respect. If one is reluctant to affirm who one is, if one is determined to pretend one is something one is not, one has already invalidated oneself at one's very core. Nothing one can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.
The reluctance of Pan Green Quislings to affirm that they are Chinese, their stubborn insistence that they are "Taiwanese, not Chinese," their pathetic attempts to spin themselves as "quasi-Japanese," are all symptoms of the Pan Green Quislings' profound lack of self-respect. Pan Green Quislings who refuse to affirm who they are, who insist on pretending they are something they are not, have already invalidated themselves at their very core. Nothing they can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.
That right wing Japanese militarists are the ones least likely to grant Pan Green Quislings the respect they crave must be a bitter pill for them to swallow. Japanization was never a naturalization policy. Japanization was never a means of turning Taiwanese into Japanese, Second Class; Japanese, Third Class; or Japanese, Any Class. Japanization was a "divide and conquer" strategy that stroked the egos of Taiwanese Quislings, pretending to elevate them above their mainland compatriots. Japanization was a means of turning Taiwanese into tamed beasts of burden. Japanization was a carrot held out before "Taiwanese, not Chinese" donkeys to get them to pull the Japanese war machine's cart, and feel good about doing it.
Japan's flagrant attempt to annex Diaoyutai is a wake-up call. It is a call for Pan Green Quislings to snap out of their Taiwan independence pipe dream. It is a call for Pan Green Quislings to understand that if they want to stand tall, walk out into the sunlight, and enjoy respect, they must stop trying to be Japanese, No Class. They must do the very thing they were brainwashed into considering unthinkable. They must return to their motherland and boldly reaffirm their identity as Chinese, First Class.
Bevin Chu
July 7, 2005
Executive Summary: In 1895, a militarily powerful, territorially expansionist, post-Tokugawa Japan held a gun to China's head and forced the Manchu court to sign the Makuan Treaty, ceding the island of Taiwan to Japan. Pan Green Quislings have since turned the treaty into a key justification for Taiwan independence. China relinquished Taiwan far too readily, they argue. Who wants to be associated with such a gutless nation? Far wiser to identify with the winning side, Japan. Fast forward to 2005. Fate, in its infinite wisdom, has presented the Pan Green Quislings with the same dilemma as the Qing court. A militarily powerful, territorially expansionist, post-Cold War Japan is holding a gun to the Chen regime's head and demanding that it cede the Taiwanese island of Diaoyutai. Pan Green Quislings, who long ago tranferred their loyalties to Japan, are bewildered. Japan, in their hearts and minds, is their adopted country. Why is it treating them so shabbily? Pan Green Quislings just don't get it. Individual exceptions aside, Japan has never considered the Chinese people on Taiwan "their people." They have always considered them a genetically inferior subject race. The Pan Green Quislings' infatuation with Japan is a one-sided, unreciprocated love affair. Taiwan is a "valued ally of Japan" only in the Pan Green Quislings' dreams. Pan Green Quislings will never enjoy the dignity they demand until they do the very thing they consider inconceivable -- return to the motherland and reaffirm their identity as Chinese.
The Treaty of Shimonoseki and Taiwan Independence Victimology
On April 17, 1895, a newly industrialized Meiji Japan held a gun to China's head and forced the technologically eclipsed, militarily defenseless Qing court to sign the humiliating Makuan Treaty, or Treaty of Shimonoseki. Among its many concessions, the treaty ceded the Chinese island of Taiwan to Japan.
Fast forward 110 years, to 2005.
The Pan Green political leadership has turned the Makuan Treaty into a cornerstone of Taiwan independence victimology. These "yong gan di tai wan ren" (brave Taiwanese) insist that the motherland was too cowardly and sacrificed Taiwan too readily. Therefore, they argue, Chinese on Taiwan should feel nothing for the motherland except contempt. Chinese on Taiwan should henceforth think of themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese." "Taiwanese" should establish their own nation independent of "wai lai zheng quan" (foreign political authorities), i.e., their own motherland's. "Taiwanese" should firmly align themselves with "strategic ally" and "fellow democracy" Japan. Only then will "Taiwanese" be able to "zhan qi lai" (stand tall), "zou chu qu" (walk out into the sunlight), and enjoy "zun yan" (respect).
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
Taiwanese fishing ships have repeatedly been expelled or detained by Japanese patrol vessels over the past two years after Japan readjusted and expanded its exclusive economic zone to as close as 37km off the coasts of Ilan and Hualien counties.
-- Fisherman's family asks for help to pay Japanese fine, Central News Agency, June 21, 2005
The Diaoyutai Islands
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Promised Land. Reality reared its ugly head. "Strategic Ally" and "fellow democracy" Japan annexed the Taiwanese island of Diaoyutai, along with waters a mere 37km off the northern coast of Taiwan. Japanese Coast Guard vessels intercepted Taiwanese fishing vessels found in "Japanese waters." Armed Japanese Coast Guard personnel arrested Taiwanese fishermen, forced them to kneel before their captors, slapped them in the face, spit on them, and screamed racial epithets in their ears. Japanese authorities impounded Taiwanese fishing boats and levied fines amounting to tens of thousands of US dollars on their owners.
How have Pan Green political leaders responded? Former president and Pan Green Godfather Lee Teng-hui declared that "Diaoyutai belongs to Japan." "President" Chen Shui-bian declared that "The issue of fishing rights must be delinked from the issue of territorial sovereignty," implicitly conceding Japan's annexation of Taiwanese territory. "Vice-president" Annette Lu attempted to divert public anger from Tokyo to Beijing, in defiance of the fact that it was Japan, not mainland China that had annexed Taiwanese territory and abused Taiwanese fishermen. "Premier" Frank Hsieh, clueless about the fact that Taiwanese fishing boats have had GPS for years, offered to provide Taiwanese fishermen with GPS so they wouldn't "inadvertently stray into Japanese waters." Minister of Defense Lee Jye rejected demands from Taiwanese fishermen for ROC Navy intervention, complaining that "We can't fight Japan because the ROC military can never win against Japan's Self-Defense forces."
Diaoyutai Belongs to Taiwan, not Japan
The answer to the question, "To whom does Diaoyutai belong?" is: "Diaoyutai belongs to Taiwan."
Diaoyutai (in Hanyu Pinying) or Tiaoyutai (in Wade-Giles) is part of Touchen Township. Touchen township is part of Yilan County. Yilan County is part of the Province of Taiwan. The Province of Taiwan is part of the nation of China. The official website of the Republic of China Post Office lists the postal code for the island as "290, Diaoyutai Archipelago."
Pale Green Taiwan independence Quislings will argue that Taiwan does not belong to the People's Republic of China. Deep Green Taiwan independence Quislings will argue that Taiwan does even not belong to the Republic of China. Both arguments are irrelevant. Both arguments are beside the point. The current conflict between Taiwanese fishermen and the Japanese Coast Guard is not about whether Taiwan is part of the PRC or the ROC. The current conflict between Taiwanese fishermen and the Japanese Coast Guard is about whether Diaoyutai is part of Taiwan or Japan.
Even Pan Green Quislings cannot argue that Diaoyutai does not belong to Touchen Township. Even Pan Green Quislings cannot argue that Touchen Township does not belong to Yilan County. Even Pan Green Quislings cannot argue that Yilan County does not belong to Taiwan. Pan Green Quislings will argue that Taiwan does not belong to China, but even Pan Green Quislings cannot convincingly argue that Diaoyutai belongs to Japan.
For that matter, even right wing Japanese militarists cannot argue that Diaoyutai belongs to Japan. In 1931, while Taiwan was under Japanese occupation, Taipei County and Okinawa Prefecture quarreled over the jurisdiction of Diaoyutai. A Tokyo court decided in favor of Taipei County. This proves that even during Japanese occupation Daioyutai was part of Taiwan. Therefore when WWII ended in 1945, and in accordance with the Cairo Conference Japan returned Taiwan and Penghu to China, it was simultaneously obliged to return Diaoyutai - a part of Taiwan - to China.
Whether one is a Pan Blue defender of the Republic of China, or a Pan Green agitator for a would-be "Republic of Taiwan," one fact is beyond dispute. Diaoyutai is not part of Japan. Diaoyutai is part of Taiwan. Officials of the government of the Republic of China, and even would-be officials of a would-be "Republic of Taiwan" are legally and morally obligated to defend Diaoyutai against Japanese attempts at annexation.
Taiwanese fishermen are so disgusted with the Pan Green leadership's pusillanimous response to Japanese bullying, they have threatened to fly PRC flags instead of ROC flags, knowing that the Japanese Coast Guard is more deferential, less contemptuous toward mainland Chinese fishing boats under the protection of the PLA Navy.
However contemptuous one might feel about Li Hongzhang and the Qing court, they at least fought a war and were defeated before surrendering precious national territory. Pan Green Quislings are giving up without even a fight!
For additional evidence that Diaoyutai belongs to China, see:
Tiaoyutai is Chinese Territory!
Japanization and Pan Green Self-Delusion
War preparations made it necessary for Japan to change its colonial policy in Taiwan... In 1935 Admiral Seizo Kobayashi was appointed governor-general. Japanization ["huang min hua"] was his top priority. Admiral Kobayashi kicked off his Japanization campaign on April 1, 1937 by banishing Chinese from all publications in Taiwan. The campaign aimed at assimilating Taiwan Chinese through requiring them to use Japanese alone in their daily lives, Japanizing their names, and adopting Shintoism and Japanese customs. Taiwan Chinese were encouraged to wear kimono, visit Shinto shrines regularly, and otherwise look every inch like Japanese. Compulsory attendance at Shinto shrines was rigidly enforced. Every Taiwanese household was required to display a kamidana (god shelf) with a miniature Shinto shrine containing taima, a paper charm with the name of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu Omikami on it. Celebration of Chinese festivals was discouraged... Indoctrination in the Japanese spirit was a required course in schools of all levels. Army officers on active duty supervised military training at middle schools and above.
-- Plan started to found Asia's first republic, by Joe Hung, China Post, 2002
That the Pan Green leadership has found itself in its current quandary is hardly an accident. That the Pan Green leadership has painted itself into its current political corner is the predictable result of Pan Green self-delusion, in turn the poisonous legacy of late occupation era Japanization.
Consider the following June 26, 2005 Liberty Times editorial, entitled "Distinguishing friends from foes."
"Taiwan must learn to recognize its friends from its foes [sic] ...if Taiwan cannot distinguish between friend and enemy it may be cast aside by allies and create an opportunity for its enemies to close in. Who are Taiwan's friends? In the international community where self-interest tops everything else, the friendship of Taiwan's allies is especially precious... the US and Japan... share common strategic interests and are therefore close partners with us... the joint US-Japanese declaration that the Taiwan issue is of strategic importance is further evidence of this partnership. Who are Taiwan's enemies? The People's Republic of China is the enemy... The fishery dispute with Japan did not begin yesterday... But the friendship of the two countries should outside differences of opinion, and negotiaing a mutually beneficial solution is the way to resolve the situation.[sic]"
Or consider the following July 9, 2005 Taiwan News editorial entitled "Love and hate in Taiwan-Japan ties."
"The people of Taiwan must take clear stock of who presents the greatest threat to their democratic way of life or, in brief, just where our real enemies are. Displaying weakness toward one's genuine foes and turning a fierce and hate-filled face toward Japan, which is now on balance Taiwan's friend in international and security affairs, is not the best way to promote Taiwan's overall interests, including the maintenance of our autonomy, our democratic political system or the economic welfare of our citizens. In this current flap over fishing rights, the Taiwan people can choose to use love or to use hate toward the people of Japan. Our decision whether to use the spirit of "love" to find a way to mutually live and fish together or adopt a stance of "hate" or exclusion of compromise will display the political wisdom of the Taiwan people and may exercise a lasting influence the future relations between our two countries.[sic]"
Never mind the Pan Green Quislings' embarrassingly inept "Chinglish," or "Chinese English." Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' really serious self-delusions.
Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' desperate, one-sided love affair with Taiwan's past colonial exploiter and present foreign aggressor, Japan. Just look at the Pan Green Quisling's pathetic conviction that acquiescing in Japan's annexation of Diaoyutai is an acceptable trade for "mutual security," against their own countrymen, no less. Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' unrealistic hope that Japan will come riding to the rescue if they ever declare formal independence. Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' willful blindness to the fact that right wing Japanese militarists hold Taiwanese in utter contempt, and are merely using their former colonial subjects as expendable pawns against their hated strategic rival, China. Just look at the Pan Green Quislings' refusal to acknowledge that ever since the Meiji Restoration, when Japan's economy surpassed China's for the first time in history, right wing Japan militarists have considered the Chinese people congenitally inferior, Taiwanese (Chinese on Taiwan) included.
Governor-General Kobayashi, who inaugurated the colonial authority's Japanization campaign on April 1, 1937, apparently had a sense of humor. April 1st, after all, is April Fools Day. Kobayashi told Chinese on Taiwan that "Although Chinese were congenitally inferior to Japanese, Chinese who repudiated their Chinese identities would be promoted to Japanese, Second Class." In short, Kobayashi perpetrated the biggest, most successful April Fools Day joke in the world. Sixty-eight years later, Taiwan independence Quislings who watch passively as Japan gobbles up Taiwanese territory before their eyes, still haven't gotten the joke.
Respect, Self-Respect, Self-Affirmation
It is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another... it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character... There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists... leads also to concessions to the favorite nation... by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained... it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country... Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter... Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people...
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
George Washington, a visionary genius who won the Thirteen Colonies' independence from their exploitive colonial master, the virtually invincible British Empire, understood the harsh realities of international power politics. The passage from Washington's Farewell Address, written 209 years ago, could well have been composed written in direct response to the Pan Green Quislings' fawning adoration of Japan and shrill enmity toward their own motherland and their compatriots.
Nothing is wrong with Taiwanese (Chinese people on Taiwan) wanting to stand tall, walk out into the sunlight, and enjoy respect. This is a perfectly laudable, completely understandable, highly desirable goal.
During KMT Party Chairman Lien Chan's stunningly successful "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland, CCP Party Secretary Hu Jintao explicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of Taiwanese wanting to "dang jia zuo zhu" (be masters in their own home).
Demands from Taiwanese for respect are not a problem. Within the framework of One China, as former PRC Premier Zhu Rongji once underscored, all kinds of concessions can be made, because any concessions would be made to one's fellow countrymen.
Demands for respect are a problem only when, as George Washington put it, "ambitious, corrupted, or deluded (i.e., Japanized) citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation (Japan)... betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country (China)."
Respect entails self-respect. Before others will respect you, you must first respect yourself. Self-respect in turn, entails self-affirmation. If one respects oneself, one will have no hesitation affirming who one is.
A reluctance to affirm who one is, a determination to pretend one is something one is not, is symptomatic of a deep-seated lack of self-respect. If one is reluctant to affirm who one is, if one is determined to pretend one is something one is not, one has already invalidated oneself at one's very core. Nothing one can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.
The reluctance of Pan Green Quislings to affirm that they are Chinese, their stubborn insistence that they are "Taiwanese, not Chinese," their pathetic attempts to spin themselves as "quasi-Japanese," are all symptoms of the Pan Green Quislings' profound lack of self-respect. Pan Green Quislings who refuse to affirm who they are, who insist on pretending they are something they are not, have already invalidated themselves at their very core. Nothing they can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.
That right wing Japanese militarists are the ones least likely to grant Pan Green Quislings the respect they crave must be a bitter pill for them to swallow. Japanization was never a naturalization policy. Japanization was never a means of turning Taiwanese into Japanese, Second Class; Japanese, Third Class; or Japanese, Any Class. Japanization was a "divide and conquer" strategy that stroked the egos of Taiwanese Quislings, pretending to elevate them above their mainland compatriots. Japanization was a means of turning Taiwanese into tamed beasts of burden. Japanization was a carrot held out before "Taiwanese, not Chinese" donkeys to get them to pull the Japanese war machine's cart, and feel good about doing it.
Japan's flagrant attempt to annex Diaoyutai is a wake-up call. It is a call for Pan Green Quislings to snap out of their Taiwan independence pipe dream. It is a call for Pan Green Quislings to understand that if they want to stand tall, walk out into the sunlight, and enjoy respect, they must stop trying to be Japanese, No Class. They must do the very thing they were brainwashed into considering unthinkable. They must return to their motherland and boldly reaffirm their identity as Chinese, First Class.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
East and West Germany, East and West China
East and West Germany, East and West China
Bevin Chu
June 20, 2005
Executive Summary: German reunification or "Deutsche Wiedervereinigung" took place on October 3, 1990, when the German Democratic Republic, better known as East Germany, was merged into the Federal Republic of Germany, better known as West Germany. The reunification of East and West Germany was a shining moment in history. Millions the world over, even non-Germans who had no emotional investment in Germany's political reintegration, sensed the rightness of the event and rejoiced. Human beings artificially segregated by the defunct Cold War had been reunited. The reunification of East China, better known as the Republic of China, and West China, better known as the People's Republic of China, involving one-fifth of the world's population, will be an even more memorable event in history. Why then do many people perceive Chinese reunification as something less than desirable? Part of the answer lies in the perception that there is no "West China," there is only "China," and there is no "East China," there is only "Taiwan."
CN vs. TW
Above all it is essential to refer to things by their correct names. If things are not referred to by their correct names, then our language will not reflect reality. If our language does not reflect reality, then our actions will not reflect reality, and will be exercises in futility.
-- Confucius, The Analects, Chapter 13, Verse 3
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... the process is reversible... If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration... the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
-- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
On the internet "China" is abbreviated CN, and "Taiwan" is abbreviated TW. These are the famous, or perhaps infamous ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes, created by the International Standards Organization. They are the best known part of ISO, and were subsequently used as country codes for Internet domain names.
Unfortunately, this manner of referring to the two Chinese political regimes vying for the title of legitimate ruler of all China is dangerously misleading. It implies that the PRC or People's Republic of China comprises only the continental portion of China, and that the ROC or Republic of China comprises only the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan. Even worse, it implies that something named "Taiwan," which does not even contain the word "China," has nothing to do with China. Worst of all, it implies that Chinese people living on Taiwan are "Taiwanese, not Chinese," and that only those Chinese people living on the Chinese mainland are "Chinese." As Orwell noted, the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
North vs. South, East vs. West
Far less misleading are the terms applied to North and South Korea, the former North and South Vietnam, and the former East and West Germany. These unofficial names adopted by the general public imply correctly that both sides are parts of the same nation, even though they might be living under rival political regimes, and both populations are the same people.
ISO's use of "TW" and "CN" in internet abbreviations is not the result of any "vast, right-wing conspiracy," but merely the result of semantic imprecision by an organization insufficiently sensitive to subtle political distinctions concerning a foreign nation.
The ubiquitous use of "Taiwan vs. China" instead of "Taiwan vs. mainland China" in the US major media on the other hand, is anything but innocent. It is too often the calculated result of Taiwan independence spin control.
Whether the terms being tossed around are TW and CN, or Taiwan and China, it is all harmless enough as long as abetting Taiwan independence is not the ulterior motive. Unfortunately abetting Taiwan independence often is the ulterior motive, at which time the "CN vs. TW" formulation becomes a source of infinite mischief.
Taiwan is part of China
Tasmania is part of Australia, as The Australian is keeping the nation informed
Let me be perfectly clear. The counterpart to "Taiwan" is not "China," but "mainland China" or "the Chinese mainland." To refer to "Taiwan vs. China" is akin to referring to "Tasmania vs. Australia." Since Tasmania is part of Australia, how can one possibly speak of "Tasmania vs. Australia?" Similarly, since Taiwan is part of China, how can one possibly speak of "Taiwan vs. China?" Consider how an online travel guide with no political axe to grind puts it:
"Island Airlines Tasmania flies to Flinders Island. King Island Airlines and TasAir fly to King Island. Both islands are directly accessible from the Australian mainland, as well as from Tasmania."
Notice the wording? The travel guide correctly says "from the Australian mainland, as well as from Tasmania." It doesn't say "from Australia, as well as from Tasmania."
Was that so difficult?
Why not East China vs. West China?
Following Japan's defeat by Allied forces in WWII, predominantly the US and China, Korea was partitioned along the 38th Parallel Demilitarized Zone or DMZ. The Democratic Republic of Korea (DRK) to the north became known as North Korea, while the Republic of Korea (ROK) to the south became known as South Korea.
Following France's defeat by the Vietminh at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam was partitioned along the 17th Parallel Demilitarized Zone or DMZ. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN) to the north became known as North Vietnam, while the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) to the south became known as South Vietnam.
Following Germany's defeat by Allied forces in WWII, predominantly the Soviet Union, Germany was partitioned along a 1381 km long "Zonengrenze" (Zone Border), "Innerdeutsche Grenze" (Inner-German Border), or "Deutsch-Deutsche Grenze" (German-German Border). The German Democratic Republic (GDR) to the east became known as East Germany, while the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to the west became known as West Germany.
Following Japan's defeat in 1945, Taiwan was retroceded to China. Following the KMT's defeat by the CCP in the Chinese Civil War, China was partitioned more or less down the middle of the 130 km wide Taiwan Strait. I say "more or less" because the reality is a little more complicated than that. The Republic of China (ROC) to the east became known as "Nationalist China" or "Free China," while the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the west became known as "Communist China" or "Red China."
These Cold War era terms for East and West China were ironically far more descriptive and far less misleading than the post Cold War terms: "Taiwan" and "China."
Why didn't the Republic of China to the east become known as East China, and the People's Republic of China to the west become known as West China? For several reasons.
Disparity in Size
North and South Vietnam were roughly the same size, in both land area and in population. North and South Korea are roughly the same size, in both land area and in population. East and West Germany were roughly the same size, in both land area and in population.
East and West China, by contrast, are nowhere near the same size, in either land area or population.
The largest single land mass under the effective jurisdiction of East China is the relatively tiny Chinese island of Taiwan. The largest single land mass under the effective jurisdiction of West China is the vast expanse of the Chinese mainland.
West China is almost 300 times the size of East China in land area. West China is almost 60 times the size of East China in population.
This extreme disparity in both land area and population between East China and West China has contributed to the false and dangerous perception that mainland China is "China," whereas Taiwan is merely "Taiwan."
Separation by a Body of Water
North and South Vietnam were geographically contiguous. They were separated only by an invisible line on the map, the 17th Parallel. North and South Korea are geographically contiguous. They are separated only by an invisible line on the map, the 38th Parallel. East and West Germany were geographically contiguous. They were separated only by an invisible line on the map, the "Zonengrenze" or "Zone Border." Barbed wire fences and concrete walls were later erected along the 38th Parallel DMZ and the Zonengrenze, making them visible to the eye, but fundamentally these lines had no natural physical correlates.
East and West China, by contrast, are separated by a natural geographical barrier, the 130 km wide Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Strait was known by Ming dynasty emigrants from southern Fujian as the "Hei Shui Gou" or "Black Water Ditch." In the popular imagination it constituted an intimidating natural barrier.
Taiwan independence advocates exploit Taiwan's geographical separation from the mainland to the hilt. They insinuate that because Taiwan is geographically separated from the mainland, therefore it is politically separate from the mainland. The fact that the largest land mass under the effective jurisdiction of East China is an island, and has a name, "Taiwan," has allowed Taiwan independence Quislings to latch onto this geographical term and misrepresent it as the name of a political entity. Taiwan independence Quislings don't make this case explicitly. They know it won't stand up to logical scrutiny. Nevertheless they rely heavily on the physical separation to reinforce the subjective impression of political separation.
Physical separation by a body of water hardly constitutes a justification for political independence, certainly not in and of itself.
If merely being separated from the motherland by water constituted a justification for political independence, then the United States would have to forfeit its claims to Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Midway Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Wake Island.
Hawaii is separated from the continental US by roughly 5,000 km of ocean. Is that any reason for demanding Hawaiian independence? Hardly. Hawaiian independence has far stronger justifications rooted in history.
Guam is so far to the west of the continental United States it is closer to mainland China. Should Guam be transferred to China on the basis of geographical proximity? On the basis that more ocean separates Guam from the continental United States than separates Guam from mainland China?
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then Japan would have to be partitioned into at least four nations, Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyu-shu; and as many as 3,000 nations.
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then the Philippines would have to be politically partitioned into at least three separate nations, Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, and as many as 7,000 nations.
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then Indonesia would have to be politically partitioned into at least five separate nations, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, New Guinea, and Sulawesi, and as many as 18,000 nations!
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then Australia would have to forfeit its claim to Tasmania.
Obviously physical separation by water is no justification for political independence. East China, i.e., Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu are every bit as much a part of China as if they were geographically contiguous with the Chinese mainland.
United Nations Security Council Membership
On October 25, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly passed its fateful Resolution 2758, withdrawing recognition of the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China, and recognizing the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of China.
Whether one agrees with the wisdom of this decision on the part of the member nations of the UN General Assembly, the fact is Resolution 2758 absolutely, positively did not create a sovereign and independent "nation of Taiwan." Resolution 2758 did not create "One China and One Taiwan." Resolution 2758 did not create "Two Chinas."
Resolution 2758 asserted that the Republic of China was legally defunct and that everything that once belonged to the Republic of China in Taipei, was now the legal inheritance of the People's Republic of China in Beijing. Resolution 2758, in other words, recognized that Taiwan was now part of the the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China.
What the world had now was not "One China and One Taiwan." What the world had now was not "Two Chinas." What the world had now was One China, just like before. Taiwan was part of that One China, just like before. The only difference was that, at least in the eyes of the member nations of the UN, that One China was under new management, the CCP in Beijing, and had a new company name, the PRC.
Alas, replacing the ROC with the PRC had an unanticipated and highly undesirable side-effect. Stripping the ROC of its mantle as the legitimate government of China unintentionally helped reify "Taiwan" as a proper noun, as the name of a political entity.
West China, having replaced East China as the legitimate government of China in the UN, now became "China." East China, having been replaced by West China as the legitimate government of China in the UN, now became "Taiwan." In the eyes of the UN, West China was now China's central government. In the eyes of the UN, East China was now a discredited pretender. Or, if not a pretender, merely a local political authority.
Taiwan independence spin controllers however promptly spun East China's catastrophic replacement as the legitimate government of China by West China as an affirmation of the rightness of Taiwan independence. They spun "Taiwan" not as a province of either West China or East China, but as an independent political entity. They've been doing it ever since.
Sovereignty vs. Jurisdiction
sov·er·eign·ty
a nation or state's supreme power within its borders
ju·ris·dic·tion
Etymology: Latin jurisdictio, from juris, genitive of jus law + dictio act of saying, from dicere to say
the territorial range of authority or control
This brings us to a crucial point. Anyone who wishes to hold forth on Taiwan's legal status must understand and respect certain crucial legal distinctions. One of these is the distinction between "sovereignty" and "jurisdiction."
Sovereignty, in this context, refers to the territory that a nation or state insists are within its borders. Jurisdiction, in this context, refers to the territory over which a nation or state exercises control. Put simplistically, sovereignty means ownership, jurisdiction means control.
Taiwan independence Quislings have a predilection for mocking Chinese reunificationists who insist on this all too real legal distinction. Their motive for doing so is hardly a secret. They wish to conflate sovereignty with jurisdiction in order to reduce the Republic of China to "Taiwan." They wish to assert, against all constitutional law and international law conventions, that "sovereignty = jurisdiction." In fact of course, as constitutional law and international law experts know perfectly well, sovereignty does not equal jurisdiction.
The Taiwan independence Quislings' colonial masters for example -- Japan's right wing political elite -- would never concede for one second that "sovereignty = jurisdiction." If they did, Japan would immediately have to forfeit what Japan calls the "Northern Territories," and what Russia calls the "Southern Kuril Islands."
These islands are currently in the hands of Russia. Russia has jurisdiction over them. If "sovereignty = jurisdiction," as Taiwan independence Quislings allege, then Russia also has sovereignty over them. In other words, the islands belong to Russia. I seriously doubt that Japanese right wingers would agree that "sovereignty = jurisdiction." Whether Russia or Japan has sovereignty over these islands is one issue. Whether Russia or Japan has jurisdiction over these islands is another issue altogether. Whether the islands belong to Russia or Japan is something that Moscow and Tokyo will have to settle between themselves.
Another example is Tiaoyutai, or Diaoyutai in Hanyu Pinying. This island is currently in the clutches of Japan, which refers to it as "Senkaku." Tiaoyutai is part of Touchen Township. Touchen Township is part of Yilan County. Yilan County is party of the Province of Taiwan. The Province of Taiwan is part of China. The official website of the Republic of China Post Office lists the postal code for the island as "290, 釣魚台列嶼, Diaoyutai Archipelago." Whether the China that Tiaoyutai belongs to is going to be known as the ROC, the PRC, or just plain "China," remains in question. What is not in question is Tiaoyutai's sovereignty. Tiaoyutai belongs to China.
For ironclad evidence that Tiaoyutai belongs to China, see:
Tiaoyutai is Chinese Territory!
ROC Sovereignty includes the Chinese Mainland, PRC Sovereignty includes Taiwan
Too many laymen don't realize that what they refer to as "China" isn't the entirety of China, but merely what the Constitution of the Republic of China refers to as "the mainland area of the Republic of China."
Too many laymen don't realize that what they refer to as "Taiwan" isn't Taiwan at all, but what the Constitution of the Republic of China refers to as "the free area of the Republic of China."
The "free area of the Republic of China" has shrunk to a tiny fraction of what it once was. No one denies this sad fact. Nevertheless, contrary to popular opinion, the Republic of China's effective jurisdiction is not confined to the Chinese island of Taiwan.
In fact, the island of Taiwan is merely part of the jurisdiction of Nationalist China, Free China, or East China. The jurisdiction of East China includes not only Taiwan, but the Penghu Archipelago, Kinmen, Matsu, and numerous islets in the South China Sea.
The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes the Penghu Archipelago. The Penghu Archipelago is not part of the province of Taiwan. Penghu is an entirely separate administrative region.
The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes the islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kinmen and Matsu are not part of the province of Taiwan. Kinmen and Matsu are offshore islets belonging to the province of Fujian. The rest of Fujian is under the jurisdiction of Beijing.
The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes the Nansha Islands, referred to by some as "The Spratlys." The Nansha Islands are not part of the province of Taiwan. The Nanasha Islands are part of the Province of Hainan Island.
Therefore even though the Republic of China's jurisdiction has been drastically diminished, it can hardly be equated with the island of Taiwan. The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes land masses from at least three Chinese provinces. Taiwan is merely one of them. The others are Fujian and Hainan Island.
The Republic of China, for the umpteenth time, is not "Taiwan." The People's Republic of China, for the umpteenth time, is not "China."
Just as the former West Germany's sovereignty included territory under the jurisdiction of East Germany, so the Republic of China's sovereignty includes territory under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China. Conversely, just as the former East Germany's sovereignty included territory under the jurisdiction of West Germany, so the People's Republic of China's sovereignty includes territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China.
The world is not about to suddenly begin referring to the ROC as East China and the PRC as West China. But given the confusion sowed by the widespread use of the terminology, "China" vs. "Taiwan," one of the most constructive developments that could take place in cross-straits discourse, short of reunification, would be a return to the far more descriptive, far less misleading pre-1971 terminology, "Communist China" vs. "Nationalist China."
Chen Shui-bian, Are You Listening?
The Nobel Peace Prize 2000 Presentation Speech by Gunnar Berge, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, December 10, 2000.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for the year 2000 to Kim Dae-jung. He receives the prize for his lifelong work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular... Kim Dae-jung has had the will to break with fifty years of ingrained hostility, and to reach out a cooperative hand across what has probably been the world's most heavily guarded frontier. His has been the kind of personal and political courage which, regrettably, is all too often missing in other conflict-ridden regions... [Chen Shui-bian, are you listening?] Gunnar Roaldkvam, a writer from Stavanger, puts this so simply and so aptly in his poem "The last drop":
Once upon a time there were two drops of water;
one was the first, the other the last.
The first drop was the bravest.
I could quite fancy being the last drop,
the one that makes everything run over,
so that we get our freedom back.
But who wants to be the first drop?
Kim Dae-jung has been the prime mover behind the ongoing process of detente and reconciliation... his role can best be compared with Willy Brandt's, whose Ostpolitik was of such fundamental importance in the normalisation between the two German states, and won him the Peace Prize... The dialogue between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jung II at the Pyongyang summit last June led to more than loose declarations and airy rhetoric. [Chen Shui-bian, are you listening?] The pictures of family members meeting after five decades of separation made a deep impression all over the world... In most of the world, the cold war ice age is over. The world may see the sunshine policy thawing the last remnants of the cold war on the Korean peninsula. It may take time. But the process has begun, and no one has contributed more than today's Laureate, Kim Dae-jung. In the poet's words, "The first drop was the bravest."
No Guts, No Glory
When Chen Shui-bian was inaugurated in 2000, he told reporters that in his office he kept a photograph of Kim Dae-jung meeting with Kim Jong-il. The purpose of the photograph was to remind himself of his solemn duty to make peace across the Taiwan Straits.
Chen Shui-bian covets the Nobel Peace Prize. Chen knows what he must do to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. He knows he must do for East and West China what Willy Brandt did for East and West Germany, and what Kim Dae-jung did for North and South Korea. He must reject stubborn warmongering and embrace peaceful reunification.
Chen Shui-bian must be willing to be the first drop.
Unfortunately for Chen Shui-bian, that's the last thing he wants to do.
Bevin Chu
June 20, 2005
Executive Summary: German reunification or "Deutsche Wiedervereinigung" took place on October 3, 1990, when the German Democratic Republic, better known as East Germany, was merged into the Federal Republic of Germany, better known as West Germany. The reunification of East and West Germany was a shining moment in history. Millions the world over, even non-Germans who had no emotional investment in Germany's political reintegration, sensed the rightness of the event and rejoiced. Human beings artificially segregated by the defunct Cold War had been reunited. The reunification of East China, better known as the Republic of China, and West China, better known as the People's Republic of China, involving one-fifth of the world's population, will be an even more memorable event in history. Why then do many people perceive Chinese reunification as something less than desirable? Part of the answer lies in the perception that there is no "West China," there is only "China," and there is no "East China," there is only "Taiwan."
CN vs. TW
Above all it is essential to refer to things by their correct names. If things are not referred to by their correct names, then our language will not reflect reality. If our language does not reflect reality, then our actions will not reflect reality, and will be exercises in futility.
-- Confucius, The Analects, Chapter 13, Verse 3
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... the process is reversible... If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration... the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
-- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
On the internet "China" is abbreviated CN, and "Taiwan" is abbreviated TW. These are the famous, or perhaps infamous ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes, created by the International Standards Organization. They are the best known part of ISO, and were subsequently used as country codes for Internet domain names.
Unfortunately, this manner of referring to the two Chinese political regimes vying for the title of legitimate ruler of all China is dangerously misleading. It implies that the PRC or People's Republic of China comprises only the continental portion of China, and that the ROC or Republic of China comprises only the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan. Even worse, it implies that something named "Taiwan," which does not even contain the word "China," has nothing to do with China. Worst of all, it implies that Chinese people living on Taiwan are "Taiwanese, not Chinese," and that only those Chinese people living on the Chinese mainland are "Chinese." As Orwell noted, the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
North vs. South, East vs. West
Far less misleading are the terms applied to North and South Korea, the former North and South Vietnam, and the former East and West Germany. These unofficial names adopted by the general public imply correctly that both sides are parts of the same nation, even though they might be living under rival political regimes, and both populations are the same people.
ISO's use of "TW" and "CN" in internet abbreviations is not the result of any "vast, right-wing conspiracy," but merely the result of semantic imprecision by an organization insufficiently sensitive to subtle political distinctions concerning a foreign nation.
The ubiquitous use of "Taiwan vs. China" instead of "Taiwan vs. mainland China" in the US major media on the other hand, is anything but innocent. It is too often the calculated result of Taiwan independence spin control.
Whether the terms being tossed around are TW and CN, or Taiwan and China, it is all harmless enough as long as abetting Taiwan independence is not the ulterior motive. Unfortunately abetting Taiwan independence often is the ulterior motive, at which time the "CN vs. TW" formulation becomes a source of infinite mischief.
Taiwan is part of China
Tasmania is part of Australia, as The Australian is keeping the nation informed
Let me be perfectly clear. The counterpart to "Taiwan" is not "China," but "mainland China" or "the Chinese mainland." To refer to "Taiwan vs. China" is akin to referring to "Tasmania vs. Australia." Since Tasmania is part of Australia, how can one possibly speak of "Tasmania vs. Australia?" Similarly, since Taiwan is part of China, how can one possibly speak of "Taiwan vs. China?" Consider how an online travel guide with no political axe to grind puts it:
"Island Airlines Tasmania flies to Flinders Island. King Island Airlines and TasAir fly to King Island. Both islands are directly accessible from the Australian mainland, as well as from Tasmania."
Notice the wording? The travel guide correctly says "from the Australian mainland, as well as from Tasmania." It doesn't say "from Australia, as well as from Tasmania."
Was that so difficult?
Why not East China vs. West China?
Following Japan's defeat by Allied forces in WWII, predominantly the US and China, Korea was partitioned along the 38th Parallel Demilitarized Zone or DMZ. The Democratic Republic of Korea (DRK) to the north became known as North Korea, while the Republic of Korea (ROK) to the south became known as South Korea.
Following France's defeat by the Vietminh at Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam was partitioned along the 17th Parallel Demilitarized Zone or DMZ. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN) to the north became known as North Vietnam, while the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) to the south became known as South Vietnam.
Following Germany's defeat by Allied forces in WWII, predominantly the Soviet Union, Germany was partitioned along a 1381 km long "Zonengrenze" (Zone Border), "Innerdeutsche Grenze" (Inner-German Border), or "Deutsch-Deutsche Grenze" (German-German Border). The German Democratic Republic (GDR) to the east became known as East Germany, while the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to the west became known as West Germany.
Following Japan's defeat in 1945, Taiwan was retroceded to China. Following the KMT's defeat by the CCP in the Chinese Civil War, China was partitioned more or less down the middle of the 130 km wide Taiwan Strait. I say "more or less" because the reality is a little more complicated than that. The Republic of China (ROC) to the east became known as "Nationalist China" or "Free China," while the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the west became known as "Communist China" or "Red China."
These Cold War era terms for East and West China were ironically far more descriptive and far less misleading than the post Cold War terms: "Taiwan" and "China."
Why didn't the Republic of China to the east become known as East China, and the People's Republic of China to the west become known as West China? For several reasons.
Disparity in Size
North and South Vietnam were roughly the same size, in both land area and in population. North and South Korea are roughly the same size, in both land area and in population. East and West Germany were roughly the same size, in both land area and in population.
East and West China, by contrast, are nowhere near the same size, in either land area or population.
The largest single land mass under the effective jurisdiction of East China is the relatively tiny Chinese island of Taiwan. The largest single land mass under the effective jurisdiction of West China is the vast expanse of the Chinese mainland.
West China is almost 300 times the size of East China in land area. West China is almost 60 times the size of East China in population.
This extreme disparity in both land area and population between East China and West China has contributed to the false and dangerous perception that mainland China is "China," whereas Taiwan is merely "Taiwan."
Separation by a Body of Water
North and South Vietnam were geographically contiguous. They were separated only by an invisible line on the map, the 17th Parallel. North and South Korea are geographically contiguous. They are separated only by an invisible line on the map, the 38th Parallel. East and West Germany were geographically contiguous. They were separated only by an invisible line on the map, the "Zonengrenze" or "Zone Border." Barbed wire fences and concrete walls were later erected along the 38th Parallel DMZ and the Zonengrenze, making them visible to the eye, but fundamentally these lines had no natural physical correlates.
East and West China, by contrast, are separated by a natural geographical barrier, the 130 km wide Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Strait was known by Ming dynasty emigrants from southern Fujian as the "Hei Shui Gou" or "Black Water Ditch." In the popular imagination it constituted an intimidating natural barrier.
Taiwan independence advocates exploit Taiwan's geographical separation from the mainland to the hilt. They insinuate that because Taiwan is geographically separated from the mainland, therefore it is politically separate from the mainland. The fact that the largest land mass under the effective jurisdiction of East China is an island, and has a name, "Taiwan," has allowed Taiwan independence Quislings to latch onto this geographical term and misrepresent it as the name of a political entity. Taiwan independence Quislings don't make this case explicitly. They know it won't stand up to logical scrutiny. Nevertheless they rely heavily on the physical separation to reinforce the subjective impression of political separation.
Physical separation by a body of water hardly constitutes a justification for political independence, certainly not in and of itself.
If merely being separated from the motherland by water constituted a justification for political independence, then the United States would have to forfeit its claims to Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Midway Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Wake Island.
Hawaii is separated from the continental US by roughly 5,000 km of ocean. Is that any reason for demanding Hawaiian independence? Hardly. Hawaiian independence has far stronger justifications rooted in history.
Guam is so far to the west of the continental United States it is closer to mainland China. Should Guam be transferred to China on the basis of geographical proximity? On the basis that more ocean separates Guam from the continental United States than separates Guam from mainland China?
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then Japan would have to be partitioned into at least four nations, Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyu-shu; and as many as 3,000 nations.
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then the Philippines would have to be politically partitioned into at least three separate nations, Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, and as many as 7,000 nations.
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then Indonesia would have to be politically partitioned into at least five separate nations, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, New Guinea, and Sulawesi, and as many as 18,000 nations!
If merely being separated by water constituted a justification for political independence, then Australia would have to forfeit its claim to Tasmania.
Obviously physical separation by water is no justification for political independence. East China, i.e., Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu are every bit as much a part of China as if they were geographically contiguous with the Chinese mainland.
United Nations Security Council Membership
On October 25, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly passed its fateful Resolution 2758, withdrawing recognition of the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China, and recognizing the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of China.
Whether one agrees with the wisdom of this decision on the part of the member nations of the UN General Assembly, the fact is Resolution 2758 absolutely, positively did not create a sovereign and independent "nation of Taiwan." Resolution 2758 did not create "One China and One Taiwan." Resolution 2758 did not create "Two Chinas."
Resolution 2758 asserted that the Republic of China was legally defunct and that everything that once belonged to the Republic of China in Taipei, was now the legal inheritance of the People's Republic of China in Beijing. Resolution 2758, in other words, recognized that Taiwan was now part of the the People's Republic of China rather than the Republic of China.
What the world had now was not "One China and One Taiwan." What the world had now was not "Two Chinas." What the world had now was One China, just like before. Taiwan was part of that One China, just like before. The only difference was that, at least in the eyes of the member nations of the UN, that One China was under new management, the CCP in Beijing, and had a new company name, the PRC.
Alas, replacing the ROC with the PRC had an unanticipated and highly undesirable side-effect. Stripping the ROC of its mantle as the legitimate government of China unintentionally helped reify "Taiwan" as a proper noun, as the name of a political entity.
West China, having replaced East China as the legitimate government of China in the UN, now became "China." East China, having been replaced by West China as the legitimate government of China in the UN, now became "Taiwan." In the eyes of the UN, West China was now China's central government. In the eyes of the UN, East China was now a discredited pretender. Or, if not a pretender, merely a local political authority.
Taiwan independence spin controllers however promptly spun East China's catastrophic replacement as the legitimate government of China by West China as an affirmation of the rightness of Taiwan independence. They spun "Taiwan" not as a province of either West China or East China, but as an independent political entity. They've been doing it ever since.
Sovereignty vs. Jurisdiction
sov·er·eign·ty
a nation or state's supreme power within its borders
ju·ris·dic·tion
Etymology: Latin jurisdictio, from juris, genitive of jus law + dictio act of saying, from dicere to say
the territorial range of authority or control
This brings us to a crucial point. Anyone who wishes to hold forth on Taiwan's legal status must understand and respect certain crucial legal distinctions. One of these is the distinction between "sovereignty" and "jurisdiction."
Sovereignty, in this context, refers to the territory that a nation or state insists are within its borders. Jurisdiction, in this context, refers to the territory over which a nation or state exercises control. Put simplistically, sovereignty means ownership, jurisdiction means control.
Taiwan independence Quislings have a predilection for mocking Chinese reunificationists who insist on this all too real legal distinction. Their motive for doing so is hardly a secret. They wish to conflate sovereignty with jurisdiction in order to reduce the Republic of China to "Taiwan." They wish to assert, against all constitutional law and international law conventions, that "sovereignty = jurisdiction." In fact of course, as constitutional law and international law experts know perfectly well, sovereignty does not equal jurisdiction.
The Taiwan independence Quislings' colonial masters for example -- Japan's right wing political elite -- would never concede for one second that "sovereignty = jurisdiction." If they did, Japan would immediately have to forfeit what Japan calls the "Northern Territories," and what Russia calls the "Southern Kuril Islands."
These islands are currently in the hands of Russia. Russia has jurisdiction over them. If "sovereignty = jurisdiction," as Taiwan independence Quislings allege, then Russia also has sovereignty over them. In other words, the islands belong to Russia. I seriously doubt that Japanese right wingers would agree that "sovereignty = jurisdiction." Whether Russia or Japan has sovereignty over these islands is one issue. Whether Russia or Japan has jurisdiction over these islands is another issue altogether. Whether the islands belong to Russia or Japan is something that Moscow and Tokyo will have to settle between themselves.
Another example is Tiaoyutai, or Diaoyutai in Hanyu Pinying. This island is currently in the clutches of Japan, which refers to it as "Senkaku." Tiaoyutai is part of Touchen Township. Touchen Township is part of Yilan County. Yilan County is party of the Province of Taiwan. The Province of Taiwan is part of China. The official website of the Republic of China Post Office lists the postal code for the island as "290, 釣魚台列嶼, Diaoyutai Archipelago." Whether the China that Tiaoyutai belongs to is going to be known as the ROC, the PRC, or just plain "China," remains in question. What is not in question is Tiaoyutai's sovereignty. Tiaoyutai belongs to China.
For ironclad evidence that Tiaoyutai belongs to China, see:
Tiaoyutai is Chinese Territory!
ROC Sovereignty includes the Chinese Mainland, PRC Sovereignty includes Taiwan
Too many laymen don't realize that what they refer to as "China" isn't the entirety of China, but merely what the Constitution of the Republic of China refers to as "the mainland area of the Republic of China."
Too many laymen don't realize that what they refer to as "Taiwan" isn't Taiwan at all, but what the Constitution of the Republic of China refers to as "the free area of the Republic of China."
The "free area of the Republic of China" has shrunk to a tiny fraction of what it once was. No one denies this sad fact. Nevertheless, contrary to popular opinion, the Republic of China's effective jurisdiction is not confined to the Chinese island of Taiwan.
In fact, the island of Taiwan is merely part of the jurisdiction of Nationalist China, Free China, or East China. The jurisdiction of East China includes not only Taiwan, but the Penghu Archipelago, Kinmen, Matsu, and numerous islets in the South China Sea.
The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes the Penghu Archipelago. The Penghu Archipelago is not part of the province of Taiwan. Penghu is an entirely separate administrative region.
The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes the islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kinmen and Matsu are not part of the province of Taiwan. Kinmen and Matsu are offshore islets belonging to the province of Fujian. The rest of Fujian is under the jurisdiction of Beijing.
The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes the Nansha Islands, referred to by some as "The Spratlys." The Nansha Islands are not part of the province of Taiwan. The Nanasha Islands are part of the Province of Hainan Island.
Therefore even though the Republic of China's jurisdiction has been drastically diminished, it can hardly be equated with the island of Taiwan. The Republic of China's jurisdiction includes land masses from at least three Chinese provinces. Taiwan is merely one of them. The others are Fujian and Hainan Island.
The Republic of China, for the umpteenth time, is not "Taiwan." The People's Republic of China, for the umpteenth time, is not "China."
Just as the former West Germany's sovereignty included territory under the jurisdiction of East Germany, so the Republic of China's sovereignty includes territory under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China. Conversely, just as the former East Germany's sovereignty included territory under the jurisdiction of West Germany, so the People's Republic of China's sovereignty includes territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China.
The world is not about to suddenly begin referring to the ROC as East China and the PRC as West China. But given the confusion sowed by the widespread use of the terminology, "China" vs. "Taiwan," one of the most constructive developments that could take place in cross-straits discourse, short of reunification, would be a return to the far more descriptive, far less misleading pre-1971 terminology, "Communist China" vs. "Nationalist China."
Chen Shui-bian, Are You Listening?
The Nobel Peace Prize 2000 Presentation Speech by Gunnar Berge, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, December 10, 2000.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for the year 2000 to Kim Dae-jung. He receives the prize for his lifelong work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular... Kim Dae-jung has had the will to break with fifty years of ingrained hostility, and to reach out a cooperative hand across what has probably been the world's most heavily guarded frontier. His has been the kind of personal and political courage which, regrettably, is all too often missing in other conflict-ridden regions... [Chen Shui-bian, are you listening?] Gunnar Roaldkvam, a writer from Stavanger, puts this so simply and so aptly in his poem "The last drop":
Once upon a time there were two drops of water;
one was the first, the other the last.
The first drop was the bravest.
I could quite fancy being the last drop,
the one that makes everything run over,
so that we get our freedom back.
But who wants to be the first drop?
Kim Dae-jung has been the prime mover behind the ongoing process of detente and reconciliation... his role can best be compared with Willy Brandt's, whose Ostpolitik was of such fundamental importance in the normalisation between the two German states, and won him the Peace Prize... The dialogue between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jung II at the Pyongyang summit last June led to more than loose declarations and airy rhetoric. [Chen Shui-bian, are you listening?] The pictures of family members meeting after five decades of separation made a deep impression all over the world... In most of the world, the cold war ice age is over. The world may see the sunshine policy thawing the last remnants of the cold war on the Korean peninsula. It may take time. But the process has begun, and no one has contributed more than today's Laureate, Kim Dae-jung. In the poet's words, "The first drop was the bravest."
No Guts, No Glory
When Chen Shui-bian was inaugurated in 2000, he told reporters that in his office he kept a photograph of Kim Dae-jung meeting with Kim Jong-il. The purpose of the photograph was to remind himself of his solemn duty to make peace across the Taiwan Straits.
Chen Shui-bian covets the Nobel Peace Prize. Chen knows what he must do to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. He knows he must do for East and West China what Willy Brandt did for East and West Germany, and what Kim Dae-jung did for North and South Korea. He must reject stubborn warmongering and embrace peaceful reunification.
Chen Shui-bian must be willing to be the first drop.
Unfortunately for Chen Shui-bian, that's the last thing he wants to do.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
The DPP is on the Wrong Track
The DPP is on the Wrong Track
Bevin Chu
June 6, 2005
On May 22, 2005, the Taipei Times, the quasi-official mouthpiece of the Taiwan independence movement, English Language Edition, posted an op ed piece entitled "The DPP is on the right track." According to the Taipei Times, the DPP won the National Assembly election because of its committment to the nativized path, not because of Chen Shui-bian's "New Centrist Path" or Frank Hsieh's "Co-existence through Reconciliation."
As Trong Chai, aka "Cai Gongtou" (Referendum Cai) put it:
The middle path was not the reason behind President Chen's election win in 2000. The win was due to the fact that the race had three contenders who were close in terms of support. Those who voted for President Chen were all supporters of the nativized path. The National Assembly election win happened because people were upset about China fever. Taiwan consciousness was the main reason for the election wins of President Chen and the DPP and [we] must remain committed to it.
This of course is undiluted nonsense. For the real story behind the National Assembly Election results, see:
The National Assembly Election
The Taipei Times is wrong. The DPP is on the wrong track, both morally and practically.
Morally, the DPP is on a track toward a repugnant form of petty tribalism known as "Fulao shawenzhuyi" (Hoklo Chauvinism). DDP leaders do not refer to Hoklo Chauvinism as Hoklo Chauvinism of course. They refer to it as "localization, nativization, taking the nativist path, adopting a nativist or Taiwanese consciousness." But as noted Taiwanese author and political reformer Huang Chi-hsien observed in her landmark book, "Taiwan at the Crossroads: The Rise of Taiwanese Fascism," Hoklo Chauvinism is the Taiwanese counterpart to Nazi Germany's Aryan Consciousness.
Practically, the DPP is on a track toward an economically suicidal form of isolationism known as "Sakoku" in Japanese or "Suoguo Zhengce" in Chinese. Sakoku or Suoguo Zhengce means Locked Nation Policy. Sakoku was the official policy of the Tokugawa Shogunate, imposed from the top down on the Japanese economy, and doomed Japan to two centuries of economic stagnation. DPP leaders of course do not refer to their policy as a Locked Nation Policy. They refer to it by Chen Shui-bian's euphemism "Jiji Kaifang, Yuxiao Guanli" (Aggressive Opening, Effective Management). Chen's "Aggressive Opening, Effective Management" was supposed to replace Lee Teng-hui's own Locked Nation Policy, euphemistically known as "Avoid Haste, Be Patient." It didn't. Aggressive Opening, Effective Management offered no opening, only management. Aggressive Opening, Effective Management merely replaced one Locked Nation Policy with another Locked Nation Policy. As a current joke has it, twelve years of Avoid Haste, Be Patient plus five years of Aggressive Opening, Effective Management have changed Asia's Four Dragons into "Three Dragons and One Worm."
What is the right track?
The right track, morally and practically, is the New Centrist Path Chen Shui-bian promised to implement during his inaugural speech in 2000, but which he reneged upon.
The right track is the track of Co-existence through Reconciliation floated by DPP moderate Frank Hsieh but rejected by his fundamentalist comrades. Hsieh argued that if the DPP wanted to expand its political support base, it could not advance any further down the nativized path and had to become more rational, moderate, pragmatic, and stable in its policy implementation. To win over middle class voters, the DPP needed to offer substantive plans and a long term vision for national development.
The right track is the track of "Dialog, Reconciliation, and Cooperation" with the Chinese mainland advanced by KMT Chairman Lien Chan during his historic summit with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao.
The problem on Taiwan today isn't knowing what the right track is.
Nearly every political leader on Taiwan, Pan Blue and Pan Green alike, has known what the right track is for years.
The problem was that until recently no Pan Blue leader had the guts to publicly acknowledge what the right track was and take it -- no Pan Blue leader with a sufficiently high political profile, anyway. Pan Blue political leaders were terrified of Taiwan independence Political Correctness, and behaved accordingly.
Four years ago, in 2001, a contingent of New Party leaders made their own "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland. Alas their path-breaking trip received scant media attention and was soon forgotten.
Four years later, fortunately, KMT Chairman Lien Chan found the courage not only to affirm what the right track was, but to act upon his knowledge. For this Lien will go down in history as a key figure in China's reunification, and deservedly so.
Pan Green leaders, on the other hand, aren't on the right track, for two reasons.
The first reason Pan Green leaders aren't on the right track is that although they know Taiwan independence is an impossible pipe dream, their own supporters won't allow them to change course.
Pan Green leaders have worked overtime for the past two decades creating Viktor Frankenstein monsters -- their own hardline fundamentalist supporters. These hardline fundamentalist supporters have swallowed every lie the Pan Green leadership fed them -- hook, line, and sinker. Lies such as "Taiwan was never part of China." Lies such as "Taiwanese are not Chinese." Lies such as "If only we have the guts to declare independence, America and Japan will come to our rescue." Having been thoroughly indoctrinated with such lies, these hardline fundamentalist supporters can't be deprogrammed overnight. As a result, Pan Green leaders are stuck with them, and are doing the only thing they can -- stalling for time.
The second reason Pan Green leaders aren't on the right track is that although their long-cherished dream of a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan has turned to dust, they can't bring themselves to face the truth.
"China Fever," or more accurately, "Mainland Fever," is hardly a passing fad akin to a craving for Macau style egg tarts. Mainland Fever is the opening act to the unfolding drama of China's formal reunification. The behavior of DPP Central Standing Committee members in the face of this unmistakable strategic development proves the addage: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Ah Q is the protagonist in "The True Story of Ah Q" by modern Chinese author Lu Xun. The character has since become a synonym for individuals who rationalize real world defeats as moral or spiritual victories. Taiwan independence leaders have long ridiculed Pan Blue reverence for constitutionalism and the Rule of Law as a manifestation of the Ah Q syndrome, especially the Constitutional One China (Xianfa Yizhong) provision of the Republic of China Constitution, which stipulates that "the territory of the Republic of China includes the Chinese mainland."
Paradoxically, the truth is just the opposite. What could be more Ah Q than the DPP's 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future?"
Pan Blue insistence that the Chinese mainland is an integral part of the Republic of China is infinitely more realistic than Pan Green insistence that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, it's current name is the Republic of China."
Chen Shui-bian freely admitted as much in February 2005, when he declared that continued insistence on "authoring a new constitution and changing the name of the country is both self-deception and deception of others... Lee Teng-hui couldn't do it during his 12 years in office, and I can't do it in mine... If it can't be done, it can't be done."
The Taipei Times editorial went on to claim that:
The DPP just achieved a major success in this past National Assembly election, ranking number one in both the percentage of votes garnered and the number of seats. It would be normal for the party to bask in its victory. But instead, it has immediately launched a round of discussions and self-examination... The DPP is a political party that is very capable of engaging in self-scrutiny and criticism... Such a capacity for self-scrutiny and criticism is one reason behind the DPP's success and its election victories. People often equate the nativized path with radicalism and extremism... Actually, the nativized path refers to identification issues. It runs counter to pro-China and greater China tendencies... Taiwan consciousness and the nativized path are the core values ensuring the nation's survival, and represent the mainstream popular will of the country... The party therefore has an obligation to stay true to this path. The fact that the majority of DPP members agreed to stick to this path suggests that the party has found its way home after being lost for a while. This is something that the people of Taiwan are happy to see.
Have you ever read such flagrantly self-deceiving, self-serving, self-congratulatory spin-control?
What could be more Ah Q than the editors of the Taipei Times imagining that if only they could "explain" what the DPP's nativization was all about, everything would be hunky-dory? People know that the nativized path refers to identification issues. People know that the nativized path runs counter to pro-China and greater China tendencies. They don't need the editors of the Taipei Times to "explain" that to them.
People equate the nativized path with radicalism and extremism, because the nativized path is radical and extreme. People know the DPP's Taiwan consciousness and nativized path will not ensure the nation's survival.
The DPP is on the wrong track. The fact that the majority of DPP members persist in sticking to this path to nowhere suggests that the party has lost its way home, again. This is hardly something the people of Taiwan are happy to see.
Bevin Chu
June 6, 2005
On May 22, 2005, the Taipei Times, the quasi-official mouthpiece of the Taiwan independence movement, English Language Edition, posted an op ed piece entitled "The DPP is on the right track." According to the Taipei Times, the DPP won the National Assembly election because of its committment to the nativized path, not because of Chen Shui-bian's "New Centrist Path" or Frank Hsieh's "Co-existence through Reconciliation."
As Trong Chai, aka "Cai Gongtou" (Referendum Cai) put it:
The middle path was not the reason behind President Chen's election win in 2000. The win was due to the fact that the race had three contenders who were close in terms of support. Those who voted for President Chen were all supporters of the nativized path. The National Assembly election win happened because people were upset about China fever. Taiwan consciousness was the main reason for the election wins of President Chen and the DPP and [we] must remain committed to it.
This of course is undiluted nonsense. For the real story behind the National Assembly Election results, see:
The National Assembly Election
The Taipei Times is wrong. The DPP is on the wrong track, both morally and practically.
Morally, the DPP is on a track toward a repugnant form of petty tribalism known as "Fulao shawenzhuyi" (Hoklo Chauvinism). DDP leaders do not refer to Hoklo Chauvinism as Hoklo Chauvinism of course. They refer to it as "localization, nativization, taking the nativist path, adopting a nativist or Taiwanese consciousness." But as noted Taiwanese author and political reformer Huang Chi-hsien observed in her landmark book, "Taiwan at the Crossroads: The Rise of Taiwanese Fascism," Hoklo Chauvinism is the Taiwanese counterpart to Nazi Germany's Aryan Consciousness.
Practically, the DPP is on a track toward an economically suicidal form of isolationism known as "Sakoku" in Japanese or "Suoguo Zhengce" in Chinese. Sakoku or Suoguo Zhengce means Locked Nation Policy. Sakoku was the official policy of the Tokugawa Shogunate, imposed from the top down on the Japanese economy, and doomed Japan to two centuries of economic stagnation. DPP leaders of course do not refer to their policy as a Locked Nation Policy. They refer to it by Chen Shui-bian's euphemism "Jiji Kaifang, Yuxiao Guanli" (Aggressive Opening, Effective Management). Chen's "Aggressive Opening, Effective Management" was supposed to replace Lee Teng-hui's own Locked Nation Policy, euphemistically known as "Avoid Haste, Be Patient." It didn't. Aggressive Opening, Effective Management offered no opening, only management. Aggressive Opening, Effective Management merely replaced one Locked Nation Policy with another Locked Nation Policy. As a current joke has it, twelve years of Avoid Haste, Be Patient plus five years of Aggressive Opening, Effective Management have changed Asia's Four Dragons into "Three Dragons and One Worm."
What is the right track?
The right track, morally and practically, is the New Centrist Path Chen Shui-bian promised to implement during his inaugural speech in 2000, but which he reneged upon.
The right track is the track of Co-existence through Reconciliation floated by DPP moderate Frank Hsieh but rejected by his fundamentalist comrades. Hsieh argued that if the DPP wanted to expand its political support base, it could not advance any further down the nativized path and had to become more rational, moderate, pragmatic, and stable in its policy implementation. To win over middle class voters, the DPP needed to offer substantive plans and a long term vision for national development.
The right track is the track of "Dialog, Reconciliation, and Cooperation" with the Chinese mainland advanced by KMT Chairman Lien Chan during his historic summit with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao.
The problem on Taiwan today isn't knowing what the right track is.
Nearly every political leader on Taiwan, Pan Blue and Pan Green alike, has known what the right track is for years.
The problem was that until recently no Pan Blue leader had the guts to publicly acknowledge what the right track was and take it -- no Pan Blue leader with a sufficiently high political profile, anyway. Pan Blue political leaders were terrified of Taiwan independence Political Correctness, and behaved accordingly.
Four years ago, in 2001, a contingent of New Party leaders made their own "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland. Alas their path-breaking trip received scant media attention and was soon forgotten.
Four years later, fortunately, KMT Chairman Lien Chan found the courage not only to affirm what the right track was, but to act upon his knowledge. For this Lien will go down in history as a key figure in China's reunification, and deservedly so.
Pan Green leaders, on the other hand, aren't on the right track, for two reasons.
The first reason Pan Green leaders aren't on the right track is that although they know Taiwan independence is an impossible pipe dream, their own supporters won't allow them to change course.
Pan Green leaders have worked overtime for the past two decades creating Viktor Frankenstein monsters -- their own hardline fundamentalist supporters. These hardline fundamentalist supporters have swallowed every lie the Pan Green leadership fed them -- hook, line, and sinker. Lies such as "Taiwan was never part of China." Lies such as "Taiwanese are not Chinese." Lies such as "If only we have the guts to declare independence, America and Japan will come to our rescue." Having been thoroughly indoctrinated with such lies, these hardline fundamentalist supporters can't be deprogrammed overnight. As a result, Pan Green leaders are stuck with them, and are doing the only thing they can -- stalling for time.
The second reason Pan Green leaders aren't on the right track is that although their long-cherished dream of a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan has turned to dust, they can't bring themselves to face the truth.
"China Fever," or more accurately, "Mainland Fever," is hardly a passing fad akin to a craving for Macau style egg tarts. Mainland Fever is the opening act to the unfolding drama of China's formal reunification. The behavior of DPP Central Standing Committee members in the face of this unmistakable strategic development proves the addage: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Ah Q is the protagonist in "The True Story of Ah Q" by modern Chinese author Lu Xun. The character has since become a synonym for individuals who rationalize real world defeats as moral or spiritual victories. Taiwan independence leaders have long ridiculed Pan Blue reverence for constitutionalism and the Rule of Law as a manifestation of the Ah Q syndrome, especially the Constitutional One China (Xianfa Yizhong) provision of the Republic of China Constitution, which stipulates that "the territory of the Republic of China includes the Chinese mainland."
Paradoxically, the truth is just the opposite. What could be more Ah Q than the DPP's 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future?"
Pan Blue insistence that the Chinese mainland is an integral part of the Republic of China is infinitely more realistic than Pan Green insistence that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, it's current name is the Republic of China."
Chen Shui-bian freely admitted as much in February 2005, when he declared that continued insistence on "authoring a new constitution and changing the name of the country is both self-deception and deception of others... Lee Teng-hui couldn't do it during his 12 years in office, and I can't do it in mine... If it can't be done, it can't be done."
The Taipei Times editorial went on to claim that:
The DPP just achieved a major success in this past National Assembly election, ranking number one in both the percentage of votes garnered and the number of seats. It would be normal for the party to bask in its victory. But instead, it has immediately launched a round of discussions and self-examination... The DPP is a political party that is very capable of engaging in self-scrutiny and criticism... Such a capacity for self-scrutiny and criticism is one reason behind the DPP's success and its election victories. People often equate the nativized path with radicalism and extremism... Actually, the nativized path refers to identification issues. It runs counter to pro-China and greater China tendencies... Taiwan consciousness and the nativized path are the core values ensuring the nation's survival, and represent the mainstream popular will of the country... The party therefore has an obligation to stay true to this path. The fact that the majority of DPP members agreed to stick to this path suggests that the party has found its way home after being lost for a while. This is something that the people of Taiwan are happy to see.
Have you ever read such flagrantly self-deceiving, self-serving, self-congratulatory spin-control?
What could be more Ah Q than the editors of the Taipei Times imagining that if only they could "explain" what the DPP's nativization was all about, everything would be hunky-dory? People know that the nativized path refers to identification issues. People know that the nativized path runs counter to pro-China and greater China tendencies. They don't need the editors of the Taipei Times to "explain" that to them.
People equate the nativized path with radicalism and extremism, because the nativized path is radical and extreme. People know the DPP's Taiwan consciousness and nativized path will not ensure the nation's survival.
The DPP is on the wrong track. The fact that the majority of DPP members persist in sticking to this path to nowhere suggests that the party has lost its way home, again. This is hardly something the people of Taiwan are happy to see.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The Longest Running Joke in the World
The Longest Running Joke in the World
Chen Shui-bian's Reign of Ineptitude
Bevin Chu
May 23, 2005
According to a May 22, 2005 Taipei Times news report entitled "Chan's Taiwan remarks hurt people's feelings,"
Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Pasuya Yao said yesterday that Hong Kong-born movie star Jackie Chan is pleasing Beijing by hurting the feelings of the Taiwanese people. "It is his [Chan's] free choice whether or not he wants to come to Taiwan in the future. But when he says bad things about Taiwan, he is pleasing the Chinese government and hurting the feelings of his Taiwanese fans," Yao said. The GIO minister's remarks were in response to Chan's comments last Tuesday. When asked by reporters, Chan said that for the next four years, he will not step foot in Taiwan to avoid being attacked at the airport -- an implicit reference to the clashes that took place when Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman (KMT) Lien Chan left on his trip to China last month. Chan has not come to Taiwan since he said "Taiwan is a big joke" while referring to the assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Annette Lu last year. Yao also said that when the KMT was in power, Chan made several TV and movie commercials in Taiwan. The minister said that the world-famous action movie star has every right to express his anger or disappointment toward any individual. However, his public comments are an insult to the Taiwanese people.
How can one keep from laughing?
Jackie Chan never "said bad things about Taiwan." Jackie Chan said bad things about Chen Shui-bian.
What Jackie Chan, a Hong Kong and Hollywood hyphenate of global renown said, was that Chen Shui-bian's artificially staged, laughably amateurish, patently phony, Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" of March 19, 2004, was "the biggest joke in the world." Which of course it was.
The editors of the Taipei Times knew that of course. GIO Minister Yao, the same official they quoted in their own editorial, made that perfectly clear. According to a May 21, 2005 GIO press release Yao said:
"Chan, an international martial arts film star with a great number of fans in Taiwan, referred to the election as a joke at a news conference in Shanghai, China last year, leading to calls from some Taiwan politicians to ban his movies on the island."
There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Chan did not say "Taiwan was a big joke." Chan said the election was a big joke.
Am I merely picking at nits? Am I merely "looking for bones in eggs," as the Chinese expression puts it?
Hardly. These cheap tricks, these smarmy little distortions of the truth, unworthy of any intellectual with any respect for the value of ideas, are typical of the Taipei Times.
The Taipei Times, as I have noted ad nauseum, is not a newspaper. The Taipei Times is the quasi-official publication of the Taiwan independence movement, English Language Edition. The mission of the Taipei Times is not to report the news. It is to legitimize and "mainstream" Taiwan independence dogma in the minds of English-speaking expats living on Taiwan. Taipei Times news reports aren't news reports, they're Taiwan independence agit-prop for "lao wai." And as the above "news report" should make abundantly clear, appallingly heavy-handed agit-prop. The Taipei Times is even worse than the GIO, the official propaganda arm of the Taiwan independence movement.
Why did the Taipei Times tell what it knew to be a bare-faced lie?
The Taipei Times deliberately and maliciously lied about what Jackie Chan said in order to discredit the immensely popular international star and provoke a "Taiwanese" backlash against performing artists defined as "Chinese," i.e., "the enemy."
Not that the GIO is much better. GIO Minister Yao distorted the truth as well:
"But when he says bad things about Taiwan, he is pleasing the Chinese government and hurting the feelings of his Taiwanese fans... Chan is free to speak publicly about his discontent with certain figures in Taiwan but that he shouldn't hurt the Taiwan people's feelings."
Note Yao's wording: "the Taiwan people's feelings." This is probably the Taiwan independence Quislings' most infuriating habit -- equating their 15 to 20% hardcore Taiwan independence zealots with "the Taiwan people."
Come to Taipei. Talk to the Taiwan people protesting Chen's election fraud, ballot theft, and illegal rule in front of the Presidential Palace every evening for the past 365 days. Ask these members of the 53% majority of Taiwan people who voted for Lien Chan whether Jackie Chan "hurt their feelings."
As a May 22, 2005 China Post article entitled "Jackie Chan to shun Taiwan and protests for four years" correctly notes:
"The Hong Kong-born entertainer is actually a "son of Taiwan," since he is married to a former Taiwanese actress. Chan is hugely popular in Taiwan... [He] has visited Taiwan frequently. He has appeared in commercials on behalf of the police and an anti-smoking charity... He was retained by the United Nations to encourage people to stay away from illicit drugs. He was visiting the Cannes Film Festival to promote "The Myth," a new adventure movie... [the] Government Information Office will host a lavish reception in Cannes today for entertainers, directors, and film producers from around the world. But Chan will be conspicuously absent from the gathering because he was not invited by the government agency... "
Jackie Chan, promoting his movie "The Myth"
Jackie Chan has not hurt "the Taiwan people's feelings." Quite the contrary, he has been a much appreciated spokesman for the Taiwan people's feelings of betrayal by an ostensibly reformist political party that has long spun itself to the Taiwan public and the international community as "democratic" and "progressive." What Chan did was to do precisely what Yao said Chan was free to do, "speak publicly about his discontent with certain figures in Taiwan."
Pan Green demagogues never pass up an opportunity to vilify Beijing for imposing sanctions against performing artists from Taiwan who violate mainland Chinese tenets of Political Correctness. But how did they behave when a performing artist from Hong Kong violates Taiwan independence Political Correctness?
They demand official bans on his movies and boycotts of his his public appearances. To paraphrase Yao, "They hurt Chan's feelings."
"I love Taiwan so much. I'm a person who likes Taiwan so much. I have done so many things in Taiwan, but then I get this result."
Jackie Chan was right. The 319 Shooting Incident was the biggest joke in the world. One year later Chan might well add that Chen Shui-bian's grossly incompetent, flagrantly illegal regime is also the longest running joke in the world.
Chen Shui-bian's Reign of Ineptitude
Bevin Chu
May 23, 2005
According to a May 22, 2005 Taipei Times news report entitled "Chan's Taiwan remarks hurt people's feelings,"
Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Pasuya Yao said yesterday that Hong Kong-born movie star Jackie Chan is pleasing Beijing by hurting the feelings of the Taiwanese people. "It is his [Chan's] free choice whether or not he wants to come to Taiwan in the future. But when he says bad things about Taiwan, he is pleasing the Chinese government and hurting the feelings of his Taiwanese fans," Yao said. The GIO minister's remarks were in response to Chan's comments last Tuesday. When asked by reporters, Chan said that for the next four years, he will not step foot in Taiwan to avoid being attacked at the airport -- an implicit reference to the clashes that took place when Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman (KMT) Lien Chan left on his trip to China last month. Chan has not come to Taiwan since he said "Taiwan is a big joke" while referring to the assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Annette Lu last year. Yao also said that when the KMT was in power, Chan made several TV and movie commercials in Taiwan. The minister said that the world-famous action movie star has every right to express his anger or disappointment toward any individual. However, his public comments are an insult to the Taiwanese people.
How can one keep from laughing?
Jackie Chan never "said bad things about Taiwan." Jackie Chan said bad things about Chen Shui-bian.
What Jackie Chan, a Hong Kong and Hollywood hyphenate of global renown said, was that Chen Shui-bian's artificially staged, laughably amateurish, patently phony, Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" of March 19, 2004, was "the biggest joke in the world." Which of course it was.
The editors of the Taipei Times knew that of course. GIO Minister Yao, the same official they quoted in their own editorial, made that perfectly clear. According to a May 21, 2005 GIO press release Yao said:
"Chan, an international martial arts film star with a great number of fans in Taiwan, referred to the election as a joke at a news conference in Shanghai, China last year, leading to calls from some Taiwan politicians to ban his movies on the island."
There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Chan did not say "Taiwan was a big joke." Chan said the election was a big joke.
Am I merely picking at nits? Am I merely "looking for bones in eggs," as the Chinese expression puts it?
Hardly. These cheap tricks, these smarmy little distortions of the truth, unworthy of any intellectual with any respect for the value of ideas, are typical of the Taipei Times.
The Taipei Times, as I have noted ad nauseum, is not a newspaper. The Taipei Times is the quasi-official publication of the Taiwan independence movement, English Language Edition. The mission of the Taipei Times is not to report the news. It is to legitimize and "mainstream" Taiwan independence dogma in the minds of English-speaking expats living on Taiwan. Taipei Times news reports aren't news reports, they're Taiwan independence agit-prop for "lao wai." And as the above "news report" should make abundantly clear, appallingly heavy-handed agit-prop. The Taipei Times is even worse than the GIO, the official propaganda arm of the Taiwan independence movement.
Why did the Taipei Times tell what it knew to be a bare-faced lie?
The Taipei Times deliberately and maliciously lied about what Jackie Chan said in order to discredit the immensely popular international star and provoke a "Taiwanese" backlash against performing artists defined as "Chinese," i.e., "the enemy."
Not that the GIO is much better. GIO Minister Yao distorted the truth as well:
"But when he says bad things about Taiwan, he is pleasing the Chinese government and hurting the feelings of his Taiwanese fans... Chan is free to speak publicly about his discontent with certain figures in Taiwan but that he shouldn't hurt the Taiwan people's feelings."
Note Yao's wording: "the Taiwan people's feelings." This is probably the Taiwan independence Quislings' most infuriating habit -- equating their 15 to 20% hardcore Taiwan independence zealots with "the Taiwan people."
Come to Taipei. Talk to the Taiwan people protesting Chen's election fraud, ballot theft, and illegal rule in front of the Presidential Palace every evening for the past 365 days. Ask these members of the 53% majority of Taiwan people who voted for Lien Chan whether Jackie Chan "hurt their feelings."
As a May 22, 2005 China Post article entitled "Jackie Chan to shun Taiwan and protests for four years" correctly notes:
"The Hong Kong-born entertainer is actually a "son of Taiwan," since he is married to a former Taiwanese actress. Chan is hugely popular in Taiwan... [He] has visited Taiwan frequently. He has appeared in commercials on behalf of the police and an anti-smoking charity... He was retained by the United Nations to encourage people to stay away from illicit drugs. He was visiting the Cannes Film Festival to promote "The Myth," a new adventure movie... [the] Government Information Office will host a lavish reception in Cannes today for entertainers, directors, and film producers from around the world. But Chan will be conspicuously absent from the gathering because he was not invited by the government agency... "
Jackie Chan, promoting his movie "The Myth"
Jackie Chan has not hurt "the Taiwan people's feelings." Quite the contrary, he has been a much appreciated spokesman for the Taiwan people's feelings of betrayal by an ostensibly reformist political party that has long spun itself to the Taiwan public and the international community as "democratic" and "progressive." What Chan did was to do precisely what Yao said Chan was free to do, "speak publicly about his discontent with certain figures in Taiwan."
Pan Green demagogues never pass up an opportunity to vilify Beijing for imposing sanctions against performing artists from Taiwan who violate mainland Chinese tenets of Political Correctness. But how did they behave when a performing artist from Hong Kong violates Taiwan independence Political Correctness?
They demand official bans on his movies and boycotts of his his public appearances. To paraphrase Yao, "They hurt Chan's feelings."
"I love Taiwan so much. I'm a person who likes Taiwan so much. I have done so many things in Taiwan, but then I get this result."
Jackie Chan was right. The 319 Shooting Incident was the biggest joke in the world. One year later Chan might well add that Chen Shui-bian's grossly incompetent, flagrantly illegal regime is also the longest running joke in the world.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
The National Assembly Election
The National Assembly Election
and Fellow Traveler Spin Control
Bevin Chu
May 20, 2005
The End of Mainland Fever?
Taiwan independence fellow travelers, to no one's surprise, are spinning the May 14, 2005 National Assembly Election as "an affirmation of Taiwan independence" and "a repudiation of Mainland Fever."
In a May 17, 2005 International Herald Tribune editorial entitled "Taiwan reads the election's tea leaves," inveterate China demonizer Philip Bowring writes:
The result of Taiwan's election on Saturday has put into perspective the cross-strait hype and hoopla of the previous two weeks. The opposition leaders Lien Chan and James Soong had been feted on the mainland, and visions of imminent cross-strait rapprochement were conjured up, not least by Beijing-based foreign news media. Despite the excitement and media attention at home and abroad, Taiwanese ["Taiwanese" is the Taiwan independence fellow traveler term for Chinese people living on Taiwan.] in the end seem largely unmoved.
Nonsense.
An ERA TV Poll conducted the day after Lien Chan's triumphant return from the mainland asked the public on Taiwan "Do you think that overall, KMT Chairman Lien Chan's visit to the mainland is helpful or unhelpful to Taiwan's society and cross-straits relations?"
A 55% majority answered "Very helpful" or "Somewhat helpful." A 27% minority answered "Very unhelpful" or "Somewhat unhelpful."
The same poll asked the public "Is it your hope that Chen Shui-bian can successfully reach an agreement on the future of both sides of the strait during the remaining three years of his term?"
A 72% majority answered "Very much my hope" or "Somewhat my hope." A 15% minority answered "Very much not my hope" or "Somewhat not my hope."
"Largely unmoved?" I don't think so.
A second ERA TV Poll conducted the day before James Soong's return from the mainland asked the public on Taiwan "Do you think now that Lien Chan and James Soong have each met with Hu Jintao, that Chen Shui-bian and the ruling DPP should be more forthcoming or more reserved in contacts with the Chinese Communists?"
A 59% majority said "More forthcoming." A 24% minority said "More reserved."
So much for Bowring's heavy-handed attempt at "disinformation."
Lying by Omission
Bowring writes:
Admittedly, the polling significance of the election was reduced by the low turnout... Nonetheless the result must be judged as the first formal reaction by voters to the Lien and Soong visits. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of President Chen Shui-bian performed rather better than had been expected, with 42.5 percent of the vote. Add in the 7 percent of the fiercely pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union and the forces most skeptical of Beijing appeared in a small majority. Against that, Lien's Kuomintang mustered 38.9 percent and Soong's People First Party a mere 6.1 percent. Assorted independents got 5.4 percent.
Nonsense.
The polling significance of the election was not just "reduced" by what Bowring disingenuously refers to as "the low turnout," it was rendered meaningless. The result of the National Assembly Election did not constitute a reaction to the Lien and Soong visits, and Bowring knows it. Why else did Bowring omit the actual number for the turnout in his article?
For the record, it was 23%. That's right. Only 23% of the registered voters bothered to show up at the polling stations on election day, while 77% stayed home. Fewer than one in four cast their ballots.
Why didn't Bowring inform IHT readers that "the low turnout" was an absurdly unrepresentative 23%, from which it was utterly unrealistic to draw any definitive conclusions? Was it lack of space?
Don't make me laugh. How much space do a pair of brackets ( ) and the figure "23%" take up?
Why didn't Bowring go ahead and include it? Because Bowring was hoping readers would assume that "the low turnout" meant 60%, 50%, or 40%, not 23%.
So much for journalistic integrity.
The Non-choice Choice
The results of the National Assembly Election do not mean what Philip Bowring wants readers to think they mean, for two reasons.
One. Voters didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on.
A TVBS Poll conducted on May 4, ten days before the election, showed that although 75% of the public knew a National Assembly Election was coming up, 71% didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on.
A second TVBS Poll conducted on May 10, a mere four days before the election, showed that although 91% of the public knew a National Assembly Election was coming up, 61% still didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on!
Two. Voters who did understand what they were being asked to vote on were deeply offended by the phony "choice" they were offered.
A wide range of important but unrelated issues were "packaged dealed" into a single yea or nay vote. If voters wanted certain items they approved of, they had to accept other items they disapproved of. Adding insult to injury, this yea or nay vote wasn't even cast directly by the voter himself, but indirectly, by one of 12 competing political parties, who would in turn vote for or against the package.
This ludicrous "Rube Goldberg" arrangement denied voters the right to choose the policies they actually wanted, and left them in a quandary. "How," they wondered, "am I going to get what I want? In the end many of them concluded "I can't." In the end many of them decided "To hell with this. Why should I even bother voting? It doesn't make any difference anyway."
Monsoon rains, complete with streets flooded to knee level, especially in the Pan Blue dominated northern half of the island, gave Pan Blue voters all the extra reason they needed to blow the whole affair off.
Pan Blues, not Pan Greens Punished the PFP
Bowring's patently dishonest spin control is typical of Taiwan independence fellow travelers' relentless efforts to use the slightest excuse, however flimsy, to poormouth Chinese reunification. For example, Bowring attributes the People First Party's deservedly catastrophic showing to PFP Chairman James Soong's pro-reunification political stance.
Bowring writes:
Soong's poor showing could be seen as especially significant. The mainland-born populist and longtime presidential aspirant had just returned from a meeting with President Hu Jintao of China. The two claimed to have brokered a new deal using the catchphrase "Two Sides, One China," with an agenda for direct transport links and a free-trade deal between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. They backed a return to the so-called 1992 consensus on acceptance of the One China principle, the interpretation of which is more important than the phrase itself. Chen was quick to reject this so-called "breakthrough."
On his visit to the mainland, Soong had been more effusive than Lien in emphasizing the ethnic brotherhood across the strait. This may also have reminded voters that most of them are descended from people who migrated (illegally) from the mainland generations ago and did not retain the same ties as those who arrived when the Kuomintang was defeated on the mainland in 1949...
Lien and Soong may have to note that playing to the mainland and international galleries is not a big vote winner at home. However much a majority favors trade, peace and the status quo, the concept of Taiwanese identity (not necessarily synonymous with independence) runs as strongly through local veins as their mainland birth runs through those of Lien and Soong.
Nonsense.
Prior to the December 2004 Legislative Election, PFP Chairman James Soong promised Pan Blue voters the PFP would reunite with the KMT in February 2005. Soong didn't just renege on his promise. He did much worse. He went over to the enemy camp. He formed an unholy alliance with Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Pan Blue voters, Deep Blue voters in particular, were furious. They severely punished the PFP for destroying the hard-won Pan Blue majority within the ROC legislature.
Soong's more or less successful "Bridge-building Mission" to the mainland was a totally unrelated issue. Bowring's attempt to link Soong's trip with the PFP's subsequent election defeat is either ignorant or dishonest. I'm not sure which is worse.
The 23% who voted on May 14 were Deep Green and Deep Blue. Deep Greens slightly outnumber Deep Blues. Pale Blues, on the other hand, significantly outnumber Pale Greens.
Overall, Pan Blues far outnumber Pan Greens, but Pan Blues include a higher percentage of spoiled upper middle-class Pale Blue yuppies, who are often cavalier about going to the polls unless they perceive a Clear and Present Danger.
Pan Greens on the other hand, include a higher percentage of lower middle-class Deep Green "rednecks," who can be counted on to show up at the polls to vent their anger, come hell or high water. The so-called "Pan Green victory" in the National Assembly Election reflects this demographic skewing, not larger political currents such as "Mainland Fever."
A Little Honesty - For a Change
By contrast, New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher demonstrated infinitely more integrity and professionalism in his May 16, 2005 article "Taiwan vote hard to read, analysts say."
Elections in Taiwan for delegates to an obscure constitutional assembly drew such a low turnout that they provide little clues to how the general public on the island feels about a month of breakthroughs in relations with China, political analysts said Sunday. Only 23.4 percent of eligible voters cast ballots on Saturday, compared with a turnout of 57.6 percent in legislative elections last December and 82 percent in presidential elections in March 2004. Political parties were able to get their strongest supporters to vote, but most of the public responded with a shrug.
The low turnout makes it very hard to use the vote to gauge public sentiment about visits to Beijing in the past three weeks by two opposition leaders: Lien Chan, the chairman of the Nationalist Party, and James Soong, the chairman of the smaller People First Party.
"Any explanation of the outcome is very shaky," said Chu Yun-han, a professor of political science at National Taiwan University. "The people who turned out to vote are not the typical voters - they are basically highly disciplined party regulars."
While a few politicians tried to turn the vote on Saturday into an informal test of public support for a rapprochement with mainland China, the main issue facing the constitutional assembly is really quite different: whether to cut the Legislature, a separate body, to 113 members instead of 225 and elect these members from single-seat districts instead of through the current system of proportional representation in multi-seat districts.
Exactly right.
If Philip Bowring actually believes he is witnessing the end of "Mainland Fever," he's got another think coming.
We are not witnessing the end of "Mainland Fever." We are witnessing the beginning of China's reunification.
and Fellow Traveler Spin Control
Bevin Chu
May 20, 2005
The End of Mainland Fever?
Taiwan independence fellow travelers, to no one's surprise, are spinning the May 14, 2005 National Assembly Election as "an affirmation of Taiwan independence" and "a repudiation of Mainland Fever."
In a May 17, 2005 International Herald Tribune editorial entitled "Taiwan reads the election's tea leaves," inveterate China demonizer Philip Bowring writes:
The result of Taiwan's election on Saturday has put into perspective the cross-strait hype and hoopla of the previous two weeks. The opposition leaders Lien Chan and James Soong had been feted on the mainland, and visions of imminent cross-strait rapprochement were conjured up, not least by Beijing-based foreign news media. Despite the excitement and media attention at home and abroad, Taiwanese ["Taiwanese" is the Taiwan independence fellow traveler term for Chinese people living on Taiwan.] in the end seem largely unmoved.
Nonsense.
An ERA TV Poll conducted the day after Lien Chan's triumphant return from the mainland asked the public on Taiwan "Do you think that overall, KMT Chairman Lien Chan's visit to the mainland is helpful or unhelpful to Taiwan's society and cross-straits relations?"
A 55% majority answered "Very helpful" or "Somewhat helpful." A 27% minority answered "Very unhelpful" or "Somewhat unhelpful."
The same poll asked the public "Is it your hope that Chen Shui-bian can successfully reach an agreement on the future of both sides of the strait during the remaining three years of his term?"
A 72% majority answered "Very much my hope" or "Somewhat my hope." A 15% minority answered "Very much not my hope" or "Somewhat not my hope."
"Largely unmoved?" I don't think so.
A second ERA TV Poll conducted the day before James Soong's return from the mainland asked the public on Taiwan "Do you think now that Lien Chan and James Soong have each met with Hu Jintao, that Chen Shui-bian and the ruling DPP should be more forthcoming or more reserved in contacts with the Chinese Communists?"
A 59% majority said "More forthcoming." A 24% minority said "More reserved."
So much for Bowring's heavy-handed attempt at "disinformation."
Lying by Omission
Bowring writes:
Admittedly, the polling significance of the election was reduced by the low turnout... Nonetheless the result must be judged as the first formal reaction by voters to the Lien and Soong visits. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of President Chen Shui-bian performed rather better than had been expected, with 42.5 percent of the vote. Add in the 7 percent of the fiercely pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union and the forces most skeptical of Beijing appeared in a small majority. Against that, Lien's Kuomintang mustered 38.9 percent and Soong's People First Party a mere 6.1 percent. Assorted independents got 5.4 percent.
Nonsense.
The polling significance of the election was not just "reduced" by what Bowring disingenuously refers to as "the low turnout," it was rendered meaningless. The result of the National Assembly Election did not constitute a reaction to the Lien and Soong visits, and Bowring knows it. Why else did Bowring omit the actual number for the turnout in his article?
For the record, it was 23%. That's right. Only 23% of the registered voters bothered to show up at the polling stations on election day, while 77% stayed home. Fewer than one in four cast their ballots.
Why didn't Bowring inform IHT readers that "the low turnout" was an absurdly unrepresentative 23%, from which it was utterly unrealistic to draw any definitive conclusions? Was it lack of space?
Don't make me laugh. How much space do a pair of brackets ( ) and the figure "23%" take up?
Why didn't Bowring go ahead and include it? Because Bowring was hoping readers would assume that "the low turnout" meant 60%, 50%, or 40%, not 23%.
So much for journalistic integrity.
The Non-choice Choice
The results of the National Assembly Election do not mean what Philip Bowring wants readers to think they mean, for two reasons.
One. Voters didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on.
A TVBS Poll conducted on May 4, ten days before the election, showed that although 75% of the public knew a National Assembly Election was coming up, 71% didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on.
A second TVBS Poll conducted on May 10, a mere four days before the election, showed that although 91% of the public knew a National Assembly Election was coming up, 61% still didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on!
Two. Voters who did understand what they were being asked to vote on were deeply offended by the phony "choice" they were offered.
A wide range of important but unrelated issues were "packaged dealed" into a single yea or nay vote. If voters wanted certain items they approved of, they had to accept other items they disapproved of. Adding insult to injury, this yea or nay vote wasn't even cast directly by the voter himself, but indirectly, by one of 12 competing political parties, who would in turn vote for or against the package.
This ludicrous "Rube Goldberg" arrangement denied voters the right to choose the policies they actually wanted, and left them in a quandary. "How," they wondered, "am I going to get what I want? In the end many of them concluded "I can't." In the end many of them decided "To hell with this. Why should I even bother voting? It doesn't make any difference anyway."
Monsoon rains, complete with streets flooded to knee level, especially in the Pan Blue dominated northern half of the island, gave Pan Blue voters all the extra reason they needed to blow the whole affair off.
Pan Blues, not Pan Greens Punished the PFP
Bowring's patently dishonest spin control is typical of Taiwan independence fellow travelers' relentless efforts to use the slightest excuse, however flimsy, to poormouth Chinese reunification. For example, Bowring attributes the People First Party's deservedly catastrophic showing to PFP Chairman James Soong's pro-reunification political stance.
Bowring writes:
Soong's poor showing could be seen as especially significant. The mainland-born populist and longtime presidential aspirant had just returned from a meeting with President Hu Jintao of China. The two claimed to have brokered a new deal using the catchphrase "Two Sides, One China," with an agenda for direct transport links and a free-trade deal between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. They backed a return to the so-called 1992 consensus on acceptance of the One China principle, the interpretation of which is more important than the phrase itself. Chen was quick to reject this so-called "breakthrough."
On his visit to the mainland, Soong had been more effusive than Lien in emphasizing the ethnic brotherhood across the strait. This may also have reminded voters that most of them are descended from people who migrated (illegally) from the mainland generations ago and did not retain the same ties as those who arrived when the Kuomintang was defeated on the mainland in 1949...
Lien and Soong may have to note that playing to the mainland and international galleries is not a big vote winner at home. However much a majority favors trade, peace and the status quo, the concept of Taiwanese identity (not necessarily synonymous with independence) runs as strongly through local veins as their mainland birth runs through those of Lien and Soong.
Nonsense.
Prior to the December 2004 Legislative Election, PFP Chairman James Soong promised Pan Blue voters the PFP would reunite with the KMT in February 2005. Soong didn't just renege on his promise. He did much worse. He went over to the enemy camp. He formed an unholy alliance with Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Pan Blue voters, Deep Blue voters in particular, were furious. They severely punished the PFP for destroying the hard-won Pan Blue majority within the ROC legislature.
Soong's more or less successful "Bridge-building Mission" to the mainland was a totally unrelated issue. Bowring's attempt to link Soong's trip with the PFP's subsequent election defeat is either ignorant or dishonest. I'm not sure which is worse.
The 23% who voted on May 14 were Deep Green and Deep Blue. Deep Greens slightly outnumber Deep Blues. Pale Blues, on the other hand, significantly outnumber Pale Greens.
Overall, Pan Blues far outnumber Pan Greens, but Pan Blues include a higher percentage of spoiled upper middle-class Pale Blue yuppies, who are often cavalier about going to the polls unless they perceive a Clear and Present Danger.
Pan Greens on the other hand, include a higher percentage of lower middle-class Deep Green "rednecks," who can be counted on to show up at the polls to vent their anger, come hell or high water. The so-called "Pan Green victory" in the National Assembly Election reflects this demographic skewing, not larger political currents such as "Mainland Fever."
A Little Honesty - For a Change
By contrast, New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher demonstrated infinitely more integrity and professionalism in his May 16, 2005 article "Taiwan vote hard to read, analysts say."
Elections in Taiwan for delegates to an obscure constitutional assembly drew such a low turnout that they provide little clues to how the general public on the island feels about a month of breakthroughs in relations with China, political analysts said Sunday. Only 23.4 percent of eligible voters cast ballots on Saturday, compared with a turnout of 57.6 percent in legislative elections last December and 82 percent in presidential elections in March 2004. Political parties were able to get their strongest supporters to vote, but most of the public responded with a shrug.
The low turnout makes it very hard to use the vote to gauge public sentiment about visits to Beijing in the past three weeks by two opposition leaders: Lien Chan, the chairman of the Nationalist Party, and James Soong, the chairman of the smaller People First Party.
"Any explanation of the outcome is very shaky," said Chu Yun-han, a professor of political science at National Taiwan University. "The people who turned out to vote are not the typical voters - they are basically highly disciplined party regulars."
While a few politicians tried to turn the vote on Saturday into an informal test of public support for a rapprochement with mainland China, the main issue facing the constitutional assembly is really quite different: whether to cut the Legislature, a separate body, to 113 members instead of 225 and elect these members from single-seat districts instead of through the current system of proportional representation in multi-seat districts.
Exactly right.
If Philip Bowring actually believes he is witnessing the end of "Mainland Fever," he's got another think coming.
We are not witnessing the end of "Mainland Fever." We are witnessing the beginning of China's reunification.
Monday, May 16, 2005
The 1992 Consensus
The 1992 Consensus
Down the Memory Hole
Bevin Chu
May 15, 2005
"We did not reach a consensus back in 1992. It was a meeting and a discussion, in which we said that both sides are to have their own interpretation of what One-China means. How can it be called a consensus when we are each going to have our own interpretation? He should just tell them the truth: that there was no consensus. Anything else would be dishonest. Besides, it's already 2005 --so why is he even mentioning 1992?"
-- Annette Lu, "DPP denies existence of 1992 consensus," ETtoday, May 12, 2005
The 1992 Consensus
You have to hand it to the Taiwan independence leadership. They may not have the first clue about how to govern a nation, but their ability to look the public straight in the eye and lie without batting an eyelash is unparalleled.
Is Annette Lu really unaware that Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Ku Chen-Fu and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) President Wang Daohan reached a consensus back in 1992, based on the "One China Principle?"
Of course not.
Lu knows perfectly well that Ku and Wang reached a consensus on the core issue, the only issue that Taiwan independence Quislings really care about, whether Taiwan and the mainland are integral parts of One China. Lu knows perfectly well their consensus was that Taiwan and the mainland are integral parts of One China. Hence Lu's stubborn attempt to deny an obvious truth.
Wang Daohan and Ku Chen-fu, Singapore 1993
The "1992 Consensus" was clearly expressed in letters exchanged between the SEF and ARATS, and fully documented in the SEF's summary of talks held in Singapore between Ku Chen-Fu and Wang Daohan in 1993.
The "1992 Consensus" states that:
Taipei and Beijing agree that there is only One China. Taipei and Beijing agree that this One China includes both Taiwan and the mainland. Taipei and Beijing disagree about who is the rightful government of this One China, and its official name. Taipei considers itself the rightful government of this One China and refers to it as the Republic of China. Beijing considers itself the rightful government of this One China and refers to it as the People's Republic of China.
What part of "One China" doesn't Annette Lu understand?
One China, Two Interpretations
The "1992 Consensus" is also referred to as "One China, Two Interpretations," or more precisely, "One China, Different Expressions." The latter translation, "One China, Different Expressions" actually captures the "One China" essence more clearly than the looser but more common translation, "One China, Two Interpretations."
Annette Lu is attempting to claim that "Two Interpretations" means "Two completely different understandings, and no area of agreement whatsoever." Lu is attempting to equate "Two Interpretations" with "No Consensus." Lu is attempting to pretend that "Two Interpretations" is not preceded by "One China."
Annette Lu to the contrary notwithstanding, a consensus was reached about the primary issue of One China. The secondary issue of who should be in charge of this One China and what this One China should be called does not negate the consensus that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of China.
Needless to say, Taiwan independence Quislings like Annette Lu don't really give a damn about who the rightful ruler of One China is or what One China's official name ought to be. They merely wish to generate artificial confusion where no confusion exists, in order to claim that no consensus was reached about One China.
The simple fact is, if Ku Chen-fu and Wang Daohan had not reached a consensus in 1992, their exchanges would never have become known as the "1992 Consensus." Their exchanges would have been reduced to the status of bureaucratic routines that led nowhere, to be filed away and eventually forgotten. Their exchanges are remembered only because government officials and the general public on both sides of the Taiwan Strait understood that there was a consensus. It is only because Ku and Wang reached a consensus that everyone remembers the event and gave it a name.
Big Brother and the Memory Hole
The 1992 Consensus is an undeniable historical fact. Annette Lu can't wish it away merely because she doesn't like it. One could say that Annette Lu's attempt to deny the existence of the "1992 Consensus" is akin to the behavior of a philandering spouse caught in flagrante delicto, who brazenly insists that "This isn't what it looks like!"
Such a comparison however would be much too frivolous. In fact, Annette Lu's attempt to brazenly deny that "1992 Consensus" ever existed is disturbingly reminiscent of the behavior of O'Brien, the inquisitor for Big Brother in George Orwell's "1984":
Richard Burton as O'Brien, an inquisitor for Big Brother, in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (1984, directed by Michael Radford, written by George Orwell and Michael Radford)
Information Retrieval Officer
Michael Palin as Jack, an "Information Retrieval Officer" for the Ministry of Information, in "Brazil" (1985, directed by Terry Gilliam, written by Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, Charles McKeown)
O'Brien stopped him with a movement of the hand.
"You believed that you had seen unmistakable documentary evidence... There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.'
An oblong slip of newspaper had appeared between O'Brien's fingers. For perhaps five seconds it was within the angle of Winston's vision. It was a photograph, and there was no question of its identity. It was the photograph. It was another copy of the photograph... "
'It exists!' he cried.
'No,' said O'Brien.
He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.
'Ashes,' he said. 'Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.'
'But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.'
'I do not remember it,' said O'Brien.
O'Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'
'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
“‘Who controls the present controls the past,”’ said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. ‘Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?’
Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one.
O'Brien smiled faintly. ‘I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?’
‘No.’
‘Then where does the past exist, if at all?’
‘In records. It is written down.’
‘In records. And—?’
‘In the mind. In human memories.’
‘In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?’
‘But how can you stop people remembering things?’ cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. ‘It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!’
O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.
‘On the contrary,’ he said, ‘you have not controlled it... You are here because you... believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right... that the nature of reality is self-evident... But... reality exists... only in the mind of the Party... Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.’
The Taiwan independence Green Terror has already peaked and is currently on the decline, thank god. The prospect of a future in which the likes of Annette Lu can have her hand on the dial, while lecturing us that reality exists only in the mind of the Party, that whatever the Party holds to be the truth is truth, is too appalling to contemplate.
Down the Memory Hole
Bevin Chu
May 15, 2005
"We did not reach a consensus back in 1992. It was a meeting and a discussion, in which we said that both sides are to have their own interpretation of what One-China means. How can it be called a consensus when we are each going to have our own interpretation? He should just tell them the truth: that there was no consensus. Anything else would be dishonest. Besides, it's already 2005 --so why is he even mentioning 1992?"
-- Annette Lu, "DPP denies existence of 1992 consensus," ETtoday, May 12, 2005
The 1992 Consensus
You have to hand it to the Taiwan independence leadership. They may not have the first clue about how to govern a nation, but their ability to look the public straight in the eye and lie without batting an eyelash is unparalleled.
Is Annette Lu really unaware that Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Ku Chen-Fu and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) President Wang Daohan reached a consensus back in 1992, based on the "One China Principle?"
Of course not.
Lu knows perfectly well that Ku and Wang reached a consensus on the core issue, the only issue that Taiwan independence Quislings really care about, whether Taiwan and the mainland are integral parts of One China. Lu knows perfectly well their consensus was that Taiwan and the mainland are integral parts of One China. Hence Lu's stubborn attempt to deny an obvious truth.
Wang Daohan and Ku Chen-fu, Singapore 1993
The "1992 Consensus" was clearly expressed in letters exchanged between the SEF and ARATS, and fully documented in the SEF's summary of talks held in Singapore between Ku Chen-Fu and Wang Daohan in 1993.
The "1992 Consensus" states that:
Taipei and Beijing agree that there is only One China. Taipei and Beijing agree that this One China includes both Taiwan and the mainland. Taipei and Beijing disagree about who is the rightful government of this One China, and its official name. Taipei considers itself the rightful government of this One China and refers to it as the Republic of China. Beijing considers itself the rightful government of this One China and refers to it as the People's Republic of China.
What part of "One China" doesn't Annette Lu understand?
One China, Two Interpretations
The "1992 Consensus" is also referred to as "One China, Two Interpretations," or more precisely, "One China, Different Expressions." The latter translation, "One China, Different Expressions" actually captures the "One China" essence more clearly than the looser but more common translation, "One China, Two Interpretations."
Annette Lu is attempting to claim that "Two Interpretations" means "Two completely different understandings, and no area of agreement whatsoever." Lu is attempting to equate "Two Interpretations" with "No Consensus." Lu is attempting to pretend that "Two Interpretations" is not preceded by "One China."
Annette Lu to the contrary notwithstanding, a consensus was reached about the primary issue of One China. The secondary issue of who should be in charge of this One China and what this One China should be called does not negate the consensus that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of China.
Needless to say, Taiwan independence Quislings like Annette Lu don't really give a damn about who the rightful ruler of One China is or what One China's official name ought to be. They merely wish to generate artificial confusion where no confusion exists, in order to claim that no consensus was reached about One China.
The simple fact is, if Ku Chen-fu and Wang Daohan had not reached a consensus in 1992, their exchanges would never have become known as the "1992 Consensus." Their exchanges would have been reduced to the status of bureaucratic routines that led nowhere, to be filed away and eventually forgotten. Their exchanges are remembered only because government officials and the general public on both sides of the Taiwan Strait understood that there was a consensus. It is only because Ku and Wang reached a consensus that everyone remembers the event and gave it a name.
Big Brother and the Memory Hole
The 1992 Consensus is an undeniable historical fact. Annette Lu can't wish it away merely because she doesn't like it. One could say that Annette Lu's attempt to deny the existence of the "1992 Consensus" is akin to the behavior of a philandering spouse caught in flagrante delicto, who brazenly insists that "This isn't what it looks like!"
Such a comparison however would be much too frivolous. In fact, Annette Lu's attempt to brazenly deny that "1992 Consensus" ever existed is disturbingly reminiscent of the behavior of O'Brien, the inquisitor for Big Brother in George Orwell's "1984":
Richard Burton as O'Brien, an inquisitor for Big Brother, in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (1984, directed by Michael Radford, written by George Orwell and Michael Radford)
Information Retrieval Officer
Michael Palin as Jack, an "Information Retrieval Officer" for the Ministry of Information, in "Brazil" (1985, directed by Terry Gilliam, written by Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, Charles McKeown)
O'Brien stopped him with a movement of the hand.
"You believed that you had seen unmistakable documentary evidence... There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.'
An oblong slip of newspaper had appeared between O'Brien's fingers. For perhaps five seconds it was within the angle of Winston's vision. It was a photograph, and there was no question of its identity. It was the photograph. It was another copy of the photograph... "
'It exists!' he cried.
'No,' said O'Brien.
He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.
'Ashes,' he said. 'Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.'
'But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.'
'I do not remember it,' said O'Brien.
O'Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'
'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
“‘Who controls the present controls the past,”’ said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. ‘Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?’
Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one.
O'Brien smiled faintly. ‘I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?’
‘No.’
‘Then where does the past exist, if at all?’
‘In records. It is written down.’
‘In records. And—?’
‘In the mind. In human memories.’
‘In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?’
‘But how can you stop people remembering things?’ cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. ‘It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!’
O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial.
‘On the contrary,’ he said, ‘you have not controlled it... You are here because you... believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right... that the nature of reality is self-evident... But... reality exists... only in the mind of the Party... Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.’
The Taiwan independence Green Terror has already peaked and is currently on the decline, thank god. The prospect of a future in which the likes of Annette Lu can have her hand on the dial, while lecturing us that reality exists only in the mind of the Party, that whatever the Party holds to be the truth is truth, is too appalling to contemplate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)