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.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The Beginning of the End, Part IV
The Beginning of the End, Part IV
Lien Chan's Triumph
Bevin Chu
May 10, 2005
Executive Summary: On March 20, 2004, incumbent president Chen Shui-bian, via the Central Election Committee, rigged the Republic of China Presidential Election. Chen cheated challenger Lien Chan out of a victory he won fair and square, and the 53% majority of ROC citizens who voted for him out of the national leader of their choice. One year later, KMT Chairman Lien Chan completed a history-making "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland, during which he eclipsed Chen Shui-bian and peformed an end run around the Taiwan independence movement. The Universe had belatedly returned some measure of justice to Lien Chan and those who voted for him.
The 426 Incident: "Kill Lien Chan, Save Taiwan!"
On April 26, 2005, KMT Chairman Lien Chan departed for the Chinese mainland. Pan Blue KMT and New Party supporters who enthusiastically approved of Lien Chan's "Journey of Peace" arrived at Chiang Kai-shek International Airport to give their leader a joyous send off.
Pan Green DPP and TSU supporters who vehemently disapproved of Lien's journey, who characterized it as a "Journey of Surrender," also converged on the airport. They did not come to give Lien a joyous send off. They came to prevent Lien from leaving, by force if necessary. Failing that, they came to stone him with rocks the size of eggs.
Thugs from the "All People's Taxi Company," a pro independence taxi company notorious for violent physical attacks upon those guilty of being born "mainlanders," stalled their vehicles on the freeway in an attempt to prevent Lien's motorcade from reaching the airport. Upon being intercepted, they led the highway patrol on a high-speed chase straight out of television's Max X -- Maximum Exposure.
Having failed to prevent Lien from reaching the terminal building, elected legislators from the ruling DPP [You read that right], the allied TSU, and other pro Taiwan independence groups converged on the airport with rotten eggs, rocks, glass bottles, slingshots, clubs, even firecrackers, with the announced intention of attacking Lien as he made his way to the boarding gate.
One Taiwan independence zealot even brandished a "guan dao," a traditional Chinese weapon similar to a Swiss halberd, and wore a T-shirt that read "Kill Lien Chan, Save Taiwan."
Taiwan independence supporter wearing T-shirt reading "Kill Lien Chan, Save Taiwan."
How did the Chen regime Aviation Police Bureau deal with these two groups?
Pan Blue well-wishers, armed only with flowers and ROC flags, whose only intention was to give Lien Chan a joyous send-off were shut out of the terminal building by a solid phalanx of riot police.
Pan Green trouble-makers, who had openly announced several days in advance their intention to commit god knows what violence against Lien Chan, were allowed to swarm into the terminal building via an escalator from the basement level parking garage.
Taiwan independence fellow travelers have long attempted to depict the Taiwan independence movement as something that it is not, an idealistic, progressive, reformist political movement, rather than what it is, a myopic, reactionary, fascistic political movement. The 426 Incident shattered that myth and showed the world the ugly truth.
Pan Green Panic
According to Pan Green mythology, "Lien Chan lost the 2004 Presidential Election." According to the Pan Green mythology, "Chen Shui-bian is the duly-elected president of the ROC." According to Pan Green mythology, Lien Chan lacks the means to "sell out Taiwan," even presuming he wants to, which he most assuredly does not.
No, Pan Greens were not really afraid that Lien Chan would "sell out Taiwan" by signing any secret and illegal treaties with Hu Jintao.
Instead, Pan Greens were afraid that Lien Chan would undo decades of Taiwan independence brainwashing by transforming the cross-straits political atmosphere.
Taiwan independence leaders are worried. They sense that the tide has turned. They sense that their dream of a "Republic of Taiwan" is slipping through their fingers with unexpected and alarming rapidity.
They are right to be worried. The tide has turned. Their treasonous goal of splitting Taiwan off from China is slipping through their fingers, more rapidly than the most optimistic Pan Blue patriots could ever have hoped for.
Taiwan independence Political Correctness no longer works. Nobody is afraid of being called a "Chi-Com fellow traveler" anymore. Tiresome McCarthyite smears, repeated for the umpteenth time, are no longer able to deter Pan Blue leaders from denouncing Taiwan independence and championing China's reunification.
This is a watershed moment in modern Chinese history, and a far cry from mere months ago, when Pan Blue leaders would tremble in their boots when confronted with wildly unfounded McCarthyite smears.
Ironically this "inordinate fear of Communism" was originally a KMT weapon against real, live Communist agents during the KMT's White Terror, appropriated lock, stock, and barrel by Taiwan independence demagogues for use during the DPP's Green Terror.
The public on Taiwan is overwhelmingly supportive of Lien's trip. This has Taiwan independence leaders wringing their hands in despair. Lee Teng-hui held a series of press conferences during which he became increasingly agitated as he spoke and openly admitted that he hadn't been able to sleep for days.
The Pan Green camp's shocking loss in the December 10, 2004 Legislative Election, followed by the mainland's highly-effective March 14, 2005 Anti-Secession Law, followed by Hsu Wen-long's March 25, 2005 public repudiation of Taiwan independence, followed by Lien Chan's triumphant "Journey of Peace," are all milestones on the Taiwan independence movement's road to oblivion.
The Watershed Legislative Election
According to the results of the 2004 Presidential Election -- before they were doctored by the Chen-controlled Central Election Committee -- Lien Chan was duly elected President of the Republic of China. The only reason Lien isn't sitting in the president's office today is the US only demands that fraudulent elections be overturned when its own pawns are shafted. In the case of the Ukraine, the US pawn got shafted. In the case of Taiwan, the US pawn was doing the shafting.
During the lead up to the December 2004 Legislative Election, political observers, Green and Blue alike, noted that Chen Shui-bian was eagerly awaiting the results of the December 2004 Legislative Election. He couldn't wait to point to the results and announce, "See! This Pan Green majority in the legislature confirms that I really was elected by a majority back in March 2004!"
Unfortunately the results confirmed the exact opposite. They confirmed angry Pan Blue voters' insistence that Chen lost the March 2004 Presidential Election by a wide margin. This was a devastating blow to Chen. If the December 2004 Legislative Election had gone the other way, he would have been gloating endlessly. As it was, he went into hiding for several weeks and we didn't hear a peep from him. For a loudmouth braggart like Chen Shui-bian, that was extraordinary.
The Critical Anti-Secession Law
My own view of Beijing's Anti-Secession Law differs from some of my Pan Blue comrades. I agree that the law provoked an initial backlash, but I believe it was part of a deliberate plan to first intimidate Taiwan independence Quislings with the stick, get that unpleasantness over with, then offer the carrot -- a really juicy carrot.
PRC leaders under the leadership of Hu Jintao have made a strategic decision. They have decided that rather than wage an immensely costly war to force reunification, one that could set the nation's economic development back two or more decades, they might as well use the same money to buy reunification.
Their first target was pro independence industrial tycoons such as Chi Mei's Hsu Wen-long. Their current target is pro independence southern Taiwan peasants such as fruit farmers.
Their strategy is working, like a well-oiled machine. That's the reason for Pan Green Panic.
Veni, Vidi, Vinci
Lien Chan's "Journey of Peace" was an unqualified triumph. Members of the public, both on the mainland and on Taiwan, both Pan Blue and Pan Green, were blown away.
Pan Green leaders, needless to say, were not. TV reporters covering the DPP and TSU showed them sitting around their party headquarters muttering unconvincing rebuttals and accusing Lien Chan of "selling out Taiwan." By which of course they meant, "discrediting Taiwan independence." They were seething because they knew Lien was doing a superb job.
Lien Chan has long been dismissed as a "fu bu qi de A-Dou," i.e., "a loser who can't get his act together."
Between April 26 and May 3, Lien proved his critics wrong, dead wrong. Lien showed them his mettle. Lien demostrated that he was a genuine statesman.
Actually we shouldn't have been surprised. Lien Chan has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. He taught Poly-Sci at the University of Wisconsin and University of Connecticut. Lien knows his history. Lien sees the Big Picture.
Lien Chan's problem, as it turns out, was not Lien Chan. Lien Chan's problem was Taiwan's political stage. Lien was too big. Taiwan's political stage was too small. Lien Chan's problem was that Taiwan's populist "democratic" politics called for him to be a Chen Shui-bian style demagogue, a Pauline Hanson style demagogue, a Willy Stark style demagogue straight out of Robert Penn Warren's searing political novel, "All the King's Men."
Political ability on Taiwan was defined as rabble-rousing ability. Political ability on Taiwan was defined wrongly. Political ability on Taiwan was defined the way it is on "Thirty Seconds to Fame."
Lien couldn't do it. Lien wouldn't do it. It wasn't in his nature. It wasn't him.
Beijing University or "Beida," finally provided Lien with the proper stage. Lien the learned scholar could finally show the world his stuff, before fellow scholars who didn't expect or want him to do a clown act.
Remember the expression, "Let Reagan be Reagan?" To find out what Lien was made of, it was merely necessary to "Let Lien be Lien."
Lien's performance was masterful. Lien showed that Lien had what Bush Senior lacked, "the vision thing." Lien's performance was another nail in the coffin of the Taiwan independence movement.
For a while it looked as if Lien Chan was destined to be a schlemiel, a footnote in history. Who knew Lien would pull a rabbit out of his hat and secure for himself a place in history far more significant and exalted than that of "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui and "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian?
The abysmal failure of 17 long years of Taiwan independence economic folly for the sake of an ersatz "Taiwanese national identity," the traumatic Pan Green defeat in the December 2004 Legislative Election, the public surrender of Taiwan independence True Believer Hsu Wen-long, all provided Lien with the opportunity of a lifetime. Lien saw it, and seized it.
Veni, Vidi, Vinci.
See:
Lien's Triumphal PRC Visit May Have Wide Implications
The Universe Works in Mysterious Ways
Sometimes I ask myself, why has the universe ("Lao Tien") given Lee Teng-hui 12 years and Chen Shui-bian eight years to abuse the Chinese people on Taiwan? Why have they been forced to suffer for so long?
But then I find myself thinking, perhaps it's a case of the old Chinese fable "Sai Ong Loses His Horse: Blessing or Bane 塞翁失馬焉知非福." Perhaps the universe is giving the Taiwan independence leadership enough rope to hang itself. By giving Taiwan independence leaders so many years to discredit their own ideology, by the time it's all over and the dust has settled, Taiwan independence as a political ideal will be so thoroughly discredited nobody will believe in it any more.
Ironically, this is precisely what happened on the mainland to Communism. Mao Zedong and his Communist hardliners insisted on implementing Marxism-Leninism in toto, without compromise. They abolished all private property. They herded everyone into communes. They collectivized industrial and agricultural production. The universe gave Mao every chance to make Communism succeed. When it failed, as it had to when it bumped up against harsh economic reality, it failed spectacularly. When it failed, no one could say it hadn't been given a fair chance.
The same thing is now happening on Taiwan to Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence, like Communism, has been given two decades to succeed. When it failed, as it had to when it bumped up against harsh economic reality, it failed spectacularly. When it failed, no one could say it hadn't been given a fair chance.
If on the other hand, James Soong hadn't faced a split vote in 2000, or Lien Chan hadn't been cheated out of his victory in 2004, Taiwan independence supporters would probably insist forever that "Taiwan independence never got a fair chance." Now that Chen Shui-bian, one of their own, has gotten a second term, however illegitimately, and run the economy into the ground, Taiwan independence ideology has been thoroughly discredited, forever, and the Chinese people can move on.
Fate takes some strange turns. Lien Chan won the presidential election fair and square in 2004. He is the Republic of China's real president. Chen Shui-bian stole the presidency from Lien by illegal, underhanded means. Now however Chen is faced with a dilemma.
He can stubbornly adhere to the DPP's "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution" and end up as a footnote in history, with nothing to show for his eight years in power. Or he can betray his Taiwan independence supporters, acknowledge the "1992 Consensus" that there is "One China, Two Interpretations," and make peace with the mainland.
He's sorely tempted to do the latter. Talking heads have noted that Chen could get the Nobel Peace Prize, but only if he is willing to sell out his fundamentalist supporters. Chen is torn, waffling from one moment to the next.
Ironically if Chen Shui-bian makes peace with the mainland, he may kill the Taiwan independence movement even more thoroughly than Soong or Lien. If Taiwan independence supporters are sold out by one of their own, they may be more resigned to the reality of One China and make less trouble down the road.
If Soong or Lien were to make peace with the mainland, Taiwan independence supporters might never be able to come to terms with it. They might insist that they were "stabbed in the back" by "Traitors to Taiwan," and later generations might never hear the end of it.
If Chen does makes peace with the mainland however, Taiwan independence followers may be left speechless. They may be forced to come to terms with the fact that their own champion realized their dream was dead and made the best deal he could for them under the circumstances.
See:
Sai Ong Loses His Horse: Blessing or Bane?
Lien Chan's Triumph
Bevin Chu
May 10, 2005
Executive Summary: On March 20, 2004, incumbent president Chen Shui-bian, via the Central Election Committee, rigged the Republic of China Presidential Election. Chen cheated challenger Lien Chan out of a victory he won fair and square, and the 53% majority of ROC citizens who voted for him out of the national leader of their choice. One year later, KMT Chairman Lien Chan completed a history-making "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland, during which he eclipsed Chen Shui-bian and peformed an end run around the Taiwan independence movement. The Universe had belatedly returned some measure of justice to Lien Chan and those who voted for him.
The 426 Incident: "Kill Lien Chan, Save Taiwan!"
On April 26, 2005, KMT Chairman Lien Chan departed for the Chinese mainland. Pan Blue KMT and New Party supporters who enthusiastically approved of Lien Chan's "Journey of Peace" arrived at Chiang Kai-shek International Airport to give their leader a joyous send off.
Pan Green DPP and TSU supporters who vehemently disapproved of Lien's journey, who characterized it as a "Journey of Surrender," also converged on the airport. They did not come to give Lien a joyous send off. They came to prevent Lien from leaving, by force if necessary. Failing that, they came to stone him with rocks the size of eggs.
Thugs from the "All People's Taxi Company," a pro independence taxi company notorious for violent physical attacks upon those guilty of being born "mainlanders," stalled their vehicles on the freeway in an attempt to prevent Lien's motorcade from reaching the airport. Upon being intercepted, they led the highway patrol on a high-speed chase straight out of television's Max X -- Maximum Exposure.
Having failed to prevent Lien from reaching the terminal building, elected legislators from the ruling DPP [You read that right], the allied TSU, and other pro Taiwan independence groups converged on the airport with rotten eggs, rocks, glass bottles, slingshots, clubs, even firecrackers, with the announced intention of attacking Lien as he made his way to the boarding gate.
One Taiwan independence zealot even brandished a "guan dao," a traditional Chinese weapon similar to a Swiss halberd, and wore a T-shirt that read "Kill Lien Chan, Save Taiwan."
Taiwan independence supporter wearing T-shirt reading "Kill Lien Chan, Save Taiwan."
How did the Chen regime Aviation Police Bureau deal with these two groups?
Pan Blue well-wishers, armed only with flowers and ROC flags, whose only intention was to give Lien Chan a joyous send-off were shut out of the terminal building by a solid phalanx of riot police.
Pan Green trouble-makers, who had openly announced several days in advance their intention to commit god knows what violence against Lien Chan, were allowed to swarm into the terminal building via an escalator from the basement level parking garage.
Taiwan independence fellow travelers have long attempted to depict the Taiwan independence movement as something that it is not, an idealistic, progressive, reformist political movement, rather than what it is, a myopic, reactionary, fascistic political movement. The 426 Incident shattered that myth and showed the world the ugly truth.
Pan Green Panic
According to Pan Green mythology, "Lien Chan lost the 2004 Presidential Election." According to the Pan Green mythology, "Chen Shui-bian is the duly-elected president of the ROC." According to Pan Green mythology, Lien Chan lacks the means to "sell out Taiwan," even presuming he wants to, which he most assuredly does not.
No, Pan Greens were not really afraid that Lien Chan would "sell out Taiwan" by signing any secret and illegal treaties with Hu Jintao.
Instead, Pan Greens were afraid that Lien Chan would undo decades of Taiwan independence brainwashing by transforming the cross-straits political atmosphere.
Taiwan independence leaders are worried. They sense that the tide has turned. They sense that their dream of a "Republic of Taiwan" is slipping through their fingers with unexpected and alarming rapidity.
They are right to be worried. The tide has turned. Their treasonous goal of splitting Taiwan off from China is slipping through their fingers, more rapidly than the most optimistic Pan Blue patriots could ever have hoped for.
Taiwan independence Political Correctness no longer works. Nobody is afraid of being called a "Chi-Com fellow traveler" anymore. Tiresome McCarthyite smears, repeated for the umpteenth time, are no longer able to deter Pan Blue leaders from denouncing Taiwan independence and championing China's reunification.
This is a watershed moment in modern Chinese history, and a far cry from mere months ago, when Pan Blue leaders would tremble in their boots when confronted with wildly unfounded McCarthyite smears.
Ironically this "inordinate fear of Communism" was originally a KMT weapon against real, live Communist agents during the KMT's White Terror, appropriated lock, stock, and barrel by Taiwan independence demagogues for use during the DPP's Green Terror.
The public on Taiwan is overwhelmingly supportive of Lien's trip. This has Taiwan independence leaders wringing their hands in despair. Lee Teng-hui held a series of press conferences during which he became increasingly agitated as he spoke and openly admitted that he hadn't been able to sleep for days.
The Pan Green camp's shocking loss in the December 10, 2004 Legislative Election, followed by the mainland's highly-effective March 14, 2005 Anti-Secession Law, followed by Hsu Wen-long's March 25, 2005 public repudiation of Taiwan independence, followed by Lien Chan's triumphant "Journey of Peace," are all milestones on the Taiwan independence movement's road to oblivion.
The Watershed Legislative Election
According to the results of the 2004 Presidential Election -- before they were doctored by the Chen-controlled Central Election Committee -- Lien Chan was duly elected President of the Republic of China. The only reason Lien isn't sitting in the president's office today is the US only demands that fraudulent elections be overturned when its own pawns are shafted. In the case of the Ukraine, the US pawn got shafted. In the case of Taiwan, the US pawn was doing the shafting.
During the lead up to the December 2004 Legislative Election, political observers, Green and Blue alike, noted that Chen Shui-bian was eagerly awaiting the results of the December 2004 Legislative Election. He couldn't wait to point to the results and announce, "See! This Pan Green majority in the legislature confirms that I really was elected by a majority back in March 2004!"
Unfortunately the results confirmed the exact opposite. They confirmed angry Pan Blue voters' insistence that Chen lost the March 2004 Presidential Election by a wide margin. This was a devastating blow to Chen. If the December 2004 Legislative Election had gone the other way, he would have been gloating endlessly. As it was, he went into hiding for several weeks and we didn't hear a peep from him. For a loudmouth braggart like Chen Shui-bian, that was extraordinary.
The Critical Anti-Secession Law
My own view of Beijing's Anti-Secession Law differs from some of my Pan Blue comrades. I agree that the law provoked an initial backlash, but I believe it was part of a deliberate plan to first intimidate Taiwan independence Quislings with the stick, get that unpleasantness over with, then offer the carrot -- a really juicy carrot.
PRC leaders under the leadership of Hu Jintao have made a strategic decision. They have decided that rather than wage an immensely costly war to force reunification, one that could set the nation's economic development back two or more decades, they might as well use the same money to buy reunification.
Their first target was pro independence industrial tycoons such as Chi Mei's Hsu Wen-long. Their current target is pro independence southern Taiwan peasants such as fruit farmers.
Their strategy is working, like a well-oiled machine. That's the reason for Pan Green Panic.
Veni, Vidi, Vinci
Lien Chan's "Journey of Peace" was an unqualified triumph. Members of the public, both on the mainland and on Taiwan, both Pan Blue and Pan Green, were blown away.
Pan Green leaders, needless to say, were not. TV reporters covering the DPP and TSU showed them sitting around their party headquarters muttering unconvincing rebuttals and accusing Lien Chan of "selling out Taiwan." By which of course they meant, "discrediting Taiwan independence." They were seething because they knew Lien was doing a superb job.
Lien Chan has long been dismissed as a "fu bu qi de A-Dou," i.e., "a loser who can't get his act together."
Between April 26 and May 3, Lien proved his critics wrong, dead wrong. Lien showed them his mettle. Lien demostrated that he was a genuine statesman.
Actually we shouldn't have been surprised. Lien Chan has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. He taught Poly-Sci at the University of Wisconsin and University of Connecticut. Lien knows his history. Lien sees the Big Picture.
Lien Chan's problem, as it turns out, was not Lien Chan. Lien Chan's problem was Taiwan's political stage. Lien was too big. Taiwan's political stage was too small. Lien Chan's problem was that Taiwan's populist "democratic" politics called for him to be a Chen Shui-bian style demagogue, a Pauline Hanson style demagogue, a Willy Stark style demagogue straight out of Robert Penn Warren's searing political novel, "All the King's Men."
Political ability on Taiwan was defined as rabble-rousing ability. Political ability on Taiwan was defined wrongly. Political ability on Taiwan was defined the way it is on "Thirty Seconds to Fame."
Lien couldn't do it. Lien wouldn't do it. It wasn't in his nature. It wasn't him.
Beijing University or "Beida," finally provided Lien with the proper stage. Lien the learned scholar could finally show the world his stuff, before fellow scholars who didn't expect or want him to do a clown act.
Remember the expression, "Let Reagan be Reagan?" To find out what Lien was made of, it was merely necessary to "Let Lien be Lien."
Lien's performance was masterful. Lien showed that Lien had what Bush Senior lacked, "the vision thing." Lien's performance was another nail in the coffin of the Taiwan independence movement.
For a while it looked as if Lien Chan was destined to be a schlemiel, a footnote in history. Who knew Lien would pull a rabbit out of his hat and secure for himself a place in history far more significant and exalted than that of "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui and "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian?
The abysmal failure of 17 long years of Taiwan independence economic folly for the sake of an ersatz "Taiwanese national identity," the traumatic Pan Green defeat in the December 2004 Legislative Election, the public surrender of Taiwan independence True Believer Hsu Wen-long, all provided Lien with the opportunity of a lifetime. Lien saw it, and seized it.
Veni, Vidi, Vinci.
See:
Lien's Triumphal PRC Visit May Have Wide Implications
The Universe Works in Mysterious Ways
Sometimes I ask myself, why has the universe ("Lao Tien") given Lee Teng-hui 12 years and Chen Shui-bian eight years to abuse the Chinese people on Taiwan? Why have they been forced to suffer for so long?
But then I find myself thinking, perhaps it's a case of the old Chinese fable "Sai Ong Loses His Horse: Blessing or Bane 塞翁失馬焉知非福." Perhaps the universe is giving the Taiwan independence leadership enough rope to hang itself. By giving Taiwan independence leaders so many years to discredit their own ideology, by the time it's all over and the dust has settled, Taiwan independence as a political ideal will be so thoroughly discredited nobody will believe in it any more.
Ironically, this is precisely what happened on the mainland to Communism. Mao Zedong and his Communist hardliners insisted on implementing Marxism-Leninism in toto, without compromise. They abolished all private property. They herded everyone into communes. They collectivized industrial and agricultural production. The universe gave Mao every chance to make Communism succeed. When it failed, as it had to when it bumped up against harsh economic reality, it failed spectacularly. When it failed, no one could say it hadn't been given a fair chance.
The same thing is now happening on Taiwan to Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence, like Communism, has been given two decades to succeed. When it failed, as it had to when it bumped up against harsh economic reality, it failed spectacularly. When it failed, no one could say it hadn't been given a fair chance.
If on the other hand, James Soong hadn't faced a split vote in 2000, or Lien Chan hadn't been cheated out of his victory in 2004, Taiwan independence supporters would probably insist forever that "Taiwan independence never got a fair chance." Now that Chen Shui-bian, one of their own, has gotten a second term, however illegitimately, and run the economy into the ground, Taiwan independence ideology has been thoroughly discredited, forever, and the Chinese people can move on.
Fate takes some strange turns. Lien Chan won the presidential election fair and square in 2004. He is the Republic of China's real president. Chen Shui-bian stole the presidency from Lien by illegal, underhanded means. Now however Chen is faced with a dilemma.
He can stubbornly adhere to the DPP's "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution" and end up as a footnote in history, with nothing to show for his eight years in power. Or he can betray his Taiwan independence supporters, acknowledge the "1992 Consensus" that there is "One China, Two Interpretations," and make peace with the mainland.
He's sorely tempted to do the latter. Talking heads have noted that Chen could get the Nobel Peace Prize, but only if he is willing to sell out his fundamentalist supporters. Chen is torn, waffling from one moment to the next.
Ironically if Chen Shui-bian makes peace with the mainland, he may kill the Taiwan independence movement even more thoroughly than Soong or Lien. If Taiwan independence supporters are sold out by one of their own, they may be more resigned to the reality of One China and make less trouble down the road.
If Soong or Lien were to make peace with the mainland, Taiwan independence supporters might never be able to come to terms with it. They might insist that they were "stabbed in the back" by "Traitors to Taiwan," and later generations might never hear the end of it.
If Chen does makes peace with the mainland however, Taiwan independence followers may be left speechless. They may be forced to come to terms with the fact that their own champion realized their dream was dead and made the best deal he could for them under the circumstances.
See:
Sai Ong Loses His Horse: Blessing or Bane?
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Taiwan Can't Be Fooled
Taiwan Can't Be Fooled
At Least not by the Christian Science Monitor
Bevin Chu
May 2, 2005
The Christian Science Monitor Meddles in China's Politics
"The U.S. major media and much of the minor media are not free and independent, as they claim. They are not the watchdog of democracy but the lapdog of the national security state. They help reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
-- Michael Parenti, political scientist
On May 2, 2005, in a thankfully short article entitled "Taiwan Can't Be Fooled," the Christian Science Monitor told the American public that:
"The increasingly rich and well-schooled Taiwanese [emphasis added] aren't like the mainland's 700 million, little-educated peasants whom the communist leaders usually manipulate. Yet last week Beijing treated the people of Taiwan [emphasis added] like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way... These crude good-cop bad-cop antics by China [emphasis added] only further Taiwan's [emphasis added] steady drift away from the mainland in everything but business ties.
How can one keep from laughing out loud, when the Christian Science Monitor's heavy-handed, patronizing spin control so perfectly exemplifies political scientist Michael Parenti's scathing observation?
How do these lapdogs of the national security state reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers?
They do it the way the Ministry of Truth did it in George Orwell's dystopian novel, "1984," by manipulating the language, by playing word games. Veteran China watchers are wise to their tricks, but let's review them for the benefit of newcomers.
They persistently refer to "Taiwan" as if it were the name of a political entity rather than a geographical region of China, an offshore island of China.
They persistently refer to Chinese citizens on Taiwan as "Taiwanese," giving Americans the false impression they are citizens of an independent nation of "Taiwan."
They persistently refer to "China" as if the term applied only to that portion of China under the control of the PRC regime in Beijing.
They persistently refer only to mainland Chinese as "Chinese," giving Americans the false impression they are different from "Taiwanese," rather than fellow Chinese who reside in different region of China.
On the mainland side, they contemptuously dismiss 700 million living, breathing, thinking human beings on the Chinese mainland as mindless ciphers that "the communist leaders usually manipulate."
On the Taiwan side, they duplicitously provide as little coverage as possible to the democratic majority of Pan Blue citizens who are proud of being Chinese, swear heartfelt allegiance to the Republic of China, and resolutely oppose Taiwan independence. Invoking the lapdog media's own words, they "treat the people of Taiwan like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way."
Why do they do this?
They do not do this unwittingly. They do not do this innocently.
They do this maliciously. They do this to mislead the American public into believing that "Taiwan" is an independent nation rather than an integral part of China. They do this to persuade the American public to go along with applying the same "divide and conquer" strategies against China that were used against Gorbachev's Russia, Milosevic's Serbia, and any political entity the US government considers a real or imagined threat to the national security state.
The Christian Science Monitor continues:
"China rolled out the red carpet, literally, for a visit by Taiwan's opposition leader, Lien Chan. He, like China, opposes formal independence for the island nation and favors eventual reunification. In treating him as a head of state, [emphasis added] and even signing an agreement of common objectives with him, China hopes to isolate Taiwan's current president, Chen Shui-bian, who talks of officially accepting the reality of an independent Taiwan. [emphasis added] China's autocrats can't seem to accept that Taiwan is a democracy in which the people have voted for Mr. Chen twice, and against Mr. Lien. [emphasis added] They also must think they can act kindly toward Taiwanese politicians [emphasis added] they favor while aiming hundreds of missiles at the island and recently passing a law that threatens war if Taiwan [emphasis added] moves toward formal statehood."
Ironically, Lien Chan is a head of state. Lien Chan is the actual winner of the March 2004 Presidential Election. Lien is in fact President Lien of the Republic of China. The only reason he isn't currently occupying the Office of the ROC President is that unlike Viktor Yushchenko, who was "Our Man in Kiev," Lien was too proud to be "Our Man in Taipei," i.e., a willing puppet of the US.
Just before departing for the South Pacific, Chen Shui-bian, green with envy at Lien Chan's wildly successful Journey of Peace, told reporters that "No matter which Taiwan party or individuals China prefers to talk to, it ultimately has to talk to the leader chosen by Taiwan people and the government of Taiwan."
I'm sure the 53% majority of ROC voters who cast their ballots for Lien Chan on election day 2004 got a good laugh at that, considering the fact that mainland China, in talking to Lien Chan, was talking to the leader chosen by the Chinese people on Taiwan and the government of the Republic of China!
Even more ironically, ersatz president Chen Shui-bian is at this very moment considering following in Lien Chan's footsteps. Chen is talking of officially accepting the reality of One China, traveling to Beijing, signing an interim peace treaty, thereby ensuring his place in the Pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.
This is why Taiwan independence fundamentalist Lee Teng-hui recently held a press conference during which he complained he hadn't been able to sleep for days. The editors of the Christian Science Monitor are way behind the curve. They really need to get a clue. They need to log on to the internet and check out some websites other than their own.
Taiwan is not a democracy. Taiwan is a cronyist dictatorship a la the Philippines under Marcos, or Indonesia under Suharto, with the external trappings of a democracy. ROC voters on Taiwan have not "voted for Mr. Chen twice, and against Mr. Lien."
To see whom ROC voters on Taiwan actually voted for, see my series of articles on Taiwan's Stolen Election.
The Christian Science Monitor concludes:
"Lien's visit, however, did carry some historic symbolism. He's head of the KMT party, or Nationalists, who lost China to the communists in 1949 and fled to Taiwan. He's the first KMT leader to return to the mainland since the civil war ended with Mao Tse-tung's victory. His party still controls Taiwan's legislature. [emphasis added] But Beijing wins no point by pretending to put the civil war memories aside and welcoming Lien as an equal. He's not Taiwan's duly elected leader. [emphasis added] Unlike in China, Taiwan's leaders reflect the will of voters, who prefer that their leaders keep their independence of Beijing's manipulative ways. China will need to talk to Taiwan's president, no conditions attached, if it wants to be taken seriously by Taiwanese."
As noted above, Lien Chan is "Taiwan's duly elected leader," or more precisely, the Republic of China's duly elected leader.
As noted above, the shameless pretender squatting in the Presidential Palace does not "reflect the will of voters."
As noted above, ROC voters "prefer that their leaders keep their independence of [Washington's] manipulative ways."
This is why they prefer that Lien Chan and James Soong, the leaders they actually voted for and who actually won, conduct peace negotiations with Beijing based on the well-known "1992 Consensus" of "One China, Two Interpretations."
For those unfamiliar with the "1992 Consensus," it stipulates that "There is only one indivisible China. This China includes both Taiwan and the mainland. Beijing will refer to this China as the People's Republic of China. Taipei will refer to this China as the Republic of China."
Vox Populi, Vox Dei?
On March 29, 2005, the ERA TV cable channel conducted a public opinion poll, attempting to gauge the Taiwan public's reaction to Lien Chan's historic visit. The question asked was:
"Do you approve or disapprove of proceeding with cross-straits negotiations on the basis of "One China, Two Interpretations?"
An overwhelming majority of 77% answered "Approve."
A mere 11% answered "Disapprove."
72% of Pan Green voters, 67% of Neutral voters, and 92% of Pan Blue voters answered "Approve."
20% of Pan Green voters, 10% of Neutral voters, and 4% of Pan Blue voters answered "Disapprove."
8% of Pan Green voters, 23% of Neutral voters, and 4% of Pan Blue voters answered "Don't know."
ERA TV Poll, conducted March 29, 2005
Alas, you would never know any of this from reading the Christian Science Monitor, because as Michael Parenti noted, "The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
Fortunately the increasingly rich and well-schooled Chinese people on Taiwan aren't the little-educated peasants the Monitor thought it could manipulate. Despite the Monitor's attempt to treat them like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way, the Chinese people on Taiwan could not be fooled, at least not by the Christian Science Monitor.
Unfortunately, these crude antics by media organizations such as the Monitor only further the Chinese people's increasing alienation from and disillusionment with the America they once admired.
At Least not by the Christian Science Monitor
Bevin Chu
May 2, 2005
The Christian Science Monitor Meddles in China's Politics
"The U.S. major media and much of the minor media are not free and independent, as they claim. They are not the watchdog of democracy but the lapdog of the national security state. They help reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
-- Michael Parenti, political scientist
On May 2, 2005, in a thankfully short article entitled "Taiwan Can't Be Fooled," the Christian Science Monitor told the American public that:
"The increasingly rich and well-schooled Taiwanese [emphasis added] aren't like the mainland's 700 million, little-educated peasants whom the communist leaders usually manipulate. Yet last week Beijing treated the people of Taiwan [emphasis added] like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way... These crude good-cop bad-cop antics by China [emphasis added] only further Taiwan's [emphasis added] steady drift away from the mainland in everything but business ties.
How can one keep from laughing out loud, when the Christian Science Monitor's heavy-handed, patronizing spin control so perfectly exemplifies political scientist Michael Parenti's scathing observation?
How do these lapdogs of the national security state reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers?
They do it the way the Ministry of Truth did it in George Orwell's dystopian novel, "1984," by manipulating the language, by playing word games. Veteran China watchers are wise to their tricks, but let's review them for the benefit of newcomers.
They persistently refer to "Taiwan" as if it were the name of a political entity rather than a geographical region of China, an offshore island of China.
They persistently refer to Chinese citizens on Taiwan as "Taiwanese," giving Americans the false impression they are citizens of an independent nation of "Taiwan."
They persistently refer to "China" as if the term applied only to that portion of China under the control of the PRC regime in Beijing.
They persistently refer only to mainland Chinese as "Chinese," giving Americans the false impression they are different from "Taiwanese," rather than fellow Chinese who reside in different region of China.
On the mainland side, they contemptuously dismiss 700 million living, breathing, thinking human beings on the Chinese mainland as mindless ciphers that "the communist leaders usually manipulate."
On the Taiwan side, they duplicitously provide as little coverage as possible to the democratic majority of Pan Blue citizens who are proud of being Chinese, swear heartfelt allegiance to the Republic of China, and resolutely oppose Taiwan independence. Invoking the lapdog media's own words, they "treat the people of Taiwan like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way."
Why do they do this?
They do not do this unwittingly. They do not do this innocently.
They do this maliciously. They do this to mislead the American public into believing that "Taiwan" is an independent nation rather than an integral part of China. They do this to persuade the American public to go along with applying the same "divide and conquer" strategies against China that were used against Gorbachev's Russia, Milosevic's Serbia, and any political entity the US government considers a real or imagined threat to the national security state.
The Christian Science Monitor continues:
"China rolled out the red carpet, literally, for a visit by Taiwan's opposition leader, Lien Chan. He, like China, opposes formal independence for the island nation and favors eventual reunification. In treating him as a head of state, [emphasis added] and even signing an agreement of common objectives with him, China hopes to isolate Taiwan's current president, Chen Shui-bian, who talks of officially accepting the reality of an independent Taiwan. [emphasis added] China's autocrats can't seem to accept that Taiwan is a democracy in which the people have voted for Mr. Chen twice, and against Mr. Lien. [emphasis added] They also must think they can act kindly toward Taiwanese politicians [emphasis added] they favor while aiming hundreds of missiles at the island and recently passing a law that threatens war if Taiwan [emphasis added] moves toward formal statehood."
Ironically, Lien Chan is a head of state. Lien Chan is the actual winner of the March 2004 Presidential Election. Lien is in fact President Lien of the Republic of China. The only reason he isn't currently occupying the Office of the ROC President is that unlike Viktor Yushchenko, who was "Our Man in Kiev," Lien was too proud to be "Our Man in Taipei," i.e., a willing puppet of the US.
Just before departing for the South Pacific, Chen Shui-bian, green with envy at Lien Chan's wildly successful Journey of Peace, told reporters that "No matter which Taiwan party or individuals China prefers to talk to, it ultimately has to talk to the leader chosen by Taiwan people and the government of Taiwan."
I'm sure the 53% majority of ROC voters who cast their ballots for Lien Chan on election day 2004 got a good laugh at that, considering the fact that mainland China, in talking to Lien Chan, was talking to the leader chosen by the Chinese people on Taiwan and the government of the Republic of China!
Even more ironically, ersatz president Chen Shui-bian is at this very moment considering following in Lien Chan's footsteps. Chen is talking of officially accepting the reality of One China, traveling to Beijing, signing an interim peace treaty, thereby ensuring his place in the Pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.
This is why Taiwan independence fundamentalist Lee Teng-hui recently held a press conference during which he complained he hadn't been able to sleep for days. The editors of the Christian Science Monitor are way behind the curve. They really need to get a clue. They need to log on to the internet and check out some websites other than their own.
Taiwan is not a democracy. Taiwan is a cronyist dictatorship a la the Philippines under Marcos, or Indonesia under Suharto, with the external trappings of a democracy. ROC voters on Taiwan have not "voted for Mr. Chen twice, and against Mr. Lien."
To see whom ROC voters on Taiwan actually voted for, see my series of articles on Taiwan's Stolen Election.
The Christian Science Monitor concludes:
"Lien's visit, however, did carry some historic symbolism. He's head of the KMT party, or Nationalists, who lost China to the communists in 1949 and fled to Taiwan. He's the first KMT leader to return to the mainland since the civil war ended with Mao Tse-tung's victory. His party still controls Taiwan's legislature. [emphasis added] But Beijing wins no point by pretending to put the civil war memories aside and welcoming Lien as an equal. He's not Taiwan's duly elected leader. [emphasis added] Unlike in China, Taiwan's leaders reflect the will of voters, who prefer that their leaders keep their independence of Beijing's manipulative ways. China will need to talk to Taiwan's president, no conditions attached, if it wants to be taken seriously by Taiwanese."
As noted above, Lien Chan is "Taiwan's duly elected leader," or more precisely, the Republic of China's duly elected leader.
As noted above, the shameless pretender squatting in the Presidential Palace does not "reflect the will of voters."
As noted above, ROC voters "prefer that their leaders keep their independence of [Washington's] manipulative ways."
This is why they prefer that Lien Chan and James Soong, the leaders they actually voted for and who actually won, conduct peace negotiations with Beijing based on the well-known "1992 Consensus" of "One China, Two Interpretations."
For those unfamiliar with the "1992 Consensus," it stipulates that "There is only one indivisible China. This China includes both Taiwan and the mainland. Beijing will refer to this China as the People's Republic of China. Taipei will refer to this China as the Republic of China."
Vox Populi, Vox Dei?
On March 29, 2005, the ERA TV cable channel conducted a public opinion poll, attempting to gauge the Taiwan public's reaction to Lien Chan's historic visit. The question asked was:
"Do you approve or disapprove of proceeding with cross-straits negotiations on the basis of "One China, Two Interpretations?"
An overwhelming majority of 77% answered "Approve."
A mere 11% answered "Disapprove."
72% of Pan Green voters, 67% of Neutral voters, and 92% of Pan Blue voters answered "Approve."
20% of Pan Green voters, 10% of Neutral voters, and 4% of Pan Blue voters answered "Disapprove."
8% of Pan Green voters, 23% of Neutral voters, and 4% of Pan Blue voters answered "Don't know."
ERA TV Poll, conducted March 29, 2005
Alas, you would never know any of this from reading the Christian Science Monitor, because as Michael Parenti noted, "The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
Fortunately the increasingly rich and well-schooled Chinese people on Taiwan aren't the little-educated peasants the Monitor thought it could manipulate. Despite the Monitor's attempt to treat them like dupes by meddling in their politics in a foolhardy way, the Chinese people on Taiwan could not be fooled, at least not by the Christian Science Monitor.
Unfortunately, these crude antics by media organizations such as the Monitor only further the Chinese people's increasing alienation from and disillusionment with the America they once admired.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The Republic of China is not Taiwan
The Republic of China is not Taiwan
Clarifying Cato's Clarification
Bevin Chu
April 27, 2005
Executive Summary: Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of "America's Coming War With China: A Collision Course Over Taiwan." In an April 21, 2005 article entitled "Conflicting Conceptions of the Taiwan Status Quo," Carpenter attempts to clarify what Beijing, Taipei, and Washington each mean when they talk about "maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Straits." Unfortunately, he commits the universal and unforgivable blunder of equating the "Republic of China" with "Taiwan." This article will attempt to clarify Carpenter's clarification, and set the record straight.
Cato gets It Right
Carpenter, to his enormous credit, has made no bones about what the US government's position vis a vis Taiwan independence ought to be, for both moral and practical reasons. I have enthusiastically quoted him in my own articles, almost ad nauseum.
As Carpenter wrote:
"Neither the earlier pro-Taiwan policy nor the latest pro-Beijing posture [advocated by George W. Bush] serves the best interests of the United States. It is not America's proper role to take a position on Taiwan's independence or other issues involving relations between Taipei and Beijing... U.S. leaders should make it clear that Taiwan must bear all of the risks entailed in whatever policies it adopts. In particular, Washington should state that it will not intervene if an armed conflict breaks out between Taiwan and mainland China."
Carpenter is right on the money.
Benevolent Global Hegemonists on the neocon right and Humanitarian Interventionists on the liberal left alike cite a slew of laughable "reasons" why the US government is politically justified, even "morally obligated" to stick its nose into the domestic affairs of foreign nations situated half way around the globe -- nations with which the US doesn't even share a common border. In the end, the real question is:
So what if the DPP regime in Taipei wants to secede from China?
So what if the CCP regime in Beijing is determined to stop them?
What business is it of the US? Where does the federal government of the United States get off "admonishing both capitals about their behavior?"
To get a sense of just how presumptuous the US government's attitude is, see:
China to US: No Violence Against Confederacy
China Wants US Attorney General to Testify
Cato gets It Wrong
Unfortunately Carpenter drops the ball in a subsequent article, "Conflicting Conceptions of the Taiwan Status Quo," in which he commits a universal and unforgiveable blunder:
He erroneously uses the term "Republic of China" as if it referred only to the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan, and the term "China" as if it referred only to the mainland portion of China.
Ordinary Americans can be forgiven for dismissing these distinctions as unworthy of their attention, but Carpenter and Cato should know better. These constitutional law distinctions lie at the very heart of the cross-straits conflict, and could spell the difference between continued peace and nuclear catastrophe.
These legal distinctions are not subject to "interpretation." They are explicit provisions of the Republic of China Constitution. Taiwan independence leaders know this better than anyone else. They know it, and they hate it. They might try to deceive Americans about Taiwan's current status. They might repeat the catechism, "Taiwan is already independent!" But in their heart of hearts they know that until and unless they author an new constitution and declare formal independence, Taiwan will remain an integral part of China.
As you read on, take note of the comments in brackets [ ]. They serve to correct a series of erroneous impressions Carpenter leaves the reader with concerning the meaning of such terms as "China," the "Republic of China," and "Taiwan."
Carpenter writes:
China [i.e., mainland China] reacted with anger and dismay when the U.S. State Department criticized the anti-secession law recently passed by the National People's Congress. Chinese officials [i.e., mainland Chinese officials] protested that, contrary to U.S. complaints, the new law did not change the status quo regarding Taiwan. Indeed, they insisted that the legislation reinforced the status quo.
The Chinese [i.e., The Chinese on the mainland, as opposed to the Chinese on Taiwan] are probably sincere. Yet that sincerity underscores a larger -- and potentially very dangerous -- problem regarding the Taiwan issue. Beijing, Taipei, and Washington all insist that they oppose any unilateral action that alters the status quo, but the three capitals interpret the status quo in vastly different ways. That creates considerable potential for misunderstanding and mutual recrimination -- or worse.
When U.S. officials speak of the status quo, they mean a willingness by all parties to tolerate indefinitely Taiwan's ambiguous political status. In other words, the island should continue to enjoy its de facto independence (but not internationally recognized legal independence) until Taipei and Beijing can agree on a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
That rationale enables Washington to acknowledge Beijing's position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China while continuing to sell arms to Taiwan and maintain an implicit commitment to defend the island against a Chinese military assault [i.e., mainland Chinese military assault.] Taiwan's attempts to push the envelope regarding independence are considered disruptive and undesirable, but so too is any attempt by China [i.e., mainland China] to compel reunification. That is why the United States has explicitly admonished both capitals in the past year about their behavior.
The People's Republic of China has a radically different definition of the status quo. As one Chinese official [i.e., mainland Chinese official] put it, "the status quo of the cross-straits relations is that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China." He added that it is "a status quo not defined by other countries such as the United States, nor by the Taiwan leaders."
To Beijing, the status quo is a synonym for a one-China policy and Taiwan's eventual reunification with the mainland. Anything that challenges the concept of one China is, therefore, an unacceptable attempt to alter the status quo. Thus, from the perspective of Chinese leaders [i.e., mainland Chinese leaders], the anti-secession law is not disruptive; it merely re-emphasizes the only acceptable political outcome: reunification. Conversely, even the mildest actions by Taiwan to gain international recognition for the Republic of China (the official name of the Taiwanese government) [No, no, no!] are a threat to the status quo and must be resisted at all costs.
Correction:
The Republic of China is not Taiwan, the Republic of China is China.
The DPP's claim that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country; its current name is the Republic of China," is Taiwan independence Newspeak.
For an expose of the DPP's disingenuous verbal sleight of hand, see:
He Who Tells a Lie
The "Republic of China" is not "the official name of the Taiwanese government." The Republic of China is the official name of the Chinese government. Or more precisely, one of two rival Chinese governments. According to the letter and spirit of the Republic of China Constitution, the Republic of China (ROC) government is the sole legal government of all China, including the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, and Hainan Island.
The ROC government has since modified its stance to reflect the KMT's catastrophic military defeat in 1949 and the subsequent cross-straits "Mexican Stand-off." It has acknowledged its loss of active jurisdiction over the Chinese mainland, but at the same time staunchly reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Chinese mainland.
Taiwan independence True Believers, needless to say, belittle this pro reunification, strict constructionist stance as "unrealistic," and "deluded." They insist that relinquishing any and all claims to sovereignty over the Chinese mainland, and declaring that "China is China, Taiwan is Taiwan," is more "realistic" and "honest."
What arguments do they offer in support of their position? They cite the fact that the ROC government is far too weak compared to the PRC government, and that the ROC government is no longer militarily capable of recovering the Chinese mainland.
Unfortunately for them, their argument proves too much. It proves that Taiwan independence True Believers are a thousand times more unrealistic and deluded for demanding the estabishment of a "sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan."
Why?
Because the PRC government is willing to tolerate the reunificationists' position, but unwilling to tolerate the separatists' position.
The PRC government is willing to tolerate the Pan Blue reunificationists' allegedly "unrealistic" and "deluded" position because the Pan Blue reunificationists' stubborn insistence that "the Chinese mainland is an inseparable part of the Republic of China" largely agrees with their own stubborn insistence that "Taiwan is an inseparable part of the People's Republic of China."
Conversely, as Carpenter noted, even the mildest actions by Pan Green secessionists' to gain international recognition for an independent "Nation of Taiwan" with no connection to the Chinese mainland are a dire threat to the status quo and must be resisted at all costs.
This is why the Pan Blue reunificationists' position is, paradoxically. a thousand times more realistic and non-deluded than the Pan Green separatists' position. This is why the Pan Blue reunificationists' position is, paradoxically, both more principled and also more pragmatic.
Before the Taiwan independence leadership began deliberately provoking mainland China, Beijing was in no rush to compel reunification. Mainland Chinese leaders had no "timetable for reunification" and were perfectly content to let the logistical nightmare of eventual reunification slide indefinitely.
Their current hard line is a purely reactive, purely defensive response to nearly a decade of deliberate provocations from two consecutive, pro independence regimes in Taipei, neither of which had the support of a democratic majority of Republic of China citizens on Taiwan.
The most serious of these provocations were Lee Teng-hui's "two states theory" in 1997 and Chen Shui-bian's "one nation each side theory" in 2002, particularly Chen's explicit declaration that he intended to hold a popular referendum and author a "Taiwanese constitution" in 2006, and establish a "Republic of Taiwan" in 2008.
Even the Bush II administration, the most Sinophobic US administration in modern memory, is fully aware of this.
Carpenter writes:
Taiwan's [i.e., the Pan Green leadership's] concept of the status quo is exactly the opposite of the PRC's. Taiwanese officials [i.e., Pan Green officials] routinely argue that the status quo means Taiwan's independence. They point out that the Republic of China has been in existence since 1912, and that at least some countries in the world (at present, fewer than 30 mostly small nations) still recognize the ROC [i.e., "Republic of China," not "Taiwan"] as an independent state.
Correction:
Here Carpenter commits his most serious error. He conflates "the Republic of China" with "Taiwan." This is unforgiveable for anyone claiming to be a China expert. He is hardly alone in this, but respectable libertarian scholars such as Carpenter must be held to higher standards than the intellectually indolent political hacks who make up America's ruling Demopublican party and America's lapdog media.
Is Carpenter truly unaware that the "Republic of China," which has indeed been in existence since 1912, is not "Taiwan?"
Is Carpenter truly unaware that those countries that "still recognize the ROC as an independent state" correctly refer to it as "China," according to the letter and spirit of the Republic of China Constitution?
Most importantly, is Carpenter truly unaware that those who falsely allege that the "Republic of China" equals "Taiwan" are using Taiwan as a stalking horse for US imperialism?
Carpenter writes:
As supporting evidence for the proposition that the status quo means an independent Taiwan, one official stressed that since 1996, Taiwan [i.e., the Republic of China] has held fully democratic elections "within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory."
Correction:
Taiwan did not hold democratic elections "within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory." The Republic of China held democratic elections "within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory."
Carpenter writes:
Reunification with China, [i.e., mainland China] according to Taipei, [i.e., Pan Green leaders in Taipei] is only one possible outcome among many to be negotiated by the governments of two independent and equal states. From Taiwan's perspective, [i.e., Pan Green leaders' perspective] the new anti-secession law is an aggressive and threatening attempt by Beijing to alter the status quo, while Taiwanese efforts [i.e., the efforts of a Pan Green minority] to secure international recognition by joining the United Nations and other international organizations are consistent with the status quo.
Correction:
"Taipei" may not be used willy-nilly as a synonym for "a political authority that stands for Taiwan independence." As the actual results of the March 2004 Presidential Election, before they were falsified by the Chen regime, and the December 2004 Legislative Election confirm, a clear majority of ROC citizens living on Taiwan oppose Taiwan independence and favor eventual reunification.
The will of a minority of Taiwan independence Quislings who stole the election and falsified the results may not be equated with the will of the Chinese people living on Taiwan.
Carpenter writes:
Unfortunately, officials in Beijing, Taipei, and Washington do not seem to grasp that they have very different concepts in mind when they all speak of preserving the status quo. Serious diplomatic quarrels and even armed conflicts have begun over less significant misunderstandings. That danger is becoming acute with regard to the Taiwan issue.
Correction:
Actually officials in Beijing, Taipei, and Washington do grasp that they have very different concepts in mind. After decades of rehashing the same issues over and over again, they have memorized each others' positions verbatim.
The problem is not innocent "misunderstandings." The problem is intentional dishonesty. Pan Green leaders in Taipei and Neocon China Threat theorists in Washington maintain a disingenuous pretense. They pretend to be unaware of the Original Intent of the Republic of China Constitution and the clearly expressed will of Taiwan's Pan Blue democratic majority.
Cato, a libertarian think tank opposed to unconstitutional foreign adventurism, should expose these lies for what they are -- part of a concerted effort to sabotage the economic and cultural renaissance of a foreign nation, motivated by ugly racial bigotry.
Cato's failure to do so is deeply disappointing. When even anti-interventionist think tanks such as the Cato Institute fail to properly clarify matters for the American public, who will?
The American Enterprise Insitute? The Heritage Foundation? The Project for a New American Century?
For anyone interested in a deeper understanding of the origins of the cross-straits standoff, two articles do an excellent job of connecting the dots. One comes from Linda Chao and Ramon H. Myers at the right of center Hoover Institution, the other from Henry CK Liu, a left-leaning contributor to the Asia Times. Read in particular Part 6 of Liu's article, entitled "Forget reunification - nothing to reunite."
See:
The Divided China Problem: Conflict Avoidance and Resolution, by Linda Chao, Ramon H. Myers
US-China: Quest for Peace, by Henry C K Liu
The Yellow Peril, Redux
Why does the US government insist on intervening in what itself admits are China's internal affairs?
The answer has nothing to do with promoting "freedom and democracy," and everything to do with "containing" China in order to perpetuate US global hegemony.
Contain is such an innocuous word, connoting as it does positive associations such as "assuage, moderate, and restrain." In fact what it means in this context is "hold back, smother, and stifle." In fact what it means is to prevent China from liberating itself from a century and a half of colonialist bullying. In fact what it means is to nip an alleged "Yellow Peril" in the bud.
Why did They fear the Mysterious Dr. Fu Manchu?
America's Political Class, which defines America's "national interest" in a way that bears zero resemblance to the individual interests of individual Americans, is determined to characterize the Chinese nation as Evil Incarnate, no matter what the Chinese government does.
When mainland China adopted the defective Western European politico-economic system known as Marxism-Leninism, America's Political Class depicted the Chinese nation as a "Red Menace" threatening the capitalist West and faulted the mainland Chinese government for subjecting its own citizens to mass poverty and famine.
Fair enough. As a hardcore defender of laissez-faire capitalism, I expressed pretty much the same views during the dark days of the Cold War.
But when a disillusioned mainland China abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a failed experiment, and embraced free-wheeling American style capitalism, what did America's Political Class do? Did it praise mainland China for seeing the light? Did it welcome China to the capitalist country club?
It did not.
It asserted that an increasingly prosperous Chinese nation, playing America's capitalist game according to America's capitalist rules, somehow constituted an insidious "Yellow Peril" that threatened "White Supremacy."
It hinted ominously of a coming "Clash of Civilizations," Samuel Huntington's euphemism for "global race war."
It encouraged the resurgence of Japanese fascism and Japanese militarism to "contain" Chinese capitalism.
Why did they fear the mysterious Dr. Fu Manchu?
Do we really need to ask?
Clarifying Cato's Clarification
Bevin Chu
April 27, 2005
Executive Summary: Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of "America's Coming War With China: A Collision Course Over Taiwan." In an April 21, 2005 article entitled "Conflicting Conceptions of the Taiwan Status Quo," Carpenter attempts to clarify what Beijing, Taipei, and Washington each mean when they talk about "maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Straits." Unfortunately, he commits the universal and unforgivable blunder of equating the "Republic of China" with "Taiwan." This article will attempt to clarify Carpenter's clarification, and set the record straight.
Cato gets It Right
Carpenter, to his enormous credit, has made no bones about what the US government's position vis a vis Taiwan independence ought to be, for both moral and practical reasons. I have enthusiastically quoted him in my own articles, almost ad nauseum.
As Carpenter wrote:
"Neither the earlier pro-Taiwan policy nor the latest pro-Beijing posture [advocated by George W. Bush] serves the best interests of the United States. It is not America's proper role to take a position on Taiwan's independence or other issues involving relations between Taipei and Beijing... U.S. leaders should make it clear that Taiwan must bear all of the risks entailed in whatever policies it adopts. In particular, Washington should state that it will not intervene if an armed conflict breaks out between Taiwan and mainland China."
Carpenter is right on the money.
Benevolent Global Hegemonists on the neocon right and Humanitarian Interventionists on the liberal left alike cite a slew of laughable "reasons" why the US government is politically justified, even "morally obligated" to stick its nose into the domestic affairs of foreign nations situated half way around the globe -- nations with which the US doesn't even share a common border. In the end, the real question is:
So what if the DPP regime in Taipei wants to secede from China?
So what if the CCP regime in Beijing is determined to stop them?
What business is it of the US? Where does the federal government of the United States get off "admonishing both capitals about their behavior?"
To get a sense of just how presumptuous the US government's attitude is, see:
China to US: No Violence Against Confederacy
China Wants US Attorney General to Testify
Cato gets It Wrong
Unfortunately Carpenter drops the ball in a subsequent article, "Conflicting Conceptions of the Taiwan Status Quo," in which he commits a universal and unforgiveable blunder:
He erroneously uses the term "Republic of China" as if it referred only to the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan, and the term "China" as if it referred only to the mainland portion of China.
Ordinary Americans can be forgiven for dismissing these distinctions as unworthy of their attention, but Carpenter and Cato should know better. These constitutional law distinctions lie at the very heart of the cross-straits conflict, and could spell the difference between continued peace and nuclear catastrophe.
These legal distinctions are not subject to "interpretation." They are explicit provisions of the Republic of China Constitution. Taiwan independence leaders know this better than anyone else. They know it, and they hate it. They might try to deceive Americans about Taiwan's current status. They might repeat the catechism, "Taiwan is already independent!" But in their heart of hearts they know that until and unless they author an new constitution and declare formal independence, Taiwan will remain an integral part of China.
As you read on, take note of the comments in brackets [ ]. They serve to correct a series of erroneous impressions Carpenter leaves the reader with concerning the meaning of such terms as "China," the "Republic of China," and "Taiwan."
Carpenter writes:
China [i.e., mainland China] reacted with anger and dismay when the U.S. State Department criticized the anti-secession law recently passed by the National People's Congress. Chinese officials [i.e., mainland Chinese officials] protested that, contrary to U.S. complaints, the new law did not change the status quo regarding Taiwan. Indeed, they insisted that the legislation reinforced the status quo.
The Chinese [i.e., The Chinese on the mainland, as opposed to the Chinese on Taiwan] are probably sincere. Yet that sincerity underscores a larger -- and potentially very dangerous -- problem regarding the Taiwan issue. Beijing, Taipei, and Washington all insist that they oppose any unilateral action that alters the status quo, but the three capitals interpret the status quo in vastly different ways. That creates considerable potential for misunderstanding and mutual recrimination -- or worse.
When U.S. officials speak of the status quo, they mean a willingness by all parties to tolerate indefinitely Taiwan's ambiguous political status. In other words, the island should continue to enjoy its de facto independence (but not internationally recognized legal independence) until Taipei and Beijing can agree on a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
That rationale enables Washington to acknowledge Beijing's position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China while continuing to sell arms to Taiwan and maintain an implicit commitment to defend the island against a Chinese military assault [i.e., mainland Chinese military assault.] Taiwan's attempts to push the envelope regarding independence are considered disruptive and undesirable, but so too is any attempt by China [i.e., mainland China] to compel reunification. That is why the United States has explicitly admonished both capitals in the past year about their behavior.
The People's Republic of China has a radically different definition of the status quo. As one Chinese official [i.e., mainland Chinese official] put it, "the status quo of the cross-straits relations is that both sides of the Straits belong to one and the same China." He added that it is "a status quo not defined by other countries such as the United States, nor by the Taiwan leaders."
To Beijing, the status quo is a synonym for a one-China policy and Taiwan's eventual reunification with the mainland. Anything that challenges the concept of one China is, therefore, an unacceptable attempt to alter the status quo. Thus, from the perspective of Chinese leaders [i.e., mainland Chinese leaders], the anti-secession law is not disruptive; it merely re-emphasizes the only acceptable political outcome: reunification. Conversely, even the mildest actions by Taiwan to gain international recognition for the Republic of China (the official name of the Taiwanese government) [No, no, no!] are a threat to the status quo and must be resisted at all costs.
Correction:
The Republic of China is not Taiwan, the Republic of China is China.
The DPP's claim that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country; its current name is the Republic of China," is Taiwan independence Newspeak.
For an expose of the DPP's disingenuous verbal sleight of hand, see:
He Who Tells a Lie
The "Republic of China" is not "the official name of the Taiwanese government." The Republic of China is the official name of the Chinese government. Or more precisely, one of two rival Chinese governments. According to the letter and spirit of the Republic of China Constitution, the Republic of China (ROC) government is the sole legal government of all China, including the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, and Hainan Island.
The ROC government has since modified its stance to reflect the KMT's catastrophic military defeat in 1949 and the subsequent cross-straits "Mexican Stand-off." It has acknowledged its loss of active jurisdiction over the Chinese mainland, but at the same time staunchly reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Chinese mainland.
Taiwan independence True Believers, needless to say, belittle this pro reunification, strict constructionist stance as "unrealistic," and "deluded." They insist that relinquishing any and all claims to sovereignty over the Chinese mainland, and declaring that "China is China, Taiwan is Taiwan," is more "realistic" and "honest."
What arguments do they offer in support of their position? They cite the fact that the ROC government is far too weak compared to the PRC government, and that the ROC government is no longer militarily capable of recovering the Chinese mainland.
Unfortunately for them, their argument proves too much. It proves that Taiwan independence True Believers are a thousand times more unrealistic and deluded for demanding the estabishment of a "sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan."
Why?
Because the PRC government is willing to tolerate the reunificationists' position, but unwilling to tolerate the separatists' position.
The PRC government is willing to tolerate the Pan Blue reunificationists' allegedly "unrealistic" and "deluded" position because the Pan Blue reunificationists' stubborn insistence that "the Chinese mainland is an inseparable part of the Republic of China" largely agrees with their own stubborn insistence that "Taiwan is an inseparable part of the People's Republic of China."
Conversely, as Carpenter noted, even the mildest actions by Pan Green secessionists' to gain international recognition for an independent "Nation of Taiwan" with no connection to the Chinese mainland are a dire threat to the status quo and must be resisted at all costs.
This is why the Pan Blue reunificationists' position is, paradoxically. a thousand times more realistic and non-deluded than the Pan Green separatists' position. This is why the Pan Blue reunificationists' position is, paradoxically, both more principled and also more pragmatic.
Before the Taiwan independence leadership began deliberately provoking mainland China, Beijing was in no rush to compel reunification. Mainland Chinese leaders had no "timetable for reunification" and were perfectly content to let the logistical nightmare of eventual reunification slide indefinitely.
Their current hard line is a purely reactive, purely defensive response to nearly a decade of deliberate provocations from two consecutive, pro independence regimes in Taipei, neither of which had the support of a democratic majority of Republic of China citizens on Taiwan.
The most serious of these provocations were Lee Teng-hui's "two states theory" in 1997 and Chen Shui-bian's "one nation each side theory" in 2002, particularly Chen's explicit declaration that he intended to hold a popular referendum and author a "Taiwanese constitution" in 2006, and establish a "Republic of Taiwan" in 2008.
Even the Bush II administration, the most Sinophobic US administration in modern memory, is fully aware of this.
Carpenter writes:
Taiwan's [i.e., the Pan Green leadership's] concept of the status quo is exactly the opposite of the PRC's. Taiwanese officials [i.e., Pan Green officials] routinely argue that the status quo means Taiwan's independence. They point out that the Republic of China has been in existence since 1912, and that at least some countries in the world (at present, fewer than 30 mostly small nations) still recognize the ROC [i.e., "Republic of China," not "Taiwan"] as an independent state.
Correction:
Here Carpenter commits his most serious error. He conflates "the Republic of China" with "Taiwan." This is unforgiveable for anyone claiming to be a China expert. He is hardly alone in this, but respectable libertarian scholars such as Carpenter must be held to higher standards than the intellectually indolent political hacks who make up America's ruling Demopublican party and America's lapdog media.
Is Carpenter truly unaware that the "Republic of China," which has indeed been in existence since 1912, is not "Taiwan?"
Is Carpenter truly unaware that those countries that "still recognize the ROC as an independent state" correctly refer to it as "China," according to the letter and spirit of the Republic of China Constitution?
Most importantly, is Carpenter truly unaware that those who falsely allege that the "Republic of China" equals "Taiwan" are using Taiwan as a stalking horse for US imperialism?
Carpenter writes:
As supporting evidence for the proposition that the status quo means an independent Taiwan, one official stressed that since 1996, Taiwan [i.e., the Republic of China] has held fully democratic elections "within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory."
Correction:
Taiwan did not hold democratic elections "within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory." The Republic of China held democratic elections "within specified boundaries by specified citizens for a government exercising exclusive control over a territory."
Carpenter writes:
Reunification with China, [i.e., mainland China] according to Taipei, [i.e., Pan Green leaders in Taipei] is only one possible outcome among many to be negotiated by the governments of two independent and equal states. From Taiwan's perspective, [i.e., Pan Green leaders' perspective] the new anti-secession law is an aggressive and threatening attempt by Beijing to alter the status quo, while Taiwanese efforts [i.e., the efforts of a Pan Green minority] to secure international recognition by joining the United Nations and other international organizations are consistent with the status quo.
Correction:
"Taipei" may not be used willy-nilly as a synonym for "a political authority that stands for Taiwan independence." As the actual results of the March 2004 Presidential Election, before they were falsified by the Chen regime, and the December 2004 Legislative Election confirm, a clear majority of ROC citizens living on Taiwan oppose Taiwan independence and favor eventual reunification.
The will of a minority of Taiwan independence Quislings who stole the election and falsified the results may not be equated with the will of the Chinese people living on Taiwan.
Carpenter writes:
Unfortunately, officials in Beijing, Taipei, and Washington do not seem to grasp that they have very different concepts in mind when they all speak of preserving the status quo. Serious diplomatic quarrels and even armed conflicts have begun over less significant misunderstandings. That danger is becoming acute with regard to the Taiwan issue.
Correction:
Actually officials in Beijing, Taipei, and Washington do grasp that they have very different concepts in mind. After decades of rehashing the same issues over and over again, they have memorized each others' positions verbatim.
The problem is not innocent "misunderstandings." The problem is intentional dishonesty. Pan Green leaders in Taipei and Neocon China Threat theorists in Washington maintain a disingenuous pretense. They pretend to be unaware of the Original Intent of the Republic of China Constitution and the clearly expressed will of Taiwan's Pan Blue democratic majority.
Cato, a libertarian think tank opposed to unconstitutional foreign adventurism, should expose these lies for what they are -- part of a concerted effort to sabotage the economic and cultural renaissance of a foreign nation, motivated by ugly racial bigotry.
Cato's failure to do so is deeply disappointing. When even anti-interventionist think tanks such as the Cato Institute fail to properly clarify matters for the American public, who will?
The American Enterprise Insitute? The Heritage Foundation? The Project for a New American Century?
For anyone interested in a deeper understanding of the origins of the cross-straits standoff, two articles do an excellent job of connecting the dots. One comes from Linda Chao and Ramon H. Myers at the right of center Hoover Institution, the other from Henry CK Liu, a left-leaning contributor to the Asia Times. Read in particular Part 6 of Liu's article, entitled "Forget reunification - nothing to reunite."
See:
The Divided China Problem: Conflict Avoidance and Resolution, by Linda Chao, Ramon H. Myers
US-China: Quest for Peace, by Henry C K Liu
The Yellow Peril, Redux
Why does the US government insist on intervening in what itself admits are China's internal affairs?
The answer has nothing to do with promoting "freedom and democracy," and everything to do with "containing" China in order to perpetuate US global hegemony.
Contain is such an innocuous word, connoting as it does positive associations such as "assuage, moderate, and restrain." In fact what it means in this context is "hold back, smother, and stifle." In fact what it means is to prevent China from liberating itself from a century and a half of colonialist bullying. In fact what it means is to nip an alleged "Yellow Peril" in the bud.
Why did They fear the Mysterious Dr. Fu Manchu?
America's Political Class, which defines America's "national interest" in a way that bears zero resemblance to the individual interests of individual Americans, is determined to characterize the Chinese nation as Evil Incarnate, no matter what the Chinese government does.
When mainland China adopted the defective Western European politico-economic system known as Marxism-Leninism, America's Political Class depicted the Chinese nation as a "Red Menace" threatening the capitalist West and faulted the mainland Chinese government for subjecting its own citizens to mass poverty and famine.
Fair enough. As a hardcore defender of laissez-faire capitalism, I expressed pretty much the same views during the dark days of the Cold War.
But when a disillusioned mainland China abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a failed experiment, and embraced free-wheeling American style capitalism, what did America's Political Class do? Did it praise mainland China for seeing the light? Did it welcome China to the capitalist country club?
It did not.
It asserted that an increasingly prosperous Chinese nation, playing America's capitalist game according to America's capitalist rules, somehow constituted an insidious "Yellow Peril" that threatened "White Supremacy."
It hinted ominously of a coming "Clash of Civilizations," Samuel Huntington's euphemism for "global race war."
It encouraged the resurgence of Japanese fascism and Japanese militarism to "contain" Chinese capitalism.
Why did they fear the mysterious Dr. Fu Manchu?
Do we really need to ask?
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
The Beginning of the End, Part III
The Beginning of the End, Part III
Mainland Fever and Pan Green Panic
Bevin Chu
April 19, 2005
Pan Green Panic
Pan Green political leaders on Taiwan are feeling something they haven't felt in a long time -- sheer panic. Taiwan independence Political Correctness, the bedrock foundation of Pan Green political power beneath the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's feet, has suddenly turned into quicksand. Taiwan independence Political Correctness, the all-powerful talisman against their hated Pan Blue opponents, has suddenly lost its mana.
Pan Blue political leaders on Taiwan, meanwhile, are also feeling something they haven't felt in a long time -- newfound confidence. Pan Blue spokesmen, once terrified of being painted red with a broad "Chinese Communist fellow traveler" brush, no longer bite their tongues in the face of Pan Green McCarthyite name-calling. Instead, they fire back, loudly and unapologetically, confident of a fair hearing from a disillusioned public that no longer believes the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's Big Lies.
The 17 year long witch hunt conducted by the Taiwanese counterparts of Joe McCarthy is over. It ended with Hsu Wen-long's public renunciation of Taiwan independence on March 25, 2005. In this sense, Taiwan in 2005 is like the US in 1954, when US Army Attorney General Joseph Welch broke the spell of McCarthyism with his famous rebuke: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Mainland Fever
Not only are Pan Blue leaders no longer meekly acquiescing to Pan Green intimidation, they are adopting bold initiatives to promote Chinese reunification, in accordance with the Republic of China Constitution and Pan Blue core values. The centerpiece of these Pan Blue initiatives is KMT Chairman Lien Chan's upcoming "Journey of Peace," during which he will travel to Beijing and participate in a summit meeting with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao. Lien's trip, the first official contact between the two parties in 56 years, will truly make history. Lien's trip cannot be dismissed as a mere photo op. Lien Chan solemnly promised as part of his presidential campaign last year to make just such a "Journey of Peace" in the event he was elected. Lien is merely following through on his promise, having been unavoidably delayed by Chen Shui-bian's Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" and subsequent defacto coup d'etat.
KMT Chairman Lien Chan, the actual winner of the 2004 Presidential Election
PFP Chairman James Soong, meanwhile, has been jumping up and down screaming "Me too! Me too!" Soong would have been an integral member of Lien's historic first-ever delegation, but Soong dealt himself out of the game by reneging on his promise to merge with the KMT following the December 2004 Legislative Election. Instead Soong opportunistically cast his lot in with the DPP, betraying the PFP's Pan Blue supporters for myopic, short-term political advantage. Soong, as a result, will be the second political party leader to visit Beijing. That's a little like being the second man to set foot on the moon. Everyone remembers the first man to set foot on the moon. Nobody remembers the second. For the record, it was Buzz Aldrin. Sorry James, but you did it to yourself.
Counterfeit "president" Chen Shui-bian and PFP Chairman James Soong
The DPP's counterfeit president Chen Shui-bian, who wants the same red carpet treatment for himself so badly he can taste it, wasn't even invited to the party. He won't be, not until the Taiwan independence clause is stricken from the DPP Party Constitution. Chen, green with envy, is gnashing his teeth, sputtering that "The grapes were sour anyway!" Chen is threatening to arrest Lien Chan and toss him in prison for "high treason." Despite such dictatorial threats from the unelected, illegal Chen regime, Lien, the actual winner of the 2004 Presidential Election, has courageously refused to back down. Lien Chan, to almost everyones' surprise, has emerged from Lee Teng-hui's dark shadow and matured into a far-sighted and level-headed political leader.
Naked intimidation against the True Blue Lien Chan having failed, Chen Shui-bian is attempting to spin James Soong's trip to Beijing as his own. Chen and Soong, these two unprincipled, opportunistic birds of a feather, are attempting to spin Lien Chan's trip as "nothing more than a low-level party to party exchange between the KMT and CCP," and James Soong's trip as "the government's officially authorized, high-level state to state exchange between the ROC and PRC."
Good luck with that. Talk about self-delusion. Whom do they think they are fooling? Certainly not Pan Blue voters on Taiwan. Certainly not CCP leaders in Beijing. They are only fooling themselves and their most pathetically gullible True Believers.
The media on Taiwan has coined a name for this unapologetic scramble by the KMT, PFP, and even the DPP to "deng lu" (establish a beachhead on the mainland). They are calling it "mainland fever" or even "China fever." What is mainland fever or China fever? Mainland fever or China fever is not the grudging admission that "Taiwanese" have no choice but to do business with "Chinese" to prosper financially. Mainland fever or China fever is the liberating awareness that the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's artificially manufactured "emerging Taiwanese national identity" is neither politically achievable nor objectively desirable.
War is Peace
High-priced Taiwan independence spin-doctors such as Cassady and Associates have successfully convinced many Americans that cross-straits tensions are a result of sheer cussedness on the part of mainland China. If only mainland China would leave Taiwan alone, they believe, there wouldn't be any problem. A democratic majority of Pan Blue citizens on Taiwan know otherwise. They know the real war-mongers in the Taiwan Strait are Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura. They know that peace in the Taiwan Straits is the last thing the Taiwan independence nomenklatura wants, because genuine peace would deprive them of their key to political power, an "external" enemy. Pan Blue citizens' views however, are pointedly ignored by the US government and the US major media, because they fail to jibe with US "national interests," which should not be confused with the interests of ordinary US citizens.
The following April 16, 2004 Central News Agency news report entitled "KMT-CHINA 'PEACE ACCORD' HARMFUL TO TAIWAN: DPP," provides an example of how fearful the Taiwan independence nomenklatura is that peace might break out in the Taiwan Straits! One is tempted to laugh out loud, except that the issue is much too serious.
Taipei, April 16 (CNA) The opposition Kuomintang (KMT) will seriously damage the national interests of Taiwan and create international misunderstandings if it is to sign a "peace accord" with [mainland] China, ruling Democratic Progressive Party... said Saturday... referring to an upcoming visit to China by KMT Chairman Lien Chan, during which Lien reportedly might seal a "peace accord" with the Communist Party of China (CPC) to officially end the KMT-CPC civil war that lasted around two decades on [mainland] China before the KMT fled to Taiwan in 1949. [The DPP] warned that... signing a "peace accord" with Beijing at this point will reduce the Taiwan issue to an internal affair of China... it will feed Beijing's bid to eliminate the government of Republic of China and downgrade Taiwan to... a locality under the People's Republic of China if the "peace accord" is to be signed for the purpose of ending the "civil war."
The CNA news report perfectly embodies the three slogans of the Taiwan "independence" movement, engraved on the Pan Green Ministry of Truth:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
The Ministry of Information, from "Brazil" (1985, directed by Terry Gilliam, written by Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, Charles McKeown)
George Orwell's dystopian political novel "1984," written in 1948, alluded to political patterns manifest in the post WWII world, and political patterns emerging in the coming Cold War world. To see just how prophetic Orwell was, scan the following passages from Chapter 9 and compare them with today's Taiwan. The correlation is positively uncanny. Brief edits, in brackets [ ], have been made to underscore my point.
When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded... researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in [the "sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan"] except the Thought Police. [The ROT] is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life -- the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of [ROT] is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture... But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It... helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the [KMT] did fight against [the CCP]... In our own day [the DPP is] not fighting against [the CCP] at all. The war is waged by [the DPP] against its own subjects, and the object of the war is... to keep the structure of society intact... This... is the inner meaning of the [DPP] Party slogan: War is Peace.
See:
George Orwell's uncannily prophetic political novel "1984"
Lien Chan and a democratic majority of Chinese citizens on Taiwan want to end this imposture once and for all, so they can get on with living their lives.
Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura, on the other hand, want to keep waging this war against their own subjects, to keep the structure of society intact, and to keep themselves in positions of power.
Mainland Fever and Pan Green Panic
Bevin Chu
April 19, 2005
Pan Green Panic
Pan Green political leaders on Taiwan are feeling something they haven't felt in a long time -- sheer panic. Taiwan independence Political Correctness, the bedrock foundation of Pan Green political power beneath the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's feet, has suddenly turned into quicksand. Taiwan independence Political Correctness, the all-powerful talisman against their hated Pan Blue opponents, has suddenly lost its mana.
Pan Blue political leaders on Taiwan, meanwhile, are also feeling something they haven't felt in a long time -- newfound confidence. Pan Blue spokesmen, once terrified of being painted red with a broad "Chinese Communist fellow traveler" brush, no longer bite their tongues in the face of Pan Green McCarthyite name-calling. Instead, they fire back, loudly and unapologetically, confident of a fair hearing from a disillusioned public that no longer believes the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's Big Lies.
The 17 year long witch hunt conducted by the Taiwanese counterparts of Joe McCarthy is over. It ended with Hsu Wen-long's public renunciation of Taiwan independence on March 25, 2005. In this sense, Taiwan in 2005 is like the US in 1954, when US Army Attorney General Joseph Welch broke the spell of McCarthyism with his famous rebuke: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Mainland Fever
Not only are Pan Blue leaders no longer meekly acquiescing to Pan Green intimidation, they are adopting bold initiatives to promote Chinese reunification, in accordance with the Republic of China Constitution and Pan Blue core values. The centerpiece of these Pan Blue initiatives is KMT Chairman Lien Chan's upcoming "Journey of Peace," during which he will travel to Beijing and participate in a summit meeting with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao. Lien's trip, the first official contact between the two parties in 56 years, will truly make history. Lien's trip cannot be dismissed as a mere photo op. Lien Chan solemnly promised as part of his presidential campaign last year to make just such a "Journey of Peace" in the event he was elected. Lien is merely following through on his promise, having been unavoidably delayed by Chen Shui-bian's Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" and subsequent defacto coup d'etat.
KMT Chairman Lien Chan, the actual winner of the 2004 Presidential Election
PFP Chairman James Soong, meanwhile, has been jumping up and down screaming "Me too! Me too!" Soong would have been an integral member of Lien's historic first-ever delegation, but Soong dealt himself out of the game by reneging on his promise to merge with the KMT following the December 2004 Legislative Election. Instead Soong opportunistically cast his lot in with the DPP, betraying the PFP's Pan Blue supporters for myopic, short-term political advantage. Soong, as a result, will be the second political party leader to visit Beijing. That's a little like being the second man to set foot on the moon. Everyone remembers the first man to set foot on the moon. Nobody remembers the second. For the record, it was Buzz Aldrin. Sorry James, but you did it to yourself.
Counterfeit "president" Chen Shui-bian and PFP Chairman James Soong
The DPP's counterfeit president Chen Shui-bian, who wants the same red carpet treatment for himself so badly he can taste it, wasn't even invited to the party. He won't be, not until the Taiwan independence clause is stricken from the DPP Party Constitution. Chen, green with envy, is gnashing his teeth, sputtering that "The grapes were sour anyway!" Chen is threatening to arrest Lien Chan and toss him in prison for "high treason." Despite such dictatorial threats from the unelected, illegal Chen regime, Lien, the actual winner of the 2004 Presidential Election, has courageously refused to back down. Lien Chan, to almost everyones' surprise, has emerged from Lee Teng-hui's dark shadow and matured into a far-sighted and level-headed political leader.
Naked intimidation against the True Blue Lien Chan having failed, Chen Shui-bian is attempting to spin James Soong's trip to Beijing as his own. Chen and Soong, these two unprincipled, opportunistic birds of a feather, are attempting to spin Lien Chan's trip as "nothing more than a low-level party to party exchange between the KMT and CCP," and James Soong's trip as "the government's officially authorized, high-level state to state exchange between the ROC and PRC."
Good luck with that. Talk about self-delusion. Whom do they think they are fooling? Certainly not Pan Blue voters on Taiwan. Certainly not CCP leaders in Beijing. They are only fooling themselves and their most pathetically gullible True Believers.
The media on Taiwan has coined a name for this unapologetic scramble by the KMT, PFP, and even the DPP to "deng lu" (establish a beachhead on the mainland). They are calling it "mainland fever" or even "China fever." What is mainland fever or China fever? Mainland fever or China fever is not the grudging admission that "Taiwanese" have no choice but to do business with "Chinese" to prosper financially. Mainland fever or China fever is the liberating awareness that the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's artificially manufactured "emerging Taiwanese national identity" is neither politically achievable nor objectively desirable.
War is Peace
High-priced Taiwan independence spin-doctors such as Cassady and Associates have successfully convinced many Americans that cross-straits tensions are a result of sheer cussedness on the part of mainland China. If only mainland China would leave Taiwan alone, they believe, there wouldn't be any problem. A democratic majority of Pan Blue citizens on Taiwan know otherwise. They know the real war-mongers in the Taiwan Strait are Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura. They know that peace in the Taiwan Straits is the last thing the Taiwan independence nomenklatura wants, because genuine peace would deprive them of their key to political power, an "external" enemy. Pan Blue citizens' views however, are pointedly ignored by the US government and the US major media, because they fail to jibe with US "national interests," which should not be confused with the interests of ordinary US citizens.
The following April 16, 2004 Central News Agency news report entitled "KMT-CHINA 'PEACE ACCORD' HARMFUL TO TAIWAN: DPP," provides an example of how fearful the Taiwan independence nomenklatura is that peace might break out in the Taiwan Straits! One is tempted to laugh out loud, except that the issue is much too serious.
Taipei, April 16 (CNA) The opposition Kuomintang (KMT) will seriously damage the national interests of Taiwan and create international misunderstandings if it is to sign a "peace accord" with [mainland] China, ruling Democratic Progressive Party... said Saturday... referring to an upcoming visit to China by KMT Chairman Lien Chan, during which Lien reportedly might seal a "peace accord" with the Communist Party of China (CPC) to officially end the KMT-CPC civil war that lasted around two decades on [mainland] China before the KMT fled to Taiwan in 1949. [The DPP] warned that... signing a "peace accord" with Beijing at this point will reduce the Taiwan issue to an internal affair of China... it will feed Beijing's bid to eliminate the government of Republic of China and downgrade Taiwan to... a locality under the People's Republic of China if the "peace accord" is to be signed for the purpose of ending the "civil war."
The CNA news report perfectly embodies the three slogans of the Taiwan "independence" movement, engraved on the Pan Green Ministry of Truth:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
The Ministry of Information, from "Brazil" (1985, directed by Terry Gilliam, written by Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, Charles McKeown)
George Orwell's dystopian political novel "1984," written in 1948, alluded to political patterns manifest in the post WWII world, and political patterns emerging in the coming Cold War world. To see just how prophetic Orwell was, scan the following passages from Chapter 9 and compare them with today's Taiwan. The correlation is positively uncanny. Brief edits, in brackets [ ], have been made to underscore my point.
When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded... researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in [the "sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan"] except the Thought Police. [The ROT] is in effect a separate universe within which almost any perversion of thought can be safely practised. Reality only exerts its pressure through the needs of everyday life -- the need to eat and drink, to get shelter and clothing, to avoid swallowing poison or stepping out of top-storey windows, and the like. Between life and death, and between physical pleasure and physical pain, there is still a distinction, but that is all. Cut off from contact with the outer world, and with the past, the citizen of [ROT] is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture... But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It... helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the [KMT] did fight against [the CCP]... In our own day [the DPP is] not fighting against [the CCP] at all. The war is waged by [the DPP] against its own subjects, and the object of the war is... to keep the structure of society intact... This... is the inner meaning of the [DPP] Party slogan: War is Peace.
See:
George Orwell's uncannily prophetic political novel "1984"
Lien Chan and a democratic majority of Chinese citizens on Taiwan want to end this imposture once and for all, so they can get on with living their lives.
Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura, on the other hand, want to keep waging this war against their own subjects, to keep the structure of society intact, and to keep themselves in positions of power.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Taiwan at the Crossroads - Postscript
Taiwan at the Crossroads - Postscript
Important Developments on Taiwan in 2004
written by Huang Chi-hsien
translated by Bevin Chu
April 15, 2005
Introduction: The following is the Postscript to a landmark book entitled "Taiwan at the Crossroads," an eye-opening expose of the Taiwan independence movement. The author, Ms. Huang Chi-hsien, a reform-minded, anti-authoritarian scholar who did her post-graduate studies in England, rips the "democratic" and "progressive" mask from the face of Taiwan independence and reveals it for what it is, an authoritarian fascist political movement motivated by primitive ethnic hatred. Last year, at the behest of the author, "Taiwan at the Crossroads" was translated into English by Bevin Chu, author of the Strait Scoop and editor of The China Desk. I have posted it here for two reasons. One, it provides valuable insights into recent developments on Taiwan. Two, it provides an advance preview of what is contained in the English language version of Ms. Huang's ground-breaking work.
Postscript
After July 2004, following the Taiwan publication of "Taiwan at The Crossroads," several important developments occured:
The Election Lawsuits
Two election lawsuits challenging the results of the 2004 presidential election filed by the opposition parties were successively rejected by the courts.
The reason the lawsuits were rejected was the courts never had the slightest intention of investigating the case according to the requirements of the law, and actually demanded that the opposition party attorneys provide all the evidence. And even though the administrative branch of the government was itself the object of the investigation, the courts treated every one of its declarations as the living gospel.
The courts were unwilling to carry out any one of the many investigative procedures proposed by the opposition parties.
Despite this, witnesses who were subpoenaed and who testified in court contradicted each other to a degree bordering on the absurd. Furthermore, the courts' flagrant bias, in which it openly abetted Chen Shui-bian's conduct, amounted in itself to another kind of damning evidence.
The court has never understood that the victim of the 319 Shooting Incident and subsequent election fraud, was not merely the Kuomintang's presidential candidate Lien Chan, but also the foundation of Taiwan's democracy, and that the law provided the courts the opportunity to participate in the investigation in order to engage in the pursuit of justice.
Instead, the judges insisted, from beginning to end, on defining these two election lawsuits as nothing more than simple civil actions, and demanded that attorneys working on behalf of the Kuomintang provide 100% of the evidence. The court was unwilling to accept even the most basic investigation methods the opposition party proposed.
For instance, the courts flatly refused to conduct a comprehensive examination of the polling station voter registries. The courts also flatly refused to accept motions for the discovery of material from the military in order to determine whether the government abused its power by forbidding hundreds of thousands of military and police personnel from going to the polls.
During the entire process, the judges applied unrelenting pressure on the opposition party's attorneys, forbidding them to have any contact with the media. Furthermore, the judges continually hinted that the more low key the opposition party remained, the more it refrained from mass resistance, the greater chance it would obtain fair treatment from the courts.
If the media reported even the slightest detail about these two lawsuits, including evidence provided by opposition party attorneys, the judges would immediately humiliate the opposition party attorneys in the courtroom.
The purpose of doing this was of course to erode public concern and support for the election lawsuits, to make sure that the media could not see the damning evidence held by Lien/Soong's attorneys, to make sure the media could not see how unfair the court was being in its procedures, to make society accept Chen Shui-bian's media spin control: "Lien/Soong have no evidence, they are nothing more than sore losers."
The Pan Blues Win a Majority in the Legislature
Nine months after the presidential election, Taiwan held a legislative election.
Chen Shui-bian exploited every last administrative resource at his disposal campaigning for the Democratic Progressive Party, appealing to the voters to give the Pan Greens a majority in the legislature. Instead, amidst dark clouds of despair, the Pan Blues successfully appealed to the people to use their ballots to return the Pan Blues some small measure of justice.
Most election observers thought that the Democratic Progressive Party monopolized all administrative and judicial resources, and Chen Shui-bian desperately needed a majority in the legislature to prove that his presidency did not depend upon the 319 "assassination attempt" and 320 election fraud. All objective factors were unfavorable to the Pan Blues, and for the Pan Greens to win a majority was not seen as a problem.
Prior to the election, the atmosphere in Taiwan society was extremely grim. The media and public resources were all in the iron grip of the Democratic Progressive Party, and were directly or indirectly helping to get the Democratic Progressive Party elected.
But when the December 11, 2004 election results came out, the Pan Blues had won 116 seats, the Pan Greens a mere 101 seats, and independents had won 10 seats (independents mostly side with the Pan Blues). The Pan Blues, to everyones' surprise, had retained control of the legislature.
This legislative election had enormous significance. First, it clearly revealed that Taiwan's majority public opinion opposed Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence path. Second, because the legislative election was a multiple-seat election, election fraud was more difficult, demonstrating that under conditions in which election fraud was not a factor, Pan Blue votes far exceed Pan Green votes. The proportion of Pan Blue votes in the legislature unexpectedly tallied extremely well with opinion poll numbers just prior to the presidential election, and also with the proportion of voters who boycotted or voted "no" on the referendum. This proved that Chen Shui-bian's second term was not achieved by legitimate means. Third, it demonstrated that the people did not trust the Chen Shui-bian government and wanted it subjected to close supervision.
This election result also motivated Chen Shui-bian to redouble his efforts to divide the Pan Blues, to control the media, and manipulate the judicial system.
The Truth Commission
On March 27, under public pressure from 500,000 demonstrators, Chen Shui-bian publicly indicated his willingness to establish a Truth Commission to investigate the facts behind the 319 Shooting Incident. But as soon as the crowd dispersed, his pledge turned hollow.
The Democratic Progressive Party resisted the passage of the 319 Truth Commission bill. The Pan Greens used procedural delays to stall passage of the bill for four months. Only then was the opposition party able to marshal all its strength, pass the law, force Chen Shui-bian to sign the bill into law, and announce its execution.
But an order come down from the presidential palace. The entire administrative branch of government would immediately respond by exercising illegal resistance to a government body legally established by the legislative branch. The administrative branch even invented a fictitious "administrative right of resistance," something unheard of in human political history.
Legally, the Chen administration was obligated to provide funds, yet it refused to provide a single cent. All 319 Truth Commission operations met with resistance, even comparatively minor matters. When the 319 Truth Commission attempted to establish an official website, for example, it was denied its legal right to use the official government suffix, ".gov" and instead forced to use the suffix for non-governmental organizations, ".org."
Confronted with this kind of comprehensive official resistance, the 319 Truth Commission valiantly struggled to deposition officials, obtain and examine documents, and carry out its investigation. But government officials and Democratic Progressive Party elected representatives at every level, either descended upon the Truth Commission to harass it, or resorted to populist fascist methods, leading mobs to surround, threaten, and humiliate the Truth Commission. The most unforgettable image is that of Truth Commission spokesperson Wang Ching-feng at the Tainan District Attorney's office, surrounded by a mob led by Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker Wang Hsing-nan, spitting at her and shouting obscenities.
The Truth Commission members each reached into their own pockets in order to continue pursuing the case. This was obviously unsustainable. Eventually they fell back on a charity book bazaar to raise funds. But the Truth Commission's charity book bazaar was also something that almost none of the media dared to report on for fear of government retaliation.
Eventually, after two days of continuously broadcasting information about the Truth Commission's charity book bazaar on Sisy Chen's television program, "Sisy's News," the Truth Commission managed to raise five million Yuan in funds in two weeks.
Most significantly, the contributions received by the Truth Commission were overwhelmingly for sums ranging from 15 to 30 US dollars. These amounts let us know that the Truth Commission's grass roots support was coming from the common people.
On January 30, 2005, the Truth Commission, in accordance with the law, ceased operations. Despite full-scale, all-out government stone-walling, it was nevertheless able to obtain considerable news and material. On January 17, after reviewing all the gathered material and face-to-face interviews with concerned parties, the document Chen Shui-bian was least willing to see, was the 150 page history-making "Truth Commission Report."
Here is the conclusion of the Truth Commission Report:
1. The Criminal Investigation Bureau hand gauze sample and bloodstain was obtained from a garbage bag, not directly from Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu in person, therefore they did not constitute evidence.
2. The National Security Bureau violated common sense in every way it handled matters. It coordinated its performance with the government.
3. During his press conference on the day of the 319 Shooting Incident, Presidential Office Secretary General Chiu Yi-ren deliberately and maliciously misled the public.
4. Chen Shui-bian's abdominal wound was not inflicted by the lead bullet. Because the temperature of the lead bullet, its velocity, and the length of time with which it came in contact with the skin, could not have caused Chen Shui-bian's abdominal burns, and could not have been hot enough to melt Chen Shui-bian's jacket.
5. Based on the way Chen Shui-bian normally wore his clothing, the complete lack of bloodstains on his underwear and trousers violate the basic laws of biology, and the lack of bullet holes violate the laws of physics.
6. The possibility that whoever perpetrated the shooting incident was motivated by a desire to commit suicide, to commit murder, or suffered from mental illness should be ruled out.
7. The 319 Shooting Incident was an election ploy.
Therefore the Truth Commission Report suggests:
1. Continue to uncover the complete truth.
2. Impeach the president.
3. Refer those officials who violated the law and neglected their duties to the Control Yuan for impeachment.
4. Establish an independent counsel.
This conclusion and report was what Chen Shui-bian feared the most, and the real reason the Democratic Progressive Party stubbornly resisted the formation and activation of the Truth Commission.
The Criminal Investigation Bureau
For a full year, police personnel investigating the 319 Shooting Incident convened one press conference after another at the strangest moments. These press conferences frequently gave the ruling administration a helping hand, deftly shifting the focus of media attention, keeping any news that might have embarrassed the ruling administration out of the headlines and off the front pages.
On March 7, 2005, just before the one year anniversary of the 319 Shooting Incident, just before the opposition party rallied the public to take to the streets and protest, the Criminal Investigation Bureau, by the sheerest coincidence convened a press conference, claiming that they were "on the verge of a breakthrough" and that "significant progress" had been made on the 319 Shooting Incident. During this major press conference they announced that one Chen Yi-hsiung, a resident of Ching-hua Street in Tainan who died in late March 2004 was the perpetrator of the 319 Shooting Incident.
On what basis did Criminal Investigation Bureau Chief Hou Yu-yi make such a claim? He did so on the basis of several letters that had already been burned, that had allegedly been seen only by Chen Yi-hsiung's family members, that may never have existed at all. All of which made people question the authenticity of the deceased person's last will and testament. Without any evidence whatsoever, Hou concluded that Chen Yi-hsiung committed suicide for fear of punishment.
After the press conference, the Criminal Investigation Bureau showed a videotape of a woman sitting in the dark, with her back to the camera, allegedly the widow of Chen Yi-hsiung, apologizing to the public for her husband's alleged crime. By this time the Taiwan public learned that Chen Yi-hsiung's entire family had been placed under house arrest by the Public Security Bureau and their human rights had been violated.
On 21st Century Taiwan, evidence is unnecessary, a confession is unnecessary, and officials can indict a suspect who has been dead for a year. Officials can make the facts of a case go away or come back at will. They can psychoanalyze a dead man. They can arrange for someone who has been dead for a year and unable to argue his innocence take the fall for a crime he did not commit. The person is dead. His last will and testament is nowhere to be found. His surviving family members are under house arrest.
The New York Times pointed out that such a scenario was more absurd than those found in dime novels. According to most Taiwan media opinion polls over half the people refused to swallow this official explanation.
On March 19, approximately 50,000 people participated in a parade commemorating the anniversary of the 319 Shooting Incident, demanding the truth about the case.
The protesting crowd repeatedly called Lien Chan "Mr. President." The populace believed that the truth of the shooting incident and the rigged election would one day come to light, and that Lien Chan was in fact the candidate whom citizens of the Republic of China elected president during the 2004 presidential election. The truth, they believed, would prevail.
Important Developments on Taiwan in 2004
written by Huang Chi-hsien
translated by Bevin Chu
April 15, 2005
Introduction: The following is the Postscript to a landmark book entitled "Taiwan at the Crossroads," an eye-opening expose of the Taiwan independence movement. The author, Ms. Huang Chi-hsien, a reform-minded, anti-authoritarian scholar who did her post-graduate studies in England, rips the "democratic" and "progressive" mask from the face of Taiwan independence and reveals it for what it is, an authoritarian fascist political movement motivated by primitive ethnic hatred. Last year, at the behest of the author, "Taiwan at the Crossroads" was translated into English by Bevin Chu, author of the Strait Scoop and editor of The China Desk. I have posted it here for two reasons. One, it provides valuable insights into recent developments on Taiwan. Two, it provides an advance preview of what is contained in the English language version of Ms. Huang's ground-breaking work.
Postscript
After July 2004, following the Taiwan publication of "Taiwan at The Crossroads," several important developments occured:
The Election Lawsuits
Two election lawsuits challenging the results of the 2004 presidential election filed by the opposition parties were successively rejected by the courts.
The reason the lawsuits were rejected was the courts never had the slightest intention of investigating the case according to the requirements of the law, and actually demanded that the opposition party attorneys provide all the evidence. And even though the administrative branch of the government was itself the object of the investigation, the courts treated every one of its declarations as the living gospel.
The courts were unwilling to carry out any one of the many investigative procedures proposed by the opposition parties.
Despite this, witnesses who were subpoenaed and who testified in court contradicted each other to a degree bordering on the absurd. Furthermore, the courts' flagrant bias, in which it openly abetted Chen Shui-bian's conduct, amounted in itself to another kind of damning evidence.
The court has never understood that the victim of the 319 Shooting Incident and subsequent election fraud, was not merely the Kuomintang's presidential candidate Lien Chan, but also the foundation of Taiwan's democracy, and that the law provided the courts the opportunity to participate in the investigation in order to engage in the pursuit of justice.
Instead, the judges insisted, from beginning to end, on defining these two election lawsuits as nothing more than simple civil actions, and demanded that attorneys working on behalf of the Kuomintang provide 100% of the evidence. The court was unwilling to accept even the most basic investigation methods the opposition party proposed.
For instance, the courts flatly refused to conduct a comprehensive examination of the polling station voter registries. The courts also flatly refused to accept motions for the discovery of material from the military in order to determine whether the government abused its power by forbidding hundreds of thousands of military and police personnel from going to the polls.
During the entire process, the judges applied unrelenting pressure on the opposition party's attorneys, forbidding them to have any contact with the media. Furthermore, the judges continually hinted that the more low key the opposition party remained, the more it refrained from mass resistance, the greater chance it would obtain fair treatment from the courts.
If the media reported even the slightest detail about these two lawsuits, including evidence provided by opposition party attorneys, the judges would immediately humiliate the opposition party attorneys in the courtroom.
The purpose of doing this was of course to erode public concern and support for the election lawsuits, to make sure that the media could not see the damning evidence held by Lien/Soong's attorneys, to make sure the media could not see how unfair the court was being in its procedures, to make society accept Chen Shui-bian's media spin control: "Lien/Soong have no evidence, they are nothing more than sore losers."
The Pan Blues Win a Majority in the Legislature
Nine months after the presidential election, Taiwan held a legislative election.
Chen Shui-bian exploited every last administrative resource at his disposal campaigning for the Democratic Progressive Party, appealing to the voters to give the Pan Greens a majority in the legislature. Instead, amidst dark clouds of despair, the Pan Blues successfully appealed to the people to use their ballots to return the Pan Blues some small measure of justice.
Most election observers thought that the Democratic Progressive Party monopolized all administrative and judicial resources, and Chen Shui-bian desperately needed a majority in the legislature to prove that his presidency did not depend upon the 319 "assassination attempt" and 320 election fraud. All objective factors were unfavorable to the Pan Blues, and for the Pan Greens to win a majority was not seen as a problem.
Prior to the election, the atmosphere in Taiwan society was extremely grim. The media and public resources were all in the iron grip of the Democratic Progressive Party, and were directly or indirectly helping to get the Democratic Progressive Party elected.
But when the December 11, 2004 election results came out, the Pan Blues had won 116 seats, the Pan Greens a mere 101 seats, and independents had won 10 seats (independents mostly side with the Pan Blues). The Pan Blues, to everyones' surprise, had retained control of the legislature.
This legislative election had enormous significance. First, it clearly revealed that Taiwan's majority public opinion opposed Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence path. Second, because the legislative election was a multiple-seat election, election fraud was more difficult, demonstrating that under conditions in which election fraud was not a factor, Pan Blue votes far exceed Pan Green votes. The proportion of Pan Blue votes in the legislature unexpectedly tallied extremely well with opinion poll numbers just prior to the presidential election, and also with the proportion of voters who boycotted or voted "no" on the referendum. This proved that Chen Shui-bian's second term was not achieved by legitimate means. Third, it demonstrated that the people did not trust the Chen Shui-bian government and wanted it subjected to close supervision.
This election result also motivated Chen Shui-bian to redouble his efforts to divide the Pan Blues, to control the media, and manipulate the judicial system.
The Truth Commission
On March 27, under public pressure from 500,000 demonstrators, Chen Shui-bian publicly indicated his willingness to establish a Truth Commission to investigate the facts behind the 319 Shooting Incident. But as soon as the crowd dispersed, his pledge turned hollow.
The Democratic Progressive Party resisted the passage of the 319 Truth Commission bill. The Pan Greens used procedural delays to stall passage of the bill for four months. Only then was the opposition party able to marshal all its strength, pass the law, force Chen Shui-bian to sign the bill into law, and announce its execution.
But an order come down from the presidential palace. The entire administrative branch of government would immediately respond by exercising illegal resistance to a government body legally established by the legislative branch. The administrative branch even invented a fictitious "administrative right of resistance," something unheard of in human political history.
Legally, the Chen administration was obligated to provide funds, yet it refused to provide a single cent. All 319 Truth Commission operations met with resistance, even comparatively minor matters. When the 319 Truth Commission attempted to establish an official website, for example, it was denied its legal right to use the official government suffix, ".gov" and instead forced to use the suffix for non-governmental organizations, ".org."
Confronted with this kind of comprehensive official resistance, the 319 Truth Commission valiantly struggled to deposition officials, obtain and examine documents, and carry out its investigation. But government officials and Democratic Progressive Party elected representatives at every level, either descended upon the Truth Commission to harass it, or resorted to populist fascist methods, leading mobs to surround, threaten, and humiliate the Truth Commission. The most unforgettable image is that of Truth Commission spokesperson Wang Ching-feng at the Tainan District Attorney's office, surrounded by a mob led by Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker Wang Hsing-nan, spitting at her and shouting obscenities.
The Truth Commission members each reached into their own pockets in order to continue pursuing the case. This was obviously unsustainable. Eventually they fell back on a charity book bazaar to raise funds. But the Truth Commission's charity book bazaar was also something that almost none of the media dared to report on for fear of government retaliation.
Eventually, after two days of continuously broadcasting information about the Truth Commission's charity book bazaar on Sisy Chen's television program, "Sisy's News," the Truth Commission managed to raise five million Yuan in funds in two weeks.
Most significantly, the contributions received by the Truth Commission were overwhelmingly for sums ranging from 15 to 30 US dollars. These amounts let us know that the Truth Commission's grass roots support was coming from the common people.
On January 30, 2005, the Truth Commission, in accordance with the law, ceased operations. Despite full-scale, all-out government stone-walling, it was nevertheless able to obtain considerable news and material. On January 17, after reviewing all the gathered material and face-to-face interviews with concerned parties, the document Chen Shui-bian was least willing to see, was the 150 page history-making "Truth Commission Report."
Here is the conclusion of the Truth Commission Report:
1. The Criminal Investigation Bureau hand gauze sample and bloodstain was obtained from a garbage bag, not directly from Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu in person, therefore they did not constitute evidence.
2. The National Security Bureau violated common sense in every way it handled matters. It coordinated its performance with the government.
3. During his press conference on the day of the 319 Shooting Incident, Presidential Office Secretary General Chiu Yi-ren deliberately and maliciously misled the public.
4. Chen Shui-bian's abdominal wound was not inflicted by the lead bullet. Because the temperature of the lead bullet, its velocity, and the length of time with which it came in contact with the skin, could not have caused Chen Shui-bian's abdominal burns, and could not have been hot enough to melt Chen Shui-bian's jacket.
5. Based on the way Chen Shui-bian normally wore his clothing, the complete lack of bloodstains on his underwear and trousers violate the basic laws of biology, and the lack of bullet holes violate the laws of physics.
6. The possibility that whoever perpetrated the shooting incident was motivated by a desire to commit suicide, to commit murder, or suffered from mental illness should be ruled out.
7. The 319 Shooting Incident was an election ploy.
Therefore the Truth Commission Report suggests:
1. Continue to uncover the complete truth.
2. Impeach the president.
3. Refer those officials who violated the law and neglected their duties to the Control Yuan for impeachment.
4. Establish an independent counsel.
This conclusion and report was what Chen Shui-bian feared the most, and the real reason the Democratic Progressive Party stubbornly resisted the formation and activation of the Truth Commission.
The Criminal Investigation Bureau
For a full year, police personnel investigating the 319 Shooting Incident convened one press conference after another at the strangest moments. These press conferences frequently gave the ruling administration a helping hand, deftly shifting the focus of media attention, keeping any news that might have embarrassed the ruling administration out of the headlines and off the front pages.
On March 7, 2005, just before the one year anniversary of the 319 Shooting Incident, just before the opposition party rallied the public to take to the streets and protest, the Criminal Investigation Bureau, by the sheerest coincidence convened a press conference, claiming that they were "on the verge of a breakthrough" and that "significant progress" had been made on the 319 Shooting Incident. During this major press conference they announced that one Chen Yi-hsiung, a resident of Ching-hua Street in Tainan who died in late March 2004 was the perpetrator of the 319 Shooting Incident.
On what basis did Criminal Investigation Bureau Chief Hou Yu-yi make such a claim? He did so on the basis of several letters that had already been burned, that had allegedly been seen only by Chen Yi-hsiung's family members, that may never have existed at all. All of which made people question the authenticity of the deceased person's last will and testament. Without any evidence whatsoever, Hou concluded that Chen Yi-hsiung committed suicide for fear of punishment.
After the press conference, the Criminal Investigation Bureau showed a videotape of a woman sitting in the dark, with her back to the camera, allegedly the widow of Chen Yi-hsiung, apologizing to the public for her husband's alleged crime. By this time the Taiwan public learned that Chen Yi-hsiung's entire family had been placed under house arrest by the Public Security Bureau and their human rights had been violated.
On 21st Century Taiwan, evidence is unnecessary, a confession is unnecessary, and officials can indict a suspect who has been dead for a year. Officials can make the facts of a case go away or come back at will. They can psychoanalyze a dead man. They can arrange for someone who has been dead for a year and unable to argue his innocence take the fall for a crime he did not commit. The person is dead. His last will and testament is nowhere to be found. His surviving family members are under house arrest.
The New York Times pointed out that such a scenario was more absurd than those found in dime novels. According to most Taiwan media opinion polls over half the people refused to swallow this official explanation.
On March 19, approximately 50,000 people participated in a parade commemorating the anniversary of the 319 Shooting Incident, demanding the truth about the case.
The protesting crowd repeatedly called Lien Chan "Mr. President." The populace believed that the truth of the shooting incident and the rigged election would one day come to light, and that Lien Chan was in fact the candidate whom citizens of the Republic of China elected president during the 2004 presidential election. The truth, they believed, would prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)