Sunday, November 01, 2009

The Narcissism of Small Differences

The Narcissism of Small Differences
by Bevin Chu

November 1, 2009

Taiwan Independence Movement Banner reading: "Taiwan on one side, China on the other"


Champion of a "Taiwanese, not Chinese" ethnic and national identity desperate not to be mistaken for a "Chinaman."

The China Desk: I recently stumbled across the following item of black humor about "The Narcissism of Small Differences." Founder of Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud once noted that people often feel greater hostility towards those slightly different from them, than those dramatically different from them.

Freud considered this an example of narcissism, because the emotional distress that individuals afflicted with the Narcissism of Small Differences is the result of looking into a mirror but seeing an intolerable blemish on one's own face.

Hence the incomprehensible and irrational hostility self-styled champions of a "Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and political identity" feel towards "Chinese" (i.e., fellow Chinese on either Taiwan or the Chinese mainland).

Champions of a "Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and political identity" are deathly afraid of being "mistaken for Chinese." God forbid anyone should lump intrinsically superior "Taiwanese" together with superficially similar, but congenitally inferior "Chinese."

The narcissism of small differences most often applies to politics, but one of the best jokes on the subject pertains to religion.

The Narcissism of Small Differences

I was walking across a bridge one sunny day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over to him and said: 'Stop. Don't do it.'

'Why not?' he asked.

'Well, there's so much to live for!'

'Like what?'

'Are you religious?'

He said: 'Yes.'

I said. 'Me too. Are you Christian or Muslim?'

'Christian.'

'Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?''

'Protestant.'

'Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?'

'Baptist.'

'Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?'

'Baptist Church of God.'

'Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?'

'Reformed Baptist Church of God.'

'Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?'

He said: 'Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915.'

I said: "Die, you heretic scum!" and pushed him over the railing.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Is Taiwan's Status Undetermined?

Is Taiwan's Status Undetermined?
by Bevin Chu
October 11, 2009


Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Soong Mei-ling at the Cairo Conference

On September 11, former Republic of China President Chen Shui-Bian was convicted on four counts of corruption, and given a life sentence.

Chen is now demanding that the U.S. Court of Appeals order his release, arguing that the United States still has authority over the island of Taiwan.

Chen says that under the terms of a 1951 peace treaty with Japan, the United States remains the "principal occupying power" of Taiwan, and that as president of the Republic of China, it was his duty to accept orders from U.S. military officials.

Chen says that because of his unique relationship with the United States Military Government for Taiwan, he enjoys immunity from prosecution by the very government for which he was president for eight years.

Chen, in short, has invoked the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory."

Does Chen's argument have any merit?

None whatsoever.

Taiwan is China's sovereign territory. Taiwan is one of China's thirty odd provinces and autonomous regions. Taiwan has belonged to China since the Ming dynasty, longer than the United States of America has been in existence. The island of Taiwan was once part of Fujian Province. In the late Qing dynasty Taiwan was upgraded to the status of a province.

Japan extorted Taiwan at gunpoint from China on April 17, 1895, but was forced to return it to China on October 25, 1945, following Japan's defeat during WWII. October 25 is celebrated annually on Taiwan as Taiwan Retrocession Day.

Japan formally returned Taiwan to China in two official Taiwan Retrocession signing ceremonies, one in Nanking, the other in Taipei.

Japan knew who Taiwan belonged to when Japan annexed it, and Japan knew whom to return it to 50 years later.

The so-called "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory" is sheer sophistry, and amounts to a brazen attempt to annex another nation's sovereign territory.

In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the United States, Great Britain and China jointly agreed that:

"All the territories that Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

On July 26, 1945, the three governments followed this up with the Potsdam Proclamation, which affirmed that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out."

Those who allege that "Taiwan's status is undetermined" ritually invoke the Treaty of San Francisco of September 8, 1951. But this treaty is not binding on China, because neither the Republic of China government in Taipei or the Peoples Republic of China government in Beijing signed it.

What is binding, is the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, which was signed by Yeh Kung-chao, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of China, and Isao Kawada, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of Japan, in Taipei, on April 28, 1952.


Treaty of Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Article 4 of this treaty clearly and unambiguously states that:

"It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war."

In other words, the Makuan Treaty of 1895 (aka Treaty of Shimonoseki) has been rolled back, and Taiwan, including Diaoyutai, as well as Penghu, revert to China.

As Ching Cheong, writing in Singapore's Straits Times, correctly notes,

Prior to the Korean War, the US accepted Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. But the fighting that broke out in the Korean peninsula in June 1950 changed the US attitude. Seeing Taiwan's value as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier', a famous characterisation by General Douglas MacArthur, the US began to say that 'the status of Taiwan was undetermined'. To give legal basis to this claim, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan merely committed the latter to surrendering Taiwan but did not specify to whom the island was to be returned. This amounted to a repudiation of US treaty obligations as spelt out in the Cairo and Potsdam instruments.

It is unconvincing to say that when a Chinese territorial issue was at stake, the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, to which the ROC was a signatory, should carry less weight than the San Francisco Peace Treaty to which China was not.

Simply put, Japan annexed Taiwan by defeating China, which regained the island by defeating Japan half a century later. This historical fact is so crystal clear that in pre-1945 days, no one in the international community had ever raised doubt about it.

The 1972 Shanghai Communique codified this US position.

"Principle One: There is one China, and Taiwan is part of China. There will be no more statements made to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined."

Taiwan's status is not "undetermined." Taiwan belongs to China.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Russians Not Forced to Detour during 9/21 Earthquake


Russian Search and Rescue Team on a Mission in 2008

China Desk: During the 9/21 Earthquake of 1999, Taiwan independence propagandists disseminated a Big Lie. They alleged that Russian rescue workers were forced to detour around mainland Chinese airspace, delaying their arrival on Taiwan, possibly costing human lives. This allegation was a flagrant lie.

Below is a letter from Julian Clegg to the Taipei Times refuting this urban legend, which stubbornly persists even though it was discredited a decade ago.

The Moscow correspondent for the China Times who refuted this urban legend, was Arkady Borisov. His name in Chinese is 包理述 (Bao Lishu).

The Chief Coordinator of the Russian Emergency Assistance Team (Emercom) when the 9/21 Earthquake struck, was Vladimir Boreiko. His name is also Latinised as Boreyko and is given in the China Times article as 博雷科 (Boleike).

Media Myth Lives On:
Russians Not Forced to Detour during 9/21 Earthquake
by Julian Clegg, Taipei
September 18, 2009


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/09/18/2003453864

Monday marks the 10th anniversary of the 921 Earthquake of 1999. Members of rescue teams who came to Taiwan’s aid after the quake have been invited to attend a series of commemorative events this week.

On Sept. 25, 1999, four days after the earthquake, the Taipei Times ran an article entitled “Taipei accuses China of exploiting quake.” The newspaper followed the government and Chinese-language media in reporting “a Russian earthquake relief mission en route to Taiwan was forced to make a lengthy detour over Siberia because [mainland] China refused to allow the Russian plane carrying the team to pass through its airspace.”

On April 1 this year, the Taipei Times reported that “a group of Russian search and rescue workers that helped local teams during the 921 Earthquake in 1999 will come to Taiwan this September to take part in an event commemorating the 10th anniversary of the quake ... At the time, Russia dispatched a group of 83 professional search-and-rescue personnel to help in the search for survivors. Because of [mainland] China’s refusal to allow Russian planes to fly through its airspace, the help was delayed for 12 hours.”

I must point out that this accusation, though widely believed by people in Taiwan, is untrue.

When the accusation first appeared in the media, I felt doubtful for three reasons. First, different media disagreed widely about the length of the delay. Second, according to my understanding of relations between Russia, [mainland] China and Taiwan, I thought it unlikely that [mainland] China would refuse such a request. Third, the source of the report was said to be a Russian-language newspaper Segodnya (Today). I found this odd because it is very rare for Taiwanese media to report stories from the Russian media, especially when the original article is in Russian.

Out of curiosity, I visited the Russian trade office on Xinyi Road to ask whether the reports were true. The Russian trade representative and other staff said they had not heard of it.

The Russian representative said: “Not everything you read in the newspapers is always true.”

He explained that he had played a key role in facilitating the rescue mission. He assured me that the Russian team had never requested to fly through [mainland] Chinese air space, since the quickest and most efficient way for them to come here was to follow their established domestic route from Moscow to the Russian Far East, and from there across the sea to Taiwan.

He said the route from Russia to Taiwan was registered with international aviation authorities, although it was not in commercial use. It had only been used once before, for a private flight to Taiwan by Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who visited Taiwan from Oct. 18 to Oct. 22, 1998.)

The trade representative said [mainland] China could not have refused permission for the Russian plane to fly over [mainland] China, because the Russians never made any such request.

Following those reports in 1999, however, Taiwanese politicians, including then foreign minister Jason Hu (胡志強) and then Taoyuan County commissioner Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), publicly condemned [mainland] China for its supposed callousness in delaying the Russian rescue mission,.

The incident was cited as a pretext for refusing material aid, such as tents, prefabricated houses and so on, from [mainland] China, and turning down Beijing’s offer to send a medical team, although a cash donation from [mainland] China was accepted. Incidentally, Taiwan also refused aid offered by the Philippines.

After leaving the Russian trade office, I told what I had heard to Time magazine’s Taiwan correspondent Donald Shapiro, and called in to Li Ao’s (李敖) television call-in program and another call-in program on radio.

On Oct. 1, 1999, Taiwan’s representative office in Moscow invited members of the rescue team, who had just returned to Russia, to dinner.

Arkady Borisov, Moscow correspondent of the China Times, asked the rescue team whether it was true that they had been refused passage through [mainland] Chinese airspace. Team leader Vladimir Boreiko replied that it was not true, and proceeded to give the same account that the Russian representative in Taipei gave to me. This report appeared in the China Times on Oct. 3, 1999, and is still available online.

These are the facts of the matter as far as I know. Anyone who is still in doubt will have a chance to ask the Russian rescue team members during their visit to Taiwan this week.

JULIAN CLEGG
Taipei

China Desk: below is the China Times article mentioned in Julian Clegg's letter. This China Times article, submitted by Russian reporter Arkady Borisov, refuted this Taiwan independence Big Lie back in 1999, less than two weeks after the quake struck.

俄救難隊:救人第一是我們唯一信念
中時電子報
1999.10.03


http://forums.chinatimes.com.tw/report/921_quake/88100334.htm

【本報駐莫斯科特派記者包理述特稿】台灣九二一大地震發生之後,俄國緊急事務部自然災難預測中心立即向部長紹伊古提交報告,估計死亡人數為二萬人。經總理普丁的許可,紹伊古下令派遣救難專機到台灣。對俄國來說,此次迅速主動反應,是空前的對台灣友好行動。俄羅斯各界人士也紛紛致電致函給北莫協辦事處表示慰問,俄國媒體也非常關注,大幅報導台灣災情。這次「九二一震災」在一定的程度上顯示,俄國政府及民間對台灣的態度比以前不一樣了,兩國實質關係已有所提升。

十月一日北莫協莫斯科辦事處特別宴請剛從台灣返國的俄羅斯救難隊員,以對救災勇士表示敬佩與感謝之意。救難隊員宴中對新聞界也透露了一些有意思的細節,及對台灣地震的觀感。

針對有報導說「中共不允許俄羅斯救援團飛越中共領空,延誤了救援團體來台進行救難工作的時效」,俄國救難隊副隊長博雷科說,這是報導無中生有。根據規定,俄國救難隊收到通知之後,卅分鐘內應該出發赴災區。當時,俄國專機根本也不打算利用中國大陸的「空中走廊」,一開始要飛莫斯科-新西伯利亞-海參崴-日本領空-台灣的航線;救難隊是因等台灣方面同意等了好久,因此才耽誤了時間。不過,這是完全正常的,因為災情存在一定程度的不可預見性,政府需要時間來了解情況,然後才決定需不需要國際援助。上次俄國救難隊要赴土耳其救災,也差不多等了這麼多時間。

赴台灣救難隊員剛參加過土耳其大地震和莫斯科公寓爆炸搶救工作,精神上已疲累不堪,從莫斯科出發飛了十八個小時,抵台一下飛機後,就不眠不休的投入救災。他們說:「我們唯一的信念就是救人第一。」但他們對這次台灣救災工作不是很滿意,因為沒有救出任何生還者。

俄國隊被分派到倒塌的東勢鎮地標「王朝大樓」是有如廢墟一般,專家認定大樓內沒有生命跡象,但考慮到「道德因素」及受難者家屬的情緒,仍夜以繼日的繼續進行搜救。

一些救難隊員對台灣建築的堅固印象深刻,增加搜救的困難度。他們說,一開始在王朝大樓發現了二名罹難者屍體壓在亂石堆中,但是經過二十小時才能夠排除障礙物,順利挖出。

這些俄羅斯救難隊員都說:「台灣人都以非常溫暖的情緒對待我們」,對此印象極佳。博雷科先生特別向多日陪同他們的外交部工作人員蔣嘉一、徐瑞文等表示感謝。為了幫忙翻譯,他們經常隨同搜救人員進入傾倒的大樓內,俄文翻譯徐小姐每天只睡一個小時。

俄國救難隊隊長普拉特先生說,台灣官方已請求俄羅斯專家協助訓練中華搜救隊隊員,並已獲得緊急事務部長紹伊古的同意。

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Him Mark Lai, Dean of Chinese American History

The China Desk: The following is a eulogy to Him Mark Lai, written by my good friend Ling-chi Wang, who considers Lai the "Dean of Chinese American History."

I never knew Lai. My own political views are quite different from Lai's. Lai was a socialist. I am a free market anarchist.

But I do share one thing with Lai and my friend Ling-chi. I share their sworn hostility toward racism and racial inequality.

Him Mark Lai helped set the record straight about the history of ugly bigotry against ethnic Chinese in America. And for that he deserves the highest recognition.

-- Bevin Chu

Him Mark Lai, 1925-2009: the Dean of Chinese American History
by Dr. Ling-chi Wang,
Professor of Asian American Studies
UC Berkeley

Him Mark Lai, 1925-2009: the Dean of Chinese American History

Him Mark Lai, an internationally renowned archivist and historian of Chinese America and a highly respected leader of the community, died peacefully on Thursday, May 21, after a long struggle with cancer and other complications. For his immense contributions to Chinese American history, Prof. L. Ling-chi Wang of Asian American Studies at UC Berkeley called him “the Dean of Chinese American history.” He was 84 years old.

Him Mark Lai was born on November 1, 1925 in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Lai was the first in his family to begin life in America. His mother, Dong Hing Mui, was raised in Guangzhou while his father Maak Bing—from Chunghaa Village, Nam Hoi county—entered the United States under the paper name of Lai. But he passed his true ancestral roots to his five children by giving them each the middle name of Mark.

Since his childhood in Chinatown, he was an avid reader and collector of books in both Chinese and English. Like many Chinatown children before World War II, he started schooling at both Commodore Stockton Elementary School and Nam Kue Chinese School. From there, he went to Francisco Junior High School and Galileo High School. He excelled in both public and Chinese schools. During his final year at Galileo High, he also won a citywide essay contest for which he was honored at a student body rally.

Upon graduation from high school, he expressed his desire to go to college. However, his father urged him to go for a job in the city’s shipyards, pointing out that racism had prevented his own employer, a university graduate, from working in his profession. Him Mark refused and his irresistible desire was supported by his mother. Toward this end, he worked part time for 25 cents an hour at a sewing factory while attending first in the City College of San Francisco for two years. He completed his mechanical engineering degree at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1947.

Between work and study, Him Mark found time to join the San Francisco chapter of the Chinese League for Peace and Democracy, an organization opposed to American interference in China’s Civil War, 1945-1949. In late 1949, he started volunteering for the Chung Sai Yat Po, the first daily paper to support the new People’s Republic of China, and became also a member of organizations active in persuading students to return to China to serve the new government. He also joined the Chinese American Democratic Youth League, more familiarly known as Mun Ching, where he met Laura Jung, a young new immigrant, whom he eventually married in 1953. Laura became his life-time companion and steadfast supporter and collaborator in his work on Chinese American history until he died. Since he never learned how to drive, his countless research trips criss-crossing the U.S. could not have been accomplished without the ever-present love, care, and devotion of Laura.

With his hope of returning to China thwarted, he settled for a job in Bechtel Corporation as a mechanical engineer. The profession provided him both security and income and allowed him to pursue his real passion: the study of Chinese history and culture. During the McCarthy era in 1950s, introducing the Chinese community to the songs, music, folk dances, and vernacular dramas of the New China through Mun Ching—now renamed the Chinese American Youth Club—proved immensely satisfying despite the cost of constant FBI surveillance and intimidation. In the process, he also gained mastery of both spoken and written Chinese, skills turned out to be most useful for his later interest in doing research in Chinese American history.

When Mun Ching lost its clubroom in 1959 and was forced to close, Lai felt intellectually restless. The following year, he enrolled in a course, “The Oriental in North America,” a relatively new course taught by Stanford Lyman at the University of California Extension in San Francisco, which exposed him for the first time to the histories of the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos in America. He subsequently read a half dozen or so titles on Chinese in America published in the early 1960s and joined the Chinese Historical Society of America soon after its founding in 1963.

These events, together with contemporaneous changes in the status of minorities spurred by the Civil Rights movement, led Lai towards developing a Chinese American identity and history. In 1967, he accepted an invitation by the East/West, the Chinese American Weekly, a Chinese bilingual weekly published and edited by Gordon Lew, to write a series of articles on Chinese American history. This marked the beginning of his interest and devotion to reclaiming Chinese/American experience—a fortuitous confluence of his passion for history and his deep commitment to his bicultural heritage and democratic principles.

His most significant contributions to Chinese American history fall in three broad categories: research and publications; archival collections; and nurturing and mentoring of young Chinese American historians.

In all, he published and edited ten books and more than one hundred articles in English and Chinese on all aspects of Chinese American life. His East/West articles—revised and annotated—became the basis for the classic A History of the Chinese in California, A Syllabus, coedited with Thomas W. Chinn and Philip P. Choy, as well as for the first Chinese American history course in the United States, which Lai team taught with Choy at San Francisco State College in Fall 1969. Their joint teaching resulted in another classic Outlines: History of the Chinese in America. Lai’s first scholarly essay, “A Historical Survey of Organizations of the Left Among the Chinese in America,” published in the Fall 1972 issue of the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars—together with subsequent revisions—remains a standard reference. So do Island: Poetry and History of Chinese Immigrants on Angel Island 1910-1940, co-authored/translated with Genny Lim and Judy Yung; Lai’s “Chinese on the Continental U.S.” in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups; his From Overseas Chinese to Chinese American: a History of the Development of Chinese during the Twentieth Century (in Chinese) and articles in the Encyclopedia of Chinese Overseas and Huaquiao Huaren baike quanshu [Encyclopedia of Chinese and people of Chinese descent overseas]. Under his guidance and editorial leadership, no less then ? volumes of monographs, entitled, Chinese America: History & Perspectives, have been published. Each monograph contained original historical studies on subjects in Chinese American history by historians, young and old. Among his most important books is Becoming Chinese Americans: A History of Communities and Institutions, published in 2004.

To dig up the ignored and buried past, Him Mark Lai collected archival materials from Chinese American individuals and organizations across the nation, rescuing documents and old Chinese-language books and newspaper collections from dumpsters, second-hand and rare books stores. With Laura, he traveled to archives and Chinese/American communities on both sides of the Pacific, interviewed hundreds of people, and gathered valuable historical materials. Through his tireless search and rescue came two very important published bibliographies of Chinese newspapers and Chinese language materials: Chinese Newspapers Published in North America, 1854-1975 co-complied with Karl Lo in 1977 and A History Reclaimed: An Annotated Bibliography of Chinese Language Materials on the Chinese in America in 1986. Both are considered indispensable tools and sources for Chinese American history. Five years ago, he decided to donate his entire personal collection of rare documents and journals, monographs and books to the Chinese American Archival Collection in the Asian American Studies Collection in the Ethnic Studies Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Through a generous grant from the National Archives, the entire collection is now processed, catalogued and digitized and available to the public at:

http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt7r29q3gq.

Besides being a historian and archivist, Him Mark Lai was a generous and effective teacher, always ready to share his wealth of knowledge and collection with anyone interested into doing research on Chinese American history. He taught occasional courses in Chinese American history in the Asian American Studies Programs at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley. He provided guidance to hundreds for graduate students and scholars throughout the U.S. and across the globe. It would not be an exaggeration to say that virtually ever dissertation and book on the subject in the past thirty years is indebted to his research, collection materials, or guidance.

Beyond his contributions to Chinese American history mentioned above, Him Mark Lai also maintained his cultural and political commitment to the Chinese American community. For thirteen years, he coordinated a group that produced Hon Sing, a weekly radio program of news commentary, community announcements, and Chinese music under the auspices of the Chinese for Affirmative Action; and he served multiple terms on the boards of many organizations—such as the Chinese Culture Foundation and the Chinese Historical Society of America—often assuming the responsibilities of president. He also encouraged and brought to light new research by others through his decades of work on the editorial committees of Amerasia Journal and other publications.

Not widely known to the public is his lifelong quiet, but consistent support for racial equality and justice for Chinese Americans. He always supported the progressive, and quite often, unpopular, but just causes in the Chinese American community, even though he rarely played a visible role in these struggles.

Finally, Him Mark Lai was a tireless promoter of better understanding and friendly relation between the U.S. and China. He understood the importance of this relationship to the interests and welfare of Chinese Americans and he consistently supported events and projects promoting better relations between the two countries.

In conclusion, Him Mark Lai will long be remembered as the historian who rescued Chinese American history from oblivion and restored Chinese American experience as an integral part of not just U.S. history but the history of modern China.

A memorial service and celebration of Him Mark Lai’s life will be held at the Chinese Culture Center at 750 Kearny Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on Saturday, June 20 at 2:30 p.m., followed by dinner at Gold Mountain Restaurant, 644 Broadway, at 5 p.m.

In lieu of flowers, please send donations to the “Him Mark Lai Digital Archive Project” of the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA), the “Him Mark Lai Heritage Fund” of the Chinese Culture Foundation (CCF), Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), or the charity of one’s choice.

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?
Nanfang Daily
March 3, 2009
Translated by Bevin Chu
http://chinanews.sina.com

Love without a Heart: Ai, or "Love," in Simplified Chinese 
Love with a Heart: Ai, or "Love," in Traditional Chinese

The China Desk: Taiwan independence demagogues have long denounced Chinese reunification as "surrender to Beijing." 

Really?  

Champions of free market capitalism, including myself, like to joke that "The Cold War is over. We won." 

The USSR lost the Cold War to the USA. The PRC lost the Cold War to the ROC.  

Beijing was forced to admit that it lost to Taipei. Beijing was forced to admit that it was defeated by Taipei in the War of Economic Systems. Deng Xiaoping on the Chinese mainland, was forced to adopt the free market capitalism practiced by Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo on Taiwan.   

So who surrendered to whom? 

If that isn't enough, now Beijing is being forced to admit that it lost to Taipei in the War of Characters. 

So who says reunification means "surrender to Beijing?"

Closer examination suggests that reunification means "victory over Beijing." 

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years? 
Nanfang Daily 
March 3, 2009
Translated by Bevin Chu
http://chinanews.sina.com

Pan Qingling, a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Committee Member, has proposed that the nation phase out the use of Simplified Chinese characters in stages, and resume the use of Traditional Chinese characters within ten years, for three reasons.

One. The adoption of Simplified Chinese characters in the 1950s, during the last century, was too crude. It constituted a violation of Chinese writing, both artistically and scientifically. For example, the Traditional Chinese character for "love" includes the character for "heart." Upon simplification, the result is "love without a heart."

Two. It was once said that Traditional Characters were too complex, too hard to learn, too hard to write, and not conducive to popularization. But now most people use computers. No matter how complex the characters might be, they are no more difficult to type. This is no longer a problem.

Three. Resuming the use of Traditional Chinese characters is beneficial to reunification. The Taiwan region still uses Traditional Chinese characters, and refers to them as "Standard Characters." This has deep implications. The use of "Standard Characters" as an intangible cultural heritage exerts a form of pressure on the mainland.

全國政協委員潘慶林建議恢復使用繁體字
南方日報
2009年03月03日 03:33 
http://chinanews.sina.com 

全國政協委員潘慶林提出,建議全國用10年時間,分批廢除簡體漢字,恢復使用繁體字,原因有三:

1 上世紀50年代簡化漢字時太粗糙,違背了漢字的藝術和科學性。比如愛字,繁體字裡有個“心”,簡化後,造成“無心之愛”。

2 以前說繁體字太繁瑣,難學難寫,不利於傳播,但是現在很多人都是用電腦輸入,再繁瑣的字打起來也一樣,所以這個問題已經漸漸不存在。

3 恢復使用繁體字有利於兩岸統一。現在台灣依然用繁體字,並稱其為“正體字”,深有意味,還要為“正體字”申請非物質文化遺產,給祖國大陸方面造成了壓力。

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and Balances

Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and Balances
Bevin Chu
November 20, 2008

Special Posting for Mr. Christopher DiFranco's Social Studies Class at Georgetown Middle/High School in Georgetown, Massachusetts.

Georgetown Middle/High School, Georgetown, Massachusetts

See: The Myth of Checks and Balances
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/02/myth-of-checks-and-balances.html

Additional Closely Related Articles:

See: The Non-Aggression Axiom
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-03_011_the_non_aggression_axiom.mp3

See: Economic Selections, not Democratic Elections
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/03/economic-selections-not-democratic.html

See: Frogs and Fraud, a Fable
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/08/frogs-and-fraud-fable.html

See: How Democracy Really Works
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-democracy-really-works.html

See: The Founding Fathers' Next Step
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/09/founding-fathers-next-step.html

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Tibet: True or False?

Tibet: True or False?
by Mila Marcos and Michel Collon
July 1, 2008



Tibet is an Integral Part of China


"Historic Tibet": the megalomanical "Greater Tibet" territorial claims of Tibetan independence ultranationalists

The China Desk: Below is a highly informative Q&A Session on Tibet. FYI.

URL:
http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php?dateaccess=2008-06-26%2014:54:30&log=articles

IMPRIMER MAINTENANT !
TIBET : true or false?
Test how the media informed you
Mila Marcos and Michel Collon

The goal of these media tests is neither to shock nor create a scandal. All beliefs deserve respect. The goal is to allow each of us to determine for ourselves a decisive question: is what I believe based on reliable information? Or did someone try to manipulate public opinion on these big questions?
What makes a good judge? Someone who listens attentively to the contending parties, leaves her prejudices outside, makes up her own mind, and checks the reliability of each document, of each witness. Wouldn't a media reader or viewer find it helpful to follow this same method?


1. "BEFORE THE CHINESE INVASION, THE TIBETAN PEOPLE LIVED IN HARMONY WITH THEIR NOBILITY IN A SOCIAL ORDER INSPIRED BY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS."

FALSE. Religious doctrines imposed the superior position of the rich noble and the inferior position of the impoverished peasant, the low-ranking monk, the slave and all women, presenting this ranking as the inevitable outcome of karmic virtues and vices of successive former lives.

This religious ideology justified a feudal class order: serfs worked without pay for life on the grounds of the lord or the monastery, unable to move without permission. All life events--marriage, death, birth, a religious festival, to own an animal, to plant a tree, to dance, or to enter or leave prison--were pretexts for heavy taxes. Debts passed from father to son and to grandson. Those who failed to pay were reduced to slavery.

Fugitives and thieves were tracked by a small professional army. Favorite punishments: tearing out the tongue or the eye, slicing the tendon at the knee, etc. There tortures were not ended until 1959, at the time of democratic reforms decided in Beijing.


2. “IN 1951, CHINA INVADED TIBET.”

FALSE. The term “invasion” assumes that there are two countries. However, since the 13th century, the Mongols had annexed Tibet to China. As of the 17th century, it was one of the eighteen provinces of the Chinese Empire. And each new Dalai Lama received his “seal” of office from the Chinese Emperor.

At the end of the 19th century, the British Empire invaded Tibet and installed its trade representatives there. The thirteenth Dalai Lama took advantage of this to assert Tibet's independence. No Chinese party nor any country in the world took this request seriously. As of 1949, the U.S. State Department still declared Tibet and Taiwan integral parts of China.

This all changed when, led by Mao Zedong, China became socialist. The same U.S. State Department then wrote: “Tibet has become strategically and ideologically important. Since the independence of Tibet can aid the fight against Communism, it is of our interest to recognize it as independent rather than regarding it as belonging to China.” But, it added: “The situation would change if a government in exile is created. In this case, it is in our interest to support it without recognizing Tibet's independence. To recognize the independence of Tibet, yes or no, is not the true question. It is about our attitude towards China.”


3. “AS SOON AS SOCIALIST CHINA TOOK OVER THE DIRECTION IN 1951, THE DALAI-LAMA AND THE TIBETAN NOBILITY LOST ALL THEIR POLITICAL POWER IN TIBET."

FALSE. In 1951, Beijing and the local government of Tibet signed an accord on the peaceful liberation of Tibet. The Dalai Lama wrote a poem about the glory of President Mao Zedong and telegraphed him: “The local government, the lamas and the lay population of Tibet unanimously support the accord of 17 articles." It is within this framework that the Peoples Liberation Army entered Tibet.

The agreement foresaw the continuation of serfdom in Tibet under the authority of the Dalai Lama. The monasteries, the Dalai Lama and the officials would keep their possessions: 70 percent of the land. Beijing would control military questions and international relations. The local Tibetan government, composed of lamas and lords, negotiated and accepted the agreement. The Dalai Lama took the post of vice-president of the Parliament of all China, which he accepted without problems.


4. ”IN 1959, 83.000 DIED IN THE BATTLE OF LHASA.”

FALSE. To understand the sequence of events: while in Tibet, eastern feudalism continued, in the neighboring provinces where minorities Tibetans coexist with of Han, Hui, Yi, Naxi, Qiang, Mongols…, land reform got underway at the beginning of the 1950s. The lands of the great landowners were confiscated and redistributed to the poor peasants. With few conflicts, as the socialist State pays an income to the ex-owners. Resistance came from Tibetan lamas and nobility in these areas. They refuse to give up their privileges.

In 1956, they launched an armed rebellion starting from the monastery of Litang in Sichuan province. After skirmishes with the Red Army, a part of the Tibetan elite of Sichuan flees to Tibet and spreads rumors of “red terror.” From the beginning, the CIA financed and supported the uprising. Armed militia were trained in Colorado, parachuted into Tibet, and supplied with weapons by air. The bloody events of this period were indeed a struggle of the privileged classes, organized by the CIA.

In 1959, the rumor that,“The Chinese will kidnap the Dalai Lama,” sparked a large demonstration in Lhasa. In reality, the CIA had already organized the Dalai Lama's flight towards India. The demonstrators lynched some Tibetan officials, and the Red Army crushed the riot. How many deaths in Lhasa? Three thousand according to testimonies collected by the political economist Henry Bradsher (pro-independence). Sixty-five thousand, claimed the Dalai Lama in 1959. Then, it will pass to eighty-seven thousand. However, at that time Lhasa only had a maximum of forty thousand inhabitants. It is true that after the riot, ten thousand Tibetans were sent to spend eight months doing forced labor to build the first hydro-electric power station in Ngchen. But the unsubstantiated figures continued to circulate. In 1984, the Tibetan government in exile used the figure of « 432.000 Tibetains dead during the battles with the Red Army between 1949 and 1979 » !


5. “INDIA INITIALLY REFUSED TO GRANT THE DALAI-LAMA POLITICAL ASYLUM."

TRUE. Starting in 1949, the United States tried to convince the Dalai Lama to go into exile, with the assistance of his two brothers (recruited by the CIA in 1951) and of the German adviser Heinrich Harrer (former SS). It would take ten years before he agreed to take refuge in India with the layer of privileged dignitaries who will make up the exiled Tibetan community.

But neighboring India hardly wanted to grant him asylum. President Eisenhower then proposed to introduce 400 Indian engineers to U.S. nuclear technology. The Indian leader Nehru accepted this deal. In 1974, first Indian A-bomb was given the cynical nickname of “smiling Buddha”.


6. “THE CHINESE OCCUPATION CAUSED THE VIOLENT DEATH OF 1.2 MILLION TIBETANS."

FALSE. Two major facts contradict this figure, which the Western world has accepted without proof for thirty years.

1. The Tibetan population pyramid in 1953 was estimated as at maximum 2.5 million inhabitants in Tibet and in neighboring provinces. If 1.2 million Tibetans had been killed between 1951 and the beginning of the 70s, most of Tibet would have been depopulated. And there would be a great imbalance between men and women. But demographers note no such anomaly and the population doubled to almost six million Tibetans in China today.

2. The only person who had access to the files of the Tibetan government in exile was Patrick French, when he directed Free Tibet in London. Documents in hand, French concluded that the evidence of the “ Tibetan genocide” had been falsified. The battles of 1959 had been counted several times and the figures of deaths added in the margins afterwards. He denounced this falsification, but the figure continued to circulate in the world…


7. “RELIGIOUS PRACTICE WAS PROHIBITED DURING THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION.”

TRUE. Between 1966 and 1976, all religious practices were prohibited not only in Tibet, but in all China. The monasteries were closed, the monks had to return to their families of origin and devote themselves to productive work, primarily farming. It is not true that all the temples and monasteries were "razed to the ground." But the Red Guards, young Tibetan intellectuals who followed the general movement in China, destroyed many objects of worship.

When that turned chaotic, the army stepped in and restored social and economic order. The Chinese government publicly admitted the errors of this period and financed the restoration of all Tibet's religious patrimony. The monasteries were repopulated. Two thousand lamaseries were restored and are functioning in China.


8. “THE DALAI-LAMA IS A SORT OF POPE OF WORLD BUDDHISM.”

FALSE. The Dalai Lama represents neither Zen Buddhism (Japan), nor Southeast Asian Buddhism, nor Chinese Buddhism. In fact, Tibetan Buddhism represents less than 2 percent of the world's Buddhists. In Tibet itself, there are four separate Buddhist sects, the Dalai Lama belonging to one of them, the gelugpa (yellow bonnets).

When he visited London in 1992, the largest British Buddhist organization accused him of being a “pitiless dictator” and an “oppressor of religious freedom.” This “Pope” seems to have few religious disciples, but many political followers…


9. “THE DALAI LAMA CLAIMS A QUARTER OF CHINA'S TERRITORY.”

TRUE. Although he had recently said he would be satisfied with a kind of autonomy, in his books, he claims a “Grand Tibet,” double the size of that where the Dalai Lamas exerted local political power in the past. This territory would incorporate the whole province of Qinghai and the parts of the provinces Gansu, Yunnan and Sichuan, in which one finds Tibetan minorities among other nationalities.

By what methods? By driving out the non-Tibetan populations? Practicing ethnic cleansing? Yes. The Dalai Lama declared textually in the U.S. Congress in 1987: “7.5 million settlers must leave.” It is not a question of settlers, because the populations of these areas have been mixed for centuries. In any case, this expansionist project would carry out what all the colonial powers have sought to do for 150 years: to dismember China.


10. “DONATION FROM CHARITABLE AND HUMANITARIAN NGO'S FINANCE THE TIBETAN MOVEMENT.”

FALSE. The Tibetan movement indeed receives such gifts, but its principal financier is the government of the United States. Between 1959 and 1972, the CIA poured $1.7 million into the “Tibetan government in exile” and $180,000 dollars per annum for the Dalai Lama. This he denied for a long time, but ended up acknowledging it.

From then on and still today, the payments were more discreet, through cover organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, Tibet Fund, State Department's Democracy Bureau… Another important sponsor: George Soros through Albert Einstein Institute, directed until recently by ex-colonel Robert Helvey of the U.S. secret services.


11. “THE SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DALAI LAMA IS JUSTIFIED BY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES."

TRUE. Ruling U.S. circles see China as their principal enemy. Now China is certainly an essential economic partner, but also, in the long term, a principal factor resisting U.S. world domination. The USA predict that China will catch them up as a world power about 2030. They must then absolutely prevent Asians from creating a Common Market tied to China that would evade U.S. control.

These people dream that they can break up China as they did the USSR. Their goal is to control the economic wealth, the labor power and the largest market of the world. To weaken China, the U.S. has a two-track strategy. On the one hand, to encircle China with military bases. In addition, to encourage separatist movements and all kinds of opposition. They begin with media demonization campaigns. That's why they invest greatly in the question of Tibet.


12. “THE DALAI LAMA PUBLICLY DEFENDED THE FORMER FASCIST DICTATOR OF CHILE AUGUSTO PINOCHET.”

TRUE. British police arrested Pinochet in England, based on an international warrant for crimes against humanity issued by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón. In this occasion, the Dalai Lama actively recommended the British government to release him and stop him from being tried. Pinochet also was a long-term employee of the CIA.

The Dalai Lama is indeed a pawn of the United States. In 2007, George Bush presented the Dalai Lama a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award given by the U.S. Congress. His holiness praised Bush for his efforts in the whole world on behalf of freedom, democracy and human rights. He called the United States “a champion of democracy and freedom.”


13. “REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS GIVES DISINTERESED SUPPORT TO THE DALAI LAMA."

FALSE. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) presents itself as a defender of freedom for journalists, and many of its small contributors believe they are supporting an independent and objective organization. But the funds for helping oppressed journalists amounts to only 7 percent of the total budget. The remainder goes to political campaigns.

Behind these campaigns is dirty money. Actually, the boss at RSF, Robert Ménard, uses a double standard when he defends human rights. He criticizes Venezuela and Cuba by distorting facts? Why? He received financings from the Cuban counterrevolutionaries in Miami. He criticizes China for his policy in Tibet? Why? He received 100.000 dollars from the anti-communists of Taiwan. On the other hand, he is more than timid towards the United States, which killed the greatest number of journalists these last few years. Why? He is financed by the CIA through the NED as we already mentioned.

Similarly, Ménard forced RSF to cease criticizing the French media. Why? He is supported financially by the largest French media and some large multinationals. Moreover, the NMPP (owned partially by Lagardere) distribute his albums free. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Ménard had to admit in 2001: “How, for example,could we organize a debate on the concentration of the press and then ask Havas or Hachette to sponsor it?”

Despite all these suspect financial arrangements, the majority of the mass media continue to relay Ménard's words massively. On the other hand, UNESCO ceased supporting him, explaining that, “RSF had shown on several occasions an absence of ethics by treating certain countries with very little objectivity.”


14. “CHINA IS COMMITTING CULTURAL GENOCIDE IN TIBET.”

FALSE. Actually, Tibet for a long time has been an autonomous area. Since the 1980s, the culture and the religion of Tibet are practiced freely, children are bilingual, institutes studying Tibet have been opened, lamas, including young children, fill the monasteries. In the streets, believers happily spin their prayer wheels. The language Tibetan is spoken and written by many more people than before the revolution. There are a hundred literary magazines in Tibet. Even Foreign Office magazine, close to the U.S. State Department, acknowledged that 60 to 70 percent of the civil servants are from the Tibetan ethnic group and that bilingualism is common.

In addition, Tibetan culture also experienced new growth in the remainder of China, especially in the fields of language, literature, studies of the everyday life and traditional architecture. China published major collections of books, newspapers and magazines in the Tibetan language. Many publishing houses exist not only in Tibet but also in Beijing. “Cultural genocide” is a political propaganda myth.


15. “THE CONFRONTATIONS OF MARCH 14, 2008 IN LHASA OCCURRED BECAUSE THE POLICE FORCE AND THE CHINESE ARMY VIOLENTLY REPRESSED A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION."

FALSE. All the Western witnesses present on the spot, including journalist James Miles (The Economist) and many tourists attest to it: the violence was started by young Tibetans who the lamas encouraged to commit destructive acts.

These were criminal acts programmed in a racist manner. Several groups, all armed in the same manner (Molotov cocktails, stones, steel bars, and butcher's knives), all operating in the same way, were spread around Lhasa, and sowed panic by attacking Han (Chinese) and Hui (Moslems). Civilians were burned alive, others beaten to death or cut up. Nineteen died and more than three hundred were wounded. Schools, hospitals and hotels were attacked. Many older Tibetans aided the victims and saved lives.

When these racist violences were exposed, the partisans of the Dalaï-Lama claimed that it was all the work of Chinese soldiers disguised as monks, circulating an alleged “satellite” photograph that was supposed to prove it. We showed that this photograph was a coarse forgery.

The police force and the Chinese army initially remained extremely passive before intervening in force to put an end to the riots. How many became victims there at this time? The Western media spread the figure (“hundreds”) advanced by the partisans of the Dalai Lama.
Some of those the Tibetan government in exile declared “dead” are quite alive today in Tibet. Others were called “Dupont, Charleroi” without being more precise. Other names raised do not exist. The argument goes on.

Translated from French by John Catalinotto

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Taipei Reaffirms Sovereignty over Diaoyutai, Finally!

Taipei Reaffirms Sovereignty over Diaoyutai, Finally!
Bevin Chu
June 14, 2008


Diaoyutai belongs to China, Map of Diaoyutai printed on Taiwan


Diaoyutai belongs to China, Map of Diaoyutai printed on the Chinese Mainland

The ROC government in Taipei has reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, finally.

It's about time.

For the past 20 years, Taipei has allowed Japan to get away with behaving as if the Diaoyutai Islands (in Hanyu Pinying), or "Tiaoyutai Islands" (in Wade-Giles), and the territorial waters surrounding it, belonged to Japan.

For eight years, Chen Shui-bian has never made a peep when Japanese warships drove Taiwan Chinese fishing boats from Chinese territorial waters.

During his 12 years in office, Chen's predecessor Lee Teng-hui was even worse. Lee openly and explicitly declared that Diaoyutai belonged to Japan!

Now however, three weeks into Ma Ying-jeou's term, a incident that during Lee Teng-hui's term or Chen Shui-bian's term would have been swept under the rug, has brought the issue of China's sovereignty over Diaoyutai into the spotlight.

Now, finally, we have an opportunity to get at the truth.

See China Desk articles on Diaoyutai: http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2007/04/japanese-historians-view-of-diaoyutai_09.html
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/12/millions-for-defense-but-not-one-cent.html
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2005/07/diaoyutai-and-pan-green-self-delusion.html

See also: http://blog.yam.com/dili/article/5442557


Executive Director Huang Hsi-lin 黃錫麟 of the Diaoyutai Islands Action Coalition 保釣行動聯盟 thanks the ROC Coast Guard 海巡隊 for its escort mission - The 12 members of the Diaoyu Islands Action Coalition made a successful circumnavigation of the Diaoytai Islands on June 16th. They returned safely to Ruifang Sheng Ao Harbor in Taipei County 北縣瑞芳深澳漁港

Taipei reaffirms sovereignty over Tiaoyutai Islands

Friday, June 13, 2008
The China Post news staff

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Taiwan reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Tiaoyutai Islands for the first time in at least ten years yesterday, two full days after a 270-ton sports fishing boat sank in a collision with a Japanese maritime defense frigate over their waters.

President Ma Ying-jeou, once a Tiaoyutai warrior, had a statement issued by his spokesman Wang Yu-chi reaffirming the eight islets, some 120 miles northeast of Keelung, are part of the territory of the Republic of China.

No official statement on the Tiaoyutais has been made over the past ten years, and it seems that Taipei has tacitly given up sovereignty over the small archipelago, which the Japanese call the Senkaku Islands.

China, along with Taiwan and Japan, claims sovereignty over the islets under whose waters lie vast natural gas and oil reserves waiting to be tapped.

"We have never changed our determination to insist on protecting our sovereignty over the Tiaoyutais," the Office of the President said in the statement. "Nor will we change."

The islets are designated as Daxi li (ward) of Touzheng Township in the county of Yilan, the statement declared.

"This stand is fully understood by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs," the statement went on, adding: "It (the foreign ministry) will comply."

On the other hand, the statement said, "We will lodge a strong protest with the Japanese government for its patrol vessel hitting and sinking our fishing boat and detaining its skipper."

"We also demand Japan release the skipper at once and pay compensation," the Office of the President said. "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is negotiating with the Japanese side on the basis of the above-mentioned principle," it added.

Moreover, the statement said, "We also demand that the National Coast Guard Administration strengthen its organization and equipment at once to enhance its function of safeguarding our sovereignty and fishing rights."

As an aside, Wang Yu-chi said in releasing the statement there never is a change in President Ma's strong determination to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty over the Tiaoyutais, which is spelled Diaoyutais in pinyin. China uses that name.

"He was a hot-blooded youth," Wang said of President Ma when he spearheaded the campaign to protect the Tiaoyutais in the early 1970s.

At that time, Ma said he would risk going to war with Japan to safeguard the eight islets.

"President Ma is a hot-blooded middle-ager now," Wang said.When the dispute over the sovereignty broke out while he was mayor of Taipei, Ma criticized President Chen Shui-bian for not standing up against Japan.

Wang explained Ma did not respond immediately to the incident, in which none were wounded, because as head of state, he had better let his Cabinet take care of it.

The fact, however, is that the public reacted too strongly for the president and his foreign minister to appear like pushovers.

There were 13 sports fishermen along with a three-man crew aboard the fishing boat Lien Ho. They were all thrown overboard in the collision Tuesday morning, but were rescued by the Japanese patrol ship Koshiki.

They were all taken to Ishigaki jima, one of the southernmost isles of the Ryukyus. The 13 deep-sea anglers were released later and came back to Keelung aboard a NCGA cutter Wednesday. Two crew members flew back to Taipei from Okinawa yesterday morning.

Chou Hsi-wei, magistrate of Taipei, accompanied Mrs. Ho Hung-yi, wife of the Lien Ho skipper, in meeting with Premier Liu Chao-schiuan, who promised whatever possible government help to get her husband back as soon as possible.

Liu said he instructed the foreign ministry to demand that Japan release the skipper, make compensation, and apologize for the incident.

"Should there be no goodwill response," Premier Liu threatened, "we do not rule out possibilities of resorting to other means."

He did not elaborate.

The magistrate of Taiwan's most populous county, which has jurisdiction over Juifang, the home port of the Lien Ho, went to the Taipei office of the Interchange Association, Japan's de facto embassy, to lodge a protest.

There was a crowd before the Japanese office protesting against "the arrogant bullying" of the Lien Ho crew and sports anglers.

Lawmakers of both the ruling and opposition parties unanimously condemned the foreign ministry for buckling under Japanese pressure.

Democratic Progressive Party legislators demanded that Francisco Ou step down as foreign minister to take responsibility.

"Where's the hot-blooded youth called Ma Ying-jeou now?" asked Yeh Yi-tsin, DPP legislative caucus deputy whip.

Kuomintang lawmaker Lin Yu-fang demanded that Chen Chao-min, minister of national defense, be prepared for war.

His colleague, Chang Suo-wen, charged the foreign ministry with ordering the NCGA cutters to stay away from "the Japanese territorial waters," precluding their timely assistance to the Lien Ho.

Another Kuomintang legislator, Liao Chen-ching, insisted that the Legislative Yuan adopt a resolution condemning the "Japanese bullying action."

"We should all go to the Taipei office of the Interchange Association to protest," Chang urged.

Phoebe Yeh, spokeswoman for the foreign ministry, denied any such order was issued. But she admitted the cutters were told to stay 12 nautical miles away from the Tiaoyutais.

Tsai Ming-yao, a foreign ministry Japanese affairs coordinator, said he was to blame for telling the cutters to stay away.

"My judgment was a wrong one," Tsai said. "I am responsible."

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance
Bevin Chu
May 28, 2008


One of Zheng He's Treasure Ships next to Christopher Columbus' Santa Maria

Retired Royal Navy submarine commander Gavin Menzies is the author of the controversial book "1421: The Year China Discovered America."

Menzies has now written another, equally controversial book, entitled "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance."

Mainstream Western academics and intellectuals have purportedly "debunked" Menzies' claims, known as the "1421 Hypothesis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421_hypothesis

I however, am intrigued by Menzies' claims, and eager to see and hear more.

Whether Menzies' claims are true will hopefully become clear over time.

What dismays me about Menzies' self-styled "debunkers" is not their intellectual disagreement, but their emotional outrage.

Menzies asks some tough questions, such as:

"How do you discover a place for which you already have a map?"

and

"Why were the straits named after Magellan when Magellan had seen them on a chart before he set sail?"

Leave aside for the moment whether Menzies' answers to these questions are correct. Turn instead to why Menzies' "debunkers" are so affronted that such questions would even be asked.

Leave aside for a moment history, and turn to psychology.

Read their "rebuttals." Read between the lines. Note the hysterical tone of some of their responses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies

Why are these mainstream Western academics and intellectuals so offended by the idea that a Chinese navigator, rather than an Italian navigator, first discovered America, or that a Chinese navigator, rather than a Portuguese navigator, first circumnavigated the globe?


Chinese Navigator Zheng He


Italian Navigator Christopher Columbus


Portuguese Navigator Ferdinand Magellan

Has a sacred cow been gored? Has an article of faith been questioned? Has their comfortable Eurocentric world view been shaken to its very foundations?

In the cult science fiction film The Planet of the Apes (1968, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, written by Pierre Boulle, Michael Wilson, and Rod Serling) we humans got a sense of what it would be like if apes were to replace us at the top of the food chain. We humans were aghast as we watched apes rule the planet.

I get the feeling that Menzies' "debunkers" feel the same way about the suggestion that Chinese navigator Zheng He discovered America and circumnavigated the world.

These mainstream Western academics and intellectuals seem unwilling to admit into their consciousness the very thought of a world in which Westerners are not the driving force behind every major event in history.

These mainstream Western academics and intellectuals seem unwilling to countenance the very idea of a world stage on which Westerners are not the leading men and leading ladies, and non-Westerners are not the bit players.

Whether Menzies' claims will ever be substantiated is one thing.

But the shrilly defensive reaction from Western "Defenders of Civilization as We Know It" is something else altogether.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

The size of Zheng He's ships may have been exaggerated. I don't know.

But suppose they were? Zheng He's ships could have been far smaller than Menzies postulates, and still sailed to America, or even circumnavigated the globe.

After all, Columbus and Magellan managed to perform these feats using far smaller ships. Why couldn't Zheng He have performed them, only earlier?

Ming dynasty maritime technology was more than capable of accomplishing these feats. Whether Chinese navigators bothered to carry them out is a separate matter.


An excerpt from '1434'

Greetings!

We are delighted to enclose below an excerpt from Gavin's new book, 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance.

One thing that greatly puzzled me when writing 1421 was the lack of curiosity among many professional historians.

After all, Christopher Columbus supposedly discovered America in 1492. Yet 18 years before he set sail, Columbus had a map of the Americas, which he later acknowledged in his logs. Indeed, even before his first voyage, Columbus signed a contract with the King and Queen of Spain that appointed him Viceroy of the Americas. His fellow ship's captain, Pinzon, who sailed with him in 1492 had too seen a map of the Americas -- in the Pope's library.

How do you discover a place for which you already have a map?

The same question could be asked of Magellan. The straits that connect the Atlantic to the Pacific bear the great Portuguese explorer's name. When Magellan reached those straits, he had run out of food and his sailors were reduced to eating rats. Worse, they were convinced they were lost.

Esteban Gomez led a mutiny, seizing the San Antonio with the intent to lead part of the expedition back to Spain. Magellan quashed the mutiny by claiming he was not at all lost. A member of the crew wrote , "We all believed that [the Strait] was a cul-de-sac; but the Captain knew that he had to navigate through a very well concealed strait, having seen it in a chart preserved in the treasury of the King of Portugal, and made by Martin of Bohemia, a man of great parts."

Why were the straits named after Magellan when Magellan had seen them on a chart before he set sail? Once again, it doesn't make sense.

The paradox might be explained had there been no maps of the straits or of the Pacific - if, as some believe, Magellan was bluffing about having seen a chart. But there were maps. Waldseemueller published his map of the Americas and the Pacific in 1507, thirteen years before Magellan set sail. In 1515, four years before Magellan sailed, Schoener published a map showing the straits Magellan is said to have
"discovered."

The great European explorers were brave and determined men. But they discovered nothing. Magellan was not the first to circumnavigate the globe nor was Columbus the first to discover the Americas So why, we may ask, do historians persist in propagating this fantasy? Why is the "Times History of Exploration," which details the discoveries of European explorers, still taught in schools? Why are the young so insistently misled?

After 1421 was published, we set up our website, www.1421.tv, which has since received millions of visitors. Additionally we have received hundreds of thousands of emails from readers of 1421, many bringing new evidence to our attention. Of the criticism we've also received, the most frequent complaint has concerned my failure to describe the Chinese fleets' visits to Europe when the Renaissance was just getting underway.

Two years ago, a Chinese Canadian scholar, Tai Peng Wang, discovered Chinese and Italian records showing beyond a doubt that Chinese delegations had reached Italy during the reigns of Zhu Di (1403 - 1425) and the Xuande Emperor (1426 - 1435). Naturally, this was of the greatest interest to me and the 1421 team.

Shortly after Tai Peng Wang's 2005 discovery, Marcella and I set off with friends for Spain. For a decade, we've enjoyed holidays with this same group of friends, travelling to seemingly inaccessible places - crossing the Andes, Himalayas and Hindu Kush, voyaging down the Amazon, journeying to the glaciers of Patagonia and to the High Altiplano of Bolivia. In 2005 we walked the Via de la Plata from Seville, from which the Conquistadores sailed to the New World, north to their homeland of Extremadura. Along the way, we visited the towns in which the Conquistadores were born and grew up. One of these was Toledo, painted with such bravura by El Greco. Of particular interest to me were the mediaeval pumps by which this fortified mountain town drew its water from the river far below.

On a lovely autumn day, we walked uphill to the great cathedral that dominates Toledo and the surrounding countryside. We dumped our bags in a small hotel built into the cathedral walls and set off to explore. In a neighbouring Moorish palace there was an exhibition dedicated to Leonardo da Vinci and his Madrid codices, focusing on Leonardo's pumps, aqueducts, locks and canals -- all highly relevant to Toledo.

The exhibit contained this note: "Leonardo embarked upon a thorough analysis of waterways. The encounter with Francesco di Giorgio in Pavia in 1490 was a decisive moment in Leonardo's training, a turning point. Leonardo planned to write a treatise on water."

This note puzzled me. I had been taught that Leonardo had designed the first European canals and locks, that he was the first to illustrate pumps and fountains. So what relevant training had he received from di Giorgio, a name completely unknown to me?

My research revealed that Leonardo had owned a copy of di Giorgio's treatise on civil and military machines. In the treatise, di Giorgio had illustrated and described a range of astonishing machines, many of which Leonardo subsequently reproduced in three-dimensional drawings. The illustrations were not limited to canals, locks and pumps; they included parachutes, submersibles tanks and machine guns as well as hundreds of other machines with civil and military applications.

This was quite a shock. It seemed Leonardo was more illustrator than inventor and that the greater genius may have resided in di Giorgio. Was di Giorgio the original inventor of these fantastic machines? Or did he, in turn, copy them from another?

I learned that di Giorgio had inherited notebooks and treatises from another Italian, Mario di Jacopo ditto Taccola (called Taccola "the jackdaw"). Taccola was a clerk of public works living in Siena. Having never seen the sea or fought a battle, he nevertheless managed to draw a wide variety of nautical machines - paddle wheeled boats, frogmen and machines for lifting wrecks together with a range of gunpowder weapons, even an advanced method of making gunpowder. It seems Taccola was responsible for nearly every technical illustration that di Giorgio and Leonardo had later improved upon.

So, once again, we confront our familiar puzzle: How did a clerk in a remote Italian hill town, a man who had never travelled abroad nor obtained a university education, come to produce technical illustrations of such amazing machines?

This book attempts to answer that and a few related riddles. In doing so, we stumble upon the map of the Americas that Taccola's contemporary, Paolo Toscanelli, sent to both Christopher Columbus and the King of Portugal, in whose library Magellan encountered it.

Like '1421', this book is a collective endeavour that never would have been written without the help of thousands of people across the world. I do not claim definitive answers to every riddle. This is a work in progress. Indeed, I hope the reader will join us in the search for answers and share them with us - as so many did in response to '1421.'

However, before we meet the Chinese squadron upon its arrival in Venice and then Florence, a bit of background is necessary on the aims of the Xuande Emperor for whom Grand Eunuch Zheng He served as ambassador to Europe. A Xuande imperial order dated 29th June 1430 stated:

"The New Reign of Xuan De has commenced and everything shall begin anew. But distant lands beyond the seas have not yet been informed. I send Eunuchs Zheng He and Wang Zing Hong with this imperial order to instruct these countries to follow the way of heaven with reverence and to watch over their people so that all might enjoy the good fortune of lasting peace."

The first three chapters of this book describe the two years of preparations in China and Indonesia to fulfil that order, which required launching and provisioning the greatest fleet the world had ever seen for a voyage across the world. Chapter 4 explains how the Chinese calculated longitude without clocks and latitude without sextants -prerequisites for drawing accurate maps of new lands. Chapters 5 and 6 describe how the fleet left the Malabar Coast of India, sailed to the canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea, then down the Nile into the Mediterranean. Some have argued that no Chinese records exist to suggest Zheng He's fleets ever left the Indian Ocean. Chapters 5 and 6 document the many records in China, Egypt, Dalmatia, Venice, Florence and the Papacy describing the fleets' voyage.

In Chapter 21, I discuss the immense transfer of knowledge that took place in 1434 between China and Europe. This knowledge originated with a people who, over a thousand years, had created an advanced civilisation in Asia; it was given to Europe just as she was emerging from a millennium of stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire.

The Renaissance has traditionally been portrayed as a rebirth of the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome. It seems to me the time has come to reappraise this Eurocentric view of history. While the ideals of Greece and Rome played an important role in the Renaissance, I submit that the transfer of Chinese intellectual capital to Europe was the spark that set the Renaissance ablaze.

When you have read the book, please tell us whether you agree.

Gavin Menzies
New York
17th July 2007

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Sharon Stone Calls China Earthquake Karma

Sharon Stone Calls China Earthquake Karma
Bevin Chu
May 26, 2008


Heart of Stone? The China Desk likes Sharon Stone, and certainly hopes not

Sharon Stone Calls China Earthquake Karma
Hollyscoop.com
May 26, 2008


http://www.hollyscoop.com/sharon-stone/sharon-stone-calls-china-earthquake-karma_16155.aspx

Sharon Stone made a not so smart statement while on the red carpet in Cannes. She was asked if she had heard about the disaster that hit China recently, and her answer was:

"Of course I have. Well you know at first I thought I'm not happy with the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans….and I've been concerned with should we have the Olympics because they're not being nice to the Dalai Lama who's a good friend of mine. And then all this earthquake and stuff happened and I thought, 'Is that Karma, when you're not nice and the bad things happen to you?'"

Well that's one way of looking at things, Sharon. Although, we don't think most people agree with that way of thinking. She tried redeeming her comment afterwards but you can't take what you said back.



The China Desk responds: Sichuan Province is just to the east of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Many Tibetan-Chinese live in western Sichuan, in what Tibetan independence advocates claim is "part of Greater Tibet."

With the number of dead approaching 100,000, a not insignificant number of quake victims were Tibetan-Chinese. If the May 12 Wenchuan Earthquake was "karmic payback" against "Chinese," which Ms. Stone erroneously equates with "Han-Chinese," how does Ms. Stone explain all the dead and injured Tibetan-Chinese?

Applying Ms. Stone's logic, should we conclude that Tibetan-Chinese who died in the earthquake were victims of "karmic payback" for the egregious sins of the Tibetan independence movement?

Some Tibetan-Chinese don't admit to being Chinese. Instead, they demand a Tibetan variant of South Africa's former system of Apartheid. They demand political independence from a polyglot, multi-ethnic China, on the basis of their "Tibetan" ethnic identity.

Not only do they demand political independence, they demand that other regions of China to which Tibetan-Chinese have migrated be incorporated into their "Greater Tibet."

In case you think I'm kidding, take a gander at the "Greater Tibet"
territorial claims made by Tibetan independence ultranationalists below.


"Historic Tibet": the megalomanical "Greater Tibet" territorial claims of Tibetan independence ultranationalists

According to Tibetan independence advocates, anywhere ethnic Tibetans live ought to be part of "Greater Tibet."

"Lebensraum" anybody?

I guess Oberscharfuhrer Heinrich Harrer of the SS really did a thorough job of inculcating his young charge Tenzing Gyatso with Nazi concepts of race and territoriality after all.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Harrer and his young disciple:

Heinrich Harrer's Nazi past was unknown until a 1997 article [appeared] in the German magazine Stern. Harrer became a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA, or "Brownshirts") in October 1933, when the Nazi Party (NSDAP) was illegal in Austria. He held the rank of Oberscharführer (Sergeant). In March 1938, Austria was annexed by the German regime, as a part of Grossdeutschland ("Greater Germany"). Harrer joined the Schutzstaffel (SS, or "Blackshirts") that same year and was photographed with Adolf Hitler.

Harrer became a friend of the young Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, who had summoned him to the Potala Palace after having seen him repeatedly in the streets below the palace through his telescope. Harrer taught the Dalai Lama (who was eleven years old when they met) much about the outside world and effectively served as his tutor. The Dalai Lama has often credited Harrer's later writings about Tibet as having helped focus international attention on the plight of the Tibetan people after Communist Chinese control.


-- Wikipedia

Okay, I'll cop to it. Sharon Stone is one of my favorite actresses, and to paraphrase Jimmy Carter, I have lusted after her in my heart.

Ms. Stone is both beautiful and intelligent. But the Myth of Shangri-la and Tibetan Independence Political Correctness have her so brainwashed, she is no longer capable of thinking for herself.

Isn't it time Western camp followers of "The Dalai Lama" (shades of "The Donald") ran some long overdue reality checks on their borrowed "spiritual faith?"

A friend in the San Franciso Bay Area had this to say:

The epicenter of the 8.0 Ms Sichuan earthquake was in the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, where the ethnic Tibetan population is 53.72%. Videos and criticisms of her comments quickly spread across the web.

I also checked the distribution of ethnic minorities maps in National Geographic magazine's special edition on China and my own book, and confirmed that the area is indeed inhabited by Tibetans. So my response to Sharon Stone is, if God intended this as karma against the Hans, then:

1. God would have put the earthquake somewhere else, somewhere inhabited primarily by Hans, like Shanghai, Beijing, or the Dongbei;

Or, even better,

2. God would have struck down only Hans and Qian minorities, and left all Tibetans standing.

I think China should publish the number of ethnic Tibetans killed. It would be something like 10,000 or more, and show some of the casualties (I saw a Tibetan village on TV, and many of the buildings featured had the distinctive Tibetan designs and Burgundy red color paint of the Tibetans) in Tibetan clothes clutching prayer beads, just to silence the low IQ Sharon Stone, even though they say she has high IQ in reality.

Again, I am acting only as a neutral but scientific person, not because I am pro-CCP OK? I am pro-truth and common sense.


Epicenter of Sichuan Earthquake. The Tibet Autonomous Region borders on Sichuan. Tibetan-Chinese in Sichuan and the Tibet Autonomous Region figured significantly among the dead and injured (Note the ubiquity of Taiwan independence influences? Whoever made this map made Taiwan slightly darker than the Chinese mainland. Because it wasn't quite as dark as Russia, Korea, Vietnam and other neighboring nations, even I didn't catch it! Fortunately a fellow reunificationist noticed it and brought it to my attention.)