Taiwan, China, and other things. Recovered from the defunct TypePad platform.
The Dec 31/05 edition of The China Post had a link to an English website that has pictures of birds that live in / migrate through Taiwan. Very nice. Never knew there was such a thing as a blue robin. This link’ll take you straight to the art gallery. Be sure to click on some of the photographs below the paintings…and take a gander.
(Sorry, no links are available to the original China Post story.)
AsiaPundit favorably reviewed my previous post, but had a small quibble with my referring to Taiwan’s adversaries on the other side of the Strait as "communists". In truth, I’m not entirely happy with this description myself. AsiaPundit is right to point out that they ceased to be real communists the day they abandoned the economic model calling for state ownership of the means of production. One could refer simply to "Beijing" or "the Chinese leadership", but that glosses over the moral nature of the regime. So what word then, better designates their beliefs and policies?
"Fascist" seems too harsh, because the government in Beijing is not interested in the rigid state control over the economy that the fascists were enamored with. On the other hand, "authoritarian" is too mild, because the Chinese authorities work very hard to suppress the organizations of civil society (ie: religions) that many authoritarians are content to leave unmolested *.
What’s left? Demi-fascists? Para-authoritarians? Neo-communists? Maybe the poli-sci folks have a word for them in their arsenal, but it’s bound to be complicated and inelegant.
Which is why I’ve decided to stick to calling the rulers of China "communists". First of all, it’s what they call themselves, which counts for something **. Secondly, they still maintain some of the old dogmas, and worship the same gods (ie: Mao), so it’s not entirely inaccurate. Third, since the mainstream press still uses the term, it’s less confusing for the average reader when I proceed to follow suit.
Finally, it should be recognized that Chinese communism is not alone in being a political ideology that has evolved over time without shedding its original name. Conservative parties in Europe no longer champion the cause of the nobility, but are still called "conservative". Liberalism, at least in America, morphed into its current form from what we now call libertarianism, yet no one objects when Thomas Jefferson and Ted Kennedy are both referred to as "liberals".
* Content to leave unmolested, provided that the organizations in question do not challenge the authority of the political leadership.
** Blacks have not been called "negroes" for a long time, precisely because blacks now prefer "black" or "African-American". Still, this line of argument can be taken too far, and few would indulge the Butchers of Beijing if they began calling themselves "democrats".
It seems that not even KMT stalwarts believe the excuses that the party offers for its blocking of the special arms procurement bill, because an number of Taiwanese military officers have written a letter announcing that they’re taking leave of the party over the issue.*
It’s a little difficult to gauge how big this story is because the number of defecting party members is unspecified. The chairman of Taiwan’s largest pro-communist party, Ma Ying-jeou, takes it seriously though, saying that:
the KMT sincerely hopes to communicate with those service members who wrote to the defense ministry in order to talk to them about their position on the stalled arms procurement bill.
Is it just me, or is there some kind of veiled threat hidden in that statement somewhere? As it turns out, the officers in question may have also perceived some kind of danger, because they didn’t sign their names to the letter.
Ma said further:
"No military members, regardless of their political affiliation, should support an arms procurement bill if it is not drafted based on professional assessments and if it cannot genuinely meet Taiwan’s defense needs."
OK, you’re kidding me, right? Members of the military aren’t capable of making their own "professional assessments" regarding Taiwan’s defense needs? The Party knows better?
American readers should note that Ma also said that the KMT was opposed to the special arms bill because it is a "cash-for-friendship" purchase plan. In essence, he claims that George Bush’s armament offer is nothing more than a great, big mafioso protection racket. Now, if I’m not mistaken, Taiwan was the one that requested these weapons, Mr. Bush was the only leader in the world good enough to offer those weapons, and now Ma and the pro-communists spurn the weapons – and slap Bush in the face to boot!
Good luck with your next weapons request, Taiwan. You’re gonna need it.
UPDATE (Dec 30/05): Today’s edition of The Taipei Times had an editorial that pointed out that this episode represents a violation of military neutrality in political matters. While the editorialists agree with the officers’ opinion regarding the necessity of the arms sales, they nonetheless take the principled position that the officers should be punished for their foray into the political sphere.
* I’m shocked – shocked! to find that the story appears on the front page of the anti-communist Taipei Times, and is buried on the second last page of the pro-communist The China Post.
It’s no secret that Taiwan has been shut out of international forums for some time. All the English papers here make note of it, but the China Post has a panacea. What Taiwan really needs, the editors of The China Post believe, is a "viable cross-strait strategy to end the stalemate."
Viable. Hoo boy, that’s going out on a limb. Is there anyone who favors non-viable strategies?
The "viable strategy" that The China Post proposes is that Taiwan should surrender its sovereignty to the communists in exchange for a few scraps thrown to it from the masters’ table. It may think that the goodwill of tyrants can be bought with the coin of only a little sovereignty, but there it is mistaken. Taiwan would have to give away the store in order to get anything in return.
The situation presents an interesting paradox: as long as Taiwan has its sovereignty, it is cannot gain access to international meetings. If it trades away its sovereignty it can gain access, but at that stage, it won’t really need it. For in truth, a non-sovereign Taiwan would have no need for representatives at international meetings at all; for that, a few "appalling old waxworks" appointed by Beijing’s commissars would do.
On my way to a Christmas party this evening, I stopped my cab at a photo shop along the way. He drove off after I paid him, and then I proceeded to chat with the shop owner. Five minutes later, the driver returns, waving impatiently at me.
Now I’m scratching my head. Why would a taxi driver come back like that? The only reason I can think of is that in the darkness I may have accidentally given him a counterfeit bill or something by mistake. So with a bit of trepidation, I approach the taxi.
Turns out he came back to return the camera I had carelessly left behind. An EXPENSIVE camera. Now, this cab was hailed from the side of the road, so he could have easily driven off without ever being caught. Sometimes, ya really gotta love the people here.
The story originally came out on Dec 16th. Rereading it now, what’s striking is the tone Taiwan’s pro-communist party takes on the issue:
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (
蘇起) criticized the plan, saying it is likely to trigger an international dispute in light of the sensitive strategic and political implications involving the Spratlys.
It should be noted that the "international dispute" the legislator alludes to so politely would be with China. Is this the same KMT that craved a "battle to force a settlement" with Japan over the Senkakus Islands? One can only conclude that the KMT’s hostility towards potential democratic allies is matched only by the warmth that it feels towards communist dictatorships.
Still, the KMT legislator has a point. Why should Taiwan needlessly upset China? It was only after reading an opinion piece in the Taipei Times that it became clear why Taiwan’s anti-communist party would want to proceed with these plans:
…after the completion of the runway on Itu Aba, either the president or vice president should fly to the island and make a policy statement regarding Taiwan and the role it will play in the South China Sea, Southeast Asia and the Taiwan Strait.
If circumstances are too sensitive for either of these officials to visit the island, the government should consider inviting the mayor of Kaohsiung or the mayor of Taipei to do so in their place.
In the same way that Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara took a boat to the southernmost point of Japanese territory before unveiling a plaque and going diving off Okino Torishima, Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could go swimming or jogging around the island of Itu Aba.
(The commentator jests at the expense of Ma Ying-jeou. As Taiwan’s pro-communist leader, it’ll be highly unlikely to ever see him stick his finger in Beijing’s eye.)
What the writer really points out is that the airport serves the purpose of demonstrating to the Taiwanese public that the pro-communists are not the only ones willing to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty. Earlier this year, the pro-communists scored points with nationalists for pressing Taiwan’s claims to the Senkakus; now, the anti-communists gain favor for their assertiveness in the Spratlys.
Moreover, the move is a win-win proposition for Taiwan’s anti-communists. If China does nothing, then the anti-communists take the credit for facing them down. And if China takes aggressive action, well, Taiwanese public opinion turns against China…and Taiwan’s pro-communists.
UPDATE (Jan 5/06): To date, Vietnam has been the only one to lodge protests against this move. Nonetheless, the basic logic still holds – if the nationalism game has to be played, then it’s best played against countries that won’t help Taiwan in the event of an attack by the Chinese.
UPDATE (Jan 6/06): Over on Strategy Page, they predict the Philippines will also protest Taiwan’s move, while China will either remain neutral or help to advance Taiwan’s claims behind the scenes. We shall see.
The Drudge Report had a link to this story a day or two ago. It turns out that:
The Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ordered the creation of…warriors by crossing humans with apes, according to recently uncovered secret documents…
According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told the scientist (Ilya Ivanov): "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat…"
Mr Ivanov’s experiments, unsurprisingly from what we now know, were a total failure. He returned to the Soviet Union, only to see experiments in Georgia to use monkey sperm in human volunteers similarly fail…
For his expensive failure, he was sentenced to five years’ jail, which was later commuted to five years’ exile in the Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan in 1931. A year later he died, reportedly after falling sick while standing on a freezing railway platform.
This could all be a hoax, but then again, there were more than a few who had strange ideas about genetics in the early to mid 20th century. Certainly, Lysenko’s genetic theories had more devastating effects on the Soviet Union (and later China) than Ivanov’s futile attempts to cross species. Still, the story brought this exchange to mind:
Mrs. Krabappel: Are there any questions?
Bart Simpson: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey type creature?
Mrs. Krabappel: I’m sorry, that would be playing God.
Bart Simpson: God, shmod, I want my monkey-man!
UPDATE: Looks like Instapundit beat me to the Bart Simpson reference by two days. D’oh!
i-1
Over at No Parasan!, there’s a link to a Palestinian anti-Jewish television cartoon. It’s about 5 or 6 minutes long, complete with a scary, ominous tune* from Coppola’s Dracula movie. Nice, wholesome stuff to entertain the tots, huh? The ultimate resolution to the story is, uhh…imaginative, though for my money it doesn’t quite reach the sublime level of Captain Kirk’s renowned Corbomite Maneuver.
* Interestingly enough, many Taiwanese don’t find this piece, Vampire Hunters (Track #2 from the Bram Stoker’s Dracula OST), to be particularly creepy. To me, the song conjures up images of vampires, coffins and haunted houses. However, a lot of Taiwanese who hear it instead think of insurance (of all things), because the tune has been played ad nauseum here as the accompaniment to a television commercial for a local insurance company.
Imagine if they’d used it for a diaper ad.
Happiness and cheer
Fun for all that children call
Their favorite time of the yearSnowflakes in the air
Carols everywhere
Olden times and ancient rhymes
Of love and dreams to shareSleigh bells in the air
Beauty everywhere
Yuletide by the fireside
And joyful memories thereChristmas time is here
Families drawing near
Oh, that we could always see
Such spirit through the year
– "Christmas Time is Here" from A Charlie Brown Christmas
For children, Christmas is a holiday that just happens. But an adult, well, he has to work to make it happen. That applies doubly so in Taiwan, where maybe 5% of the population is Christian. A foreigner has to create his own "Christmas environment", or the day will pass, scarcely noticed.
And that’s what I’ve been doing since my last post. Working to make Christmas happen.
For the last two years, India has beaten the USAF in wargames using Russian Su-30s. This is of some concern to Taiwan, since its F-16s might someday have to face Chinese-owned Su-30s.
It turns out that the rules of the US-Indian wargames may have been a bit slanted in India’s favor:
These days, American pilots use close in dog fighting (with heat seeking Sidewinder missiles) as a fall back tactic. The main air-to-air weapon of the U.S. Air Force is now the long range (over 50 kilometers) AMRAAM missile, and superior radar equipment…when American fighter pilots go train with foreign air forces, they have to take their BVR (Beyond Visual Range) tactics off the table, since under those conditions, the “enemy” force would not have much of a chance.
(Taiwan received the first of its AMRAAM missiles back in 2004.)
Winds of Change had a similar, though longer, take on these wargames. Many of the commenters went into more technical detail than I am qualified to discuss, but one had a political observation that I quite liked:
(The results are that) the Indian gov’t gets to go to its people and say "We beat the U.S.!", and the DoD gets to go to Congress and say "We lost to India!"