Month: March 2006

Some Inconvenient Questions About A Chinese Commonwealth

Read the papers late last night, and saw that the China Post editorialists were proposing an international "Chinese Commonwealth" based on the model of the British Commonwealth.  Members would presumably have to have large populations of ethnic Chinese, so places like Singapore and Malaysia might be eligible, along with Taiwan and Communist China.  The editorialists have in mind a friendly fraternal organization, and who could possibly object to an innocent little thing like that?  Let’s hear them out:

[Nations] in free association as in the [British] Commonwealth could serve as a model for links with the mainland. This would allow a free and self-governing Taiwan to have an association with China based on the shared history of Chinese culture. There is no one member [in the] Commonwealth with greater privileges than another — they are all equal. This would allow Taiwan and China to have an association where neither was superior to another, though they could recognize a common heritage. This would not be based on one common government, but on a common heritage. While it may be possible to deny that Taiwan has constitutional links to the Chinese mainland, it is not possible to deny that the people of Taiwan and China share a Chinese heritage — as reflected in the cultural heritage of shared cultural and religious holidays.

The Commonwealth has been compared to an English gentleman’s club and a lot of store is placed on membership — membership often seems to be more important than the benefits involved, and attracts much more attention — than what the organization actually does. This is because the main benefit of membership is the opportunity for close and relatively frequent interaction, on an informal and equal basis, between members who have ties of language, culture and history. This arrangement would allow Taiwan and China to interact on a free and informal basis…the interaction in such a Commonwealth arrangement would be relatively free and simple.

Now, while reading the papers I happened to be watching the movie Bowfinger too, and by strange coincidence, one line seemed particularly applicable to the suggestion at hand.  When the actors in a B-movie learn that they’ve been conned by a producer/director, Christine Baranski’s character says wistfully, "I think…it was a beautiful lie."

"Beautiful lie" sums up perfectly the claim that, "The  interaction in such a Commonwealth arrangement would be relatively free and simple."  The KINDEST thing that could be said about the assertion is that it’s breathtakingly delusional.  For starters: If interactions in this hypothetical Commonwealth would be so simple, then under what NAME would Taiwan be registered?  Would it go by the "Republic of China" or simply "Taiwan"?

We all know very well that the People’s Republic of China would NEVER allow either one, and Taiwan would be forced to go by some absurd construct like "Chinese Taipei".  Which kinda reminds me of that scene in Roots:

PRC:  Your name is Taipei!  Chinese Taipei!

Taiwan:  China!  Republic of China!

(sound of whip snapping across Taiwan’s back: WHI-CHHHHH)

PRC:  CHINESE TAIPEI!

Taiwan:  Republic of China.

(WHI-CHHHHHH)

PRC:  What is your name?

Taiwan:  T-T-T-Taiwan?

(WHI-CHHHHHH)

PRC:  What is your name?

Taiwan:  Chinese Taipei.

(etc.)

In the same vein, if relations in the club are to be so collegial, can we assume that the ROC flag will be displayed in the clubhouse along with all the others?  Or like a Vogon construction plan, will it be "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying, ‘Beware of the leopard’ "?

The China Post ordinarily expresses such passion for Taiwan’s symbols – considering it sacrilegious to remove even dilapidated statues of Taiwan’s former dictators from military barracks.  Surely then, it can be counted on to defend the use of Taiwan’s symbols in the mooted Chinese Commonwealth.  Or are the China Post‘s editorialists like the loser in high school who’ll do anything – ANYTHING – to be friends with the class bully?

In all honesty, I’ve never heard of a "friendly gentlemen’s club" where one of the members was ordered not to use his own name because another member found it abhorrent.  If China gets to choose what Taiwan is called in the organization, then it most definitely DOES hold a superior rank.  Equality in such a club could only exist in the minds of those who live in a wonderful magical land of elves, leprechauns and One China with different interpretations.

Let no one object that members of the Chinese Commonwealth would be equal if the issue of names and flags could be finessed.  Kunte Kinte was NEVER the equal of the slave-masters so long as they had the power to compel him go by the name of Toby.  If Taiwan can’t even defend the right to its own name in the Chinese Commonwealth, then it has absolutely NO hope for defending its other interests there.   

Despite my objections, I’m glad the China Post published their editorial, because I managed to learn a few things that I didn’t know before.  For instance, I was unaware that the original 13 American colonies are eligible for British Commonwealth membership.  And I had forgotten all about the talk of suspending Britain from the Commonwealth for its support of apartheid-era South Africa.  Speaking of that, I’d also completely forgotten about South Africa’s suspension.

Well, I guess it’s been a while.

The example of South Africa does lead me to a question, however.  If South Africa and even Britain herself could be suspended from the British Commonwealth over the issue of apartheid, then shouldn’t China be prevented from joining a Chinese Commonwealth for its own undemocratic policies?  If we admit that not allowing black South Africans to vote was an injustice, then surely not allowing ANY Chinese to vote is an even GREATER injustice.

Finally, one other fact I didn’t previously know is that Ireland withdrew from the British Commonwealth in 1949, and that the Irish sometimes debate rejoining.  That little tidbit seems particularly apropos to Taiwan’s situation.  For can anyone even imagine the Irish discussing Commonwealth membership if Britain currently had 800 missiles packed with high explosives pointed at downtown Dublin?

Rearguard Actions

"I would much rather have men ask why I have no statue than why I have one."

– Cato the Younger (95-46 B.C.)

Sometimes when you procrastinate blogging about something, the issue ends up going away before you get a chance to write about it.  On the surface, the March 18th proposal to remove Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Gwoh statues from Taiwanese military bases looks like just such an issue.  Not a day had passed before the Ministry of National Defense busied itself trying to mollify KMT outrage by assuring everyone that only worn-out fiberglass statues would be permanently removed.  The KMT was left unappeased however, and by March 22nd, even this compromise plan was dead in the water.*

Chiang Kai-shek

(Chiang Kai-Shek image from Wikipedia.)

So, no issue, no post, right?  Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here…

Except that the issue really ISN’T dead.  In response to the KMT’s statue victory, President Chen on March 25th renamed Taipei’s version of the White House from the clunky "Long Live Kai-Shek Hall" to the terse "Presidential Office".  In doing so, he was obviously of the belief that a building should named after the function it serves, rather than after the dictator who once happened to work there.  At any rate, more marginalization of Chiang-era monuments is almost certain to happen in the future if Taiwan’s democracy is allowed to mature.  Actually, I’ll go even further to suggest that that Chiang statues will someday be discarded, REGARDLESS of democracy’s fate in Taiwan.  More on this though, later in the post.

Taiwan Presidential Office. Taipei, Taiwan.

(Presidential Office image by The Foreigner)

One of the main objections that the KMT have to Chiang iconoclasm is that they say it smacks of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.  Mao’s Red Guards wanted to eliminate traces of a past they didn’t like, and those who would remove the Chiang statues want to do exactly the same thing.  President Chen is therefore a modern Maoist madman, QED.

The fundamental difference that they overlook however, is that the Taiwanese State is behaving entirely within constitutional limits.  There are no coercive extra-legal groups entering institutions and private homes to destroy Chiang relics.  Children are not being encouraged to inform on their parents.  There is no violence being used to achieve the goal.  Members of the independence party spent time in the Chiang’s political prisons for advocating democracy, and asking them to be grateful to the generalissimo and his son at this stage is asking a little much.  Free men do not typically glorify those responsible for freedom’s suppression.

The other thing that they overlook is that Chen’s actions, unlike Mao’s, have democratic legitimacy.  I’m unaware of any polls on the issue, so I don’t know the level of public support for removing Chiang statues.  But I DO know that Chen was democratically elected, so he at least has the CONSENT of the people.  Surely the Taiwanese people knew after electing the head of an independence party TWICE to the presidency that he would carry out at least some of the more symbolic aspects of the party platform.  If a member of a reunification party is someday elected, I fully expect him to undertake opposing measures.  That’s the way democracy works.

I will agree with the KMT that iconoclasm can be taken too far, and sometimes, it is.  Great are the efforts being taken today in certain quarters to transform America’s Columbus Day into a day of sackcloth and ashes.  Feminist preoccupation with gender neutral language can border on self-parody.  And reversing the L.A. county commissioners’ decision to remove the tiny cross from the Spanish mission on the county seal has become something of a conservative cause celebre.  The argument that we shouldn’t erase our past just because we aren’t entirely happy about it is one that I do take seriously.  Up to a point, anyways.

Los Angeles county seal, with cross removed from the missionary

Sometimes however, iconoclasm is entirely appropriate.  I can recall years ago a communist, er, columnist from my hometown’s daily newspaper lamenting the changes in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Her protests then were similar to the KMT’s today.  You Russians were Bolsheviks, she said, and you ought to be proud of your wonderful history.  You fought and beat the Nazis.  Your collectivist system has given you wonderful social programs.  Leave all of your communist-era statuary standing so that future generations can be inspired by the marvelous accomplishments of your magnificent Revolution.

And so on.

I had no blog back in those days, so I’ll respond to that columnist now.  Madam, your line of thinking, and the KMT’s, concedes entirely too much to tyrants; it allows them to rename St. Petersberg to Leningrad, but in the name of preserving history, doesn’t permit democrats to do the reverse.  It’s not cricket that a megalomaniacal caudillo can plaster every spare wall in a country with portraits of his ugly mug, while his democratic successors are left responsible for their care and upkeep. 

Even if you believe that SOME statues of the generalissimo should remain as a matter of giving history its due, the question should be: How many are really needed to perform this function?  The China Post last week had a picture of a courtyard containing at least six busts of Chiang Kai-Shek that I could count.  There may well have been more outside the camera’s field-of-view.  Having six busts of one man in a single place isn’t an example of a decent nod in history’s direction – it’s deification.  It’s allowing the dead hand of a dictator to continue ruling from beyond the grave.

It should be stated that Chiang Kai-Shek was no Hitler or Stalin, and that Taiwan was much better off under him than it would have been under Mao T’se Tung.  Still, to say that Taiwan’s deceased president wasn’t a Mao or a Stalin is hardly anything to brag about, and it’s not a particularly compelling argument to make in favor of retaining his monuments.  To pull down statues of a man like Thomas Jefferson because he had feet of clay would be an act of historical vandalism.  Pulling down statues of a strongman who sent Taiwanese to political prisons doesn’t quite fall into the same category.

Ultimately, the Chiang memorials will probably meet with the fate of monuments to another generalissimo: Francisco Franco.**  Most of Franco’s statues have been removed slowly over time, but a few still stand here and there throughout Spain.  I hope they aren’t destroying the ones they take down, and put them instead into museums.  The Russians had a great idea where they crammed all of the communist statues from the entire Soviet Union into one park in a Moscow suburb.  To me, that would be poetic justice – leaders so devoted to their own self-aggrandizement should have a single park devoted solely to their egotism, as a sort of cautionary example.

Francisco Franco

(Francisco Franco image from Wikipedia.)

There are a few other arguments I’ve heard in favor of keeping the statues, but I’ll have to discuss them in some other post some other time.  What we CAN expect is that the KMT will to fight to the last to protect its symbols from Taiwan’s independence parties.  As I’ve outlined, I think they’ll lose the historical battle as democracy entrenches itself further in Taiwan.  But what if democracy doesn’t grow stronger?  What if the KMT embraces the Chinese Communists, and they manage to pull the country into Beijing’s orbit?  What would happen to the statues in Chinese Vichy?

I suspect that their fate would be EXACTLY THE SAME.  Communists can be relied upon to twist arms to remove images of men who are symbols of resistance to their rule.  Statues of such men might someday inspire men to rebel, and that cannot be permitted.  Americans may tolerate Confederate monuments on Southern soil, but the Communist Party of China is not nearly so magnanimous.

Given the recent crop of KMT leaders, I don’t see the modern KMT offering anything more than token resistance, either.  The KMT’s recent behavior suggests that they’re perfectly willing to sell their souls and jettison their most beloved symbols in order to curry favor with the Communist Party of China.  I offer this as but one example.

Ironic, isn’t it?  When the independence parties want Chiang Kai-Shek statues removed, the KMT deride it as an act of historical vandalism.  But should the Communist party of China ever call for their removal, watch how swiftly the KMT hail the move as a pragmatic act of reconciliation!***

If you’re still unconvinced, then consider the additional pressure that will come when large numbers of Chinese tourists begin visiting Taiwan.  Reflect for a moment upon the grief that Taiwanese businessmen routinely get from pushy Chinese delegations when they try to display ROC flags at product conventions around the globe.  Now, just imagine a MILLION Chinese tourists coming to Taiwan each year – a good portion of them stamping their feet and whining about Chiang statues and ROC flags and God knows what else.  I’ll bet that a lot of those complainers are going to loudly announce to their tour guides that they’ll never come back, and they’ll threaten not to recommend Taiwan as a travel destination to the folks back home unless "provocative symbols" are removed from sight.

At that point, the KMT will face a choice between principle and pragmatism.  Is it the Generalissimo…or the customer, who is always right?

* Or was it "suspended"?  "Abolished"?  Or has it just "ceased to apply"…

** "Despite Franco’s death and an expected burial tomorrow, doctors say the dictator’s health has taken a turn for the worse." – Chevy Chase

*** If the KMT eventually abandons Chiang Kai-Shek because he serves as an anti-communist symbol, I wonder if Taiwan’s independence parties might not someday adopt him for that very same reason?  I don’t think it’s probable, but people with a cause sometimes pick the unlikeliest of people to be their heroes…

i-4

Man Of God

Ahmed Akkari, one of the Danish Muslim clerics responsible for instigating the "The Battle of Khartoon" earlier this year, recently suggested murdering a moderate Muslim leader in Denmark.  He was quoted in Arabic:

"If [Naser Khader] becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why don’t we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?"

When he heard the news, Akkari gave a little smile and replied: Oh yeah?  Prove it.

Well, Ahmed, you’re busted.  Turns out you were being secretly taped in an automobile when you said it.  The tape’ll soon be part of a French documentary.

Akkari’s reaction to the news?  Backpedallin’ time!

"If they think I have said that, then I must have been jesting.
[…]
You also need to understand, from the context, that I wasn’t being serious because I usually don’t say stuff like that – not even in jest. But sometimes things happen."

So your excuse is that you were just joking?  About what?  About whether the moderate would actually GET a cabinet post?  Or about whether you would only need TWO of your terrorist buddies to blow up the building?

As you might guess, Danish journalists could just SMELL the blood in the water:

Interviewer: Do you understand that it might be hard for Danes to accept that it’s not okay to make caricatures of Muhammed, but that it’s okay to threaten – in jest – to kill a Danish politician?  (emphasis added)

Akkari: That’s a wrong conclusion and comparison to make of this.

Interviewer: Isn’t it very natural? You’ve been very angry, very offended that your prophet has been offended, but now you’ve – in jest – threatened to kill a politician. 

There’s more, but you get the idea.  Word is that the Danish "Islamic Faith Community" organization is now looking for a new spokesman. 

Y’know, if members of the Religion of Peace™ need spokesmen, they really ought to start rejecting job applications from Imams who’ve lost their jobs as student teachers because they pinned 4th grade pupils to the ground and beat them until their faces were bloody.

But, they know their business…

Soft Coups And The Pan-Blue Line Of Silence

The 2004 presidential election in Taiwan was a precarious time.  Just imagine it:  President Chen gets shot a day before the election by an unknown assassin.  Then we hear he’s still alive; the bullet merely grazed him.  Lien Chan, his KMT opponent, demands to visit the injured president in hospital, but is rebuffed – probably because the president believes Lien was behind the shooting.  Lien then trivializes the crime by telling television reporters that the situation is "not a crisis".  The military is mobilized.

The next day, the wounded president wins by a miniscule 30,000 votes.

And things REALLY get hairy after that.

First, the KMT and its allies go ballistic.  Didn’t their polls tell them their guy was 4-7% ahead?  Didn’t their newspapers tell them their guy was a shoo-in?  Their guy COULDN’T have lost, so they take to the streets.  They demand a recount.  They demand a do-over.  What of the members of the military who didn’t get to vote because of the mobilization in the wake of the assassination attempt?  Let them vote, and let them vote NOW.  Thirty thousand votes – that’s all the KMT needs.  Just 30,000…

What, the law says we CAN’T do any of those things, at least not immediately?  Well then, bend the law – JUST THIS ONCE.  President Chen, the KMT DEMANDS that you declare a State of Emergency so that the niceties of the law can be set aside*.

In the southern port city of Gowshung, KMT mobs gather and try to storm a government building, but are held back by police standing behind mobile metal barricades.  A KMT legislator with a bullhorn gets on top of a van and orders it to charge the barricades.  The van doesn’t break through, but one policeman is injured – possibly with a broken arm.  Incredibly, the China Post claims that the "crowd" was merely "trying to learn the TRUTH about the assassination".

I wonder how much truth they got out of nearly running over that policeman.

In the northern city of Taipei, thousands of angry KMT supporters march in the cold rain.  I don’t recall there being cases of egregious violence like in Gowshung, but matters take an ominous turn when men in military uniforms are permitted to address the marchers.  Rumors swirl of an impending coup.  Taiwan’s defense minister resigns.  KMT leader Lien Chan grants the crowd his permission to "eliminate" the president.  Meanwhile, Communist China announces it will not sit by idly if the island descends into chaos…

After a few very tense days, America extends its congratulations to Chen, thereby recognizing the legitimacy of the election.  The ranks of the demonstrators slowly thin, though the street protests continue for a month or so.  The KMT explores legal avenues towards declaring the election null and void, but these end up leading nowhere.  It concocts elaborate conspiracy theories suggesting that the Machiavellian Chen was behind his own shooting in order to win "sympathy votes", and to deny 200,000 members of the military their franchise**.  These theories it attempts to "prove" by conducting an unconstitutional investigation that few of the principals cooperate with.  The investigation is eventually terminated by the Supreme Court.

Flash forward to this week.  Evidence that the rumors about a coup two years ago were not without foundation:

During a legislative hearing, Minister of National Defense Lee Jye (李傑) yesterday said that some military personnel had approached him and asked him to feign sickness and step aside so that they could organize a coup against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).  (Emphasis added)

[…]

Lee Jye, who was Chief of General Staff at the time, yesterday confirmed these reports.

"Some unidentified military personnel came to me and asked me to `play sick’ so they could carry out their plans to oust the president. But, when I refused immediately, they just walked away," Lee said.

Fortunately for Taiwan, the mutinous officers were not more ruthless.  This time, anyways.  Fortunate too, that Lee was an honorable man.  But as the German saying goes, "Unlucky is the land that needs heroes." 

In March of 2004, Taiwan was a land in need of them:

DPP Legislator Lee Wen-chung (李文忠) had said at a press conference that three admirals and eight lieutenant generals had been asked to resign or pretend they were ill after the presidential election. However, no military officials followed [the defense minister’s resignation], which Lee Wen-chung attributed to the successful [depoliticization] of the military.  (Emphasis added)

News reports had reported that three deputy chiefs of the general staff at the time — military adviser to the president Admiral Fei Hung-po (費鴻波), MND deputy-minister Admiral Chu Kai-sheng (朱凱生) and Chief of the Air force General Liu Kuei-li (劉貴立) were the key targets that had been asked to resign.

Then Deputy Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-mi (陳肇敏) was also reported to have been encouraged to resign.

At the moment, the question of whether the coup plotters acted on their own or were asked by KMT political leaders is a salient one.  Chen’s political opponents have sued him for libel for saying they were involved in the "soft coup"***.  The case is being retried for technical reasons, but the evidence for KMT involvement may not be firm:

[Lee Jye said the plotters,] "came to me on behalf of [a] `certain group of people.’"

However, Lee said that neither former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) nor People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) had approached him or sent anyone to see him on their behalf. But he said he was quite sure that the military personnel who came to him were [KMT] supporters [or their allies].

Who were the plotters?  Their identities are unknown to the public, but have been revealed in closed door sessions of the libel trial.  It’s unfathomable to me why their names and faces aren’t plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the country.  Firing them, allowing them to retire, or "promoting" them to an important post in the 21st Envelope-Stuffing Battalion isn’t enough:  Each and every one of them should be tried for sedition and punished as an example to army officers in the future.  Leniency of course should be granted to those who finger political instigators.  Not wanting to air the military’s dirty laundry is no excuse for covering this up. I cannot help but agree with one legislator (a KMT lawmaker, no less!) who spoke about the matter to Lee Jye during a hearing:

"Because you refused to name the generals who approached you and asked you to feign sickness and step aside, everyone keeps guessing, and that has hurt the reputations of innocent generals."

* It was quite a spectacle to witness the KMT asking the same man they vilified as an "evil dictator" to declare martial law.  How many of you would ask a political opponent to declare martial law if you truly believed he had tyrannical tendencies?

** The KMT has stated that its party lost a disproportionate number of votes when the military was mobilized, because the military is composed primarily of KMT supporters.  While this may be true with respect to the officer class, it is a dubious claim to make regarding the young draftees that make up the bulk of Taiwan’s armed forces.

*** The coup was intended to be a "soft" one – the mutinous armed forces did not intend to actually depose Chen, but they DID plan to cease obeying his orders.  Without control over the military, Chen’s legitimacy would have been undermined, and he would have been forced to resign, sooner or later.

The Great Triangulator

As stated in my previous post, Ma Ying-jeou, chairman of Taiwan’s KMT party, is now in America on a ten day tour.  At a breakfast talk in New York, Hizzonner discussed his own "Sunshine Policy":

…Ma’s China position will be a balanced one, as he described it…[Ma] and his party will want to neither coddle Beijing or antagonize it, as the KMT leadership takes advantage of their newly established links with the Communist Party to restore cross-strait relations.

Dream on, Ma.

The China Post approves however, and further informs us that Ma will try to mimic South Korean President Roh’s triangulation between friend and foe:

Ma Ying-jeou…is likely to project himself as a man who, if he wins the 2008 presidential  election, will pursue a balanced policy between Washington and Beijing…

[…]

It is unlikely that Ma will allow [himself] to be [as] lopsided towards the US as President Chen has been.

Chen, in the last two two years since the star of his second four-year term, has been even more aggressive in trying to work with Washington and Tokyo to forge a triangular military alliance against China.  Unlike Chen, Ma will only want to develop a US relationship built on a mutually favorable basis, not targetting Beijing or any third party.

For if Ma adopts a stance completely leaning toward the US, it will damage any attempt by him to improve relations with Beijing.  Reconciliation with the communist government is essential to Taiwan’s security and economic interests.

Ah, Ma doesn’t want to target Beijing.  What a relief THAT must be for the communists.  Wonder if they’ll be generous enough to return the favor…

That’s how Taiwan’s presidential election of 2008 is shaping up.  The main independence party will field a candidate who will, if elected, drive Washington nuts by "provoking" China with trivial independence-related symbolism.  The KMT’s candidate on the other hand, will anger Washington by portraying democratic America as the moral equivalent of communist China, and by spurning offers to upgrade Taiwan’s defenses.

If Ma wins – and right now he IS the front runner – I wonder how America will react?  Will it calculate that Taiwan is a vital interest, shrug, and take up the slack?  Or will it decide that the new Chinese Vichy* is a peripheral interest, and wash its hands of the place?

It’s my impression that some stern words from George Bush or the State Department in the future could tilt the Taiwanese electorate one way or the other. 

But saying nothing IS, of course, another option.  An option that helps Ma keep the lead.

* Chinese Vichy?  Finally, a name-rectification proposal the KMT can FULLY support!

UPDATE (Apr 8/06):  Michael Turton has some interesting observations regarding American reaction to Ma’s recent trip stateside.  He commented previously on it in the following posts as well:

An Open Letter To Tim Russert

Dear Mr. Russert,

With KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou now visiting America on a weeklong tour, the job of interviewing the leader of Taiwan’s opposition may fall to you or one of your colleagues.  Much as I hate to tell any of you how to do your jobs, here are a few suggestions from this expat blogger:

1.  Toss a few initial softballs.

By all means, start out slow.  No one likes an interviewer who starts out mean.  But during the warm-up, find a way of informing the viewer that Ma is Harvard-educated.  That way, when you start with the hardballs, the audience will understand that you’re questioning somebody from the Ivy Leagues, and not just picking on some poor foreigner who’s struggling to put two words of English together.

2.  Hardballs: the main event.

Ma is currently the front-runner for the 2008 presidential elections in a country that has been dubbed "The Most Dangerous Place on Earth" – a place that Americans may one day be called upon to fight and die protecting from Communist China.  You have a duty to them, their families and their countrymen to ask tough questions of the man who would be Taiwan’s president.

(Or, as Jason over at Wandering to Tamsui once said in another context, "Ma Ying-jeouuu, you’ve got some e’splainin’ to dooo!")

The main question you should ask is why Ma and his party have blocked the special arms bill from being debated in parliament for the past year.  You might also want to ask him why America should risk blood and treasure defending Taiwan when the KMT party and its allies aren’t willing to acquire the diesel submarines, anti-sub aircraft and Patriot missiles that would help to deter such a conflict.

Here are some of his previous excuses.  Whether he repeats them now or not is immaterial.  He should be invited to defend each and every one of them now.

a)  Taiwan’s President Chen took too long to present the bill to parliament.

This begs the question, how do two wrongs make a right in this case?  If Chen was wrong in being tardy to present a bill for defensive arms, then how does KMT refusal to consider the bill make Taiwan any safer?

b)  The KMT doesn’t trust Chen, so it can’t work with him to get the bill passed.*

Ask him whether he trusts in the good intentions of Communist China over that of Taiwan’s democratically-elected president.  If he says Chen, then ask him why the KMT can’t work with him to pass a weapons bill that has languished for over a year now.  Remind Ma that he has a parliamentary majority – if he thinks it’s a bad bill, he can always vote it down.  Why is he afraid of even allowing it to be considered?

If he’s frank enough to admit that he trusts China more, then Taiwan AND America are both in for a lot of trouble should the man make it to the presidency.

c)  Taiwan is a democracy now, and getting laws passed takes time in a democracy.

Benjamin Disraeli, the archetype for the modern democratic opposition leader, once said that the job of the opposition was to oppose, never to obstruct.  Firmly advise Mr. Ma that to any reasonable American observer, the boycotting of a defense bill 45 times without offering an alternative more closely resembles obstruction than it does opposition.

(And airy-fairy hand-waving about "general directions" for a defense bill cannot seriously be considered to be credible alternative policy proposals.)

d)  The KMT’s hands are tied.  President Chen called a national referendum on additional arms sales during the 2004 election, and the people defeated the motion.  The KMT cannot go against the will of the people.

No, no, no, that won’t do at all.  In saying this, Ma and the KMT act as though they’re  innocent bystanders near a train wreck, when in fact they were the engineers in the driver’s seat.  The KMT wanted the 2004 presidential elections to be about the economy not defense, so it was THEY that told their supporters to boycott the referendum on additional future arms sales**.  As a result, fifty percent of the voters failed to cast votes in the referendum, leading to its failure by default.

Refuse to be drawn into semantics over whether the referendum issue was ‘voted down’ or merely ‘failed to pass’.  What’s important here is that the KMT told its voters to boycott the referendum, and now are trying to shift the blame onto the Taiwanese electorate for what the KMT asked them to do in the first place.  This is nothing less than a blatant evasion of political responsibility.

Call him on this.  The KMT told their voters to boycott the arms referendum, then used that boycott as an excuse to subsequently block consideration of the special arms bill.  Could there be any clearer evidence that the KMT simply isn’t serious about Taiwanese national security?

e)  China has said that it won’t attack unless Taiwan declares independence, so the weapons are unnecessary so long as Taiwan’s government doesn’t "provoke" the Chinese.

This, too, is dishonest, and Ma shouldn’t be allowed to repeat this without some kind of objection.  China has ALSO said that it reserves the right to attack if Taiwan takes too long in coming to the table for re-unification talks.  Its intentions are not quite as benign as Ma would like to portray them.

But if what Ma is saying here happens to be true, then why does Taiwan need ANY American weapons at all?  Selling arms to Taiwan is a major irritant in Sino-American relations, so if Ma is right, then EVERYONE would be better off without those sales.  China would be happy, America wouldn’t jeopardize its China-related trade, and Taiwan would get to save its hard-earned money.  Maybe the State Department should announce that they’ve been persuaded by Ma’s impeccable logic, and that ALL weapons sales to Taiwan will henceforth be discontinued.

Just watch how fast the sneaky weasel backtracks then!

f)  The price is too high.

What he’s really saying here is that he’s come to American soil to tell Americans on national TV that they’re price gougers.  Ask him whether he thinks that’s going to win him any friends in Washington.

You could also show the audience quotes from members of his political allies, who’ve brazenly stated that America should GIVE Taiwan weapons, free of charge. 

Of course, ANY price is too high if you’re expecting something for nothing.  Let the American people decide for themselves whether the price is truly exorbitant, or whether Ma and his band are just bunch of moochers who want to stroll for free under somebody else’s security umbrella.

Whew!  That’s a whole lotta excuses!  Almost one for every day of the week.

It would help in all of this to prepare by viewing Ma’s previous interview with the BBC.  When the questions get tough, you can count on Ma to patronizingly belittle you for not "understanding" the situation.  Perhaps at that point, you should go on to explain the situation to HIM.

China at present has roughly 800 missiles pointed at Taiwan, and adds 100 to this number every year.  Its defense budget grows yearly by 15%, and it has openly stated that it wants Taiwan to become just another Chinese province or Special Autonomous Region.  One doesn’t need to be a Taiwanese constitutional expert or a Harvard-trained lawyer to realize that Taiwan needs a defensive / deterrent force to prevent its own extinction.

Finally, it would also be beneficial to review the China Post’s whitewash of the KMT’s blockage of the special weapons bill.  I’ve addressed most of their arguments in this letter, but the China Post further warns its American readers not to "oversimplify" the issue by assuming that the KMT is against acquiring more defensive arms for Taiwan.

How would I respond if I were in your shoes, and Ma were to level the oversimplification charge?  I would merely ask this:  if a young man asks a woman for a date and she refuses – not once, not twice, but 45 times in a row, is the issue really terribly complicated?  Or is the explanation actually very, very simple?

I think we both know the answer to that question.  Good luck, and I hope that some of this turns out to be useful.  Go Bills!

Your fan,

The Foreigner

* At this point, you could cue pictures from recent KMT rallies which Ma has attended, pictures which show effigies of Chen dressed as Adolf Hitler.  Inquire as to whether any KMT members have been sent to any death camps recently.  If the answer is negative, then it’s reasonable to pose the question of whether the KMT may be just a teensy, weensy bit responsible for SOME of the lack of trust between Taiwan’s political parties.

** It is staggeringly disingenuous for the China Post to now claim that voting for the referendum was a no-brainer, when two years ago it vigorously campaigned for a voter boycott of that very same "no-brainer".

UPDATE (Mar 22/06):  In the post I mistakenly wrote that Ma Ying-jeou was to arrive in the US next week.  He in fact landed in there on Sunday.  The error’s been corrected.

(From "Taiwan expatriates cheer Mayor Ma" in the March 21st edition of the China Post .  Sorry, no link available.)

UPDATE (Mar 26/06):  Recall the KMT excusing its lack of inaction on the special arms bill by pointing to President Chen’s slowness presenting the bill to the legislature.  The View from Taiwan debunks that claim here and here:

The DPP didn’t submit the package until 2004 because the US didn’t give them any cost numbers on it until 2002, and the Ministry of National Defense procurement process, which normally takes about 18 months, had to grind through.

Taiwanese Heed Ford Prefect’s Advice

Listen. It’s a tough universe. There’s all sorts of people and things trying to outdo you, kill you, rip you off, everything. If you’re going to survive out there, you’ve really got to know where your towel is.

– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

The big news in Taiwan was Saturday’s march in Taipei protesting China’s passage of its anti-secession law last year.  Since I didn’t know the location of the starting point (the Songshan Tobacco Factory Park), I decided to wait at the march’s terminus on Ketagalan Blvd, near the Presidential Building.

I arrived at 3:15 pm, and was shocked by how few people there were.  The march was supposed to reach there by 3:30, but only 1000 people were present, tops.  Many more would arrive later, as the march was about a half-hour behind schedule.  But this was unbeknownst to me at the time.

It was quite a warm day – perhaps the warmest this year.  This fellow was wearing traditional Taiwanese rain gear:

Man wearing traditional Taiwanese rain gear during March 18, 2006 march

He was a pretty good dancer:

Man in traditional Taiwanese rain gear dancing at March 18, 2006 march

…though the heat quickly forced him to lose the hat and coat.

(By the way, can anybody tell me what material they’re made of?  I think the fibers are from the bark of palm trees, but I’m not sure.)

Here’s a close-up of the dog:

Dog with Taiwanese independence flag at March 18, 2006 march

Lemme just say: any dog that stands tough against communist aggression is all right by me.

I have no idea what the Chinese on the following sign says.  Obviously, the bearer thinks the country should be called the Republic of Taiwan rather than the Republic of China.  But it must be admitted that R.O.T. would be a pretty unfortunate acronym, however.*

Sign calling for independence for Taiwan as the Republic of Taiwan (R.O.T.)

By quarter to 4, there were about two to three thousand present.  A musician played a couple of rock songs.  The chorus of one was "Taiwan-guo, Taiwan-guo" (Taiwan the country, Taiwan the country).

Meanwhile, a lot of folks headed over to a nearby stand to get a free(?) towel.  I started to follow them, but stopped myself because I wasn’t sure how they would feel about giving a foreigner some of their freebees.  I needn’t have worried.  One gentleman saw that I didn’t have a towel and gave me his.  A lot of Taiwanese are like that.

Here’s the towel he gave me.  It was a bit long, so I had to fold the edges to get it all in the shot:

Towel with Taiwan independence slogans

The reason for the give-away was to highlight the troubles facing the Taiwanese towel industry due to Chinese competition.  Does anyone remember Ross Perot’s "giant sucking sound to Mexico"?  Well, near as I can recall, Mexico never had 800 missiles pointed at American cities and military instillations, nor did it lay claim to every square inch of American soil.

(Just imagine the NAFTA debates if it had.)

4 pm, and the marchers began arriving:

Sign with Taiwanese independence slogan at March 18, 2006 march.

Somewhere in the line of marchers, a woman waved to me and yelled, "We love you!"  I’d be lying if I said it didn’t choke me up a little.

Anyways, here’s another shot of the marchers.

Banners with Taiwan independence slogans at March 18, 2006 march.

And not a KMT flag to be seen.  But then, when was the last time the KMT marched to protest ANYTHING that China did?  Was it last year, when China passed its anti-secession law?  No, the KMT leader’s response at that time was to scuttle off to Beijing on a whirlwind appeasement tour.

Talk about giant sucking sounds!

But back to the rally.  At 4:15, I had to leave due to a prior commitment for Saturday evening.  It was a pity I couldn’t stay to get more shots, because the place was really starting to fill up. 

One marcher’s message to the Chinese leadership:

Say Fuck To China sign at March 18, 2006 march

Hey, Hu Jintao!  Can you feel the love tonight?

* On the other hand, it DID work out pretty well for Cary Grant’s character, Roger O. Thornhill, in North by Northwest.

UPDATE (Mar 20/06):  Click on comments to read an English translation of the tall vertical protest sign.

UPDATE (Mar 25/06):  Estimates for the number of marchers ranged between 45,000 on the low end and 170,000 on the upper.

UPDATE (May 25/06):  Have a Happy Towel Day.

i-8

Taipei 101 Not Universally-Loved

The Taipei Times pointed out on Friday that Taipei 101 may not be the biggest tourist draw for Taiwan.  They’re probably right – I don’t imagine too many people hop a plane just to see a tall building.  They point out that:

…relying on this daytime eyesore to pump up tourist numbers is ill-advised.

But I notice that they neglect to describe its appearance at night.  Because when lit-up, I think it looks GREAT.  They then get downright mean:

It has a dildo-like ribbed concrete spire atop what appears to be a series of inverted plastic stools…

Ouch.  The building itself is supposed to resemble a tall stalk of bamboo, but I guess it’s inevitable that Freudians are bound to see phalluses wherever they turn. 

Hey fellas, try NOT using your imagination quite so much, ‘kay?  Sometimes a skyscraper is just a skyscraper.

Taipei 101 at night in black and white. Taipei, Taiwan.

i-1

Light Saber Duel

National Review had a link to this student film featuring a light saber duel set to the Dark City soundtrack.  (It can also be found here.)  I think it features a little of the back-handed swordsmanship style from the short-lived Conan television series.

UPDATE:  It looks like the short is three years old, yet suddenly it’s getting simultaneous buzz on several of the blogs that I have links to.  Odd how that happens.