Month: September 2006

Chinese Lebensraum in North America?

Over at The Corner, John Derbyshire comments on a purported speech given by one Chi Haotian, in which this apparently well-respected Chinese Communist party member (and former Secretary of Defense) stated his convictions that Hitler was too soft, a future China will need lebensraum, and to that end, the U.S.A. ought to be depopulated with biological weapons.

I think Derb gets it about right:

The authenticity of the piece needs addressing.  The Epoch Times is a Falun Gong publication and its journalistic standards have been questioned.  I take the speech to be authentic just on general grounds.  I.e. that is how old Party warhorses—like my father-in-law—tend to talk.  [Emphasis added]

To what degree Chi’s sentiments can be said to represent Chinese govt. policy is highly debatable.  Certainly these sentiments are widespread in China, particularly among young males.  There is a strong vein of amoral fascism in modern Chinese political thinking, along with the ancient conviction of racial superiority.

[…]

The value of documents like this is to show us a ruthless and amoral strain that is not uncommon in modern Chinese thinking, but which is inchoate and, in my opinion, not likely driving any current policy.

Just a little something to keep in mind next time Taiwan’s China Post airily dismisses the merest possibility that China could someday pose a danger to world peace.

Ma’s “Checkers” Speech

From Sunday’s Taipei Times:

"I adopted the dog during an event held by the city government," [Ma Ying-jeou, the chairman of the KMT] said while attending the International Car-free Day event sponsored by the Taipei city and county governments. "I didn’t know the adoption and examination fee was paid for by the [mayor’s office] fund."

[…]

"I thought my wife paid for it, and didn’t know the money was from the [mayor’s office] fund until recently.  Although the budget, accounting and statistics department said the procedure is legal, I was uneasy and paid the money back," he said.

Ma’s accused of embezzling about $90,000 NT ($2,700).  Now he did pay the money back, though it was seven years later, after he was caught.  I don’t blame the moderate independence party for wanting to show that Ma is dirty, but I really hope they pursue this one carefully.  There’s a lot of potential here for Ma to put this dog on national television and make his accusers look like cold-hearted bad guys.

(One question.  Ma Ying-jeou reportedly named the stray Ma Hsiao-jeou.  Is it really the custom here for people to give dogs the family name?)

Benedict’s Speech

The Weekly Standard had a terrific piece examining Benedict XVI’s "faith and modern reason" speech.  It explains the speech, without the kind of philosopher-jargon that would otherwise make it impenetrable to those like myself who’ve never studied philosophy.

If modern reason cannot concern itself with the question of God, then it cannot argue that a God who commands jihad is better or worse than a God who commands us not to use violence to impose our religious views on others. To the modern atheist, both Gods are equally figments of the imagination, in which case it would be ludicrous to discuss their relative merits. The proponent of modern reason, therefore, could not possibly think of participating in a dialogue on whether Christianity or Islam is the more reasonable religion, since, for him, the very notion of a "reasonable religion" is a contradiction in terms.

Ratzinger wishes to challenge this notion, not from the point of view of a committed Christian, but from the point of view of modern reason itself…

The typical solution to the problem of ethics and religion offered by modern reason is quite simple: Let the individual decide such matters himself, by whatever means he wishes. If a person prefers Islam over Christianity, or Jainism over Methodism, that is entirely up to him. All such choices, from the perspective of modern reason, are equally leaps of faith, or simply matters of taste; hence all are equally irrational.

[…]

[But] if the individual is free to choose between violence and reason, it will become impossible to create a community in which all the members restrict themselves to using reason alone to obtain their objectives. If it is left up to the individual to use violence or reason, then those whose subjective choice is for violence will inevitably destroy the community of those whose subjective choice is for reason. Worse still, those whose subjective choice is for violence do not need to constitute more than a small percentage of the community in order to destroy the very possibility of a community of reasonable men: Brute force and terror quickly extinguish rational dialogue and debate*.

Modern reason says that all ethical choices are subjective and beyond the scope of reason. But if this is so, then a man who wishes to live in a community made up of reasonable men is simply making a personal subjective choice–a choice that is no more reasonable than the choice of the man who wishes to live in a community governed by brute force. But if the reasonable man is reasonable, he must recognize that modern reason itself can only survive in a community made up of other reasonable men. Since to be a reasonable man entails wishing to live in a community made up of other reasonable men, then the reasonable man cannot afford to allow the choice between reason and violence to be left up to mere personal taste or intellectual caprice. To do so would be a betrayal of reason.

Modern reason, to be sure, cannot prove scientifically that a community of reasonable men is ethically superior to a community governed by violent men. But a critique of modern reason from within must recognize that a community of reasonable men is a necessary precondition of the very existence of modern reason*. He who wills to preserve and maintain the achievements of modern reason must also will to live in a community made up of reasonable men who abstain from the use of violence to enforce their own values and ideas. Such a community is the a priori ethical foundation of modern reason. Thus, modern reason, despite its claim that it can give no scientific advice about ethics and religion, must recognize that its own existence and survival demand both an ethical postulate and a religious postulate. The ethical postulate is: Do whatever is possible to create a community of reasonable men who abstain from violence, and who prefer to use reason. The religious postulate is: If you are given a choice between religions, always prefer the religion that is most conducive to creating a community of reasonable men, even if you don’t believe in it yourself.  [Emphasis added]

* In support of this, the writer asks a question first posed by Herder:

"When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn’t he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers, instead of being hailed as one of the greatest philosophers of all time?"

The answer of course, is that Kant was lucky enough to have lived within a community peopled by reasonable men.

Chinese Man Bites Panda

Perhaps there’s a lesson here for panda-huggers everywhere.  From the front page of today’s Taipei Times:

A drunken Chinese tourist bit a panda at the Beijing Zoo after the animal attacked him when he jumped into the enclosure and tried to hug it, state media said yesterday.

Panda surrounded by greenery

(Afterwards, the man is said to have remarked, "It tasted just like koala.")

(Photo from PocketPC Screens.)

UPDATE (Sep 21/06):  I reproduce a comment from The Daily Gut:

This guy should be locked up immediately. His defense for abusing the Panda is "I just wanted to touch it. I was so dizzy from the beer. I don’t remember much." This kind of thing always starts with Pandas but before you know it this sick puppy will be hanging around the Petting Zoo with sugarcubes preying on innocent pigs and donkeys.

i-1

Coup Attempt In Thailand

It’s 1 am Wednesday morning, and a coup in Thailand is in process.  Readers may remember that I’ve previously supported the LEGAL removal of Prime Minister Thaksin.  This of course, is a whole other animal.

Thailand may be a long ways away, but these events couldn’t have happened at a worse time for Taiwan.  Isolated incidents of violence between supporters and opponents of President Chen Shui-bian have been reported in the last few days, KMT media figures have written newpaper columns outlining strategies for removing the president using force, and KMT lawmakers donned the RED SHIRTS of the anti-Chen movement yesterday to begin chanting "Depose Chen" slogans from the floor of the nation’s legislature.

In certain quarters, it won’t be long before people enviously wonder: If Thailand, why not Taiwan?

Should the KMT pull a stunt like that here, America should register its disapproval by immediately withdrawing President Bush’s 2001 weapons offer.  The irony is that the KMT could hardly cry foul, given that they themselves have blocked the bill 56 times within the last two years.

Letting The Wookie Win

So the worst case scenario is that the Pope kinda, sorta suggested that Islam has a problem with violence.

Ridiculous, replied Muslims.  And just to refute that terrible slander, they burned down a few churches on the West Bank and made an elderly nun in Somalia take the dirt nap.

O-kaay.  I know they’ve got ME convinced…

Meanwhile, Professor Cole quotes us sura and verse to show us infidels "there’s no compulsion in religion" in Islam.  Riiight.  Reminds me of fellow travellers during the Cold War claiming freedom of religion was GUARANTEED in the USSR, while lawyerly pointing out the relevant articles in the Soviet constitution.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to Salman Rushdie, who after 18 years, is still in hiding from the bloodthirsty Islamofascist mob.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to the Muslim who tried to convert to Christianity in Afghanistan.  Word is that even his own MOTHER wanted him put to death.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to the Danes, who had two embassies burned down over cartoons.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to the Saudi teacher who was sentenced to 750 lashes for the heinous crime of discussing Judaism and Christianity in his classroom.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to the two FOX reporters who were recently forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to Theo van Gogh, who was decapitated for making a movie.

There is no compulsion in religion.

Tell that to the 10,000 Indonesian Christians killed by Muslim mobs between 1998 and 2003.  Though in all fairness, perhaps those children of pigs and monkeys had it comin’.  After all, some of them probably drew a few cartoons of their own, at one time or another.

It’s been said that the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.  Which is pretty depressing, because it seems that that elementary step has still yet to be taken.  But how much can we really expect from moderate Muslims in this regard when even Westerners, who are supposedly well-schooled in rational inquiry and criticism, can’t bring themselves to admit the obvious? 

I submit this recent example of dhimmitude from the Taiwan News*:

Taiwan News editorial cartoon depicting Pope Benedict in a dunce cap standing in the corner of a classroom while the UN, a dove of peace, and Muslim children look on disapprovingly

(Cartoon from the Sept 18th, 2006 edition.  Sorry, no link available.)

Put that wicked Pope in the corner with a dunce cap in the name of world peace!  Because obviously, the lesson of the Motoon controversy is to let the Wookie win.

‘Course, the  Taiwan News’ cartoonist doesn’t portray Islamofascists as Wookies.  Instead, he tries to engender sympathy for them by suggesting they’re nothing more than a bunch of cute, innocent kids who’ve had their tender feelings hurt.  Curiously absent from the diversity of this rainbow-colored classroom are pupils such as this:

Muslim women in hijabs protesting with sign: God Bless Hitler

(Photo from The National Review.)

Here’s another fella who’d like to shut the Pope up, too.  ‘Cept he’s not terribly cute, and I’m pretty sure that visualizing world peace isn’t very high up on his list of things to do today.

Muslim protesting with sign: Behead Those Who Insult Islam

(Photo from Reuters, 2006/02/03)

* I consider the Taiwan News to be Western in terms of outlook, if not geographical location.

UPDATE (Sep 21/06):  Since the Taiwan News‘ cartoon was set in a Muslim school, it seems fair game to mention what those cute innocent kids are really being taught there.  Fortunately, Memri issued a report on Saudi textbooks back in 2002:

1) A textbook for 8th grade [Saudi] students explains why Jews and Christians were cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs.

2) A schoolbook for the 9th grade on Hadith introduces a famous narration known by the name, "The Promise of the Stone and the Tree."It tells a story about Abu Hurayra, one of the Prophet’s companions who quoted the Prophet as saying: "The hour [the Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.  A Jew will [then] hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah! there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’ – except for the gharqad tree, for it is one of the trees of the Jews."  [It’s just as I’ve always said.  Never trust a dirty, sneaky gharqad tree – The Foreigner]

3) This particular textbook also informs the students, "It is Allah’s wisdom that the struggle between Muslims and Jews shall continue until the Day of Judgment."

4) It also has a list of class discussion topics, such as "Who will be victorious in the Day of Judgment?" and "With what types of weapons should Muslims arm themselves against the Jews?"
Maybe then, the dove of peace is rebuking the wrong guy in the classroom.  Maybe in fact, it’s the teacher and his students who ought to be wearing dunce caps instead.

UPDATE #2 (Sep 21/06):  Not content having killed Theo van Gogh, Islamofascists (sorry – "misguided youths") are now beating up his 14-year-old son.  The kids are NOT alright.

UPDATE (Sep 22/06):  To some, the doors to the cartoonist’s mythical classroom are barred completely:

…a mother and daughter in a rural area [of Pakistan were] abducted and gang-raped for 12 days because the daughter continued her schooling in defiance of villagers in her home near Multan.

[…]

Precise details of what happened are sketchy, but it appears that the girl’s father was also attacked by the assailants and that police took 12 days to act and save the women.

(Hat tip to David Frum)

UPDATE #4 (Sep 22/06):  Iranian president Ahmadinejad apparently closed his speech to the UN General Assembly with a prayer for the end of the world.  No threat to world peace there.  (Hat tip to The Corner.)

UPDATE #5 (Sep 22/06):  Hat tip to AsiaPundit for pointing out a China Matters post revealing that prior to becoming Pope, Benedict XVI also had negative things to say about Buddhism, Judaism and Anglicanism.

That IS interesting.

But I further note that Jews didn’t respond by burning down churches, Buddhists didn’t respond by murdering missionaries, and Anglicans didn’t respond by ordering fatwas calling for the then-Cardinal’s assassination.

And that too, I think is interesting.

UPDATE #6 (Sep 22/06):  Some satire from The Onion on this subject:  ‘Iraqi Gandhi’ Preaches Slightly Less Violence.

More satire:  A fictional store selling Pope Benedict XVI effigies made from "a high-tech blend of natural and synthetic fibers made to be as slow and steady burning as our customer’s outrage."  Get ’em while they’re hot!

UPDATE #7 (Sep 22/06):  From The National Review:

Jennifer Roback Morse argues that the goal of  Benedict XVI’s speech was to debate the nature of God, not "defame" Islam:

…the conversation between the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a “learned Persian” was Benedict’s point of departure for the main topic of his academic lecture: the nature of God.  “Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.” This idea was self-evident to the Byzantine emperor, but alien to Islamic thought. The Islamic view is that God’s will is not bound up in our categories, even rationality. Benedict quotes an Islamic scholar who argues that “God is not even bound by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.”

I’m not a scholar of Islam. I don’t know whether Benedict is quoting someone representative or an outlier. But I do know this: The question he raises is important. He puts the general question this way: “Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?”

The Catholic tradition has always taught that God’s omnipotence does not extend to doing the self-contradictory: God cannot create a square circle. Similarly, God can not contradict his own nature by doing evil or by behaving unreasonably. Benedict is not going to apologize or back down on this point. This is a basic part of Catholicism’s understanding of God.

Thomas F. Madden makes a similar point:

[Benedict’s speech] is, in fact, not about Islam at all. Benedict is calling a crusade, but it is one against a Christianity stripped of reason and a science stripped of transcendent truths. “In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”

This is a tough lecture to boil down to one sentence, but if forced I would characterize it as: Theology belongs in the university because only by studying faith with reason will we find solutions to the problems of our time.

Peter Robinson takes a brief historical look at the medieval king Benedict quoted:

1390:  Manuel [II Paleologus] is sent as a hostage to the court of Sultan Bayezid I. As his writings demonstrate, he reads widely in Muslim texts and engages in repeated debates with Muslim scholars. He is also forced to participate in an attack on his own people, the siege of Philadelphia, which eliminated the last Byzantine settlement in Anatolia.

1394-1402:  The Ottomans besiege Constantinople. For some five years, Manuel directs the defense of the city in person. Then he entrusts Constantinople to his nephew and embarks on a tour of the West, seeking assistance

1422:  The Ottomans attack Manuel in Constantinople once again.

By the time of his death in 1425, Manuel had spent virtually his entire adult life in the struggle against an armed and expansionist Islam—and in 1453, just over a quarter of a century later, the Ottomans would finally conquer the empire he had defended.

The point? […]  What one may not argue, I think, is that Manuel lacked the authority or knowledge to speak about Islam. When he described efforts “to spread by the sword the faith [the Prophet] preached,” he wasn’t mouthing some sort of ignorant medieval prejudice. He knew exactly what he was talking about.  [Emphasis added]

The Winds of Change had some great posts on the subject, with some great links too:

Donald Sensing at Winds of Change wrote the ironically titled, Muslims Bomb, Burn, Shoot and Threaten for Being Called "Violent".

A Roman Catholic deacon asks, "Why are we so afraid of calling a spade a spade here?"

The question that keeps popping in my mind – after the response to the Danish cartoons and now after Pope Benedict’s recent comments – is: why are we so afraid?

Culturally and religiously we are on the defensive in this War on Terror. And it makes no sense to me. We accept immoral expressions of outrage by Muslims across the world and yet fail to have any of our own justified moral indignation at their actions. Instead we apologize for causing their reactions. Perhaps I should apologize to my four year old for his little temper tantrum this morning and for the time he slugged his sister in the face with a toy.

We hold the high ground – we believe in individual liberty, we believe in religious tolerance, we believe in women’s rights, we believe in a narrow window for the just use of war – and we should not be afraid to stand tall and to express our outrage at the insane reactions we are seeing across the Muslim world. In fact their actions prove the point made previously in Danish cartoons and the quote from Pope Benedict. It is all well and good to be sensitive but it is quite another thing when Muslims actually manifest what we criticize. It is quite another thing when there is lack of reciprocity in Muslim treatment of Jews and Christians. They have yet to practice what they preach – except for the spread of Islam by the sword and the convert or be killed part.  [Emphasis added]

Waleed Aly, director of the Islamic Council of Victoria, is one Muslim who gets it, and denounces the "overblown response of surreal stupidity":

LET me get this straight. Pope Benedict XVI quotes the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus asserting before a Persian Islamic scholar that the prophet Muhammad brought nothing new to the world except things "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Some Muslims clearly interpret Benedict to be quoting Manuel with approval, and take offence at the suggestion that Islam is inherently violent. The response is to bomb five churches in the West Bank, and attack the door of another in Basra. In India, angry mobs burn effigies of Pope Benedict. In Somalia, Sheikh Abu Bakr Hassan Malin urges Muslims to "hunt down" the Pope and kill him, while an armed Iraqi group threatens to carry out attacks against Rome and the Vatican.

There. That’ll show them for calling us violent.

[…]

I happen to think Manuel had a shoddy grasp of Islamic theology. Indeed, the Islamic tradition would have much to contribute to the theme of Benedict’s lecture. While medieval Christendom fought science stridently, the relationship between faith and reason in traditional Islam was highly convivial.

That’s why I would be interested to have heard how the Persian scholar responded to Manuel’s argument. I’m fairly certain, though, he wouldn’t have called on Muslim hordes to hunt down Manuel and kill him.  [Emphasis added]

And finally, Donald Sensing at Winds of Change concludes that the West is growing impatient with Muslim religious intolerance:

But now, in the aftermath of the Pope’s speech, things are mostly different [compared to the Danish cartoon controversy]. It seems to me that most voices [in the West] addressing the issue defend both the Pope’s right to say what he said, even if inflammatory, and what he said as well, inflammatory or not.

Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that Muslim riots are highly theatrical, demonstrating that their instigators have absorbed the lessons of the Western grievance culture and political correctness. But underscoring the swing of opinion to back the Pope in principle, even if not in detail, is simply a growing weariness that this game is getting old. Americans long ago learned to cope with religious differences through peaceful, public discourse; we simply don’t understand why Muslims can’t do the same. "Insult" either of Mohammed or Allah doesn’t wash as a pretense for violence. Mohammed is dead, can’t take offense himself and we don’t accept anger by proxy. And surely Allah is tough enough to shrug off a cartoon or two.

Muslim riots and violence against Christians only reinforce the perception that Islam is itself inclined toward violence. [Emphasis added]

Enraged Muslim at Kashmiri protest

UPDATE #8 (Sep 22/06):  Charles Krauthammer too, asks where are the Muslim protests over a few other things…

Where is the protest over the constant stream of vilification of Christianity and Judaism issuing from the official newspapers, mosques and religious authorities of Arab nations? When Sheik ‘Atiyyah Saqr issues a fatwa declaring Jews "apes and pigs"? When Sheik Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, professor of Islamic law, says on Saudi TV that "someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one-third of a trinity. . . . Don’t you hate the faith of such a polytheist?"

Where are the demonstrations, where are the parliamentary resolutions, where are the demands for retraction when the Mufti Sheik Ali Gum’a incites readers of al-Ahram, the Egyptian government daily, against "the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers . . . who prepare [Passover] matzos from human blood"?

UPDATE (Oct 2/06):  Joe Hung at the China Post seems to have the right instincts on the importance of freedom of speech in this case, so I feel a bit churlish mentioning a few quibbles I had with his Oct 2nd column.  But…here goes:

1)  I don’t think Islamofascists care one whit about freedom of speech.  Maybe Hung’s right that they SHOULD, but they don’t.

2)  By definition, Islam isn’t part of Judeo-Christianity.  Jews and Christians share certain books of the Old Testament, while Muslims believe the Koran supercedes both Old and New Testaments.  Better to call Islam an "Abrahamic faith", if you like.

3)  I don’t think the Pope was intentionally trying to engage Muslims.  He gave a scholarly speech within the halls of academe, and he thought the debate would remain there.

4)  Can the West still be characterized as "Christian"?  America perhaps, but Europe really is more post-Christian than anything else.

5)  I suspect the Koran differs quite a bit from the Bible.  I understand the desire to paper over differences, but the problem with that approach is that it breeds bad feeling further down the line when the other party (who we now regard as being "just like us") surprises us by behaving in ways that are completely contrary to the way we would.  Maybe honesty is a better policy.

UPDATE (Oct 10/06):  What happens when the cute Muslim schoolkids from the Taiwan News‘ cartoon eat during their Ramadan fast?  They get stoned to death.

UPDATE (Oct 16/06):  Berkeley Breathed’s latest take on the subject in his Opus comic strip.

UPDATE (Apr 21/07):  Enlisting kids to make snuff films.  From yesterday’s AP:

KILI FAQIRAN, Pakistan – The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a
high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an
American spy. Then he hacks off the captive’s head to cries of "God is great!"
and hoists it in triumph by the hair.

Boys will be boys!

UPDATE (Jun 29/07):  The protester in Update #7 above apparently has an internet nickname – Islamic Rage Boy. Turns out he’s been in a FEW other protests as well…

i-4

A Few Links

On the decline of Stalinism in North Korea.

How North Korea avoided economic collapse, and what genuine signs of reform in that country would look like.

(Hat tip to The Corner at the National Review.)

The Da Vinci Code, Japanese-style.

(Just for laughs, I might as well toss in Sam Kinison debunks the Da Vinci Code as well.  Some of the language is a bit crude.)

An American intelligence officer predicts the Muslim World will be a long-term source of instability – back in 1946.

How’d you like to be the accountant auditing the brass hats of the People’s Liberation Army?

The PLA’s view of recent American military actions.

and, just one more:

China buys new military hovercraft from Russia.

If China Attacks Taiwan: Chapter Two

(This is the third in a series of posts reviewing If China Attacks Taiwan.  A brief review of Chapter 1 can be found here, while a review of the entire book can be found here.)

Political and military factors determining China’s use of force

Maochun Yu is responsible for the second chapter, and he begins by discussing historical precedent:

"Alastair Iain Johnston has documented a ‘Chinese Realism’ which emphasizes offensive action as the preferred way to end geopolitical disputes.  By examining official documents from several dynasties in imperial China, Johnston shows a clear pattern of inherent militarism within the Chinese historical consciousness.  This pattern of ‘Cultural Realism’ tends to regard war as the primary means to conduct inter-state and inter-regional relationships.

Also called ‘active defense,’ ‘coercive diplomacy,’ or ‘coercive strategy,’ the PRC’s attitude toward Taiwan has been consistently within this domain of historical ‘Cultural Realism,’ where war and the use of blunt force remains the ultimate option for ending the decades-long standoff between the communist state and the de facto independent government of Taiwan."

Just a bit of an antidote there to all the "peaceful rising" stuff that Taiwan’s China Post reprints so uncritically for its readers.

The author then describes the machinery of the communist state leadership, and notes that leaders within the hierarchy tend "to compete fiercely to be seen as the most hawkish on Taiwan."  He tells an amusing anecdote of Premier Wen Jinbao, who used to tell audiences that the economy was China’s top priority, so peace needed to be kept "at any cost".  When he was derided as being soft on Taiwan, Wen changed his speeches, simultaneously proclaiming that "peace had to be maintained AND war waged against an independent Taiwan, both at ‘any cost’." (Emphasis added)

Regarding economic interdependence between the two countries, Maochun notes that contrary to classical liberal theory, political distrust has increased even as economic links between Taiwan and China have grown.  But he also points out that China has begun to capitalize on Taiwan’s excessive foreign investment there*, bullying Taiwanese businessmen into becoming a "pro-unification political lobby".

The news isn’t all bad, however.  Maochun gives a few examples suggesting that the Chinese people may not be behind their leaders on this whole war thing.  He tells of one incident where PLA experts tried to sell the use of force against Taiwan to a national audience; in the following Q&A they were bombarded with sceptical questions regarding cost, price and potential [Chinese] civilian casualties.  As the author says:

"One could almost sense from the audience…subtle disapproval…"

Finally, there were a couple of points of trivia that were interesting:

1.  According to the Washington Post, "Some [PLA] units spend 30 percent of their training time studying politics."

2.  Apparently, many of Taiwan’s capitulationists have told Beijing not to invade.  I suppose that’s one small comfort, at least.  He tells of an odd duck named Huang Shunxin who was "father of Taiwan’s early 1980’s grassroots democracy  movement,…a daring member of Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, [and] a fanatic advocate of reunification.  After his defection to Beijing in 1985, and after he became a member of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and a heavyweight figure in the PRC’s United Front against Taiwan, he told [the] CCP Secretary General…that if the PRC were to invade Taiwan…he would go back to Taiwan to organize the resistance movement against the PLA." (Emphasis added)

Never heard of Huang Shunxin before.  A Taiwanese democracy activist who defected to Communist China!  That’s way more bizarre than the recent spectacle of Shih Ming-teh teaming up with his former KMT jailers!**

* 66% of Taiwan’s yearly foreign investment was directed towards China as of 2002.  I believe the figure has since increased to 75%.

** Shih Ming-teh is a former democracy activist who is currently organizing protests calling upon the president of Taiwan to resign.  A recent story can be found here.