Outsiders may view with incredulity the current controversy in Taiwan about whether to accept two panda bears from China. No missiles are being fired, no IEDs are exploding, and no suicide bombers are going kabloey. So what’s the big deal?
Imagine if you will then, if Kim Jong-il of North Korea made an announcement. He’s just met with Howard Dean, and the two of them have come to an agreement that a couple of extremely rare Korean snow wallabies* will be sent to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C.
American children are delighted. After all, what could be cuter than a Korean snow wallaby? National Zoo officials are ecstatic. What a coup! How many zoos in the world can boast of such an exotic animal?
There’s a slight snag, though. The North Koreans correspond with the National Zoo, but refuse to submit any of the required paperwork to the American government (who they denounce as "brigandish imperialists"). Howard Dean and the Democratic Party** calls upon the administration to swallow their pride and break American law – let the snow wallabies in "for the sake of the children".
What would the Bush administration do?
And that in essence is the problem facing Taiwan today. Should Taiwan flirt with lawlessness for trivialities? For nothing more important than pandas?
But all of this should be obvious. Like Howard Dean in the snow wallaby fable, Ma Ying-jeou, head of Taiwan’s pro-communist party, calls upon Taiwan’s PRESIDENT to break Taiwanese law. Surely Ma, who studied law at Harvard, is cognizant of Louis D. Brandeis’ admonition:
"If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Here then, is the big deal: while the issue of bringing pandas to Taiwan is trifling, the issue of whether Taiwan’s government should break its own laws in order to get them is really much more serious.
Perhaps unaware of Brandeis’ warning, one commenter writes:
"In the end, little children are going to cry because pandas are not coming to Taiwan because (insert explanation to your child)?"
My explanation would be that the pandas are not coming because the Chinese are too arrogant to think that the law applies to them. I would patiently explain that however much a child may desire candy in a store, he cannot steal it. Because merely wanting something, be it candy (or panda bears), is not a sufficient reason for breaking the law.
Of course, those that cavalierly run through red lights may have more difficulty in finding an explanation. And in Taiwan, that sadly constitutes a great many people.
* So rare is this animal in fact, that none have ever been observed in either the wild or in captivity.
** Apologies to Howard Dean and the Democratic Party for comparing them to Ma Ying-jeou and Taiwan’s main opposition party in this What If? scenario.
UPDATE (JAN 15/06): A vaguely-related Dilbert cartoon.
UPDATE (May 04/06): Wednesday’s Taiwan News had a good bilingual summary of the issue. Although the piece had this rather strange translation:
Those in U.S. political circles who lean toward China are known as the “embracing panda faction,” while those that oppose China are known as “dragon slayers.”
Um, aren’t the people making up the "embracing panda faction" usually referred to as "panda-huggers"?
Why is Panda not coming to Taiwan? The argument becomes more and more convoluted and non-intuitive as you write them. Let’s for a moment assume that only politics matters, not the “ultimate truth”(LOL)
I am not sure if the North Korean analogy is particularly apt. Every point you made is another point of contention, for example about breaking the law. But I do feel making the argument against the Panda is quite an exercise of futility. In the end, I simply can’t think of a scenerio in which Chen or DPP won’t emerge out of this looking alarmist and silly.
I think that’s the main beef I have with DPP nowadays. Not so much about ideology but their total inept-ness at handling the cross-strait relations. Everytime they say something my blood pressure goes up worrying whether they are dead-set on pursueing independence no matter the cost.
You ask me to assume that only POLITICS matters in this case. But my argument avoids politics completely (alluding to them only at the end). I instead argue legal PRINCIPLE. Taiwan’s government shouldn’t jettison the rule of law over a triviality. Which is what the pandas truly are.
I’m not sure what’s so contentious about the legality of allowing the pandas into the country. Either Taiwan has laws governing the importation of exotic species, or it doesn’t. Foreign governments either have to submit documents, or they don’t. If they don’t, then the government can (and should) be brought to court. I’m willing to accept the results. Is the KMT?
As for the North Korean analogy, well, let’s see…Hostile foreign government – check. Armed with nukes and bristling with missiles – check. Attempts to bypass a democratic government’s laws on importation of an endangered species – check. The “loyal” opposition sides with the hostile foreign government – check, check, check, check. Yeah, I’m starting to see a FEW similarities.
(BTW, as AsiaPundit has pointed out, who needs pandas anyways? You guys have GREEN PIGS, for cryin’ out loud. Man, that’s WAY cooler!)