Taiwan, China, and other things. Recovered from the defunct TypePad platform.
From Monday’s Taipei Times:
Recognizing Chinese degrees will lead to a greater number of Chinese students studying in Taiwan, [President-elect Ma Ying-jeou] said.
"When these young people who receive their education in Taiwan return home, they will become some of Taiwan’s closest friends," he said.
Funny how that sometimes works out, Doctor Pangloss.
From Wednesday’s Taipei Times:
Asked to comment, Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑), acting secretary-general of the KMT caucus, said that the DPP’s draft resolution [on China’s crackdown on Tibet] was too harsh.
"The KMT supports the DPP’s position, which is that violence and violations of human rights should be condemned…," Hsieh said.
So you AGREE Chinese brutality in Tibet should be condemned? Surely then, we’ll hear about that in the KMT’s resolution, won’t we?
The KMT’s draft, meanwhile, states that: "The human rights of Tibetans should be defended. The Chinese government should respect the value of human rights and ensure that human rights are protected in Tibet."
Nope, not a word there from the brave, the brave, Sir Robin!
Used to be a really big fan, so it’s sad to see she’s fallen under the spell of Taiwan’s saviour, its sainted Ma-ssiah:
His name is Ma Ying-jeou, and he is almost too good to be true. Fifty-seven years old, he is a handsome man of vigor and intelligence who as a child mastered Chinese classics and calligraphy, who holds a doctorate of juridical science from Harvard University (1981), and who is the head of Chiang’s old Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party.
Well, it IS almost too good to be true that Ma was elected president – too good to be true for China, that is. Especially after "little elder brother" labored so mightily to block the special arms bill for weapons that were intended for the defense of Taiwan from Beijing’s predations. How obediently Ma danced to China’s tune, blocking that bill around sixty times over a two year period!
Asked about the fate of Taiwan’s companies in China in the case of a potential Chinese attack on Taiwan, he answered sagely, "Actually, if more Taiwan companies are investing in coastal China, I doubt very much the Chinese could attack — their missiles would be threatening their own companies."
Somewhere in that sagely response, Ma obviously forgot to mention that outright confiscation of private property is something that would never, ever, EVER occur to leaders of China’s COMMUNIST party. Why, it’s just INCONCEIVABLE that the acolytes of Lenin or Mao would do such a thing to equipment and capital belonging to citizens of an ENEMY COUNTRY. During WARTIME.
Maybe Ma’s right – if you can’t trust Marxists to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, who CAN you trust?
Rather comical to watch KMT candidates bend over backwards for China…and then hop up and down angrily while denouncing political rivals for "making them wear the red hat".
Here’s a little tip fellas: Those crimson chapeaus – you donned ’em all by yourselves. So you look pretty ridiculous turning around now and complaining that independence supporters are the ones who somehow forced you to put ’em on.
A good example of what I’m talking about is KMT vice-presidential candidate Vincent Siew’s indignation that his "cross-strait" common market proposal is being mis-characterized as a "One China" common market.
You’re making me wear the red hat, protested Siew. I never, ever, EVER said I wanted a "One China" common market! What I want is a "cross-strait" common market. Those are two COMPLETELY different animals. And anyways, how DARE you question my patriotism?
All the semantic hair-splitting came to an end a few days later, when Siew was forced to sheepishly admit that yes, he had indeed called for the establishment of a "Greater China" market during a speech in 2005. Sticking to his guns though, Siew continued to defend the general idea:
"China is the reason behind Taiwan’s marginalization in the international economic market. The cross-strait common market would maximize opportunities and minimize the threat," [Siew] said. [emphasis added]
Jaws should drop when people hear that, because Siew casually acknowledges here that China is currently engaged in low-intensity economic warfare against Taiwan. And that Taiwan should REWARD Beijing for doing so!
(For those unaware of the situation, Taiwan has been attempting to sign free-trade deals with other countries for a few years now. Behind the scenes however, Beijing wrenches arms out of their sockets to prevent those negotiations from ever going anywhere.)
Just what is Vincent Siew’s response to this decidedly unfriendly behavior? Does he breathe a single word of condemnation about it? Or, better still, as a candidate for the vice-presidency, does he offer any practical suggestions as to how Taiwan can break through the economic isolation brought on by China’s unrelenting hostility?
Nope. Siew’s panacea is, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. When China walks all over Taiwan, the proper response isn’t complaint or resistance. No, no – China must instead be EMBRACED for its acts of malice. Battered wife syndrome isn’t a vice or some kind of pitiful disease – it’s actually a species of virtue. Siew reasons that if Taiwan goes to Beijing on its knees and begs for a small place in the Greater China Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Communist Party of China will finally know once and for all just how much the Taiwanese truly love them. And Beijing shall henceforth be moved towards charitable benevolence.
Such child-like faith in the universality of human kindness. Perhaps instead of complaining about that red hat of his, Siew should consider pulling it from over his eyes.
Postscript: A terrific editorial on the subject from Wednesday’s Taiwan News. One particular paragraph deals with the point I attempted to make:
Ma’s claims that his future government would ban PRC produce and workers also fly in the face of the reciprocal nature of trade and economic pacts and rest entirely on Beijing’s "goodwill" to allow Taiwan to erect barriers against PRC dumping of "black heart" defective and dangerous foods and products.
Difficult to see how Taiwan could count on China’s goodwill in such an arrangement, given that Beijing’s ILL-WILL is the explicitly-stated reason this proposal was mooted in the first place!
Best Taiwanese photo of the year, IMHO. And the kicker is that someone told me the shot was taken when KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou was having a serious discussion with reporters about Sino-Taiwanese relations.
(Because nothing, but nothing says, "Gravitas," to voters more than a politician talking foreign policy…in his bright red Santa suit.)
The China Post reports that Taiwanese magnate Robert Tsao is none too happy about his shiny new surrender monkey label:
"Why is it that Chen’s election as president by the expression of the will and volition of the people is called democracy, and the same expression over unification with China condemned as surrender?" Tsao questioned.
Well, that’s an easy one. Tsao proposes to sign away the power Taiwan currently enjoys, in theory at least, of being able to call unification referendums. Not only would he renounce that power, but he would cede that power in perpetuity to an foreign government. In doing so, he would take a power currently invested not only in Taiwan’s executive and legislative branches, but in the people of Taiwan itself (via referendum petitions), and hand that power over to an enemy government – without a shot ever being fired in anger. He would strip political power away from elected and accountable local politicians, and present it on a silver platter to the unelected, unaccountable commissars of a hostile communist nation.
And Robert Tsao still can’t figure out WHY this would be an act of surrender? *
By definition, Taiwan’s government and people under Tsao’s plan would be SUBORDINATE to the Chinese government with regards to this issue. Taiwan would be announcing, for all the world to hear, that it was now recognizing Beijing’s authority over it. China proposes, the Taiwanese electorate disposes.
We can all debate the significance of surrendering this one, particular political power to Beijing. Is it an inconsequential surrender for a greater good, a catastrophic one, or something in-between? We can even discuss its merits and pitfalls. But at the end of the day, even a minor surrender is still a surrender. And even an inconsequential initial surrender can lead to greater surrenders further down the line. Has Tsao even bothered to spend a minute to think all this through?
Once the People’s Republic of China is granted this power, is it likely to be satisfied? Will its government say, "Well, we got what we wanted, now we can have peace in our time"? Or will it decide, quite rationally, that Taiwanese are nothing but paltroons, and demand ever more control over Taiwan’s government?
I’m willing to give Tsao the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he DOESN’T want to hand Beijing the driver’s seat. All he is is a well-intentioned, "reasonable" man with a "reasonable" compromise – who hasn’t the foggiest notion of the consequences of letting the camel’s nose under the tent. Having made this one compromise though, what other compromises is he willing to make, further down the line? Robert Tsao is offended by the surrender charge, and asks, "What sort of a man do you think I am?" The answer can be found in George Bernard Shaw’s famous quip to the lady born and bred into high-society:
"We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re merely haggling over the price."
* Not surprisingly, one of Taiwan’s leading capitulationist newspapers, the China Post, attempts to blur the issue:
…analysts say the referendum on unification Tsao proposed is a means by which the people of Taiwan can freely express their will and volition…
Obviously, the Post‘s unnamed analysts are using some definition of the word "freely" that I wasn’t previously aware of. These great Solomons aver that Tsao’s plan allows Taiwanese to "freely" express their will and volition…but only when Beijing in its infinite benevolence deigns to LET THEM.
Postscript: It’s interesting that I haven’t heard anybody discuss the constitutional issues involved here. I’m no expert on the Republic of China’s constitution, but I would very much like to see Mr. Tsao point out the relevant articles in it that state it’s OK for Beijing to become, in essence, a sixth branch of the R.O.C. government.
P.P.S.: Tsao makes a nice analogy about Taiwan’s position, which I think is nonetheless flawed:
If [Taiwan] wants de jure independence, Taiwan has to be just as well-prepared as people desiring to climb the Matterhorn…Addressing hard-core independence activists, he pointed out:
"[President] Chen, your tourist guide…got elected president thanks to you… You’ll have to ask him carefully what preparations he has made (for your Matterhorn climb) and how much.
I would argue that Taiwan’s position is a little more akin to that of someone who has lost a lot of pieces in chess. Under Tsao’s analogy, demanding a roadmap to the goal makes a lot of sense; under mine, the act of telling your opponent your strategy is just about the worst thing you can do.
Sometimes when things look bleak for you in chess, the only strategy available is to try to simply keep your options open. An opportunity may present itself later down the line, but you’ll only be able to take advantage of it if you haven’t allowed yourself to get pinned down.
Under that analogy, it seems to me Tsao’s policy is undesirable, because it closes a lot more strategic doors than it happens to open.
P.P.P.S.: It must be admitted that one of President Chen’s objections to Tsao’s proposals was exceedingly odd:
…Chen fired a Parthian shot by saying Tsao spent "a lot of money" on ads and yet people who "are striving to make a living" don’t have the time to read them.
Um, why is Chen singing verses from the KMT hymnal? It’s the OPPOSITION’S job to talk down the economy, not the President’s!
(The View from Taiwan has good news about the national economy here.)
…by not delivering Taiwanese mail.
From Thursday’s Taipei Times:
China said yesterday it had returned all mail and parcels found with a postmark supporting Taiwan’s entry into the UN because the wording promotes independence.
"Taiwan authorities preaching `Taiwan independence’ through postal services has infringed on Taiwan compatriots’ freedom of communication," said Fan Liqing (范麗青), a spokeswoman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office. [emphasis added]
"This has seriously impaired the exchanges of letters between people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as Taiwan people’s exchanges with other parts of the world," Fan told reporters.
But surely Beijing’s decision NOT to deliver that mail was the real thing "infringing on Taiwan compatriots’ freedom of communication", wasn’t it?
The Taiwan Chronicles has more on this, most of which I agree with. In an earlier post, I defended the "UN for Taiwan" postmark campaign, because I thought it was a good way of raising awareness of Taiwan’s lack of U.N. membership to potential supporters in democratic countries. However, I have to concede that one of the China Post‘s objections was right on the money – the paper was right to predict the Chinese wouldn’t deliver those letters.
So, to modify (or at least clarify) my original position:
What’s interesting here is that the Chinese government claims to object to the Taiwanese "authorities" preaching Taiwanese independence. In other words, they portray this as a government to government issue (although they can’t quite bring themselves to admit that Taiwan’s government IS a government). But the fly in the ointment for this line of reasoning is that the "UN for Taiwan" postmarks are now VOLUNTARY:
[Taiwan Post] said the mark [now] only goes on the letters of those who agree to have it…
Given that, if an individual Taiwanese VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to have the postmark placed on a China-bound letter, will the Chinese Post Office happily deliver it? Heck, forget postmarks for a second. A Taiwanese doodles his own "UN Membership for Taiwan" logo on one of his envelopes – will THAT be delivered? After all, in the former, and certainly the latter case, the Taiwanese "authorities" are out of the picture.
I think we know the answer, and we all know that the Chinese government isn’t being straight with people. It doesn’t care who advocates U.N. membership for Taiwan; it objects to the very IDEA itself, regardless of whether it’s being advocated by "authorities" OR individuals.
KMT reaction the next day was sadly predictable. You know the kind of fella who always says, "My country, right or wrong"? Well, in any disagreement with China, count on the KMT to boldly declare, "My country, always wrong":
"Taiwan Post must compensate the senders for ignoring their rights and wasting their time because of its unilateral decision to stamp all mail and parcels with such a postmark," KMT legislative caucus whip Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said.
Blame Taiwan First. Gosh, like I didn’t see THAT one coming. For a moment though, suppose the situation were reversed. Let’s say China started sending letters here postmarked with, "Taiwan: The PRC’s 23rd Province," or something like that. And the Taiwanese post office refused to deliver them.
Any bets on who the KMT would blame THEN? Beijing, for being the source of the offending postmarks? Or Taiwan Post, for returning letters in violation of a "contract signed between Shanghai Post and Taiwan Post Office Co Ltd making it obligatory for both parties to deliver any letters and parcels"? [emphasis added]
Postscript: Whoops. Looks like I clicked the "Publish Now" button prematurely, so a couple people read a very incomplete version of this. Sorry about that!
The Bear reawakens, and hungrily eyes Eastern Europe:
EVEN as Jonas Kronkaitis, now retired as Lithuania’s top general, admires the transformation of this once drab Soviet city into a proud member of the New Europe, a worry eats at him: Russian power is rapidly returning to the Baltics, only this time the weapons are oil and money, not tanks.
[…]
What we are afraid of is the very huge money that comes from Russia that can be used to corrupt our officials," Kronkaitis said in an interview. "And I’m talking about very large money. Money can then be used to control our government. Then Lithuania, in a very subtle way, over many years perhaps, becomes dominated and loses its independence."
"Over many years" may be an understatement, Baltic nationalists say. In 2004, Lithuania’s president was impeached for alleged connections to Russia’s secret service and big business. [emphasis added]
It all seems part of a strategy by President Vladimir Putin to revive Russian power in much of Eastern Europe.
For the Balts, any move that angers Russia runs huge risks. Last month, for example, the Estonian state prosecutor charged four ethnic Russians with organizing riots in April to protest the government’s move of a statue of a Soviet soldier from the capital to a suburb as the anniversary of victory in World War II neared. The Russian-language press had egged on the protesters.
"There is reason to believe that financial support and advice to organize mass disorders was also received from the Russian Federation," the prosecutor said. After the riots, hackers briefly paralyzed Estonia’s government and banks,and Estonia said the cyberattacks were traced to Kremlin addresses.
Meanwhile, the Dragon reawakens, and eyes Taiwan. And how eager are Taiwanese businessmen to surrender! Taiwan’s China Post heartily approves in its editorial, Robert Tsao has a point:
Robert Tsao, the honorary chairman of United Microelectronics Corp., the world’s second-largest wafer foundry, has some refreshing ideas about breaking the current impasse in Taiwan-China relations.
[…]
In a 3,000-word article, Tsao…rules out independence referendums for Taiwan… Whenvever Beijing feels ready, [Tsao proposes that] it can ask Taiwan to hold a referendum on unification that is enshrined in the DPP charter. If Taiwan’s people vote against it, then unification must wait and a new vote should be scheduled for ten years later. [emphasis added throughout]
Wow. I’m just trying to imagine a Frenchman suggesting Berlin should have the right to determine the subject and timing of French referenda. Or an American arguing that Mexico should have that right. Inconceivable, really. Inconceivable, because Frenchmen or Americans view their country’s sovereignty as something of VALUE; and something of value isn’t something to be given away on the cheap.
What Tsao’s proposal lacks is reciprocity. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it, Mr. Tsao? You believe a foreign government should be able to call unification referendums in Taiwan? Very well – but as a necessary condition, Taiwan must have the reciprocal right to call Taiwanese independence referendums in China. And to test China’s good faith, Taiwan would be well advised to call that referendum immediately. And ten years later. And ten years after that.
Sure, it’d get voted down again and again, but that wouldn’t matter. As I argued in Why Referendums are a Good Thing, the experience of free and fair elections alone might do the Chinese people a world of good.
It goes without saying however, that ANY unfree or unfair electoral conduct on the part of the Chinese would IMMEDIATELY nullify the entire ridiculous arrangement.
Postscript: Alternatively, it might be useful for Taipei to demand Beijing hold a Chinese democratization referendum. Now there’s a pie-in-the-sky "refreshing" idea on how to break the current impasse in Taiwan-China relations!
The Drudge Report featured a photo of the Dalai Lama shaking hands with President Bush a few days ago with the headline, "Take that, China!" Meanwhile, yesterday’s Taipei Times detailed China’s calm, measured response to the U.S. Congress’ decision to award the Dalai Lama with the Congressional Gold Medal
"The move of the United States is a blatant interference with China’s internal affairs which has severely hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and gravely undermined the relations between China and the United States," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao (劉建超) told a regular news briefing.
He said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎) had summoned US Ambassador Clark Randt to express a "strong protest to the US government."
"China urges the United States to take effective measures immediately to remove the terrible impact of its erroneous act, cease supporting and conniving with the separatist activities of the Tibet independence forces … and take concrete steps to protect China-US relations," Liu said.
It’d be nice to think the Chinese over-reaction gives Americans some insight into what Taiwan faces whenever its gargantuan neighbor hyperventilates over trivialities. The next time China hyperventilates over some supposed Taiwanese "provocation," Taiwanese leaders and overseas representatives need to remind Americans of the 2007 Dalai Lama affair, and tell them China’s tantrum de jour is all par for the course. As Michael Turton says, for China, acting provoked isn’t an honest reaction, but a policy choice.
I commented on this story from the Taipei Times a few weeks ago, but there was one thing there I neglected:
[Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT presidential candidate said that if] elected next year,… he would not allow China to demand that the country cover national flags or pictures of Sun Yat-sen (孫中山) during cross-strait exchange events in Taiwan.
"Such incidents happened frequently after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power. I will not accept it and won’t let it happen again if I am elected," he said. [emphasis added]
One of the beauties of blogging is that it can make fact-checking a whole lot easier. No more digging through piles of newspaper clippings – if you blogged on the subject, the post is still waiting for you in black-and-white. And as it so happens, I discussed one of the incidents Ma refers to back in the early days of this blog.
In all honesty, it was kind of a lame entry, so let’s go to the original Taipei Times story instead. It was November 15th, 2005, and China’s tourism official Shao Qiwei (邵琪偉) had just finished a 10 day visit to Taiwan…
When Shao visited, the KMT pulled pull down the flag of the Republic of China and portraits of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at facilities he toured — which DPP officials called a humiliation of the nation’s dignity.
Picture this: In 2005, the KMT, under Ma Ying-jeou’s chairmanship,* pulled down ROC flags in order to curry favor with a Chinese official. Two years pass, and Ma now pretends he and his party had nothing to do with it – it was obviously somebody ELSE’S fault!
Please, sir – don’t insult our intelligence. You DID accept it, and you DID let it happen. The only question now is whether Taiwanese can be trust you not to do it again in the future.
* According to Wikipedia, Ma Ying-jeou was elected chairman of the KMT on July 16, 2005.
