Category: Relations -Sino-Taiwanese

Fingerprinting

Part of me HATES stuff like this:

The [Taiwanese] Ministry of Justice said yesterday the requirement for visitors from China to have their fingerprints taken upon arrival should be implemented as soon as possible.

[…]

At present, certain categories of Chinese citizens, including professionals and technicians, can visit Taiwan. The newly revised statute on cross-strait exchanges requires fingerprinting for them, but the requirement has not been implemented because some complementary measures have yet to be fleshed out.

As the government is preparing to open the door for ordinary Chinese citizens to sightsee in Taiwan, the officials said they will push for a further law revision to require fingerprinting for Chinese tourists as well as Chinese fishery workers aboard Taiwanese fishing boats and seized illegal Chinese immigrants.

Unfortunately however, I don’t see how Taiwan can afford to be laissez faire about a million prospective tourists from a hostile foreign country flooding onto its shores.  Taiwan and China don’t share criminal dossiers, and the two countries have no extradition treaty.  What a terrific opportunity for China’s criminal element!

But let’s leave concerns about crime aside.  How would America have reacted if the Soviets had allowed 10 million of their citizens to visit PER YEAR?  Sure, on the one hand, a lot of those tourists would have gone home knowing that America wasn’t the demon that the communist propaganda mill was making it out to be.  But on the other hand, the possiblilities for breaches in national security might well have been intolerable.  Here in our time, it’s safe to say that there are plenty of young men from Muslim countries that would absolutely LOVE to visit America.  However, for some reason or another, they haven’t exactly been welcomed with open arms lately.  Ever wonder why THAT is?

So yeah, the libertarian in me has pretty strong reservations about fingerprinting tourists, whatever their national origin.  But the conservative in me, well, he can’t find it in himself to work up much outrage.  Because THAT guy’s of the opinion that if somebody wants to be treated like a friend, then they’d better damn well be willing to act like one.

UPDATE (Apr 28/06):  A KMT legislator suggested that other nationalities also be fingerprinted – in the interest of "impartiality".

Why stop there, Mr. Wizard?  Maybe Taiwan’s armed forces should begin training for a possible Lithuanian invasion.  In the interest of impartiality, of course.

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

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:

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

A Horse Is A Horse, Of Course, Of Course

President Lincoln used to ask a riddle:  if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?  He enjoyed revealing that the answer was four…because CALLING a tail a leg didn’t MAKE it one.*

By the same token, the Japanese Foreign Minister decided that calling Taiwan a province of China didn’t actually make it one, and said so in public.  Said the FM:

"[Taiwan’s] democracy is considerably matured and liberal economics is deeply ingrained, so it is a law-abiding country.  In various ways it is a country that shares a sense of values with Japan."

Whoa!  The KMT and Taiwan’s other capitulationist parties aren’t going to like hearing THAT.  For them, the single country in the world most worthy of praise and emulation is CHINA.  In response to the Japanese minister, we might soon hear some more Japan-bashing from KMT head Hizoner Ma Ying-jeou.  Perhaps something similar to his previously stated desire for a "battle to force a settlement" with Japan over the disposition of the Senkakus Islands.

Shortly after the Japanese Foreign Minister’s statement, China engaged in a little flipfloppery.  It was not so long ago – barely a week, in fact – when they called upon the United Nations to spank Taiwan for abolishing the National Unification Council.  Interfere in our internal affairs all you like, they told the UN at the time.**

But when the Chinese Foreign Minister heard that his Japanese counterpart had called Taiwan a "country", he got all prickly, angrily responding, "We are strongly protesting against this rude intervention in China’s internal affairs."

Aw, c’mon guys.  You’re either in favor of foreign interference in your "internal affairs" or you’re against it.  What’s it gonna be?

Interestingly, The China Post had a few more statements from the Japanese FM illustrating the growing resentment the Japanese feel due to China’s bullying:

[The minister likened] Japan to a rich but physically weak child who is picked on at school.

"What do you do so you don’t get bullied? There is no other way than to run away or fight," Aso told supporters last weekend in the central city of Kanazawa, the magazine said.

"You may be able to graduate from school in three years. But when it comes to countries, neighbors will be neighbors forever," it quoted him as saying.

Perhaps then, calling Taiwan a country is a demonstration of Japan’s increasing unwillingness to play the 98 pound weakling in the schoolyard.  I can’t help but think that Japan was once a Great Power, and that if it wanted to, it could be again.  It may be most unwise to push around the Japanese.

* Of course, the children’s story, "The Emperor’s New Clothes" makes essentially the same point that the truth is the truth.

There is however, a countervailing Chinese story that states the truth is whatever the powerful happen to say it is.  In this story, a Chinese emperor sees a mule, calls it a horse in front of his court, and then asks the courtiers what kind of an animal they think it is.  Those who answer truthfully are beheaded on the spot for having the effrontery to publicly disagree with the emperor.

(Similarly, Winston Smith in 1984 is told that the Party has new answers for simple arithmetic questions, and is tortured when he gives the "wrong" answers.  After sufficient "re-education", he accepts that the Party is always right about such things.)

**  Someone at the National Review or the Weekly Standard asked a question relating to China’s request to the UN to upbraid Taiwan "province" for abolishing the NUC.  When was the last time, the writer asked, when President Bush went to the UN to call for help in dealing with a troublesome American state governor?

Diplomatic Leverage

Having failed to enlist America in its attempts to stop Taiwan from abolishing a council with a $30 a year annual budget, China yesterday desperately appealed to the mighty UN for help from this insidious threat to its very existence:

Watch your step, Taiwan!  Maybe we’ll expel you from the Security Council!

(Sorry fellas.  Already been done.)

OK then, maybe we’ll just have to reject your bid for a seat in the General Assembly!

(Nope, won’t work either.  That happens EVERY year.)

Uhhh, suppose we COULD put your World Health Organization application on the back burner…

(Pfft.  Like it was ever on the fast track?)

OK, think, people, think!  Abolishing councils that’ve been defunct for seven years is almost as serious as the publication of cartoons, and we all know what Kofi thought about THAT.  Taiwan simply must be made to face the music!

(Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose…)

How Do They Get Away With That, Anyway?

Taiwan’s decision to abolish the National Unification Council (NUC) and National Unification Guidelines (NUG) has set China into a full rage spin control, with China declaring to any and all who will listen that Chen’s move is a provocation which will lead to destabilizing tensions between the two countries.  It’s a terrific act, but a single paragraph in the Taiwan News put the whole thing into perspective:

In fact, Beijing was once critical of the NUG and NUC, pointing to them as major obstacles to China’s unification with Taiwan, and as efforts by Taiwan to push for its memberships in international organizations as an independent political entity, Chang said.

That’s hilarious!  You see how this works?  China said that ESTABLISHING the council in 1990 was a provocation.  And abolishing it in 2006?  Well, that was a provocation, too!  My, my, those Taiwanese certainly ARE troublemakers.  Why are they always picking on poor, peaceful little China like that?

Exactly WHERE is the mainstream media on this, that’s what I want to know.  Journalists usually love to juxtapose politicians’ current stands with old quotes that they’ve managed to dig up.  Reporters relish watching a pol squirm as he tries to weasel out of what he’s said before.  A quick LexisNexis search here, and they’d be in business.  Are they simply too lazy to do one, or are transparently flimsy pretexts somehow deserving of a special pass?

(Double thank-you’s to Michael Turton for first spotting the quote, and then for fixing the story link.)

UPDATE (Mar 4/06):  In criticizing the press, I neglected to mention the Taiwanese government.  They’ve known that Chen was thinking about getting rid of the NUC for the last month now, so why didn’t they have musty old copies of The New York Times ready on hand to show foreign governments?  They could have pre-empted China’s "provocation" guff early on, or else presented those old quotes immediately afterwards in order to make Beijing look foolish.

God, that would have been beautiful.

Anachronisms and the Sixth Branch

By now, you’ve probably heard of the president of Taiwan’s decision to abolish the National Unification Council.  I say "abolish" because there was a bit of translational hair-splitting on CNN International last night as to whether it was "abolished", or whether it now merely "ceases to apply".

The CNN anchorman seemed a bit hysterical, demanding to know how Chen could be so "reckless" as to abolish the NUC, after China had warned that doing so would cause wars, floods, plagues, and all of those other things that they usually say will happen whenever Taiwan dares to undertake democratic reforms.  One should be aware that had Taiwan caved into China’s belligerent threats in the past, it would not now have direct presidential elections, a president from outside the House of Chiang, or a national referendum law (limited though it may be).

In the course of the discussion, CNN did admit that the council responsible for the tempest hadn’t actually MET in 7 years, but strangely neglected to mention that it had an operating budget of a whopping thirty dollars per YEAR.  Perhaps they wanted to spare the viewer of the burden of deciding for themselves whether the reaction was just a little over the top.  If so, then this would not be the first time it had done so.

(A side note here:  am I the only one who finds it a bit rich to hear China crying "Provocation!" over the abolition of a defunct $30 a year council when it adds million dollar missiles WEEKLY to its arsenal targetting Taiwan?)

At any rate, the question of what a country ought to do with its moribund institutions is an interesting one.  Any country with any amount of history behind it is bound to have its share of political anachronisms – relics of a bygone age.  These it can either abolish, reform, or leave alone.

There are at least two arguments in favor of abolition: cost and the goal of limiting the size of government.  In the case of the NUC, obviously the cost argument isn’t particularly relevant.  However, if one believes that "government that governs best governs least", then it stands to reason that vestigial institutions like the NUC should be put to pasture once their usefulness expires.

The argument for retention is that anachronistic institutions DO serve a function: they remind us of our history, of where we once were, and of who we once were.  I for one, will regret the day that Australia, or Canada, or Great Britain herself becomes a republic.   But the NUC is not a visible reminder of the past like the monarchy, nor is its abolition irreversible.  Future governments can always reinstate some kind  of committee to consider guidelines for reunification if they deem it desirable to do so.

I therefore don’t see a compelling case for retention, but on the other hand, I don’t feel an overwhelming need for abolition.  As for the possibility of reform, I don’t see what could be done on that front.  The NUC was set up in 1990 and charged with the responsibility of determining a set of guidelines for reunification with China.  Its job has been completed – what is there left for it to do?  Give recommendations for water conservation policies?*

Now up to this point, all of this assumes that Taiwan can make these decisions in a vacuum, which it most certainly cannot.  There is an 800 pound gorilla in the corner to consider.  And this beast beats its chest and bellows with rage whenever Taiwan gives the merest hint of a suggestion of a possibility that it doesn’t want reunification.  Sure, sometimes (maybe most of the time!) it’s all just an act, but how can you be sure of that with a government that shoots down American planes in international waters and instigates anti-Japanese riots over textbooks used in only 1% of Japanese schools?

When I pause to consider the gorilla in the corner, my thoughts on abolition of the NUC change from indifference to support.  First of all, my visceral response to those who would introduce the threat of  violence into political discussions is to deny them completely.  Showing weakness in the face of of thugs and murderers emboldens them and serves only as an incentive for them to increase their demands.  Like howling mobs of Islamic theocrats, the Chinese should be told that they will not be given their way.

My second reason though has to do with the principles of constitutional sovereignty.  To surrender to the Chinese on this issue is to give them more than they deserve.  Taiwan currently has five branches of government; if the Communist Party of China are granted veto powers then it will have six.  Note that it’s not the number of branches of government that are objectionable (although having six branches may indeed be cumbersome) – what IS objectionable is the fact that one of the branches of Taiwan’s government would be unelected and unaccountable to the citizens of Taiwan. 

This sixth branch of government would be completely hostile to democratic reform in Taiwan, and there would be no end to the mischief it could cause in any number of areas.  Even on questions as seemingly innocuous as full adoption of the Gregorian calendar or the appearance of Taiwan’s former dictator on its currency would be subject to Beijing’s new-found suzerainty.  The Taiwanese would be forced to relearn the habits of serfdom as their control over their destiny became more circumscribed.

Finally, it should be recognized by all that the sixth branch does not need to be enshrined in the Taiwanese constitution for it to exist in reality.  It does not even need to be physically stationed within Taiwan, when a mere phone call to capitulationist party members might be enough to make them leap to their feet, and perform their masters’ bidding.

*  Perhaps President Chen could have reformed the NUC by renaming it the National Empty Symbolism Council (NESC).

UPDATE (Mar 1/06):  As mentioned in the post, a proposal for full adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Taiwan and the abolition of the Chinese Republican calendar has recently been mooted.  (Taiwan currently uses both calendars.)  Accepting the proposal would bring Taiwan more in line with the rest of the world, and would reduce confusion regarding expiration dates for exported foodstuffs.

(It’s currently Year 95 of the Chinese Republican calendar.  What would YOU do if you had a pack of dried Taiwanese fruit with an expiration date of 96 or 97?  If I recall correctly, I may have previously thrown out some food here myself after looking at the package and exclaiming, "Hey!  This stuff was sitting around in that grocery store for the last ten years!")

On the other hand, the transition costs for changing calendars is likely to be fairly high.  People would need new driver’s licenses, IDs and legal documents.  I’m sure this could be grandfathered in, otherwise it would be a nightmare to have everyone lining up all at once at various institutions to get their papers redone.  Prior to this, computer programs would have to be re-written, much like for the Y2K problem.  I’ve no doubt that a lot of political scare-mongering will take place over this last requirement, but I think everyone should remember that Y2K came and went, and no planes managed to fall out of the sky.

Of course, the change would be a symbolic act, further distancing Taiwan from its Republic of China past.  Pro-independence groups would be happy, capitulationist groups unhappy, and China…well, it’s hard to say.  They obviously wouldn’t like the symbolism of Taiwan further rejecting its "Chineseness", but it would be a bit hard for them to oppose this with a straight face, because China ITSELF uses the Gregorian calendar.

David on Formosa has a post on the subject, and laments the politicization of a policy move that seems entirely rational.  Michael Turton also has a post, where he points out how media bias affects two newspapers’ differing coverage of the issue.

China’s Impending Meltdown

This, like reports of Zarqawi’s demise, is something that I won’t fully believe until somebody shows me the body.  Nonetheless, the best cure for a bad case of China Fever is some sobering news about some of the problems facing the Central Kingdom.

However, in the absence of hostile action or a major crash, attitudes won’t change here any time soon.  Simple prudence should be enough to motivate Taiwan to diversify its foreign markets.  But short-term profits, a Greater China ideology and the comparative ease of entry for Taiwanese into the China market are all luring too many Taiwanese into thinking that it’s a terrific idea to put all of your eggs into a single basket.

UPDATE (JAN 16/05):  The writer in the above link believes that 2007 is the most dangerous time for China’s banks.  An op-ed piece by William Pesek Jr. in today’s Taiwan News thinks 2006 is the year to watch.  Pesek says that China needs to maintain its current growth rate for the next 15 years in order to avoid a banking crisis, and he thinks that’s unlikely. 

At any rate, I’ll keep what both of them say in mind, but I won’t be holding my breath.