Relations -Sino-Taiwanese | The Foreigner in Formosa

Misquoting Bismarck

From last Monday's China Post:

If [Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou] truly believes [that a free trade agreement with China will benefit Taiwan], like by far a great majority of people on Taiwan who do, he has to have it signed as soon as possible. He must [know] what Otto von Bismarck said. The Prussian chancellor told the legislators: "Not by speeches and votes of the majority are the great questions of the time decided."

As arguments go, that's a little incoherent. The Post seems to be saying that a majority of Taiwanese want a free trade agreement with China . . . but Ma should ignore putting the measure to a vote because what the majority thinks is irrelevant!

Say what? If the majority truly DOES want the free trade agreement, how could it possibly hurt to put it up for a vote? After all, the treaty should pass hands down, right?

Curiously, the Post had to resort to misquotation in order to make their anti-democratic case. Because the full quote is actually this:

Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided – that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by iron and blood. [emphasis added]

Bismarck was essentially telling the legislature of his time to quit their jawing and vote for the increased military budget the king had requested. You lawmakers can talk all you like, Bismarck was saying, but ultimately our country's position can only be maintained through its strength of arms.

Odd then, that the Post neglected to bring up this quote between the years 2006-2008, when the KMT blocked debate on a special arms bill 60 times. Or now, when the KMT presides over military cutbacks in the face of a clear and growing threat from across the Taiwan Strait.

Quote Of The Day

"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

– J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, Chapt. XII

Ma Ying-jeou, Meet Vaclav Klaus

Klaus would be the president of a country that DOESN'T hide its national symbols — and gets a mite tetchy when members of the Empire trample his nation's sovereignty:

The Czech Republic becomes the first former Soviet satellite to run the European Union today, as it takes over the EU presidency from President Nicolas Sarkozy after six months of dynamic crisis management.

[…]

In Prague Castle, the presidential seat, Klaus is refusing to fly the European flag for the next six months. He came face-to-face there with another verbal brawler, Danny Cohn-Bendit, the Franco-German Green. The encounter pitted the arch Eurosceptic against an ardent Euro-federalist. Cohn-Bendit accosted Klaus, unfurled the European flag and demanded to know why it was not fluttering over the castle.

"No one has ever spoken to me here in this tone. You aren't on the barricades of Paris. I have never heard anything so insolent in this hall . . . The way Cohn-Bendit speaks to me is exactly the way the Soviets used to speak."

Some nations are blessed with presidents who've got guts. While others have presidents who are so lacking in that department that they order THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S FLAGS CONFISCATED to placate visitors from neighboring tyrannies.

(Hat tip to Ezra Levant)

Roll Out The Red Carpet

From the Dec 30th edition of the China Post:

. . . the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has accused President Ma Ying-jeou of selling out Taiwan's interests when he dashed hopes of a visit by the Dalai Lama next year. "The Dalai Lama has visited Taiwan twice, but at the current moment, the timing isn't appropriate for that," was Ma's response. But days later, he said the Dalai Lama was always welcome.

But that's not the end of the story. Because what Ma does is much more important than what he says. You wanna send a message, send a telegram. Or better yet, a few days after issuing your "sincere invitation", demonstrate just exactly HOW welcome the Buddhist leader is — by violating the rights of Tibetans. Maybe it'll make him feel right at home!

From the Dec 12th edition of the Taipei Times:

More than 100 Tibetans have been staging a sit-in at Liberty Square in Taipei since Tuesday, demanding that the government grant them legal resident status or at least a work permit.

They were forcibly removed from the demonstration site and dropped off in the outskirts of the city, including Guandu (關渡), Nangang (南港) and in the mountains in Neihu (內湖) at around 3am yesterday.

[A] majority of the group — who speak little Mandarin — struggled to find their way back . . .

Mi casa es su casa, indeed. You can spot a phony like Ma a mile away.

The Guardian Of National Dignity

From Friday's Taipei Times:

in his New Year's address yesterday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) vowed to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the Republic of China (ROC) during the course of improving business relations with Beijing.

Those are Ma's promises; this is the reality:

The Taichung County Government's New Year's Party promised to be a raucous affair, as the county planned to have a live simulcast with revelers in China's Xiamen.

Part of the deal involved an agreement to ban the display of national flags . . .

Party on, Wayne. Party on, Garth.

Taiwan’s Ma Tries To Have His Sovereignty And Eat It Too

From Monday's China Post:

President Ma Ying-jeou said yesterday the delivery of two giant pandas from China was not an internal / domestic transfer as described by a United Nations agency, as the animals went through customs and into quarantine when they arrived in the country.

Ma's position is unfortunately untenable. Pandas are endangered species, and according to international law, cannot be given away as gifts FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY — they can only be loaned.

However, Taiwan did not accept the pandas as a LOAN from China. Ma's government instead accepted them as a GIFT.

The only time international law allows this is when the endangered species are given away as gifts WITHIN A COUNTRY'S OWN DOMESTIC BORDERS. Province-to-province, as it were.

So to recap: President Ma accepted a GIFT of two pandas, which was advantageous to him because it allowed Taiwan to avoid paying astronomical $1 million a year panda loan payments to China. But that gift came at a cost, because it could not be legally accepted under international law without admitting that the transfer was a domestic one.

Then to assuage voters, Ma the politician found it convenient to maintain the opposite. The transfer wasn't domestic at all, because "the animals went through customs and into quarantine".

What logical contortions the poor man puts himself through in order to maintain his country's sovereignty . . . while destroying it at the same time.

UPDATE: I would also like to direct the reader's attention to Article III (Sec. 3c) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora:

An import permit shall only be granted when . . . [the government of the importing state] is satisfied that the specimen is
not to be used for primarily commercial purposes.

Of course, the loudest arguments in favor of Taiwan accepting the pandas were the commercial ones. They'd be boffo box office at Taipei's Mucha Zoo. They'd draw in over 6 million visitors. They'd bring in foreign tourists. Oh, and don't forget the merchandising . . .

By the way, how much of all that money, money, money will go towards panda conservation?

Not one red copper New Taiwanese dollar. Because they're gifts, not loans, remember? Taiwan's on the no money down, no yearly fees program. In contrast, at least 50% of the fees America pays to China for loaned pandas must be directed towards preserving the animals in their native habitat.

My point here isn't really that the wild cousins of Taiwan's new pandas are getting the short end of the bamboo shoot. I'm simply saying that the importation of these creatures was illegal under international law, since it's clear they were brought into the country for "primarily commercial purposes".

UPDATE #2: The American Fish and Wildlife Service has a number of requirements for reviewing panda importation applications. One of these is that the application must include:

a bona fide scientific research proposal, i.e., one that is properly designed using scientific methods focusing on a specific topic, that advances and/or supplements the scientific knowledge of panda ecology, and that is specifically relevant to the expertise of the institution.

Now, we have been told that the Taipei Zoo will conduct research on their new arrivals. But I AM curious: Has the zoo submitted its research proposals? Have these proposals been peer-reviewed? Are they available for public criticism? And if not, why not?

Oh yes, and one final thing. Does the zoo have "a plan to ensure that the public display of pandas will not interfere with the research activities"?

Or would such a plan interfere too greatly with the animals' primary function of income generation?

Taiwan Accepts Pandas From China; Sacrifices Sovereignty

From today's Taipei Times:

Two giant pandas made a trip from Sichuan Province, China, to their new home in Taiwan yesterday. Tuan-tuan (團團) and Yuan-yuan (圓圓), both four years old, arrived at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport at 5:02pm.

The pandas, whose Chinese names, when put together, mean “to reunite,” were offered to former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) during his visit to China in May, 2005.

"To reunite". Wow. Almost as subtle as Spain sending a couple of Iberian lynxes (collectively named "Columbus rocks") to Bolivia.

An analysis piece at the Times describes the game that's afoot:

With all eyes fixed on the arrival of the two endangered animals in Taiwan yesterday, few paid attention to China’s maneuver to bypass the international export treaty for endangered species classifying the transport of the two pandas as a “domestic transfer.”

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora stipulates that the transfer of endangered species
between two countries must abide by the covenant. The CITES Secretariat, however, said on Monday that it considered China’s export of the two pandas as “domestic trade.”

Taiwan Society secretary-general Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) said the importation of the two animals was an overt attempt by Beijing to push toward its goal of Taiwan’s de jure unification with China and part of
its strategy to “internalize” the Taiwan question.

“The former Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government internationalized the Taiwan issue, but the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] administration cooperates with Beijing to internalize it,” he
said.

It is manifest in the four agreements signed by the both sides, Lo said. Taking the example of direct cross-strait flights, all airports open for such services are “domestic.” The cross-strait food safety mechanism does not need to go through the international health organization either, he said. [emphasis added throughout]

Years ago, I had an online exchange on another blog with a disagreeable Aussie leftist on the subject of Taiwan. The details have been lost to the ether and my own fading memory, but part of his argument was that Taiwan is part of China (China says it's so, so it must be true!). And because it's a domestic affair, other countries should just butt out.

I find myself thinking more about that conversation lately. Because I think if we were to have that same conversation now, he would find himself heavily armed with Beijing's arguments. Taiwan accepts pandas from China on the basis of DOMESTIC transfers. Check. Taiwan accepts flights from China as DOMESTIC in origin. Check. And last, but not least, Taiwan now publicly refers to itself as a REGION of China.

How would I respond to my interlocutor now, I wonder?

Welcome, little Tuan-tuan and Yuan-yuan. Willkommen kleiner Ans und Chluss.

POSTSCRIPT: All of my posts on the pandas may be found here.

Lame Excuse Of The Week

As part of his Peace-Through-Powerlessness policy, President Ma Ying-jeou on Thursday reduced the frequency of Taiwan's military live-fire exercises, so they'll now be held biannually biennially instead of annually.

Give the government points for creativity, however. They're not reducing Taiwan's military readiness to ingratiate themselves with the Butchers of Beijing. Why heavens, no. They're doing it because all that analysis stuff is just too darn hard:

The military will stage its major war games every other year instead of holding them annually, Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) said yesterday morning.

“Because the cycle of the live-fire Han Kuang Exercises is too short, making it difficult for the military to have adequate time to correct and adjust shortcomings found in each drill, we have decided to hold the series of drills every other year instead of annually,” Chen told a meeting of the legislature’s Foreign and National Defense Committee. [emphasis added]

Fortunately for Western civilization, the planners of Operation Overlord weren't quite so dilatory after live-fire exercises in anticipation of the Normandy landings were conducted at the end of April '44.

Had Eisenhower and Montgomery followed the KMT's standard, D-Day might still have happened — sometime in 1946.

As it was, the military planners of D-Day instead put their noses to the grindstone, figured out what went wrong during Exercise Tiger, and launched the invasion. And they did all that not in two year's time, but in ONE MONTH'S.

It's an unfair comparison, really. Because the allies in 1944 were serious about their nations' defense, while the KMT of 2008 is most assuredly not.

POSTSCRIPT: The runner-up for this week's award would have to be the reason floated for not renaming a couple of Chinese pandas, which will soon arrive in Taiwan. (Their names, when spoken together, sound like the Chinese word for "Unification"). From Tuesday's Taipei Times:

. . . Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) [said on Sunday that] the rights of the two giant pandas China has offered as a gift to Taiwan should be respected. Hau was referring to the pandas’ names, which he said could not be changed without violating the animals’ rights.

[…]

In this political burlesque, government officials harp on the rights of pandas and request a police motorcade to ensure a smooth drive from the airport to Taipei Zoo. Limbs of Taiwanese can be broken, blood of Taiwanese can be spilled, Tibetans can be spirited to the hills of Neihu (內湖) in the dead of night, but the pandas must be comfortable. Men can be jailed, beaten, drugged or executed without a word of condemnation, but we should respect the names the pandas have grown accustomed to in order not to confuse them.

A more likely explanation is that Beijing has communicated that VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN if the pandas are ever given new names. But instead hearing the truth, Taiwanese are treated to cock and bull excuses that these animals have some sort of "right" to the names Beijing's propagandists cynically attached to them.

Which reminds me of my mother's dog. The one I've dubbed, over my mother's objections, "Stinky".

A cruel animal abuser I must be. But it's a funny thing: Whenever I call him that, he never gets QUITE SO CONFUSED OR OFFENDED as to turn down the the dog biscuits I give him . . .

Profiles In Courage

"You're a good looking boy, you have big broad shoulders, but he is a man. It takes more than big broad shoulders to make a man, Harvey, and you have a long way to go. You know something? I don't think you will ever make it."

— Helen Ramirez, High Noon

From the China Post's Nov 19th editorial, Chinese Reunification: The Moral High Ground

To defend eventual [Taiwan's] eventual reunification [with China] is not "surrendering to tyranny." It is an act of moral courage. It is seizing the moral high ground.

Exhibit A: A Taiwanese president orders the Taiwanese police to confiscate the Taiwanese flag from Taiwanese citizens in order not to give offense to a visiting Chinese Communist Party representative.

Courageous enough for ya?

And Exhibit B?

Dalai Lama not welcome to visit: Ma

"We generally welcome religious leaders from all over the world to visit Taiwan, but I think at the current moment the timing isn't appropriate."

That would be Taiwan's lion-hearted president, Ma Ying-jeou. Who BOLDLY and STEADFASTLY defended that moral high ground — by blacklisting a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (A Peace Prize winner who, if you'll recall, China routinely refers to as, "A wolf in monks robes, a devil with a human face but the heart of a beast.")

But don't you doubt for a minute Ma's indomitable spirit:

[Presidential Office spokesman Wang Yu-chi] also stressed that Beijing has not contacted the Taiwan government on the Dalai Lama issue.

And there you have it. The Butchers of Beijing didn't even need to pick up a phone for Ma Ying-jeou to RESOLUTELY anticipate their wishes. After which, he FIRMLY — and DARINGLY — and INTREPIDLY . . . uh, complied with them.

All kidding aside, I think we can put a new twist on an old J.C. Watts quote here. Character is doing the right thing — even WHEN China is looking.

Postscript: A hat tip to Notes from a Former Native Speaker for reminding me of the China Post editorial.)

UPDATE: Despite what Bevin Chu from the China Post may think, NO political party in Taiwan has a lock on the moral high ground.

[KMT] Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) yesterday urged the president to reconsider his decision.

“From a religious perspective, it is a positive thing for the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan … His visit to Taiwan would mean something in the world,” Wang said, urging the government to reconsider the matter and make arrangements for a visit.

[…]

DPP spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) expressed regret and condemned Ma for rejecting a potential visit by the Dalai Lama.

Noting that former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had both received the Dalai Lama, Cheng said leaders from democratic countries such as the US, France and Germany have also met with the Dalai Lama as a way to exert pressure on China.

UPDATE #2: Michael J. Cole wrote a good column about this. Especially liked the conclusion:

Ma has often talked about creating “win-win” situations. Inauspicuously for him, he’s about to get a taste of the “lose-lose” by having to choose his poison.

Last year, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia initially refused to meet the Dalai Lama under pressure from China — then reversed himself when public pressure mounted. Since Ma's approval ratings are pretty low, there might be some leverage there.

Strawberry Jam

I've been remiss in not blogging about Taiwan's Wild Strawberries * student movement — though not through any lack of sympathy. These students began their protests roughly a month ago, in response to the ill-treatment meted out by Taiwanese police to citizens protesting the visit of an envoy from China.

Their chief demands were then, and still remain:

1) That Taiwan's president and premier apologize for law enforcement's excessive use of force.

2) That the security chiefs responsible should resign.

3) That Taiwan's restrictive assembly laws be liberalized.

Now, the interesting thing is that the Wild Strawberries are small in number — a few hundred on bad days, perhaps a thousand on good. However, Michael Turton points out that Taiwan's Confucian culture confers a great deal of respect to students. Because of this sticky situation, the China Post's Joe Hung has written a couple of clumsy columns deriding the 'Berries. From the latest of these, Mass Rallies, Wild Strawberries:

One thing these young students do not know, but their behind-the-scenes organizers know full well, is police brutality is universal and historical. Do students really believe an apology of a president or his chief executive can end police police brutality? Anybody who replaces [Taiwan's chief of police] will condone police brutality either for what he believes may contribute to the maintenance of peace and order or just to keep his job.

Police brutality in Taiwan? Ho-hum. God has willed it thus. And there's nothing to be done . . .

Universal, police brutality may be, but Doc Hung forgets that the RATES are not. I'm sure there are isolated cases of police crossing the line in Denmark — but which in country would Hung rather be arrested, Denmark or Zimbabwe? Switzerland or North Korea? In which of these countries do the authorities think they can get away with a heavy hand? And why is that so?

The reason is that in modern democratic states the police do not operate as the private praetorian guards of the party in power. They are ACCOUNTABLE to the public. Their job isn't merely to maintain peace and order and Hung supposes, but to SERVE AND PROTECT the rights of the citizenry.

Now, as a practical matter, I don't envision Taiwan's president or premier apologizing, nor do I think the police chiefs will resign. I can however, imagine the authorities apologizing for individual excesses. In fact, they've already gone and done so in at least one case.

More of that needs to happen. In those cases where law enforcement exceeded its authority, the chiefs SHOULD apologize. On the other hand, in cases where reasonable force was used, no apology is necessary. Because everyone understands that the cops are going to use force when Molotov cocktails start flying. What they don't understand however, is why the police saw fit to dislocate a woman's finger when she was doing nothing more offensive than holding a Tibetan flag.

If the Taiwanese National Police Agency General Wang Cho-chiun and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming can't apologize for THAT, then they really are little better than hired thugs in the service of the Communist Party of China.

Hung proceeds to attempt to excuse the confiscation of Republic of China (Taiwanese) flags by the ROC police:

. . . do the idealistic students truly think those who "proudly" displayed national flags of the Republic of China shortly before and right after the arrival in Taipei of Chen Yunlin, China's top negotiator on Taiwan affairs, were doing their "patriotic" duty?

Irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant what anybody's "patriotic duty" was. Waving your own country's flag may or may not be a patriotic duty (depending on whom you talk to), but it certainly is a free speech right. A right guaranteed by Article 11 of the ROC constitution, I might add.

One might more reasonably ask the world-weary Joe Hung whether he truly thinks those ROC citizens who proudly displayed their county's flags were committing a seditious or traitorous act. If not, what crime were they committing, Dr. Hung?