Taiwan, China, and other things. Recovered from the defunct TypePad platform.
According to the most recent computer wargame simulations conducted by the island nation's Ministry of National Defense.
The ruling Chinese Nationalist Party of Taiwan was said to be horrified by the revelation, and vowed to rectify the country's precarious situation by blocking all weapons procurement bills at least 60 times over the course of the next two years.
From Monday's Taipei Times:
Now, I've seen a few possible explanations for the governments' poor performance:
2) The KMT has been out of power for 8 years, and its governing skills are out of practice.
Without disagreeing with point #1, I'd like to elaborate a little upon point #2. While it's true that the KMT lost control over the executive for the last 8 years, it DID have effective working control over the legislative branch over the same time frame. So how did it spend its time? Did the KMT spend the last 8 years KEEPING ITS GOVERNING SKILLS SHARP by actually passing into law legislative proposals that would benefit Taiwan?
Or did it DULL THAT EDGE by spending those 8 years engaged only in pointless, petty obstructionism? *
I've seen the China Post sneer at former President Chen Shui-bian's record, asking what it was that Chen accomplished over the last 8 years. I can think of a few things**, but let me turn the question around. What did the KMT-dominated LEGISLATURE accomplish in the last 8 years? They had a majority, after all. Their votes were law — Taiwanese presidents have no veto power.
Once more, what legislative successes can KMT lawmakers boast about on THEIR resumes? Hmm? Anyone? Anyone? I'm waiting . . .
A former marathon winner comes out of a long retirement for a big race. He thinks he's got a good chance to win again. But does he?
Not if he's spent the last 8 years scarfing down doughnuts and grousing about how easy kids today have got it. If he hasn't spent enough time in training, maintaining his skills, our runner's fans are in for a major disappointment.
* Speaking of pointless, petty obstructionism, here's a case in point:
“The notification of the US government put an end to the turbulence of the past eight years and rebuilds mutual trust between the US and Taiwan,” Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chih (王郁琦) said yesterday.
Uh-uh — you don't get off that easy, Mr. Wang. Your boss, President Ma Ying-jeou, spent TWO YEARS boycotting those arms packages when he was in opposition. As KMT chairman, Ma blocked 'em 60 times in the legislature. Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet . . . Sixty times. You can't pawn THAT off on the former president, buddy.
In the end, Ma relented on the special arms bill. By that time however, America viewed him and the KMT as fundamentally untrustworthy. And the U.S. put the weapons sale on hold.
And so it was that the KMT was reduced to begging — BEGGING! — for that which it had so casually boycotted and dismissed as unnecessary just a few months earlier:
Please, please, please, sell us these weapons. 'Cause if you don't, uh . . . you'll, you'll . . . look really bad. Really, REALLY bad . . . The passive-aggressive approach — yeah, that's the ticket!
As for the credibility of the Ma Ying-jeou administration, we'll escape unscathed. Why, we're a lean, mean, governin' machine.
With the 24% approval rating to prove it.
** At the top of my head, Chen's accomplishments as president include the de-politicization of Taiwan's military, increased democritization (via a new referendum law) and his partially-successful attempts to de-normalize Taiwanese worship of former dictators Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo.
Set against that record are troubling charges of corruption and money-laundering. Which if proven true, make his presidency a very mixed bag.
[The two posts that follow were initially part of a single reply I made to a reader who made this charge in response to one of last week’s posts.]
A few times in my comments section I’ve seen the sentiment expressed that making money is America’s sole motivation in selling weapons to Taiwan. It’s kind of a Marxian argument, but never mind. For in this post, I’ll attempt to disabuse the reader of the notion entirely.
Let me assure you, if America’s sole interest was simply to make money, it wouldn’t bother trying to sell Taiwan weapons at all. Better instead to sell an equivalent dollar value of products from some American sunset industry, like textiles or tobacco. That way, America would earn exactly the same thing, profit-wise, while the administration in charge would go on to reap a windfall of votes from older workers, grateful that their jobs had just been spared.*
The kicker to this is that an America that contented itself with only selling textiles or tobacco to Taiwan would need never fear economic retaliation from China. Because as far as profits from weapons sales go, what the Taiwanese hand giveth, the Chinese hand threatens to taketh away. Selling weapons to Taiwan is bad business.
Don’t believe me? If an industry is profitable, what does elementary micro-economics predict? Market entry. At which point, I humbly point out that there aren’t a lot of countries clamoring to get a piece of the "profitable" Taiwanese arms market. Quite the contrary, in fact. The number of countries willing to sell military equipment to Taiwan has dwindled to a grand total of one. Which is precisely the sort of response one would expect from suppliers involved in an unprofitable industry.
At some point in this argument, you might object that Taiwan is offered weapons because it just wouldn’t be interested in buying American textiles or tobacco. Taiwan would find the COST of these things exceeded their VALUE (relative of course, to cheaper foreign alternatives), and would instantly reject them. But apply that argument to defensive arms, and we suddenly notice a curious thing.
What we notice is that the executive branch of Taiwan’s government DOES believe the value of American arms outweighs its costs. It behooves us then, to explore the reasons why.
[Part II of the reply can be found here.]
* This oversimplifies the situation somewhat, because it doesn’t take into account the wrath of defense industry workers who’ve lost out by the policy. The key here is to remember that workers in sunset industries tend to be older (making them less easy to retrain) and more tied to their locale (owning homes in areas where it might be problematic to find a buyer). Comparatively speaking then, workers in sunset industries are likely to feel a greater sense of relief and gratitude when their jobs are saved than those working in defense industries.
In the previous post, I pointed out the folly of believing that America just wants to sell Taiwan weapons in order to make money. Believe it or not, there really ARE easier ways of making the stuff.
I generally take it as a given that sellers want to sell. But sales never proceed unless the buyer also wants to buy. Why then, did the KMT request the special arms package back in the late 90s? What value did the KMT see in it then? And more to the point, why does the executive branch of Taiwan’s government want to buy it now?
First, let’s state the blindingly obvious. Weapons packages are valuable to Taiwan… because they contains WEAPONS. Should war break out, having weapons on hand is usually considered a GOOD thing. Against a full assault, Taiwan needs enough weapons to hold Chinese invaders off for a few weeks until an American fleet can arrive. A Taiwan that’s unwilling to make that investment is a Taiwan that America might not be able to help, even with its best effort.
Besides full assaults, Taiwan also needs to concern itself about possible Chinese "ankle-biter" tactics. Grant from the start that Patriot Missiles will never be able to protect Taiwan against a missile onslaught like that recently unleashed against Isreal by Hesb Allah. The cost of such defense would be prohibitive. But Patriots might come in VERY handy in defending against a one-a-day Hamas-style attack chiefly intended to demoralize Taiwan’s civilian population into accepting "reunification" talks on Beijing’s terms.
The second reason that weapons are valuable to Taiwan is that they provide military deterence. They do this by raising the price of war to a level that Beijing might not be willing to pay. For example, as things stand today, China might calculate that its fleet of submarines could cheaply and easily blockade Taiwan, bringing the island to its knees. With Taiwan in possession of modern anti-sub airplanes, however, the equation changes. That cheap and easy blockade suddenly isn’t so cheap and easy anymore, now that Chinese subs can be blown out of the water. Sure, Taiwan’s anti-sub airplanes are pretty slow and can be shot down, but that means China has to deploy fighters in order to fight a RATHER expensive air war with Taiwan. And so, it’s time for China to fish or cut bait. China can either risk a whole lot more forces than it originally intended to…or it can end up leaving Taiwan alone.
The final reason that weapons have value for Taiwan is because they provide political deterence. What I’m trying to say here is that there is a deterent effect to be gained not merely by the possession of weapons, BUT BY THE POLITICAL ACT OF BUYING AND DEPLOYING THEM. Such an act in and of itself is a kind of signal which contains information about the level of determination a country or its leadership might have for resisting aggression. But the converse is equally as true. A country which DOESN’T attempt to defend itself in the face of aggression, and simultaneously expresses a willingness to barter away its sovereignty in exchange for a peace treaty, ALSO sends a message. A message of quite a different sort – to both its enemies AND its friends.
Postscript: Of the three weapons systems currently being considered, the only one I haven’t mentioned are the 8 diesel submarines. Submarines are uniquely capable of surviving a Chinese first strike, and a few of these positioned near China’s shipping lanes could have an enormous impact on the amount of oil reaching Taiwan’s foe. Secondly, Taiwanese subs offer the subs of its allies something very desirable, namely, plausible deniability.
For this, let us consider two scenarios: Scenario One, in which a Taiwan san subs is attacked by China, and Scenario Two, in which a Taiwan that possesses subs is attacked.
In both scenarios, China threatens war with any country that attempts to aid Taiwan. What happens under each scenario when China finds its shipping under submarine attack?
Under Scenario One, China instantly knows that America or Japan is behind the sinkings, and it retaliates, possibly before the American or Japanese fleet is ready for it. But under Scenario Two, China can’t be sure that anyone other than Taiwan was behind the sinkings. America and Japan can always deny their subs had anything to do it; they may even be telling the truth. If China attacks America or Japan at this stage, they hand them a casus belli on a platter.
Before I close, I should point out that I’m not wedded to any of the particular weapons systems I’ve mentioned here, but I do think it’s worth trying to understand WHY Taiwan’s military is interested in acquiring them. It’s also worth trying to understand why the KMT party should ever wish to block these weapons from reaching Taiwan. But that’s a question best reserved for another day.
For myself, the worst thing about the indictment of President Chen’s wife on corruption charges on Friday is the sinking feeling that his whole party is going down with him – delivering Taiwan into the hands of Ma "Gaius Baltar" Ying-jeou.*
Sure hope the half-million bucks was worth it.
OK, maybe that’s out of line. After all, Chen’s wife, Wu Shu-chen, has been indicted, not convicted. Maybe the president can explain everything to everyone’s satisfaction within the next few days, saving his wife from being referred to his party’s internal ethics committee.
Maybe too, it’s all just a "big misunderstanding", and Chen won’t be indicted when he leaves office.
Maybe. I can tell you though, it’s going to be pretty tough to rustle up support for a first lady who’s been "indicted, not convicted." It’s even worse if the public sees the prosecutor as a straight shooter who’s already demonstrated his neutrality by exonerating the First Lady on a previous corruption charge.
(Yet one more bad sign is that the KMT has vowed to oust the president, legally. You know you’re in bad shape when the KMT feels confident enough to bring you down using nothing but THE LAW, rather than with violent revolution or American intervention.)
Lots of commenters at the The View from Taiwan are saying they don’t see how Chen can continue in office, and I’m inclined to agee. Therefore, it’s probably time to start thinking about what an Annette Lu presidency would look like. Those who think that squeaky-clean Lu is somehow going to pass muster with the KMT and its allies had better think again:
[People First Party Chairman James] Soong said that it’s also imperative for [President Chen’s] ruling Democratic Progressive Party and opposition parties to hold a summit to discuss the rights and obligations an acting president should have. [Emphasis added]
In other words, the PFP and KMT won’t see Annette Lu as being PRESIDENT – she’ll instead be some kind of ACTING president. As such, they insist her "rights and obligations" won’t be constitutionally-mandated like a REAL president’s, but instead be open to inter-party negotiation and future interpretation. For the last six years of the Chen administration, the KMT and PFP have lambasted Chen for violating the "spirit" of the Republic of China constitution; at every turn, a Lu administration will be excoriated for violating an ad hoc "Agreement on the Powers of Acting Presidents".
Ms. Lu, of course, can avoid all that by knowing her place. A place which the KMT will be all-too happy to designate for her.
* Some of Chen’s enemies see no downside, regarding this as an opportunity to boogie down. For Taiwan’s China Post however, the worst aspect of the First Lady’s indictment is that propriety demands they now shed crocodile tears rather than gloat:
With a very heavy heart, we now call upon President Chen to step down. We haven’t done that before because he was allegedly involved in the misuse of the fund under his control for the conduct of "affairs of state."
Last things first. The China Post has on NUMEROUS occasions said that Chen should resign, so they have indeed "done that before". And their "very heavy heart"? Well, they spent a year-and-a-half alleging that President Chen assumed office by faking an assassination attempt on his own life in order to win sympathy votes, so I don’t imagine they’re really all THAT cracked-up about it.
For six years now, the KMT and the China Post have accused Chen of a lot of things, alternatively demanding his recall, his impeachment, or his resignation. Heavy hearts at this moment belong to those who voted for Chen or believed he was innocent, based upon the sheer number of times his critics cried wolf – with no wolf ever revealing its lupine face.
UPDATE: One person arguing in Chen’s defense:
Among those who were apparently willing to stick up for the president was DPP Legislator Lin Kuo-ching who said that he still does not believe a president who was willing to slash his salary in half would become embroiled in corruption for the sum of NT$15 million [$450,000]. [Emphasis added]
I’d forgotten that. It’s certainly inconsistent with the picture of a corrupt Chen that the KMT has painted.
UPDATE #2: On the subject of V.P. Annette Lu possibly succeeding President Chen Shui-bian:
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young is believed to have avoided a meeting with [Annette Lu] during his round of visits with Taiwanese leaders after his recent briefing round in Washington.
I’m sure the American government disapproves of Ms. Lu’s committment to Taiwanese independence, but if it’s true that they’ve been snubbing her, then that ought to stop. It’s quite possible that Lu may wind up being the next Taiwanese president, for Pete’s sake.
UPDATE #3: The KMT plans another recall motion on Monday, only three days after the First Lady’s indictment, and a single day after Chen was to give a speech in his defense. I think the president’s party is still a bit dazed right now. They’ll reflexively defend him, and he’ll survive.
In a couple of weeks’ time, reality will set in, polling numbers will be known, and some of them might very well be willing to vote the other way.
UPDATE #4: Did I say the PUBLIC regards the prosecutor as a straight-shooter? Heck, even the Taipei Times, one of President Chen’s staunchest defenders, writes glowingly of him.
UPDATE #5: It wouldn’t be another day in Taiwan if the KMT didn’t find yet another excuse to continue blocking the special arms budget:
Observers said the KMT and PFP may continue [to] boycott the arms budget if the president refuses to step down.
You’re takin’ this very personal. Tom, this is business, and this man is takin’ it very, very personal.
– Sonny Corleone
For the last three weeks, the KMT and its allies have been trying to make an issue out of American diplomat Stephen Young’s utterances in an effort to divert attention away from their blocking of the special arms budget. When Young said it was impolite for People First Party chairman James Soong to heckle Taiwan’s president during National Day, the PFP and some members of the KMT began making noises about deportation. Their calls to have Young declared persona non grata intensified when he delivered a speech in which he stressed the urgency for Taiwan to pass a "robust arms package" by the end of the fall legislative session. Young’s statements, they objected, amounted to interference in Taiwan’s internal political affairs.
(The China Post printed four hysteric anti-Young / anti-American letters between October 28th and the 30th. They can be reviewed here.)
The sniping at Young hasn’t been limited to threats of expulsion, however. Just forget that the KMT blocked the special arms bill 68 times over the last two years – that’s irrelevant. Because suddenly, it’s all YOUNG’S fault that the KMT’s blocking weapons for Taiwan:
Kuomintang lawmakers [claimed] the warnings Stephen Young…issued would "adversely affect" the progress of the necessary deliberation.
"Now that the ultimatum has been given, we cannot afford to adopt the bill at once," said Tseng Yung-chuan, the Kuomintang legislative caucus whip. If it does, he added, the Kuomintang will be called "a chicken."
What a terrific way to rationalize delay and to try to smear Young in front of his superiors, all at the same time. We’d really like to move on this, America – really we would – but that guy you sent over sure is making it tough for us to get the job done. Maybe you’re not aware of this, but here in Taiwan, it’s considered an INTOLERABLE loss of face to take the garbage out after your wife asks you to.
(Especially if she’s already asked you 68 times in a row.)
Monday’s papers also reported the KMT employing a bit of poll-a-ganda in a transparent effort to make Young look bad:
"Young’s remarks have made the passage of the bill uncertain. It’s inappropriate to let it through at this moment, as a media survey had found that 65 percent of the public disapproves of Young," [said Tseng Yung-chuan, director of the KMT policy department.] *
My, my, they really ARE trying to make this thing personal. Problem for them is, Young’s bosses have got his back:
Asked at the daily department press briefing on Friday whether Young still has US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s confidence, spokesman Sean McCormack said that "he’s doing a good job" and the department has no plans to recall him from his Taipei post.
The State Department also issued a statement after the press briefing, in which a department official said Young’s comments "reflect the United States’ long time encouragement of an increase in Taiwan’s overall defense spending and for funding a strategy that reinforces stability in the Taiwan Strait."
"Director Young’s remarks are fully consistent with long-held US positions and are based on our assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs," it said.
It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business. I wouldn’t call this merely a defense of Stephen Young; I’d call it a warning. Should Young be expelled, Washington won’t view it as the "legitimate" comeuppance of an impolitic diplomat – an act confined in importance to a single individual. Instead, it’ll be seen as the rejection of an official who is faithfully and accurately representing American positions – an act of open contempt for American interests.
But hey, the KMT claims Young has a 65% disapproval rating with the Taiwanese public. So go ahead and knock yourselves out, guys.
* The KMT has played this little game with President Chen’s approval ratings as well, announcing on previous occasions that Chen’s low numbers provided them with sufficient reason not to bring the special arms bill to a vote.
UPDATE: The KMT on Monday decided to tell America to shut up and sit down:
…the legislature’s [KMT-dominated] Foreign and Overseas Chinese Affairs Committee passed a resolution asking the US Department of State to create measures restraining its diplomats’ remarks in Taiwan, saying that Young’s statement had violated diplomatic courtesy and could be interpreted as interference with Taiwan’s internal affairs.
(Yes I know, the KMT didn’t literally tell America to keep silent; they instead told Stephen Young to hold his tongue. But Young only delivered a message that the American government WANTED delivered. So in a very real way, telling Young to shut up is tantamount to telling the American government to do so as well.)
What’s remarkable here is that it was only five months ago that the KMT was high-fiving America for punishing President Chen for abolishing the National Unification Council, and one month ago that it BEGGED America to ask Chen to resign during the heat of the redshirt protests.
KMT outrage over American "interference" is nothing if not selective.
The Taipei Times elaborated on the measure:
The resolution said that it was designed to prevent US diplomats from hurting the feelings of the people of Taiwan and harming Taiwan’s democracy.
It was passed to prevent the feelings of the Taiwanese from being hurt? Somebody ought to tell the KMT that ever since they started pal-ling around with the Communist Party of China, they’ve even begun SOUNDING alike.
UPDATE (Nov 5/06): From Johnny Neihu’s Saturday column, a State Department official is questioned by an anti-Young Taiwanese reporter:
Question: Based on the strong reaction from Taiwan’s opposition, under such circumstances, Mr. Stephen Young is — seems to be a liability rather than an asset. So do you have any — under such [sic] current situation, do you have any plan to recall him or anything else?
Mr. McCormack: No.
Question: Does he [sic] still have confidence in him?
Mr. McCormack: He’s doing a good job.
You’ve heard of push polling, right? This is typical Taiwanese "push reporting" — or asking leading questions — in which a reporter turns a personal opinion ("seems to be") into a statement of fact ("under such current situation"). Most responses can then be twisted to make the reporter’s opinion look like fact in the write-up, though Sean McCormack in this case very professionally chose not to play the game.
If you watch the video on the State Department Web site, you can sense the contempt McCormack feels toward his interrogator. And my spy in Washington tells me there was some embarrassment among the other reporters.
He’s doing a good job. Not quite the answer the reporter was fishing for.
UPDATE (Nov 10/06): A Monday column in the Taipei Times had this point to make:
If one looks at the current arms deal as a simple business transaction, how is it unreasonable for a seller to offer the buyer a last chance to make the purchase after he or she has gone back on promises and dragged out the negotiations?
How could this be construed as "political interference?" Opposition politicians could always come out and say clearly that they don’t want to buy the US’ weapons and be done with it.
Barring any future statements by Mr. Young, this story has pretty much played itself out. The KMT has turned its attention back to their attempts to recall President Chen, and campaigning against an American diplomat represents a distraction from that effort.
UPDATE (NOV 11/06): From Thursday’s Taiwan News:
KMT Legislator Lin Yu-fang, a member of the defense committee, said his party reached a consensus two months ago to back the purchase of the aircraft. [the 12 P3C Orion anti-submarine planes offered in the special arms package].
So they reached consensus to support part of the package two months ago, but it took Stephen Young’s arm twisting to finally get them moving. Even the KMT is now admitting that they’ve been playing political games with this for a while.
No, no – BANANAS. They wouldn’t want anyone to think they’re STOOPID, would they?
(Photo from the Taipei Times.)
That’s a skeletal Uncle Sam clutching a PAC II (Patriot) missile. Which is pretty scary, if you happen to be a red who doesn’t want any of Beijing’s 800 to miss their targets.
Communist capitulationists (banana farmers, my foot) marched to the de facto American embassy in Taipei on Friday, offering this bit of choice defense budget advice for their country’s leaders:
"Don’t buy weapons, buy bananas!* [Stephen] Young, get out of Taiwan!**"
With stategic vision like that, how did the KMT EVER manage to lose a civil war?
(Hat tip to The View from Taiwan for pointing out that Peking Duck was there, and later blogged about his run-in with the mob.)
* Taiwan is currently facing a banana glut.
** Stephen Young is America’s top diplomat in Taiwan.
UPDATE: The papers all said that there were "scores" of protesters, which is pretty small considering Taiwan’s population of 23 million. As a Where’s Waldo-esque exercise, compare Friday’s protesters to the ones in this picture:
(Photo from the March 15/06 ed of the Taiwan News. Sorry, no link available.)
Same skull mask and gloves, same missiles, same guy in the yellow hard hat. How much would anyone like to bet that the "banana farmer" of Friday’s protest was the "credit card slave" of seven months ago?
i-2
In the Oct 22nd update of a previous post, I wondered how capitulationist People First Party Chairman James Soong could pretend that he doesn’t represent the PFP in his dealings with American representatives. A few days ago, I received my answer from a few acid comments in Taiwan’s China Post:
To justify Soong’s claim as an independent, he asked for and of course was given by himself a "leave of absence" from his job as chairman of the People First Party.
Soong’s on a "leave of absence", so he doesn’t represent the party. Well, I GUESS that makes sense. Still, it’s funny how it looks like he’s still calling the shots over at the PFP:
The People First Party remains adamantly opposed to the [special] arms deal for one more reason now. Soong and his lawmakers want an open apology from [American representative] Stephen Young for the spontaneous comment he made on National Day*…Soong has made it clear that there would be no compromise on the arms purchase without Young’s apology.
Now THERE’S an enticing offer. Apologize to Soong so that he’ll compromise on the arms package. You know – the one he’s blocked 58 times previously from going to a vote.
The China Post‘s wrong. The PFP doesn’t have another reason to oppose the special arms bill. It just has another excuse.
* For Mr. Young’s comments and the reason they were given, see my post, KMT Gripes About America.
Dr. Marvin Monroe: You LIKE attention, don’t you Li Ao?
Legislator Li: Do I EVER! Ha-haaa!
Dr. Monroe: Well, we ALL do. The PROBLEM is, you don’t care whether you get GOOD attention, for say, proposing beneficial new laws in the Taiwanese legislature…or BAD attention, for say, opening a can of tear gas inside a crowded committee room while warding off fellow politicians with an electric stun baton.
(Image of Independent Lawmaker (and Taipei mayoral candidate) Li Ao from Wednesday’s Taipei Times. Yes, that’s a V for Vendetta-style Guy Fawkes mask affixed to the front of his gas mask.)
CAVEAT: Currently, the public only has Mr. Li’s word to go on that his gas bomb actually contained what he said it contained. There’s some corroboration in the fact that some committee members left the room coughing and tearing up, but it’s somewhat odd that there are no reports of any vomiting.
i-2
You’d think the KMT would be happy. Earlier this year, their chairman was welcomed with open arms in D.C., while their chief rival was generously offered the opportunity to rub shoulders with American movers and shakers.
In Alaska.
A few years prior to that, something similar happened. The KMT was bitterly opposed to President Chen’s plan for a national referendum, and the Bush administration came out against it. Chen was forced to alter the referendum’s wording, while the KMT gloated at this public loss of face.
But that was then. Recently they’ve been asking, "What have you done for me, lately?"
Could the chief [U.S.] representative in Taiwan be named a persona non grata by lawmakers who were mostly U.S.-trained and known for their pro-U.S. stance?
Last Wednesday, the day after the famous National Day "disgrace", some two dozen "pan-blue" (KMT plus PFP) lawmakers actually talked about it.
Foreigners educated in America don’t necessarily become pro-American, but let’s let that slide. The disgrace in sneer quotes the China Post refers to is when the KMT and its allies disrupted Taiwan’s National Day ceremonies by interrupting the president’s speech and engaging in fist fights with the president’s party.
If that happened on July 4th in America, would it be a disgrace? Or merely a "disgrace"?
What irritated the KMT was what the representative said afterwards. When asked to comment by the local media, Stephen Young said, "They should watch their manners…Go ask James Soong – why?"
(James Soong, chairman of the pro-communist People First Party, heckled the President’s speech and disrupted an official procession by marching with them while shouting anti-Chen slogans.)
Stephen Young’s candor on this matter wasn’t the only thing that upset the KMT. In addition, they strongly disapprove of his efforts to lobby them into buying the weapons package President Bush approved back in 2001. The weapons package that the KMT has blocked 58 times over the last two years.*
I imagine Mr. Young has been candid with them about THAT issue, as well. Candid enough to tell them that their obstructionist record is starting to make America question their commitment to their own nation’s security.
The China Post reveals the real reason for the KMT’s obstinacy:
There [was] "[a] sea change in KMT/PFP thinking" after historic visits to Beijing by KMT chairman Lien Chan and PFP chairman James Soong in 2005. The blue camp’s support for a security relationship with [America]…seems in doubt now.
Perhaps it would be a good thing if the KMT did expel Mr. Young. It might serve as a powerful wake-up call to Washington that the KMT is truly America’s ally no longer.
* The China Post dishonestly tries to divert some of the blame for the delay onto President Chen, claiming that he didn’t offer the weapons package to the legislature for two years because of its cost.
The reality is that it took 18 months after Bush’s offer for the package to be approved and given a price tag by the American military bureaucracy. It was utterly impossible for Chen to offer the package to the legislature during that time.
UPDATE: Another bone in the KMT’s craw:
The blue camp has been angry with the U.S. for breaking a promise of not recognizing President Chen’s 2004 re-election before a recount.
Who made this promise? The President? The V.P.? Some low-level flunky in the State Department? How could such a promise be issued at all, when it was unclear at the time that there would even BE a recount?
I have no recollection of this promise being mentioned in any of the local media, and I followed the coverage here pretty closely. What I DO remember is the China Post calling on America not to congratulate Chen until after a recount, but that’s quite different from the promise having actually been made. Perhaps the Post confuses its desires with reality:
If wishes were horses,
Beggars would ride;
If wishes were fishes,
We’d all have some fried.
The China Post then concludes with a complaint somewhat lacking in specificity:
Taiwan’s mentor-and-protector is also criticized for failing to stop the Chen administration from degenerating in all aspects, turning Taiwan into a big mess.
Yep, this whole "self-determination" thing really isn’t working out. Could you Yanks do us a favor and dispatch the Delta Force next time madman Chen renames an airport or something?
Thanks a bunch.
UPDATE (Oct 22/06): James Soong’s still pouting:
…Soong said he had turned down a request from American Institute in Taiwan [AIT] officials for a meeting with him next week.
"There is no need [for the AIT officials] to see me. Right now I am not the PFP’s representative," Soong said, without elaborating on why AIT officials wished to see him.
Yes, yes, I know, Soong’s running as an independent for mayor of Taipei. But the CHAIRMAN of the PFP pretends that he doesn’t REPRESENT the PFP?
Riiight.
He explains his refusal this way:
"It’s not the right time to review the arms bill when millions of people are staging a sit-in [against the president]. Furthermore, AIT officials talked nonsense on Double Ten day," Soong said.
Soong’s not so shy about talking a little nonsense of his own. I was at the Taipei Train Station on Friday. Those "millions of people"? They’re down to a few hundred, at most.
