Category: Taiwanese Politics

Taiwanese Warren Commission?

When you stop to think about it, there are a number of ways in which America and Taiwan are alike:

  • America likes baseball. Taiwan likes baseball.
  • America’s got 7-11s.  So does Taiwan.  In spades. 
  • America watches NBA. Taiwan loves the Lakers, too.

But that’s not all:  You know America’s JFK assassination conspiracy theorists?  Well, Taiwan has something similar, only its brand attempts to prove that President Chen Shway-Bian was somehow behind the March 19th, 2004 attempt on his own life in order to obtain sympathy votes. *

(That’s right, President Chen had himself shot so that he could steal the election.  How come Karl Rove never thought of that?)

There’s another important difference, too.  In America, if someone "proves" his theory surrounding the death of JFK, there is no practical consequence.  His suspect is probably dead, or least, too old to still be involved in politics.  In Taiwan though, if someone could actually prove that Chen faked his own shooting for selfish political motives, then they’d instantly have grounds for removing Chen from the presidency.

What that means is that here, wild-eyed discussions aren’t confined to kooks who obsessively replay assassination-related videos in darkened living rooms.  There’s a very real political incentive for rational politicians to spout these outlandish theories with a straight face, because doing so might someday help them topple their political foe.  But even if the President’s enemies fail at that, they can still weaken his legitimacy and divert the national conversation from other, more pressing issues.

Front page news in Wednesday’s papers was the formation of a new government commission by the KMT and its allies to discover the "truth" about the assassination.  The China Post says this commission is to be similar to an American special counsel, but that isn’t quite accurate because of the questionable legality of the Taiwanese variant.  According to Taiwan’s constitution, there is a branch of government (the Control Yuan) whose sole purpose is to investigate wrongdoing by the other branches.  It seems to me that with the creation of this commission, the legislature has fully usurped the responsibilities of an entire branch of government.

At this point, you might be asking yourself what the Control Yuan has to say about having its powers stolen like that.  The answer is: Not much.  The Control Yuan has been vacant for over a year now, because the legislature has steadfastly rejected all of President Chen’s nominees for that body.

Which makes all of this a pretty naked power grab.  The KMT-dominated legislature refused to hire Taiwan a watchman, and then unilaterally decided to take that job for itself.

As I’ve illustrated, there are real constitutional grounds for striking this commission down, which is what happened to its previous incarnation.  If that fails, Chen’s political enemies will use their majority on the commission to float their absurd theories, and then decide which narrative that they like best.  Chen’s supporters will be permitted to write a dissent, but the official finding is already pre-ordained.  The President had himself shot to win the election ‘coz the KMT says he did.  What better proof could there be than that?

Once the commission’s foregone conclusion is delivered, I wonder about the next step, though.  The KMT doesn’t have the numbers in the legislature for impeachment, and members of the President’s party will undoubtably recognize the commission’s findings for what they are and refuse to cross the aisle.  With the "truth" in their hands, could the KMT approach the Supreme Court and demand Chen’s removal?  I don’t pretend to know the answer.  But I DO get the sense that the KMT would love to use the "truth" as an excuse for street thuggery, with an eye on overthrowing the government.  Last week, a columnist for the China Post wrote:

[The Chen administration will] either bring Taiwan further down the road of no return during the next two years, or it will precipitate large-scale violent and even bloody anti-government demonstrations to demand a change of course. **

In short, do as the KMT says, or there’ll be…trouble.

* Click here for my brief summary of the attempted assassination.  And here’s a Taipei Times editorial that makes the rather obvious observation that there are easier ways of rigging an election than having yourself shot in the abdomen.

** From "Chen will still pursue his own course" by Dr. William Fang from the Apr 7th edition of the China Post.  Sorry, I can’t find the link.

Seditious Acts

Saturday’s Taiwan News reported on a ceremony marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Deng Nan-jung, a Taiwanese democracy advocate.  Deng was apparently the editor of a weekly magazine, "Era of Liberty", when it published a hypothetical constitution for a Taiwanese republic.  For this, the KMT shut the magazine down, and issued a subpoena for him to answer charges of sedition.  Rather than comply, Deng committed suicide by lighting a few barrels of gasoline in his office.

Sedition charges.  For PROPOSING a new constitution.  And only 17 years ago.  It’s easy for the world (and me!) to forget how recently stuff like that was happening here.

Speaking of sedition, the March 22nd edition of the Taipei Times had a letter to the editor with a couple of intriguing paragraphs in it:

…in his interview with [Taiwanese TV network] TVBS on Feb. 28, [KMT leader] Ma said that he suggested the EU consider lifting the arms embargo on China during his recent visits to London and Brussels.  (Emphasis added)

[…]

We…demand that Ma explain why he initiated the discussion of lifting the arms embargo on China in Europe, while in Taiwan his party has repeatedly blocked weapons purchases from the US.

First of all, can anyone confirm that this is true?  I have no interest in spreading falsehoods about Ma Ying-jeou, and if I find out this is BS, then I’ll HAPPILY correct it in a new post.  Because the man either said on national television that he lobbied the EU to arm Taiwan’s enemy, or he didn’t.

If it IS true, then decide for yourself which of the two cases outlined here truly represents an act of sedition.

UPDATE (Apr 10/06):  Thanks to Tim Maddog for finding the link to the letter to the Taipei Times.  It’s now included in the post.

He was also able to find a transcript of the TVBS interview, and included an excerpt in his comments.  His English translation can be found here.

UPDATE #2 (Apr 10/06):  It seems as though Ma didn’t "lobby" the EU to remove the arms embargo on China, but he did provide them with conditions for the embargo’s removal (ie: improved human rights conditions in China and "peaceful development" of cross-strait relations).

The tone of the speaker is EVERYTHING in this case.  When asked about whether the embargo should be lifted, did Ma say, "No"…or "HELL NO"?

That makes a big difference.

(I’d be willing to guess that Ma’s response to the question was exceptionally mild.  To date, his  harshest criticism of China’s Anti-Secession Law has been to say that it was "unnecessary" and "unwise".  Really, does he kiss his mother with that mouth?)

Secondly, I would like to know whether Ma helpfully offered the Europeans those conditions on his own initiative, or whether he gave those answers while being pressed.  If it was the former, then he probably earned a few brownie points in Beijing for giving them an out.  If the latter, then perhaps his answer was foolish, but not malicious.

The reason why I say it was foolish is that proposed conditions for removing the embargo ought to be specific and difficult to meet.  Ma’s criteria however, are vague, and therefore too easily obtainable.  Think about the human rights condition:  If China frees a couple of Falun Gong members, won’t European merchants of death be tempted to point to that as evidence that human rights are improving?  As for "peaceful development of cross-strait relations", would Taipei accepting a couple of pandas qualify?  Ma set the bar far too low, and didn’t even suggest that China should become more democratic.  His little performance may not have been seditious, but it wasn’t exactly a vigorous defense of Taiwan’s interests, either.

Statues For Me, Not For Thee

When it was proposed a few weeks ago that statues of Chiang Kai-Shek be removed from Taiwanese military bases, the KMT’s biggest objection was that doing so would do violence to history and remembrance.  Sure, Chiang may have been a dictator, but he was a big part of Taiwan’s past, so his role shouldn’t be minimized or forgotten.

Now, it would seem to me that someone making this argument would quite naturally be in favor of memorials to other controversial individuals or groups in Taiwan’s history – the Taiwanese aboriginal units that fought on the side of the Japanese during World War II being perhaps, a prime example.

Silly me.  When Taiwanese aborigines suggested that a monument be built to honor their war dead, the KMT’s intellectual consistency flew out the window.  It was perfectly reasonable that Taiwanese military bases house hundreds of statues of OUR guy – the guy behind the White Terror – the KMT said.  But somebody in Taiwan wants one – ONE! – memorial to people who fought for Japan?

Why now, that’s just completely beyond the pale!

Thus does the KMT’s carefully-constructed "Stonewall Jackson" argument collapse.  The KMT put forward the notion that America tolerates statues to people who fought for the Confederacy on its soil, therefore, Taiwan ought to similarly continue to honor the Chiangs.  But surely, aborigines who fought for the Japanese fall into the same category as America’s Confederates.  They too, fought and died for a wrong cause. 

The entire affair illustrates the kind of tolerance that the KMT demands for itself, but is still unwilling to grant unto others.

(The Taipei Times has a picture of the Taiwanese aborigines defending their honor from the epithets hurled by the pro-KMT press here.)

Rearguard Actions Part III

Imagine for a moment that you’re in the market for a new house, and you’re locked in a heated negotiation with the seller.  You make a number of lowball offers, but he doesn’t budge from his initial position.  At last, you agree to his price, partly because it’s within your budget, and partly because you REALLY have your heart set on that house.

But then, a funny thing happens.  Two weeks after your bargaining session, he calls you with an unexpected offer.  He’s gonna give you a break – you cab have the house for a price near your initial offer.  Needless to say, you’re left scratching your head.

A very similar thing recently happened regarding statues of former dictator Chiang Kai-Shek in Taiwan.  The military proposed removing Chiang statues from bases and military schools.  "Never!" cried the KMT.  What if we just got rid of old or damaged statues, the military then proposed.  "Not a single one goes," answered the KMT.  And soon, the KMT got its way.  The Taiwanese military agreed to the KMT’s price, and the statues remained in place.

Then, just like in my parable, a funny thing happened.  Two and a half weeks after winning the battle over the Chiang statues, a curious editorial appeared in the China Post.  Not surprisingly, they defended Chiang’s record as president and general.  There was, however, this bit of added criticism:

While in Taiwan, the Gimo had a personality cult started. His defeated army that came with him and the people of Taiwan were taught to worship him as the "savior of China." The Military Academy in Fengshan claims its roots in Whampoa, of which he was the founding commandant. His statues were erected there and in practically every other military installation to perpetuate that leader worship.

We are glad that none of Chiang’s successors have tried to develop a personality cult.

I had something similar to say regarding Chiang’s deification in an earlier post.  So what was the China Post‘s proposed solution?

Military installations should remove his statues to put a formal end to his personality cult, but the Military Academy must be allowed to keep its founder’s statue to remember his contribution to the education of the cadre for the Army of the Republic of China.

Now, the reader is suddenly in much the same position as the buyer of my story.  Let’s be honest: it isn’t very often that a seller will table his bottom line demands AFTER winning for himself a better deal.  Here’s a couple of theories for you to take your pick from:

1)  The KMT and the China Post were always willing to be reasonable about removing Chiang statues, but the proposal seemed so radical and arbitrary that it would have been a major loss of face for them to show any signs of initially accepting any part of it.  This theory implies that the Chiang supporters would have been more comfortable with a quieter, more slowly-implemented policy.  It also implies that the pro-independence parties either badly bungled the handling of the issue by moving too quickly and publicly, or that they deliberately tabled a motion that they knew would get shot down in flames, simply to gin up support from Chiang detractors.*

2)  The China Post recognizes that the KMT has won the battle, not the long-term ARGUMENT.  Perhaps they realize that the statues of the Chiangs are numbered (see my reasoning here) and are beginning the long process of retreat on the issue.**  It was not for nothing that I titled these posts, Rearguard Actions; the entire point of a rearguard action is to fall back to a more defensible position.

* Another possibility should be mentioned, too.  The independence parties may have merely wanted to stimulate DEBATE regarding the place of a dictator’s statues in a democratic society, not to actually remove them.  Conducting an under-the-radar removal policy would have left the independence parties open to charges of being undemocratic sneaks, and would not have served the purpose of provoking debate on the statues so that some kind of societal consensus on them could be reached.

(It’s times like this that I think it unfortunate that I can’t read Chinese.  While expat bloggers have debated the issue at length, I have absolutely no idea of what the quality of the debate has been like in the Taiwanese press.)

** I confess preferring Theory 2 to Theory 1, but admit to being puzzled by the abruptness and scale of the China Post‘s retreat on the issue.  If this editorial is to believed, then "the long process of retreat" seems like it may not be quite so long after all.  I AM surprised that the China Post arrived at their current, fairly reasonable position without proposing some sort of more incremental, intermediate step.

Rearguard Actions Part II

During the debate a couple of weeks ago over whether statues of Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Gwoh should be removed from Taiwanese military bases, a couple of arguments were made that merit a bit of scrutiny.  The KMT tried to make the case that because Americans honor Dwight D. Eisenhower and Stonewall Jackson in their military academies, the Taiwanese military should continue to similarly honor the dictatorial Chiangs.  Let’s take a look at their arguments:

1.  Dwight D. Eisenhower

A statue of this general and American president apparently stands in West Point Military Academy.  This, the KMT says, is proof that it’s not a violation of military neutrality to have monuments to a political leader in a military school.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

(Dwight D. Eisenhower photo from Wikipedia.)

It  should be pointed out that as far as political leaders go, Eisenhower is pretty uncontroversial.  You know all those "I Like Ike" buttons?  Believe it or not, people wore them because they actually, well, LIKED Ike.  They never had to worry that if they didn’t wear them they might be sent to Green Island.* 

Sure, intellectuals of the time may have been "Madly for Adlai", but Eisenhower’s domestic policy was to leave the Democrats’ New Deal in place, while promising to administer it more efficiently.  If he’d been a Reaganesque figure, his statue in the military academy might’ve (might’ve!) garnered a little more political opposition.

The second point – and how do I put this delicately? – is that Eisenhower was a general who actually won a war.  In contrast, Chiang Kai-Shek, by virtue of his military genius, managed to lose VIRTUALLY ALL OF CHINA to the communists.  I leave it to the reader to decide which of those two achievements is more deserving of being immortalized in bronze.

2.  Stonewall Jackson

A statue of the Confederate general still stands on the grounds of Virginia Military Institute.  The KMT believes this demonstrates that monuments to important figures shouldn’t be cast aside just because they happen to be subject to disputes over the rightness or wrongness of their causes.

Stonewall Jackson

(Stonewall Jackson photo from Wikipedia.)

Stonewall Jackson DID fight for the Confederacy, and as such, it must be admitted that he’s a bit more controversial than Ike.  The Civil War may have been about Northern tariffs on imported manufactured goods and about the constitutional right to secession, but no one can deny that it was also about slavery.  And ultimately, Jackson fought on the wrong side of the latter issue.  Bearing this in mind, I’ll make the best case that I can in favor of retaining Jackson’s VMI statue.

The first thing that should be noted is that it’s not Chiang’s cause that most people object to – it’s his actions vis-a-vis his democratic opposition.  In our time, we can look at someone like Stonewall Jackson and shake our heads sadly that he died unconsciously serving an unjust cause, despite his own personal goodness and decency.  But with Chiang, the situation is reversed:  fighting communism was a just cause, but his methods of political repression towards the Taiwanese were thoroughly lacking in decency.

Secondly, Stonewall Jackson is worthy of commemoration because he was one of America’s greatest generals EVER.  Even his Northern enemies never gainsaid this.  I wonder how many Chiang loyalists, let alone his communist enemies, seriously believe that Chiang Kai-Shek was one of China’s greatest?  In addition, Jackson’s military writings have stood the test of time, and are still part of the curriculum at VMI.  150 years after Chiang’s death, will his written works on military matters still be studied by Taiwanese cadets?  I’m not an expert, but I’m willing to guess not.

Finally, it should be remembered that Virginia Military Institute is a STATE, not a NATIONAL military academy like West Point (or the Taiwanese military schools).  Stonewall Jackson taught at VMI, was one its most illustrious graduates, and is buried nearby.  It seems entirely appropriate to acknowledge the historic importance of such a man at the local, not the national, level.

This comes back to the part of my previous post where I wrote a bit about giving a decent nod to history.  People don’t usually complain too much if a statue of Ike or Stonewall pops up here or there.  Even a "controversial" figure like Reagan can have aircraft carriers named after him without a fight from folks on the other side of the aisle. 

The reason for that kind of tolerance is that admiration of great men in democratic countries is usually carried out in moderation.  No Ike follower demands a bust of his hero in every barracks, no Stonewall fan expects a photo of his idol to be prominently displayed in every school, and no Reaganite insists that the main drag in every town be renamed the "Ronald Reagan Parkway".  If any of them did, their plans would soon encounter significant opposition from people with different values, different outlooks, different heroes.

In a pluralistic society this is a good thing, because if society over-celebrates a handful of men, then other worthy men will end up being overlooked or crowded out.  Like it or not, town squares have only a finite amount of space upon which to construct memorials.**

Of course, a very few "heroes by consensus" like George Washington can avoid this fate, but the Chiangs will never be counted among their number.  In Taiwan, the Chiangs are controversial figures – controversial being an understatement.  At this stage, all the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten their hands now.

I take it as a given that many leaders are interested in being celebrated by future generations, and if that desire motivates them to leave behind a positive legacy, then it serves a beneficial social function.  But democracies have a vital interest too: Democracies need to communicate to their would-be leaders that if they wish to obtain enduring fame and honor, they mustn’t kill or imprison their democratic opponents.

One way of conveying that message is to remove statues exalting those who have.

* Taiwan’s Green Island was used as political prison up until the late 1980s.

** Society not only has a limited amount of resources with which to celebrate great men, but a limited interest in doing so as well.  Life goes on, and there are other priorities in life besides paying obeisance to those whose time has passed.

i-2

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

Soft Coups And The Pan-Blue Line Of Silence

The 2004 presidential election in Taiwan was a precarious time.  Just imagine it:  President Chen gets shot a day before the election by an unknown assassin.  Then we hear he’s still alive; the bullet merely grazed him.  Lien Chan, his KMT opponent, demands to visit the injured president in hospital, but is rebuffed – probably because the president believes Lien was behind the shooting.  Lien then trivializes the crime by telling television reporters that the situation is "not a crisis".  The military is mobilized.

The next day, the wounded president wins by a miniscule 30,000 votes.

And things REALLY get hairy after that.

First, the KMT and its allies go ballistic.  Didn’t their polls tell them their guy was 4-7% ahead?  Didn’t their newspapers tell them their guy was a shoo-in?  Their guy COULDN’T have lost, so they take to the streets.  They demand a recount.  They demand a do-over.  What of the members of the military who didn’t get to vote because of the mobilization in the wake of the assassination attempt?  Let them vote, and let them vote NOW.  Thirty thousand votes – that’s all the KMT needs.  Just 30,000…

What, the law says we CAN’T do any of those things, at least not immediately?  Well then, bend the law – JUST THIS ONCE.  President Chen, the KMT DEMANDS that you declare a State of Emergency so that the niceties of the law can be set aside*.

In the southern port city of Gowshung, KMT mobs gather and try to storm a government building, but are held back by police standing behind mobile metal barricades.  A KMT legislator with a bullhorn gets on top of a van and orders it to charge the barricades.  The van doesn’t break through, but one policeman is injured – possibly with a broken arm.  Incredibly, the China Post claims that the "crowd" was merely "trying to learn the TRUTH about the assassination".

I wonder how much truth they got out of nearly running over that policeman.

In the northern city of Taipei, thousands of angry KMT supporters march in the cold rain.  I don’t recall there being cases of egregious violence like in Gowshung, but matters take an ominous turn when men in military uniforms are permitted to address the marchers.  Rumors swirl of an impending coup.  Taiwan’s defense minister resigns.  KMT leader Lien Chan grants the crowd his permission to "eliminate" the president.  Meanwhile, Communist China announces it will not sit by idly if the island descends into chaos…

After a few very tense days, America extends its congratulations to Chen, thereby recognizing the legitimacy of the election.  The ranks of the demonstrators slowly thin, though the street protests continue for a month or so.  The KMT explores legal avenues towards declaring the election null and void, but these end up leading nowhere.  It concocts elaborate conspiracy theories suggesting that the Machiavellian Chen was behind his own shooting in order to win "sympathy votes", and to deny 200,000 members of the military their franchise**.  These theories it attempts to "prove" by conducting an unconstitutional investigation that few of the principals cooperate with.  The investigation is eventually terminated by the Supreme Court.

Flash forward to this week.  Evidence that the rumors about a coup two years ago were not without foundation:

During a legislative hearing, Minister of National Defense Lee Jye (李傑) yesterday said that some military personnel had approached him and asked him to feign sickness and step aside so that they could organize a coup against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).  (Emphasis added)

[…]

Lee Jye, who was Chief of General Staff at the time, yesterday confirmed these reports.

"Some unidentified military personnel came to me and asked me to `play sick’ so they could carry out their plans to oust the president. But, when I refused immediately, they just walked away," Lee said.

Fortunately for Taiwan, the mutinous officers were not more ruthless.  This time, anyways.  Fortunate too, that Lee was an honorable man.  But as the German saying goes, "Unlucky is the land that needs heroes." 

In March of 2004, Taiwan was a land in need of them:

DPP Legislator Lee Wen-chung (李文忠) had said at a press conference that three admirals and eight lieutenant generals had been asked to resign or pretend they were ill after the presidential election. However, no military officials followed [the defense minister’s resignation], which Lee Wen-chung attributed to the successful [depoliticization] of the military.  (Emphasis added)

News reports had reported that three deputy chiefs of the general staff at the time — military adviser to the president Admiral Fei Hung-po (費鴻波), MND deputy-minister Admiral Chu Kai-sheng (朱凱生) and Chief of the Air force General Liu Kuei-li (劉貴立) were the key targets that had been asked to resign.

Then Deputy Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-mi (陳肇敏) was also reported to have been encouraged to resign.

At the moment, the question of whether the coup plotters acted on their own or were asked by KMT political leaders is a salient one.  Chen’s political opponents have sued him for libel for saying they were involved in the "soft coup"***.  The case is being retried for technical reasons, but the evidence for KMT involvement may not be firm:

[Lee Jye said the plotters,] "came to me on behalf of [a] `certain group of people.’"

However, Lee said that neither former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) nor People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) had approached him or sent anyone to see him on their behalf. But he said he was quite sure that the military personnel who came to him were [KMT] supporters [or their allies].

Who were the plotters?  Their identities are unknown to the public, but have been revealed in closed door sessions of the libel trial.  It’s unfathomable to me why their names and faces aren’t plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the country.  Firing them, allowing them to retire, or "promoting" them to an important post in the 21st Envelope-Stuffing Battalion isn’t enough:  Each and every one of them should be tried for sedition and punished as an example to army officers in the future.  Leniency of course should be granted to those who finger political instigators.  Not wanting to air the military’s dirty laundry is no excuse for covering this up. I cannot help but agree with one legislator (a KMT lawmaker, no less!) who spoke about the matter to Lee Jye during a hearing:

"Because you refused to name the generals who approached you and asked you to feign sickness and step aside, everyone keeps guessing, and that has hurt the reputations of innocent generals."

* It was quite a spectacle to witness the KMT asking the same man they vilified as an "evil dictator" to declare martial law.  How many of you would ask a political opponent to declare martial law if you truly believed he had tyrannical tendencies?

** The KMT has stated that its party lost a disproportionate number of votes when the military was mobilized, because the military is composed primarily of KMT supporters.  While this may be true with respect to the officer class, it is a dubious claim to make regarding the young draftees that make up the bulk of Taiwan’s armed forces.

*** The coup was intended to be a "soft" one – the mutinous armed forces did not intend to actually depose Chen, but they DID plan to cease obeying his orders.  Without control over the military, Chen’s legitimacy would have been undermined, and he would have been forced to resign, sooner or later.

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

Re-Name That Tune

The March 14th edition of the Taipei Times printed a story on the front page about the campaign to remove references to the KMT from the Taiwanese army songbook.  The Republic of China was for so many years a one-party state that there was little differentiation between the KMT political party and the state; to swear loyalty to the one was to swear loyalty to the other.

Naturally, KMT legislators are not agreeable to the change:

That decision drew criticism from KMT Legislator Shuai Hua-min (帥化民), who strongly criticized this action for being akin to "forgetting one’s origins."

While I often have some degree of sympathy for this type of reasoning, the need to insist upon the military’s political neutrality in a democratic state completely outweighs the conservative argument in this particular case.  American Democrats would be entirely right to protest if West Point officers-in-training were required to sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republican Party".