Taiwan, China, and other things. Recovered from the defunct TypePad platform.
It’s official: Sudanese Muslims have now reduced their religion to Monty Python sketch material.
"Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Prophet…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again."
On Saturday, Taiwanese papers reported that the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk was refused entry into Hong Kong at the last minute by Beijing authorities.* Beijing’s still seething over the Dalai Lama’s visit to Washington.
Today’s AP however**, featured a story detailing another incident which was of even greater concern to the U.S. Navy:
[Admiral Gary Roughead] said he was even more troubled by China’s refusal, several days before the Kitty Hawk incident, to let two U.S. Navy minesweepers enter Hong Kong harbor to escape an approaching storm and receive fuel. The minesweepers, the Patriot and the Guardian, were instead refueled at sea and returned safely to their home port in Japan, he said.
"As someone who has been going to sea all my life, if there is one tenet that we observe it’s when somebody is in need you provide (assistance) and you sort it out later," the admiral said. "And that, to me, was more bothersome, so I look forward to having discussions with the PLA navy leadership," he said, referring to the People’s Liberation Army.
[Admiral Timothy] Keating made a similar point. He called the denial in the case of the minesweeping ships "a different kettle of fish for us – in some ways more disturbing, more perplexing" than the Kitty Hawk case because the Chinese action violated an unwritten international code for assisting ships in distress. [emphasis added throughout]
Next time the American navy needs a safe port during a storm, it might want to consider Keelung or Kaohsiung, instead. It’s, ah, entirely possible that Taiwan would provide it a more hospitable reception.
The Chinese want to send little messages? Well, perhaps its time they learned that that’s something other people can do as well.
(Hat tip to The Tank.)
* In it’s coverage of the Kitty Hawk incident, Taiwan’s China Post couldn’t help emphasizing the anti-American angle, with the lurid front page headline, ‘World of Suzie Wong’ hurt by aborted visit. ‘Cause like, isn’t it obvious that hookers losing their income is the most important part of the story?
** Or possibly yesterday’s AP. Things get tricky when you’re dealing with the International Date Line…
UPDATE (Nov 30/07): Yesterday’s Taipei Times featured this story as well.
UPDATE (Dec 16/07): Tardy in posting this update, but the View from Taiwan had some really excellent analysis of this:
Anyone who has observed China’s relations with the outside world for any length of time has seen this pattern again and again. In the midst of negotiations with the Vatican, it consecrates two bishops for the state Church. In the midst of negotiations over the Torch coming to Taiwan, it denies a visa to the representative of the city of Kaohsiung to discuss games held there in 2009. Arriving in India for negotiations, its ambassador announces a whole Indian state is part of China. Some months back the Chinese government shut down an expat magazine in China that was widely considered the most sympathetic and supportive expat rag in the nation. China gets the Olympics, and crackdowns on the internet, and journalists intensify, while state security arrests double. Catch the pattern?
Now Bejing has denied Kitty Hawk a berth in Hong Kong, thus abusing the one service in the US government that has consistently supported it, to the extent that the previous head of PACOM apparently instructed his underlings not to hold military exercises using Beijing as the imagined target. The one service that has consistently displayed an eagerness to form relationships with China. The one service that has imagined itself in partnership with China.
The fact is that in doing all these things, the Navy demonstrated that it had arrayed itself in the proper position of suppliant to the Dragon Throne. Just like those petitioners living in the petitioner’s village outside of Beijing, or the local peasant who comes before the mighty magistrate to ask for his benevolence. The Navy thinks it has a right to reciprocity, since it has given so much. But in China there are no rights that apply to one’s superiors — superiors give things out of benevolence, and in both receiving petitions and in handing out benevolence, the great demonstrate their greatness. (In addition to displays of benevolence, the Throne also demonstrates its greatness by abusing those who abase themselves before it. They should be grateful for Our Attention.) From this perspective, when the Navy petitioned China for openness, it validated the greatness of China, and presented itself as a suppliant for imperial benevolence. When it made offerings of information and access to the Throne, that is only right, for gift-making is the proper behavior of suppliants, and the Throne in its Benevolence accepts all gifts. Most regrettably, with its insistence on reciprocity, the Navy has defined itself as a collection of small children making wearisome demands on the Throne. If the Navy really understood its relationship to the greatness of the Dragon Throne, it would wait humbly for some display of benevolence, just like those petitioners in the petitioners village outside of Beijing.
Finally, my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the U.S. Navy should have paid a visit to a Taiwanese port turned out to be not entirely off the mark – the Kitty Hawk steamed through the Taiwan Strait in response to being denied harbor privileges in Hong Kong. Michael Turton has more on that here.
A while back, presidential candidate Frank Hsieh of Taiwan’s main independence party called for reducing the unemployment rate here to zero percent. Today’s China Post correctly points out that that’s easier said than done:
…above all, no country has ever been successful at reducing unemployment to zero, unless it has been at war.
The reason why that’s true is that in a free economy, some people are always going to quit their jobs. They don’t like their boss, or their coworkers, or their hours, or whatever. So they quit. Involuntary work gulags might be one solution, but the cure would be somewhat worse than the disease.
Not only is zero unemployment difficult to reach, but it would be positively undesirable even if it COULD be achieved. Zero unemployment means that people grab the first job offer they receive, and hold onto it for dear life. That’s bad for efficiency, because it’s a waste of human capital. The economy is surely better off when society’s computer science graduates hold out a little for plum programming jobs rather than leaping at those easy computer operator openings. A moment’s reflection will reveal that a LITTLE unemployment is a GOOD thing.
Long story short here: If Hsieh LITERALLY meant that he wants a 0% unemployment rate, then it’s time to break out the dolls and the pins and the plucked chickens. On the other hand, if he was just employing political shorthand as a way of saying that he’d like to reduce current levels of unemployment – well, I suppose that’s possible. Given that the the current unemployment rate is 4% however, I’m not sure how much greater progress can be done on that front.
(Incidentally, if the Post is so put off by voodoo economics, it might want to spare a word or two of condemnation for KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying jeou’s recent advocacy of totalitarian price controls. Much more talk like that, and wags are gonna start calling him Ma-gabe.)
The China Post reports that Taiwanese magnate Robert Tsao is none too happy about his shiny new surrender monkey label:
"Why is it that Chen’s election as president by the expression of the will and volition of the people is called democracy, and the same expression over unification with China condemned as surrender?" Tsao questioned.
Well, that’s an easy one. Tsao proposes to sign away the power Taiwan currently enjoys, in theory at least, of being able to call unification referendums. Not only would he renounce that power, but he would cede that power in perpetuity to an foreign government. In doing so, he would take a power currently invested not only in Taiwan’s executive and legislative branches, but in the people of Taiwan itself (via referendum petitions), and hand that power over to an enemy government – without a shot ever being fired in anger. He would strip political power away from elected and accountable local politicians, and present it on a silver platter to the unelected, unaccountable commissars of a hostile communist nation.
And Robert Tsao still can’t figure out WHY this would be an act of surrender? *
By definition, Taiwan’s government and people under Tsao’s plan would be SUBORDINATE to the Chinese government with regards to this issue. Taiwan would be announcing, for all the world to hear, that it was now recognizing Beijing’s authority over it. China proposes, the Taiwanese electorate disposes.
We can all debate the significance of surrendering this one, particular political power to Beijing. Is it an inconsequential surrender for a greater good, a catastrophic one, or something in-between? We can even discuss its merits and pitfalls. But at the end of the day, even a minor surrender is still a surrender. And even an inconsequential initial surrender can lead to greater surrenders further down the line. Has Tsao even bothered to spend a minute to think all this through?
Once the People’s Republic of China is granted this power, is it likely to be satisfied? Will its government say, "Well, we got what we wanted, now we can have peace in our time"? Or will it decide, quite rationally, that Taiwanese are nothing but paltroons, and demand ever more control over Taiwan’s government?
I’m willing to give Tsao the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he DOESN’T want to hand Beijing the driver’s seat. All he is is a well-intentioned, "reasonable" man with a "reasonable" compromise – who hasn’t the foggiest notion of the consequences of letting the camel’s nose under the tent. Having made this one compromise though, what other compromises is he willing to make, further down the line? Robert Tsao is offended by the surrender charge, and asks, "What sort of a man do you think I am?" The answer can be found in George Bernard Shaw’s famous quip to the lady born and bred into high-society:
"We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re merely haggling over the price."
* Not surprisingly, one of Taiwan’s leading capitulationist newspapers, the China Post, attempts to blur the issue:
…analysts say the referendum on unification Tsao proposed is a means by which the people of Taiwan can freely express their will and volition…
Obviously, the Post‘s unnamed analysts are using some definition of the word "freely" that I wasn’t previously aware of. These great Solomons aver that Tsao’s plan allows Taiwanese to "freely" express their will and volition…but only when Beijing in its infinite benevolence deigns to LET THEM.
Postscript: It’s interesting that I haven’t heard anybody discuss the constitutional issues involved here. I’m no expert on the Republic of China’s constitution, but I would very much like to see Mr. Tsao point out the relevant articles in it that state it’s OK for Beijing to become, in essence, a sixth branch of the R.O.C. government.
P.P.S.: Tsao makes a nice analogy about Taiwan’s position, which I think is nonetheless flawed:
If [Taiwan] wants de jure independence, Taiwan has to be just as well-prepared as people desiring to climb the Matterhorn…Addressing hard-core independence activists, he pointed out:
"[President] Chen, your tourist guide…got elected president thanks to you… You’ll have to ask him carefully what preparations he has made (for your Matterhorn climb) and how much.
I would argue that Taiwan’s position is a little more akin to that of someone who has lost a lot of pieces in chess. Under Tsao’s analogy, demanding a roadmap to the goal makes a lot of sense; under mine, the act of telling your opponent your strategy is just about the worst thing you can do.
Sometimes when things look bleak for you in chess, the only strategy available is to try to simply keep your options open. An opportunity may present itself later down the line, but you’ll only be able to take advantage of it if you haven’t allowed yourself to get pinned down.
Under that analogy, it seems to me Tsao’s policy is undesirable, because it closes a lot more strategic doors than it happens to open.
P.P.P.S.: It must be admitted that one of President Chen’s objections to Tsao’s proposals was exceedingly odd:
…Chen fired a Parthian shot by saying Tsao spent "a lot of money" on ads and yet people who "are striving to make a living" don’t have the time to read them.
Um, why is Chen singing verses from the KMT hymnal? It’s the OPPOSITION’S job to talk down the economy, not the President’s!
(The View from Taiwan has good news about the national economy here.)
This is a pretty pro-Israel blog, but I can hardly rip the Europeans for wanting to sell weapons to China, and then give Israel a pass on this one. From the Weekly Standard:
In 1987 [Israel Aircraft Industries] was forced to cancel a program to build an indigenous fighter, the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a modified version of the Lockheed Martin F-16 already being used by the Israeli Air Force, but cost significantly more than the U.S.-made fighter. So the Israeli Air Force opted to stick with the off-the-shelf model.
Some time later, the technical details of the Lavi were provided to [China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group], although no government has ever officially acknowledged this fact. When the J-10 was rolled out in a public ceremony in Beijing late last year, a report in the Singapore Straits Times noted the obvious: "The Jian-10 aircraft that China unveiled recently bears a striking resemblance to the Lavi. . . . The Jian-10's sophisticated pilot helmet, which allows missiles to be aimed in the direction of the pilot's eyes, is almost certainly of Israeli origin. So are the missiles themselves, which appear to be based on the Python 4 variety manufactured by Israel's Rafael Armaments Development Authority. Neither side will admit it, but the Lavi aircraft died in Israel and has now been reborn in China." [emphasis added]
And now the J-10 menaces Taiwan. Thanks ever so much for that. But as it turns out, the sale managed to turn around and bite the Israelis in the end:
In late October, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group will sell 24 of its new-generation Jian-10 (J-10) fighter aircraft to Iran in a contract valued at $1 billion.
[…]
Last week, the Paris-based defense and strategy publication TTU reported that China is planning to supply the J-10 to Syria as well.
So, Israel sold fighter designs to China, which then sells the completed jet fighters to IRAN and SYRIA. THAT deal certainly worked out well, didn't it? It gives me no pleasure to say this, but what the hell were you guys THINKING?
(Jianjiji-10 image from Aerospaceweb.org)
Meanwhile, the French want in on the action:
France's Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA), which tightly controls all arms export sales, has been trying for more than a year to complete a sale of the Thales RC400 radar and MBDA Mica missiles to Pakistan for the JF-17 fighter. Although the JF-17 is being built under license in Pakistan, it is also a Chengdu design. The Pakistani Aeronautical Complex and its Chinese partners have comprehensive agreements that grant access for both parties to any technology acquired by the other.
Since the same French radar and missiles are on board the Taiwanese Air Force's French-built Dassault Mirage 2000 aircraft, acquisition of this technology by Beijing would be a considerable blow to the defense of the island nation. India, Pakistan's neighbor and rival, also operates the Mirage 2000. If France's DGA were to allow Pakistan to acquire the radar and missiles, Taiwan and India would see their air force's investment in French jets wiped out. [emphasis added]
The Standard goes on to say that Taiwan's investment would be wiped out because the Pakistanis have not proven themselves to be overly scrupulous in keeping Western defense technologies out of Chinese hands.
(Mirage 2000 image from Airforceworld.com)
UPDATE (Mar 3/09): Former Soviet republics also selling hardware to China.
i-2
…by not delivering Taiwanese mail.
From Thursday’s Taipei Times:
China said yesterday it had returned all mail and parcels found with a postmark supporting Taiwan’s entry into the UN because the wording promotes independence.
"Taiwan authorities preaching `Taiwan independence’ through postal services has infringed on Taiwan compatriots’ freedom of communication," said Fan Liqing (范麗青), a spokeswoman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office. [emphasis added]
"This has seriously impaired the exchanges of letters between people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as Taiwan people’s exchanges with other parts of the world," Fan told reporters.
But surely Beijing’s decision NOT to deliver that mail was the real thing "infringing on Taiwan compatriots’ freedom of communication", wasn’t it?
The Taiwan Chronicles has more on this, most of which I agree with. In an earlier post, I defended the "UN for Taiwan" postmark campaign, because I thought it was a good way of raising awareness of Taiwan’s lack of U.N. membership to potential supporters in democratic countries. However, I have to concede that one of the China Post‘s objections was right on the money – the paper was right to predict the Chinese wouldn’t deliver those letters.
So, to modify (or at least clarify) my original position:
What’s interesting here is that the Chinese government claims to object to the Taiwanese "authorities" preaching Taiwanese independence. In other words, they portray this as a government to government issue (although they can’t quite bring themselves to admit that Taiwan’s government IS a government). But the fly in the ointment for this line of reasoning is that the "UN for Taiwan" postmarks are now VOLUNTARY:
[Taiwan Post] said the mark [now] only goes on the letters of those who agree to have it…
Given that, if an individual Taiwanese VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to have the postmark placed on a China-bound letter, will the Chinese Post Office happily deliver it? Heck, forget postmarks for a second. A Taiwanese doodles his own "UN Membership for Taiwan" logo on one of his envelopes – will THAT be delivered? After all, in the former, and certainly the latter case, the Taiwanese "authorities" are out of the picture.
I think we know the answer, and we all know that the Chinese government isn’t being straight with people. It doesn’t care who advocates U.N. membership for Taiwan; it objects to the very IDEA itself, regardless of whether it’s being advocated by "authorities" OR individuals.
KMT reaction the next day was sadly predictable. You know the kind of fella who always says, "My country, right or wrong"? Well, in any disagreement with China, count on the KMT to boldly declare, "My country, always wrong":
"Taiwan Post must compensate the senders for ignoring their rights and wasting their time because of its unilateral decision to stamp all mail and parcels with such a postmark," KMT legislative caucus whip Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said.
Blame Taiwan First. Gosh, like I didn’t see THAT one coming. For a moment though, suppose the situation were reversed. Let’s say China started sending letters here postmarked with, "Taiwan: The PRC’s 23rd Province," or something like that. And the Taiwanese post office refused to deliver them.
Any bets on who the KMT would blame THEN? Beijing, for being the source of the offending postmarks? Or Taiwan Post, for returning letters in violation of a "contract signed between Shanghai Post and Taiwan Post Office Co Ltd making it obligatory for both parties to deliver any letters and parcels"? [emphasis added]
Postscript: Whoops. Looks like I clicked the "Publish Now" button prematurely, so a couple people read a very incomplete version of this. Sorry about that!
And a hit is a hit, or at least that’s what I tell myself. Still, it’s a strange feeling when you spend 4, 5, 6 hours writing up an entry on Taiwanese politics, only to find most of your visitors are dropping by so they can view posts like this.
No use fighting it, I guess. Everybody loves a squirrel in a uniform.
Francisco from Venezuela describes his experiences in learning Japanese. Entertaining and very well written.
…now that their government rides to the rescue:
China is creating a database with profiles on the thousands of foreign reporters who will be covering next summer’s Beijing Olympics, a top [Chinese] official said in comments published yesterday.
The database…was designed to prevent people from posing as journalists to trick or blackmail interview subjects, Liu Binjie (柳斌杰), minister of the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), was quoted as saying in the state-run China Daily.
"Disguising as reporters to threaten and intimidate others to collect money is cheating and very dangerous to society," Liu was quoted as saying.
In China, people sometimes pose as reporters to extort money from corrupt officials or demand payment for false promises of favorable news coverage. [emphasis added]
Don’t you just HATE it when you spend mucho renminbi bribing a reporter for favorable coverage, only to find some bloody SCAM ARTIST with a phony press badge has made off with the loot instead? Why, there oughtta be a law!
Against fake reporters, I mean. Not against honest, hard-working officials whose only crime is wanting to spread the wealth with deserving, accountable, and most importantly, gub’mint-licensed members of the Fourth Estate.
The Bear reawakens, and hungrily eyes Eastern Europe:
EVEN as Jonas Kronkaitis, now retired as Lithuania’s top general, admires the transformation of this once drab Soviet city into a proud member of the New Europe, a worry eats at him: Russian power is rapidly returning to the Baltics, only this time the weapons are oil and money, not tanks.
[…]
What we are afraid of is the very huge money that comes from Russia that can be used to corrupt our officials," Kronkaitis said in an interview. "And I’m talking about very large money. Money can then be used to control our government. Then Lithuania, in a very subtle way, over many years perhaps, becomes dominated and loses its independence."
"Over many years" may be an understatement, Baltic nationalists say. In 2004, Lithuania’s president was impeached for alleged connections to Russia’s secret service and big business. [emphasis added]
It all seems part of a strategy by President Vladimir Putin to revive Russian power in much of Eastern Europe.
For the Balts, any move that angers Russia runs huge risks. Last month, for example, the Estonian state prosecutor charged four ethnic Russians with organizing riots in April to protest the government’s move of a statue of a Soviet soldier from the capital to a suburb as the anniversary of victory in World War II neared. The Russian-language press had egged on the protesters.
"There is reason to believe that financial support and advice to organize mass disorders was also received from the Russian Federation," the prosecutor said. After the riots, hackers briefly paralyzed Estonia’s government and banks,and Estonia said the cyberattacks were traced to Kremlin addresses.
Meanwhile, the Dragon reawakens, and eyes Taiwan. And how eager are Taiwanese businessmen to surrender! Taiwan’s China Post heartily approves in its editorial, Robert Tsao has a point:
Robert Tsao, the honorary chairman of United Microelectronics Corp., the world’s second-largest wafer foundry, has some refreshing ideas about breaking the current impasse in Taiwan-China relations.
[…]
In a 3,000-word article, Tsao…rules out independence referendums for Taiwan… Whenvever Beijing feels ready, [Tsao proposes that] it can ask Taiwan to hold a referendum on unification that is enshrined in the DPP charter. If Taiwan’s people vote against it, then unification must wait and a new vote should be scheduled for ten years later. [emphasis added throughout]
Wow. I’m just trying to imagine a Frenchman suggesting Berlin should have the right to determine the subject and timing of French referenda. Or an American arguing that Mexico should have that right. Inconceivable, really. Inconceivable, because Frenchmen or Americans view their country’s sovereignty as something of VALUE; and something of value isn’t something to be given away on the cheap.
What Tsao’s proposal lacks is reciprocity. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it, Mr. Tsao? You believe a foreign government should be able to call unification referendums in Taiwan? Very well – but as a necessary condition, Taiwan must have the reciprocal right to call Taiwanese independence referendums in China. And to test China’s good faith, Taiwan would be well advised to call that referendum immediately. And ten years later. And ten years after that.
Sure, it’d get voted down again and again, but that wouldn’t matter. As I argued in Why Referendums are a Good Thing, the experience of free and fair elections alone might do the Chinese people a world of good.
It goes without saying however, that ANY unfree or unfair electoral conduct on the part of the Chinese would IMMEDIATELY nullify the entire ridiculous arrangement.
Postscript: Alternatively, it might be useful for Taipei to demand Beijing hold a Chinese democratization referendum. Now there’s a pie-in-the-sky "refreshing" idea on how to break the current impasse in Taiwan-China relations!