America and Taiwan in the News

Only a  few months from my next Lanyu trip...

Another long analysis saying Donald Trump is No Friend of Taiwan of the Trump calls and "everything is negotiable" comments from Trump, this one from longtime Taiwan expert Shelly Rigger. She reviews the history of The Call, and then the Trump Administration's appointments, and discusses Trump's trolling...

In less than 200 words, Trump managed to shake the foundations of U.S.-China relations and cast Taiwan’s future into doubt. Even for a devotee of short-form writing like master-tweeter Donald Trump, this was an achievement.

The one China policy is a U.S. policy statement first articulated in the 1970s that has allowed the U.S. to pursue economic and political ties with Beijing while maintaining robust unofficial relations with Taipei. Every administration since Richard Nixon’s has affirmed the policy. Suggesting it might be open to revision cast the very basis – even the possibility – of economic and diplomatic interactions between the U.S. and China into serious doubt.

It might at some point pay analysts to consider that the "one China" policy from the 1970s and US Taiwan policy dating formally from Apr 28, 1952, are not the same thing, even though they refer to some of the same entities.

Note the words of Trump that Rigger gives in full:

I fully understand the One-China policy. But I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade. I mean, look, we’re being hurt very badly by China with devaluation, with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don’t tax them, with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn’t be doing. And, frankly, they’re not helping us at all with North Korea. You have North Korea, you have nuclear weapons, and China could solve that problem. And they’re not helping us at all.

So, I don’t want China dictating to me. And this was a call put into me. I didn’t make the call. And it was a call, very short call, saying, “Congratulations, sir, on the victory.” It was a very nice call. Short. And why should some other nation be able to say, I can’t take a call? I think it would have been very disrespectful, to be honest with you, not taking it.

Trump is not threatening Taiwan's status in US policy. He is threatening China's status. Taiwan's status is never mentioned and is obviously not the focus of Trump's thoughts -- China is. Let's imagine what "not being bound" by the one China policy could mean. Because the US could switch to a two-China policy (ROC and PRC are both China), a no-China policy (neither PRC nor ROC is China, we don't recognize either), switch recognition to the ROC (wouldn't the KMT swoon over that) or something else. In fact at some point some of these policies existed in the past, and under all of them, the US worked to preserve Taiwan's status. Even when the US recognized the ROC as China it never recognized Taiwan as part of the ROC.

Under current understandings the US could delete the one China policy under which we recognize the PRC as China, without affecting Taiwan's status, which exists because of a different policy. But no major change was ever in play, as many of us wrote at the time.

In any case, as I argued before, it was all meaningless trolling related to Trump's trademarks and so on. Nobody actually ever formally proposed seriously revising US China policy.

As I noted in January, many people who derive wealth and status from the current US position on China were quite unsettled by The Call, since it signaled them that things might change, and threatened their wealth and status. It is amusing that at the moment it is ok to criticize Trump's team for not knowing anything about China, while remaining silent on the deep links so many China commentators have with Beijing's status and money flows. The limits of the discourse, ya know....

Nevertheless, Rigger is often insightful and this comment is dead on and has had me worried as well

Taiwan’s leaders should also worry about the Trump administration’s overall approach to foreign policy – an approach that seems to abandon America’s long-standing commitment to democracy around the world. Trump’s speeches rarely mention democracy or human rights, and his proposed budget slashes funding for all sorts of values-oriented programs. For Taiwan, this is a very bad sign. As China’s political, military, and economic power increase, making a utilitarian argument as to why the U.S. should support Taiwan gets harder, leaving democracy as Taiwan’s signal virtue. When Navarro used the phrase in his July 2016 article, describing Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy” was a tired cliché. Today, it feels like an important moral statement.

Further down she says abandoning the TPP was a bad idea, but I don't see abandoning the TPP as a "devastating blow" since the TPP was a corporate giveaway that would have put Taiwan permanently under the sway of US corporate power, immiserating its people and further harming its economy and environment. Trump did all us who live on Taiwan a favor, even if you don't like the geopolitics of that decision.

Rigger notes that there will be an arms sale in April (more on that in a moment) and that the Administration might well upgrade official visits. She then concludes:

In sum, after a promising start and with the eager participation of many strong supporters of Taiwan in the transition, the Trump White House has managed to comprehensively botch its Taiwan policy, leaving Taiwan more vulnerable than ever to Beijing’s increasing pressure.

LOL. We're barely 90 days in, and she's claiming that Taiwan policy is botched. Umm.... no. It's way too early. Note that Rigger provides no concrete examples of botched policy and its consequences (quick, point some out). In fact Taiwan's status got a tiny upgrade, with US marines to be posted to the new AIT office.

Chinese pressure on Taiwan existed prior to Trump's call, and will go on in the future, as the recent decision to block cosmetic imports from Taiwan over the 1992C shows. A trial balloon? A local official's overreach? New policy? Only time will tell.

Contrast Rigger's claims with the reality of the Obama team's Taiwan policy, which got high marks from the Establishment commentariat. Yes -- those same people who are worried that Trump might sell out Taiwan said nothing when Obama actually did so. The Obama Administration blocked an arms deal for Taiwan out of fear of China (Rigger does not mention the arms sale she lauds as a "bright spot" was blocked by Obama, one wonders what the commentariat would have said if Obama had dumped $1 billion in arms on Taiwan -- would have excused it if Obama did it, will hate it when Trump does). On Twitter Rupert Hammond-Chambers said it was probably because the US needed China's cooperation on the climate deal (as if either Beijing or the Trump Administration was going to adhere to that). Indeed, recall that the Bush Administration also downgraded its support for Taipei for China's cooperation in some transient political thing or other. Bonnie Glaser remarked:

But it is also possible that the Obama administration did not want to approve an arms sale in its final days because it didn't want to offend China and undermine the President's legacy with Beijing. 

For Obama's legacy Taiwan can't get arms it desperately needs (Trump at least got trademarks!). But of course the really worrisome thing is that Trump might sell out Taiwan.

Finally, KMT legislator Jason Hsu wrote up his trip to the US to visit the Trump Administration. It is interesting reading, his takeaways...

Despite all this, I came away with clear and crucial promises regarding stability in the Taiwan Strait: the United States will continue to uphold her moral and legal responsibility toward Taiwan. She will continue to assist in our self-defense. In terms of upholding the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances, American good faith will endure.

President Trump, despite immense pressure from China, will still adhere to the One China Policy, the bedrock of strait relations. But China will also continue to demand adherence to the One China Principle. The danger then, lies in how the still-adapting Trump and an uncompromising China interpret these two differing frameworks, it has the potential to throw off the delicate balance of power in the Straits.

.....

Taiwan and the United States share more than thirty years of stalwart friendship. The Congressional Taiwan Caucus remains the second largest caucus in the United States Congress with more than 120 members. Despite the fragility of international relations, we remain unwavering in this partnership; we still believe in America’s good intent. Now is a time of uncertainty but it is also the time for opportunity and recognition. For years Taiwan has been America’s most loyal ally in the region, we are a young but flourishing democracy, an open and robust society with liberal values that mirror the U.S. We share the same resolve in promoting democratic ideals while ensuring peace, in fostering security while defending freedom, and in furthering trade and prosperity for all.

Kudos to Hsu for not only understanding the difference between the one China policy and the one China principle, but also for not conflating them in an attempt to mislead the reader as KMTers so often do.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Geopolitically, you can relax... for a while

As local indigenous villages discover the power of tourism, they are putting in colorful gates

The speculation over Taiwan and the new Trump Administration has included some very strange assertions, especially from the KMT, that Taiwan might well become some kind of bargaining chip.

Nope. Not gonna happen. In fact, Taiwan's position vis-a-vis* the US is almost certainly going to improve. For starters, the new Sec of the Navy might well be Randy Forbes. Forbes is a longtime supporter of Taiwan. Forbes' staffer Alexander Gray will be on the Asia team -- also likes Taiwan. Other names mentioned include Randy Schriver, very pro-Taiwan, and perhaps the very gracious Steve Yates (a quiet inspiration for this blogger), very pro-Taiwan. Richard Armitage, who has long worked on Taiwan issues, has also been mentioned.

Most of those names will be familiar, but others might not be. Just in Taiwan very recently was Ed Feulner (note this 2011 piece), obvious where his sympathies are. And then there is Peter Navarro, in the news here with strong statements: Trump Advisor indicates Taiwan stance? "China is behaving like a bullying thug against Taiwan" (video). John Bolton, a longtime Taiwan supporter, has been rumored to be a possibility for Sec of State. Most of these people worked in the Bush Administration as well.

All of these people, and any eventual Trump Administration, will likely take a much harder line than the Clinton Administration on China, or so some insiders have already declared. The Trump Administration is not going to have any of those "We will achieve a breakthrough!" delusions that afflicted the Clinton Administration, nor do any of its people come out of consulting firms doing business with China. And in the geopolitical calculus that governs the Strait, when the US moves away from China, it moves towards Taiwan. Indeed, suggestions that the Trump Administration represents a fresh start for US-Taiwan relations are already flying into mags where such pieces appear.

But for those of you making mental calculations about when war is going to break out here in Asia, you should probably advance your timetables. Xi is not going to become less hardline, and the US is becoming even more hardline. Just last week Chinese "coast guard" vessels once again tested the Senkaku waters. And David Feith argued in WSJ that Trump will increase the Nuke Crisis in Asia

Interesting times...

*It is important if you are going to be a political commentator that you use this phrase.
____________________
Daily Links:

• Marriage equality... not on the way yet.
• The crucial 1977 Jhongli Incident, a turning point in the pro-democracy resistance
• KMT making staff cuts
• Retired ROC Military officer in audience as Xi threatens Taiwan
• Foreigners to enter pension system... and those of us who have paid into the system for years?
• Offshore wind group formed to turn wind into energy. The wind is there, but the Taiwan power grid is primitive, one of the ways Taipower continues to block renewable energy. 
• Taiwan finally begins to realize the economic potential of gaming
• Ketagalen: Identity: a shared indigenous, and LGBT problem
• Global Taiwan Institute: Strategic Ambiguity under the new president
• 40.6% satisfied with Tsai

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Hegemonic Warfare Watch: The Case of Charles Glaser Worried

Planting rice north of Taichung.

I say to you againe, doe not call up Any that you can not put downe; by the Which I meane, Any that can in Turne call up Somewhat against you, whereby your Powerfullest Devices may not be of use.

*sigh* Charles Glaser really loves to imagine himself as a Great Decider, determining the fate of millions with Grand Bargains. This latest installment of his patented point of view, "sell Taiwan to China for better relations" is A U.S.-China Grand Bargain? The Hard Choice between Military Competition and Accommodation (International Security, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Spring 2015), pp. 49–90). Glaser appears to have learned little from his Foreign Affairs disaster of several years ago.

The "analysis" concedes that it is merely an amoral, unreal fantasy right at the outset of his main argument, where he states: "Analytically, the desirability and political feasibility of U.S. security policy can often be productively separated." Actually, they can't, because politics is about values and the conduct of international affairs (i.e. human affairs) is not value-free. This pretense of value-freeness is created by Glaser here in order to legitimate selling out Taiwan as the "objective" and therefore superior choice. The subtext is: "if you can't see it my way, you're too subjective". The reality is that handing over Taiwan to China is a question of values; the reason it is politically disvalued (i.e. unfeasible) is because it is morally vile and politically stoopid.

EJInsight recently commented on China's lack of soft power. The problem with the kind of analysis that EJInsight presents is that it doesn't recognize the truly key elements of China's soft power. Living in Taiwan and watching the media for years has made many of us acutely conscious of China's actual soft power. The TIME interview with DPP Chairman and Presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen shows one aspect of that soft power -- the way western commentators accept Chinese expansionist propaganda and anti-Taiwan propaganda (and propagandists) as conventional wisdom, and use it to frame their writing about China-related issues. Glaser's piece is another example of how this works: it shows the willingness of commentators in democratic countries to feed the beast. Sadly, this sort of testosterone-fueled control fantasy disguised as "analysis" has become commonplace (Hugh White, for example).

Glaser lays out his thesis on p50:

Specifically, the United States should negotiate a grand bargain that ends its commitment to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. In return, China would peacefully resolve its maritime and land disputes in the South China and East China Seas, and officially accept the United States’ longterm military security role in East Asia.

After discussion of the international situation, he expands thusly:

The grand bargain I propose is designed to capture the benefits of U.S. accommodation with China, while reducing its risks. China’s concessions on its territorial and maritime disputes would communicate information to the United States about the limited extent of its aims, thereby reducing Washington’s concern that its own concessions would encourage China to push the United States out of East Asia. In addition, resolution of these disputes would eliminate flash points that fuel regional military competition and crises that could draw the United States into a war.

Much this paper is larded with the soft power problem I note above: presentation of pro-China propaganda frames as actual descriptions of China. Note how Glaser adopts Beijing's propaganda line to explain China's desire to annex Taiwan:

From China’s perspective, control of Taiwan is a security objective because China considers Taiwan part of its homeland.45 In contrast, given the United States’ understanding of the status quo, China’s determination to control Taiwan reflects greedy motives.

From the perspective of elites in Beijing, of course annexing Taiwan is pure expansion; the idea that Taiwan is a "lost territory" is strictly for the consumption of their own public and for foreigners who can be successfully propagandized. Like Glaser, for example.

(Of course, there is no Taiwan perspective in this paper. Taiwan doesn't get a vote, because this is a Grand Bargain, the kind Grand Men make over brandy and cigars. You peasants operating out of your own subjectivity don't get it, 'k? Now go fetch my slippers.)

Consider his process for implementing the Grand Bargain:

For example, stages could include resolution of how to divide maritime resources without resolution of the sovereignty issues; agreement to defer sovereignty issues; arms control agreements that limit China’s conventional ability to threaten Taiwan and Japan and the operation of U.S. forces near China’s shores; and the reduction and eventual termination of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

Beijing will never agree to any of this in good faith (Nor does Glaser explain why Beijing should trust the US). Moreover, China is trapped; it cannot reduce its conventional forces precisely because it has so many territorial demands on its neighbors, and because it would mean compelling the People's Liberation Army to accept a reduced role in domestic politics. Good luck with that.

Glaser and others who write from this bubbleverse accept the existence of these territorial disputes without inquiring into their origins. The reason they invariably refrain from doing so is because if they did, it would immediately become obvious that China is engaging in territorial expansion, since Taiwan, the South China Sea islands, and the Senkakus were never historically Chinese areas. Instead, they were claims manufactured after the fall of the Manchu Qing dynasty, when China was redefined in order to expand it out to the borders of the Qing. Hence any reading of these territorial demands as "China's need for security" or some such silliness is Beijing propaganda, plain and simple.

This is crucial because if you read Glaser's paper carefully, there is a yawning gap that totally destroys his thesis. He mentions Taiwan, of course, but he also mentions the Senkakus many times.

Yet, he never mentions that Taiwan and the Senkakus (and Okinawa) are all connected in Chinese territorial demands (the ROC fantasy here, the Xinhua rewrite of history here). Chinese claim that the Senkakus were administered from Taiwan and are part of Taiwan. They cannot be separated into unrelated dispute bubbles the way Glaser treats them.

Thus, this current paper, just like his previous one, creates a bubble world in which there is no connection between China's expansionist claims in the South and East China Seas, and Taiwan. Indeed, the only way you can make the argument that Taiwan should be kissed off is if you pretend that Taiwan is not related to any other goal of Chinese expansionism. Which is rank nonsense.

In the real world, though, Chinese expansionists having been claiming for decades that the Senkakus were administered by the Qing from Taiwan, which makes them Chinese and part of the Taiwan claim. More importantly, it means that the "dispute" over Taiwan cannot be resolved by handing Taiwan over to China because that will simply bring the war over the Senkakus (and Okinawa) that much closer. Glaser learned nothing from criticism of his 2011 piece -- my comments still apply:

Thus, Glaser's position is contradictory: he argues that the US can avoid war by handing 23 million Taiwanese to Beijing and then beefing up its remaining alliance commitments to show we're still serious -- but in the case of Japan, that alliance is committed to defending territories Beijing covets. Not much point in selling out Taiwan to avoid war if you signal you are willing to go to war over the Senkakus and then beef up your forces in order to do just that. And having burned 23 million pro-American allies along with their armed forces, who would believe you are willing to nuke Beijing for a few rocks in the ocean?

It's not just the Senkakus, though. You'd never know from reading Glaser that the ROC government on Taiwan controls Pratas and Taiping Islands in the South China Sea. The Spratlys are mentioned once -- in a footnote to emphasize how small they are (!). The ROC-held islands in the SCS are not mentioned at all.

At present, you cannot hand over Taiwan to China without disposing of these islands, yet China will never accept any disposition of those islands in which it does not get them. Moreover, once you betray the Taiwanese, in addition to betraying Tokyo, you also betray Manila: Chinese expansionists have made noises about Batan Island and Beijing recently conducted exercises in the Bashi Channel. This means that your brilliant war-avoiding strategy brings China into greater conflict with both Philippines and Japan, two nations the US is bound by treaty obligations to defend in wartime.

Oh, and you increase Chinese power in the SCS by handing over key islands to it, making things worse for Vietnam and Malaysia, increasing the chance of war and giving Beijing a better position to wage it from. Oh, and let's not forget, you invite China to think of new expansionist claims, like to Yoniguni and Ishigaki, not far from Taiwan.

And this brilliant argument -- I laugh to use this word -- is from a "realist".

Far from reducing the chance of a clash between Beijing and Washington, the sell-out crowd ensures that there will be one, with China in a far better position, having gotten Taiwan for nothing, while Washington has given up a powerful asset of 23 million people and their armed forces arrayed against Chinese expansionism, for no gain at all.

But hey, I can think of two authoritarian parties that will be happy to send Charles Glaser on junkets to the Far East, if he keeps writing like this.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Tsai Ing-wen Rocks DC

Gravel operations on the Lili River.

DPP Presidential candidate and Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen's visit to the US went very well. Enjoy some video of her talking (from here) and check out Walter Lohman's comments in the post below this one. The Taipei Times enthused again...

Following a landmark visit to the White House on Wednesday, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) met US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday, making her the first Taiwanese presidential candidate to have entered the US Department of State headquarters.

US Department of State officials said at a post-meeting press conference that they appreciated Tsai’s visit, during which she held “constructive” talks with US officials.

Based on the US’ “one China” policy — as stipulated in the Three Joint Communiques between Washington and Beijing and the US’ Taiwan Relations Act — the US has developed solid unofficial ties with Taiwan, the officials said.

For the State Department to welcome the DPP candidate is unprecedented -- remember just a few years ago, in 2007, when the State Department shamefully objected to pixels containing an image of Chen Shui-bian assembling themselves in the United States for a teleconference?

All the behind the scenes commentary I've heard about the visit is very positive. Tsai was very well received. An important driver of this sea change is China's belligerent behavior, which is making Washington reconsider its China policy. Evan Medeiros, the architect of Obama's ailing China policy, is stepping down this week. Perhaps this will put an end to the cloud-cuckooland idea that a "breakthrough" could be achieved with China. Senator McCain released a statement:

Washington, D.C. ­- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today regarding his meeting with Dr. Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate, earlier this week:

"I was pleased to meet with Dr. Tsai Ing-wen, earlier this week. I was reassured of her support for a responsible foreign policy for Taiwan, her commitment to the status quo in cross-strait relations, and her desire to strengthen relations with the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with a democratic Taiwan that remains economically vibrant and an active contributor to regional peace and stability. I also look forward to another round of open, democratic elections in Taiwan this coming January, where the future of Taiwan is decided by Taiwanese and free from foreign intervention."

Hopefully McCain means not merely China, but also the US, when he refers to "foreign intervention."

Back here in Taiwan, the KMT was so disturbed by the idea of Tsai getting positive publicity, it decided to take advantage of the popularity of the death penalty and execute six people, thus shifting the local conversation back to the death penalty rather than Tsai's landmark visit.

Speaking of the KMT, don't miss Solidarity.tw's excellent piece on the declining KMT mainlander core with many good details. For reference, my old one in The Diplomat and Donovan's great one at China Policy Institute. The KMT gives every indication it isn't going to recover. In fact, suicidal pessimist that I am, I wonder what Beijing will do when it realizes the KMT isn't likely to recover.
_______________
Daily Links:

• Chinese coast guard vessel anchored off Borneo

  He explained that one of the areas within Gugusan Beting Patinggi Ali had become a small island, which resulted in many parties being interested in it, possibly with the intention of encroachment.

• Brookings piece on our excellent health care system
• Howard French with a strong piece in Foreign Policy about the US-China clash in the South China Sea. PLAN used social media this week to announce Bashi Channel and Miyakato Strait are its new operating theatres.
• CPI fell last month according to DGBAS. Sure.....
• Phils, Taipei clash over fishing boats in Philippines waters.
• The sole KMT presidential primary contender, raving Nationalist "I'm married to the KMT" Hung Hsiu-chu said that she would lead the fight to keep the KMT in the legislature. She has little support among the Party factions, who would prefer Wang Jin-pyng or Chairman Eric Chu. I can't wait to see how she will chill light Blue and independent support for the KMT. 
• There's nothing like a government that claims all of China, Mongolia, Xijiang, and Tibet from its tiny post in Taipei telling another government that it must face reality.
• Tsai's rally in NY, where over 1200 came out.
• Clothing maker Patogonia is shocked to find that foreign laborers are treated like slaves.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Tsai Ing-wen at CSIS, DPP transcript of speech and Q&A

A bright day...

This just came through the internets in English and Chinese, with Q and A at the bottom. Her comment on Thatcher is priceless... it's wonky, too tired to clean it up tonight.

DPP TRANSCRIPT OF DR. TSAI'S SPEECH AT CSIS ON 6/3/15, FOLLOWED BY THE Q&A LED BY KURT CAMPBELL...

Taiwan: from mendicant to irritant

This weekend went out and did the Nantou-Chiayi tea roads I'd done with Nathan four months ago, that knocked me out of cycling for months afterwards. Drew's write up of our excellent time is on Taiwan in Cycles.

The good news is that, we got some relief from the steady flow of news about corruption in the city council elections (latest: city council candidate sentenced to two years, flees to China, waits out statute of limitations, then returns and is elected. Only in Taiwan.). The bad news it was just another foreign policy screw-up involving the Ma government and the US government.

It turns out that the Republic of China flag (not the Taiwanese flag, there's no such thing) was raised over the Twin Oaks official residence of the ROC.... from the Taipei Times:

The ROC national flag was raised on Thursday last week at the Twin Oaks Estate — the former residence of ROC ambassadors to the US — for the first time since Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing 36 years ago, Representative to the US Shen Lyu-shun (沈呂巡) said. He said the ceremony was made possible under a mutual understanding with the Obama administration.

How 'bout them beans, eh? Shen said the US knew in advance and approved as long as it was kept quiet. But then the story broke and the State Department was out there denying everything like a B-17 crew frantically tossing out chaff on a bombing run over Berlin. [UPDATE: Shen admits that the US was not informed.] From the State Department briefing:

Q: And Jan, about the flag-raising ceremony, yesterday you said U.S. did not, you know, notify -- was not notified in the event, but Taiwan's government said, you know, they have reached understanding afterwards. Could you comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, one, I think I would just reiterate what I said yesterday, is that it's inconsistent with our policy and not notified in advance means you didn't know about it in advance, which seems consistent with what you just said.

Do we have any more on Taiwan?

Q: Well, yeah, because after the briefing yesterday, I read a couple of reports about this. I'm just -- had it previously been not allowed for the Taiwanese mission here to raise the flag at the representative's office -- residence?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the issue is that it's inconsistent with the spirit of our policy and it's violated our longstanding understanding on the conduct of our unofficial relations. I'm not sure if there was a previous incident to speak of.

Q: So, well, have the Chinese -- well, you were asked yesterday if the Chinese had complained directly to you. Do you know if they have?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any more specifics on that. I'd point you to the Chinese.

Q: This is the first time you're aware of this ever happening?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any historic record of -- of flag-raising issues, so I don't have a confirmation of that or not.

Q: Well, is there any -- is there any repercussion? Is there any consequence to -- to people -- I mean, I presume that there's an American flag at the AIT in Taipei. Yeah? I mean, is there any -- does it -- does it have any consequence that they...

MS. PSAKI: Well, we're in discussions with -- U.S. officials in Taipei and Washington are in discussions with Taiwan authorities about the matter. I don't have any other specifics for you.

Q: And what's the -- how does it get remedied? Do they have to take it down?

MS. PSAKI: I just don't have anything to predict for you at this point.

Q: Yeah, but can -- can we find out? Because, you know, as...

(Cross talk.)

MS. PSAKI: If I have something more to offer, I'm happy to share it. I'm not sure that I will at this point because we're still discussing with them.

(Cross talk.)

Q: (Inaudible) -- official capacity?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it's not about the U.S. views it. It's a representative compound. It's not a private person's home.

Go ahead.

Q: Just to follow up. When you said yesterday, you know, the ceremony is not consistent with U.S. policy. So what kind of message you would like -- you would like to deliver to Taiwan, such as "don't do that again" or --

MS. PSAKI: I think the message is what we've been conveying, which is that we're disappointed with the action. The flag-raising ceremony violated our longstanding understanding on the conduct of our unofficial relations. We have a robust set of cultural relations, but we do not have diplomatic relations. And we'll continue to discuss this with the proper officials.

Q: Well, that's a bit more than you said yesterday. You're disappointed then, I think.

MS. PSAKI: I believe I said exactly that yesterday.

Q: You did say that? OK, I must have missed it. Well, regarding other disputed areas, I mean, would you have the same problem if, I don't know, if the Dalai Lama's office here put a Tibetan flag up?

MS. PSAKI: We can discuss that if that happens, Matt. I'm happy to talk to our team about that.

Couple of things were pointed out to me in discussions with knowledgeable people (1) the ROC flag was plastered all over Twin Oaks for national day in October, with US officials in attendance. (2) Shen is not a loon and unlikely to have done a formal flag raising without clearing it with officials in Taipei and with the US. (3) the compound may be an official residence but it is technically privately owned by a foundation.

Lots of speculation about why... Taipei Times reported on one US official's reaction:

In an exclusive interview with the Taipei Times, a senior official in US President Barack Obama’s administration strongly denied that Washington had approved or knew anything about a Republic of China (ROC) national flag-raising ceremony at the Twin Oaks Estate in Washington on New Year’s Day.

He said the action undermines trust and puts symbolism ahead of real substance, leading many in Washington to ask: “Who in Taipei is in charge of the US-Taiwan relationship?”

It's just another example of the irritant policy -- Taipei does essentially harmless actions that annoy would-be allies like the US or Japan, in order to keep relations unsettled, making it harder for them to support Taipei. That's the function of the US beef mess and Taipei's crazed claims to the Senkakus -- which affect relations with its natural ally Japan -- and the South China Sea islands, which drive a wedge between Taipei and its natural allies against Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. It's all part of a piece. Readers may recall the US-Taiwan Business Council's complaint that Ma Ying-jeou had done nothing for US-Taiwan relations. Who could have predicted that?

China naturally complained, thus showing how another part of this policy is to use Taipei to transfer tensions between Washington and Beijing into the Washington-Taipei relationship.

It also shows how incredibly weak the State Department and US are in the face of possible complaints from Beijing about Taiwan. When Beijing complained, instead of backpedaling, the US just should have politely told them to take a long walk on a short pier. More spine, please. I mean, wasn't this the same department that not a month ago issued a legal document blasting China's wholly invented claim to the South China Sea? Why is it only Taiwan that gets this solemn cringing?

UPDATE: Commenter below notes publicly what I've heard privately, that Shen arranged press coverage. It's all about the irritation.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Taichung election, Sunday Linkfest, and Comments

Updated map of Taipei metro with opening of new Songshan Line. Note that the lines are now numbered. This was done "for the foreigners". Nobody asked us if we wanted that, it is totally unnecessary. h/t to David Reid. 

Practically giddy I am: Frozen Garlic actually mentioned me in a post the other day:

It seems like this will be a lost year for Frozen Garlic. I have lots of things that I would like to write about, but I just don’t seem to be able to find any free blocks of time when I have the energy to write. I don’t know how other bloggers find the time and energy to write regularly while still balancing full-time jobs, family, and other considerations. Let’s just say that I’m no Michael Turton.

Actually, I just decided to give up sleep. My productivity has risen sharply, and the little purple elves that dance around the edges of my vision are very entertaining.

The post is, in the best Frozen Garlic fashion, a great analysis of the Taichung election (and don't miss the excellent comments), really informed. First Froze discusses the decision to implement the BRT, a bus line with a dedicated lane after the city had been promised a metro system. The BRT is really a sensible plan and lots of us sensible observers who are pro-Green nevertheless thought it a great idea. Nobody wanted to see a repeat of the crater in the budget that is the Kaohsiung metro. Informed observers tell me that Hu's policy people really are wonks and that they saw the BRT as a way to determine where the popular lines are, after which they may think about an MRT, but above all, they would avoid the Kaohsiung MRT fail. Froze observes....

Traffic is one of the most important responsibilities of local government, and failing to effectively deal with traffic could significantly damage a mayor’s reputation. However, the BRT case is not simply a matter of traffic. There a broader narrative that Taichung has been stagnating under Jason Hu for the past 13 years. The 2010 election was critical in crystallizing this argument. At the beginning of 2010, Hu was widely thought to be a wonderful mayor. By the end of the campaign, the DPP had effectively demolished that reputation, and Hu squeaked into a third term by a razor-thin margin. The DPP’s attacks were most effective in the realm of pubic security, where several high-profile violent incidents and a renewed focus on crime in Taichung created the impression that Hu was either uninterested in fighting organized crime or outright collaborating with them. In 2001, Jason Hu came to Taichung as a KMT superstar, a widely liked former Foreign Minister with presidential aspirations and untainted by the dirtiness of local, factional politics. By 2010, he was transformed into just another KMT politician, deeply embedded in local faction networks, sullied by contact with organized crime, surviving by spreading around city money to politically useful projects rather than on public policy merit. Why did the Taichung City government need to scrimp on the transportation system when Kaohsiung did not? It might be because Hu has been spending money on other projects designed to keep the local factions happy. Unfortunately, he hasn’t finished enough of these or convinced normal voters that they are that important. For example, the newly opened Taichung Opera House took far longer than planned, entailed large cost overruns, and DPP figures suggest that it still isn’t completely ready but Hu is opening it before the election anyway.

Hu had two problems, really -- his plan for the city was grandiose and requires lots of time and money, and the local KMT's longtime connections to local organized crime. A wise friend noted that Hu wanted another term in part so all his plans would come to fruition under his own aegis, because you know Lin Jia-lung will ruthlessly claim credit for them if he wins (and recent polls show Lin ahead by less than five).

The crazy thing is that Lin's campaign amounts to either doubling down on Hu's wackier policies (did you know the city government gives massive subsidies for false teeth, which Lin says he'll double?) or simply running on CHANGE. Because CHANGE is good. His campaign amounts to saying "Hu has been in there too long, it's someone else's turn", a sort of upscaled appeal to the Taiwanese cultural preference for outcome fairness in social situations. Several times I've run into people who know I am pro-Green and who have asked in despair if I can give them a reason to vote for Lin, since he hasn't given them one himself.

Sound trucks everywhere, the candidates are saturating the neighborhoods. We're also getting lots of pamphlets and materials from pan-Green candidates in our isolated neighborhood....

Enough for this post, I have two more I want to get done today. On to the links....

• Taiwan in Cycles: The Sun Moon Lake bike trail is a trail for non-cyclists. It is boring, stupid, and dangerous.
• Taiwan in Cycles: the Takata Hill Climb. Awesome. Great pics as always.
• Frozen Garlic looks at the island's powerful political families. Froze contends 

  There is a difference in the nature of KMT and DPP family politicians. The percentage of incumbent KMT candidates with family ties is roughly twice as high as for incumbent DPP candidates. However, the DPP has a much higher percentage of legacy candidates among newcomers. Over a quarter of DPP newcomers have family ties. For some reason, the DPP has embraced family politics in this election cycle.

  This shows how the KMT is actually run for the benefit of a few powerful families. While Froze's observations that the list he provides from the 翻轉選舉運動 lacks "balance" are basically correct -- "non-partisan" pan-Green stuff often discredits itself because it is so obviously pro-Green -- it might have been good had he note the other major difference between the DPP and KMT family politicians: few, if any of the DPP politicians come from families that made their mark and their family fortunes serving the murderous authoritarian state.  
• ETRC group looks at elections. Here is third post in the series.
• GOOD STUFF: Longtime Taiwan scholar Don Rogers on how Ma still runs an imperial presidency despite being deeply unpopular.
• Taiwan Insider's link collection.
• Julia F on US-Taiwan relations after the midterm elections.
• Bleach used to 'cure' bean sprouts. Bleach is sometimes used by vendors in night markets to spiffy up their fruit. *sigh* And another huge company admits using animal feed oil for human consumption in 2012.
• Critique of U-bike. This is my experience as well. The government added the program to Taipei, essentially adding thousands of vehicles to the streets without adding the requisite physical and regulatory infrastructure.
• Touring Taiwan by bike for a month. Great pics
• Scotch whisky makers scoring big in Taiwan
• Police shut down gay website for obscenity. Meanwhile porn sites for straights are going full blast.
• SecState Kerry meets former Veep Vincent Siew, then calls for "market reforms" so that it can join the TPP, which is a giveaway to US multinationals in the guise of a trade agreement. I could have told you, Vincent, the world was always meant for one as dutiful as you. 
• Min of Education moves capital to Nanjing. LOL.
• Kerry Brown argues for an Aussie relationship with China that is independent of Washington's
• ECONOMIC FANTASIES: SCMP: Sends around another piece on the fantasy of Taiwan makers in China returning to Taiwan to set up businesses. Businesses come and go, with its selective emphasis on businesses returning, both the Chen and Ma Administrations hoped to create the impression that more are coming than going. Nope. A more interesting piece might be done on the foreigners who have left China because they constantly get ripped off to come here and open businesses because Taiwanese are more honest and trustworthy than Chinese.
• ECONOMIC FANTASIES: Ketagalan: Korea-China deal sends shockwaves throughout Taiwan. Well, through the big government subsidized companies and the media who serve them. In the best shock doctrine style, some big firms immediately demanded that the minimum wage be lowered so they can make even more money off government-regulation wage suppression on one side and government direct and tax subsidies on the other. Wage earners get it coming and going, since they pay the subsidies. You can see what the actual political function of the OMG KOREA! discourse is: to drive acceptance of wage discipline, subsidy farming, and tax avoidance by big firms. It has nothing to do with the reality of Korea-Taiwan competition... there's other good stuff there, don't miss it. 

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Burning Taiwanese factories and other irritants

Vietnamese, rioting over China's placement of a drilling rig in Vietnamese waters, burnt at least 15 factories owned by Taiwanese to the ground (FocusTaiwan)....

The violence that began to rip through southern Vietnam May 13 spread north the following day into Ha Tinh Province, where attacks that left one person dead and 90 injured broke out at a steel mill belonging to Formosa Plastics Group.

The protests were triggered by China's deployment of an oil rig in what Vietnam considers to be its exclusive economic zone near the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. The rioters targeted factories bearing Chinese-language signs, with little or no regard for whether they were Chinese or Taiwanese.

It's nice to take a moment to reflect on how far we've come: the mouthpiece of a government that insists that everyone in Taiwan is Chinese differentiates the two here.

But feel-good moments aside, the official story here doesn't add up for me. Are you seriously suggesting that the Vietnamese don't know that the factories are owned by Taiwanese? Some have been there two decades. And the rioting broke out at Formosa Plastics, a huge concern whose origin had to have been known.

My man maddog was darkly speculating on Twitter that Chinese agents may have been behind the burning of Taiwanese factories in China. But I wonder whether the factories got burned because someone decided to hide a labor protest over the treatment of workers in Taiwanese factories within the riots.

Reuters points out that the industrial zones got hit hard, and also that China is behaving in Vietnam the same way that it behaves in Taiwan: resources flow into China but no return investment comes out.

The ROC on Taiwan rushed in to remind everyone that it owns the South China Sea. In fact the true-blue Chinese Nationalists first promulgated the famous "cow's tongue" map that stakes China's claim to the South China Sea, back in 1947, which the PRC also included in its Communist utopia. The reminder from Taipei was a classic "irritant" move of the Ma Administration, meant to increase the distance between Taipei and its natural allies to the south and west around the South China Sea, maintain the island's isolation, and convince locals that their only hope lies with China and China's victory over Taiwan is inevitable.

Note also that the ROC claim makes it more difficult for the inevitable regional coalition against China to emerge and complicates US attempts to encourage it and draw the area's nations closer together. Ma is protecting Beijing to the extent that he can. This irritant shows how completely stupid and shortsighted Washington's policy of supporting the KMT is -- a DPP president would be a helluva lot more accommodating to Washington's goal of encouraging the emergence of a South China Sea regional alliance. While some in Washington supported Ma because they support Beijing, others thought that there would be less tension if they supported the KMT.

Congratulations, folks: you got your tension anyway. By supporting Ma, you enabled the PRC to displace its tension inducing moves to elsewhere in Asia. Two things should be obvious:

1 - the cause of tension in Asia is Beijing. Beijing will create tension no matter what happens in Taipei.

2 - supporting the KMT = supporting China. You can't follow a policy of opposition to Beijing elsewhere but support for the KMT in Taiwan. One conflicts with the other.

Let's hope Washington wises up and finally supports the DPP as a way to help integrate Taiwan into its SE Asian strategy.
_________________________________
Daily Links:

• Ketagalen Media rounds up....
• Is academic freedom under assault? 
• Low salaries in Taiwan under fire after an offhand remark by Terry Gou. Companies quickly explain that low salaries are due to low national competitiveness. Glad they cleared that up. 
• Bananas: as I wrote last year, export bananas may well be wiped out by a disease
• Cole: KMT simply ignores Wang's agreements with students on the services pact 

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

House Passes Taiwan legislation

The US House passed legislation that is important for Taiwan (here). Rep. Royce's announcement:

Today, the House of Representatives passed with overwhelming bipartisan support H.R. 3470, the Taiwan Relations Act Affirmation and Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2014, introduced by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The legislation reaffirms U.S. commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act and strengthens ties with key U.S. security partners by transferring ships that meet shared maritime security requirements. Specifically, the legislation authorizes the transfer by sale of four Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates to Taiwan.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Irritant Time with the US

For pete's sake don't miss this excellent piece by William Pesek: Is China Losing Taiwan? on the protests. Except for its strange title -- China never had Taiwan -- it's awesome.

Chang An-le the longtime gangster who started a pro-annexation political party here showed up in front of the LY to harangue the students today. A comical moment occurred when he accused them, basically, of not being good enough to be Chinese. I'm sure that was a really effective comment. He left at 5 but promised to come back. Rumors flying around that the legislature will convene to pass the pact tomorrow.....

Recall that the Ma Administrations goal of putting Taiwan into China's orbit has two complementary parts. The first involves pushing the nation into Beijing's arms. The second involves distancing it from the US. Enter the irritants, issues used to keep relations with the US troubled. The ractobeef issue has risen from the grave, resurrected to once again vex US-Taiwan relations as the ractopork issue. FocusTaiwan reports:

Taiwan will insist on barring imports of U.S. pork containing the leanness-enhancing drug ractopamine, the Council of Agriculture (COA) said Tuesday.

The COA said that U.S. pork currently accounts for between 18 percent and 20 percent of the country's exports*, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture issuing certificates that particular batches do not contain ractopamine residue.

The official made the remarks as a U.S. report said that Washington is concerned about Taiwan's ban on beef offal and pork containing ractopamine and could pressure Taiwan to lift its ban on ractopamine-containing pork imports.

The official noted that hog raising is the highest-grossing aspect of Taiwan's agricultural sector, adding that Taiwan will continue to insist on no imports of pork containing traces of ractopamine, while its own hog industry will also not use the drug.

What a coincidence! Just as Taiwan is about to pass major trade treaty with China, it disturbs trade negotiations with the US over the ractopork issue.

Unlike beef, which isn't much produced in Taiwan, pork is a major product. Ma has wisely positioned this policy so it has a broad swathe of support. The whole issue with ractobeef was that under the international trade agreements, by letting in ractopamine-dosed beef, Taiwan had given up the right to let in anything else dosed with ractopamine. Since heavily subsidized US ractopork threatens Taiwan's pork producers -- no starry-eyed innocents themselves when it comes to dosing pigs with drugs -- the government objected to beef to protect the pork producers.

*I think they mean Taiwan pork imports
______________________________
Daily Links:

• Manila is taking Beijing to court over its absurd claim to the South China Sea.
• Ma claims to be thinking about national trade conference to discuss the issues arising from the services pact. LOL.
• MOEA to institute services pact "education" at universities.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

When will the American Left learn about Taiwan? Eli Clifton in The Nation

What is wrong with the US Left on Taiwan and China? Too often, my fellow lefties are peering at East Asia through thick Cold War goggles. The latest example of the ignorant Cold War lenses that shape the thinking of the US is Eli Clifton's godawful article in The Nation this week.

Just skim it; it's largely a waste of time. Instead pick up J Michael Cole's excellent rebuke of Clifton's commentary at The Diplomat:

Those are perfectly legitimate questions, and we’re all for transparency in the funding of research institutions — especially when it comes from abroad. The problem is that the article’s claims are based on two assumptions that belie a poor understanding of the think tank world and, more importantly, the maddeningly complex workings of U.S.-Taiwan relations.

On the first issue: U.S. think tanks receive funding from a plethora of governments, institutions, foundations, universities, and individuals. Some of those donors, for various reasons, choose to remain anonymous. For example, the Brookings Institution’s 2012 annual report shows one anonymous donor in the $1,000,000-$2,499,999 category, and three in the $500,000-999,999 range — the same bracket as the “problematic” TECRO identified in the article. That same year, TECRO’s donated between US$250,000-US$499,999 to Brookings, which is hardly a strident advocate of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Like a lot of other foreign entities, the Taiwanese government funds a number of other think tanks in the U.S. There is nothing unusual, or even illegal, in this.

Moreover, while the article focuses on TECRO’s financial contributions to AEI, it makes absolutely no mention of the much more substantial — and oftentimes less transparent — donations to U.S. think tanks and academic institutions by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, wealthy Chinese individuals, or corporations with strong business interests in China (to that we can also add the co-optation of retired U.S. generals and government officials via highly lucrative corporate positions). Nor is it said that through those institutions, the PRC is attempting to sever U.S.-Taiwan ties, end U.S. arms sales to the island, and encourage the perception that the “re-unification” of Taiwan and China is inevitable, by force if necessary, even if this goes against the wishes of Taiwan’s 23 million people.

In short, by being so selective, the article completely omits the tremendous influence that the much stronger party in the dispute, China, has on U.S. policy on Taiwan.

The second major problem with the article is that it assumes that TECRO was using its (presumably un-kosher) influence on AEI to push for arms sales — especially 66 F-16C/Ds — at a time when, as anyone who follows U.S.-Taiwan relations closely would know, Taipei was dragging its feet on arms sales and, later on, seemed to be doing everything in its power to kill the F-16 program. In other words, rather than dictate to the researchers at AEI, Taiwan was funding analysts that were growing increasingly critical of and impatient with Taipei’s passive attitude to arms procurement — the exact opposite of what the article claims.

Of course China is omitted, that practically goes without saying. Argh. The idea that TECRO wants arms sales is part of the Cold War view that lefties still use to assess East Asia, also present in Lee Fang's piece from last year which makes exactly the errors that Clifton does. In this upside-down view of the universe, F-16 sales to Taiwan "militarize" the conflict between China and Taiwan, while apparently there is nothing China can ever do to militarize the conflict....

Walter Lohman observed that Brookings, also a recipient of TECRO funding, hosted DPP Chairman and likely presidential candidate Su Tseng-chang at a reception a couple of weeks ago, which is certainly not something the KMT-run government wants to see, yet TECRO gives money to Brookings. Some friends of mine who were there told me Su was warmly received... good!

The other reason this article peeved me, in addition to its by-now bog-standard Leftish ignorance of Taiwan, is that all the stuff that Cole writes about is available on this and other political blogs, including Cole's own, as well as in the local media. Clifton didn't have to do much, just send around emails to us and we'd have been happy to explain everything to him. *sigh* Why ever do they think we blog?

Great work, J. Michael.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Some gossip on the TPP

Gossip drifting over to me ears from inside the Beltway: apparently Taipei is signaling Washington privately that despite what it is publicly saying, the Ma Administration does not want to become part of the TPP. One wonders what private protocols have been negotiated between Beijing and Taipei over closer links to Washington. We already know the Administration doesn't want the F-16s despite the noises it makes publicly.

Anyway, believe or don't, as you please. Just passing along some stuff whispered in my ear......

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Thim on Defense

Over at the superb China Policy Institute blog, Michel Thim has a piece on Defense Policy under President Ma... after reviewing the continuity between the Chen and Ma Administrations in some areas of defense policy, including the Hard ROC policy, Thim observes:

Defence-planning notwithstanding, there are several challenges, some temporary, some embedded in the specific conditions in Taiwan, all of which the Ma administration ought to address sooner rather than later. One of the most urgent matters is the imminent fighter jet gap. A significant component of the current jet fleet (F-5s, Mirage 2000s) is going to retire, or is scheduled for upgrade (F-16A/Bs), by the end of the decade, which means that some of them won’t be available at any given time between 2017 and 2027. This relates to the problem with arms procurement. At the moment, the US is, realistically, the only source of advanced weaponry besides domestic production, which would not be possible without US assistance. After 2008 record procurements were made in terms of money spent, but the most important element, the 66 F-16C/D fighter jet, has yet to be secured.

A large part of recently materialized procurements were long-stalled orders held over from Chen’s presidency, which blocked by a KMT majority in the Legislative Yuan, in some cases for several years. That defence matters were subject to “petty” domestic disputes was not perceived well in the US and voices questioning Taiwan’s resolve to prepare for its own defence originates from that period. Thus, the persistent negative perception of political bickering between the KMT and DPP during the Chen era is a formidable spoiler of US-Taiwan relations. Although this does not tell the whole story about US-Taiwan military cooperation, as there is much happening under the table far from the spotlight, (mis)perceptions should be tackled better. The oft-mentioned problem with Taiwan’s low defence spending – approximately at the level of NATO countries facing no comparable threat – is a matter to be addressed too, and it is well noted in current edition of QDR. Yet allocation of resources for defence should not be considered as a final figure, given the option of approving a special budget outside of regular defence spending. If the US approves the F-16 deal in the short term, a special budget would be a way to tackle the issue financially on Taiwan’s side.

As I've noted on this blog, the US also must share the blame for the failure of the F-16 deal, as Thim alludes.

One thing I'd like to add... Thim notes that some good things have happened, weapons sales, etc, from the US, which don't get the publicity that the F-16 impasse received. Quite true, yet in this paramount US-Taiwan relationship, one thing I haven't heard of is the Ma Administration asking for increased US military visits and personnel cooperation and exchanges. Does anyone know if that has occurred? More intimate relations between the two sides' militaries would greatly ease the problems of cooperation during the upcoming war with China over (pick at least one: Senkakus, Taiwan, South China Sea, Arunachal Pradesh). From my (admittedly restricted) vantage the tussle over the F-16s has concealed a long-term malaise in other forms of important relations.... a common pattern with the Ma Administration is to use the political theatre offered by high profile issues to obscure a lack of progress in other crucial areas.....
______________
Daily Links:

• Fagan's Excellent Adventure with good pics: Following the Guantien River
• Is China the new Taiwan? Nope.
• Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs Council to be merged with the Mainland Affairs Council. Because Tibet and Mongolia are part of China....?
• Family feuds threaten some of Asia's major businesses
• President Ma's sister angered by link to growing Twin Towers scandal. Wonder if the media will attack Ma's family the way they went after Chen's if she proves to have been involved. Hahaha. What a silly question. 

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Irritant watch: Pork strikes the US-Taiwan relationship

Lunch yesterday.

Well, as predicted by many, including this blog, US ractopork is now becoming an issue in US-Taiwan relations. Another useful irritant. The China Post reports:

The Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) denied a request to approve ractopamine-containing pork imports during yesterday's bilateral trade talks with the United States, which said it will broach the topic again.

The seventh round of Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) talks opened yesterday in Taipei after a six-year hiatus.

During the talks, U.S. negotiators pressured Taiwan to rethink its ban on pork imports containing ractopamine, a leanness-enhancing feed additive.

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis, who headed an interagency U.S. delegation, “underscored his request that Taiwan's food safety measures — including those relating to meat exports — are based on science and consistent with international standards,” according to a statement released by the Office of the United States Trade Representative after the talks.

The MOEA turned down the request, saying that Taiwan will continue to “separate permits for importing beef and pork.”

Last year, the Cabinet removed a ban on U.S. beef containing ractopamine, after assuring the public that Taiwan's pork ban won't also be removed by default.

Lessee.... Taiwan wants US troops to die for Taiwanese if China invades Taiwan... but won't buy US pork.

US pork shipments to Taiwan were heavily impacted by the US use of ractopamine. The US wants to ship pork to Taiwan but wants to include toxic substances banned in over 100 countries. I've got a great idea -- stop producing pork with toxins in it and trying to ship it to Taiwan! Regain your markets, improve health. Win-win! Naw, that's too intelligent.

The hypocrisy never stops, because anyone who has ever studied the production of pork in Taiwan can only laugh at the idea that Taiwan is defending its food safety. The real problem is that production of pork in Taiwan is big business. This Canadian government report lays out some of the issues:

• In 2009, Canada overtook the United States as the largest source of Taiwanese pork imports by weight, with 38.6 thousand tons worth of pork imported from Canada that year.
• "Canadian packers provide better pork specifications and Canadian trimmings seem to be more competitive in quality than U.S. products. Canadian pork producers are benefiting in the wake of the U.S. pork ractopamine issue as they move to satisfy demand for pork in Taiwan" (U.S. Meat Export Federation, 2008).
• Rising grain prices have negatively affected Taiwan's pork production and resulted in increased reliance on imports. This reliance on imports is expected to compound overtime (USDA, Exporter Guide, 2008; ,USDA Taiwan Livestock and Products, 2006).
• ....recent troubles faced by domestic producers create opportunities for increased foreign imports. A number of Taiwanese hog operations have closed, following a surge in grain prices that began in 2007. A reported 756 farmers exited the industry and the number of pigs was reduced by 440,000 (U.S. Meat Export Federation, 2008).
• Pork is a very important commodity in Taiwan's food supply and constitutes the largest portion of domestically produced meat, at 59% of the total.
• Taiwan has a larger import market for poultry and beef than it does for pork, but not for lack of domestic demand. Rather, it is the larger capacity of domestic pork production that makes it less important as an import relative to poultry or beef.
• Taiwan imports pork largely to offset shortfalls in its own domestic production. 
• Pork is the largest single source of protein in the Taiwanese diet. It is also an important source of Vitamin A and Iron

It should be added that pork has important religious and cultural significance in Taiwan. Everyone has seen the offerings of pigs at temples or the God Pig competition. Pigs are also key symbols in local culture, and were used to represent the KMT in protests during the Martial Law era. When you mess with pork, you mess with the Taiwan identity.

Taiwan used to export pork, but the hoof and mouth disease outbreak here in the 1990s killed the export industry. Rising grain prices will probably continue to reduce output here in Taiwan. Rising grain prices... shudder... here's the outlook for 2013.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Ractopork coming to a supermarket near you?

There's been much commentary on Taiwan this month from the Heritage and Brookings, both of which hosted Taiwan-related events. Rupert Hammond-Chambers, head of the US-Taiwan Business Council, opined that the Ma Administration should be announcing soon that FTA agreements with major trading partner Singapore and also with New Zealand should be finalized soon. Good news, if true.

He and other speakers at the Heritage Foundation mentioned that, in the context of the TIFA trade talks between the US and Taiwan, the issue of ractopork should be easily solved and the talks moved forward (remember, the TIFA talks are more like discussions about having talks). Hammond-Chambers said that the local papers are inflating the issues and are too parochial. I wonder if the US side really understands: (1) The beef issue was artfully used by the Ma Administration to irritate relations with the US. Pork is absolutely central to Taiwanese cooking -- the word meat in Chinese, by default, means pork. US ractopork imports may well be even more politically unpopular than ractobeef, which makes them a perfect tool for the Ma Administration to continue its policies of irritating Washington. (2) There are few local beef producers, but a myriad of local pig farmers and slaughterhouses. The political clout of the pork industry is great, and the local KMT patronage systems need those farmers to provide votes for its rural representatives.

Against this, as other writers noted, since The Racto Beef of Death^© was admitted, US ractopork and other pork products should be admitted as well. Under the WTO agreements, once ractopamine containing products are admitted, all such products must be admitted. Perhaps the US side is counting on this to force the Ma Administration's hand when it says things should go smoothly.

In any case, whatever happens, the hilarious disconnect between the health claims in the expected public protests over incoming US ractopork and the abounding silence over the healthiness of local pork will no doubt provide much fodder for us post-starved bloggers.

More on Brookings tomorrow....
______________________
Daily Links:

• Don't worry, the interviewee is actually quite critical of the Ma Administration and probably politely agreed with the idea that Ma's peace plan could help.
• Full text of H.R. 419: Taiwan Policy Act of 2013
• Dean Cheng at the latest Heritage Foundation soiree on Taiwan noted that the vaunted Pivot of Obama is, like everything else that fraud does, simply words. The deployments don't reflect it. As I've said, the Pivot is just more of the usual Obama practice of scattering words like pixie dust over the trouble waters of discourse in order to calm them, without actual commitment of resources or policy change. Here is a similar piece from Cheng in Aug of last year.
• Policemen performing duties may be videotaped.
• Chinese expansion of its land links with central Asia is causing all sorts of political tensions.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Ma's Surprising Envoy to the US makes surprising remarks

I'm off on a bike vacation, but I've got my computer with me so I can combine both my addictions. No sooner do I leave than the new Big Man in Washington, King Pu-tsun, Ma's hatchet man, longtime personal friend, and personal appointment as the ROC/Taiwan emissary to the US, makes some surprising statements in a surprising interview with AFP:

We have our own pragmatic approach to survive," said the envoy who cannot call himself ambassador, as the United States broke formal ties with Taiwan in 1979 when it recognised China.

"We need strong support from the United States, but we also have to deal cautiously with mainland China because now they are the number one partner of Taiwan," he added.

"It is a very strategic ambiguity that we have. It is the best shield we have."

King's weird flow of verbiage is a good example of the way Taiwanese grab catch phrases from the vast pool of media commentary and redeploy them (a common one is 'win-win'). "Strategic ambiguity" has long been the phrase to describe the US' position on Taiwan. It reads as if King is signaling a new turn in which Taiwan (further) distances itself from the US. But King denied this and said that he was not translated properly -- a common tactic when Deep Blue politicians become too open about their goals and feelings. King's reverse of this went (Taipei Times)...

King said the “strategic ambiguity” to which AFP referred during the interview did not refer to the trilateral relationship among Taiwan, China and the US, but rather to only the relationship between Taiwan and China.

In a Washington-datelined report earlier in the day titled “Surprise Envoy Protects Taiwan’s ‘Shield’ of Ambiguity,” AFP said that during the interview, King highlighted the importance of the “strategic ambiguity” that Taiwan maintains with China on one side and its protector, the US, on the other.

In a statement, King said his “strategic ambiguity” refers to cross-strait relations, which are handled based on the so-called “1992 consensus” between Taiwan and China, according to which there is only one China, with each side free to interpret what the phrase means.

As the Taipei Times makes clear, he originally was referring to the US-China-Taiwan relationship. Of course, we all know which side Ma is allied with, so King's further distancing fits Ma's policy quite well. Note in the article King follows that with a comment on how Chen Shui-bian damaged US-Taiwan relations, which he is there to repair!

Looks like King was sending out a major trial balloon, which sank like a stone, but he is not. Rather, he's setting out the survey stakes to show where the road is going to go. Also note that he twice gets in the word pragmatic, a staple of the "I'm pragmatic, you're ideological" KMT propaganda campaign against the DPP and of course, another favorite catchword. There was nothing pragmatic about King's remarks. For more on King, see this 2009 post.

MEDIA: AFP positioned King's remarks as part of what appears to be a highly slanted presentation that represents an all-out attack on US support of Taiwan...such a slant appears to be par for the course for AFP. The article first claims that US arms sales hurt relations with China, a staple of Beijing propaganda:

That ambiguity does not help counter US observers who say Taiwan has become a "strategic liability" because of the harm that US arms sales to Taiwan -- about US$180 billion since 2008 -- does to relations with China.

...and then referring to Richard Bush's recent paper:

According to Richard Bush, a former head of the US mission in Taiwan and now director of the Brookings Institution's Centre for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, some US "observers believe that Taiwan has become a strategic liability" so the United States should stop arming Taiwan.

The doubters include Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, and Bill Owens, a retired admiral who was a vice chairman of the US chiefs of staff.

"They echo Chinese diplomats who argue that our arms sales are the major obstacle to good US-China relations," Bush said in a policy paper for Brookings released last month.

Note that no names of individuals wishing to sustain strong US support of Taiwan are mentioned. Instead we get Bill Owens, the American spokesman for that disgusting Remains of the Day-style sellout called the Sanya Initiative (here), and Brzezinski -- I'll leave it to you to find his Beijing connection, but see this old post. AFP does the usual international media move of leaving out the context and instead presenting the two names as if they are neutral and informed commentators. Ah, media ethics, now just a quaint marker of an earlier, lost time, like those gigantic sideburns in civil war officer photos.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.