Japanese War Dead Shrine in Taichung

My friend Jim over at Sponge Bear went up to Taoyuan the other day and stopped by the very well-preserved Shinto shrine there. The shrine was preserved only because the local government lacked the funds to remake it as a Confucian temple. Interest in these Japanese-period buildings has blossomed since the 1980s, as Taiwanese have begun to explore, understand, and reconceptualize their lost past. Jim reminded me that my son and I had stopped at one of Taichung's few remaining Shinto shrines the other day as well. Here are the pictures...

The Shrine is located on Jianxing Rd not far from the intersection of Beitun Rd. Probably many of you in Taichung can recall driving by it: a large religious institution with great green roofs. There are interred the bones of Japanese who died in Taiwan, and there is a memorial to the Taiwanese who died fighting for Japan in WWII, with a dedication written by none other than former President Lee Teng-hui. Lee, like many in his generation, identifies more with Japan than China.

The original shrine is still there.

The shrine is undergoing some kind of renovation, and if you look closely, you can see the entire building is mounted on jacks.

Bones of the Japanese dead interred here.

In one of the buildings funeral ceremonies were taking place. These plaques belong to different families.

[Taiwan] [Taichung] [Shinto] [Japan]

Defense News on KMT Defense Policy and on Arms Sales and Democracy

Veteran Taipei-based reporter Wendell Minnick reports on the KMT's defense policy, as they have announced it on paper.

The paper, “A New Military for a Secure and Peaceful Taiwan,” assures readers that the KMT will pursue cross-strait peace, maintain the status quo and resume cross-strait dialogue in order to avoid miscalcula¬tion and accidents. Such language would no doubt reassure U.S. government officials that Taiwan will not rock the boat under a KMT president.

On peace in the Taiwan Strait, the paper demands the removal of China’s more than 800 short-range ballistic missiles, the Dong Feng-11s and DF-15s, aimed at Taiwan.
“We will initiate military-to-military ex¬changes, and negotiate to establish confi¬dence-building measures (CBM) mecha¬nism,” the paper says. “We will negotiate with Beijing on a peace accord in order to keep the Taiwan Strait peaceful and prosperous.”

Finally! After years of approving Beijing pointing missiles at their children, the KMT has made it official policy to oppose Beijing's missile program. This would appear to be a sop to voters -- other than Ma Ying-jeou, few KMT officials have spoken out on the issue and there has been no sustained discourse on it.

But the paper also says that the KMT will not disregard the threat from Beijing, saying Taiwan will “harden” its defenses and defeat Chinese attempts to intimidate and invade the island.

“We will build a new military based on a de¬fensive ‘Hard ROC [Republic of China]’ strat¬egy,” it says. “We will harden up our defense to an extent that is unshakable with our high morale, undefeatable by blockade, unoccupi¬able under invasion, and uncrackable with our sustained resistance. When a war is unavoid¬able, we will effectively use our advantages in force, space and timing. We will attempt to win the first stage of conflict through rapid employment of forces, disturbing the enemy’s tempo of operations, and gain more time for international assistance.”

The KMT paper also reassures the public and Washington that the defense budgets of the future will be managed better. In 2001, the Bush administration offered Taiwan eight submarines, 12 P-3 Orion anti-subma¬rine aircraft and Patriot PAC-3 air defense missiles, and since that offer the budget for the items has been highly politicized in the legislative branch. The P-3 budget was just passed in June, but the effort took six years.

Submarines and PAC-3s are considered dead issues by many defense analysts in Tai¬wan. The budget mess has brought criticism from Washington that Taiwan does not take its defense seriously.

As always for US publications, the article does not mention the US role in driving the process. Minnick also plays down the fact that it was Ma's party that blocked the sale more than 60 times in Committee, and that Ma has broken his promises to the US on the arms purchase.

The paper suggests that a rational defense budget process is needed in the future: “Defense requirements, financial reality, cross-strait relations and public opinion are four cardinal considerations in shaping our de¬fense budget. Actual defense spending will depend on the progress of the implementa¬tion of the all-volunteers system. In princi¬ple, however, the defense expenditure will not be lower than 3 percent of the GDP. The ratio of expenses on personnel, operations and military investment will be 4:3:3 in the breakdown of defense budget. Special budg¬ets should not be used except for unexpected circumstances.”

The reference in the last sentence is to the current budget mess, when controversial weapons procurements of submarines, P-3C anti-sub aircraft, and Patriot missiles were bundled together, making them a perfect political target.

++++++++++

Minnick also turned in a piece on Taiwan's request to purchase F-16 fighters:

“We are supposed to be assessing the F-16s on the basis of Taiwan defense needs — now we are politicizing the process to our own detriment,” said Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow with the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.

Blumenthal served as senior director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia in the U.S. defense secretary’s international security office.

“In order to gain their cooperation on North Korea and other reasons, there is a burning desire to humor China, even if it means ignoring obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act,” said John Tkacik, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, Washington. “It is very sad to see the U.S. administration pressure a democratic friend at the encouragement of a communist dictatorship without the slightest acknowledgment of the real problem.”

One Taiwanese defense insider said the U.S. government’s position on the F-16 sale was “silly.” U.S. officials are refusing to accept a formal Taiwanese request for price and availability data on the F-16s — and then claiming that there is no such request, the insider said.

“The U.S. government has released P-3s, and the two sides are working out details on the letter of offer and acceptance [LOA],” the insider said. “The P-3s, as well as Patriot upgrades and a range of other countries’ programs, didn’t make the cut in terms of congressional notification before the last session ended. LOAs have to be concluded before end of year, and have to have the notification first before the LOAs can be signed.”

As usual, conservative John Tkacik of Heritage is out there pushing for Taiwan:

Sources say U.S. officials are also pressuring Taiwanese President Chen to back off plans to hold a national referendum on applying for membership in the United Nations.

Tkacik said Washington has a history of misreading the tea leaves floating in the Taiwan Strait.

“The administration gravely misunderstands the dynamics in Taiwan and China if it believes the Taiwanese referendum is the core problem,” he said. “China’s insistent threats to war are the core problem.”

Tkacik said no one argues that the United States has any philosophical or legal reason to oppose Taiwan’s desire to be legitimated by U.N. membership.

“So, why we should object to a democratic referendum on Taiwan to resolve the issue, when we ourselves have not taken a formal position or ‘made any determination’ about it, and instead permit the Chinese communists to define the issue, is a mystery,” he said. “It is plain to see that the main concern the United States has is about China’s threats of war. A more rational policy approach would, at the very least, temper U.S. confrontation on Taiwan’s referendum push with a public rebuke of China’s threats to war.”

"A more rational policy" is not likely to occur. But the hold up of the F-16 sale makes hollow US accusations that Taiwan is unwilling to defend itself: Taiwan wants the weapons -- and it is the US that is refusing to sell them.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Democracy] [DPP] [KMT] [UN]

Korea-US FTA on the rocks

The Nelson Report, the Washington insider report, gave a short blurb on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Korea and the US:

What about KORUS? Obviously important strategically, and from a political/foreign policy standpoint...and important economically...there's no disagreement on that.

We all know the problems alleged by the Congressional Auto Caucus.

Perhaps more difficult to overcome will be that despite all the things USTR was able to get from S. Korea, and despite claims of broad support from the business community, you don't have to work very hard to hear that in reality, many would-be US exporters feel that Korea's propensity for non-tariff barriers has not been sufficiently addressed.

Specific examples are given which remind you of some of the more comically outrageous practices in Japan, back in the good old days. (Ask the Whirlpool folks about the switches which S. Korean manufacturers allegedly build-in to beat the air pollution inspections system...)

Bring a WTO case if there are problems, you say? Ask around, and you are told that in reality, winning a "TBT" case (Technical Barriers to Trade) is seen as very hard to prove, and in any event costly, time consuming, and likely to be unsatisfactory in conclusion.

All of this sort of thing adds up to a growing pessimism that even the best-organized pro-KORUS grass-roots lobbying campaign may not be able to overcome the anecdotal opposition...much less the AFL-CIO and the Auto Caucus...in the very thin "launch window" of Jan-March, next year, after which no trade vote is conceivable, except maybe to boost TAA.

When the FTA first hit the news earlier this year, it was widely seen as damaging to Taiwan's economy. Taiwan and Korea sell many of the same products in the US, and after the FTA, Korean products would be cheaper than Taiwan products. It looks like Taiwan has been given a reprieve....speaking of Korea, enjoy this piece at Global Voices Online that points to Korean research that says blood types really are related to personality. Sure.

[Taiwan] [Korea] [US]

New Zogby Poll Shows Americans Support Taiwan into UN

A new Zogby poll shows Americans support Taiwan's entry into the UN. The poll was commissioned by the Taiwan Government Information Office, so take with the appropriate grain of NaCl:

The survey, conducted Sept. 6-10, 2007, shows that 61% believe the U.S. government should support Taiwan's petition to gain membership in the international body just as it did recently for Kosovo. Asked whether the UN should offer Taiwan membership, 55% of American adults said it should. Perhaps seeing it as a matter of consistency in dealing with allies around the world, American progressives are very supportive of this stance for the U.S. However, conservatives were not so sure. Among the very liberal, 77% said the U.S. should go to bat for Taiwan membership, compared to just 52% of those who considered themselves very conservative.

If the people of Taiwan pass a referendum to join the New York-based body, 70% of respondents in the survey said the U.S. should not oppose the island nation's petition to join. Since the early 1990s, Taiwan has applied for membership but has never won it because of opposition from Beijing, which, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, holds veto power over such applications.

Asked whether the U.S. should oppose China's stance on Taiwan's membership in the body and help Taiwan win membership in the UN, 52% agreed it should. On this question, conservatives were more supportive of Taiwan's cause than were liberals. Among the very conservative, 72% agreed the U.S. should help Taiwan, while just 48% of the very liberal agreed.

The survey included 1,205 U.S. adults nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

Most Americans - 72% - said they think that, when it comes to UN membership, all countries should be treated equally and without discrimination, the poll showed. And 81% said the U.S. should respect every country's right to UN membership based on the principles of democracy and self-determination.

Ideologically, Americans were all over the lot on the question of Taiwan membership in the UN. While 43% of those who considered themselves very liberal favored Taiwan membership, 58% of mainline liberals backed it. Moderates were very supportive - 71% supported membership for the island nation off the coast of China, but just 43% of conservatives supported it. Among those ideological groups where support was lower, the percentage of unsure respondents was notably higher. The survey also showed that the more familiar Americans were with Taiwan, the more likely they were to its membership.

ESWN has some anti-Taiwan spew on the report, alleging coverup! here:

(1,205 persons interviewed from listed telephone numbers in USA (note: about 60% of telephone numbers in the USA are unlisted -- that is why professional survey organizations usually use random digit dial (RDD) methods). The cooperation rate is unreported, but it is claimed that it is 'comparable to other professional public opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.' WARNING: To the extent that they won't give you a number, it arouses suspicion that something is being covered up. It is very simple -- just say 'the response rate was XX%, which is comparable to other professional public opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.' Why won't they tell us what XX is?)

ESWN's position is cataclysmically hilarious: in the very post right below these complaints about the pro-Taiwan poll, he posts a poll on the Presidential election from TVBS -- without noting that TVBS is 100% Hong Kong Chinese-owned, that it supports the pan-Blue team in Taiwan's politics, and that its polls are notoriously unreliable -- and without a similar hack on its methodology. I leave it to the readers to decide whether that is the act of a complete and total hypocrite.

But the hilarity doesn't stop there. Roland's claim on the non-response rate is the usual ESWN bullshit. Consider this from another Zogby poll on whether Bush/Cheney should be probed over the 911 attacks:

This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International from August 23 to August 27, 2007. The target sample is 1,000 interviews with approximately 71 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. As many as six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies. Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, and gender is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

And their poll on the Iowa Caucus:

This is a telephone survey of [Republican Caucus Voters] conducted by Zogby International. The target sample is [487] interviews with approximately [28] questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges Up to six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies[1] and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.[2] Weighting by [party, age, gender] is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 4.6 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

I don't need to give you any more examples, do I? What Roland claims is horrible conspiracy actually turns out to be their standard disclaimer, found in front of all their phone polls. Nothing can be said about the non-response rate in this poll -- and it is certainly not some cover-up. For those of you interested in what Zogby actually does, their phone survey methodology is here.

UPDATE: Poor ESWN is still struggling manfully to cast doubt on this survey. Here's his post from today on the issue:

• [Permalink] The USA Is An Armed Camp (09/24/2007) China Times noted the following issue with The Zogby International Poll on U.S. Opinions on Taiwan: on page 5 of the Zogby International report, the sample distribution has the following:
  
  Armed Forces Member: 860 (72%)
  Non-Armed Forces Members: 343 (29%)
  
  According to the US Census, the number of active duty and reserves is 1.4 million (or about 0.7%). The number of veterans is 13%.
  
  Could Zogby International have been interviewing only armed forces members? No, they said "samples are randomly drawn from telephone CD's of national listed sample." If they said that they used these listed samples and they had a response rate comparable to similar studies, then there is a mistake somewhere because this is an impossible result.

LOL. Laziness-induced pathetic desperation? Obviously the result is not impossible because -- doh -- the definition of what Zogby means by "armed forces" isn't given, so nothing can be known. Of course, it's the same way for other phone polls. All ESWN had to do is dial up another phone poll, like this one on the Bush/Cheney 911 connection, and you find the same ratio (770 yes, 236 no for armed forces). What does it mean? Your guess is as good as mine (but I wrote Zogby to ask). Since Zogby polls are usually pretty good....but don't expect to see that on ESWN.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Democracy] [UN] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [US Foreign Policy]

NYTImes Archived Taiwan Stuff

A friend of mine just sent me this email:

Had a bit of downtime yesterday so I dove into the Times newly liberated archives looking for pre-WWI stories on Formosa. Did I hit paydirt:

A 1904 article on how the Japanese have "transformed the savage island" of Formosa. Lots of good data on opium smoking rates and even a mention of the importance the Japanese put on water management.

An 1867 article featuring first-person accounts of the US Marines' ill-fated punitive expedition in Kenting. A must-read for anyone who's ever hiked up behind the main drag and into the bush. I was blown away by just how close the pirates, er, Paiwan were to successfully luring the party into that series of narrow canyons located to the east of Dajianshan. Alas, poor MacKenzie!

An 1896 article about the newly-acquired Japanese colony of Formosa and its possibilities. Reporting at the time was certainly devoid of the "Beijing regards Taiwan as a breakaway province" rhetoric, wasn't it?

Speaking of, check out some old-school Chinese propaganda on the 1895 uprising.

How about a hilariously condescending story about the aborigines, circa 1895? Here ya go.

An 1885 letter from Rev. George "This Gibraltar of Heathenism" McKay on the expulsion of foreign missionaries during the French campaign that year.

There's even a story in there somewhere where Li Hong-chang says to the effect "Formosa? Y'all can have it for all we care!"

There's lots of good stuff in there.....

[Taiwan]

KMT-PFP Merger in the cards?

When the new legislative reductions and new election system were announced, there was widespread conviction that they would spell the doom of the small parties. Of particular interest is the People First Party (PFP), which was never a real political party (the KMT was at least welded together by a common interest in maintaining flows of cash) but the personal faction of powerful former KMT politician James Soong. Soong's star blazed across Taiwan's politics from 2000-2004, and after his great showing in the 2000 election, many predicted he'd be a force to be reckoned with.

The reckoning came, Soong receiving his personal notification of mene mene tikal upharsin when he won only 9% of the vote in the Taipei mayoral elections last year. Brooding somewhere offstage, his party has begun to dissolve. This week the KMT and the PFP were back in talks about a merger:

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) yesterday pledged to campaign for pan-blue legislative candidates recommended by the KMT-People First Party (PFP) alliance regardless of their party affiliation.

The KMT-PFP alliance joined to nominate six legislative candidates and is planning to register legislator-at-large candidates under the KMT, Wu said.

"The six candidates were nominated by the KMT and by the PFP. Regardless of their party affiliations, the KMT will treat them the same and campaign for them," Wu said yesterday.

The six PFP legislative candidates nominated by the alliance are Ko Shu-ming (柯淑敏), Lee Hung-chun (李鴻鈞), Wu Chin-chih (吳清池), Chung Shao-Ho (鍾紹和), Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁) and Daniel Hwang (黃義交).
Hwang yesterday confirmed that he joined the KMT last month.

Hwang said he made the decision to meet the expectations of his supporters, adding that PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) was aware of the matter and understood his position.

Chung, who was jointly recommended by both the KMT and the PFP to run for the legislature in January in the first district in Kaohsiung County, said Hwang's move "reflected the political reality" and was "understandable."

Chung said PFP members running on behalf of the two parties all face the same situation as Hwang because "supporters want to see us run under the banner of the KMT."

According to the consensus the KMT and PFP reached on the joint candidates in April, the legislative candidates will be registered under the KMT, and the two parties will negotiate on the nomination mechanism of the legislator-at-large candidates.

The PFP has been steadily leaking people to the KMT for the last couple of years, but the loss of Danial Hwang -- Hwang Yi-chiao -- is a major one. Hwang has been Soong's right hand for many years, back to the days when Soong was Provincial Governor. Hwang had been spokesman for the PFP, had served as executive director of its policy committee in the months up to his switch.

[Taiwan] [KMT] [PFP] [media]

DPP Trio Indicted

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. The Taipei Times reported that DPP heavies Annette Lu (the Veep), Mark Chen (many positions of power), and DPP Chairman Yu were indicted yesterday for the common practice of substituting false receipts for expenditures from the special funds:

Spokesman for the Supreme Prosecutors Office's Special Investigation Panel Chen Yun-nan (陳雲南) yesterday told a press conference that Lu, Yu and Chen were charged with corruption and forgery.

Prosecutor Chen alleged that between December 2000 and May last year Lu used a total of 1,005 fraudulent receipts to claim reimbursements from her special allowance fund.

Chen added that the receipts, collected by Lu's office staff and security guards, amounted to NT$5.6 million (US$170,000).

Prosecutor Chen said that Yu used the same method to claim reimbursements from his special funds between October 2000 and December 2005 during his time as secretary-general of the presidential office and premier.

Yu used a total of 516 receipts from others to claim NT$2.3 million Prosecutor Chen said.

Mark Chen used a total of 106 receipts from others to claim NT$368,000 between July 2004 and June last year while serving as minister of foreign affairs and secretary-general of the presidential office, the spokesman said.

Prosecutor Chen said prosecutors found that Hsieh did not use other people's receipts to claim reimbursements from his special fund while serving as Kaohsiung mayor and premier.

Su was also cleared.

The comedy of indicting DPP heavies for receipt falsification, while letting Ma go for actually downloading real money into his accounts, will no doubt strike many. In Ma's case the judge was just 26 years old and a diehard KMT supporter. It will be interesting how the System deals with this, since receipt forgery is a commonplace in the System here. Note that the prosecutors have not charged them with actually stealing money. The news was reporting this morning that DPP Chairman Yu has resigned, as he had promised he would if indicted.

Stay tuned. The party has just begun.

[Taiwan]

Daily Links, September 21, 2007

Lots of beautiful stuff on the blogs today......

Joe at the very fine blog San Bei Ji says Pot, kettle, black.

Islaformosa posts on how to use the flight simulator in GoogleEarth to fly over Taipei.

Patrick has an accident on Yangmingshan.

Maddog has a great post on the 915 Rallies in Taichung and Kaohsiung, rich with pictures and links.

Taiwan Echo posts on discrimination as the seed of ethnic conflict.

Both J Michael Cole and I tore apart Kathleen Kingsbury's completely slanted article in TIME on the UN referendum.

The Foreigner is back and rolling, with great posts on recent China Post editorials, and on the flag.

The Only redhead with a great post on the Strawberry Generation and politics.

The Real Taiwan has this weekend's music guide.

SPECIAL: Driven in Taiwan? You'll love this carefully diagrammed version of what The Real Taiwan calls "The Chinese Dragon" on a Beijing street.

SERVICES: Barking Deer Hikes offers short hikes into the mountains. Follow their blog and website links for their latest expeditions.

MEDIA: The torch isn't coming to Taiwan, according to breaking news from the AP. But look at this finely balanced formulation. Except for the erroneous claim that China and Taiwan split in 1949, everything is excellent:

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. Beijing claims the island as its own, and works hard to deny it any trappings of sovereignty.

The Taiwanese government of President Chen Shui-bian tries just as hard to emphasize its separateness, and makes no secret of its eventual goal of formal independence.

Ralph Jennings has Reuter's version in WaPo. TIME is back with a hugely truncated version of this crappy article on Taiwan as a Toddler. This shorter version is even worse in its way -- still ends with longtime KMT stalwart Loh I-cheng's quote that Taiwan should be spanked, still doesn't quote the democracy side -- I'll be rending it, just for practice, later tonight.

[media] [Taiwan]

Air Time: Campaign Heats Up

KMT control of the media is instrumental in the party's continued dominance at the local level, but at the national level, where people tend to vote their political identities, it has not paid off as handsomely. To rectify this, the KMT has decided to buy air time in the south:

In the past, media control was an important instrument of social control for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). This is why the party's media companies -- the China Television Co, the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC), the Central Motion Picture Corp, the Central Daily News and the Chunghwa Daily were among the last companies the party owned.

On the surface, the KMT has privatized these companies, but even now doubt remains about their inside workings and who is calling the shots. The KMT has loosened its control over the media with its right hand, but is still trying to manipulate it with its left.

To weaken the political influence of pan-green radio stations in the south, the KMT announced this week it would "fight radio stations with radio stations" by signing contracts with 20 broadcasters in central and southern Taiwan. This will allow the party to buy air time to broadcast a "balanced report." This is the start of a broadcasting war between the two political parties in the south.

KMT Secretary-General Wu Den-yi said the political views of some of the underground radio stations in the south were extreme. After Ma Ying-jeou became the party's presidential candidate, for example, many of these stations broadcast a rumor that farmers' pensions would be abolished. The lie was widely broadcast and believed by many to be true. But the KMT did not simply correct the mistake. Rather, it decided to pull the media's strings itself -- something in which it is all too well versed -- by purchasing air time.

The Taipei Times argued that this strategy was probably bound to be unsuccessful and may even backfire by peeving potentially apathetic DPP supporters through subjecting them to KMT nonsense.

[Taiwan] [KMT] [DPP] [media]

UN referendum Commentaries, Sept 21

More commentary out there on the referendum. This excellent piece from Michael Fahey, who lives in Taipei, appeared in the South China Morning Post (No link, hidden behind the pay wall). A generous excerpt:

But the US influence in Taipei is more limited than it thinks. There is simply too much at stake politically for President Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party to back down on the referendum. The party believes referendums make the Taiwanese people the final arbiters of any decision about the island's future status. In particular, the ruling party sees the right of referendum as an effective veto on unification even if the DPP loses power next March. They are probably correct, since well under 10 per cent of the Taiwanese public support unification.

For these reasons, the DPP doesn't really care what question is put to a referendum, as long as it passes. Everyone knows Taiwan has no hope of gaining entry to the UN under any name, but the proposition to do so enjoys nearly universal support on the island: Taiwanese feel strongly they should be allowed to join the UN, and deeply resent any outside attempt to prevent them from voicing that aspiration.

In the short term, the UN referendum issue has helped the DPP regain control of the public agenda, focusing the election campaign on the big issues of national identity and Taiwan's future status. The Kuomintang is vulnerable on those issues due to its commitment to closer relations with mainland China. Indeed, KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou, who has opposed referendums in the past, is now backing one on rejoining the UN, but not necessarily as "Taiwan".

By opposing the UN referendum, the Bush administration is helping to create the wave of nationalistic sentiment that the DPP's presidential candidate, Frank Hsieh Chang-ting, needs to have a chance of winning in March. Taiwanese nationalism is a potent, though generally passive, force in island politics. Voters become more likely to vote for the DPP if they feel the island is being threatened.

+++++++++++++

Ian Williams in the Guardian tells of his interactions with officials from Beijing who accused him of supporting Taiwanese independence because he showed up on a panel for a telephone debate. A nice piece that warns China of the dangers of bullying, it also shows the pressure on media personnel in dealing with Beijing:

Last week I got a personal taste of Beijing's diplomacy. Their mission to the United Nations called me up and warned at the beginning and end of a 20 minute impromptu telephone debate that if I appeared on a panel with Taiwan's "so-called" President Chen Shui-bian they would "take it very seriously."

........

China's diplomat told me that Chen was a trouble-maker, and took even more umbrage when I pointed out that in fact it was the mainland that was pointing almost a thousand missiles at Taiwan, and not the other way round. "We will consider that you support Taiwanese independence," she accused ominously. Actually, I pointed out that I was neutral on that question, which was up to the Taiwanese to decide, but that I did strongly support their right to decide, just as I had vociferously supported the right to self determination of the Timorese, the Sahrawis of the Western Sahara, Palestinians and Kosovans.

"That is in violation of international law," she snapped. Well, no, I pointed out. Self-determination for former colonial territories was a basic principle of the United Nations, and indeed Mao told Edgar Snow, as reported in Red Star Over China, that Formosa - as Taiwan was then known - would be able to choose its own destiny when Japan was defeated.

The PRC is more used to an attitude of "whatever you say, comrade," than being argued with, and it all just seemed to make her angrier. However, as often, the discussion made me think. Possibly the worst way to dissuade people who are determined to secede is to try to bully them. I pointed out that if forty years ago Spain had made nice with the Gibraltarians, then by now the people on the Rock would be petitioning to join Spain and buy all those giveaway fincas along the coast.

If the British had given Ireland dominion status before the first world war, Mrs Windsor would likely be making annual visits to open the Irish parliament. In contrast , much later in the century, London had conceded bilingualism, and Welsh radio and TV and in the end almost had to force the Welsh to accept devolution.

The negative examples, from Timor to Kosovo are quite clear. Battering people into loyalty is a highly ineffective strategy.

One interesting thing about the US position is that it is widely deplored by observers on all sides of the political spectrum. As Williams noted, not many topics bring together people like himself and people like John Bolton....

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Democracy] [UN] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [US Foreign Policy]

UN Stuff, Sept 20: Nelson Report, Frank Ching, UN Rejection

First, China responds with invective and bombast to Taiwan's latest defeat, this time in a committee. On the Taiwan issue, I say "Let China Speak!" Nothing makes them look worse than their own nasty Czechslovakia-must-be-blotted-out! rhetoric. AP via The International Herald Tribune tells the tale:

On Wednesday, the U.N. General Assembly's General Committee decided not to include a vote on admitting Taiwan into the world body on this year's General Assembly agenda.

Though the attempt was Taiwan's 15th failure to join the U.N. in as many years, the latest efforts have particularly agitated Beijing. The U.N. vote — and a public referendum on the issue scheduled for next year on Taiwan — are seen by Beijing as an attempt by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian to undermine China's claims to sovereignty, and give a legal basis to the independence Taiwan has enjoyed in practice since the two sides split in a civil war 58 years ago.

Shortly after Wednesday's vote, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, described Taiwan's U.N. entry bid as a plot to promote independence, and said Chen was using the issue to inflame tensions with Beijing as a way to improve his political standing in Taiwan.

"Instead of offering blessings to the Taiwan compatriots, these activities can only cause disastrous consequences," Xinhua, in a separate report, quoted Wang as saying. "We hope and believe that the Taiwan compatriots can clearly see Chen's ulterior motives."

The U.N. issue has emotional resonance among Taiwan's public. Taiwan, whose formal name is the Republic of China, was tossed out of the U.N. in 1971 as part of a deal to give the China seat to Beijing. At the time, both Taiwan and Beijing claimed to be China's sole legitimate government.

In recent years, Taiwan has dropped the claim and sought to emerge on the international stage as a separate country — a claim that Beijing rejects. The result has been an all-out campaign by Beijing to keep other countries from recognizing Taiwan and to pressure the island's few remaining diplomatic allies into withdrawing support.

Actually, not too bad a rendering of all that complicated history, and kudos to AP for taking a crack at illustrating the issues (unlike the recent TIME article). Still stuck in that "China and Taiwan split in 1949" -- thought Taiwan was part of Japan at the time, and it was the Communists and the Nationalists who split. Note that the article stops short of pointing out that a majority of people in Taiwan support the island's entry into the UN. Instead, it simply says the issue has "emotional resonance."


The latest Nelson Report, the Washington Insider Report, contains some useful information on the US side of things.

TAIWAN...the battle on Taiwan to gain UN membership had a brief flurry today...at the UN...as an attempt was made to get the topic onto the agenda for debate at this years General Assembly.

For the 15th consecutive year, China used its influence to block Taiwan's request at the Agenda Committee level. The wrinkle this year, as we have been reporting, is President Chen's campaign to join the UN under the official name of "Taiwan".

There may be another push, as early as this Friday, to get the issue before the UNGA for a vote...something the Administration very much wants to avoid, for many reasons.

As background, remember the role of accepted catechism in the Cross-Strait dialogue/standoff...Taiwan used to be "The Republic of China" and that is the country which was officially "derecognized" by the US in 1980, and replaced by The People's Republic of China.

(Remember also the howls of laughter...except in Beijing...when the White House public address announced proudly welcomed Chinese President Hu Jintao as the leader of "The Republic of China"?)

No laughing matter is that the UN membership fight has become the latest Chen/DPP effort to "push the envelope" in ways which President Bush himself has warned "threaten the peaceful status quo".

Maintaining that peaceful status-quo has been the sine qua non of US policy since 1972, and was codified into US law by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, mandating continued arms sales for that purpose.

The Bush Administration has been increasingly "public" in its opposition to Chen's various moves on official international space, especially but not just limited to trying to stop next March's planned public referendum on joining the UN as "Taiwan".

But today the US was able to stay in the background, while China did the heavy lifting. What continues to concern the Administration, as noted above, is that President Chen seems determined to have a General Assembly debate sponsored by UN members who continue to officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign, independent country.

In such an event, the Administration...and remember, Taiwan policy starts with President Bush...the US might feel it had no option but to change its ambiguous public stance on Taiwan independence from "we do not support, but we also do not oppose" to a flat..."we oppose".

Among many concerns, US also worries that if Chen pushes the UN issue he runs the risk of seeing many, if not the remainder of Taiwan's official international recognitions go down the drain...

For now, sources say the Bush folks are asking Beijing "don't over-react" to Chen and his actions, especially the current push at the UN itself.

Whether restraint from China is either likely, or politically possible, given the leadership situation in Beijing in the run-up to the Party Congress, et al, is increasingly a concern, informed sources admit.

Depending on whom you talk to, high-level Chinese sources have, on the one hand, told the Bush folks they are happy, so far, with how the US is working to keep the Taiwan situation under control.

On the other hand, Loyal Readers who also enjoy high-level Chinese sources report exactly the opposite - that in fact, the Leadership is increasingly worried, and dissatisfied, and has been warning the Bush folks that if they don't do better, Beijing is going to have to step in with...

And, as always, that's the concern. With what? Ten years ago it was missiles into the waters just off the island...

At a minimum, it could lead to a serious disruption in US-China relations, which is precisely the main reason President Bush has been running Taiwan policy himself,since 2002.

I've highlighted the last three paragraphs because they are critical. And read that last sentence: the Decider has dismissed his staff and has personally taken over the defense of Stalingrad. Since 2002......

Frank Ching, the Hong Kong-based commentator whose name most of you will recognize, had a commentary in the South China Morning Post, which at the moment is behind their annoying pay-to-view wall (so no link), but should be out elsewhere soon....

Taipei's Risky Game
Frank Ching

The United States has taken the unusual action of publicly acknowledging its differences with Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. In effect, it's admitting that it has failed to influence Mr Chen through quiet diplomacy, and now hopes that forces within Taiwan will be able to change the president's mind about holding a referendum on applying to join the UN under the name "Taiwan".

The message came in blunt language last week from Thomas Christensen, US deputy assistant secretary of state. He said the actions of Taiwan's leaders "will be a major factor in determining whether the interests of their people are protected; whether Taiwan will continue to flourish in an environment of peace and security; or whether all that Taiwan has achieved might be put at risk by cross-strait tensions or, worse still, conflict".

He was addressing the US-Taiwan Business Council, and his remarks had great weight because he made it clear that they "represent the agreed views of the United States government".

President Chen plans to hold the referendum on March 22, to coincide with the island's presidential election.

"The United States is not opposed to referenda," Mr Christensen said in explaining the American position. "What worries us, very specifically, is the issue of name change. This draft referendum raises the question of what Taiwan should be called in the international community. Moreover, it does so in what could be interpreted by many to be a legally binding popular vote."

However, if Washington was hoping that such public pressure would have an effect on the Chen administration, it was due for a disappointment. Two days later, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal Asia, Mr Chen showed determination to press on despite American objections. He voiced confidence that there would be no violent reaction from Beijing.

He talked about the past four years, when he persisted in provocative actions despite American opposition. He recalled that he had successfully pushed for a referendum law in 2003 and held Taiwan's first referendum in 2004. Then, last year, he scrapped the National Unification Council and the Guidelines for National Unification.

"Time has proven that the US' concerns about different viewpoints regarding opposition to, and criticism of, our actions were all unwarranted," Mr Chen said. "Nothing happened."

Similarly, this time "the US government has also expressed opposition and grave concern". But, he went on: "I'd like to assure the US government that nothing is going to happen after March 22 next year."

For four years, Mr Chen has resisted attempts by Washington to temper his often irresponsible actions. However, Washington has little to show for its efforts. Now it has little choice but to wait for a new leadership to emerge in the presidential election next March.

Mr Chen is focused only on the domestic political gains from holding a referendum and is willing to risk the security of the island's 23 million people. He seems to think that, because Beijing has exercised restraint in the past, he can continue to be increasingly provocative.

That is brinkmanship pure and simple. To keep pushing to the verge of disaster is not the action of a responsible leader.

The US is taking the much more responsible position. It does not want to risk the security of Taiwan or to be drawn needlessly into a war with the mainland. It cannot afford to adopt Mr Chen's reckless attitude and let him continue to take provocative action until "something happens".

Hopefully, this public American stance will be a factor in the domestic politics of Taiwan. It is likely to influence the course of the ongoing presidential campaign. By appealing to the Taiwanese people, Washington is in effect asking the electorate to choose as their next leader a moderate who will work to make Taiwan strong but, at the same time, be willing to exercise restraint.

It will be interesting to see if the two presidential candidates, Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang and Frank Hsieh Chang-ting of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, take Washington's exhortations to heart. Taiwanese voters will make their decision in March. It will be a fateful one.

Christensen, as I've pointed out, thinks (wrongly) that voters in Taiwan actually listen to the US. Ching here acts as a mediator introducing the US position to readers, and positions himself firmly as a junior member of the Establishment, adopting the US view on terms like "moderate." Chen, he explains, is irresponsible:

For four years, Mr Chen has resisted attempts by Washington to temper his often irresponsible actions

That is brinkmanship pure and simple. To keep pushing to the verge of disaster is not the action of a responsible leader.

These "irresponsible actions" include renaming the gas stations, and abolishing a symbolic body with a budget of US$30. (The image of the Bush Administration, with its insane invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the upcoming gotterdammerung in Iran, "tempering" someone else also has a delicious ironic humor to it). Meanwhile Chen is also reckless:

It cannot afford to adopt Mr Chen's reckless attitude and let him continue to take provocative action until "something happens".

By contrasted, Beijing is restrained:

He seems to think that, because Beijing has exercised restraint in the past, he can continue to be increasingly provocative.

The thing about such language is that it is so easy to parody, but in abusing it one misses Ching's horrid ethical position, which is that it would have been OK for Beijing to invade Taiwan, plunge the region into war, disrupt the world economy, and murder hundreds of thousands of people because Chen did something "irresponsible" like changing the name of the gas company, but Beijing was, you know, statesmen-like and all, "restraining itself." One is forced to ponder why, if Beijing's positions are so wonderful, it needs to be restrained in the first place. It is a cliche to reach for Orwell, but when I read pieces like this, I can't help but recall his brilliant essay, Politics and the English Language:

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

Observe also that Ching ends with the dramatic:

Taiwanese voters will make their decision in March. It will be a fateful one.

Yes, it will be a fateful one (it's a Presidential election. Doh). But in the sense that Ching means, there won't be any great changes in Taiwan's behavior or policies, because they are driven by structural considerations of Taiwan's domestic political situation. Note that Ching, like Beijing, ascribes this mess to the machinations of the Diabolical Chen Shui-bian (who, if he did not exist, would have to be invented, a sort of Lei Feng in reverse) rather than attempting to understand Chen within the framework of Taiwanese identity and Taiwanese nationalism that he is appealing to.

I'm closing with these comments on a previous post by Thomas, who notes:

One more thing: Ban has also legitimized the use of the name "Taiwan" in applying for UN membership. While he declared the application for membership to be illegal, basing his decision on Resolution 2758, which indicates no such thing, he still has "allowed" discussion of the application under the name of Taiwan, thanks to the efforts of the island's allies (not that he himself has any choice in the matter, although he has used his position make decrees that were not in his power in the past). This is nothing less than a victory for the greens.

He observed earlier on the same post:

The greens can continue with their referendum push and there is nothing the blues can do to criticize them. This is because Ban has based his argument on the resolution that states that sovereignty of China resides with the government of the PRC. This means that Ma's decision to push an application under the name of the Republic of China is the most problematic one of all. Even though the resolution does not state that the ROC cannot apply for a NEW seat, it is the basis for Ban's argument that the island's application is illegal.

Of course, Ma will have no choice but to push ahead with his own referendum. He cannot back down without losing face. And he cannot criticize the greens without opening himself to criticism over the name he has chosen to use to represent the country.

The end result will be a net positive for Taiwan. The greens can play up their victimization and benefit from the public disappointment with Ban's comments. The blues can only play along. In the end, there will still be resolutions calling for UN entry, and at least one of them might actually pass (fingers crossed).

I hope that someone in the Hsieh administration has the sense to play this as it should be played.

When the "moderate" Hsieh comes to power, his policies are going to look a lot like the "radical" Chen's....

[media] [Taiwan] [US] [China] [Chen Shui-bian] [Democracy] [DPP] [KMT] [Taiwan Independence] [UN]

Amy Lin, Taiwan Supporter

The AsiaConnect has a feature on Amy Lin, Program Director of the Formosa Foundation, which works for full recognition of Taiwan by the US:

Amy Lin firmly believes in the Taiwanese people's right to self-determination and right to be free. So strong are her convictions that she works as Program Director of the Formosa Foundation, a nonprofit organization that is committed to strengthening ties between Taiwan and the United States and protecting both their vital interests. The Formosa Foundation takes the position that the United States should recognize and support Taiwan - in keeping with a shared democratic and human rights value system - rather than continue its One China Policy, which the organization believes increases the strategic threat of China against Taiwan. Amy advances this position through educational and advocacy efforts that include conferences, newsletters, media relations, and other forms of publicity. Most notably, she created the organization's flagship Ambassador Program, which sends young leaders to Washington, DC, to meet with members of Congress and promote enhanced relations between the United States and Taiwan. To learn more about the Formosa Foundation and Amy Lin, check out this week's Nonprofit Spotlight.

[Taiwan]

Ban Ki-moon over Taiwan

Articles about Taiwan all over the place, debates in public between the State Department, Congress, and Pentagon, Ban Ki-moon getting spanked by Congress critters and right-wingers over Taiwan....yeah, that UN referendum and UN entry is a really stupid idea. Doomed to failure, eh?

Taiwan's good friend UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon decided to drive his point home on Monday, saying that Taiwan's entry into the UN would be illegal:

Taiwan's approaches were rejected in July by Ban's office and by the Security Council, and on September 7 by the office of the outgoing General Assembly president, Haya Rashed al-Khalifa of Bahrain.

All have cited a General Assembly resolution of 1971 that expelled the "representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" -- the nationalist leader driven out of mainland China in 1949 by the communists -- and awarded their seat to the People's Republic.

"This has been the official position of the United Nations and has not changed since 1971," Ban said on Tuesday.

"This matter ... was very carefully considered by the secretariat, and in light of Resolution 2758 it was not legally possible to receive the purported application for membership."

Although some might argue that the problem is that the "Republic of China" claims to be the sole representative of China, the UN had no trouble seating both East and West Germany, each of which claimed to be the legit government of Germany. The real problem is China threats. Taiwan should not complain too much: the island would probably lose a vote in the General Assembly. And that would be a terrible propaganda blow. Taiwan needs to finesse this so it never comes to a vote.

Meanwhile some pro-Taiwan congress critters were out in force on Taiwan's behalf once more, with a commentary in the right-wing Washington Times. Steve Chabot (R-OH), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), and Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA), implored us to not abandon Taiwan:

In late July, a quiet diplomatic error was made that could severely undermine U.S. foreign policy and security interests in a potentially volatile region of the world. This did not involve the ongoing conflict in Iraq or sanctions against North Korea, but rather the question of whether Taiwan deserves a seat at the United Nations. While not a new question by any means, it was recently raised anew when, on behalf of its 23 million inhabitants, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian formally applied for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." And the implications for U.S. interests came in the answer.

On July 23, U.N, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected Taiwan's application. In doing so, he asserted that the 1971 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2758 had granted China's seat in the General Assembly to the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), and he also stated that in the view of the United Nations, Taiwan is considered an integral part of the PRC.

The secretary-general offers no basis for denying Taiwan the right to be considered for membership. According to the Rules of Procedure of General Assembly, when an application for U.N. membership is received, the secretary-general shall send it to the General Assembly for its member states to consider. And while Resolution 2758 recognized the PRC as the sole representative of China, it was silent as to the status of Taiwan.

Bi-partisan support! And in this polarized day and age, too. The BBC reports on the island's new attempt to enter the UN on Wednesday -- today. Bound to be another "failure" (one of my Google reader links says "see all 90 articles" -- and that's on Sec-Gen Ban's ukase on the illegality of Taiwan's entry. Any more failures like that and Taiwan will be a household word).

Anyone noticed the massive silence emanating from the State Department? Not a frickin' word since the storm last week. Good work, guys, your silence is golden and your mooncakes are in the mail. At the same time, China has urged the US not to sell the island weapons, while relations between China and Taiwan are so tense that trade is up 13% year on year, through August -- with two-way trade to reach $110 billion this year.

Yup, this UN referendum thing has played havoc with Taiwan-China relations.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [Chen Shui-bian] [State Department] [Democracy] [DPP] [Taiwan Independence] [US Foreign Policy]

Koo Kwang-ming's Ad

Former presidential advisor Koo Kwang-ming placed ads in major US papers this week on the whole UN thing. Here's the text, courtesy of Mike at TaiwanFocus:

++++++++++++

Don’t Put Taiwan’s Democracy and Freedom back into a Box

Koo Kwang-ming 辜寬敏

"A long, long time ago…" are the words that many of the old stories begin with. Today, I would like to share with you a true story about Taiwan that the US and the world have deliberately ignored for a long, long time. I believe that maybe 70 percent to 80 percent of the US public knows that Taiwan is a country. At the same time, however, maybe only 1 percent of Americans know that Taiwan is not a member of the UN, and maybe only 0.001 percent know why this is so.

The truth I want to tell you about is this: our country, Taiwan, has been isolated by the UN in an act of political discrimination that has lasted for more than 36 years. It is the only country in the world to be denied UN membership. The human rights of 23 million Taiwanese have been ignored by the UN for a long, long time, and the US government has helped making it the case.

Just as Ralph Ellison said that African Americans once were the invisible man of American society, Taiwan is now the " invisible" member of the international community. What is worse is that omit to the democratic Taiwan has been living in the shadow of China’s constant threat. China has now deployed almost 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and is threatening annexation of Taiwan at any time.

Although China is a totalitarian and dictatorial communist state, the US unfortunately has sided with the Chinese dictatorship to suppress Taiwan’s democracy. This is both incomprehensible and deplorable. The US government called Iraq a terrorist state and stood up against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, but chooses to look at China's military expansion and intimidation with one eye closed. I must admonish the US government: "Washington’s appeasement of China resembles nothing but the British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler prior to the Second World War!"

If "Taiwan is not a state", the U.S. has the responsibility Dennis Wilder, the senior director of East Asian Affairs on the US' National Security Council, recently said that "Taiwan is not a state." This has outraged and humiliated the Taiwanese people. But we also felt a sense of relief when he added that Taiwan issue has been left undecided for a long long time. The U.S. government has finally decided to face a fact that it has turned a blind eye to for half a century. The truth is: Taiwan is a country with 23 million people, who can freely elect their own leaders. We have the capacities to exercise our sovereign powers both domestically and on the international front. The US government’s refusal to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state cannot challenge the reality that Taiwan has been a sovereign state
for decades.

Moreover, if Taiwan is not a sovereign state in the eyes of US government officials, I must ask if the US has no responsibility for this situation? The 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty that concluded World War II did not clarify Taiwan's status, and for a long time after, the US approved Chiang Kai-shek's brutal military occupation of Taiwan which imposed 38 years of martial law that left Taiwanese in darkness and isolation.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, tens of thousands of Taiwanese sacrificed their lives and freedom in their struggle to overthrow the dictatorship and to gain democracy and liberty. That heavy price was paid not only for the cause of democracy and freedom, but also because we longed to establish a new and sovereign state as the unavoidable conclusion to centuries of colonial rule and struggle for independence. I think this is something the American people can understand and identify with.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What the Taiwanese people have been striving for the past decades is the realization of nothing but this famous and courageous statement in the United States Declaration of Independence. With the consolidation of democracy in Taiwan, we feel proud to say that we have gradually advanced our causes. We are still working hard toward our goal.

But when the Taiwanese people want to rely on a democratic referendum and self determination to confirm Taiwan's status as a sovereign state, the US government says, "You can't do that." When we want to hold a referendum to manifest the wish of all Taiwanese to join the United Nations, the US government says, "You can't do that." The US government encourages Taiwan to develop its democracy, but also warns us that we can't hold referendums or declare independence, all because of the fear of provoking Beijing. The US government is even opposed to Taiwan having its own constitution, own flag or own national anthem that are necessary for building a nation that can withstand Chinese pressure. Is this sensible? Is this the right message the US should be sending to Communist dictators?

Why democratic Taiwan can’t join the UN? At present, 77 percent of Taiwanese want Taiwan to join the UN and become a member of this family of nations. We therefore hope that the presidential election next year will include a referendum to allow every Taiwanese to use his or her vote to manifest their wish that Taiwan be allowed to join the UN and use the collective will of the Taiwanese people to tell the world that we are not happy with the current situation. This simple and humble democratic expression, however, is forcefully opposed and suppressed by the US government, and this causes disappointment and anger among the people of Taiwan who have placed high hopes on the US and its great people.

Taiwan and North Korea are both countries with about 23 million people. Taiwan’s economic and democratic achievements are something that North Korea cannot match. However, Washington, even without recognizing North Korea as a sovereign state, did not oppose Pyongyang’s UN bid in the 1990s. In comparison, the U.S. government’s treatment of democratic Taiwan is both disappointing and disturbing. Shouldn't the human rights of 23 million Taiwanese be respected? We know that the US opposition to Taiwan’s UN membership is a result of China’s bullying for military tension in the Taiwan Strait. However, if cooperating with China to suppress democratic Taiwan is the best solution that Washington authorities can come up with after 60 years, we must ask if US intellectual leadership on this matter is already a thing of the past.

As long as Taiwan is not a member of the UN, that organization will always suffer from a flaw in its conscience. As long as the US doesn't help Taiwan become a normal country and gain UN membership, it will always carry a stamp of shame.

It’s time for the US to reevaluate its policy on the Taiwan Strait. In 2003, I published a statement in this newspaper telling the US government it was time for a serious reevaluation of its China policy because it is absurd to see a country adhere to a flawed policy for three decades. The status quo in the Taiwan Strait today has changed completely from the status quo of 30 years ago. According to the latest Taiwanese opinion polls, 70 percent of Taiwanese see themselves as Taiwanese and 75 percent think that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state. The Shanghai communiqué of 1972 which states that, "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" was never true.

The US government must take a square look at this political reality lest it keep making mistakes in its Taiwan policy and make serious political misjudgments in the Asia Pacific region The US was completely powerless to stop the massive Chinese military buildup across the Taiwan Strait. But the US is not powerless if it chooses to strengthen Taiwan’s democracy and nation-building that are necessary for the Taiwanese to withstand Chinese pressure. The US can also tell the Chinese that their bullying of Taiwan is counterproductive, that the resultant resentment the Taiwanese feel toward the Chinese will only make the eventual reconciliation more difficult.

Taiwan shall overcome! For the past ten years, China has tried to strangle Taiwan with its military threats and diplomatic blockade. But in spite of their efforts, Taiwan has managed to survive. I want to tell the world that Taiwan still exists! This small and beautiful country still exists in the West Pacific. The mighty Taiwanese people will fight for our beloved country till the end! As God and the American people are our witnesses：We will not be defeated; Taiwan
shall overcome! The constant bullying by the Chinese to deny our identity only hardened our resolve to fight for independence and international recognition！

"You can’t put democracy and freedom back into a box," said President George W. Bush. For all these years, on our way to democratization, Taiwanese people have received enormous support and encouragement from our American friends. As democratic Taiwan requires the moral support of the international community when its people make a free decision on their future, I call on all great Americans and their representatives to tell the US government and the UN:

"Don’t put Taiwan’s democracy and freedom back into a box!"
"Help Taiwan join the UN!"

(The writer was a former senior adviser to the President of Taiwan ）
(The article was published in Washington Post and NY Times on September
17, 2007)

+++++++++++++++

AsiaMedia carries the Taipei Times article on the ad, where the explanation is given:

Frustrated by communication problems with the US government over Taiwan's UN membership bid, former senior presidential adviser Koo Kwang-ming decided to appeal directly to the American public by placing ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post today.

I wish I could say I thought this was a great piece, but I can't. It's yet another in the ongoing list of examples of Taipei spending cash on second-rate communications. Here is a text addressed to the people of US, yet its mode of presentation is totally Chinese in organization and mentality. As a result, from the American point of view, it is meandering, subjective, weak, clumsy, and incompetent. It's amateur. It makes us look unprofessional, disorganized, inept, even a bit eccentric. This is not the image we want to project. And the name attached to it is that of an advisor to the President in Taipei! It's long past time somebody sat those dunderheads down in the Presidential Office and in MOFA and bluntly informed them that it is not amateur hour any more. If you want to communicate with people in another culture, pay a professional from the local culture to do the work. If you're going to fork over the big bucks for space in several major newspapers, at least pay for an English editor to tighten up the text.

Want to see how it is done? Review the piece by Dole on the identical topic aimed at an identical audience -- that Taiwan probably paid for one way or another. That's how you communicate with Americans.

[media] [Taiwan] [US] [DPP] [UN]

Taiwan the Toddler

One of the most important media tropes that governs presentations of Taiwan in the international media is that of Taiwan as an obstreperous child, in need of discipline. This Beijing-centric rhetorical convention thus implicitly presents China's annexation of the island as an act of discipline for a child unable to control itself, a wise and statesmanlike move by a responsible adult....

The latest regurgitation of this trope is an article in Time on the recent referendum and the problems it has caused in US-Taiwan relations. The article skillfully deploys negative constructions....

And Taipei-based observers say that the referendum is less a declaration of independence than a political ploy by Chen to bolster his own legacy, as well as voter turnout in March for Chen's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). "The ruling party doesn't have much to campaign about," says Chao Chien-min, a political science professor at Taiwan's National Chengchi University. "The only thing they can do is portray the opposition as Beijing's collaborator."

....without any balance from opposing views to counter the hack on the DPP. Professor Chao appears to be pro-KMT -- he believes that the assassination attempt on Chen by a Blue supporter in 2004 resulted in sympathy votes for the DPP, although no evidence supports that view. But it is not just Chao -- here is every quote of a source in the article:

In late August, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte declared Chen's proposal "a mistake."

Negroponte called the vote a step towards "a declaration of independence," urging Taiwan's leaders to "behave in a responsible manner."

In July, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang warned the proposed vote could "have a grave impact on cross-Straits relations and seriously endanger peace and stability across the Straits and Asia-Pacific region."

China condemned this weekend's demonstrations, warning Sunday that Beijing was now preparing for a "serious situation."

"The ruling party doesn't have much to campaign about," says Chao Chien-min, a political science professor at Taiwan's National Chengchi University. "The only thing they can do is portray the opposition as Beijing's collaborator."

"We do not like having to express publicly our disagreement with the Chen Administration on this or any other policy," Christensen said.

"We have to acknowledge a tough truth," Christensen said. "Most countries in the world accept Beijing's characterization of Taiwan, and, when energized, the PRC can call in overwhelming support to marginalize Taipei."

"Beijing now realizes the shortest route to Taipei is through Washington," says former diplomat Loh I-cheng. "They are telling the U.S., 'It was you who spoiled this child, you should spank him.'"

Read them all -- without exception, every single quote in the article offers a negative view of Taipei. The article is completely slanted. The Taiwan-as-child trope haunts the citations: Taiwan must be responsible (like an adult), it must acknowledge tough truths (adults face the truth), the US doesn't like expressing disagreement publicly (this hurts me more than you), and of course, Taipei is a child to be spanked. Not only are there no positive views, nowhere is Taipei or the DPP permitted to speak for itself. That too, is a subtle manifestation of the toddler treatment: children must have adults to interpret their actions and to speak for them. In the rhetorical framing of the article, the reporter's descriptions of the actions of the government thus too become the adult speaking and interpreting for the toddler.

Along with that negative portrayal is loaded language...

Chen has denied the referendum has anything to do with politics. The president also stridently insists the vote will occur no matter what the circumstances. That said, he has tried to temper U.S. resistance by making assurances to American officials that the naming controversy will go away after the elections.

...note that Chen is "strident." By contrast, KMT presidential candidate "attracts" people to protest in Taichung:

KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou held his own pro-U.N. membership rally on Saturday, attracting about 50,000 supporters to the central city of Taichung.

Ma "attracts" -- even though the reality is that the KMT supporters were bused in -- while for the DPP protest more cautious language is used -- it has "seeming" support....

But neither Chinese nor American opposition has done much to dampen Taiwanese enthusiasm for the referendum. On Saturday, more than 100,000 people took to the streets in the southern port city of Kaohsiung to rally in favor of the referendum and seemingly in support of Chen's vision of a sovereign Taiwan.

...observe also that the movement is Chen-driven -- it is "Chen's vision" that dominates, although the DPP and the tangwai were independence-oriented from the get-go, and polls now show that the majority supports independence for Taiwan. We all know which side assigns the driving agency to the Diabolical Chen Shui-bian.

The conclusion of this article contains an overt expression of the Taiwan-as-child trope:

In recent years, however, Taiwan has seen diplomatic support for its existence ebb, especially as China has grown as an economic superpower. In the 1970s, Taiwan was recognized by 65 nations. Today, only 24 mostly impoverished countries consider Taiwan independent. "We have to acknowledge a tough truth," Christensen said. "Most countries in the world accept Beijing's characterization of Taiwan, and, when energized, the PRC can call in overwhelming support to marginalize Taipei." Indeed, the U.S.'s vocal opposition to the referendum is being seen in Taiwan as more evidence of the influence China now wields. "Beijing now realizes the shortest route to Taipei is through Washington," says former diplomat Loh I-cheng. "They are telling the U.S., 'It was you who spoiled this child, you should spank him.'"

Remember -- a newspaper article is a construction, and the reporter has many possible quotes to choose from. The editor could have simply ended the quote with the first half, the comment on the "shortest route to Taipei is through Washington." But instead, they chose to end by portraying Taiwan as the toddler in need of discipline. UPDATE: Loh I-cheng, the diplomat cited, is an old KMT hand (don't miss the comment below on him).

One could also fault the writer for saying that the 24 countries "consider Taiwan independent" instead of taking a moment to explain the Taiwan-ROC issue -- space that later went to include the portrayal of Taiwan as a child. The fact is that formally they do not consider Taiwan independent; they consider the Republic of China to be the sole government of China. That position implicitly recognizes that Taiwan is part of China. By why waste space explaining complex diplomatic topics, when you can use a couple of lines on a juicy pro-Beijing quote?

UPDATE II: I wrote a long letter to Time about this article, using most of the detail from this post.

[media] [Taiwan] [US] [China] [Chen Shui-bian] [Democracy] [DPP] [KMT] [Taiwan Independence] [UN]