Media Round-up for Tuesday

It's always a kick to discover a part of oneself in an odd corner of the web, and sure enough, a blog called RightDemocrat, which was carrying a nice-to-see article calling for Obama to end Taiwan's isolation, had a picture of my wife a UN for Taiwan t-shirt, one I took a while back (at left). The article observes:

The Bush administration continued undermining American support for democracy abroad by expanding and re-issuing the backward guidelines in 2008.

For instance, high-level Taiwanese officials, including the democratically elected president of Taiwan, are barred from visiting Washington. On the other hand, the unelected leader of China's thuggish communist party has been welcomed into the White House.

Another rule precludes U.S. embassy personnel from accepting invitations to "official" Taiwan-hosted functions, or functions held at "Taiwan's official premises" and vice versa.

In a particularly bizarre ban on communication, U.S. officials are not allowed to communicate directly with their counterparts in Taiwan, but rather must send letters to each other through a third party.

As the Taipei Times newspaper describes, "Even personal thank you notes must be written on plain paper and put in a plain envelope to disguise the sender's official identity."

It's all been said before, but it can't be said enough.

AP reports that former first lady Wu has admitted to document forgery, but denies accepting bribes. As the article notes, the prosecutors will have great difficulty proving bribery, because the Chens insist the money was political donations and intent is difficult to prove. This will not stop the trial-by-media that we are witnessing. The AP article has the usual invention of history, arguing that Taiwan was part of China in 1949, when it was legally part of Japan, and implying that Taiwan and China were having a civil war:

Chen, a strong advocate of Taiwanese independence, has lashed out at Ma's policies of increasing trade and political contacts with the mainland, from which Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949.

With the ten million accurate ways to describe the relationship in 1949, you'd think AP might do better. But note, more seriously, the pro-KMT claim about Chen accompanied by another rewrite of the facts: Ma's policy is to increase trade and political contacts with China, Chen's, by inference, was not. Actually, both Chen and Ma wanted to increase trade and political contacts with China -- but Chen did not want to sell out Taiwan while doing so -- while Ma's KMT currently is. That is the real difference -- Chen is not protesting contacts with China, he's protesting the Ma Administration's service to Beijing. There's no reason AP can't make that clear either....

But even worse is this awful construction:

Wu was paralyzed from the waist down in 1985 after she was run down three times by a truck following her husband's unsuccessful electoral bid for a county magistrate position in southern Taiwan. Chen later claimed that the incident was engineered by the rival Nationalist Party as an act of political vengeance. The Nationalists have always denied the charge.

This is a pro-KMT frame. The use of the verb "claimed" implies that there is no support for Chen's side, and the attribution of the claim to Chen implies that only Chen says so. Why not simply write "Chen says...the Nationalists say" and make it neutral between sides? Really -- does anyone outside the Blues claim it was an accident or an act of private vengeance by the driver? I will be happy to connect the writer of that article with Linda Arrigo, who interviewed the accident witnesses. Just ask. UPDATE: I missed this, but Maddog spotted it: AP wrote...

Wu Shu-bian, who arrived in her wheelchair looking wan in an orange Burberry jacket and light gray trousers,

Wu Shu-BIAN! That's Wu Shu-zhen. The Updated IHT version of this has changed "Chen later claimed" to "Chen later said", he also points out.

Ma save us! The economy continues to crash. Intel has canceled its major developer forum here. The Taiwan dollar hit a 4.5 year low. The Ma administration continues to claim its policy toward China is "economics first, politics second", perhaps accounting for the key decision of China to import Taiwan beer. I suppose products of Taiwan's other three remaining industries, betel nut, taxis, and insurance, were more difficult to import. In Hawaii Bill Sharp muses on whether Taiwan is risking too much with its cross-strait policy, and observes that Ma is not in control of policy. Bill is indeed sharp, as far too many observers do not make that key fact explicit:

The exact nature of their motivation remains unclear. Nevertheless, the pro-China wing of the Taiwan's Nationalists led by one-time presidential candidate Lien Chan, party chairman Wu Po-hsiung and James Soong, a former Nationalist Party presidential aspirant who bolted to form his own People First Party, relentlessly rush on to create greater connectivity with China. The three seem to own the issue, with Ma exercising little discernible influence.

A ket indicator of economic distress: more nudity in advertizing. Taoyuan Nights has the links in a very pessimistic post on the future of the economy here: January exports down 57% from last year, 76% of science park workers forced to take unpaid days off, Taiwan’s exports declines by record 44.1% on global demand drop, and CLSA slashes South Korea and Taiwan outlooks - 11% GDP shrinkage.

[Taiwan]

Diane Lee finally is removed

The Central Election Commission (CEC) voted to annul KMT legislator Diane Lee's elections for the last 14 years as she is a dual citizenship holder and thus, cannot hold legislative office in Taiwan. The case had dragged on since before the Presidential election in 2008, with the US State department saying a couple of times that Lee is a US citizen, and DPP politicians exposing her US tax returns, social security number, and other citizenship-related documents. Despite the overwhelming case against her, Lee has consistently refused to admit she did anything wrong. The Kuomintang News Network reports:

The dispute over former Kuomintang legislator Diane Lee’s dual ROC-US citizenship has lasted nearly one year. The Central Election Commission (CEC) decided last week to annul all of Lee’s wins in previous elections, including the 7th Taipei City Council and the 4th, 5th, and 6th Legislative Yuan. The CEC annulled all relevant election certificates she had received from 1994 to 2005, the period Lee was identified to have held dual nationality and concurrently served in public office. The ruling was made as eight CEC members voted for it while three opposed.

As regards repayment of her income as “illegal gains,” the CEC said that the issue should be forwarded to the Taipei City Council and Legislative Yuan, respectively, for further discussion as they had been responsible for her salaries.

In response, Lee issued a statement yesterday, saying that the CEC was only an administrative agency and, hence, did not have the authority to annul her previous election victories. Lee vowed that she would appeal the CEC’s ruling in accordance with the law. Likewise, Diane Lee’s lawyer, Lee Yung-ran, said that the ruling was unlawful because an electoral action was legitimate only after a judicial ruling was made. The lawyer claimed that the CEC shouldn’t have arbitrarily annulled Lee’s wins in previous elections and that Diane Lee would seek an administrative remedy within the legal 30-day period after she received an official notification from the CEC.

Lee (李慶安) is the daughter of KMT monster heavyweight Lee Huan. Her brother Lee Ching-hua is also a legislator, and co-founded the New Party back in 1993. Both would leave the KMT to join the PFP when James Soong founded that in 2001 after an unsuccessful run for the Presidency in 2000, breaking ranks to support Soong just days before the election, when it seemed highly probable he would win. The Lees rejoined the KMT when the PFP quietly disappeared a couple of years ago.

A quick comparison might be illuminating. Under the law Lee must return the $3 millon she made over the last 14 years in salary for her various posts. The CEC declined to enforce that, saying it was up to the legislature and the Taipei City Council, two bodies currently under the control of the KMT, to order the money returned. Since the Chen family must return its monies to Taiwan....

The SIU had provided the Chen Chih-chung couple with information of an official bank account designated by the Prosecutor General’s Office, but to date no funds were remitted into the account. If the Chen Chih-chung couple hope to have their plea bargaining petition approved, they have to provide assistance to the prosecutors to arrange a wire transfer to the Prosecutor General’s account of the NT$ 240 million and the US$ 10 million which Yuan-Ta Securities had remitted to their Swiss bank accounts. If they did so, the SIU would consider commencing the plea bargaining procedure with the Chen couple based on their cooperative attitude and behavior.

...it would seem right to ask that Lee return her salary. It will be an interesting test of the system. Lee, the privileged scion of a powerful family, was once a possibility for Taipei mayor. The Taipei Times has a good backgrounder on her and her sibs here.

[Taiwan]

More on Chen the Splittist Paragraph in FT

A couple of weeks ago I commented on the Financial Times' translation of a passage from Chen Shui-bian's new book The Cross of Taiwan. At the time I wrote:

As bonus for this week's translation puzzle hounds, in the Chinese of passage in Chen's new book the Financial Times translated last week, does the term "fenli zhuyizhe" (splittist) occur in the Chinese of this paragraph?

Some people believe that if Taiwan makes concessions to China , China will respond benignly. This is a very naive fantasy. China cannot remove the missiles it has aimed at Taiwan , just as under the “one China ” principle it cannot accept separate interpretations of what one China means. China 's basic attitude towards Taiwan has already been set. It cannot be changed by people in Beijing but only by the 23m people in Taiwan . I admit that I seek not just de facto independence for Taiwan but also de jure independence. Therefore the criticisms levelled at me by China and the US during my eight years in office were not groundless. Just like they said, I am a splittist. I am a seeker and practitioner of de jure independence for Taiwan.

....I may have identified the wrong paragraph (p189), but in Chinese that sentence says: "I am just what they say, I am a 'Taiwan independence advocate' (taidu lunzhe). "Splittist" isn't in there.

The reason my comment was tentative was because I couldn't make sense of the Financial Times' translation of that passage, and figured my Chinese was having problems. Maddog dropped me an email that resolved the conundrum for me.

First, take a look at the passage as FT presents it. The image at the top of the post contains the article from the FT website. The piece as translated is clearly and cleanly paragraphed -- it looks like it is all one passage -- and there is no indication given anywhere on the website or in the article that the paragraph that so confused me is actually a composite of two completely different paragraphs located on two different pages. The bottom of the page says, in English:

This excerpt, translated from Chinese, is part of a book Mr Chen wrote while behind bars.

The phrase "this excerpt" clearly indicates to the reader that the passage forms a whole.

p187 on left, p189 on right

The reality is that the paragraph that contains the false translation "splittist" is made up of a paragraph on p187 joined to a second paragraph on p189. To wit:

Some people believe that if Taiwan makes concessions to China , China will respond benignly. This is a very naive fantasy. China cannot remove [or reduce] the missiles it has aimed at Taiwan , just as under the “one China ” principle it cannot accept separate interpretations [MT: "separate interpretations" translates "One China, Separate Interpretations" that Ma is pushing] of what one China means. [Several sentences are removed, beginning: China opposes One Taiwan One China, as well as Two Chinas. The so-called One China, Separate Interpretations it naturally cannot accept... the paragraph then continues: ] China 's basic attitude towards Taiwan has already been set. It cannot be changed by people in Beijing but only by the 23m people in Taiwan. I admit that I seek not just de facto independence for Taiwan but also de jure independence. Therefore the criticisms levelled at me by China and the US during my eight years in office were not groundless. Just like they said, I am a splittist. I am a seeker and practitioner of de jure independence for Taiwan.

The translator yoked together parts of a paragraph from p187 (dark brown) with many sentences missing and some phrases eliminated or shortened (in the last sentence it says Zhongnanhai, not Beijing, but that is a necessary change). From page 189 the translator then picked up the entire paragraph (light brown) but changed the words independence advocate to splittist, a word nowhere in evidence in that paragraph. Note that there is no evidence of any of these changes or gaps in the text.

The rest of the passage is similarly constructed, taken from paragraphs all over the book and strung together as if it were one long passage, with no clue to the reader that it is not. Is this normal for the international media when excerpting books?

UPDATE: FT was kind enough to send a long response to me, from the person who translated it. FT says that Chen and his staff worked closely with FT, providing the excerpts for the piece, and approved the final English wording, including the word "splittist."

[Taiwan]

Canadian Human Rights Associations Letter to GIO Minister

Two Canadian human rights associations have written a response to a letter from the GIO to them regarding the various issues that have arisen in recent months in Taiwan. An informed and reasonable letter:

February 4, 2009
Mr. Su Jun-pin
Minister
Government Information Office, Executive Yuan
Republic of China (Taiwan)

Dear Minister Su,

China Rights Network of Toronto would like to thank you sincerely for your letter of January 9 in which you comment on the human rights concerns that we expressed in our letter to President Ma of December 22, 2008. We appreciate, in particular, the diligent work of Mr. Kuo, the Director of your Toronto Information Office. We are impressed that you have provided substantial detail in defence of your government's actions. This reinforces our belief that President Ma is truly determined to protect human rights.

However, despite your explanations, we remain concerned. Other international human rights organizations are also anxious that your government's actions could be undermining observance of human rights norms in the Republic of China. Given the impressive reforms of the past fifteen years, it will truly be a shame if Taiwan slips backward. May we get to the point with specific comments on your letter.

Regarding the concerns that many people have with the Chen Shui-bian trial, we do not wish to deny or ignore the fact that he and members of his family are charged with corruption. Indeed, we share the disappointment of people like Lin Cho-shui in his new book “歷史劇場” over this alleged betrayal of trust. Our concern is that since November the process itself has become a “劇場” (theatre).

The government acted with amazing, and one might say alarming, alacrity to demands from legislator Qiu Yi and a United Daily News editorial that former President Chen be returned to jail; and the judge who let him out on bail was promptly removed. More significantly, these demands were immediately and approvingly reported by the KMT News Network news feeds. We find ourselves wondering why legislator Qiu Yi appears to have such influence. Of course, we realize that you do not work for KNN, and we are not implying that this is your responsibility as GIO Director.

We were troubled, as well, to see the January 8 Justice Day skit performed by prosecutors shockingly defended by Minister of Justice Wang as unproblematic because they were simply "reflecting public sentiment''. Is Ms. Wang aware of the shock waves this little “劇場” has created beyond Taiwan? It is never the function of prosecutors to “reflect public opinion”. Unfortunately, your letter has not lessened our concerns that the trial of former President Chen has become more of a public lynching than a serious and painful process in which the core values of a democratic polity are once again reaffirmed by passing judgement over one who has violated them.

In view of these and many other incidents, we cannot agree with the assertion that “there is no evidence that the procedure is…not fair or objective”. Indeed, we are sure you are aware of the January 23 ruling by the Council of Justices that police recording on interviews of prisoners with their lawyers is unconstitutional (with reference to Chen Shui-bian and his lawyer Cheng Wen-lung). The ruling implies that such evidence has been seen by prosecutors, which would clearly be a case of unfair procedure.

Regarding Mr. Cheng we would also like to bring to your attention the January 2nd notice by the Ministry of Justice to the Taipei Prosecutors' Office and the Taipei Bar Association to investigate him for violation of ethics rules he allegedly made in publicizing his client’s messages. Is it not a mockery of ethics rules to repeatedly overlook leaks of prosecutorial evidence by the media and legislators (legislator Qiu Yi being again among the foremost in this regard), but cite Mr. Cheng for similar actions?

On point 2, the protests around Chen Yonglin’s visit, we realize that there is enough blame to go around on all sides here. We are familiar with the sharp criticisms made of the DPP by social activists in Taiwan that it did not take elementary organizational to control the demonstration. Nonetheless, your unsubstantiated numbers (170 police vs 40 protestors) are not convincing, because numerous reports, blogs and YouTube videos express legitimate concerns about excessive police violence on that day. We realize that you are constrained in how you respond to criticism, as are all government spokespersons, but such minimalization does not improve your government's reputation.

We accept that there was no government order to remove flags, but there was clearly a practice of doing so that day. Moreover, a similar practice appears to have been followed along the streets of Taipei the day China’s pandas arrived. This deepens our concern about the re-emergence of the habits of a party state.

On point 5, issues of freedom of the press, we are not reassured by your comments. A more convincing solution would be to see strong words supporting the PTN and its budget from either the Party (which must have some influence over its own legislators) or the President. While he does not control the legislature, he has the moral mandate and responsibility to defend the constitution and Taiwan’s democracy.

Other incidents, minor in themselves but major in their implications, deserve your attention; for example, the punishment meted out in November by the Financial Supervisory Commission to financial analyst Alan Chu for his “stupid president” article. Recently we have heard that your own office has been involved in a reversal of a request by the editors of Taiwan journal for a book review by June Teufel-Dryer of “Maritime Taiwan”. We do not doubt that freedom of speech in Taiwan is alive and well, at times even to the point of excess. However, when a new government in a country where opinion is often sharply divided undertakes policies that are controversial, it is preferable to be careful about even the appearance of questionable practices.

The issue of a “party state” still concerns us, though we are confident that Taiwan is a vibrant democracy that will not regress to the pre-1987 days. Our concerns are not, however, entirely allayed. As long-time students of party politics in China and Taiwan, from the Nanking decade until today, we observe that one of the persistent features of political decision making is that it often happens inside the party, with little public debate; and that the fora where decisions are formally made, or the bureaux where they are implemented, are not usually the locus of power. President Lee Teng-hui turned these characteristics of Taiwan’s political culture to good advantage in his management of Taiwan’s democratic transition. Moreover, he promoted public debate about these processes with the 1990 National Affairs Conference. We are worried that recent events point to a regression towards a closed process of political decision making.

In addition to your response, we have read Chairman Wu Po-hsiung’s statement on the “second track” nature of KMT-CCP meetings. This is exactly the kind of “unofficial” exchange of views and potential policy development that has been common in China, ever since the Nanking decade. This kind of closed process is workable in China because one party to the discussions, the CCP, is the ultimate decision maker, exercising power over the government. In short, we have to conclude that your assurances are somewhat naïve. On the other hand we realize that you are not a spokesperson for the Party, and so perhaps cannot say much more than what you have.

The incidents referred to in our exchange of letters including the Chen Yong-lin visit and the Chen Shui-bian trial, convince us that we can make much more sense of events if we look behind the 劇場 for underlying understandings that guide all these actors. However, in view of widely expressed views in Taiwan and abroad that he is not fully in control of the Party, we do not allege that President Ma is personally responsible for all of this. As human rights advocates we are concerned that there is still a lot happening inside the Party that should concern both ourselves and the President.

To sum up, we respectfully point out the China Rights Network and Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada are not alone in their concern about trends in the Republic of China. Independent, impartial human rights organizations have expressed similar anxieties and urged the government to fully respect civil and political rights. We would like to give your government the benefit of the doubt, and accept your assertion that you have no intention of sliding backwards. But assertions are one thing while actions ultimately tell the tale. We will continue to observe developments over the coming months with great interest and a critical eye.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Craig, Chair Michael Stainton, President
China Rights Network
Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada

[Taiwan]

Jerome Cohen on recent Legal Reforms

Jerome Cohen, Chinese law expert and longtime Ma Ying-jeou supporter, weighs in on the recent decision by the Council of Grand Justices to limit the power of the police and prosecutors to listen in on conversations between the accused and their lawyers.

Inching towards fairness
Jerome Cohen and Yu-Jie Chen

.....

In the mainland's conservative climate, preoccupied with the spectre of rising instability rather than the promise of enhancing individual rights, prospects for further criminal justice reform seem to have stalled. And, even if the Criminal Procedure Law is revised, it is uncertain if detention centres would heed its requirements. The mainland has no constitutional court that can break a political-legal stalemate by insisting on legislative reform, nor does it even have a legal system strong enough to ensure the authorities respect existing laws.

Yet Taiwan does and, on Thursday, administration of justice on the island received another boost, thanks to the impressive Council of Grand Justices. Following the latest in the council's series of courageous interpretations, issued less than two weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice ordered all detention centres to stop their long-standing practice of listening in on and recording attorney-client conversations unless ordered to do so by prosecutors or judges who believe that, otherwise, the accused may try to falsify evidence.

The council decided that the Detention Law provision for authorising "supervision" of attorney-client meetings had been applied to include listening to and taping all such meetings without regard to the circumstances of each case and that this blanket interference violated the principle of proportionality and the right to litigation. The interpretation does not prohibit restraints on such communication if a court deems it "necessary", but it properly leaves the complex task of articulating applicable criteria, procedures and other details to the legislature. But the interpretation allows detention officials to continue to "observe" attorney-client meetings, if not always listen to or record them, even though that can be intimidating.

The council held another Detention Law provision unconstitutional to the extent that it permits the admission into evidence of conversations between the detained accused and his lawyer that have been illegally listened to and recorded. But, at least in the view of the Ministry of Justice, evidence gathered from legal taping will continue to be admissible, not only against the accused but also against his lawyer, should he or she be charged with misconduct.

To assure time for appropriate legislative and executive responses to its invalidation of these Detention Law provisions, the council delayed its invalidation until May 1. In view of the justice ministry's worthy instruction that, from Thursday, detention centres must generally cease listening to and recording attorney-client meetings, it will be interesting for those of us on the outside to "monitor" what impact it may have on Chen's defence.

Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of New York University's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Yu-Jie Chen is a Taiwanese lawyer and 2009 NYU School of Law Robert L. Bernstein Fellow in International Human Rights

[Taiwan]

How bad will the economy be next year?

Hong Kong-based CLSA made global headlines the other day when it predicted that the economy here in Taiwan would contract 11% in 2009:

The forecasts released yesterday are so far the lowest by any bank or broker for those three countries. The comments come a day after the International Monetary Fund underscored the dismal state of Asia's economies by cutting its growth forecast for the region to just 2.7 per cent from a November forecast of 4.9 per cent.

CLSA expects gross domestic product in South Korea, Asia's fourth-largest economy, to shrink by seven per cent this year, reflecting falling exports, consumption and investment. Its previous forecast was for 1.7 per cent contraction.

It expects Taiwan's economy to shrink by 11 per cent in 2009, making it the worst performer in Asia and saying it was "tying with Singapore as the most vulnerable economy in the region". Its previous forecast was for a contraction of 2.7 per cent.

Singapore will be hit by falling trade, declining property prices and its exposure to the financial industry, CLSA said, with GDP likely to shrink 10 per cent, down from its original forecast of a 2.6 per cent decline. CLSA maintained its previous growth forecast for China at 5.5 per cent. It lowered its view on Indonesia, predicting growth of less than one per cent.

The Taipei Times today noted:

Nonetheless, the important issue is not how accurate CLSA’s figure is, but the main reason behind its gloomy forecast: a collapse in the nation’s exports.

People have to face the cruel reality that our economy depends too heavily on exports, which account for about 60 percent to 65 percent of GDP, and it may be a tipping point for the nation to seriously reconsider how to adjust its fundamental economic and financial structures to address Taiwan’s long-term economic development. Second, those who have put their faith in China’s economy should understand that its exports and manufacturing output have continued to fall in recent months, and the global economic slowdown has yet to bottom out.

Obviously, years of investment in China has made Taiwan overly dependent on it, and December’s plunge of 54 percent in shipments to China including Hong Kong, which accounted for about 40 percent of the nation’s exports, should sound alarm bells.

Taiwan took a double hit, first from factories offshoring, and then, from the drop in exports due to the economic crisis. Can can China rescue us? The jury is still out, but I expect that things in China are a lot worse than the government there is letting on (as this piece explains). Taiwan's dependence on exports is inescapable, but its dependence on China is stupid, short-sighted, and unnecessary. Max Hirsch from Kyodo reports on domestic developments in Taiwan -- our vote buying program voucher program:

The Cabinet-level Council for Planning and Economic Development, or CEPD, initially estimated the plan's contribution to GDP growth this year to be about 0.6 percent, but later revised that estimate to one percent, citing a ''multiplier effect,'' as the vouchers change hands like cash and spread their impact across the economy.

''So far so good,'' said Steve Lin, an economics professor at National Chengchi University (NCCU) in Taipei, referring to the plan since it took effect Jan. 18.

''My own expectation is that an extra one percent GDP growth because of the plan is possible,'' Lin added.

It's hard to imagine that the CEPD's upward revision of the effects of the voucher program was anything but political, since the organization of course knows about multiplier effects. The full extent of the program's effect will not be known until September, when the vouchers are withdrawn from circulation, explained Hirsch. A voucher program for education is in the offing.

Exports have plummeted 40%, while unemployment is over 5% (but these unemployment numbers underreport unemployment, just as they do in the US). Take note: the CLSA report correctly pointed to economic problems other than falling exports that are also having their impact: falling domestic and government spending. The investment firm UBS commented several years ago that the fall-off in infrastructure spending had hit the island's domestic economy hard. The government would have been much better off spending that $2.5 billion voucher outlay on infrastructure, where the multiplier effects would have been much greater.

Whatever the actual figures, 2009 is going to be a grim year here in Taiwan.

[Taiwan]

Charter 08 and Taiwan

Journalist Jonathan Adams has an interview in FEER with one of the drafters of Charter 08, Zhang Zuhua. The whole interview is excellent, but one part is especially relevant to Taiwan:

Zhang Zuhua: First of all, we have a very moderate attitude to such comments and critics. We welcome people to comment on this Charter, and we can learn from them.

I'm one of the charter's main drafters. When the police questioned me, I acknowledged that most of the ideas are Western ideas. The ideas of the charter come not only from the U.S. Bill of Rights, but also from the 1215 reforms in England [the Magna Carta], from the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and from the Czech Charter 77 [a 1977 call for political reform by Czech activists during the days of Communist rule].

But we also have a "native" (bentu) inspiration: that is, Taiwan. Before 1986, there were also many activists, people fighting for democracy and human rights in Taiwan, and publishing calls for those things. [Taiwan began democratizing in the late 1980s].

JA: Many Chinese say that China needs stability most of all, that it must focus on economic growth, and political reform can wait.

ZZ: Personally, I agree with this. China should take time to develop. [This] year will be the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. And so we hope China can move toward democracy and the rule of law with a very low cost. I hope China can accomplish this transition in a peaceful and nonviolent way.

JA: What will be needed for China to change?

ZZ: In my writings, I use a method of analyzing called "three plus one" analysis. Looking at all of the factors affecting China's future, I came up with three political elements and one economic. The political ones are the ruling party, civil society and international society.

The CCP is the ruling party and its choices about the future are obviously very important to Chinese society. However, the efforts of the ruling party are not enough. Without the participation of civil society and international society, it will be difficult to lead China down the right path.

One of the growing themes of this blog is that Taiwan can change China, but only as Taiwan. It cannot do so as Taiwan, satrapy of Beijing. Zhang's words show that two things are absolutely crucial to creating democratic change in China: first, the existence of Taiwan as an independent entity whose democracy is authentic, not a sham veneer over one-party rule; and second, commitment from other nations to making change in China.

Sadly, as Jim Mann chronicled in The China Fantasy, global foreign policymakers have ignored the possibility of creating real change in China.

[Taiwan]

Diplomatic Truce = Diplomatic Withdrawal

The new President has touted his idea of "diplomatic truce" with China, in which each side agrees that neither will snag the other's "allies." Thus, when opportunity knocks, Ma refuses to do anything....

Taiwan will not consider retaking Malawi as a diplomatic ally, despite rumors of the African country’s discontent with Beijing, a senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) official said yesterday after local media reported that Lilongwe regretted abandoning Taiwan in December 2007.

The officials, who asked not to be named, said that under the “diplomatic truce” with Beijing, Taipei would not take back a former ally because such a move could sabotage recent cross-strait rapprochement and rekindle the traditional hostility on the diplomatic front.

“If someone breaks up with you, but later wants to get back with you because he got dumped, would you take him back?” said the official, adding that if Taiwan were to take back Malawi, Beijing would not hesitate to lure more of Taipei’s remaining 23 allies.

Allies including Paraguay, Panama and Guatemala had been rumored to be on the verge of switching recognition prior to the cross-strait detente, but Beijing’s reluctance had undermined their desire, he said.

Taipei cut ties with Malawi after 42 years of friendship in December 2007 after it was confirmed that Lilongwe had forged ties with Beijing. The break-up, leaving Taiwan with 23 allies, was a shock to the ministry, which said it had not seen it coming.

Beijing reportedly offered a US$6 billion financial package among other economic incentives in exchange for recognition by Lilongwe.

The Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper) reported yesterday that Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika was unhappy with Beijing because of its broken promises, a mistake he feared would hurt his chances for re-election.

Yet, there was much criticism of Chen's foreign policy because he supposedly "lost" allies. Yet our "diplomatic truce" has gained us nothing from China -- no more international space, no great participation in international bodies, and no greater recognition from the world.

It should also be noted that if Ma were to take a shot at Malawi, China would start bleating about "tensions" and foreign observers would complain that Ma was "altering the status quo" and maybe even "provoking China." Ma's "diplomatic truce" thus also redefines a status quo in which Taiwan is completely passive, and in which every Chinese success does not affect the status quo, but any Taiwanese action away from China violates it.

[Taiwan]

Daily Links, Feb 5, 2009

What's well-sauced on the blogs today?

Earthquake tests off Taiwan could harm rare dolphins

Stocks and Politics on the complaints against the pro-Green media.

There is no 'i' blogs on the death of a major Buddhist figure in Taiwan.

Taiwanrocks! on the Chinese economy and the US.

Taiwan Teacher on the receipt lottery

A post on Ed Friedman's excellent piece on China and democracy.

A Pinoy's Guide to Taiwan has Year of the Ox pics.

Global Voices online on hiking in Taiwan's mountains.

David on the Taipei Book exhibition. And don't forget, he has links on Mondays.

A fake news report on a China-India clash off Somalia.

A-gu notes that the NCC is going to tighten "fact checking" regulations on talk shows. This comes after criticism of pro-Green talk shows for "not check facts." It's a good thing that gentleman Ma was elected and the adults were put back in charge....

Hanjie on Lantern Festival Fireworks

Mutantfrog finds a 1993 piece on the China apologist Gregory Clark.

F VARGA on the tragedy of Orchid Island

Darren Melrose photos a Pingtung Street market

MEDIA: The evolution of Otaku culture in Taiwan. Japanese baseball star Oh says Taiwan baseball has good future. The Council on Foreign Relations on Countering China's Military Build Up. Chinese tourists visit in great numbers during Lunar New Year. More threats to pro-Green TV talk shows. Formosa Plastics to invest US$8.4 billion in plants in Taiwan. Freedom of the press has plummeted under Ma. South Korea and Taiwan execs charged with price-fixing in LCD markets. An excellent piece on Taiwan's water situation in this month's Taiwan Review. Yet another expert panel on the prospects for East Asia in the Obama regnum. The BBC on cross strait affairs. Another Chen aide pleads guilty. SEF Chief says Taiwan's dependence on China not so bad. Forbes on FDI in Taiwan.Seventy year old climber invents low-cost crampons. Latest twist in the Diane Lee case: AIT says, oh yeah, she did give up her citizenship 14 years ago (UPDATE: as Echo points out below, that's what her lawyer says AIT said). Except it is my understanding that a US citizen cannot give up citizenship just for serving on low-grade elected council. KMT to take its time in picking candidates for the year-end elections.

PERSONAL: Today is the fourth anniversary of this blog. Sitemeter has me at 750,000 visitors since I put it on a couple of years ago, and over 1.2 million page views. Thanks, everyone.

[Taiwan]

Chen Trial Blues

Jon Adams has another good piece at the Global Post writes on the Chen Shui-bian trial and the media circus:

All of this has some wondering if Taiwan's media and judiciary are giving Chen a fair shake.

"He hasn't been found guilty yet, but the media wants to tell their audience he is," said Connie Lin, a former TV journalist and now media expert at Hungkuang University in central Taiwan. "It's not healthy for Taiwan's democracy."

To be sure, Chen is deeply unpopular. He's been abandoned even by many of his former supporters. For them, his public admissions are damning enough. Chen has said his wife, Wu Shu-chen, wired some $20 million to the family's overseas accounts, and he apologized for not reporting the money.

But Chen insists the amount was leftover campaign contributions, which he's allowed to keep under Taiwanese law.

Many Taiwanese simply don't buy that. Neither do prosecutors. They charged him and family members with embezzling state funds, accepting bribes and laundering ill-gotten millions abroad.

Chen pleaded not guilty in a pre-trial hearing on Jan. 19, and remains in detention. The next court date is Feb. 24.

Meanwhile, Wu, also a suspect, has failed to show up for 17 court appearances, claiming poor health. That excuse doesn't sit well with most Taiwanese. This week her own lawyer quit, a week before she's due in court again.

The scandal has sucked in Chen's children. His son, Chen Chih-chung, recently admitted wrongdoing in connection with sending funds abroad, and has turned state's witness against his own parents.

Chen's daughter, Chen Hsin-yu, has not been charged. But the media has mercilessly badgered her nonetheless. She's become something of a laughing-stock in Taiwan for her screeching tantrums, directed at TV reporters who shadow her every move.

The media has tormented Chen Hsin-yu. It should be noted that despite the tremendous number of trials of KMT bigwigs over the years, none of their families and family members have been hounded by the media the way Chen Shui-bian's family has been.

Also in the Chen case news, there were more guilty pleas.

Tsai Ming-che and Tsai Ming-chieh yesterday pleaded guilty to helping the former First Family, the Ah-Bian family, launder money by serving as “white gloves”, i.e., intermediaries in criminal acts. The Tsais are brothers of former First Lady Wu Shu-jen’s college classmate, Tsai Mei-li. After pleading guilty, Tsai Ming-chieh’s attorney requested plea bargaining. After the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the Prosecutor General’s Office consults with the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, if an agreement can be reached, the prosecutors may enter into plea bargaining with Tsai Ming-chieh and his defense counsel.

Tsai was somber yesterday when he requested plea bargaining. He said that he and his three siblings had all been involved in the cases. In addition, as his sister Tsai Mei-li was quite ill, he said that hoped that at least one family member could avoid going to prison so as to help the other members to deal with family affairs. Consequently, he said that he had requested plea bargaining.

The noose tightens....

[Taiwan]

Robin Winkler To Run for Diane Lee's Vacated Seat

Max Hisrch of Kyodo has the report:

An American-born lawyer who gave up his U.S. passport and gained Taiwanese citizenship has become what he said is the first white to run for the island's parliament, vying for a seat that until last month belonged to a Taiwanese who resigned over allegations she holds U.S. citizenship.

Robin Winkler's candidacy, announced this week, for the legislative seat of a key district in capital Taipei is the latest ironic twist to the island's rough-and-tumble politics.

But Winkler's bid to represent Da-an District, where residents lean toward conservative Chinese values, also highlights Taiwan's shifting identity politics in the era of globalization, as a flood of immigrants and an ethnic divide figure prominently in the island's political narrative.

And in many ways, Winkler, 54, is the opposite of the ex-lawmaker he seeks to replace: Diane Lee, formerly of the ruling Nationalist Party (KMT). Lee, 50, last month quit her seat amid a storm of controversy over whether she holds U.S. citizenship and thus broke a law prohibiting dual citizenship for lawmakers.

..............

By contrast, Winkler, to all appearances, is a foreigner. In 2003, however, he renounced his U.S. citizenship and became a naturalized Taiwanese, partly to avoid deportation for his legal practice and activism, he said. Fluent in Mandarin, he runs Winkler Partners, a Taipei-based law firm he founded in 1993, and the Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the environment.

''We're going to run a very international campaign,'' Winkler told Kyodo News by phone Wednesday, referring to his bid to become the island's first naturalized citizen to hold a parliamentary seat. ''Ours will be a platform of global values.''

Winkler seeks the nomination of the Green Party, a global political party advocating environmental conservation and non-violence. The party's Taiwan chapter, he said, will likely choose its nominee this week, with that candidate running against candidates from the KMT and DPP. Winkler said he would focus on environmental issues and social justice in his campaign.

...........

Winkler's bid comes amid a small but growing shift in demographics, as the island transitions to what its National Immigration Agency calls an ''immigrant country.''

Winkler, driven and intelligent, will make a fine addition to the legislature. Don't know how useful he'll be in its fistfights, though....

[Taiwan]

GWU Seminar on Cross-Strait Relations Last Week: Summary

I've slapped together a summary of what was said at the seminar from the notes and observations of several people who were there, as well as news reports.

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

2009-03. “New actors and Factors in Cross-Strait Relations.”
Place: GWU Gaston Sigur Center
Date: 29 January 2009, 9:00 am-noon


Panel 1: “Political change in Taiwan and impact on Cross-Strait interaction.” The first speaker was Prof. T.Y. Wang of Illinois State U. on “Expanding Taiwan’s international Space.” Wang characterized Ma's policy as keeping status on the back burner, maintaining current relations with the 20+ countries that are "allies", and the different interpretations of One China and "mutual non-denial". [MT: Note how this takes Ma's foreign policy at face value.]

China is encouraging Ma’s conciliatory policy, but the independence movement is the Achilles heel of Beijing’s grand strategy of peaceful reunification. Beijing’s two main concerns are:

1. Only participation (under China’s umbrella) in organizations which do not require statehood.
2. Taiwan can only participate under “Taipei, China” or Taiwan, China.

Taiwan’s challenge will be how to deal with the “One China Principle”. If the KMT agrees, it might well be voted out of power, but if it doesn't agree, then China will not move. Wang put up poll results showing that Taiwanese overwhelmingly identify with Taiwan but that this does not translate into political identity. Only a tiny minority supports unification.

Wang concluded that “Agree to disagree” with China will only work if “One China” is not forced down Taiwan’s throat. If China imposes its will through force, then the majority will opt for independence.

Second speaker: Prof. Shelley Rigger on Micro & political dimensions.

She started out with positing that after the March 2008 elections “we expected things to settle down.” This did not happen: why? “Things always remain exciting re. Taiwan; never a dull moment.”

First, the slumping economy. Taiwan feels uncertain and there is unrest and anxiety. Ma gets blamed for 2 reasons. First, high expectations due to extravagant promises. The administration's performance has fallen far short. She then added that the DPP had 8 years in office. It was always good at being an energetic opposition but less good in being a ruling government.

During the Chen Yunlin visit the DPP mobilized large crowds, which disrupted the giant photo-op Ma had envisioned. This debunked the illusion of Beijing and the international community that Ma alone could decide on behalf of all Taiwanese. Ma could use this anxiety about rapprochement to China by wringing concessions in negotiations with Chinese.

The DPP provided leadership in the comprehensive unhappiness about conciliatory policies: it gave them a horse to ride. But it undermined their “moderate” image. [MT: Among who?] She added that the DPP’s image as pro-independence/anti-China is perceived as obstacle to Cross-Strait progress.[MT: Maybe by the American foreign policy community. But not among people who love this island. Observe also that, once again, the New Status Quo is The Process, and people who try to slow this process are disrupting the status quo.]

Rigger then said thatin Taiwan there are deeper undercurrents in the community: "there is something [going on in Taiwan] almost more scary than the economic meltdown...the government has come into office with a mandate to test a theory re. Taiwan’s future and cross strait relations." First, Chen thought that Taiwan could shift away from China without unbearable consequences, but the KMT opposed, China wouldn't play, and the US laid down the law. The Ma Administration is now working on "Plan B" -- keep the status quo forever [MT: Speaking of illusions, Rigger certainly holds a few here!], conciliate with China. However, if this doesn't work, the scary part is that there is no Plan C. We should give Ma's approach a chance, she added, because it has never been tried.

Don Rogers was next. He started with Ma’s election and the reasons why he won: Ma was maintaining his Chinese identity and still won the election among the Taiwanese electorate. His ultimate goal remains unification, and since the election his Administration has emphasized the “Chinese blood” line. The KMT is still accustomed to esteem based on the claim to truly represent the Chinese people.[MT: At last some reality in the discussion!]. This has meant thepromotion of the Chinese over the Taiwanese identity; Taiwanization -- co-opting Taiwanese into their system; and arguing that rapprochement with China is necessary for Taiwan’s prosperity.

Rodgers then gave a good number of statistics on identity, voting preference and Ma’s declining popularity.

His conclusion: Ma got elected on the premise that closer ties with China would bring prosperity. Ma has to do a difficult balancing act between being conciliatory to China and voter concerns about identity, sovereignty and economy. The average Taiwan voter will not give him much breathing space, while for China it is impossible to give in on issues such as sovereignty and identity. This makes it highly unlikely that Ma’s strategy will succeed.

Second Session: Strategic and Economic Drivers of Cross Strait Relations
This session was chaired by David Shambaugh
First Speaker: Capt. Bernard Cole (USN, Ret) discussed China’s Defense Strategy & Implications for Taiwan.

Cole started out with China’s 2008 Defense White Paper, which stated that the aim of the PLA is “solely aimed at protecting its territory and people.” Cole also emphasized that the PLA’s main goal is also to keep the CCP in power: it is very much a Party army: its generals / admirals etc. owe their loyalty to the CCP.

He then focused on the PLA’s “propensity to send signals”. It wants to maintain social stability, ramp up asymmetric warfare capabilities to neutralize US in a conflict, perceives the US as a threat and wants to remove it from dominance in East Asia, and prevent Taiwan independence but avoid a confrontation with the US. Taiwan is the military's number 1 priority. Cole said that they wanted to win via soft power, but that will be difficult.

Second Speaker: Prof. Bob Sutter. Georgetown University. Ma’s Policies and how they are affecting international factors.[MT: In addition to being my old prof, Sutter is one of the US government's most important Taiwan analysts]

Sutter opened by saying that there is a great asymmetry and imbalance in the relation across the Taiwan Strait: China’s size and importance internationally dwarf Taiwan. Any negotiation is therefore unequal. Ma has to balance his interests (in his rapprochement with China) with US interests and influence in the region. Further, the US has to determine what it wants in the region w.r. its economic, political and strategic presence and interests.

Will “Plan B’ (see Rigger above) work? Sutter said that this Plan B was being welcomed by the US, since it fulfilled the policy goal of reducing tension. It showed that US “engagement” has worked.

Sutter then made some critical remarks: Ma’s policy is pretty one-sided: he is reassuring China, and gets little in return. He is allowing China to consolidate its power vis-à-vis Taiwan. Ma has not shown any hedging and (as Rigger pointed out) there is no fall-back option. In the past the US had been the fall-back, maintaining the balance.

He questioned the wisdom of putting all the “international space” eggs in one WHO/WHA basket: If there is a small concession from China there, is it really going to change anything? Will the Chinese string it out, and milk Taiwan for more and more concessions? The DPP must show itself as a strong force. “I would like to see something done internationally. But Ma has no contingency plan, I don’t see it. What is plan C? Need to have this in the background.”

Then he came to the point of a quiet policy review: what if Taiwan really doesn’t want to do any hedging, what if Taiwan wants to get into China’s orbit? He emphasized that the US should help Ma get a better deal with China. He wondered where China would compromise (implying he didn’t have high expectations). He also observed that at the end of the Bush Administration there was a big policy drift with respect to Taiwan.

The third Speaker, Terry Cooke, discussed Economic and commercial considerations. He concluded that the ultimate success or failure of the rapprochement will depend to what extent China and Taiwan can co-manage the challenge of the economic downturn.

In the Q&A Shambaugh kicked off with a question to Cole: What happens if there is a “freeze” on missiles by China: what would that do for the US position on arms sales? Coles said that China is against arms sales no matter what! In any case, Beijing doesn’t see the need to freeze its missiles: it thinks it can achieve its purposes through its present policies.

Then Shambaugh put a question to Sutter: what if Taiwan increasingly moves into China’s orbit, what will be implications for US policy. Sutter responded that the US doesn’t really need Taiwan, that it can work around Taiwan.

Audience members then said that we always praise Taiwan’s vibrant democracy, “beacon of democracy”: how can we ensure that the Taiwanese can have a fully free and open decision on their future? How can we ensure the viability of Taiwan’s democratic institutions? Sutterresponded that that was Taiwan’s own responsibility and the US shouldn’t interfere in the internal process.

Then later on in the Q&A two Taiwan reporters from the pro-KMT papers asked whether the Policy Review proposed by Sutter would be more progressive (relaxation of ties with Taiwan) or conservative (tightening the rules). Sutter talked about the 1994 Policy Review and said it had “produced a mouse.” The US has to have a “mind-change” and get away from the “balance in the Strait” concept which drove arms sales during the past 2+ decades. It seemed that he implied that a “balance” was not possible anyway and that in such a Policy Review the possibility of Taiwan drifting into China’s orbit – and the US working around Taiwan would be one option.

Nadia Tso then asked a question about William Murray’s “porcupine strategy.” Cole found it disconcerting that a single paper by a US person could so totally throw the Taiwan military out of kilter. He also expressed deep concern about Ma’s move towards an all-volunteer army. He said that would considerably reduce Taiwan’s military readiness. He also stated that the reduction in frequency of the annual military exercises was an additional problem.

[Taiwan]

'S Week Tome All Obama

This week saw an avalanche of stuff from individuals wondering what Obama will do with Asia's future. Ralph Cossa of CSIS weighed in with an Establishment essay that calls for Obama The Global Security Blanket:

Reassurance is the key word here. A constant question and refrain one hears throughout Asia, and especially in China and Japan, is: "Obama ran on a platform of 'change,' but we like things pretty much the way they are. What's really going to change, and why?"

Cossa alludes to the (correct) Japanese perceptions that the US is tilting towards China and of course, praises the "improved relations" between China and Taiwan. Not much you can do when the US foreign policy establishment thinks the KMT's wrenching changes to the Status Quo and upcoming sell-out of the interests of both the US and the people of Taiwan is A Very Good Thing.

The Taipei Times had a couple of commentaries today, one from Liu Shih-chung, which seemed like almost a "yes, but..." response to Cossa:

The temporary detente across the Taiwan Strait no doubt meets US interests. The Obama government will encourage the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration to continue its efforts to engage Beijing. Washington is therefore expected to favor a policy of “ambiguity” rather “clarity,” or to “talk and do less” to cross-strait relations unless something worrisome comes up.

The irony is, Taiwan may show self-restraint and shoulder responsibility to support Obama’s call, but what the county has been facing, even under the KMT government, is a regime that relentlessly demands a unilateral acceptance of the “one China” principle as a precondition for negotiating with Taiwan’s future and its international presence.

Even when he formally called on both sides of Taiwan Strait to end military confrontation by signing a peace agreement in his recent six-point statement, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) framed future cross-strait negotiations under the “one China” principle.

Hu did not respond positively to Ma’s calls for a “cross-strait diplomatic truce.” Nor has he openly endorsed the KMT’s “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”

Instead, Hu ruled out any hints of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” when it comes to Taiwan’s international status. And to downplay the DPP’s role, Beijing sought to separate the issue of “Taiwanese identity” from “independence.”

As the democratically elected national leader, Ma has what he believed a “mandate” to pursue normalization with his Chinese counterparts. It would be difficult, however, for Ma to disregard the democratic right of Taiwanese to determine their own future.
If Obama sticks to what he said, that “America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more,” then he should strongly endorse Taiwan’s desire to determine its own future.

The US needs, at minimum to get behind the idea of a referendum on Taiwan's future. And to stop pretending that what is going on the Taiwan Strait is "peace" or "improved relations." Richard Halloran reviewed Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's comments on Obama's China policy:

However, Clinton was clear on the issues of Taiwan, Tibet and human rights in China.

On Taiwan, Clinton followed precedents set earlier.

“The administration’s policy will be to help Taiwan and China resolve their differences peacefully while making clear that any unilateral change in the status quo is unacceptable,” she said.

The former government of president Chen Shui-bian nudged Taiwan toward independence, while the current government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has pledged to maintain the “status quo.”

Note the bizarrely unbalanaced construction -- Chen "nudged" Taiwan toward independence, but Ma's tilt toward China is "maintaining the status quo." Right.... Clinton's words, far from speaking to China in unambiguous terms as Halloran claims, simply reiterated the tired ambiguities of all previous US policy. As the Taipei Times noted in its editorial today, China is simply too important economically for the US to change policy at this point.

Taiwan News probably has the best take on Obama, the US, Taiwan, and China, pointing out, as I did months ago, that KMT policy is destabilizing cross-strait relations:

The inconvenient truth is that, underneath a veneer of "stability," a grave crisis is building in the Taiwan Strait that bodes ill for the very survival of Taiwan's democracy and for long-term hopes for peace in the Taiwan Strait and fundamental U.S. interests in the East Asian region.

The source of this undertow lies in the relentless pressure from the PRC that Taiwan must accept Beijing's "one China principle," which posits that Taiwan is part of the PRC, as a precondition for political talks instead of an issue subject to negotiation.

Even when floating a proposal for both sides of Taiwan Strait to end military confrontation through signing a peace agreement in his Dec. 31 six-point statement, PRC State Chairman and CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao declared that any such negotiations must take place under the so-called "one China principle" and ruled out any arrangements on Taiwan's international participation that would even hint of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan."

After years of drift during which Washington has neglected the fundamental undertow of the exacerbating strategic imbalance in the PRC's favor, Obama has a choice to make if he intends to apply his own declarations that "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity" and that the U.S. will resume "leadership" to East Asia.

The new U.S. president can "say less and do nothing" and thereby become a bystander to Beijing's absorption of democratic Taiwan and ultimately face the threat of a new regional balance of power dominated by an authoritarian and expansionist PRC.

Alternatively, the Obama government can act to restore balance by assisting the Taiwan government in strengthening its bargaining chips in negotiating with Beijing.

The editorial calls for more high-level exchanges between Taiwan and the US and more US support for Taiwan's democracy along with a firm stand against its suppression as a component of the "improved relations" with China. Not many commentators have grasped the simple fact that as we move closer to China, we move farther from democracy here.

For those of you interested in discussion of Obama's foreign policy, tomorrow the Japan Society will be hosting an online event:

On February 4 at 6:30 PM, Mark Halperin, John Bussey, Howard French, and Aaron Friedberg will discuss the impact of Obama Administration on East Asia at Japan Society of New York. The event will be webcast live, with the chance to ask questions via the internet. (This event, along with many other lectures, will also be archived at media.japansociety.org/index.html

The U.S. & East Asia Under the Obama Administration
Wednesday, February 4, 6:30 PM

LIVE WEBCAST AT: media.japansociety.org/index.html

How will the new Obama administration impact East Asia? Expert panelists

Mark Halperin, Editor-at-Large and Senior Policy Analyst for Time Magazine, John Bussey, Washington Bureau Chief, The Wall Street Journal and Howard French, Associate Professor of Journalism at Columbia University, discuss whether the Obama administration will create substantive change in the U.S. approach to East Asian relations.

Moderated by Aaron L. Friedberg, Professor of Politics, Princeton University.

[Taiwan]

Annette Lu to start newspaper

DPA reports that former vice president Annette Lu is planning to start her own online newspaper:

Taiwan's former vice president announced plans Sunday to start a newspaper to advocate for Taiwanese independence from China. Annette Lu, 64, who ended two terms as vice president in May, held a luncheon in Taipei to raise funds for the afternoon paper, the Formosa Post, scheduled to begin publication July 1.

Lu raised 13 million Taiwan dollars (400,000 US dollars) at the event but said she needs 600 million (18 million US) to start the paper, and is recruiting reporters.

Lu said her recent trip to the US to attend Barack Obama's inauguration hardened her determination to publish a newspaper.

"Some US politicians think that Taiwan has surrendered to China and Taiwan people go with that. If Taiwan people make no noise, the US would think that what the Taiwan government does, is the will of Taiwan people, so the US would not interfere," she said.

As the report notes further down, the market here is very competitive and newspapers are slowly strangling. How Lu will make her project go, and differentiate it from the Liberty Times and Taiwan News, is a mystery to this writer. We already lost a green paper several years ago -- remember the old Taiwan Daily?

[Taiwan]

Taliao and Pollution

Taliao, a small town in a "rural" area outside of Kaohsiung, has been in the news recently with a toxic leak that that has affected schools in town.

Last month, the Chaoliao Elementary and Middle Schools were evacuated at least four times as students and teachers went to the hospital after a foul smell became apparent. Classes have since been moved to other schools.

The Environmental Protection Administration produced a report listing seven possible sources of the pollution around the nearby Ta Fa Industrial Park, but was unable to come up with the name of a culprit.

The residents accused the EPA of dragging its feet for a month before tackling the problem.

The protesters demanded the removal of the wastewater plant they feel is responsible for the pollution, the resignation of EPA chief Stephen Shen, and apologies from President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan. They also want the EPA to launch a new environmental impact report on the area.

The surprising thing is not that there is such news, but that such news isn't constant. The whole town is one gigantic toxic waste cesspool.

The beautiful blog Shan Ding Lu has an excellent photo essay on pollutant sources in and around Taliao. Taliao is out in Kaohsiung county, which has one of the greatest concentrations of factories in the world, and is surrounded in three directions by naptha crackers in Linbian, Nantze, and west of Nantze. There is also the China Steel plant outside Kaohsiung and not far from Taliao, the airport in Hsaiogang, the industrial district in town, a military training academy, a couple of universities with small, on-site incinerators, and the crown jewel of stink, the Kaohsiung city garbage dump, right next to Fooyin University.

The Taipei Times reported back in December on the series of leaks, which some residents had claimed came from a waste treatment plant:

The demonstration in the morning was tense. Because the protesters had gathered without applying for permission, the police demanded they disperse in accordance with the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).

This drew a heated response from the protesters, who then clashed with police. Some protesters threw rocks at both the plant and the police. One protestor was detained.

“Must someone die before the factories cease operation?” said Taliao Township chief Huang Tian-huang (黃天煌).

The situation calmed when Kaohsiung County Commissioner Yang Chiu-hsing (楊秋興) arrived at the site at around 11am.

“The gas came from a factory,” Yang said, adding that the waste water treatment plant was merely a downstream destination of the foul gas.

Readers might take a moment to reflect on the "violence" that occurred in the Chen Yunlin protests. Violence is traditional at Taiwan protests. Note the Parade and Assembly Law at work as well -- police attempted to disperse the crowd using that law.

There were violent clashes again a few days ago, when the EPA said it had identified the culprits.

The factories responsible for last month’s poisonous gas leaks at the Tafa Industrial Park in Kaohsiung County’s Taliao Township (大寮) have been identified, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) said yesterday.

“After days of intense investigation, we have narrowed down the list of factories likely responsible for the leaks to a few. Who should be targeted for compensation is now clear and Taliao residents can seek mediation. There is no need for [Taliao residents] to protest,” EPA Minister Steven Shen (沈世宏) said at a press conference in Taipei.

Shen said the Kaohsiung County Government should begin mediation between the Industrial Park and residents as soon as possible.

Shen made the comments in response to violent clashes yesterday involving Taliao residents and factories in the industrial park. A section chief at the park suffered a concussion and glass windows at a wastewater treatment plant were shattered with hammers and baseball bats by angry protesters. The protestors demanded that the plant supply a satisfactory proposal for how to resolve the dispute. They also threatened to stage a “bloodshed protest” on Friday.

I actually lived in Taliao in the late 1990s (my own old photo essay is on my website; Taiwan Panorama has an article on being poor in Taliao). It was the worst place I've ever lived in. Did I mention the flooding that began a few years ago?

[Taiwan]