Fifth open letter on the erosion of justice in Taiwan

The list of signatories grows by almost 20%

Writer Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D. and thirty other scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Asia, Europe and Australia have penned a fifth open letter about the serious problems occurring under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou.

The letter reminds us that "a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but [...] that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy" and that "Taiwan should be more fully accepted by the international community as a full and equal partner." Read the full letter at the link above, but here is a large excerpt [emphasis mine]:

During the past two decades, Taiwan has made major progress in each of these areas [freedom, democracy, justice and human rights]. It thus has been a disappointment for us to see an erosion of justice, a weakening of checks and balances in the democratic system and a decline in press freedom in Taiwan. These trends are reflected in the significantly downward ratings Taiwan received in the annual reports of international organizations such as Freedom House and Reporters without Borders.

They are also reflected in the expressions of concern by international scholars and friends of Taiwan related to the flaws in the judicial proceedings against former President Chen Shui-bian and the apparent lack of neutrality in the continuing "investigations" and indictments of other prominent members of the DPP government. We thus appeal to you again to ensure that measures are taken to ensure the impartiality and fairness of the judiciary.

Good governance, accountability and transparency based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, justice and human rights are all the more essential now that your government is moving Taiwan on a path of closer economic ties with China. We believe that a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but emphasize that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy and the establishment of human rights in Taiwan itself.

Thus, the process of improving relations with the large neighbor across the Strait needs to be an open, deliberative and democratic process, in full consultation with both the Legislative Yuan and the democratic opposition, and fully transparent to the general public. We are thus pleased to hear that officials of your government have stated that any agreement with China would need to have both a domestic consensus, including approval by the Legislative Yuan, and acceptance by the international community. We trust this process will be open and consultative in ways that respect the democratic traditions begun so promisingly two decades ago.

The prequels
Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter -- as an online petition -- has been signed by more than 2,000 people.

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:

According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]

* May 22, 2009: An estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts.

---

John Hancocks: Taiwan, 台灣, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, open letter, 公開信, Jerome Keating, 祁夫潤, human rights, 人權, sovereignty, 主權

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Another open letter for President Ma

Justice and human rights continue to erode

Yet again, an estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts, and if Ma or his administration responds with more denials as they have done with the previous open letters, they will only be make things look even worse than they already are.

Without further hot air from me, here's number four in the series as it appeared in the Thursday, May 21, 2009 issue of the Taipei Times:

Open letter to Taiwan's president

Dear President Ma,

On the occasion of the first anniversary of your presidency, we, the undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, wish to publicly address our concerns to you about a number of trends in Taiwan, as well as several specific developments.

We raise these issues as international supporters of Taiwan's democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state. As you recall, we voiced concerns on three previous occasions, most recently in a letter to you, Mr President, dated Jan. 17, 2009, in which we expressed our concern regarding the fairness of the judicial system in Taiwan.

These concerns have not been alleviated by either the response from Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) or the cessation of troubling, flawed and partial judicial proceedings, in particular involving the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).

We reiterate that any alleged corruption must be investigated, but emphasize that the judicial process needs to be scrupulously fair and impartial. In the case of the former president, it is evident that the prosecution is heavily tainted by political bias, and that the former president is being treated badly out of spite for the political views and the positions he took during his presidency. Such retribution does not bode well for a young and fragile democracy, as Taiwan is.

The second issue that we feel we need to highlight is press freedom. In spite of earlier expressions of concern by international organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom House, there continue to be reports of impingement on press freedom by your administration. A case in point is the recent disturbing report that Central News Agency staff were instructed to write only "positive" stories about the policies of your administration, and that reports containing criticism of your administration or China were excised.

As supporters of a free and democratic Taiwan it is disheartening to see that in the annual report on press freedom by the New York-based Freedom House, Taiwan dropped from 32nd to 43rd place. In addition, it is disconcerting to see reports that groups with close ties to China are buying their way into Taiwan's media circles, gaining a controlling voice in major publications such as the China Times. We need to remind ourselves that China is still an authoritarian state with a long history of control of the news media. Its financial influence in Taiwan's free press will in the long run be detrimental to hard-won freedoms.

This leads us to a third general issue: the means by which rapprochement with China is being pursued. While most people in Taiwan and overseas agree that a reduction of tension in the Taiwan Strait is beneficial, it is crucial to do this in a manner befitting a democratic nation: with openness and full public debate. Only if there is sufficient transparency and true dialogue — both in the Legislative Yuan and in society as a whole — will the result be supported by a significant majority of the people.

Transparency and true dialogue have been lacking in the process. Decisions and agreements are arrived at in secrecy and then simply announced to the public. The Legislative Yuan seems to have been sidelined, having little input in the form or content of the agreements, such as the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). The administration simply sends to the legislature the texts agreed to in the negotiations with the People's Republic of China, allowing virtually no possibility of discussion of the pros and cons of such agreements. This undermines the system of checks and balances, which is so essential to a mature democracy. We may mention that recent opinion polls show overwhelming support for a referendum on an ECFA and for better legislative oversight of China policy.

Mr President, as international scholars and writers who have followed Taiwan's impressive transition to democracy during the past two decades, we know the sensitivity in Taiwan of the issue of relations with China. Rapprochement needs to be carried out in a way that ensures that the achievements of the democratic movement are safeguarded, that the political divide within Taiwan is reduced and that Taiwan's sovereignty, human rights and democracy are protected and strengthened.

However, during the past year we have seen that the policies of your administration are being implemented in a way that is causing deep anxiety, particularly among many who fought for Taiwan's democracy two decades ago. This was evident in the large-scale rallies held in Taipei and Kaohsiung on Sunday.

We have also seen a further polarization in society due to the lack of transparency and democratic checks and balances. Many observers believe that the rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of Taiwan's sovereignty, democracy and freedoms. To some, the judicial practices and police behavior toward those who criticize your policies are even reminiscent of the dark days of martial law.

In this respect, symbols are important. It does not help that your administration has renamed National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. It doesn't bolster your case that the funding for the Chingmei Human Rights Memorial in Sindian (新店) has been cut drastically and that the location is being turned into a "cultural" park. It doesn't help that changes are being made to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) that infringe on freedoms of protesters instead of enhancing freedom of speech.

Mr President, we appeal to you to take measures that alleviate these concerns. A first step would be to initiate and implement reforms in the judicial system that safeguard the human rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial. A second step would be to guarantee complete press freedom, and instill in those engaged in the media the determination to live up to the highest standards.

Thirdly, rapprochement with China needs to be brought about in such a way that the people of Taiwan have a full say in determining their future as a free and democratic nation. Closed-door deals that bring Taiwan increasingly into China's sphere of influence are detrimental to Taiwan's future and undermine the democratic fabric of society.

Due to its complex history, Taiwan has not had the opportunity to be accepted as a full and equal member of the international family of nations. We believe the people of Taiwan have worked hard for their democracy, and that the international community should accept Taiwan in its midst. Your actions and policies can help the island and its people move in the right direction. We urge you to do so.

Respectfully yours,

NAT BELLOCCHI
Former chairman, American Institute in Taiwan

COEN BLAAUW
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington

STÉPHANE CORCUFF
Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon

GORDON G. CHANG
Author, The Coming Collapse of China

JUNE TEUFEL DREYER
Professor of Political Science, University of Miami

MICHAEL DANIELSEN
Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen, Denmark

TERRI GILES
Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles

BRUCE JACOBS
Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University

RICHARD C. KAGAN
Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University

JEROME F. KEATING
Author and associate professor (ret.), National Taipei University

DAVID KILGOUR
Former Canadian member of parliament and secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific

LIU SHIH-CHUNG
Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington

MICHAEL RAND HOARE
Emeritus Reader at the University of London, Great Britain

VICTOR H. MAIR
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania

DONALD RODGERS
Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College

TERENCE RUSSELL
Associate Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba

CHRISTIAN SCHAFFERER
Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology; and Editor, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

MICHAEL STAINTON
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada

PETER CHOW
Professor of Economics, City College of New York

PETER TAGUE
Professor of Law,Georgetown University

JOHN J. TKACIK JR.
Former senior research fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington

ARTHUR WALDRON
Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

VINCENT WEI-CHENG WANG
Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond

GERRIT VAN DER WEES
Editor, Taiwan Communiqué

MICHAEL YAHUDA
Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics, and Visiting Scholar, George Washington University

STEPHEN YATES
President, DC Asia Advisory, and former deputy assistant to the US vice president for national security affairs

I'm hoping this will be online as a petition soon, at which time I will tell you how you can add your name.

The prequels
Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter as an online petition has been signed by more than 2,000 people.

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:

According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]

---

Dotted lines: Taiwan, 台灣, open letter, 公開信, human rights, 人權, sovereignty, 主權, Jerome Keating, 祁夫潤, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Hey, Obama! Recognize Taiwan's sovereignty

It is what it is, no matter what the Chinese say


Why is it so hard to call Taiwan "Taiwan"?
(Click to enlarge)
Today's Taipei Times reports on a resolution in the US Congress:

A resolution has been introduced into the US' 111th Congress calling for president-elect Barack Obama to establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan. It also calls for an end to the US' "one China" policy and support for Taiwan's full membership in international organizations.

While the resolution, which was written by long-time Taiwan supporter Congressman John Linder, a Republican from Georgia, has no realistic chance of changing US policies, it is important in that it keeps the issue alive and in the minds of the US' top politicians.

[...]

The new resolution asks Obama to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign and independent country separate from China.

It also says the president-elect should aggressively support Taiwan's full participation at the UN and all other international organizations of which the US is a member.

[...]

A source close Obama's foreign policy advisers told the Taipei Times: "Taiwan continues to enjoy many warm feelings in the US Congress. We are sensitive to the issue."

However small its chance of passing might be, it is a righteous request (which should be a demand) that needs to be repeated more often, more loudly, and more effectively.

---

Flags of inconvenience: Taiwan, 台灣, China, 中國, sovereignty, 主權, US Congress, 美國國會, Barack Obama, 巴拉克·歐巴馬

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

915 UN for Taiwan

Get your maps, info, and reasons for going to Kaohsiung


Two rallies will be held tomorrow in support of 2 separate referenda. The DPP's, which supports joining the United Nations (UN) under the name "Taiwan," is important in that it will let the world know some very important things:

1) Taiwan is a democratic nation.

2) Taiwan is not part of China.

3) Taiwan's citizens do not want to be part of China.

4) Taiwan's citizens want their nation to be recognized as a a participant on level ground with the international community.

5) Taiwan wants freedom from the perpetual pressure from the US and China to bow to their whimsies.

Here's the content of the DPP's petition:

全國性公民投票案連署人名冊格式

主文：1971年中華人民共和國進入聯合國，取代中華民國，台灣成為國際孤兒。為強烈表達台灣人民的意志，提升台灣的國際地位及參與，您是否同意政府以「台灣」名義加入聯合國？

[Tim Maddog translation:]
Primary text: In 1971 the People's Republic of China joined the United Nations, replacing the Republic of China, and leaving Taiwan as an "international orphan." To strongly convey the will of the citizens of Taiwan and promote Taiwan's international standing and participation, do you agree or disagree that the government should use the name "Taiwan" to join the United Nations?

[More info here.]

Background
Neither the PRC, which now holds the "China" seat at the UN, nor the ROC, which once held the same seat, have ever done anything to give real representation to the people of Taiwan. The PRC flag has never flown over Taiwan. While the ROC flag has done so, the makers of that flag lost their "China" (of which Taiwan was not a part) to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); hence, the ROC claim that Taiwan is a province of "China" is about as slippery a drop of mercury on a Teflon™ cliff. Nevertheless, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still clings to the fantasy that the country from which Mongolia became independent in the early 20th century and which they lost entirely in 1949 still exists. For the ROC to "rejoin" the UN would mean that the PRC doesn't exist.

Foreign backing
The KMT is desperately seeking foreigners to use as campaign props in their own "anti-referendum" rally in Taichung.

I would recommend, instead, that you head to Kaohsiung for the DPP's forward-thinking rally and show your heartfelt support for a democratic Taiwan with a brighter future than the KMT and CCP combined could (and would) impose upon it. If you've never been to such an event, I can't tell you how much the locals will appreciate your participation. If you have, then see you there!

The details
Here's the parade route, via the web site of the DPP:

Click thumbnail to enlarge

Here's a Google map where you can see the rally location -- the big grassy area at center right.

Here's a map I built on Wayfaring.com which shows the route, etc. (Hover on the yellow "bubbles" for notes.):

Click once on the map to change to "satellite" or "hybrid" view, zoom, etc.
I've been seeing contradictory information about times and parade routes, but the latest, most reliable info I have says that people should meet at 3 PM at the intersection of Chungshan 1st Road (中山一路) and Minsheng 2nd Road (民生二路), and the parade will start moving toward "Nong 16" (農16, a large grassy area) at around 4:15 PM. According to my Wayfaring map, the route is 2.44 miles (3.93 kilometers) long. Whatever happens, it shouldn't be too hard to find. There's sure to be a big crowd.

Come together, right now, on the green!
So, get on the ball! Many hotels are already booked to capacity for Saturday night. And if you're watching it on TV from either side of the globe, the climax should be happening at 9 PM Saturday Taiwan time (9 AM Saturday, US east coast time).

UPDATE: Info on the New York rally

---

Roots and routes: Taiwan, 台灣, Republic of China, 中華民國, ROC, China, 中國, Taiwan Independence, 台灣獨立, Taidu, 台獨, sovereignty, 主權, democracy, 民主, United Nations, 聯合國, referendum, 公投

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Taiwan isn't China's

Say it out loud

What we at this blog have been saying all along has supposedly been said by US officials in a letter to the United Nations, quoted here in an FTV article via Sina.com:

美不接受台灣為PRC一部分

美國上禮拜才說出，台灣和中華民國都不是國家的話來，5日就傳出，美國寫信給聯合國說「不接受台灣是中華人民共和國一部份」的說法。藍綠對此都表示肯定，民進黨甚至說，要更加努力推動入聯公投。

[Tim Maddog translation:]
US doesn't accept that Taiwan is part of the PRC

The United States spoke out just last week to say that neither Taiwan nor the Republic of China are countries. News reports on September 5 said that the United States wrote a letter to the United Nations saying that it "does not accept that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China." The blue and green camps both confirmed the news. The DPP said it will exert even more effort to promote its planned referendum on joining the UN.

A DPA article titled "China drops plan for UN vote on 'Taiwan is part of China'" provides these details:

The China Times, in a dispatch from Washington DC, said China has canceled the plan for the UN vote. China now says that it is UN members' consensus that Taiwan is part of China, so there is no need for a vote.

In a nine-point clarification, the US told the UN that 'Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China' is not the consensus of the majority UN members, and is not the consistent policy of the US.

Washington has conveyed this stance to both the UN and Taipei, the mass-circulation Chinese-language paper said.

China originally planned to ask UN members to vote on 'Taiwan is part of China' to block Taiwan's bid to join the UN. Taiwan has been seeking to join the UN since 1993 but stepped up its campaign this year by applying to join the UN as a new country, called 'Taiwan,' with President Chen Shui-bian signing the application which was delivered to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Ban rejected Taipei's application, saying the Taiwan issue was solved when the UN passed Resolution 2758 in 1971 to expel the Republic of China (ROC) and accept the People's Republic of China (PRC).

The ROC government lost China to the Chinese Communists in 1949 - when it fled to Taiwan to set up its government-in-exile, still called the ROC - but continued to hold China's UN seat until 1971.

Note the complete rectification of the old false meme about "Taiwan and China" having "split in 1949." Now that's Journalism with a capital J! Whoever is responsible for that deserves some heavy-duty kudos.

This sounds like good news in so many ways, but prepare yourselves for the imminent wailing and gnashing of Chinese dentures.

---

Distinct entities: Taiwan, 台灣, Republic of China, 中華民國, ROC, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民共和國, PRC, 中共, United Nations, 聯合國, Taiwan Independence, 台灣獨立, Taidu, 台獨, sovereignty, 主權

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

CNN airs interview with Taiwan's president

Letting the world hear this side for a change

As Michael Turton touched upon in an earlier post on Taiwan Matters, CNN anchor Anjali Rao interviewed President Chen Shui-bian on the weekend show TalkAsia last week, addressing topics ranging from the March 19, 2004 shooting to the "scandals" surrounding his family to the reasons for repeatedly "provoking" Beijing and "rattling the bars of China's cage" (Excellent metaphor, that one!) to the so-called troubled relations with the US (Rao: "... the relationship between Taiwan and Washington at the moment is not as friendly as it once was."). [Note: I don't know where the Taiwan News got their information about the interview, but that stuff about Taiwan identity wasn't in the version I watched. Follow the links below, and see for yourself.]

The good
Rao asked some questions that sounded like the usual stuff we hear in international news about Taiwan. Whether the host was playing "devil's advocate" or not, I can't say, but she gave Chen a whole lot of space to answer the questions without interruption, and he gave pretty good answers to most of them. Even when she asked follow-ups, Chen gave relatively long, detailed responses which included some excellent statements about the reality of Taiwan's independence despite the lack of widespread international recognition or a "timely, relevant, and viable" constitution approved by the people. Rao repeatedly referred to and addressed Chen as "President," something many media outlets avoid by bending to China's will and calling him "leader" instead. CNN even put "Taiwan President" onscreen below Chen's name. To that much, I say "Hooray!"

The bad
There are lots of mistakes which may seem trivial or picky to point out, but I'm going to point out these groaners anyway and let you make up your own mind about the interview.

First, they messed up Chen's name in the onscreen titles, displaying it as "Chen Shui Bian." That's a pretty small mistake, and was probably the fault of the graphics person, but it shouldn't have happened. Rao appeared to be aware of the recent "redshirt" demonstrations, yet she appeared in the same solid red blazer/black top combo she frequently wears. Was this done on purpose? Only Rao and/or her producers know for sure.

Lost in translation
The translations were not completely accurate. For example, where I heard Chen say that there are "at least 988 missiles" ("至少有988枚"), it was translated as "The correct number should be 988 missiles." When Chen said the number of missiles had increased "more than fivefold" (五倍之多) the translator changed it to "almost fivefold." Regarding the shooting, when Chen said, "I believe that if it weren't for the shooting, we would have won by an even larger margin," the translation changed it to "... our camp would have won [making it sound like they hadn't won in the first place], and won even more votes.

Again, most of that's fairly minor stuff, but in the English version of one of the questions (normally restated for the camera and edited in after such interviews are completed), Rao implied that First Lady Wu Shu-jen had already been proven innocent of embezzlement charges. The question the president answered, which I assume was asked in Mandarin, was about the charges related to the Sogo gift certificates. Rao was born in Hong Kong, and an over-the-shoulder shot of Chen talking about being a "happy volunteer" after he leaves office showed her reacting with amusement, as if she understood immediately, but I can't assume that she's fluent in Mandarin, or that the shot was in sync with Chen's words -- I can only state what I saw.

President Chen gave a few answers that disappointed me, but perhaps he was once again being more diplomatic than I could ever be. Describing the "status quo" (as if one existed) as "peaceful" (despite the "anti-secession" law [which "legislates" the arbitrary use of "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan] and exponential missile build-up) was a bit disconcerting. Also, his response to the question about the shooting really should have gotten to the point, which is that forensics expert Henry Lee -- recommended by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- used actual evidence to report what the KMT continues to deny -- that Chen was really shot, that the bullet came from outside of the vehicle in which he was riding, and that the police were successful at finding the person who made the gun used to fire the bullets -- and that that very person has now fled to China, possibly into the arms of other Chen-haters.

The Island X files
In case you missed the interview and still want to see it (I think you should!), you're in luck. I've captured the whole thing, including the bumper intro and the three segments of the show and have uploaded it all to YouTube. Click the thumbnails below to view the clips.

Intro		Part 1
Part 2		Part 3

Excuses, excuses
Sorry for the poor quality of the videos, but that was the best I could do from within the cage that Taichung's cable TV monopoly and lack of a satellite dish has me in.

Related videos
* CNN專訪 總統暢談憲改工程 (2007-01-24) [CNN interview: President discusses constitutional changes] (via Taiwan TV) (1'31" YouTube video)
* 扁：國務費案 民主進展陣痛 (2007-01-24) [A-bian: "State affairs fund" case" is a "labor pain" on the road to democracy] (via FTV) (1'18" YouTube video)

---

Participants: Taiwan, 台灣, Republic of China, 中華民國, ROC, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民共和國, PRC, 中共, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, Taiwan Independence, 台灣獨立, Taidu, 台獨, sovereignty, 主權, democracy, 民主, CNN, TalkAsia, Anjali Rao, YouTube

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

China is not friendly to Taiwan

"Tin soldier," said the goblin, "don't wish for what does not belong to you."
- Hans Christian Anderson, The Brave Tin Soldier

Now the valley cried with anger; mount your horses, draw your sword,
and they killed the mountain people, so they won their just reward.
Now they stood beside the treasure on the mountain, dark and red,
turned the stone and looked beneath it. "Peace on earth" was all it said.
- Coven (Lambert/Potter), One Tin Soldier

China in the bullshit shop
An Agence France-Presse (AFP) piece, published by Channel News Asia and others on Sunday carries this deceptive headline:

Taiwan envoy says China 'friendly' at APEC meet

If only that were true! Here's what the body of this item tells the reader while supplying further reinforcement of that propaganda with a smiling photo of Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) alongside:

HANOI -- Taiwan's envoy to a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders said Sunday that the president of China -- which considers the island to be part of its territory -- has been "friendly" to him in their meetings.

Taiwanese tycoon Morris Chang, sent to represent Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, said that he had "a lot" of contact with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Hanoi.

[...]

"President Hu's attitude was very friendly, warm and constructive," he said, but declined to provide any detail about their discussions.

[...]

Unlike other APEC members, Taiwan did not send its government leader to Vietnam to avoid offending China, which considers it part of its territory and insists it is called 'Chinese Taipei' at the APEC summit.

First of all, China is not friendly to Taiwan, and they weren't being friendly to Taiwan at the APEC summit. Hu -- in meetings -- was "friendly" to Morris Chang (張忠謀), a non-governmental representative whose money he'd love to have a bit of. It would also fit Hu's anti-democracy background to be "friendly" to someone who was chosen as a leader rather than elected to a government office, and it would make sense for an envoy sent by President Chen to let loose a few platitudes, er, be diplomatic. But is China friendly to Taiwan? The very clear answer is, "No -- if you read past the headlines and pay attention, it most certainly isn't!" If you noticed that the article mentions twice about what China "considers" Taiwan to be, then you're way ahead of most readers.

Listen children to a story
Once upon a time (way back in 1996), China was reported to have "merely" 40 missiles targeting Taiwan -- an independently-ruled island nation which elects its president by popular vote, and which -- I might add -- poses absolutely no threat to the military giant across the Strait. By 2000, the number of missiles targeting Taiwan had increased fivefold to 200. Just 4 years later, that number doubled to 400. Two years later, there were 700 missiles targeting Taiwan. I think a 4-year-old child could see the pattern here.

But that's not the end of the story. The figure of 784 is from January of this year. In the ensuing 10 months, the number has reportedly increased to 900. A high-school algebra student would recognize the exponential nature of this increase in objects whose purpose is to kill people and destroy things.

Here's a visual, in case all those numbers are making you dizzy.


Go ahead and hate your neighbor
What if, when an ambulance came to your house to rescue family members in need, your neighbor said, "That's my property, and I won't grant you permission to enter"? Wouldn't it be appropriate to "hate your neighbor"? That's effectively what happened during the SARS crisis of 2003, when China blocked assistance from the World Health Organization for a month and a half while hiding the effects of the disease within their own borders. And surely the entire planet hasn't yet forgotten about China's "anti-secession" law (which ludicrously "legislates" the arbitrary use of "non-peaceful means" against a foreign country, namely the sovereign Taiwan). Is hatred of that truly "Sinophobia," as some people like to call it?

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Yu Shyi-kun should have put the silly "ethnic divisiveness" argument to rest -- or at least knocked a big dent in it -- when he described himself recently as a "Taiwanese of Chinese ethnicity" [my translation of "華裔台灣人"]. It is clear that the hatred which exists in this context is not about ethnicity but about politics. Unfortunately, many people on the anti-Taiwan/anti-democracy side of that argument will cloud the issue with false portrayals such as this.

Where the truth lies
China blocks Taiwan's participation in world bodies at every turn. This happens as a result of the economic terrorism exacted by its "one-China policy". Its detrimental influence is seen in so-called "news reports" from around the world which regularly diminish Taiwan and blow smoke up China's ass.

This nonsense needs to be put entirely to sleep. China is not "friendly" towards Taiwan, but if you believe it is, you're likely to believe just about anything.

---

Tin soldiers: Taiwan, 台灣, sovereignty, 主權, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民公和國, PRC, 中共, one-China policy, 一個中國政策, missiles, 飛彈, Hu Jintao, 胡錦濤, Morris Chang, 張忠謀, propaganda, 宣傳

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

The simple truth: Taiwan is a nation

Dan Bloom reveals The New York Times' codified bias against Taiwan

While telling us about a NYT article on Yankees pitcher Wang Chien-ming, former Taipei Times writer Dan Bloom reveals some details in an op-ed today of how the international media goes about belittling Taiwan's status:

Most news outlets around the world continue to play the game of appeasing China by pretending that Taiwan is a mere island and not a nation, and they routinely send out news bulletins, editorials and multipage feature articles referring to this bustling nation as a mere "island." From the Associated Press to Reuters, from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, from BBC to Le Monde, Taiwan is just an island, and never a country.

When asked why, a high-placed editor in New York once told this writer: "We must remain neutral and not take sides."

But one must counter that argument with this question: Just how does referring to Taiwan as an island and not as a nation in print make an international news agency "neutral"?

[...]

According to the copy desk at the New York Times in Manhattan, Taiwan is not to be referred to as a country or a nation or even an island nation, except in a quoted comment by a person being interviewed. The Times' reporters themselves are commanded to refer to Taiwan in every instance as an island and never a country. It is a written rule of the newsroom, re-examined every few years, but never changed.

The context about Wang Chien-ming in which the above was contained was that NYT writer Tyler Kepner managed to say of Wang in his article, "At 26, he is a national hero in his home country, where he endorses computers and potato chips." In these times, small things can still mean a lot.

Thanks, Tyler! Thanks, Dan!

---

Matters at hand: Taiwan, 台灣, China, 中國, Dan Bloom, Tyler Kepner, New York Times, sovereignty

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!