Media Round-up

Closing time at the betel nut stand.

Local commentator Michael Fahey had an article in SCMP yesterday on the Ma Ying-jeou situation with some excellent insight into the local political culture (no link, requires subscription):

His acquittal means that his formidable DPP opponent Frank Hsieh Chang-ting, another DPP lawyer, will have to win fair and square. There will be no legal knockout to ensure that an ethnic Taiwanese (Mr Ma was born in Hong Kong) will stay in power, as has been the case for the past 20 years.

Mr Ma's flagging candidacy has unquestionably been revived by the verdict. In the eyes of his supporters, who desperately want to win, he has been confirmed as a victim of DPP legal persecution. But, at the same time, his weak response to his legal crisis has left him open to growing doubts that he has the strength to lead Taiwan at a time when the island's people feel they are being pushed into a corner.

Michael was kind enough to send me the original draft, which had some great comments on the culture of machismo in Taiwan that were excised in the SCMP version. Ma looks weak, whereas Hsieh exudes confidence, Michael noted, adding that Hsieh has already suggested that Ma lacks the spine to run the island. In any culture, a widespread perception that a candidate is a wimp is difficult to overcome.

The piece alluded to an interesting possibility created by the referendum: voters may well decide to split the difference between the two parties -- voting for Ma Ying-jeou but approving the DPP's UN referendum to send Ma a signal that he can't hand the island over to China.

Michael's essay also discussed the growing politicization of the prosecutors on the island:

For Mr Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party, Mr Ma must have been a tempting target. There is no question that Mr Ma should have never allowed public funds to slip into his personal bank accounts. The DPP leadership, made up entirely of lawyers, has run legal circles around the KMT for the past eight years – winning lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions on issues ranging from the 2004 presidential election to the constitutionality of Taiwan's National Communications Council.

At the same time, Taiwan's powerful prosecutors have become dangerously politicised – it is widely believed that two-thirds are pro-KMT and one-third is pro-DPP. Taiwan's legal system is an inquisitorial one, based on German and Japanese models. Prosecutors see themselves as avenging angels of justice and they have sweeping powers to tap phones, raid the homes of suspects and detain them for months before trial. In a telling example of prosecutorial power, just one day before the Ma verdict, media and construction tycoon Gary Wang Ling-lin was indicted on charges of massive corporate fraud after spending months incommunicado in jail. The prosecutors asked for a sentence of 28 years; the public rejoiced.

In Mr Ma's case, the prosecutors waited until the last moment to tack on the serious criminal charge of breach of trust. Fortunately, the ridiculously young panel of judges courageously recognised that Mr Ma was on trial for essentially political reasons, and found him innocent.

Yep. I think we've reached the stage where there are going to be public calls for reining in the prosecutors, first in the news media under the rubric of Are Prosecutors Too Powerful? and then from legislators supporting "reform" of the prosecutors. Everyone in power can look at the Gary Wang case and say to themselves: "There but for fortune...."

The bike path bridge over Chengde Road. Although it is supposed to only be for bicyclists, it is frequently used by motorcycles. Very annoying when taking pictures from it at night.

As lacking in insight as Michael Fahey's piece is rich in it, is Tom Plate's recent essay in the Japan Times.

Sure, its accomplishments merit admission — in fact, it used to be a member — but in 1971 it was kicked out as the mainland was installed as China's sole legitimate representative.

A dramatic reversal of fortune is not going to happen now. No matter how many times Taiwan applies, it is going to be hit on its glass jaw by China as its application will be rebuffed.

The latter regards the former as a runaway teenager that must be captured, corralled and brought back into the family, as Hong Kong was in 1997 after more than 150 years in the wilderness of British imperialism. But that's another story.

The bottom line for this story is that Taiwan has about as little chance of being admitted to the U.N. as your humble columnist has of getting a serious date with the talented actress Salma Hayek — not to mention with Zhang Ziyi, another drop-dead great. No matter how many times I ask either Salma or Ziyi, the answer is always going to be the same: NO!

So how many times am I going to knock my head against the proverbial brick wall? And if I continue to do it, at what point do I start going for therapy sessions at Masochists Anonymous?

The fact of the matter is that I know I am bound to be rejected, just as the Taiwan government of President Chen Shui-bian knows that it's not ever going to get to first base with China on the U.N. membership issue. For that matter, it can't even get to first base on a much more obvious injustice: China's brutal blocking of Taiwan's membership into the World Health Organization.

Boy, those Taiwanese sure are dumb, wanting to enter when they know they can't get in. Silly people! Why would they do that? The UN entry campaign, and the hu-ha surrounding it, are part of the DPP strategy of bringing out voters. That might have been mentioned in Plate's article, for surely Mr. Plate is aware of the campaign's domestic political ramifications. So why aren't they mentioned here? Nor does Plate discuss the ominous possibility that China might pursue a motion in the General Assembly. This essay appears to have no point, other than to make jokes about Taiwan's inability to enter the UN. A sad waste of precious space in the media.

Cheap food + cheap booze = good times. Cafes next to the Sungching supermarket just off the corner of Henan Rd and Chinghai Rd in Taichung.

William Hawkins comments in the Asia Times yesterday on the US nuke deal with India and China's attempt to suppress India's rising military power -- rising partly in response to China's deals with India's enemy, Pakistan.

India already has a small nuclear arsenal and an expanding atomic-energy program. India's nuclear test was in 1974, prompted by China's deployment of nuclear arms. India then renounced nuclear weapons, and as late as 1988 was calling for their global elimination. But the rapid rise of China, and the increased militancy of Beijing's ally Pakistan in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan and Kashmir, heightened tensions. India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, bringing US sanctions against both. The sanctions on New Delhi were lifted in 2001, as Bush gave priority to improving US-India relations.

India was quick to show its willingness to cooperate. When the Bush administration pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, India's reaction was to endorse part of the US missile-defense initiative. India has a similar concern about the spread of ballistic missiles in its part of the world, a region whose unstable regimes may not be contained by a posture of deterrence only. Cooperation has continued to increase. The largest joint US-India naval exercises ever conducted are set for September 4-9 in the Bay of Bengal, involving two US and one Indian aircraft carriers. Warships from Japan, Singapore and Australia will also participate as a demonstration of the "arc of democracy" along the rim of Asia.

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

China understands the significance of the US-India deal and has been lobbying against it at the United Nations and within the NSG. It wants India barred from the group, and to sign the NPT as a non-nuclear state, meaning it would have to disarm. Beijing, of course, has no intention of curbing its growing nuclear arsenal. It has an advantage and wants to keep it. But it is not in the interests of the United States to see democratic India kept in an inferior position to the Chinese dictatorship.

Taiwan too needs to be cultivating India as a strategic counterweight to the growing power of Beijing. And as a fellow democracy -- Taiwan needs to leverage its democratic status even more.

[Taiwan] [US] [China] [India] [Ma Ying-jeou]

Taiwan Visit Bill Passes US House

Forbes and other media outlets are reporting some good news out of Congress (IHT, longer article, same info):

The US House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the lifting of US government curbs on visits by top Taiwanese leaders.

The House passed the measure by a unanimous voice vote, which supporters said would send a message to China over Taiwan, which the United States is legally bound to defend in any military conflict.

US transit stops by Taiwanese politicians, such as one by President Chen Shui-bian en route to Central America in January, provoke complaints from Beijing, which regards the nationalist island as a renegade province.

The resolution noted that when 'high-level visitors from Taiwan, including the President, seek to come to the US, their request results in a period of complex, lengthy and humiliating negotiations.'

'Lifting these restrictions will help bring a United States friend and ally out of its isolation, which will be beneficial to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region,' the text added.

Don't get too excited, though. This is just the kind of thing that leaps through the House, but which the Senate looks at and says "OK, message sent, now we'll let the measure fail." Keep your fingers crossed, knock on wood, and say some sutras. It just might get passed.

Now they need to work on getting more US senior government people out here.

Media notes: Observe those two common formulations -- "the US is legally bound to defend Taiwan" (it isn't) and "China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province." How come nobody ever asks what Taiwan thinks of China?

[Taiwan] [China] [US] [media]

Hsieh the Moderate

Frank Hsieh stands firmly behind the UN entry under the name Taiwan:

Ruling Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh Friday threw his support behind the government effort to join the United Nations under the name of "Taiwan," saying it falls in line with his longstanding stance on the issue.

Hsieh made the remark while in Kaohsiung to cheer up the southen port city's mayor Chen Chu, whose electoral victory last December was annulled by a district court.

Though a moderate on cross-strait ties, Hsieh said he has consistently suggested the island apply for UN membership under the name of Taiwan. To that end, Hsieh said he led a delegation to the UN headquarters 15 years ago to promote the cause and engaged in a ferocious debate with opposition Kuomintang lawmaker John Chiang in the Legislature.

Note the frame that Hsieh gives it:

Asked how he is to handle protest from the United States, Hsieh said he values the friendship between Taipei and Washington but added the US must understand the proposed UN referendum will not upset the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.

The referendum will serve an extra purpose of building national consensus on a key issue, Hsieh pointed out.

Proponents and opponents of the UN bid can make known their views publicly during the process and allow the people to decide which way is better for Taiwan through democratic means, Hsieh said.

Two points here. First, the "moderate" Hsieh has most of the same positions that the "radical" Chen does. Second, Hsieh puts his finger on a problem -- when Taiwan attempts to build a consensus on cross-strait issues, the US objects. How else is Taiwan supposed to build consensus, except through public democracy?

[Taiwan] [US] [China]

WHO Rejects, US Accepts

Amazingly, the WHO rejected Taiwan's bid to enter it. After all, it had only been ten years in a row....

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) lodged a protest yesterday with the World Health Organization Secretariat over its rejection of Taiwan's application for WTO membership this year.

Taiwan's bid to join the WHO is not an issue that can be decided or rejected by the secretariat or any individual working for the organization, Chen argued while addressing a workshop held in Taipei yesterday to explore Taiwan's bid to join the WHO under the name of "Taiwan."

The president said he filed the formal complaint with the WHO on behalf of the government and the 23 million people in Taiwan.

Taiwan is a sovereign state, whose 23 million people are empowered to apply to join in the WHO's activities based on their collective human rights, Chen contended.

Taiwan is focusing too many resources on high profile campaigns that ultimately are losers, and not enough on building broad support and interacting with the populations of the member nations whose good opinions it needs. What it really needs is stuff in the media in the US and elsewhere every week, written by those canny and perceptive foreigners working in MOFA and TECRO, who understand the audience at home and know which emotional buttons to push.

On the good news front, Taiwan actually did something amazing: it briefed the US in advance of its torch decision. Clearly someone in the local Administration has discovered that while the US can tolerate disagreement, it hates surprises....

The Mainland Affairs Council, Taiwan's top policymaking agency on cross-strait affairs, slammed the route arrangement as“unacceptable” on grounds Beijing explicitly painted the torch's passage in Taiwan as part of the“domestic" leg.

The government meanwhile conveyed its discontent to the White House through the American Institute in Taiwan's Taipei office and its representative office in the US, according to the CNA.

The unnamed US official agreed that the torch route smacked of politicking and indicated the administration would not comment on the issue when asked to, the CNA added.

It is good to see Taiwan for once acting sensibly and cautiously in the context of its most important international relationship.

[Taiwan] [China] [US] [WHO] [Olympics]

MAC's Wu to US, Lee to Canada

The media are awash with stories about the move of Taiwan's de facto ambassador to the US, David Lee, to Canada, to make way for Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu to take his place.

Following a report yesterday in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister newspaper), Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) said that Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Chairman Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) would replace David Lee (李大維) as the top representative to the US.

Wu is generally depicted as Chen's man:

Wu yesterday said he was confident he would be able to communicate the administration's intent to the US accurately, adding that his experience in handling cross-strait relations would be helpful in his new job.

"I think I am familiar with President Chen [Shui-bian's (陳水扁)] way of thinking, and I am able to interpret his ideas easily, precisely and directly," Wu said during a press conference yesterday afternoon.

"Cross-strait affairs have been the focal point of our diplomatic work, and having an understanding in this field is quite important when it comes to foreign affairs," Wu said.

Taiwan News reported the KMT protests over Wu's staunch pro-independence views:

On Sunday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) confirmed that Wu, who has never held a foreign post, will replace David Lee (李大維), a career diplomat trained under the Kuomintang era, as the country's top envoy to the United States. Lee is expected to succeed Thomas Chen as Taiwan's representative in Canada. Both men will start their new job sometime next month.

Soon after the announcement was made, pan-blue lawmakers criticized the reshuffle, saying the move is part of the Democratic Progressive Party's ploy to "greenify" top government officials before President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) term expires in May 2008.

At a press conference yesterday, a group of KMT lawmakers said Wu, who has never been shy about his staunch pro-Taiwan independence stance, will turn Taiwan's U.S. representative office in Washington into a "Taiwan Independence Lobbying Center."

"Wu's appointment is mainly to help justify the president's 'four wants and one no' doctrine to the United States," said Lwo Shih-hsiung, hinting that the United States is fully aware of the DPP's strategy, but still gave consent to Wu's appointment as a trade off for the legislature's approval on the U.S. arms procurement deal.

Despite never having served in a diplomatic post, Wu regularly visits the US to brief officials on Taiwan-China relations, and is well known and accepted by them. He speaks fluent English -- always important, since so many US Taiwan experts do not speak good Chinese or Taiwanese -- and has been interviewed by US media, including major television networks. David Lee, the outgoing representative, is one of the many KMTers working in high positions under the Chen Administration. Friends of mine within MOFA have been saying for months that the Administration wanted Lee replaced, and some of the more embarrassing incidents over the years in which Lee has been left unapprised of major events involving Taiwan and the US have been intentionally handled to make him look bad, they've said. Nevertheless, Lee is above all a consummate diplomatic professional, and it remains to be seen whether Taiwan will benefit from this appointment.

[Taiwan] [US] [media] [Taiwan Independence] [DPP]

Mirror, Mirror

"It was far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men."

Yesterday as I was traveling home from Tainan there was a transporter accident and I found myself in a mysterious universe where everyone had a goatee, ate only spicy food, and waited patiently at traffic lights.

Recognizing my priceless opportunity, I surfed the net through the ubiquitous Mac OS and downloaded an article from Nativespeaker News Center. It discussed the situation between Taiwan and China in that universe. Due to its historical importance, I have reproduced it in its entirety below:

"Murderous Communist Dictator" Announces Missile Buildup

(Taipei) AP: Hu Jin-tao, whom Taiwan has referred to as a "murderous Communist dictator" and "relentless expansionist madman" today announced that more missiles would be placed opposite Taiwan, further increasing tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan, which considers China an expansionist, authoritarian state which has no claim to Taiwan, protested to the UN again over the continuing build up.

Analysts in both Taipei and in Washington, DC worried that the dictator's continued flouting of international norms may lead to war in the Strait. "Despite pragmatic diplomacy from the leadership in Taiwan," said one, "China has continued to refuse to talk to the island, and to enhance its military forces."

Regional leaders, including Prime Minister of Japan Namie Amuro, condemned China's continued missile build up in the strongest possible terms. "It is unacceptable that China unceasingly expands its missile bases, threatening not only democratic Taiwan but the free passage of goods through nearby waters." Most of Japan's oil imports pass near the island of 23 million. South Korea also issued a statement objecting to the build up.

China has claimed Taiwan since 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated to the island after it lost the Chinese civil war to the Communists. However, postwar treaties make no mention of the final recipient of the island's sovereignty, and legal experts consider China's claims doubtful at best.

Analysts foresaw a grim future for the provocative Hu. "China's belligerent policies, its brutal occupation of Tibet, its claims to islands as far away as the Natunas, and its authoritarian governance have isolated it from world trade networks,"observed Alfred Marshall, a Hong Kong-based securities analyst. "Investors have sent their cash elsewhere. Consequently, Hu is desperate. With his term of office likely to expire soon, as CCP leaders are restless, he could do anything."

After downloading this historical artifact, I quickly located a transporter and returned to my own universe, where I am thankful the world news media aren't nearly so biased.

[Taiwan] [media]

Taiwan: The Threatened Democracy

Matthew Greenwich of Taiwan Journal reviews the new book Taiwan: The Threatened Democracy by Bruce Herschensohn...

No stranger to government, Herschensohn's career took him from the U.S. Information Agency--the now-defunct institution dedicated to public diplomacy--to the White House, where he served as a deputy special assistant to President Richard Nixon. Starting in the present, he opens the book with a segment from President George W. Bush's 2005 second inaugural address, in which the president called for actions with the ultimate goal of "ending tyranny in our world." Immediately following this quote, any perception that Herschensohn would treat civil servants kindly is quickly dispelled, as the first chapter fires a salvo against the State Department, which is shown no love throughout the book. He constructs fictitious dialogues--though he claims they are based on actual conversations--between Foreign Service officers, in which they reject the president's comments as naive. State Department employees, the author writes, are often at odds with the president as they prefer stability, while presidents often pursue change. Even the military understands the capabilities and the threat of China, but the State Department, it seems, would rather keep its head in the sand.

[Taiwan] [US] [China]

There they go again

I blogged last week on the rectification of names in Taiwan and how completely normal it is in postcolonial political settings, but apparently the US State Department wasn't listening. The Taipei Times reported today that our elder brother in Washington, fresh from successful decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and now preparing another brilliant war against Iran to world acclaim, criticized the Taiwan government's decision:

The remarks came in response to comments made by US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who on Friday said the US did not support "administrative steps by Taiwan authorities that would appear to change Taiwan's status unilaterally or move toward independence."

Several state-owned enterprises, including the Chinese Petroleum Corp (CPC, 中國石油), China Shipbuilding Corp (CSBC, 中國造船), and the Chunghwa Post Co (中華郵政) decided in their board meetings on Friday to drop the references to "China" and include "Taiwan" in their titles.

In a particularly strong statement, McCormack also said the changes could affect Taiwan's "relationship with others," a possible warning that US-Taiwan ties would be hurt if President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) goes ahead with his plans.

McCormack said that Chen's actions on the issue "will be a test of leadership, dependability and statesmanship."

To underscore its concern, the department also took the seldom-used step of issuing a formal statement, in addition to the comments made by McCormack in answer to a question at his daily press briefing.

That's right folks, you don't have a fever -- those are actual printed words. In the twisted world of Washington's view of Taiwan, if you change the name of a local state-run company from "China" to "Taiwan" you are committing a violation so great that it requires a formal notification of deathly fear from the US State Department, but if you are China and increase the number of missiles pointed at Taiwan by 100 annually, that is a profound act of statesmanship that the State Department apparently feels no need to comment on. It's a wonder everyone who follows the State Department's remarks on Taiwan hasn't checked into a rehab farm for substance abuse.....

McCormack said Washington's main interest was maintaining peace and stability in the strait, and repeated the standard mantra that the US did not support Taiwan independence and opposed steps to change the status quo.

While the department's formal statement largely repeated what McCormack said, it added a reference to Chen's "four Noes" pledge in his 2000 inaugural address.

The inclusion of that sentence may indicate that the US feels changing the name on stamps and other enterprises might violate those pledges, which some observers feel US officials may have helped write as a gauge of Chen's commitment not to exacerbate US-China relations.

The fascinating thing is that it is not Taiwan that is causing the trouble here, but the US State Department. Let's suppose the State Department hadn't said a word about changing the names of state-owned companies in Taiwan, which everyone except the pro-China crowd feels is a necessary and logical step -- since, after all, they are from Taiwan. Let's suppose the State Department had instead simply shrugged and looked on benignly. Not applauded, simply did nothing. What would have happened?

Nothing.

Instead, we have a newspaper report that notes:

The issue could sour Taiwan's relations with the Bush administration at a time when relations were improving, as the brouhaha over Chen's decision to mothball the National Unification Council early last year became a distant memory.

The NUC change had zero repeat zero concrete effect on the cross-strait relations (in fact, the agency hadn't operated in years and its disappearance had no effect on anything). China did not attack. The US did not get involved in a war. Investment from Taiwan to China continued. Life went on, the planet still spun on its axis, and the stars remained in their courses. The very reasonable name changes that the government is proposing will also have zero concrete effect on cross-strait relations, but will very much ease the confusion that Taiwanese have to deal with in their day-to-day relations with other countries.

As with the NUC change, they are also part of the DPP's package to rally the party's core support, in this case for the upcoming elections later this year. The State Department could have at least indicated it had some understanding of that issue, as well as indicated support for Taiwan's democracy. It could also have simply asked why China was upset, since there are thousands of companies that bear the names of Chinese cities, provinces, and regions. I assume the State Department has similarly complained that using the name Air Macau may lead to independence for the island, and that China Eastern Airlines may cause rampant splittism on the east coast?

Apparently the US has failed to heed the lessons from its past errors, turning normal evolution into a faux-serious problem, when nothing need have occurred. Changing the names of the state run companies will not make Taiwan independent nor move it one whit closer to formal independence. Not only is the US reaction plainly shortsighted and ill-considered, it also serves the needs of Beijing and of the pro-China forces in Taiwan, who promptly accused Chen of causing trouble in Taiwan's relations with the US. In the long run, each time the State Department makes noises at Taiwan, it validates Beijing's drive to annex the island, leading to even more demands on Beijing's part that it must fulfill, and increasing the probability that violence will break out.

Looks to me like someone in Beijing made a phone call to someone in the State Department and demanded that harsh words be said, and the State Department leaped to obey. The sad part is that six months will go by, nothing will happen, and the US will then have to issue a statement reassuring everyone that US-Taiwan relations are peachy-keen and that it has no problems with Chen. That's what happens, folks, when you decide to serve Beijing instead of democracy.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, a former AIT head calls for the US to rethink its Taiwan position.

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