Inspired by the Tibet experience

Most of the time, I am reading. I read more than I write.

Today, one particular post had me in deep thoughts, and I would like to share them with Taiwanese all over the world, especially those who live on the island once exclaimed by the Portuguese sailors as ‘Ihla Formosa’.

Will this island remain beautiful a few years from now? That will depend on you and me, and I think I have done all I can and to the best that I can possibly do.

I just read an interview of Pico Iyer by another author, Jon Wiener.

Pico Iyer was born in Oxford, raised in California, and a resident of Japan, sort of like a global resident just like me. He has a new book called, The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.

The interviewer, Jon Wiener asked Pico Iyer why in his book, he described the Tibetan population as being “slipping ever closer to extinction”.

And these were the words of Pico Iyer:

I wish they were overstated words, but they’re not. The Tibet autonomous region is more and more a Chinese province. Lhasa is now 65 percent Han Chinese, so Tibetans are a minority in their own country. The Chinese are practicing what the Dalai Lama has called “demographic aggression”—trying to wipe out Tibetan culture through force of numbers. Two years ago they set up that high speed train, which allows 6,000 more Han Chinese to come to Tibet every day. I first saw Lhasa in 1985 just when it opened up to the world.

The high speed train, if I am not wrong, is the masterpiece of the Canadian Bombardier (this link had been discovered and used in my other post).

The railway represents an overtly political project by China to facilitate its control over Tibet. Tibetans are already a minority in their own country and the railway has further marginalized them. It has allowed China to deploy troops and missiles to the Tibetan plateau more effectively, and has also enhanced China's ability to extract and remove Tibet's vast mineral wealth. The Dalai Lama has referred to the railway as "some kind of cultural genocide".

Sadly enough, this is what many western businessmen have said about more engagement with China will make China more open and democratic.

And some country who had tried to “help” Tibet had its own agenda.

The CIA had “helped” them during the cold war era as Pico Iyer said…

Yes. The CIA really moved in during the 1960s, when they trained Tibetans in Colorado, of all places, and set them up in Nepal. The CIA wasn’t concerned about Tibet; they were only concerned about trying to foil their great communist enemy China. It was a fitful resistance but the CIA was more than ready to help—until Nixon and Kissinger went to Beijing. At that point, the Dalai Lama realized that violent resistance would only bring more suffering to his people, so he sent a taped message to the guerillas in Nepal and told them to lay down their arms. They did, but some of them were so heartbroken that they took their own lives.

And this reminds me of the dark days of the martial law era in Taiwan when the US administration supported the Chiang Kai-Shek’s rule over Taiwan in order to block the red communism from spread out but did not care much about the human rights records of the KMT regime.

When their interests changed as the cold war ended, again our concern was never their concern!

Did the US administration help the Taiwanese society democratize? The recent Taiwanese history taught us that the democratization of Taiwan came gradually with the help of its own people’s struggle against authoritarian rule coupled with the timing of the rise of their former president Lee Teng-hui, a Taiwanese native, within the KMT party.

And now the US federal deficit (and China being their major creditor) has kept me worrying about what’s next for Taiwan. Why doesn’t the US administration encourage domestic production and domestic consumption to counter the trade imbalance instead of having to exchange favors with the Chinese authority, and in the process concede to Beijing’s requests on the Taiwan issue?

Back to the Tibet interview…

The Chinese Cultural Revolution in the mid-1960s was a turning point for Tibet. Pico Iyer said

They tried to destroy Tibetan culture—much as they tried to destroy their own culture, but even more brutally. According to Tibetan estimates, 1.2 million Tibetans died—that’s 20 percent of the population. All but 13 of the 6,000 monasteries were destroyed. Little kids were asked to shoot their parents. Most violently, the Chinese sought to tear apart every last shred of Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Monks were asked to use sacred texts as toilet paper. It was a brutal thing, which the Chinese government has since repudiated.

Dalai Lama’s fear…

He knows that as soon as he dies, the Chinese government will alight on an amenable little boy, probably the child of Communist cadre, and reenact a kind of monastic search and declare “This boy is the fifteenth Dalai Lama.” Of course he will be completely loyal to the communist party and probably be an enemy of Tibet.

Do you have any fear as a Taiwanese? Or do you care only if you have a bowl of rice on your table today?

And this is what I think…

Every little action in your daily life counts, it does not matter how insignificant it may look such as speaking to your children using your mother tongue, or buying your country’s products instead of the cheapest ones, or loving and caring for your environment.

After thoughts...

Tibetans are not extinguished, have you ever thought about an alliance of the Taiwanese, the Tibetans, and the Uyghurs?

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]

Tancredo Lambastes the State Department, Tkacik rolls in the Weekly Standard

I've just blogged on a Weekly Standard article on Taiwan and the name changes from John Tkacik and Gary Schmitt over at the View. But this piece from Tom Tancredo (R-Col) is so good I thought I'd bring it here in its entirety. The redoubtable Coen Blaaw at FAPA passed this around. Enjoy some snark by a Congressman at the State Department's expense.

+++++++++++

February 20, 2007

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice,

I was somewhat confused by a recent statement issued by the department criticizing President Chen's "name rectification" efforts in Taiwan. The written statement distributed by the department expressed concern that changing the name of a few businesses in Taiwan will "change Taiwan's status unilaterally or move [Taiwan] toward independence."

First, it is rather difficult to understand how a decision about what the name of a local business might be in Taiwan is any of the State Department's concern. It seems to me that Taiwan's elected leaders and investors are perfectly capable of determining what the name of a particular shipbuilding company ought to be.

Second, for the State Department to equate the renaming of a gas station with a change Taiwan's international status is, to say the least, rather puzzling. While there are many important factors to be concerned with when it comes to cross-strait relations, I am not sure the name of Taiwan's national airline or post office are among them. After all, "Taiwan Beer" has been brewed and sold on the island for quite some time and I am not aware of the beer label triggering any sort of geopolitical crisis.

We often hear that the State Department is concerned about unilateral actions by either China or Taiwan that might change the "status quo." In practice, however, the department seems more than willing to criticize Taiwan's leaders (often for quite trivial things), yet very reluctant to rebuke the leadership in Beijing.

For example, compare the State Department's reaction to Taiwan's name rectification effort to that of China's adoption of the so-called "anti-secession law" in 2005. The "anti-secession law" by Beijing's own admission was intended to create a legal framework for China to initiate military action against Taiwan. The "law" represents a clear-cut, belligerent and dangerous step toward a military attack of Taiwan.

Clearly, this act represented a change in the "status quo" yet the strongest and most direct rebuke to China that State Department spokesman Richard Boucher could muster was "[W]e think it's important for both sides to focus on dialogue." The best then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan could do at the time was to characterize the law as "unhelpful."

But perhaps I am being too critical.

Maybe the State Department is simply waiting for China to do something extremely "provocative" like renaming their airlines or gas stations before issuing a similarly stern warning to Beijing.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo

Member of Congress

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

LOL. Great work, making clear the State Department's pro-Beijing bias. Sad.


[Taiwan] [US] [China] [State Department]

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]