Nov 29, 2008

Spinning Taiwan-China for Obama

In his editorial, For America, a welcome thaw between China and Taiwan, Syd Goldsmith, former director of the American Institute in Taiwan's Kaohsiung Office, seems to see the Taiwan-China relationship through "Ma colored" (ostensibly blue) glasses. For him to write, "Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou offered to move the process [i.e. agreements providing for direct air, shipping, and postal links, and food safety] forward after taking office in May, and there has been a palpable reduction in paranoia about sovereignty on both sides", is for him to ignore the 34.9% of Taiwanese who indicated in polls last year that immediate or eventual independence, or indefinite extension of the status quo was their preferred resolution of the sovereignty issue.

For this slice of Taiwan's population there is not palpable reduction in paranoia these days. What instead has been palpable (painfully so for those unfortunate people who didn't get the word about the prohibition on free speech--on showing the colors, wearing T-sheets with pro-Taiwan nation messages, and playing Taiwanese music anywhere near the visiting and venerated ARATS official) has been the batons of Ma's police, the forceful removal of the colors (ROC flags), and CDs, from the citizen's possession, and the beatings by Ma's police of some.


Also palpable is the sense that time seems to be going backwards in Taiwan, back to the White Terror period, where the KMT's one party grip on power was maintained by the Chiang family's paranoia and military police iron fists, a paranoia fed by the acquisition of dictatorial power (ostensibly to "take back China") and the requisite intolerance of even a single opposition party. Ma's recent jailing of some members of the opposition DPP party is supportive of this narrative, though certainly the scale is tiny in comparison with the arrests and assassinations in the historical White Terror period. However, modern media offers Ma something that the Chiangs did not have (in it's full form). With the arrest and detention of the big fish, former President Chen Shui-bien, Ma, taking the role of high priest of the Chinese compatriots on Taiwan, has one man on which he can place the sins of the Taiwanese people against the Chinease people. Now that he has Chen Ma can simply let the media do the dirty work of flogging and driving nails. By making an example of Chen, blaming him for all that "evil talk" of independence and for the state of enmity built up between China and Taiwan from 2000 to 2008, Ma can cover over the sins of the "misguided" 35% of the Taiwanese that Mr. Goldsmith doesn't know about or disregards.

"As the ARATS chairman's recent visit shows, we are witnessing a maturing relationship in which the antagonists have agreed to put aside the issue that has divided them for 60 years in favor of getting practical benefits that they want," writes the former AIT director. Hm, "the issue that has divided them for 60 years"?....oh yes, the civil war between those Nationalists, like Ma, comprising maybe 15% of the population of Taiwan and the Chinese Communists. More than eight-five percent of the population were dragged into the war against their will. I thought that that issue, as far as Taiwan is concerned, was put to bed by the 1992 Consensus. Of course since 1992 China has built up a cache of over 1000 missiles targeting Taiwan. So I guess the consensus was a bit one sided. Oh, maybe he means the SOVEREIGNTY issue (that's what the war was really about). Well, if a maturing relationship means China gets its way with Taiwan on the sovereignty question, then my advice to Taiwan is "if it’s inevitable, then relax and enjoy it" cause it's going to last a long long time.

Goldsmith continues, "Beijing's leaders have long acted on the premise that China can bring Taiwan back to the motherland with a gentle but powerful economic embrace that will eventually convince the people of Taiwan where their interests lie. This has been complemented by the never-abandoned threat to take the 'renegade province' back by force if Taipei declares independence."

Kind of gives you goose bumps, doesn't it? "A gentle but powerful embrace" sounds like what I was saying: TAIWAN, YOU ARE BEING FORCED TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH CHINA
. If it’s inevitable, then relax and enjoy it. As Goldsmith channels past and present day Chinese Communists, it's as if they are saying, "Taiwan, you will either make love to me freely or I will force you to do so. Either way you're mine." A mature relationship? Sure, in a macabre kind of way.

Goldsmith covers more ground than I wish to comment on here but getting to his main objective in writing the op ed. As the title of the blog alludes to, Goldsmith is putting a spin on the Taiwan-China issue for the comming Obama Administaion. He is trying to make the case that Obama may in fact get a free ride across the Taiwan Strait--that the recent Ma-induced thaw between China and Taiwan might mean that diplomatic capital can be redirected to other hot spots on the globe.

I don't think so. In case they've read Goldsmith's op ed and are reading my blog (yeah, right), let me give Obama and Hilary a little bit of advice. Firstly to Secretary of State apparent, Ms. Clinton, please understand that the eye must always be kept on the ball, no matter what the conditions on the field. And in case you don't already know, the "ball", in terms of our interests, is the democracy, Taiwan, not the communist dictatorship, China. And for you, President-Elect Obama, please note that the bureaucrats in the State Department hold the line between China and Taiwan, not the President of the United States. The ship of State is not easily turned/directed.

Nov 28, 2008

Awakening China: Chinese people do not need a pro-Taiwan “white” man opinion on the development of mainland relationship and possibly, future integration with Taiwan


The China Watcher blogger who posted Awakening China: Chinese people do not need a pro-Taiwan “white” man opinion on the development of mainland relationship and possibly, future integration with Taiwan claims not to be a racist and yet uses the term "white" man to describe her/his antagonist. BTW, is the name "China Watcher" a "he" or a "she" name (of course, my blog ID, "Freedom Ain't Free", is similarly gender neutral, so for the record, I'm a white man, like China Watcher's antagonist, not only in terms of race and sex but also similar in political viewpoints regarding Taiwan and China)?

In the mind of those Taiwanese who would agree with "white man", such as my Taiwanese wife, the ethnocentricity of the non-racist "China Watcher" glosses over the viewpoints of a lot more than 30% of the population of Taiwan. That 30% number was in response to a question about whether talking to China would benefit Taiwan. In polls taken before last Spring's Taiwan Presidential election (and tracked over a period of 13 years prior) a strong majority of Taiwanese leaned toward some form of independence, with maintaining the status quo (de facto independence) and deciding the matter in the future being the preference of 37% of the population and unification now or eventually garnering only 11.6% support, which was somewhat higher than the 7.7% that wanted independence now. If you add up all those favoring de facto or de jure independence, you get a whopping 76.9% of the Taiwanese, a super-majority.

Also, China Watcher, holding in low regard Western style democracy would not see any problem disregarding the rights of the minority of the 30% (6.9 million people), much less perhaps, the rights of the super-majority of 76.7% (up to 17.7 million people). After all, it is the "Mandate of Heaven" that keeps the minority lording rule over on the majority and that constitutes Chinese dynastic governance of Chinese and non-Chinese peoples to antiquity.

The reason that I must say "up to 17.7 million people" is because the survey data was of Taiwanese respondents, being based on ethnicity only 85% of the population. It would be interesting to know the make-up of the population included in the survey that China Watcher cites.

Never before, have so many common folks like China Watcher participated so willingly in spreading the emperor's propaganda so far around the world.

Awakening China: Chinese people do not need a pro-Taiwan “white” man opinion on the development of mainland relationship and possibly, future integration with Taiwan

Source of Taiwanese polling data cited by "Freedom Ain't Free"
Trends in Core Political Attitudes among Taiwanese from Election Study Center, N.C.C.U., Center, important political attitude trend distribution

Nov 19, 2008

Ma's Taiwan = Police State




PHOTO: LIAO CHEN-HUEI, TAIPEI TIMES
Two police officers remove an injured protester from a street demonstration after protesters broke through a police blockade in Taipei yesterday (11/06/2008).
SOURCE: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/photo/2008/11/07/2008032082






Nov 12, 2008

China & Taiwan crime fighting partnership?: Give me a break!

In reaction to this story, Taiwan, China to engage in joint crime-fighting: MAC chief, I sent comments to the editor of the government controlled Internet "news" organ eTaiwannews.com. I've edited those comments and posted them below for all to read--since I do not expect eTaiwannews.com to publish them.

Dear eTaiwanNews Editor,

Give me a break!

Just exactly what activities will come under the umbrella of "crime" that the PRC and Taiwan will "cooperate" to fight? Will the recent protests related to the visit of the ARATS official be classified as crimes? Will free speech and displaying the national colors in public, within the site of a CCP member, be classified as crime? Will the playing of Taiwanese nationalistic music and the wearing of pro-Taiwan independence T-shirts be considered a crime? Will those who promote Taiwan independence be considered criminals?

The recent events in Taiwan in which police did treat all of the activities mentioned above as crimes brings to my mind China's so-called "Anti-Secession law" which was "promulgated" on March 14th, 2005.

Let's review that "law" in light of the Ma Administration and recent events in Taiwan. Note that the titles for the various articles of the "law" reproduced below have been added by me, as a literary device.
Article 1 - THE JUSTIFICATION

"This Law is formulated, in accordance with the Constitution, for the purpose of opposing and checking Taiwan's secession from China by secessionists in the name of "Taiwan independence", promoting peaceful national reunification, maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, preserving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation."
It is obvious from Article 1 that 85% of the population of Taiwan, that is the Taiwanese, do not have their fundamental interests safeguarded by this "law".
Article 2 - THE MANDATE OF HEAVEN

"There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means."
No wiggle room here. Screw the historical facts and recent democratic developments on Taiwan. The Chinese have the Mandate of Heaven, created by telling the lie, not thousands, but millions of times--and by suborning perjury of countless presidents and state department spokespersons around the globe to say likewise--that Taiwan belongs to China.
Article 3 - THE FIRST NON SEQUITUR

"The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s.

Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces."
Damn Lie. The Nationalist squatted, in part, on Taiwan in 1945 at the bequest of the Allied Forces and then, in full, in 1949 to save their ass from Mao's Communist forces. But the island was by peace treaty Japanese territory from 1895 to 1952 because the final peace treaty with Japan was not signed until September 8, 1951 and did not come into effect until April 28, 1952. By that time the Chinese Civil War was essentially over and effectively a lost cause for Chiang Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalists. How could the Taiwan question have anything to do with the Chinese Civil War of the 1940s. That is simply a fabrication by both the Communist and the Nationalist Chinese promulgated on the unsuspecting public all over the world in almost every story derived from Chinese written press release after press release ad nauseam.
Article 4 - THE SACRED DUTY "Accomplishing the great task of reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included."
Here we see the explicit statement of the Mandate of Heaven (i.e. "sacred duty"). "Taiwan compatriots" is a overused paternalistic Chinese Communist reference to those whom they identify with on Taiwan. I wonder if they mean everyone in Taiwan who has a little Mainland derived blood (98%) or just the less than 15% of the population that extracted itself directly from twentieth century China vis-à-vis the late 1949 Chinese emigrants to Taiwan, and their direct decedents. According to recent polls, if they took a vote on unification in the near term in Taiwan they would find that the number of compatriots might be less than 10%. How can that be a Mandate from anywhere or anyone, much less from a Heaven that the aethist Chinese don't even believe in?
Article 5 - THE SECOND NON SEQUITUR

"Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country.

To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.

After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy."

There they go again, throwing logic into the wind. In order to "reunify the country", it has to have been unified at sometime in the past. Tell me a time in the past 113 years when China and Taiwan/Formosa were unified......just one time will do......I thought not.

The next article sounds rather familiar when comparison with the policies and procedures of the Ma Ying-jeou Administration.
Article 6 - CROSS-STRAIT INTERCOURSE

"The state shall take the following measures to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and promote cross-Straits relations:

(1) to encourage and facilitate personnel exchanges across the Straits for greater mutual understanding and mutual trust;

(2) to encourage and facilitate economic exchanges and cooperation, realize direct links of trade, mail and air and shipping services, and bring about closer economic ties between the two sides of the Straits to their mutual benefit;

(3) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits exchanges in education, science, technology, culture, health and sports, and work together to carry forward the proud Chinese cultural traditions;

(4) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits cooperation in combating crimes; and

(5) to encourage and facilitate other activities that are conducive to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and stronger cross-Straits relations.

The state protects the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in accordance with law."

Yeah, right...protect the RIGHTS and INTEREST of Taiwan COMPATRIOTS (remember they're less than 10% of the population if we mean though longing fornear term unification with a society not even close to having freedom and human rights)!!!
Article 7 - CROSS-EYED NEGOTIATIONS

"The state stands for the achievement of peaceful reunification through consultations and negotiations on an equal footing between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. These consultations and negotiations may be conducted in steps and phases and with flexible and varied modalities.

The two sides of the Taiwan Straits may consult and negotiate on the following matters:

(1) officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides;

(2) mapping out the development of cross-Straits relations;

(3) steps and arrangements for peaceful national reunification;

(4) the political status of the Taiwan authorities;

(5) the Taiwan region's room of international operation that is compatible with its status; and

(6) other matters concerning the achievement of peaceful national reunification."

The negotiation points listed in this Article are also strangely familiar for they sound exactly like the things Ma is currently "negotiating" with his Chinese Communist friends. How sweet, Mister Ma. Only problem is that the "equal footing" must have been tilted in China's favor and "Taiwan region" does not sound like a free and democratic place.
Article 8 - THE NUCLEAR OPTION

"In the event that the 'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress."

TRANSLATION: If, according to our timetable, we do not coerce the people of Taiwan to surrender their sovereignty over their territory to us, we will blow them all to Hell (though we're atheists who don't believe in such a place), seize their territory and we couldn't care less about the United States and their so-called "Taiwan Relations Act" because we have calculated that they won't have the will to do a darn thing in the face of our military action.
Article 9 - THE INDEMNIFICATION

In the event of employing and executing non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in this Law, the state shall exert its utmost to protect the lives, property and other legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals in Taiwan, and to minimize losses. At the same time, the state shall protect the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in other parts of China in accordance with law.

TRANSLATION: If you're one of us, we'll do our darnedest to steer our armaments away from you, but if you're one of those obstinate freedom loving Taiwan patriots, you're toast and we will hunt you and your relations down and either make you confess your sins against the Chinese People and submit to reeducation or we make damn sure that your DNA is wiped from the human stream.

CLOSING STATEMENT

How can a free and democratic country and a communist authoritarian dictatorship cooperate on fighting crime when the latter defines free expression of democratic ideas criminal and runs tanks over those who practice such crimes? What a joke! Or, as one TV reporter was known to exclaim in the face of nonsense, "Give me a break!".

Timothy E. Bradberry
Pflugerville,TX

Nov 1, 2008

Republican Activist Booted from Valero Gas Station

Saturday afternoon, donning a McCain-Palin T-shirt bearing a McCain-Palin button, a Michael Williams button, and my CTRA President name tag, and wearing a hat bearing a Ronald Reagan for Governor button, a McCain-Palin button, and a Constable Bob Vann pin, I was walking around a Valero gas station politely asking customers if they had voted yet (i.e. early voted).

If they said yes, I would genuinely thank them for exercising their right to vote (even if they voted for Obama). They seemed to warm to that expression of gratitude. If they said they were not registered to vote or were not a citizen, and thus could not vote, I thanked not voting explaining that some people vote illegally. If they were registered to vote and indicated that they had not yet voted, I would urge them to vote on Tuesday, November 4th, offer them some literature about, and my personal knowledge of, the Republicans that were on the Travis County ballot and try to persuade them to vote Republican in at least some of those races.

Even if they said they were voting for Obama I would suggest that if they were not planning to vote a straight Democrat ballot they might consider some of the down ballot candidates on the R team. Then, depending on my perception of their receptivity, I would mentioned the Supreme Court candidates and why we needed to keep those Rs in office (i.e. to keep the court functioning in a non-activist manner, to interpret and apply law so that lawmaking would be left to the legislature, where as a representative body of the people it rightly belongs), and then move on to Jerry Mikus (if they lived in HD 50).

It was quite enjoyable and they seemed very appreciative of the conversation and information, especially the Republicans. :-)

I started out in the morning at a Velero station in Pflugerville at which I bought a tank of gas and later a Diet Coke. During my very enjoyable interaction with customers at that station one customer I spoke with asked me to visit a car wash where his son Danny worked, and to give information to his son Danny. After a little while I did just that. I went to the car wash, found Danny, gave him the literature, and got my car washed and waxed while there. Of course, I took the opportunity to talk to more people and hand out more campaign literature. It was a different situation than at Velero. There were fewer and a much more sedentary clientele (i.e. they hung around for a long time). I decided that the gas station was a better place to do what I was trying to do (exercise my free speech rights).

In the afternoon, as I mentioned at the beginning of this report, I went to the other Velero station, near US183 and Spicewood Springs Road, in Austin. After spending about 90 minutes there, during which time my only purchase was a Diet Coke, a clerk came out to me as I was asking yet another customer if he had voted yet. She informed me that "they" could not have me doing what I was doing at their store, claiming that I was harassing their customers. She said I had to leave. I told her that everyone I had talked to (and I filtered out no one based on outward appearance or even presence of a non-R bumper sticker) did not seem to be bothered by my conversation with them and that I was in no way trying to harass anyone. I asked her if any customers had complained about my activities, to which she would not answer yes or no.

Earlier I had been in the story and talked to another clerk, a young man, who said he does not vote, did not want to vote, and was just "along for the ride" in this society. I don't remember seeing the young female clerk at that time. I talked with the male clerk out in back of the store later on and right before I left. He did not seem to be bothered by our conversation. Before I left, I went back into the store and asked if the manager was in. The clerk said no and then I asked for her name and the manager's name. She said her name is Angela and the manager's name is Dora. She did not tell me her or her manager's last names. I was not angry, but I told her that it seemed like she was harassing me rather than me harassing anyone. She simply said "may I help you" a couple of times and then asked me to leave because she had a customer to attend to whom I did not see walk up behind me. So, I left.

My guess is that she was on the other team (a Democrat) and that she wanted me to leave because I was a Republican who was hurting her team. I could be wrong. I do not think I was harassing anyone, unless perhaps I asked an illegal alien (whom of course would not have "illegal alien" written across his or her forehead) if he or she had voted yet. Like I said, I did not discriminate in my selection of customers to approach....maybe I should have.