A Secure Border a Country Makes

This story from Taiwan News shows Taiwan treating it's borders as if they were the borders of a country. Nothing here about getting Beijing's approval or help. Borders, language, and culture are considered to be minimal characteristics of a country. The native Taiwanese (85% of population) have a distinct language and culture apart from the Chinese. Treating Taiwan's border as something to be secured and making reciprocal visa-free agreements with other governments shows that the government of Taiwan is acting like the government of a country.

NIA, the gatekeeper of national borders

Following in footsteps of England, Ireland, New Zealand and Canada, the European Union is reported to see the visa-free treatment for Taiwan clear its floor recently, a move commonly seen as a shot in the arm for substantial exchanges between Europe and Taiwan.

In response to growing demand from tourists to visa-waived countries and an array of problems following the exemption, including smuggling and human-trafficking, the National Immigration Agency (NIA) has stepped up its efforts to cement the guard of national borders with a series of seminars, forums and staff training since its establishment on Jan. 2, 2007.

Click here to read the full story.

"Formosa Betrayed" - Coming to theaters near you (including in Austin) February 28, 2009

I have it on good authority that Formosa Betrayed will be shown in theaters in the Austin area beginning on February 28, 2009 (the 62nd anniversary of the 2-28 Incident in Taiwan). See press release below announcing Distribution.

1680 N. Vine St., Suite 906, Hollywood, CA 90028

| P: 323-465-8885 | F: 323-465-8886 |

info@formosathemovie.com | www.formosathemovie.com

For Immediate Release:

SCREEN MEDIA FILMS PICKS UP “FORMOSA BETRAYED” HOLLYWOOD, CA – October 23, 2009 – Screen Media Films has picked up worldwide rights to Formosa Betrayed, a political thriller set in the 1980s, which made its international debut at the Montreal World Film Festival.

Formosa Betrayed is the initial project for Formosa Films, a newly formed production company created by actor/writer/producer Will Tiao. Adam Kane (Heroes, Pushing Daisies, Mercy) directs his feature debut.

Story is inspired by actual events. An FBI Agent investigates the murder of an Asian professor at a small college. Agent follows the fleeing killers to Taiwan, where he finds himself on a collision course with the FBI, the State Department, the Chinese Mafia, and the Government of the Republic of China.

James Van Der Beek plays the FBI Agent and Wendy Crewson plays a US diplomat in Taiwan. John Heard, Tzi Ma, Will Tiao, Leslie Hope, and Kenneth Tsang round out supporting cast.
Tiao, a former international economist with the Clinton and Bush Administrations, raised the funds for the $8 million project from private equity based on concept, and has nearly 300 investors in the project. Investment bank Berthel Fisher Financial Services provided completion funds.

Formosa Betrayed recently screened for Members of Congress in Washington DC, which was highly attended due to heightened interest in US-Taiwan-China relations. Film also recently won Best Picture and Best Actor for Van Der Beek at the San Diego Film Festival, and Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature at the Philadelphia Asian American Film Festival.

In addition to Montreal, San Diego, Washington DC and Philadelphia, Formosa Betrayed has also screened at Hollywood Film Festival, New York Asian American Film Festival, DC APA Film Festival, and will be screening at the Sao Paulo International Film Festival and St. Louis International Film Festival.

Formosa Betrayed is to be released in theaters in February 2010 in 15-20 North American cities.

Screen Media will rep worldwide rights and begin selling territories at the European Film Market in February 2010. Deal was brokered by Ben Weiss at Paradigm and Kevin Mills of Kaye & Mills LLP. In addition, Formosa Films and Berthel Fisher have announced the creation of a new $20 million fund, focused on television and film production. Formosa Films is already in prep on two film projects starting in Spring 2010 – JUVY, about juvenile delinquents, with Kane to direct and Tiao to produce, and THE DOORMAN about the underground goings-on of the Plaza Hotel, with Abel Ferrara to direct and Tiao to produce.

Contact:
Formosa Films
Evita Huang
info@formosathemovie.com
1680 Vine St., Suite 906
Hollywood, CA 90028
(323) 465-8885

October 8, 2009

Selected Formosa Betrayed Media Coverage

October 8, 2009

Variety – "’Moon’ Shines on Hollywood Festival"

October 8, 2009

Screen Daily – “HFF Announces Line-Up, Hollywood Movie Awards Nominees”

October 5, 2009

ABC Radio Australia – “New movies addresses Taiwan’s turbulent past”

October 1, 2009

Express Night Out – “Moving Pictures: Asian Pacific American Film Festival Offers Something for Everyone”

September 27, 2009

NBC San Diego – “Bang For Your Viewing Buck”

September 27, 2009

NBC San Diego – “Varsity Blues to Global Blues”

About the Movie, Fomosa Betrayed

Last year I found the story below on the www.forumosa.com website but I probably read it first in my hard copy of the Formosa Foundation Newsletter (to download the particular issue, click here). I've been wanting to post it to this blog for a long time, forgetting that it had come from the Formosa Foundation Newsletter. However, the folks at Forumosa (not a Taiwanese friendly site, to say the least) insisted that they would do nothing about an offensive video loop and comments I did not want to subject my referrals to, that was next to the Forumosa post of interest. The video loop is an icon for a Forumosa.com user called "cake", who apparently is a Night Market Cop., in case you want to look him up. "Cake" copied the text from Formosa Foundation Newsletter without attribution. In this post I'm making proper attribution and avoiding that offensive video.

The story below is actually a portion of a five page story titled, Hollywood Goes Taiwanese:
Major Motion Picture Formosa Stars James Van Der Beek.

The movie is now called Fromosa Betrayed. Formosa Films, LLC considered changing the name to Formosa, but that was short lived. See Formosa Foundation, Volumi III, Summer 2008 for the story below in its context. See the official website for the movie Formosa Betrayed here http://www.formosathemovie.com/ .

History:

Many Hollywood films have tried to shine a light on Chinese culture and politics for American audiences, though none has yet to do so from Taiwan’s unique political perspective. While films such as Red Corner, The Last Emperor, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, are among the most well-known American films dealing with Chinese culture, those movies did not deal specifically with the political and social issues facing Taiwan and America.

Formosa Betrayed will enlighten a global audience on the real story behind Taiwan’s political history, by focusing on the tragic murder of a Taiwanese professor who was killed solely for his courage to speak out for an independent and democratic Taiwan.

Based on actual events which happened to Taiwanese professors and graduate students throughout the United States in the 1970s and 80s, Formosa Betrayed will expose for the first time the brutal techniques that the Nationalist Chinese Government on Taiwan used to quell dissent in their desire to reunite Taiwan with mainland China.

Most people outside of Taiwan and China are unaware of the history surrounding Taiwan’s political status. Formosa Betrayed will be the first opportunity for a mass audience to get a glimpse into the human story behind Taiwan’s struggle for identity on a world stage.

Story:

Formosa Betrayed is a feature film detailing the murder investigation of a Taiwanese-American professor at a Midwestern college in the early 1980s. The detective assigned to the case is a young FBI agent looking forward to an exciting career serving the United States government. However, he must solve the case before he can move on.

In his search for the murderers and their accomplices, the agent learns that there is a student spy network which focuses on the political and social activities of Chinese and Taiwanese-American students on the campus. He discovers that these “student spies” are ubiquitous on college campuses in the United States where there are Chinese and Taiwanese students.

His search for the killers takes him to Taiwan, where he learns that the suspects are members of the Chinese Mafia who have been hired by the Nationalist Chinese Government in Taiwan to silence political dissidents. He discovers that the true reason for the professor's murder was to silence an outspoken advocate of Taiwanese democracy and independence, and thus he was seen as a threat to the legitimacy of the government on Taiwan – a key U.S. ally. The hit was sanctioned by those at the highest level of power.

In his efforts to bring the killers and their accomplices to justice, he finds himself on a collision course with the U.S. State Department, the Chinese Mafia, and ultimately the highest levels of the Nationalist Chinese Government in Taiwan. In the meantime, he is aided by a mysterious woman who is tied to the Taiwanese Independence Movement and by others with competing agendas.

In the end, the detective begins to understand the complex nature of politics, identity, and power in Taiwan-U.S.-China relations – and how this relationship affects the lives and destinies of the citizens of all three countries – including his own.

Links to Reviews, et al:

New York Times Online Reviews
IMDb Listing
The Movie Trailer on YouTube
Formosa Betrayed Tagged Page

Why Taiwan Matters

The following speech was given by Gordon Chang (author of The Coming Collapse of China (2001) and of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World (2006), being delivered last Friday on Capitol Hill at the conclusion of the March for Taiwan. It explains why Taiwan really matters to free countries; that is to what's left of free countries and their freedoms.

Will Taiwan Prevail?
By Gordon G. Chang

Speech given at
March for Taiwan
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
April 10, 2009

By car, by bus, and by foot, you have come here. And there is one reason why you have done so. You have done so because Taiwan is important. It is important to you, it is important to me, it is important to others.

It is, for instance, important to the world’s most powerful—and most important—democracy. The United States needs to defend each and every free society from the world’s authoritarian states. And why do we need to do that? Because autocrats see themselves threatened by the presence of free people anywhere. Unfortunately, they cannot just live and let live. They cannot tolerate people who govern themselves. So the United States cannot defend itself and it allies without also defending the free people of Taiwan.

Taiwan is especially important because that small nation, by its mere existence, bedevils the most important dictatorial government of our time. The nine old men who sit on the Politburo Standing Committee rule the People’s Republic of China, a nation of 1.5 billion souls, but they feel mortally threatened by Taiwan, a country of just 23 million. These 23 million prove that people, some of whom are Chinese, can govern themselves. By governing themselves, they make everything the Communist Party says about itself an obvious lie. Taiwan is important first and foremost because it is an inspiration to people everywhere, proving that a small nation can stand up to a large regime.

Yet today those 23 million people face their most dangerous moment, and we must ask ourselves just one question: Will their young democracy survive?

These days, Taiwan looks weak, and China appears mighty as Beijing goes from strength to strength and from victory to victory. Things are going so well for Beijing that we are told that this is “China’s Century.” What place does Taiwan have in a century belonging to China? Not much of one. If all the experts are right, then an independent Taiwan is doomed. If they have correctly analyzed historical trends, then you, free Taiwanese, have no future. You will be colonized by the People’s Republic.

This imbalance means that we are at a point in history when almost anything can happen.
For many of us, it is inconceivable that a vibrant young democracy would willingly agree to join the world’s largest authoritarian state. Yet some tell us that is exactly what will happen—and that it should occur soon.

Why? Many in the pro-China camp say that Taiwan cannot compete with Chinese industry and therefore should integrate with it. From this point, they then say Taipei should reconcile with the Mainland’s leaders so that the island’s business community can participate in the booming economy across the Strait. Political integration with Beijing is Taipei’s only option, and, should Taiwan fail to unite with the People’s Republic, it will be left with nothing. According to this view, the people of Taiwan have no real choice.

Recent statistics, they argue, prove their point. Taiwan’s economy contracted a stunning 8.4 percent in the last quarter of 2008. This year, exports tumbled 35.7 percent in March,
28.6 percent in February, and 44.1 percent in January.

We are told that, in view of the precipitous fall in the economy, Taiwan needs to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement, or ECFA, with China. In short, the prevailing belief is that Taiwan needs China.

But these experts have it wrong. Taiwan does not need China. And tying Taiwan’s economy to China will be a disaster. Forgive me if the following discussion of the Chinese economy is too detailed, but this is the issue on which almost everything turns.

As bad as the Taiwanese economy appears, China’s is worse. China, at this moment, has the world’s fastest slowing economy.

According to official statistics, gross domestic product, the best measure of national economic performance, skyrocketed 13.0 percent in 2007, and it was, in all probability, higher than that. Poor sampling procedures did not properly take into account the output of small manufacturers, then the most productive part of the economy. So, if you want a figure, China’s economic growth in 2007 was about 15 percent.

Now, although Beijing doesn’t admit it, economic output is contracting. No economy has fallen further or faster than China’s. Not even Taiwan’s.

The reason for the dramatic collapse in China is clear. China has an export-dominated economy, and its exports are in freefall. They have declined every month since November. In January, they fell 17.5 percent. In February, they were down a staggering 25.7 percent. The Chinese government has indicated there was another double-digit fall in March.

And the prospect for the coming months is bleak. Orders for Chinese factories appear to be down by a third to a half this spring, the beginning of high season for the export sector. That’s not surprising because even the optimistic World Bank predicts the global economy will contract this year for the first time since World War II and international trade will decline the most in eighty years. The downturn is resulting in declining consumer demand not only in developed economies but also in emerging ones. That’s especially bad news for a China that is extraordinarily dependent on foreign markets. An exceptionally high 38 percent of its economy is attributable to exports.

In good times, an export economy is a blessing. In bad ones, however, it is a curse. As we saw in the Great Depression, it was the current-account-surplus countries that had the hardest time adjusting to deteriorating economic conditions and, consequently, suffered the most. That is proving to be the case now as well. China’s economic model, which delivered prosperity in a period of seemingly unending globalization, is particularly ill-suited to current conditions.

So Taiwan cannot rely on China to rescue it from this crisis. There is no realistic possibility of exporting more to China to feed China’s export machine because China’s export machine is itself faltering.

Some might argue that Taiwan can tap into the Chinese consumer market. That argument does not hold much water because Chinese consumers, reacting to negative news both from home and abroad, are pulling back at this time. We know that because China’s imports are also falling. They were down 43.1 percent in January and 24.1 percent in February.

Those atrocious numbers are a warning of not only further export falls but also—and more importantly—future declines in consumer spending. Another sign of weak consumer sentiment is the 1.6 percent drop in the consumer price index for February. That was the first fall in more than six years. Deflation is on the way.

Unfortunately for China, in the coming months exports will continue to plunge and consumer spending will decline. Beijing in November announced a $586 billion spending program to stimulate investment, the third leg of the Chinese economy. The plan, however, won’t work to create sustainable prosperity. It will undoubtedly create a “sugar high” in the next few months, but that will be temporary because the spending will be creating a bigger state economy and a smaller private one. In any event, technocrats in the Chinese capital are not going to be using their cash to benefit foreigners, even Taiwanese. That state money is going to state-owned enterprises and state projects.

So China has the world’s worst performing economy, and the prospects this year are dreadful. Further tying Taiwan’s economy to China’s is, quite simply, horrible strategy. It is absolutely the worst thing Taipei can do at this moment.

Yet Taiwan is not the only country that is making a mistake by contemplating a closer relationship with China. So is the United States. There are those in Washington who, in the desire to establish an informal alliance with Beijing, would like to see China absorb Taiwan in order to remove a potential source of disagreement. As Dennis Blair, then an admiral and now director of national intelligence, said in 1999, Taiwan is “the turd in the punchbowl.” Such a view, in addition to being morally repugnant, is also strategically short-sighted.

It is short-sighted for six reasons. First, it is highly debatable that the U.S. can maintain stable relations with a communist superstate that believes it should push aside America and dominate the international system. The Washington-New York axis may buy into the notion of a grand alliance with Beijing, but such an arrangement would go against ingrained American values and would not survive popular opinion in the U.S.

Second, Taiwan is an important country in its own right. It is economically powerful, and it is embedded into global supply chains.

Third, because Taiwan has become an inspiring symbol of the success of representative governance and free markets, to help it fail means gutting our own values and bolstering China’s model of authoritarianism and rigged markets. Unfortunately, many in Washington don’t believe in supporting democracy. They have forgotten every crucial lesson of the 20th century.

Fourth, our Asian policy is anchored on defending Japan. As a quick glance of a map will reveal, the main island of Taiwan and its various outlying islands protect the southern approaches to our Japanese ally. It would, therefore, be difficult for America to defend Japan if Taiwan became the 34th province of the People’s Republic. If we can’t defend Japan, South Korea would become surrounded and would surely fall into Beijing’s lap as well. With its two formal alliances gone, the United States would be out of Asia. The only thing that holds the Chinese in check is America, and Taiwan is the key to keeping the United States in the game.

Fifth, ceding Taiwan would undoubtedly embolden a territorially hungry Beijing. China asserts sovereignty over Japanese islands and the continental shelves of five southeast Asian countries.

Incredibly, it appears to maintain that the entire South China Sea is an internal Chinese lake, thereby impinging on the right of free passage on, under, and over international waters.

And the United States, even though far from Asia, is now becoming China’s target as we saw last month with Chinese ships harassing the Victorious and Impeccable, two unarmed information-gathering vessels.

Giving up Taiwan would only embolden China to press its claims with even more confidence and vigor—and it would bolster Beijing’s weak legal positions by inheriting Taipei’s territorial rights. So the place to stop the Chinese from pursuing their aggressive ambitions is Taiwan.

Sixth, abandoning Taiwan would send a horrible message to American allies, friends, and foes in the region. If we pushed Taiwan into the arms of China, no nation would ever want to help the United States in Asia—or elsewhere—in the future.

In short, America needs something it has not had in decades, a strong Taiwan policy. Instead, we have had the uninspiring equivocation of the Bush administration, which has been continued by Obama’s. Washington policy of “strategic ambiguity” has just encouraged the Chinese to test American resolve.

We have not been able to develop a sound Taiwan policy, even though it is so important for us to do so, largely because of our perceptions of China and our hopes for its future. We are trying to engage Beijing so that it becomes a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. Yet over time, the Chinese, as they have become more powerful, have become more aggressive. So in pursuit of an unattainable goal—making the Chinese regime our friend—Washington is undermining its own strategic objectives.

It’s time for we Americans to demonstrate that we keep commitments to free peoples. We need to do that especially at this moment because hardline governments are on the march. So defending Taiwan is defending America.

So, let’s do all we can for Taiwan so that it can meet its challenges. And I am confident that it will do so. Why? For one thing, an arrogant China will overstep with one provocation too many. Hardline governments always create their own enemies. But there is a more fundamental reason why Taiwan will prevail. That’s because of you.

For all that you have done in the past and for all that you will do in the days and years ahead, I admire you, I support you, and I salute you.

Let freedom ring. Long live a free Taiwan!

Taipei Times Editorial: Eroding Justice (in Taiwan)

The following Open Letter No. 2 to Taiwan's Minister of Justice was published in the Taipei Times Tuesday, December 2, 2008 as an Editorial. I have lightly edited it for spelling and format, have not changed anything else except what is enclosed in brackets,, thus [ ], and have highlighted in bold font the text that was shown in bold and enlarged text on the upper right of the letter as published. I also used the Wiki link tool to generate a linked version of the text before copying it to this blog. I made no attempt to make the wiki links non-trivial or to create my own additional wiki links, though some might be useful.

Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2

Tuesday, Dec 02, 2008, Page 8


The Honorable Wang Ching-feng

Minister of Justice

Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Minister Wang [王清峰],

In an open letter to the Taipei Times published on Nov. 25, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply.

Based [on] the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:

1. The procedure of “preventive detention”: This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his Nov. 13 article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that “it ought to be invoked rarely.”

Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] governments. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.

2. Your open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials “were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them.” This is simply not correct. When they were detained, they were subjected to lengthy interrogations — in some cases for up to 20 hours — which bore the character of a “fishing expedition,” and do not represent a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months to collect information; if they did have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, they should have formally charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.

3. Your open letter also states that the persons involved had “the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance.” It neglects to mention, however, that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don’t need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding lawyer-client privilege and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.

4. On the issue of leaks to the press, your letter states that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, information from ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor’s offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media have been filled with information on the ongoing investigations that could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are numerous others:

Only few hours after former minister of foreign affairs Mark Chen [陳唐山] was questioned on Nov. 3, Taiwan’s Apple Daily newspaper ran an article saying that “the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr Chen in relation to the case.”

The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shilin District Court Judge Hung Ying-hua [洪英花], who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your ministry in a Liberty Times article on Nov. 17.

We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps against Mr Cheng Wen-long [鄭文龍], the lawyer for former president Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁], who supposedly “leaked” information to the press. The ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and sent a formal request to the Taiwan Lawyers Association that asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.

It is our understanding that the statements Mr Cheng made were in relation to former president Chen’s views on Taiwan’s situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope you realize that if the ministry proceeds along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

5. Your letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan’s judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT — including in the Legislative Yuan — are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best are stalled in the judicial process?

We may also refer to expressions of concern by Professor Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li [李念祖], who expressed his deep concerns about preventive detentions in the China Times’ editorial for Nov. 9. In the editorial, Mr Li praised remarks made by prosecutor Eric Chen [陳瑞仁], who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors’ offices should “avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group.”

The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by former president Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.

We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved — including former president Chen — can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

6. Lastly, a statement by the US State Department is interpreted in your letter as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. It should be noted that in international diplomatic language, the term “we have every expectation” means “we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.”

For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.

In conclusion, we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the Nov. 20 issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is “hungry for justice,” and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform that would move Taiwan toward a fully fair and impartial judicial system that earns the respect and admiration of democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

(in alphabetical order)

Nat Bellocchi, Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman

Coen Blaauw, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington

Gordon G. Chang, Author, “The Coming Collapse of China”

Assoc. Prof. Stéphane Corcuff, University of Lyon

Prof. June Teufel Dreyer, University of Miami

Prof. Edward Friedman, University of Wisconsin

Dr. Mark Harrison, University of Tasmania

Prof. Bruce Jacobs, Monash University

Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus, Hamline University

Jerome Keating, Author and former associate professor, National Taipei University

Assoc. Prof. Daniel Lynch, University of Southern California

Prof. Victor H. Mair, University of Pennsylvania

Assoc. Prof. Donald Rodgers, Austin College, Texas

Prof. Terence Russell, University of Manitoba

Prof. Scott Simon, University of Ottawa

Michael Stainton, York Center for Asia Research, Toronto

Prof. Peter Tague, Georgetown University

John J. Tkacik Jr, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Prof. Arthur Waldron, University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, University of Richmond

Gerrit van der Wees, Editor, “Taiwan Communiqué”

Assoc. Prof. David Curtis Wright, University of Calgary

Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for national security affairs

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.

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

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

Paraguay to reverse support for Taiwan at UN

By PEDRO SERVIN — 10 hours ago

ASUNCION, Paraguay (AP) — Paraguay will reverse its historic support for Taiwan at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly, and also is reconsidering its relations with communist regimes.

President Fernando Lugo said his government wants to maintain diplomatic relations with all countries of similar interests.

"Paraguay's foreign policy will be independent under my government and will not accept conditions," Lugo said in a local television interview Sunday.

Paraguay, the last South American country to recognize Taiwan, has supported the island since 1957, voting every year in support of resolutions to admit Taiwan to the assembly. Nations that recognize Taiwan don't have diplomatic relations with communist China, which considers the island a renegade province.

But Lugo's election last April ended 61 years of one-party, conservative rule under which Paraguay distanced itself from communist countries. The leftist president, who was inaugurated Aug. 15, said he wants to establish relations with China, which has boosted its diplomatic and trade ties with Latin America in recent years.

Lugo also said he is considering an invitation to visit Cuba from former President Fidel Castro.

But Lugo says he is not following in the footsteps of another South American leftist leader, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has established close ties with China and Cuba.

"I will not be influenced in any way by President Hugo Chavez," Lugo told Channel 2 television in Asuncion. "My government will not copy any foreign political model. We have our own reality different from that of other nations."

In return for Paraguay's 51 years of support, Taiwan has sent millions of dollars to the impoverished country for low-income housing, agricultural development and scholarships. Even now, Paraguay's senate is considering accepting a new donation from Taiwan of $71 million.

"We will no longer vote (at the U.N.) for Taiwan despite the fact that we recognize the aid the country has provided," Lugo said.

It wasn't clear what impact the new president's position will have on Taiwan's latest offer of help.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Ma Ying-"dove" Moves Taiwan Towards Unilateral Disarmament

The stories below published this weekend show that the new President of Taiwan, Ma Ying-"dove", as I have dubbed him, of the KMT Party is apparently trying to one-up (or is it one-down) former US President Jimmy Carter in the "dove" and National Security categories. Ma "dove" sees China through rose/blue/red colored glasses, seemingly unconcerned about defending Taiwan against an attack from the mainland, which of course will never happen if he gives away Taiwan's sovereignty to the Communist Chinese. In Western parlance his move would be considered traitorous warranting impeachment. Is it any wonder that the Taiwanese have taken to the streets, many calling for Ma's resignation.


Taiwan military maintains vigilance against China
The Associated Press
Published: August 29, 2008

HSINCHU, Taiwan: Seven Mirage fighter jets roared down the runway at a sun-dappled Taiwanese air force base Friday, a stark reminder that even as the island improves its ties with rival China, it maintains readiness for a military showdown with its old foe.

The exercise was part of a two-day show of force by the Taiwan military that also included the deployment of a Lafayette frigate off the southern Taiwanese coast and a drill by combat engineers on the northern part of the island.

Since taking office almost 100 days ago, President Ma Ying-jeou has turned the corner on his predecessor's aggressive anti-China stance, beginning regular direct flights across the 100-mile (160 kilometer) -wide Taiwan Strait and opening Taiwan's doors to significantly increased numbers of mainland tourists.

Ma also has vowed to seek a formal peace treaty peace with Beijing — the two sides split amid civil war in 1949 — and work toward reconciling his desire to conduct independent foreign relations for the island of 23 million people with China's insistence that Taiwan remain an integral part of its territory....Read full story...

Taiwan to cut military spending amid warming China ties: report

TAIPEI (AFP) — Taiwan plans to scale back its military spending in 2009 amid warming ties with rival China, it was reported Saturday.

Military spending will be 315.2 billion Taiwan dollars (10 billion US), a decline of 10.4 billion Taiwan dollars on this year, the United Daily News said, citing a draft budget pending parliament's approval.

It will account for 17.2 percent of next year's government budget, the report said, but the move has drawn criticism from opposition lawmakers....Read full story...

Report: Taiwan drops plan to develop missile that can hit China

Asia-Pacific News

Aug 31, 2008, 21:48 GMT

Taipei - Taiwan has dropped plans to develop cruise missiles that can reach China, seen as the country's ongoing efforts to seek peace with China, a newspaper reported Monday.

The United Daily News quoted an unnamed military official as saying that Taipei has dropped plans to develop cruise missiles that have a range of 1,000 kilometres.

Since Ma Ying-jeou from the China-friendly Chinese Nationalist Party took office on May 20, he has been promoting greater exchanges with China to ease cross-Strait tension...Read full story...

For first time, US officials admit that a key document used to claim that Taiwan is a part of China had no legal basis

Key document on Taiwan is non-binding, says FAPA

By Max Hirsch
Staff Reporter
Sunday, June 17, 2007
TAIPEI TIMES

A key document used by Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to justify their claims that Taiwan is a part of China never had any legal binding power, the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) said, citing a letter from a senior official at the US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Founded in 1982 by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chai Trong-rong, FAPA is a Washington-based interest group that seeks to build up support in the US for Taiwan independence.

The association said in a statement last week that the 1943 Cairo Declaration, signed by US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Republic of China (ROC) dictator Chiang Kai-shek at the end of WWII, is merely a "communique" and thus non-binding, according to NARA.

Among other provisions, the communique states that Japan shall "return Formosa," or Taiwan, to "the Chinese."

"The document is merely a moment in time," FAPA president CT Lee said in the statement. "[It's] a declaration of intention regarding world affairs among three leaders."

"Although important at the time," Lee added, "it does not have any legal binding power almost 65 years later enabling either the KMT or [China] to derive territorial claims from."

In response to a FAPA letter of inquiry as to the declaration's status, NARA Assistant Archivist for Records Services, Michael Kurtz, wrote in a letter dated June 5 that "the declaration [is] a communique, and does not have treaty series or executive agreement series numbers."

According to FAPA, the document's archival status as a "communique" and neither an official agreement nor a treaty, negates any legal claims based on the declaration by China or the KMT that Taiwan is a part of China.

"This marks the first time the US government has officially gone on record to elaborate the lack of legal binding power of the Cairo Declaration, and thus voids the basis of both the KMT's and Beijing's mythic 'One China Principle' claims," the association said in the statement.

Despite its status in the US National Archives as a communique, however, the declaration is included in a US State Department publication titled, "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America," Kurtz wrote, without explaining the apparent contradiction.

The KMT has long cited the declaration as the legal basis for ROC's claim on Taiwan; Beijing has also referred to it to augment its claim that Taiwan is a part of China, the statement said.