Tsai Ing-wen Plays the "Taiwanese Identity" Card

Posted by Bevin Chu on July 14, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen Plays the “Taiwanese Identity” Card
YouTube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-nnaHgVy8A&feature=channel_video_title

Caption:
Taiwan, where are you?
Taiwan, what do you want?
Taiwan, where are you going?
What’s next?
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!

Soundtrack:
Cue cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole’s rendition of “Over the Rainbow”

Tsai Ing-wen (v.o.)
一九八零年代 / During the 1980s
我是在倫敦經濟學院 / I was at the London School of Economics
我的老師 / My teacher
不斷的啟發我們 / endlessly inspired us
社會中有中一條理性的道路 / Society has a rational path
有一個扛起責任的政府 / a government that bears responsibility
打造一個均富永續的國家 / that forges an equitable and enduring nation
台灣要走向世界 / Taiwan must walk toward the world
我是台灣人 / I am Taiwanese
我是蔡英文 / I am Tsai Ing-wen

Caption:
TAIWAN NEXT 現在決定未來! / Now determines the future!

Tsai Ing-wen Plays the “Taiwanese Indentity” Card
by Bevin Chu
Taipei, China
July 14, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen, DPP candidate for Republic of China President in 2012, has played the “Taiwanese Identity” card.

Watch this slickly made campaign commercial, commissioned by Tsai Ing-wen’s campaign committee. But don’t be fooled. The impeccably professional production values, replete with a cover of Iz Kamakawiwoʻole’s rendition of “Over the Rainbow,” mask deeply repugnant psychological attitudes.

Tsai’s concluding remarks in the commercial are: “I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen.”

Tsai’s opponent is incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou (KMT), who was born in Hong Kong.

Many native English speakers unfamiliar with politics on Taiwan, especially those living in the US, may not fully appreciate what Tsai is getting at. They may have difficulty discerning her subtext. They may find it hard to read between the lines.

To better understand what Tsai Ing-wen is really saying, imagine the same commercial in the US, run by white supremacist David Duke, running against a Barack Obama type “outsider,” someone cast as “not one of us.” Imagine Duke concluding with: “I am American, I am David Duke.”

No one would have the slightest difficulty understanding what Duke was getting at. Everyone would know Duke was implying that his opponent was “not an American, not a white American.”

And so it is with Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement. They remain motivated, today in 2011, as they have been for the past four decades, by atavistic identity politics and petty ethnic hatred.

The more rabidly fundamentalist supporters of Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement are unguarded in their speech. They scream about how “Taiwanese bulls” will exterminate “Chinese pigs,” at the top of their lungs.

Tsai however, gives their barnyard bigotry a kinder, gentler face, the way genteel white supremacists such as Peter Brimelow give white racism a kinder, gentler face.

The sad fact is, DPP leaders and the Taiwan independence movement are motivated at their psychological and emotional core, not by any longing for “democracy, freedom, and human rights,” but by their compulsion to craft a “Taiwanese ethnic and national identity.”

The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is not practical. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is moral. The central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement is its self-hating “We’re Taiwanese, not Chinese” identity politics.

As Sisy Chen, former DPP Public Relations Director noted, “The DPP is the KKK of Taiwan.” As Cheng Li-wen, former DPP National Assembly Member noted, “I never wanted to believe that the DPP was racist, but it is.”

Make no mistake. The KMT was indeed at one time guilty of gross abuses. These abuses were committed by a government against its own citizens.

They were typical of abuses committed by countless governments against their own citizens. They must be harshly condemned, and have been harshly condemned, even by KMT leaders.

Tsai, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement, however, knowingly and deliberately misrepresent these abuses. They misrepresent them as abuses committed by “one tribe against another, different tribe.” As abuses committed by “one people against another, different people.” As abuses committed by “mainlanders against natives.” And ultimately, as abuses committed by “Chinese against Taiwanese.”

Why do they engage in this flagrant misrepresentation of the facts?

Because they need a rationale for their ethnic identity based project of nation building, for the creation of a Hoklo Chauvinist themed “Republic of Taiwan,” and have no qualms about lying to achieve that goal.

In 2004 for example, a delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to DPP elder Shen Fu-hsiung. Shen was under pressure to spill the beans, and testify that First Lady Wu Shu-cheng had accepted huge cash bribes from a prominent businessman.

What textual truth did these devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence.”

Tsai Ing-wen has marketed herself as a reformer whose mission it is to upgrade the DPP. Sad to say, she has done no such thing. Instead, the DPP has downgraded Tsai Ing-wen, bringing her down to its level.

Assuming of course that Tsai Ing-wen was not already at their level from the beginning.

The following is a recent UDN News editorial on Tsai Ing-wen’s “I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen” campaign commercial.

Decoding Tsai Ing-wen’s “I am Taiwanese.”
United Daily News editorial
Taipei, China
Translated by Bevin Chu
July 21, 2011

“I am Taiwanese, I am Tsai Ing-wen,” This declaration means that “Ma Ying-jeou is not Taiwanese.” It means also that “They are not Taiwanese.” That is, those who support Ma are “not Taiwanese.” Tsai’s declaration does not just divide Ma from Tsai. It divides society as well.

Just exactly what is Ma Ying-jeou? According to Green Camp political logic, Ma Ying-jeou is a “mainlander.” By implication, Ma Ying-jeou is “Chinese.” By further implication, he is a “Chi-Com fellow traveler.” Context reveals meaning. Ma Ying-jeou, by implication, is “not Taiwanese.” In fact, Tsai’s declaration is merely a sanitized version of “Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China.” According to Green Camp logic, Ma Ying-jeou stands for a “foreign regime,” for “eventual reunification,” and for “pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan.” Therefore Ma Ying-jeou is “not Taiwanese,” By implication he is “Chinese,” just like “those people” on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Therefore Green Camp political rhetoric often equates the China Nationalist Party with the Chinese Communist Party. Lashing out at the Kuomintang means lashing out at the Chinese Communists. Sometimes it even equates the Republic of China with the Peoples Republic of China. Opposition to the ROC is hence equated with opposition to the PRC.

The Republic of China government has scant wherewithal currently to represent China as a whole. This is primarily the fault of Beijing. Few people on Taiwan identify themselves as “Chinese.” This too is primarily the fault of Beijing. Therefore when Taiwan independence advocates incite “ethnic struggles,” they spin them as showdowns between “Taiwanese” on the one side, and “Chinese” on the other. On Taiwan, being labeled “Chinese” is now the equivalent of being a “Chinese” person from the other side of the Taiwan Strait. The term “Taiwanese” is no longer merely an antonym for “Mainlander.” That merely invokes the issue of “ethnicity,” or more accurately, provincial origin. Today the term “Taiwanese” has been transformed into an antonym for “Chinese.” That invokes the issue of “national identity.” According to the self-styled “Taiwanese” in today’s Democratic Progressive Party, the Republic of China is a “foreign regime.” Ma Ying-jeou is a “Territorial Governor,” and supporters of the Republic of China are “Chinese.” By implication, opposition to Taiwan independence is opposition to Taiwan. Opposition to Taiwan independence is “lack of love for Taiwan.” Opposition to Taiwan independence is proof positive that one is “not Taiwanese.” This is the clear and unambiguous subtext behind Tsai Ing-wen’s declaration, “I am Taiwanese,”

But champions of this rhetorical framework must prove that Taiwan independence is the only way to save Taiwan, and the only way to demonstrate one’s love for Taiwan. Unfortunately for them, Taiwan independence is a movement whose time has come and gone. Since martial law was lifted, Taiwan has been subjected to over 20 years of internal and external shocks. These shocks swept Taiwan independence into the dustbin of history. With their ringing declarations that “I am Taiwanese,” Tsai Ing-wen and DPP officials are encouraging Taiwan independence supporters to cling to their delusions. They are inciting social divisions. In fact, Tsai and the DPP no longer have the chutzpah to openly champion Taiwan independence. Otherwise, Tsai Ing-wen would have come right out and declared, “I am a champion of Taiwan independence. I am Tsai Ing-wen!”

This is the pathetic reality behind this political farce. Chinese from the other side of the Taiwan Strait have become “Mainland tourists.” They have become Taiwan’s “sixth ethnic group,” second only to foreign spouses. Tsai Ing-wen was encouraging delusions of Taiwan independence. Why else would she revive the long dead Taiwan independence mantra, “I am Taiwanese?” Since she insists on reviving the “I am Taiwanese” mantra, why not use the more common phrase, “My Nation of Taiwan compatriots?” Why not come right out and champion Taiwan independence?

This has long been the plight of the Democratic Progressive Party. It flirts with Taiwan independence, but does not dare openly champion Taiwan independence. Unfortunately, Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped within this dilemma of self-delusion. Tsai Ing-wen opposes the 1992 consensus. She opposes ECFA. She opposes “politically motivated procurements.” All her positions are based on Taiwan independence political and economic logic. But when all is said and done, she cannot publicly champion Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped. She can flirt with Taiwan independence, but she cannot openly promote Taiwan independence. In which case, what are we to make of her “Taiwan Next” gimmick?

Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen became Democratic Progressive Party Chairman. She clearly hoped to shrug off this albatrosss around her neck. In March 2009, she issued a manifesto entitled, “Defend Taiwan with a New Concept of Nativism.” She said “Some people have unintentionally [sic] defined Nativism far too narrowly. They have invested it with a specific meaning. Their narrow definition of Nativism is at odds with our need to unite for our collective survival.” What does Tsai Ing-wen plan to do with her “I am Taiwanese” TV spot, which intentionally defines Nativism ar too narrowly.

DPP officials can no longer talk through their hats. They can no longer treat the term “Taiwanese” as their private property. Taiwan independence advocates can not longer treat the term “Taiwanese” as their private property, And finally, Tsai Ing-wen has no right to treat the term “Taiwanese” as her private property. Taiwan independence is an ideology that can only create chaos on Taiwan. It cannot save Taiwan. Therefore, it is not a means by which one can demonstrate “love for Taiwan.” Taiwan independence advocates must cease using the terms “Republic of China” and “Nation of Taiwan” to divide the nation, They must cease using the declaration that “I am Taiwanese (whereas you are not)” to divide Taiwan.

Some people may persist in using such terms as “love for Taiwan” and “Save Taiwan” to define who is “Taiwanese.” Perhaps we should compare Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Which of the two has demonstrated greater allegiance to the nation’s Constitution? Which of the two has crafted a cross-Strait policy that has benefitted the public on Taiwan? Which of the two deserves the honorific “Taiwanese” more? Perhaps we should let the public decide.

Tsai Ing-wen did not say “I am a champion of Taiwan independence, I am Tsai Ing-wen.” She was afraid even to whisper it. Why do DPP officials insist on flirting with Taiwan independence, when they are afraid to champion it?

解讀蔡英文的「我是台灣人」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.07.21 02:32 am

「我是台灣人，我是蔡英文」這句話不但意謂「馬英九不是台灣人」，而且意謂「他們不是台灣人」；亦即，支持馬就不是「台灣人」。一手區隔馬蔡，一手撕裂社會。

那麼，馬英九是什麼人呢？依綠營的政治邏輯，由馬英九是外省人，進一步將馬英九推向他是中國人，再進一步更將他推往根本就是中共的同路人。從語境的營造言，將馬英九隱指為不是台灣人，其實只是「中國豬滾回去」的化妝版；在這樣的邏輯下，馬英九是「外來政權」、「終極統一」、「傾中賣台」，所以馬英九不是台灣人，進而將他打成與對岸一樣的「中國人」。因而，在綠營的某些政治操作中，中國國民黨與中國共產黨可以相互代換，所以打國民黨就等於打中共；甚至中華民國與中華人民共和國也可相互代換，所以反中華民國就等於反中華人民共和國。

由於中華民國的「中國代表性」已經幾乎不存在（這主要是北京造成的），所以「中國人」在台灣的身分認同也站不住腳（這也主要是北京造成的）；因而，當台獨將台灣的族群鬥爭建構在「台灣人／中國人」的對立之上，在台灣若被指為「中國人」，就成了與對岸一樣的「中國人」。而「台灣人」亦不再只是與「外省人」對稱（這只是族群議題），而是與「中國人」對稱（這就升高為國家認同問題）。所以，在民進黨今日的語境中，所謂的「台灣人」，就是將中華民國視為「外來政權」，將馬英九視為「區長」，將中華民國的支持者視為「中國人」；因此，反台獨就是反台灣，反台獨就是不愛台灣，反台獨就不是台灣人……，這些，皆是蔡英文那句「我是台灣人」的潛台詞。

然而，此一論述若要成立，須先確立「台獨是救台灣與愛台灣的方案」；但經歷解嚴後二十餘年來的內外衝擊激盪，台獨已成歷史泡沫。民進黨及蔡英文現在只是想用「我是台灣人」來煽動台獨的幻覺，與撕裂社會，但已再無能力明目張膽地鼓動台獨；否則，蔡英文就應當直截了當地說：「我是台獨，我是蔡英文！」

這正是這齣政治鬧劇的可悲可痛處。在對岸中國人的「陸客」漸將成為台灣「第六大族群」的今日（次於外配），如果蔡英文不是在操作台獨的幻覺，何必回頭玩弄「我是台灣人」的台獨老梗？而既然要回頭玩弄「我是台灣人」的老梗，更何不乾脆使用民進黨常聞的開場白「咱台灣國的鄉親父老」，而旗幟鮮明地主張台獨？

這是民進黨的一貫困境，玩弄台獨，卻又不敢明白主張台獨；不幸的是，蔡英文今日仍陷此種自欺欺人的困境之中。蔡英文反對九二共識、反對ＥＣＦＡ、反對「政治性採購」，皆是建立在台獨的政經邏輯之上，但她畢竟絕無可能公開聲言主張台獨。所以，蔡英文仍未走出「玩弄台獨，不敢台獨」的宿命，既如此，她所謂的Taiwan Next怎堪設想？

蔡英文三年前剛接民進黨主席時，很明顯地曾想奮力擺脫此一噩運。她在二○○九年三月發表〈以新本土觀捍衛台灣〉專文指出：「有些人無意的（我相信是無意的）把『本土』窄化成一種排他性的觀念；這種窄化的本土詮釋……跟我們團結成生命共同體的需要是矛盾的。」現在，蔡英文要如何面對這支「我是台灣人」的廣告，竟然是如此「有意地」玩弄此種窄化又排他的觀念。

民進黨不可再自說自話地將「台灣人」據為私用，台獨亦無可能將「台灣人」據為私用，蔡英文更何德何能將「台灣人」據為私用。台獨已是「只能亂台、不能救台」的方案，因此亦絕非「愛台灣」的方案；所以，不要再用「中華民國／台灣國」來分裂國家，也不要再用「我是台灣人／你不是台灣人」來撕裂台灣。

如果真要用「愛台灣」「救台灣」來區別誰才是「台灣人」的話，其實，若以馬英九的國憲認同及兩岸政策，與蔡英文的相比較，何者更配稱作「台灣人」，誠可付諸公評。

蔡英文未說出「我是台獨，我是蔡英文」的潛台詞，連偷偷小聲說出也沒有。民進黨，何必還要搬弄「鬧台獨，卻不敢台獨」？

When China Rules the World

Posted by Bevin Chu on January 26, 2010

Martin Jacques, writer and columnist
http://martinjacques.com/synopsis.html

When China Rules the World:
the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World
January 26, 2010

The China Desk Comments: Is Martin Jacques correct? Where is he coming from? Is he a Sinophile, trumpeting Imperium Americanus’ imminent eclipse by a rising China? Or is he a Sinophobe, sounding the alarm about a dangerous “China Threat?” The China Desk has many questions. Therefore it is neither endorsing nor condemning Jacques’ thesis, but merely presenting it to you for your consideration.

Biography:

Martin Jacques is the author of When China Rules the World: the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World.

He is a visiting senior fellow at the London School of Economics, IDEAS, a centre for the study of international affairs, diplomacy and grand strategy, and a visiting research fellow at the LSE’s Asia Research Centre. He is a columnist for the Guardian and the New Statesman.

His interest in East Asia began in 1993 with a holiday in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. After that, he found every reason or excuse he could find to spend time in the region, be it personal, for newspaper articles or television programmes.

Synopsis:

For over two hundred years we have lived in a western-made world, one where the very notion of being modern was synonymous with being western. The book argues that the twenty-first century will be different: with the rise of increasingly powerful non-Western countries, the west will no longer be dominant and there will be many ways of being modern. In this new era of ‘contested modernity’ the central player will be China.

Martin Jacques argues that far from becoming a western-style society, China will remain highly distinctive. It is already having a far-reaching and much-discussed economic impact, but its political and cultural influence, which has hitherto been greatly neglected, will be at least as significant. Continental in size and mentality, and accounting for one fifth of humanity, China is not even a conventional nation-state but a ‘civilization-state’ whose imperatives, priorities and values are quite different. As it rapidly reassumes its traditional place at the centre of East Asia, the old tributary system will resurface in a modern form, contemporary ideas of racial hierarchy will be redrawn and China’s ages-old sense of superiority will reassert itself. China’s rise signals the end of the global dominance of the west and the emergence of a world which it will come to shape in a host of different ways and which will become increasingly disconcerting and unfamiliar to those who live in the west.

What they say about When China Rules the World

This important book, deeply considered, full of historical understanding and realism, is about more than China. It is about a twenty-first-century world no longer modelled on and shaped by North Atlantic power, ideas and assumptions. I suspect it will be highly influential.’
Eric Hobsbawm

‘Mr Jacques is right to argue that democracy, as patented by the west, is a product of European history, not a natural phenomenon.
David Pilling, Financial Times

Why China is what it is and what its destination will be are two eternal questions. I agree with Martin Jacques that culture is the key for understanding China. This is, without doubt, one of the best and most serious studies of China I have ever read – a fascinating book.’
Yu Yongding, former Member of the Monetary Policy Committee, People’s Bank of China.

Jacques’s book will provoke argument and is a tour de force across a host of disciplines… Jacques’s arguments deserve to be heard; they are part of a debate the Western world should be having but for whatever reason – academic orthodoxy, political correctness or fear – has left for another time. By then, if Jacques is right, it will be too late.
Mary Dejevsky, Independent

The Narcissism of Small Differences

Posted by Bevin Chu on November 1, 2009

The Narcissism of Small Differences
by Bevin Chu
November 1, 2009

Taiwan Independence Movement Banner reading: “Taiwan on one side, China on the other”

Champion of a “Taiwanese, not Chinese” ethnic and national identity desperate not to be mistaken for a “Chinaman.”

The China Desk: I recently stumbled across the following item of black humor about “The Narcissism of Small Differences.” Founder of Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud once noted that people often feel greater hostility towards those slightly different from them, than those dramatically different from them.

Freud considered this an example of narcissism, because the emotional distress that individuals afflicted with the Narcissism of Small Differences is the result of looking into a mirror but seeing an intolerable blemish on one’s own face.

Hence the incomprehensible and irrational hostility self-styled champions of a “Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and political identity” feel towards “Chinese” (i.e., fellow Chinese on either Taiwan or the Chinese mainland).

Champions of a “Taiwanese, not Chinese ethnic and political identity” are deathly afraid of being “mistaken for Chinese.” God forbid anyone should lump intrinsically superior “Taiwanese” together with superficially similar, but congenitally inferior “Chinese.”

The narcissism of small differences most often applies to politics, but one of the best jokes on the subject pertains to religion.

The Narcissism of Small Differences

I was walking across a bridge one sunny day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over to him and said: ‘Stop. Don’t do it.’

‘Why not?’ he asked.

‘Well, there’s so much to live for!’

‘Like what?’

‘Are you religious?’

He said: ‘Yes.’

I said. ‘Me too. Are you Christian or Muslim?’

‘Christian.’

‘Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

‘Protestant.’

‘Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?’

‘Baptist.’

‘Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?’

‘Baptist Church of God.’

‘Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?’

‘Reformed Baptist Church of God.’

‘Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?’

He said: ‘Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915.’

I said: “Die, you heretic scum!” and pushed him over the railing.

Is Taiwan’s Status Undetermined?

Posted by Bevin Chu on October 11, 2009

Is Taiwan’s Status Undetermined?
by Bevin Chu
October 11, 2009

Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Soong Mei-ling at the Cairo Conference

On September 11, former Republic of China President Chen Shui-Bian was convicted on four counts of corruption, and given a life sentence.

Chen is now demanding that the U.S. Court of Appeals order his release, arguing that the United States still has authority over the island of Taiwan.

Chen says that under the terms of a 1951 peace treaty with Japan, the United States remains the “principal occupying power” of Taiwan, and that as president of the Republic of China, it was his duty to accept orders from U.S. military officials.

Chen says that because of his unique relationship with the United States Military Government for Taiwan, he enjoys immunity from prosecution by the very government for which he was president for eight years.

Chen, in short, has invoked the “Taiwan’s Undetermined Status Theory.”

Does Chen’s argument have any merit?

None whatsoever.

Taiwan is China’s sovereign territory. Taiwan is one of China’s thirty odd provinces and autonomous regions. Taiwan has belonged to China since the Ming dynasty, longer than the United States of America has been in existence. The island of Taiwan was once part of Fujian Province. In the late Qing dynasty Taiwan was upgraded to the status of a province.

Japan extorted Taiwan at gunpoint from China on April 17, 1895, but was forced to return it to China on October 25, 1945, following Japan’s defeat during WWII. October 25 is celebrated annually on Taiwan as Taiwan Retrocession Day.

Japan formally returned Taiwan to China in two official Taiwan Retrocession signing ceremonies, one in Nanking, the other in Taipei.

Japan knew who Taiwan belonged to when Japan annexed it, and Japan knew whom to return it to 50 years later.

The so-called “Taiwan’s Undetermined Status Theory” is sheer sophistry, and amounts to a brazen attempt to annex another nation’s sovereign territory.

In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the United States, Great Britain and China jointly agreed that:

“All the territories that Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”

On July 26, 1945, the three governments followed this up with the Potsdam Proclamation, which affirmed that:

“The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.”

Those who allege that “Taiwan’s status is undetermined” ritually invoke the Treaty of San Francisco of September 8, 1951. But this treaty is not binding on China, because neither the Republic of China government in Taipei or the Peoples Republic of China government in Beijing signed it.

What is binding, is the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, which was signed by Yeh Kung-chao, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of China, and Isao Kawada, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Plenipotentiary of Japan, in Taipei, on April 28, 1952.

Treaty of Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan

Article 4 of this treaty clearly and unambiguously states that:

“It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.”

In other words, the Makuan Treaty of 1895 (aka Treaty of Shimonoseki) has been rolled back, and Taiwan, including Diaoyutai, as well as Penghu, revert to China.

As Ching Cheong, writing in Singapore’s Straits Times, correctly notes,

Prior to the Korean War, the US accepted Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. But the fighting that broke out in the Korean peninsula in June 1950 changed the US attitude. Seeing Taiwan’s value as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’, a famous characterisation by General Douglas MacArthur, the US began to say that ‘the status of Taiwan was undetermined’. To give legal basis to this claim, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan merely committed the latter to surrendering Taiwan but did not specify to whom the island was to be returned. This amounted to a repudiation of US treaty obligations as spelt out in the Cairo and Potsdam instruments.

It is unconvincing to say that when a Chinese territorial issue was at stake, the Cairo and Potsdam declarations, to which the ROC was a signatory, should carry less weight than the San Francisco Peace Treaty to which China was not.

Simply put, Japan annexed Taiwan by defeating China, which regained the island by defeating Japan half a century later. This historical fact is so crystal clear that in pre-1945 days, no one in the international community had ever raised doubt about it.

The 1972 Shanghai Communique codified this US position.

“Principle One: There is one China, and Taiwan is part of China. There will be no more statements made to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined.”

Taiwan’s status is not “undetermined.” Taiwan belongs to China.

Russians Not Forced to Detour during 9/21 Earthquake

Posted by Bevin Chu on September 18, 2009

Russian Search and Rescue Team on a Mission in 2008

China Desk: During the 9/21 Earthquake of 1999, Taiwan independence propagandists disseminated a Big Lie. They alleged that Russian rescue workers were forced to detour around mainland Chinese airspace, delaying their arrival on Taiwan, possibly costing human lives. This allegation was a flagrant lie.

Below is a letter from Julian Clegg to the Taipei Times refuting this urban legend, which stubbornly persists even though it was discredited a decade ago.

The Moscow correspondent for the China Times who refuted this urban legend, was Arkady Borisov. His name in Chinese is 包理述 (Bao Lishu).

The Chief Coordinator of the Russian Emergency Assistance Team (Emercom) when the 9/21 Earthquake struck, was Vladimir Boreiko. His name is also Latinised as Boreyko and is given in the China Times article as 博雷科 (Boleike).

Media Myth Lives On:
Russians Not Forced to Detour during 9/21 Earthquake
by Julian Clegg, Taipei
September 18, 2009

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/09/18/2003453864

Monday marks the 10th anniversary of the 921 Earthquake of 1999. Members of rescue teams who came to Taiwan’s aid after the quake have been invited to attend a series of commemorative events this week.

On Sept. 25, 1999, four days after the earthquake, the Taipei Times ran an article entitled “Taipei accuses China of exploiting quake.” The newspaper followed the government and Chinese-language media in reporting “a Russian earthquake relief mission en route to Taiwan was forced to make a lengthy detour over Siberia because [mainland] China refused to allow the Russian plane carrying the team to pass through its airspace.”

On April 1 this year, the Taipei Times reported that “a group of Russian search and rescue workers that helped local teams during the 921 Earthquake in 1999 will come to Taiwan this September to take part in an event commemorating the 10th anniversary of the quake … At the time, Russia dispatched a group of 83 professional search-and-rescue personnel to help in the search for survivors. Because of [mainland] China’s refusal to allow Russian planes to fly through its airspace, the help was delayed for 12 hours.”

I must point out that this accusation, though widely believed by people in Taiwan, is untrue.

When the accusation first appeared in the media, I felt doubtful for three reasons. First, different media disagreed widely about the length of the delay. Second, according to my understanding of relations between Russia, [mainland] China and Taiwan, I thought it unlikely that [mainland] China would refuse such a request. Third, the source of the report was said to be a Russian-language newspaper Segodnya (Today). I found this odd because it is very rare for Taiwanese media to report stories from the Russian media, especially when the original article is in Russian.

Out of curiosity, I visited the Russian trade office on Xinyi Road to ask whether the reports were true. The Russian trade representative and other staff said they had not heard of it.

The Russian representative said: “Not everything you read in the newspapers is always true.”

He explained that he had played a key role in facilitating the rescue mission. He assured me that the Russian team had never requested to fly through [mainland] Chinese air space, since the quickest and most efficient way for them to come here was to follow their established domestic route from Moscow to the Russian Far East, and from there across the sea to Taiwan.

He said the route from Russia to Taiwan was registered with international aviation authorities, although it was not in commercial use. It had only been used once before, for a private flight to Taiwan by Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who visited Taiwan from Oct. 18 to Oct. 22, 1998.)

The trade representative said [mainland] China could not have refused permission for the Russian plane to fly over [mainland] China, because the Russians never made any such request.

Following those reports in 1999, however, Taiwanese politicians, including then foreign minister Jason Hu (胡志強) and then Taoyuan County commissioner Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), publicly condemned [mainland] China for its supposed callousness in delaying the Russian rescue mission,.

The incident was cited as a pretext for refusing material aid, such as tents, prefabricated houses and so on, from [mainland] China, and turning down Beijing’s offer to send a medical team, although a cash donation from [mainland] China was accepted. Incidentally, Taiwan also refused aid offered by the Philippines.

After leaving the Russian trade office, I told what I had heard to Time magazine’s Taiwan correspondent Donald Shapiro, and called in to Li Ao’s (李敖) television call-in program and another call-in program on radio.

On Oct. 1, 1999, Taiwan’s representative office in Moscow invited members of the rescue team, who had just returned to Russia, to dinner.

Arkady Borisov, Moscow correspondent of the China Times, asked the rescue team whether it was true that they had been refused passage through [mainland] Chinese airspace. Team leader Vladimir Boreiko replied that it was not true, and proceeded to give the same account that the Russian representative in Taipei gave to me. This report appeared in the China Times on Oct. 3, 1999, and is still available online.

These are the facts of the matter as far as I know. Anyone who is still in doubt will have a chance to ask the Russian rescue team members during their visit to Taiwan this week.

JULIAN CLEGG
Taipei

China Desk: below is the China Times article mentioned in Julian Clegg’s letter. This China Times article, submitted by Russian reporter Arkady Borisov, refuted this Taiwan independence Big Lie back in 1999, less than two weeks after the quake struck.

俄救難隊：救人第一是我們唯一信念
中時電子報
1999.10.03

http://forums.chinatimes.com.tw/report/921_quake/88100334.htm

【本報駐莫斯科特派記者包理述特稿】台灣九二一大地震發生之後，俄國緊急事務部自然災難預測中心立即向部長紹伊古提交報告，估計死亡人數為二萬人。經總理普丁的許可，紹伊古下令派遣救難專機到台灣。對俄國來說，此次迅速主動反應，是空前的對台灣友好行動。俄羅斯各界人士也紛紛致電致函給北莫協辦事處表示慰問，俄國媒體也非常關注，大幅報導台灣災情。這次「九二一震災」在一定的程度上顯示，俄國政府及民間對台灣的態度比以前不一樣了，兩國實質關係已有所提升。

十月一日北莫協莫斯科辦事處特別宴請剛從台灣返國的俄羅斯救難隊員，以對救災勇士表示敬佩與感謝之意。救難隊員宴中對新聞界也透露了一些有意思的細節，及對台灣地震的觀感。

針對有報導說「中共不允許俄羅斯救援團飛越中共領空，延誤了救援團體來台進行救難工作的時效」，俄國救難隊副隊長博雷科說，這是報導無中生有。根據規定，俄國救難隊收到通知之後，卅分鐘內應該出發赴災區。當時，俄國專機根本也不打算利用中國大陸的「空中走廊」，一開始要飛莫斯科－新西伯利亞－海參崴－日本領空－台灣的航線；救難隊是因等台灣方面同意等了好久，因此才耽誤了時間。不過，這是完全正常的，因為災情存在一定程度的不可預見性，政府需要時間來了解情況，然後才決定需不需要國際援助。上次俄國救難隊要赴土耳其救災，也差不多等了這麼多時間。

赴台灣救難隊員剛參加過土耳其大地震和莫斯科公寓爆炸搶救工作，精神上已疲累不堪，從莫斯科出發飛了十八個小時，抵台一下飛機後，就不眠不休的投入救災。他們說：「我們唯一的信念就是救人第一。」但他們對這次台灣救災工作不是很滿意，因為沒有救出任何生還者。

俄國隊被分派到倒塌的東勢鎮地標「王朝大樓」是有如廢墟一般，專家認定大樓內沒有生命跡象，但考慮到「道德因素」及受難者家屬的情緒，仍夜以繼日的繼續進行搜救。

一些救難隊員對台灣建築的堅固印象深刻，增加搜救的困難度。他們說，一開始在王朝大樓發現了二名罹難者屍體壓在亂石堆中，但是經過二十小時才能夠排除障礙物，順利挖出。

這些俄羅斯救難隊員都說：「台灣人都以非常溫暖的情緒對待我們」，對此印象極佳。博雷科先生特別向多日陪同他們的外交部工作人員蔣嘉一、徐瑞文等表示感謝。為了幫忙翻譯，他們經常隨同搜救人員進入傾倒的大樓內，俄文翻譯徐小姐每天只睡一個小時。

俄國救難隊隊長普拉特先生說，台灣官方已請求俄羅斯專家協助訓練中華搜救隊隊員，並已獲得緊急事務部長紹伊古的同意。

Him Mark Lai, Dean of Chinese American History

Posted by Bevin Chu on June 11, 2009

The China Desk: The following is a eulogy to Him Mark Lai, written by my good friend Ling-chi Wang, who considers Lai the “Dean of Chinese American History.”

I never knew Lai. My own political views are quite different from Lai’s. Lai was a socialist. I am a free market anarchist.

But I do share one thing with Lai and my friend Ling-chi. I share their sworn hostility toward racism and racial inequality.

Him Mark Lai helped set the record straight about the history of ugly bigotry against ethnic Chinese in America. And for that he deserves the highest recognition.

– Bevin Chu

Him Mark Lai, 1925-2009: the Dean of Chinese American History
by Dr. Ling-chi Wang,
Professor of Asian American Studies
UC Berkeley

Him Mark Lai, 1925-2009: the Dean of Chinese American History

Him Mark Lai, an internationally renowned archivist and historian of Chinese America and a highly respected leader of the community, died peacefully on Thursday, May 21, after a long struggle with cancer and other complications. For his immense contributions to Chinese American history, Prof. L. Ling-chi Wang of Asian American Studies at UC Berkeley called him “the Dean of Chinese American history.” He was 84 years old.

Him Mark Lai was born on November 1, 1925 in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Lai was the first in his family to begin life in America. His mother, Dong Hing Mui, was raised in Guangzhou while his father Maak Bing—from Chunghaa Village, Nam Hoi county—entered the United States under the paper name of Lai. But he passed his true ancestral roots to his five children by giving them each the middle name of Mark.

Since his childhood in Chinatown, he was an avid reader and collector of books in both Chinese and English. Like many Chinatown children before World War II, he started schooling at both Commodore Stockton Elementary School and Nam Kue Chinese School. From there, he went to Francisco Junior High School and Galileo High School. He excelled in both public and Chinese schools. During his final year at Galileo High, he also won a citywide essay contest for which he was honored at a student body rally.

Upon graduation from high school, he expressed his desire to go to college. However, his father urged him to go for a job in the city’s shipyards, pointing out that racism had prevented his own employer, a university graduate, from working in his profession. Him Mark refused and his irresistible desire was supported by his mother. Toward this end, he worked part time for 25 cents an hour at a sewing factory while attending first in the City College of San Francisco for two years. He completed his mechanical engineering degree at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1947.

Between work and study, Him Mark found time to join the San Francisco chapter of the Chinese League for Peace and Democracy, an organization opposed to American interference in China’s Civil War, 1945-1949. In late 1949, he started volunteering for the Chung Sai Yat Po, the first daily paper to support the new People’s Republic of China, and became also a member of organizations active in persuading students to return to China to serve the new government. He also joined the Chinese American Democratic Youth League, more familiarly known as Mun Ching, where he met Laura Jung, a young new immigrant, whom he eventually married in 1953. Laura became his life-time companion and steadfast supporter and collaborator in his work on Chinese American history until he died. Since he never learned how to drive, his countless research trips criss-crossing the U.S. could not have been accomplished without the ever-present love, care, and devotion of Laura.

With his hope of returning to China thwarted, he settled for a job in Bechtel Corporation as a mechanical engineer. The profession provided him both security and income and allowed him to pursue his real passion: the study of Chinese history and culture. During the McCarthy era in 1950s, introducing the Chinese community to the songs, music, folk dances, and vernacular dramas of the New China through Mun Ching—now renamed the Chinese American Youth Club—proved immensely satisfying despite the cost of constant FBI surveillance and intimidation. In the process, he also gained mastery of both spoken and written Chinese, skills turned out to be most useful for his later interest in doing research in Chinese American history.

When Mun Ching lost its clubroom in 1959 and was forced to close, Lai felt intellectually restless. The following year, he enrolled in a course, “The Oriental in North America,” a relatively new course taught by Stanford Lyman at the University of California Extension in San Francisco, which exposed him for the first time to the histories of the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos in America. He subsequently read a half dozen or so titles on Chinese in America published in the early 1960s and joined the Chinese Historical Society of America soon after its founding in 1963.

These events, together with contemporaneous changes in the status of minorities spurred by the Civil Rights movement, led Lai towards developing a Chinese American identity and history. In 1967, he accepted an invitation by the East/West, the Chinese American Weekly, a Chinese bilingual weekly published and edited by Gordon Lew, to write a series of articles on Chinese American history. This marked the beginning of his interest and devotion to reclaiming Chinese/American experience—a fortuitous confluence of his passion for history and his deep commitment to his bicultural heritage and democratic principles.

His most significant contributions to Chinese American history fall in three broad categories: research and publications; archival collections; and nurturing and mentoring of young Chinese American historians.

In all, he published and edited ten books and more than one hundred articles in English and Chinese on all aspects of Chinese American life. His East/West articles—revised and annotated—became the basis for the classic A History of the Chinese in California, A Syllabus, coedited with Thomas W. Chinn and Philip P. Choy, as well as for the first Chinese American history course in the United States, which Lai team taught with Choy at San Francisco State College in Fall 1969. Their joint teaching resulted in another classic Outlines: History of the Chinese in America. Lai’s first scholarly essay, “A Historical Survey of Organizations of the Left Among the Chinese in America,” published in the Fall 1972 issue of the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars—together with subsequent revisions—remains a standard reference. So do Island: Poetry and History of Chinese Immigrants on Angel Island 1910-1940, co-authored/translated with Genny Lim and Judy Yung; Lai’s “Chinese on the Continental U.S.” in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups; his From Overseas Chinese to Chinese American: a History of the Development of Chinese during the Twentieth Century (in Chinese) and articles in the Encyclopedia of Chinese Overseas and Huaquiao Huaren baike quanshu [Encyclopedia of Chinese and people of Chinese descent overseas]. Under his guidance and editorial leadership, no less then ? volumes of monographs, entitled, Chinese America: History & Perspectives, have been published. Each monograph contained original historical studies on subjects in Chinese American history by historians, young and old. Among his most important books is Becoming Chinese Americans: A History of Communities and Institutions, published in 2004.

To dig up the ignored and buried past, Him Mark Lai collected archival materials from Chinese American individuals and organizations across the nation, rescuing documents and old Chinese-language books and newspaper collections from dumpsters, second-hand and rare books stores. With Laura, he traveled to archives and Chinese/American communities on both sides of the Pacific, interviewed hundreds of people, and gathered valuable historical materials. Through his tireless search and rescue came two very important published bibliographies of Chinese newspapers and Chinese language materials: Chinese Newspapers Published in North America, 1854-1975 co-complied with Karl Lo in 1977 and A History Reclaimed: An Annotated Bibliography of Chinese Language Materials on the Chinese in America in 1986. Both are considered indispensable tools and sources for Chinese American history. Five years ago, he decided to donate his entire personal collection of rare documents and journals, monographs and books to the Chinese American Archival Collection in the Asian American Studies Collection in the Ethnic Studies Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Through a generous grant from the National Archives, the entire collection is now processed, catalogued and digitized and available to the public at:

http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt7r29q3gq.

Besides being a historian and archivist, Him Mark Lai was a generous and effective teacher, always ready to share his wealth of knowledge and collection with anyone interested into doing research on Chinese American history. He taught occasional courses in Chinese American history in the Asian American Studies Programs at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley. He provided guidance to hundreds for graduate students and scholars throughout the U.S. and across the globe. It would not be an exaggeration to say that virtually ever dissertation and book on the subject in the past thirty years is indebted to his research, collection materials, or guidance.

Beyond his contributions to Chinese American history mentioned above, Him Mark Lai also maintained his cultural and political commitment to the Chinese American community. For thirteen years, he coordinated a group that produced Hon Sing, a weekly radio program of news commentary, community announcements, and Chinese music under the auspices of the Chinese for Affirmative Action; and he served multiple terms on the boards of many organizations—such as the Chinese Culture Foundation and the Chinese Historical Society of America—often assuming the responsibilities of president. He also encouraged and brought to light new research by others through his decades of work on the editorial committees of Amerasia Journal and other publications.

Not widely known to the public is his lifelong quiet, but consistent support for racial equality and justice for Chinese Americans. He always supported the progressive, and quite often, unpopular, but just causes in the Chinese American community, even though he rarely played a visible role in these struggles.

Finally, Him Mark Lai was a tireless promoter of better understanding and friendly relation between the U.S. and China. He understood the importance of this relationship to the interests and welfare of Chinese Americans and he consistently supported events and projects promoting better relations between the two countries.

In conclusion, Him Mark Lai will long be remembered as the historian who rescued Chinese American history from oblivion and restored Chinese American experience as an integral part of not just U.S. history but the history of modern China.

A memorial service and celebration of Him Mark Lai’s life will be held at the Chinese Culture Center at 750 Kearny Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on Saturday, June 20 at 2:30 p.m., followed by dinner at Gold Mountain Restaurant, 644 Broadway, at 5 p.m.

In lieu of flowers, please send donations to the “Him Mark Lai Digital Archive Project” of the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA), the “Him Mark Lai Heritage Fund” of the Chinese Culture Foundation (CCF), Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), or the charity of one’s choice.

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?

Posted by Bevin Chu on March 4, 2009

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?
Nanfang Daily
March 3, 2009
Translated by Bevin Chu
http://chinanews.sina.com

Love without a Heart: Ai, or “Love,” in Simplified Chinese

Love with a Heart: Ai, or “Love,” in Traditional Chinese

The China Desk: Taiwan independence demagogues have long denounced Chinese reunification as “surrender to Beijing.”

Really?

Champions of free market capitalism, including myself, like to joke that “The Cold War is over. We won.”

The USSR lost the Cold War to the USA. The PRC lost the Cold War to the ROC.

Beijing was forced to admit that it lost to Taipei. Beijing was forced to admit that it was defeated by Taipei in the War of Economic Systems. Deng Xiaoping on the Chinese mainland, was forced to adopt the free market capitalism practiced by Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo on Taiwan.

So who surrendered to whom?

If that isn’t enough, now Beijing is being forced to admit that it lost to Taipei in the War of Characters.

So who says reunification means “surrender to Beijing?”

Closer examination suggests that reunification means “victory over Beijing.”

Mainland China to Resume the Use of Traditional Chinese Characters within Ten Years?
Nanfang Daily
March 3, 2009
Translated by Bevin Chu
http://chinanews.sina.com

Pan Qingling, a Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Committee Member, has proposed that the nation phase out the use of Simplified Chinese characters in stages, and resume the use of Traditional Chinese characters within ten years, for three reasons.

One. The adoption of Simplified Chinese characters in the 1950s, during the last century, was too crude. It constituted a violation of Chinese writing, both artistically and scientifically. For example, the Traditional Chinese character for “love” includes the character for “heart.” Upon simplification, the result is “love without a heart.”

Two. It was once said that Traditional Characters were too complex, too hard to learn, too hard to write, and not conducive to popularization. But now most people use computers. No matter how complex the characters might be, they are no more difficult to type. This is no longer a problem.

Three. Resuming the use of Traditional Chinese characters is beneficial to reunification. The Taiwan region still uses Traditional Chinese characters, and refers to them as “Standard Characters.” This has deep implications. The use of “Standard Characters” as an intangible cultural heritage exerts a form of pressure on the mainland.

全國政協委員潘慶林建議恢復使用繁體字

南方日報

2009年03月03日 03:33

http://chinanews.sina.com

全國政協委員潘慶林提出，建議全國用10年時間，分批廢除簡體漢字，恢復使用繁體字，原因有三:

1 上世紀50年代簡化漢字時太粗糙，違背了漢字的藝術和科學性。比如愛字，繁體字裡有個“心”，簡化後，造成“無心之愛”。

2 以前說繁體字太繁瑣，難學難寫，不利於傳播，但是現在很多人都是用電腦輸入，再繁瑣的字打起來也一樣，所以這個問題已經漸漸不存在。

3 恢復使用繁體字有利於兩岸統一。現在台灣依然用繁體字，並稱其為“正體字”，深有意味，還要為“正體字”申請非物質文化遺產，給祖國大陸方面造成了壓力。

Barack Obama, Washington’s Answer to "Hancock?"

Posted by Bevin Chu on January 21, 2009

Barack Obama, Washington’s Answer to “Hancock?”
Bevin Chu
January 20, 2009

Is Barack Obama Washington’s answer to Hollywood’s “Hancock?”

Popular films, as Jungian psychologists know full well, are highly revealing indicators of society’s “Collective Unconscious.”

What do the recent spate of superhero movies from Hollywood reflect, but America’s desperate yearning for a messiah, a savior, or angel, such as the post-modern angel in “Hancock,” played by Will Smith?

Is Barack Obama Washington’s answer to Hollywood’s “Hancock?”

Barack Obama, Washington’s Answer to Hollywood’s Hancock?

Will Smith as Superhero “Hancock”

Update October 10, 2009:

Gasps as Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize
By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers Karl Ritter And Matt Moore, Associated Press Writers

OSLO – The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.

China Desk: Apparently even the Nobel Prize Committee judges are not immune from the yearning for a messiah.

They have essentially awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in advance, in the hope that Obama will deliver on his implied promise.

Let’s hope they’re not disappointed.

The Sound of the New Party has a New Home!

Posted by Bevin Chu on November 30, 2008

Sound of the New Party Radio Broadcast Series:
Learning English by Following Politics
看政治學英文系列

The Sound of the New Party has a New Home!
Bevin Chu
November 30, 2008

The Sound of the New Party Radio Broadcast Series: Learning English by Following Politics now has a new home.

Beginning December 1, 2008, the contents of the weekly Monday evening series will be posted at:

The Sound of the New Party
http://soundofnewparty.wordpress.com/

Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and Balances

Posted by Bevin Chu on November 20, 2008

Backtalk: The Myth of Checks and Balances
Bevin Chu
November 20, 2008

Special Posting for Mr. Christopher DiFranco’s Social Studies Class at Georgetown Middle/High School in Georgetown, Massachusetts.