The Beginning of the End of the Taiwan Independence Movement

The Beginning of the End of the Taiwan Independence Movement
Bevin Chu
March 29, 2005

An Assessment and a Prediction

Four years ago, on January 21, 2001, I penned an article entitled “Taiwan Independence, R.I.P.” In it I made both an assessment and a prediction.

My assessment was: “Taiwan independence is dead. It simply doesn’t know it yet. Like the Bruce Willis character in M. Night Shyamalan’s metaphysical thriller, “The Sixth Sense,” the specter of Taiwan independence walks the earth, unaware it is no longer among the living.”

My prediction was: “When comprehension finally dawns, the wedding ring will fall to the floor, and Taiwan independence True Believers will awaken to the shocking truth. Taiwan Independence, Rest in Peace. It will not be missed.”

Four days ago, on March 25, 2005, my assessment was confirmed and my prediction came true.

Billionaire Taiwan industrialist Hsu Wen-long posted a open letter, in which he wrote: “I consider both Taiwan and the mainland to be part of one China, and people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to be compatriots and brethern… Taiwan’s economic development cannot be separated from the mainland’s. Taiwan independence will only push Taiwan toward war and bring disaster to the people.”

Now affirmations such as this are not uncommon. They are nothing that Wang Yung-ching of the Formosa Group, Chang Yung-fa of the Evergreen Group, Stan Shih of the Acer Group, or Morris Chang of Taiwan Semiconductor hasn’t repeated a hundred times in the five years since Chen Shui-bian first became president.


Hsu Wen-long, founder of the Chi Mei Corporation

But Hsu Wen-long isn’t Wang Yung-ching, Chang Yung-fa, Stan Shih, or Morris Chang.

Hsu Wen-long is the Taiwan independence movement’s most ardent supporter and most generous benefactor. According to Forbes magazine, Hsu is the sixth wealthiest man on Taiwan. Everybody who is anybody within the Pan Green camp, anyone of any stature within the DPP and TSU, has been on the receiving end of Hsu’s contributions.

Hsu Wen-long achieved notoriety in 2001 as an unregenerate Holocaust Denier when he claimed that the Rape of Nanking was a “Chinese fabrication that never happened,” and that “comfort women” forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army “volunteered” and considered it “a step up and a great honor.”

Chi Mei Hospital in Tainan, one of Hsu Wen-long’s many diversified holdings, was where Chen Shui-bian arranged to have himself “treated” as part of his artificially staged Wag the Dog “assassination attempt” in 2004. Hsu was almost certainly a co-conspirator.

In short, Hsu Wen-long is the worst sort of Japanophile Quisling, Taiwan independence True Believer.

The timing of Hsu’s public statement, on the eve of a major anti-China protest march organized by the Pan Green camp, was clearly intended to sabotage the pro independence media event and take the wind out of its sails. Hsu’s gesture amounted to a slap in the face of the Taiwan independence movement. In fact, “slap in the face” is too mild a term for what Hsu did. What Hsu did was stab the Taiwan independence movement in the back, in broad daylight, on the steps of the Forum.

Et tu, Brute?

Why would Hsu do such a thing?

Why would Hsu do such a thing, and how did Hsu’s fellow hardliners react?

Hsu’s utterly unexpected, deeply embarrassing public repudiation of the political ideals they long held sacred, left Pan Green leaders in disarray. Stunned DPP and TSU spokesmen, usually so quick to heap abuse on anyone who deviated one iota from quasi-religious Taiwan independence orthodoxy, found themselves speechless and paralyzed.

Pan Green hardliners, almost all of whom were beneficiaries of Hsu’s largesse, and more importantly, who hoped to remain beneficiaries of Hsu’s largesse, not only did not criticize him, they made up absurdly laughable excuses for his actions.

Some claimed that Hsu’s letter was a forgery. Others claimed that Hsu’s family members were being held hostage. Still others claimed that Hsu’s letter was drafted by Beijing and Hsu was forced to put his signature on it.

The truth is far simpler, but far more difficult for Hsu’s erstwhile comrades to accept.

Hsu did it because he no longer saw any percentage in the Taiwan independence movement.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Promised Land

After 17 years of patiently “listening to what they say, watching what they do,” Beijing decided it was no longer willing to put up with Taiwan independence Quislings earning immense profits from their investments on the Chinese mainland, then channeling them into a treasonous secessionist movement committed to demonizing the Chinese people and dividing the Chinese nation.

A fed-up Beijing gave Hsu an ultimatum. He could have his cake, or he could eat it, but he couldn’t do both. If Hsu hated his fellow countrymen so much he was not even willing to acknowledge he was Chinese; If Hsu hated his own country so much he was willing to deliver it back into the hands of Japanese colonialists, then he could take his business elsewhere.

Was Beijing being unreasonable?

You tell me.

So-called “Tai Shang” (Taiwan businessmen) were being accorded preferential treatment on the basis that they were fellow countrymen, fellow Chinese. If Pan Green Tai Shang insisted on defining themselves as “Taiwanese, not Chinese,” if they insisted on treating the mainland as an “alien nation,” even an “enemy nation,” should patriotic Chinese continue treating them as fellow countrymen and giving them the red carpet treatment?

Hsu considered his options, long and hard.

He considered the fact that only last month, Chen Shui-bian himself declared that: “I will not change the country’s national title during my term in office… the situation does not permit us to change the name of the country at the moment, or even during the rest of my term… Lee Teng-hui couldn’t do it during his 12 year term, and I can’t do it in mine. Taiwan independence is self-delusion. Taiwan independence is a myth.”

He considered the fact that Taiwan’s pro independence political leaders, every last one of them, from Lee “Moses” Teng-hui to Chen “Joshua” Shui-bian, were gutless windbags, all talk and no action, who would never declare independence unless they were 100% certain the US would do all the fighting for them.

He considered the fact that given Pan Green leaders’ universal failure to walk the walk, those left twisting in the wind would be hapless Tai Shang like himself who were struggling against all odds to save their individual companies and the island’s economy.

He considered all that, and arrived at a decision.

He decided that never again would he assert that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country.” Never again would he claim that “China is China, Taiwan is Taiwan.” Never again would he insist that “Taiwanese are not Chinese.”

The Beginning of the End

“The experienced gunfighter will fire on the best shots first.”
— W.W. Beauchamp, in “Unforgiven” (1992, directed by Clint Eastwood, written by David Webb Peoples)

Like veteran gunfighter William Munny in Clint Eastwood’s Oscar-winning western “Unforgiven,” Beijing fired on the best shot first, taking out Hsu Wen-long, the hardest of the hardliners, the greenest of the Pan Greens, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura’s counterpart to the villainous Little Bill Daggett.

It is important to realize something. The impact of Hsu’s bombshell is not confined to one man and one company, to Hsu Wen-long and the Chi Mei Corporation. Hsu’s high-profile repudiation of Taiwan independence has wounded the movement in the heart. Demoralization among True Believers is just beginning to set in. Political damage is going to be far-reaching and eventually fatal.

March 25, 2005 may well mark the Beginning of the End of the Taiwan independence movement.

See:
Taiwan Independence, R.I.P.

Below is the very first news story posted on Hsu Wen-long’s newspaper interview and open letter. I have translated it into English for the benefit of English speakers, including Chinese Americans who don’t read Chinese.

Hsu Wen-long: Both Sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to One China
by Chiu Hsin-yi, reporting from Tainan
2005/03/26 Economic Daily
translated by Bevin Chu

Chi Mei Corporation founder Hsu Wen-long yesterday (March 25, 2005) expressed the opinion that Taiwan and the mainland were both part of China. Chinese Communist Party State Chairman Hu Jintao’s recent speeches and the mainland’s passage of the “National Anti-Secession Law” allowed him to breath a sigh of relief, because the reason Chi Mei dared to invest on the mainland in the first place was that it didn’t promote Taiwan independence. Because it didn’t promote Taiwan independence, he believed Chi Mei’s development on the mainland would prosper.

Hsu Wen-long has been retired for nearly a year. Yesterday for the first time he granted an exclusive newspaper interview and published an open letter expressing his views on cross-straits relations. He hoped to strengthen cross-straits relations, benefit both sides of the strait, and help Chi Mei enjoy greater prosperity. Since President Chen Shui-bian will be participating in today’s “326 Democracy, Peace, Protect Taiwan” parade, Hsu Wen-long’s revelations may touch a sensitive nerve in many quarters.

Hsu Wen-long came straight to the point with his “One China” concept. His open letter said “I am a businessman, born in Taiwan, my ancestral home is Haichen County, in Fujian Province. In 1991 I went to the mainland to seek out my roots. I consider both Taiwan and the mainland to be part of one China, and people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to be compatriots and brethern.” In his article he also mentioned that if people on both sides of the strait are happy, that is China’s good fortune.

Hsu stressed that during the 2000 Taiwan election, when he supported the Democratic Progressive Party and Chen Shui-bian, he was not supporting Taiwan independence, but expressing his dissatisfaction with the Kuomintang’s black gold politics. Taiwan’s economic development cannot be detached from the mainland’s. Promoting Taiwan independence will only lead Taiwan to the brink of war.

Regarding Taiwan’s political situation, Hsu Wen-long also demonstrated his determination to withdraw from politics in deeds as well as words. He said that earlier this year he twice tried to resign from his position as administration political consultant, revealing his utter lack of interest in Taiwan politics.

許文龍:兩岸同屬一個中國
記者邱馨儀/台南報導
2005/03/26 經濟日報

奇美集團創辦人許文龍昨(25)日表示,台灣、大陸同屬一個中國,最近中共國家主席胡錦濤的談話和大陸通過「反分裂國家法」,讓他心裡踏實許多,因為奇美敢到大陸投資,就是不搞台獨,因為不搞台獨,他相信奇美在大陸的發展一定會更加興旺。

許文龍退休近一年後,昨天首次在自宅中接受本報專訪,並發表公開信,表達他對兩岸關係的看法,希望能強化兩岸的互動,使兩岸、奇美都有更興旺的發展。今天陳水扁總統參與326「民主、和平、護台灣」大遊行,許文龍這番談話可能牽動各方敏感的神經。

許文龍開宗明義即點出「一個中國」的概念,他的公開信中寫道「我是一個生意人,出生在台灣,祖籍在福建海澄,1991年我到大陸福建尋根。我認為台灣、大陸同屬一個中國,兩岸人民都是同胞姐妹。」他文中也提及,兩岸民眾都幸福,才是中國人的幸福。

他強調,2000年台灣大選時,他支持民進黨、支持陳水扁,但並非支持台獨,而是對國民黨黑金政治的不滿。台灣的經濟發展離不開大陸,搞台獨只會把台灣引向戰爭。

對於台灣的政治局勢,許文龍也以實際的行動來說明他逐步淡出的心態。他說,今年初兩次提出辭去資政職務,顯示對台灣政治已經毫無興趣。

Chinese Communist Party, Return to the Motherland

Chinese Communist Party, Return to the Motherland
Comment and Translation by Bevin Chu
March 28, 2005

The following letter to the editor of the Chinese language United Daily News was penned by an ordinary citizen of the Republic of China living on Taiwan. The writer is so consistent in his logic, so unwavering in his position, and so forthright in his demands, one can only wonder why our Pan Blue “leaders” haven’t demonstrated the same presence of mind, the same courage of conviction, and advanced the same compelling arguments. The letter is so worthwhile I have taken the time and energy to translate it into English, making it available to English speakers and Chinese Americans who can’t read Chinese.

Pan Blue “leaders,” either lead, follow, or get out of the way!

Chinese Communist Party, Return to the Motherland
by Shi Chia-hsin, merchant (Chiayi County)
March 26, 2005 United Daily News

The wise man dissolves opposition and crisis; The fool creates it.

The Chinese Communist Party’s Anti-Secession Law is like a ten point earthquake. It has shaken the world, causing it to sway to and fro. It has even shaken loose the cancer of Taiwan independence from deep within the bones of the Democratic Progressive Party in the presidential palace. The DPP says it loves Taiwan, but in fact it has made Taiwan seriously ill, and exposed Taiwan to great danger.

After the Republic of China was founded, two major political parties appeared, the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. Because their ideas about how to rule a nation were different, the Kuomintang felt compelled to exterminate the Chinese Communist Party, leading to the Chinese Civil War. Eventually the Chinese Communist Party split off from the Republic of China and founded an independent nation with its own name, its own national flag, and its own national anthem. It is said that the Chinese Communist Party’s late President Mao Zedong acknowledged that this was a serious mistake.

The Anti-Secession Law, from the perspective of the government of the Republic of China, is highly advantageous. The Republic of China government can hitch a ride on the Anti-Secession Law and demand that the People’s Republic of China return to the bosom of the motherland, the Republic of China. This means it must first acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China. Then the headache is not Taiwan’s, but the Chinese Communist Party’s.

順水推舟 – 要中共回歸祖國
施嘉信/商(嘉縣朴子)
2005/03/26 聯合報

智者,用智慧化解對立與危機;愚者,用口水製造對立與危險。

中共的反分裂法就像十級的強震,震得世界東倒西歪,甚至將骨子裡有台獨癌細胞的民進黨政權震出總統府、震上街頭。他們說愛台灣,其實是讓台灣的病更加嚴重,讓台灣的處境更加危險。

中華民國建國之後有兩大政黨,就是國民黨和共產黨。因為治國的理念不同,國民黨要把共產黨割喉割到斷,而爆發了內戰。最後「共產黨從中華民國分裂出去」獨立建國,有自己的國號、國旗和國歌。據說中共已故主席毛澤東,為此而承認犯了很大的錯誤。

反分裂法對中華民國政府而言是大利多。中華民國政府可以順水推舟,要求中華人民共和國回歸祖國「中華民國」的懷抱,首先就要承認中華民國存在的事實。那麼,要頭痛的不是台灣而是中共。

The Anti-Secession Law

The Anti-Secession Law
Bevin Chu
March 28, 2005

Redundant, Ill-timed, but Necessary

Some of my Pan Blue comrades have criticized Beijing’s newly ratified Anti-Secession Law as redundant, ill-timed, and potentially counterproductive. Therefore they consider it unnecessary and ill-advised. I understand their concerns, but would submit that given the circumstances, Beijing had little choice.

The Anti-Secession Law is redundant. But so is the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights merely makes explicit what was already implicit in the US Constitution. Some of America’s Founding Fathers, including James Madison, were convinced that specifying which rights were protected would, by implication, leave any rights not specified unprotected. Other Founders, including Thomas Jefferson, were convinced that failure to specify which rights were protected would leave those rights unprotected. Who was right is still being debated today.

The Anti-Secession Law is ill-timed. The timing however is not Beijing’s fault. Beijing, along with everyone else, was surprised by the December 2004 Pan Blue legislative election victory. Beijing was responding to Chen Shui-bian’s string of unilateral provocations, to his “One Country each Side” assertion, to his threat to hold a public referendum and constitutional convention in 2006, and to his threat to declare formal independence in 2008. The machinery was in motion. It could not be shut down. Therefore its language was moderated in response to the Pan Blue camp’s “December Surprise.”

To pronounce sentence on the Anti-Secession Law based on short-term consequences such as European Union hesitation on lifting its 15 year old arms embargo would be premature. In the long term, the Anti-Secession Law should prove to be an effective counter to the Taiwan Relations Act.

Counter, not Counterpart to the Taiwan Relations Act

Notice I said “counter” not “counterpart.” Some China watchers have characterized the Anti-Secession Law as a “counterpart” to the Taiwan Relations Act. It is no such thing.

The Taiwan Relations Act is a legal absurdity. It is domestic US legislation that “authorizes” the US government to meddle in another nation’s internal affairs. It is an outrage against national sovereignty, something the US insists is sacrosanct, at least for itself.

The Anti-Secession Law, by contrast, is a perfectly normal piece of legislation. It is domestic Chinese law that applies solely to China’s internal affairs. It does not presume to meddle in America’s internal affairs. The Anti-Secession Law is nothing like the Taiwan Relations Act.

A Chinese counterpart to the Taiwan Relations Act would be a domestic Chinese law that “authorizes” the Chinese government to meddle in America’s internal affairs.

A Chinese counterpart to the Taiwan Relations Act would be a “Confederate Relations Act” authorizing China to provide military weaponry to the Confederate States of America in the event the Union used force to prevent southern secession in 1861.

A Chinese counterpart to the Taiwan Relations Act would be an “Aztlan Relations Act” authorizing China to provide military weaponry to Republica del Norte secessionists in the event the US government used force to prevent Mexico from recovering territory lost in 1842.

A Chinese counterpart to the Taiwan Relations Act would be a “Hawaiian Relations Act” authorizing China to provide military weaponry to the Hawaiian independence movement in the event the US government used force to prevent the restoration of the pre 1893 Kingdom of Hawaii.

These examples, which could be multiplied indefinitely, illustrate just how presumptuous the Taiwan Relations Act is. How would Americans who consider the Taiwan Relations Act perfectly normal and reasonable feel if China, Russia, or the EU reciprocated by passing all sorts of acts that meddled in internal US affairs?


Aztlan


Republica del Norte

Battered Woman Syndrome

Much of the world community is like a battered wife accustomed to being mistreated by her abusive husband. Many nations are so accustomed to chronic bullying by the American Hegemon, the abuse feels normal and any departure from that norm feels unfamiliar hence uncomfortable.

Therefore when France or Germany defies the US over its invasion of Iraq, or when mainland China defies the US over its abetting of Taiwan secession, their unexpected defiance is greeted in some quarters not with relief, but with anxiety. Someone is committing the mortal sin of “changing the status quo,” or “threatening regional stability,” or the one that always makes me laugh, “challenging American hegemony in the Western [sic] Pacific.”

The fact that some China watchers could characterize the Anti-Secession Law as a “counterpart” to the Taiwan Relations Act or worse, as “trouble-making,” reveals the extent to which much of the world community suffers from the geopolitical equivalent of Battered Woman Syndrome. Fortunately, this victim mentality can be overcome. Unfortunately, as EU hesitation over lifting its obsolete arms embargo reveals, it may take some time.

No Reason to Complain

If one examines the language of the Anti-Secession Law closely, one is immediately struck by an intriguing fact. Beijing is not demanding that Taiwan adhere to the People’s Republic of China’s “One China” Constitution. Beijing is demanding that Taiwan adhere to the Republic of China’s “One China” Constitution. Beijing has no beef with patriotic Chinese defenders of the venerable Republic of China Constitution. Beijing only has a beef with treasonous “Taiwanese” defenders of a would-be “Republic of Taiwan” constitution.

Beijing’s oft repeated insistence that “Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China” is for foreign consumption. Within a domestic, cross-straits framework Beijing is perfectly willing to accept the Pan Blue camp’s alternative formulation: “Both Taiwan and the mainland are part of one indivisible China. Taipei refers to that China as the ROC. Beijing refers to that China as the PRC.” What more can Pan Blue leaders or followers reasonably ask for?

Patriotic defenders of the Republic of China Constitution have no legitimate reason to condemn the Anti-Secession Law. According to the Republic of China Constitution, mainland Chinese are also citizens of the Republic of China. Since mainland Chinese are also citizens of the Republic of China, what’s wrong with them demanding that Chinese on Taiwan adhere to the Republic of China Constitution? Not only do they have a right to make such demands, they have a patriotic duty.

The only reason Pan Blue political leaders on Taiwan might want to distance themselves from the Anti-Secession Law is timidity in the face of McCarthyite political persecution.

The only solution to this problem is to get a spine.

He Who Tells a Lie

He Who Tells a Lie
Bevin Chu
March 20, 2005

Executive Summary: The great English poet Alexander Pope observed that “He who tells a lie is not sensible of how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain that one.” On September 28, 1986, the newly-founded DPP told a lie. Over the next two decades it would be forced to invent considerably more than twenty lies to maintain its first and biggest lie.

The First Lie

1986: DPP solemnly promises to uphold and defend the Constitution of the Republic of China.

The DPP is founded in 1986. It solemnly promises to uphold and defend the Constitution of the Republic of China.

The Truth: The DPP told its first and biggest lie. Most leaders of the DPP had no intention of upholding and defending the Republic of China Constitution. Instead they intended to “jie ke shang shi” or “borrow a shell to go on the market.” After they achieved their political goals, they intended to renege on their oath of loyalty toward the Republic of China.

More Lies

1988: The 417 Resolution

On March 17, 1988, a mere two years after it swore an oath of allegiance to the Republic of China, the DPP adopts its watershed 417 Resolution, asserting that Taiwan is independent.

The Truth: Taiwan was not independent in 1988, and it is not independent in 2005. Taiwan was and is a province of the Republic of China.

1990: The 1007 Resolution

On October 17, 1990, the DPP adopts its l007 Resolution, stipulating that the name of the country is “Taiwan,” and that its territory does not include either the Chinese mainland or Outer Mongolia.

The Truth: Lee Teng-hui’s “Two States Theory” and Chen Shui-bian’s “One Country each Side” claim to the contrary notwithstanding, Taiwan is not the name of a country, nation, or state. Human history has no record of any country, nation, or state named Taiwan. Taiwan is either (a) a geographical term, or (b) the name of an administrative region of the nation of China, specifically, a province.

When China correspondents blithely refer to the Republic of China as “Taiwan,” it is akin to Hollywood scriptwriters erroneously referring to cartridges as “bullets.” Just as a bullet is merely part of a cartridge, so Taiwan is merely part of the Republic of China. And as any firearms expert will tell you, just because everyone gets it wrong, doesn’t make it right.

“… the History Channel, while being unusually good television, [does] not seem to be able to tell the difference between a bullet and a cartridge. It is possible that nobody in New York knows the difference between a bullet and a cartridge… “
— Jeff Cooper, renowned American firearms expert

Even the International Organization for Standardization, an organization dedicated to ensuring accuracy and precision, unwittingly contributes to this confusion. When ISO refers to the Chinese island of Taiwan as as a “country,” then abbreviates it “TW,” right next to “China,” abbreviated “CN,” it leaves the general public with the false impression that “TW” is a country, nation, or state.

To paraphrase Cooper, the US major media does not seem to be able to tell the difference between Taiwan and the Republic of China. It is possible that nobody in New York, the alleged media capital of the world, knows the difference between Taiwan and the Republic of China.

1991: The Taiwan Independence Party Constitution

In 1991 the DPP adopts its Taiwan Independence Party Constitution, establishing as the DPP’s sacred mission the founding of a sovereign, independent, and self-governing “Republic of Taiwan.”

The Truth: The DPP’s Taiwan Independence Party Constitution flatly contradicted its own 417 Resolution adopted in 1988, and its 1007 Resolution adopted in 1990. After all, if the DPP’s sacred mission was to found a sovereign, independent, and self-governing “Republic of Taiwan,” then by the DPP’s own logic, until and unless the DPP succeeded in doing so, Taiwan was still a province of China.

Furthermore, the Taiwan Independence Party Constitution created an insoluble dilemma for the DPP. It limited support for the DPP to a mere 15% to 20% of the population, to a hardcore of Taiwan independence fundamentalist True Believers. Saddled with such a party constitution, the DPP could never hope to rule the nation, not in any free and fair election requiring an absolute majority instead of a mere plurality.

As the dramatic result of the December 2004 Legislative Election showed, even after two decades of Taiwan independence brainwashing and a decade of Pan Blue voter erosion to emigration, a democratic majority of Chinese citizens on Taiwan still vehemently opposes Taiwan independence.

1999: The Resolution on Taiwan’s Future

In 1999 the DPP adopts its Resolution on Taiwan’s Future. The resolution pointedly avoids the phrase, “establishing a Republic of Taiwan,” and substitutes the DPP’s current, disingenuous formulation: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China. It is neither a province nor a special administrative region of China.”

The Truth: Just as the DPP’s Taiwan Independence Party Constitution flatly contradicted its 417 and 1007 Resolutions, so the Resolution on Taiwan’s Future flatly contradicted its Taiwan Independence Party Constitution. The DPP performed a 180 degree about face with its Taiwan Independence Party Constitution, and another 180 degree about face with its Resolution on Taiwan’s Future. As anyone who has ever been near a drill field knows, one about face followed by another about face means one is facing one’s original direction. By 1999, the DPP had reversed itself twice and was facing the same direction it was 11 years ago in 1988!

The status quo in the Taiwan Straits is not Lee Teng-hui’s “Two States” or Chen Shui-bian’s “One Country each Side.” The status quo is not “One China, One Taiwan,” or even “Two Chinas.” The status quo in the Taiwan Straits is “One Country, Two Systems,” with the key proviso that the “One Country” is “China,” rather than the “People’s Republic of China.”

The fact that the term “One Country, Two Systems” is disliked even by some Pan Blues does not alter the facts on the ground. Pan Blues who are allergic to “One Country, Two Systems” because it was formulated by Beijing rather than Taipei are free to substitute the terminology of the ’92 Consensus, “One China, Two Versions.” It amounts to the same thing.

The DPP of course, knows this. That’s why try as it may, it can’t bring itself to accept the status quo, and persists instead on unilaterally changing it. Don’t take my word for it. Just look at DPP behavior, which speaks louder than any Pan Blue words. If the DPP genuinely believed that “Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country,” it would be delighted with and committed to maintaining the political status quo.

The fact that the DPP can’t stomach the status quo, and keeps coming back to a new constitution in 2006, and a formal declaration of independence in 2008, means the DPP’s endless lies ring hollow even to its own ears. The DPP knows that unless it can summon up the courage to actually fight a War for Taiwan Independence, or manipulate Uncle Sammy into fighting such a war on its behalf, Taiwan will forever remain a part of China.

Oppose Secession, Defend the Constitution

Oppose Secession, Defend the Constitution
Bevin Chu
March 17, 2005

Executive Summary: The newly authored “Anti-Secession Law” is aptly named. It is more semantically precise than “Unification Act,” which is what it was going to be called before Chinese citizens on Taiwan intervened. On December 10, 2004, citizens of the Republic of China gave the pro-reunification, or more precisely anti-secession Pan Blue parties a decisive majority in the Republic of China legislature. The Anti-Secession Law, consequently, is the co-creation of 1.3 billion Chinese citizens on the mainland and 23 million Chinese citizens on Taiwan. The Anti-Secesssion Law upholds the Republic of China Constitution. The Anti-Secession Law is consistent with the 1992 Consensus of “One [unified] China, Two Interpretations.” Patriotic citizens of the Republic of China have no reason to oppose this law, and every reason to support it.

Taiwan Reaction vs. World Reaction

The reaction of Pan Green demagogues, predictably, has been hysteria and hyperbole. The reaction of the Benevolent Global Hegemon, predictably, has been sanctimony and hypocrisy. The reaction of too many Pan Blue political leaders, meanwhile, has been spineless “me too-ism” in the face of Hoklo fascist intimidation.

The official reaction of Singapore, by contrast, has been calm and reasonable.

“Singapore understands the reason for China wanting to enact this law at this point in time. From the briefing given by National People’s Congress Standing Committee Deputy Chairman Wang Zhaoguo, it would appear that the law restates China’s known position against Taiwan independence with a strong emphasis on peaceful resolution.”

Official reactions from Europe, from Latin America, from Asia, even Australia, Uncle Sammy’s erstwhile “Deputy Sheriff” in the Asian region, have been similar to Singapore’s.

The Anti-Secession Law maintains, not changes the Status Quo

In “Much ado about China’s anti-secession law” Ralph A Cossa of the Center for Strategic and International Studies Pacific Forum correctly notes that:

The legislation… had its genesis in Chen’s surprise re-election in March 2004 and received added impetus last fall when Beijing’s experts… not to mention President Chen himself — were predicting victory for the ruling… “pan-green”… coalition in the December 2004 Legislative Yuan elections. By the time the outcome presented a more pleasant surprise… the legislation had already gained too much momentum to be abandoned… The main [mainland] Chinese “concession” in response to the [ROC] Legislative Yuan election outcome was to rename the bill. First known as the “unification act” — a title that might imply an aggressive, impatient outlook — it later became anti-secession legislation aimed merely at preserving the status quo. [emphasis added]

In short, the Anti-Secession Law aims merely at preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Straits.

How is that a bad thing?

The Anti-Secession Law defends the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution

In “Anti-secession law aims to keep status quo” Frank Ching of Taiwan’s English language China Post concurs:

The new legislation says its purpose is to oppose and check “Taiwan’s secession from China” — rather than the People’s Republic of China, since Taiwan has never been governed by Beijing. It also says that “both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China”, a formulation first used by the Kuomintang Government.

Why did Beijing adopt this law?

Beijing wants to prevent Taiwan from dropping the name “Republic of China” and from changing its constitution, which Chen had been threatening to do. [emphasis added] President Hu, in a speech earlier this month, pointed out that “the existing regulations and documents in Taiwan” also support a “One China” principle… Beijing does not want to see these laws and regulations changed… even the additional articles in the constitution adopted in 1991 under President Lee assume that Taiwan will eventually be reunified with mainland China… [They also assume] that the territory of the Republic of China includes both the mainland and Taiwan, although only Taiwan belongs to the “free area” of the republic.

Ironically, [the Republic of China’s] current laws also do not allow secession. The National Security Law of [the Republic of China] promulgated in 1987, says that public demonstrations “must not violate the constitution, advocate communism or the division of the national territory.” Beijing is fearful that, left unchecked, all these references to Taiwan and the mainland being one country will be excised… the Anti-Secession Law is an attempt to preserve the status quo against further change by pro-independence forces on Taiwan.

In short, the Anti-Secession Law aims merely to prevent Taiwan secessionists from overthrowing the Republic of China and replacing the Republic of China Constitution.

Again, how exactly is that a bad thing?

Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way

To sum up, the purpose of the Anti-Secession Law is to prevent Taiwan secession, to prevent the Republic of China from being replaced by a Republic of Taiwan, and to prevent the Republic of China Constitution from being replaced by a Republic of Taiwan Constitution.

What possible justification can Pan Blue defenders of the Republic of China have for opposing it?

Even after the post Presidential Election protests of March 2004, Pan Blue political leaders still don’t understand who their supporters are. Even after the surprise Legislative Yuan victory of December 2004, Pan Blue political leaders still don’t understand what their supporters expect of them.

Pan Blue political leaders still don’t understand that their supporters are people who are proud to call themselves “Chinese.” Pan Blue political leaders still don’t understand that their supporters expect them to defend the Chinese nation, not apologize for it to Taiwan independence Quislings.

According to the Republic of China Constitution, the nine and a half million square kilometer area of the mainland is Republic of China territory. According to the Republic of China Constitution, the 1.3 billion inhabitants of the mainland are Republic of China citizens. If Pan Blue political leaders on Taiwan are not up to the job of defending the Republic of China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, what right to they have to object to fellow citizens on the mainland doing their job for them?

As the old expression in the US military has it: “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

See:
Anti-Secession Law

A Clarification

As a radical libertarian “market anarchist,” I champion the right of “universal secession.” In other words, I maintain that secession is either a right for everyone, or it’s right for no one. It can’t be a right for some and not a right for others. Advocates of Taiwan independence, Tibetan independence, and Xinjiang independence demand secession for themselves, but deny secession for others. By behaving in this manner, they forfeit the moral right to demand secession for themselves.

For articles touching on this subject, see:
Independence for Me but not for Thee
Rebuttal to a Taiwan Independence Fellow Traveler

What am I Fighting for?

What am I Fighting for?
Ma Ying-jeou loses his Political Compass
Bevin Chu
March 15, 2005

Executive Summary: On Monday March 15, mainland Chinese authorities announced their long awaited, and for some, long dreaded Anti-Secession Law. Not surprisingly, the Taiwan independence Quislings who head up the DPP and TSU are having fits of apoplexy. More surprisingly, a number of Pan Blue political leaders, most prominently Ma Ying-jeou, are obediently singing and dancing to the Pan Green tune. Before they do any more damage than they already have, these ostensible defenders of the Republic of China should stop, take a breath, and ask themselves “What am I fighting for?”

Taipei Mayor to call News Conference on ‘Anti-Secession’ Law

Taipei, March 11 (CNA) Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou is scheduled to call an international news conference March 14 to express his opposition to China’s “anti-secession” law aimed at Taiwan… Yu Tzu-hsiang of the Taipei City Information Department said that… county magistrates and mayors from the ruling and opposition parties will be invited to attend the planned news conference, during which Ma will strongly protest Beijing’s “anti-secession” law targeting Taiwan…. local government chiefs present at the news conference will sign a joint protest letter that will be sent to international media organizations… this will help Taiwan obtain support from more foreign countries for the island’s opposition to this “anti-secession” law… China still considers the island part of its territory despite their split in 1949 after a civil war. Beijing has repeatedly threatened to use force against Taiwan if the island declares independence.

What’s Wrong with this Picture?

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Leave aside for a moment the Central News Agency’s tiresome and predictable word games, such as referring to the mainland region of China as “China” instead of “mainland China.”

What’s wrong with this picture is that Pan Blue camp political superstar Ma Ying-jeou, whose eyes are focused on the Republic of China presidency in 2008, can apparently no longer see the forest for the trees.

If Ma finds a law aimed at preventing Taiwan independence so objectionable that he would call a press conference to express his vehement opposition four days before he has even had a chance to read it, what kind of law would inspire Ma to express his enthusiastic approval? A “Pro-Secession Law?”

Ma is not alone in his befuddlement. Several other Pan Blue leaders have also lost their bearings, most notably PFP Chairman James Soong, whose recent betrayal of Pan Blue voters is even more serious than Ma’s.

So why pick on Ma?

Because Ma is likely to be the Pan Blue camp’s standard bearer in the ROC presidential race three years from today. That makes any blunders he makes, strategic or tactical, a serious matter indeed.

Ma, One of the Good Guys

Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou is basically a good man, a decent man, a proverbial “Boy Scout.” And not just any Boy Scout. Judging by his worldly accomplishments, his “merit badges,” he’s an Eagle Scout.

Ma Ying-jeou is generally seen as a non-corrupt and charismatic politician, although some see him as overly-privileged and somewhat aloof. Ma earned a law degree from National Taiwan University in 1972, then proceeded to earn a doctorate in law from Harvard University in the United States. He returned to Taiwan in 1981 to teach law. He was deputy secretary-general of the KMT from 1981 to 1988, for some time also serving as head of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), a cabinet-level body in charge of cross-straits relations. President Lee Teng-hui appointed him Justice Minister in 1993. He was relieved of his post in 1996, reputedly because he proved too effective at fighting black gold political corruption within his own party. Ma then returned to academia, and most people at the time believed his political career to be finished.

See:
Biography of Ma Ying-jeou

The 54 year old Ma can be justly proud of what he has achieved in his life so far. Comparing him to his counterparts in the Pan Green camp is not possible. The gentlemanly Ma has no counterparts in the thuggish DPP and TSU. Lee Ying-yuan, a would be Ma Ying-jeou clone sent forth by the DPP to unseat Ma in 2002, would confirm this fact the hard way. Taipei’s politically sophisticated voters had no trouble distinguishing the genuine article from the phony knockoff. Ma won reelection by a 64% to 36% landslide.

Speaking Truth to Power

As Ma’s biography noted, Lee Teng-hui appointed him Justice Minister in 1993. Three years later, in 1996, “Mr. Democracy” gave his appointee the ax, not because Ma did his job poorly, but because he did his job too well. Ma refused to look the other way when he uncovered massive, widespread corruption among Lee Teng-hui’s close cronies, even though he knew it probably meant the end of his political future.

This was when Ma uttered the remark for which he is rightly famous:

“Bu zhi wei shui er zhan, wei he er zhan” or “I didn’t know whom I was fighting for, what I was fighting for.”

Ma’s conduct was principled and courageous. Under a Lee Teng-hui dominated KMT, in which obsequious ass-kissing was the accepted norm, Ma dared to “speak truth to power.” By refusing to surrender his integrity, Ma earned the profound respect of millions of ordinary people living on Taiwan, including myself.

Ma loses his Political Compass

That’s why Ma’s pusillanimous response to the Anti-Secession Law brouhaha is all the more dismaying. Nor is this blunder his first. It’s merely the latest in a year long succession of similar blunders.

In response to Chen Shui-bian’s amateurish Wag the Dog “assassination attempt” and transparent ballot fraud, outraged Pan Blue and non-partisan voters staged an around the clock sit-in in front of the Presidential Palace. The Chen regime demanded that the protestors be driven from the Plaza, citing “traffic jams” and “noise pollution.”

What did Ma do?

With unseemly timidity and haste, Ma surrendered to Pan Green intimidation and ordered riot police to drive pro-democracy demonstrators from the plaza using brute force. Chen had just victimized them once. Ma victimized them a second time.

The Lien/Soong campaign filed two separate lawsuits to have Chen Shui-bian’s fraudulent election results overturned. High Court justices in Chen Shui-bian’s pocket ignored irrefutable evidence collected by the Lien/Soong legal team and threw their cases out of court.

What did Ma do?

Ma urged Lien Chan to accept Chen’s fraudulent “reelection” as a fait accompli, and not concern himself with the fact that meekly acquiescing to the Chen regime’s brazen constitutional violations would set an unacceptable precedent for the nation’s future.

Ma’s cumulative blunders are beginning to take their toll. Many Pan Blue voters are asking themselves some very painful, very difficult questions, such as “Do we really want this man for president?”

A controversy is currently simmering over whether Ma should run for KMT party chairman, thereby laying the groundwork for his presidential campaign. Shi Chi-yu, a highly respected Pan Blue camp commentator quipped that at the rate Ma was going, Ma should run for party chairman — of the DPP.

That Ma remains supremely confident he made the wisest, most farsighted decision in each and every one of these cases is the most disturbing fact of all.

Unfortunately, the only other contender for the post of KMT Party Chairman is Wang Ching-ping, whom many Pan Blues suspect of being “Lee Teng-hui Redux,” a deep cover mole ready to sell out the Pan Blues at the crucial moment. I wish I could say such fears are exaggerated. Unfortunately they’re not. Wang Ching-ping and Lee Teng-hui are awfully chummy. Therefore if it comes down to a choice between Ma and Wang, True Blue KMT members will unquestionably choose Ma as the lesser of two evils.

The Example of Shen Fu-hsiung

Ma would do well to remember the sobering example of Shen Fu-hsiung, a respected DPP elder who aspired to succeed Ma as mayor of Taipei. Taipei being a bastion of the Pan Blue camp, Shen tried to ingratiate himself with Taipei’s Pan Blue voters. His gambit failed, catastrophically. Pan Blues perceived Shen’s move as too little, too late. Pan Greens perceived Shen’s move as treason to Taiwan independence. Shen’s political gambit turned out to be a losing proposition all around.

Ma Ying-jeou, a Pan Blue superstar, aspires to be president of the ROC. Kaohsiung and Tainan being bastions of the Pan Green camp, Ma is trying to ingratiate himself with centrist Kaohsiung and Tainan swing voters. His gambit, like Shen’s, will fail. Hoklo chauvinist leaders will successfully paint Ma as “not one of us.” On election day, brainwashed Pan Green followers will cast their ballots for yet another “native Taiwanese” A-Bian clone. Principled Pan Blue stalwarts, on the other hand, will perceive Ma’s surrender to political expediency as an unforgiveable betrayal. Ma’s political gambit, like Shen’s, will turn out to be a losing proposition all around.

Even leaving aside higher principles and focusing exclusively on practical politics, does Ma really believe the Pan Greens are going to allow the “mainlander” they have labeled the “Hongkonger taking the Hongkong road” to become the Founding Father of their Hoklo chauvinist Republic of Taiwan?

Did I mention that Shen is now a former legislator, and has been for all intents and purposes been excommunicated by the DPP?

What am I Fighting for?

Ever since the 2004 Presidential Election Ma has repeatedly undermined the Constitution of the Republic of China he claims to champion and defend. Whether he means to or not, Ma has been contributing to the destruction of the Republic of China and facilitating its overthrow by a Quisling Republic of Taiwan.

Ma Ying-jeou needs to remind himself that in order for him to be elected president of the Republic of China, there must be a Republic of China for him to be president of.

Before Ma Ying-jeou does any more damage than he already has, to himself, to his party, to those who have supported him over the years, to the Chinese nation whose unity he swore to uphold, he should stop, take a breath, and ask himself the same question he asked himself in 1996.

“What am I fighting for?”

Taiwan’s Stolen Election, Part V

Taiwan’s Stolen Election, Part V
Botched and Bungled News Stories
Bevin Chu
March 08, 2005

Executive Summary: Accuracy In Media’s “Mission Statement” proclaims that it is a “non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage.” So will AIM, or FAIR, or whoever, please critique the botched and bungled news stories about Taiwan’s 319 Shooting Incident? Will somebody please set the record straight on this important issue that has received slanted coverage in the US media?

CNN Botches and Bungles News Coverage of the 319 Shooting Incident


CNN.com: Suicide man ‘shot Taiwan leader’


CNN Photo of Chen Shui-bian on March 19, 2004, purporting to show a large blood stain

See:
Suicide Man ‘shot Taiwan leader’ CNN, March 7, 2005

What can I say? I would have been perfectly content to let CNN’s botched and bungled news story slide, but CNN wouldn’t let me. They insisted on botching and bungling the same story again, one year later.

Soon after last year’s 319 Shooting Incident, CNN posted a news photo of ROC president Chen Shui-bian standing in an open red Jeep, with a bright red blood stain on his beige windbreaker. Notice the red circle? That’s where Chen was shot and bleeding profusely. Or so we were told.

A year later, on March 7, 2005, in a story entitled “Suicide Man ‘shot Taiwan leader,'” CNN used the same photograph a second time.

The only problem is, there was no blood stain on Chen’s jacket.

There was no blood stain on Chen’s jacket because Chen was never shot. There was no blood stain on Chen’s jacket because there was no “assassination attempt,” by the KMT, the PFP, the CCP, or anybody else. There was no blood stain on Chen’s jacket because the 319 Shooting Incident was a “Wag the Dog” election charade scripted, directed, and performed by Chen himself.

The “bright red blood stain” on Chen’s jacket was actually a bright orange nylon seat belt, attached to the Jeep’s roll bar, a shoulder harness to be exact. Scan along the roll bar to the driver’s side of the car to see the other, matching shoulder harness.

The resolution of the CNN photograph is a little low, so if you’re still skeptical about the “blood stain,” that’s understandable.

If that’s the case, take a look at this photograph of Chen’s Jeep, posted at the 319 Truth Commission’s official website, clearly showing the shoulder harness.


The red blood stain is in fact a dangling orange nylon shoulder harness

Finally, for the real clincher, take a look at this photograph of Chen being rushed into Chi Mei Hospital by his Praetorian Guard, also posted at the 319 Truth Commission’s website. Do you see any blood stains on his windbreaker? For that matter, do you see any bullet holes?


Chen Shui-bian being rushed into Chi Mei Hospital. No bloodstains. No bullet holes.

Where’s the bright red blood stain from the grievous wound inflicted by dastardly Pan Blue assassins, with a helping hand from “Red China?”

It is nowhere to be found.

CNN and the US major media, were to put it bluntly, asleep at the switch.

Is this the quality of journalism we can expect from our intrepid Fourth Estate?

Watchdogs, or Lapdogs?

Forensic expert Henry Lee’s analysis of Chen’s white blood cell count indicates that the “gunshot wound,” or should we say, “surgical incision” on Chen’s abdomen was created well before Chen’s motorcade reached Jinghua Road.

Chen Shui-bian desperately tried to prevent the formation of the 319 Truth Commission, the ROC counterpart to America’s Warren Commission. Chen didn’t give a damn about the “separation of powers.” Chen was frightened to death that any investigative body with sufficient legal authority would expose his Wag the Dog “assassination attempt” for what it was, a colossal hoax.

When the 319 Truth Commision was eventually formed despite Chen’s veto and Pan Green obstructionism, Chen insisted that administration officials could invoke “di kang quan” or the “Right to Resist” in the event they were subpoened by the committee and asked to provide eyewitness testimony or physical evidence. I kid you not!

The US major media have now had a entire year to get the 319 Bulletgate / 320 Election Fraud Scandal story straight.

Have they?

They have not.

The US major media continues to take the word of Pan Green spin controllers over compelling evidence provided by the Pan Blue opposition. If the US major media made the slightest effort to conduct its own independent, in-depth research, it would soon discover that Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have not been defending “freedom, democracy, and human rights” on Taiwan for the past 17 years, they have been trampling them into the dust. As political scientist Michael Parenti noted:

“The U.S. major media and much of the minor media are not free and independent, as they claim, they are not the watchdog of democracy but the lapdog of the national security state. They help reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth.”

Finally, A Little News that’s Fit to Print

To give credit where credit is due, a March 7, 2005 New York Times article by Keith Bradsher entitled “Taiwan Police Say Who Shot President, but Suspect Is Dead” finally provides us with a little news that’s fit to print.

HONG KONG, Monday, March 7 – The Taiwan police announced late Monday morning that they had identified the man who shot and injured President Chen Shui-bian on the eve of national elections a year ago. But the police said the man had acted on his own and then drowned himself, fully clothed, in a harbor 10 days after the shooting, leaving no one to arrest. Spinning the sort of story once found in dime store novels, [emphasis added] the police said in Taipei that a middle-aged man had carried out the shooting on March 19 because he was depressed about difficulties in selling a house and blamed the president’s management of Taiwan’s struggling economy.

The Chen regime’s feeble attempt to foist a dead man off on the public as the “assassin” is both laughable and ironic. One of the funnier political jokes making the rounds on Taiwan the past year has been that if the Chen regime ever “solves” the case, the culprit will almost certainly be a dead man, someone unable to deny the charges leveled against him and demand his day in court.

Polls show that only 25% of the public believes the government’s fairy tale. That means even half the Pan Green camp doesn’t buy it.

Even Vice-president Annette Lu doesn’t believe it. Annette Lu has openly stated her belief that two shooters were involved. Each shooter had one gun. Each shooter fired one shot. The shot fired at her was for real, but the shot fired at Chen may have been for show. [ ! ]

The Pan Blue opposition was caught off guard when Chen staged his Wag the Dog “assassination attempt” last March. Not this time. This time they saw the Chen regime coming a mile away.

See:
The 319 Truth Commission Report [Traditional Chinese]