Millions for Defense, but not One Cent for Tribute!

Millions for Defense, but not One Cent for Tribute!
Bevin Chu
October 25, 2006

The following news story from the Deutsche Presse-Agentur reveals why steadfast Pan Blue legislators are absolutely right to reject the extortionate “arms purchase” being rammed down the throats of ROC taxpayers by AIT Director Stephen Young, the Gauleiter of Taiwan.

After all, the illegal Chen regime squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace has no intention whatsoever of using any of the weapons purchased for the defense of either the province of Taiwan or the Republic of China as a whole.

Just look at how the treasonous Chen Shui-bian regime and the Lee Teng-hui regime before it have reacted to Japan’s continuing attempts to annex Diaoyutai.

Diaoyutai is an uninhabited Chinese islet off the northern coast of Taiwan.

Regardless of whether one is a Pan Blue patriot who understands that Taiwan is an indivisible part of China, or a Pan Green Quisling who entertains pipe dreams of an independent “Republic of Taiwan,” one thing is beyond dispute: Diaoyutai is an indivisible part of Taiwan.


Diaoyutai Islands, Yilan County, Province of Taiwan, Republic of China

Whether one considers Taiwan to be a province, or whether one considers Taiwan to be a nation ought to be irrelevant to the defense of Diaoyutai. Diaoyutai is part of Taiwan regardless of whether one considers Taiwan a province or a nation. It is enough that Diaoyutai is part of Yilan County, and Yilan County is an integral part of Taiwan.

But not only is the pusillanimous Chen regime not willing to defend Taiwan’s territory from creeping Japanese annexation, it is forcibly preventing Chinese patriots from Taiwan, Hongkong, and the Chinese mainland from defending Taiwan’s territory at their own expense!

What does a puppet regime as contemptible and useless as this need weapons for? Any kind of weapons?

See:
Diaoyutai and Pan Green Self-delusion

Let’s face it, US government demands that ROC taxpayers make extortionately priced “weapons purchases” from US defense contractors, are nothing more than Mafia demands for protection money.

What makes these US government demands even more outrageous than demands from the Mafia, is that the US government apparently has no intention of providing Taiwan any protection in return. At least with the Mafia, you actually get some degree of protection for your money. With Uncle Sam, you get zip.

Certainly Uncle Sam has no intention of providing Taiwan with any protection against Japan, Taiwan’s covetous neighbor to the north. Uncle Sam needs the cooperation of an increasingly militaristic Japan far more than it needs the cooperation of pusillanimous Taiwan independence Quislings. Therefore who cares if Japan annexes Taiwan’s sovereign territory at gunpoint? It’s no skin off Uncle Sam’s ass.

At this point, an old slogan comes to mind:

“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!”

Sound familiar?

It ought to. This resounding slogan represented America’s proudly defiant attitude during the Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war fought entirely at sea between the United States and France between 1798 and 1800, when France attempted to make similar extortionate demands upon the young nation of America.

Ironically, it now represents the proudly defiant attitude of KMT, NP, and PFP legislators in the ROC Legislature in the face of similar extortionate demands from the US Military Industrial Complex.

Asia-Pacific News
Taiwan accused of blocking protest over Japan’s occupying islands
By DPA – Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Oct 25, 2006, 19:00 GMT

Taipei – A Taiwan activist on Wednesday accused the Taiwan government of blocking a sea protest against Japan’s occupation of a group of disputed islets under Tokyo’s pressure.

Jin Chieh-shou said Taiwan, under pressure from Japan, has blocked a boat carrying 26 Hong Kong activists from entering Taiwan ports for repair and replenishment on its way to the Diaoyu islets.

The Taiwan government has also barred some 100 Taiwan activists from renting 10 fishing boats to sail to the Diaoyutai islets, forcing them to rent a private yacht, which can only carry 10 activists, to make the voyage.

‘Authorities have told all of Taiwan’s 34 ports not to lease fishing boats to us, apparently under pressure from the Japanese government,’ Jin said.

But Jin said the sea protest against Japan’s occupying the Diaoyu islets will go ahead, unless the weather is bad and the sea becomes choppy.

‘The Hong Kong boat is anchored off Keelung, north-east Taiwan. We will send food and water and spare parts for its engine and pump which have broken down. When the weather improves, we will set sail for Diaoyu islets,’ he said.

Known as Senkaku Islands by the Japanese and Diaoyo Islands by the Chinese, the islets lie 120 nautical miles north-east of Taiwan and 130 nautical miles south-west of Okinawa.

The US, which ruled the islands after World War II, handed them over to Japanese control in 1972.

Since then, China, Taiwan and Japan have been fighting over the islands. Beijing and Taipei say they have been part of Chinese territory since ancient times, while Tokyo claims them as Japanese.

The upcoming Defend Diaoyu Island Action will mark the 10th anniversary of the drowning of Hong Kong activist Chan Yuk-cheung.

Chan, 45, drowned near islands on September 26, 1996, after jumping into the sea in defiance of Japanese patrol boats blocking a ship carrying activists from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong bound for the islands.

The action is also to protest the Japanese government’s ‘nationalizing’ of a lighthouse on the islands which was built by a Japanese rightist group a dozen years ago as a declaration of Japan’s control of the island. The Hong Kong and Taiwan activists plan to land on the Diaoyu islets and stage a hunger strike to protest Japan’s occupation of the islands.

Among the 26 activists on the Hong Kong boat is an activist from China and a Chinese activist from Canada.

Advertisements

How Democracy Really Works

How Democracy Really Works
Bevin Chu
October 12, 2006

The Founding Fathers knew Democracy doesn’t Work — Why don’t We?

America’s Founding Fathers were farsighted political visionaries. In fact, they were much more. America’s Founding Fathers were “avatars,” i.e., embodiments or personifications of new principles, new attitudes, and new views of life. As such, they understood, as today’s kneejerk “champions of democracy” do not, that democracy is the worst form of government ever tried.


John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

As John Adams, 2nd President of the United States put it, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”


Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

As Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights, put it,
“[A democratic] majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”


James Madison, 4th President of the United States

As James Madison, 4th President of the United States and Father of the Constitution put it, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

Nowhere has the Founding Fathers’ understanding of the defects of democracy been borne out more clearly than on Taiwan. Over the past 18 years the political system administering the Taiwan region of China has degenerated from a flawed republic, the Republic of China, into full-blown “Taiwanese democracy,” and the result shows.

Taiwan does not lack either nativist demagogues or foreign neocolonialists eager to lecture us on how “Taiwan’s lively/thriving/vibrant democracy” supposedly works.

What Taiwan desperately lacks is someone, anyone, willing to talk about how democracy really works.

How Democracy Supposedly Works

How democracy supposedly works is summed up in an October 12 Taipei Times article entitled “Protests reflected democracy, Chen tells foreign guests“:


Chen Shui-bian, “president” of the Republic of China

Taipei Times: President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday that the disturbances on Double Ten National Day reflected the preciousness of Taiwan’s democracy … “Freedom of speech is fully protected here in Taiwan … Taiwan is a fully fledged democracy where freedom of speech is fully protected and different ideas are tolerated. The clamor that happened on national day displays the pluralism and dynamism of Taiwan’s democracy.”

How Democracy Really Works on Taiwan

How democracy really works on the Chinese island of Taiwan is summed up in an October 13 Taiwan News Online article entitled “Police revoke Shih’s rally permit“:

Taiwan News: Taipei police announced yesterday that they have revoked permission for the “Million Voices Against Corruption” campaign to assemble on Ketagalan Boulevard and to hold a parade on Zhongshan South Road near National Taiwan University Hospital from tomorrow to next Friday.


Caption: Return to Ketegelan Blvd on the 14th? Taipei Police are inclined to deny permission

The Zhongzheng Police First District under the Taipei City Police Department said that it has decided to withdraw the assembly permit issued to the campaign which is aimed at deposing President Chen Shui-bian over a spate of corrupt allegations against his family members and close aides.

Comment: The phrases “revoked permission to assemble,” and “decided to withdraw the assembly permit” say it all.

To Taiwan’s “champions of democracy,” the right to public assembly is not an inalienable right granted to sovereign individuals by Nature, but a “permission” granted to lowly subjects by the State, to be “revoked” or “withdrawn” at the discretion of democracy’s elective dictators.

“President” Chen Shui-bian’s lip service to the contrary notwithstanding, freedom of speech is not fully protected on Taiwan, different ideas are not tolerated, and the clamor on national day is not evidence of democracy’s “pluralism” and “dynamism.”

Taiwan News: Fang Yang-ning, deputy director of the police district, at a press conference yesterday explained that the permission to hold the demonstration was withdrawn mainly because the campaign had violated the assembly and parade law.

Fang said that the authorities have collected enough evidence to prove that the anti-Chen campaign had held an assembly and public activities on October 1, 5 and 10 without obtaining prior permission, which not had only violated the law but also had adversely impacted on public order and the interests of Taipei City residents.

Fang denied that the decision to withdraw the permission for the rally was made under pressure from the Cabinet. The Cabinet had earlier suggested that the relevant authorities should not approve any application by the campaign to assemble because of the disruptions to the National Day celebrations on Tuesday when the protesters attempted to surround the Presidential Office.

Comment: Is any comment necessary?

How Democracy Really Works in America

How American democracy really works, whom American democracy really protects, and to whom American democracy really answers, is summed up in the following October 13 article in The Sacramento Bee, entitled “U.S. agents question teen, Girl ran anti-Bush page on MySpace”:


Julia Wilson, 14, got a surprise visit from two Secret Service agents Wednesday at McClatchy High after the words “Kill Bush” appeared on MySpace.com. Her mom, Kirstie Wilson, says she should have been present when her daughter was questioned

Sacramento Bee: The latest Sacramento resident to be questioned by federal agents in possible threats against President Bush is a 14-year-old girl with a heart on her backpack and braces on her teeth, a freckle-nosed adolescent who is passionate about liberal politics and cute movie stars.

Her name is Julia Wilson, and she learned a vivid civics lesson Wednesday when two Secret Service agents pulled her out of biology class at McClatchy High School to ask about comments and images she posted on MySpace.

Comment: Julia Wilson got a real life lesson in how modern democracy works, instead of the “Pleasantville” virtual reality version of how democracy works taught in civics class.

Sacramento Bee: Beneath the words “Kill Bush,” Julia posted a cartoonish photo-collage of a knife stabbing the hand of the president. It was one of a few images Julia said she used to decorate an anti-Bush Web page she moderated on MySpace, the social networking Web site that is hugely popular among teenagers.

The Secret Service refused to answer questions about the case or even confirm an investigation. Eric Zahren, a Secret Service spokesman, said the agency does not discuss its work “due to the sensitivity of our mission.”

But Julia’s mother, Kirstie Wilson, and an assistant principal at McClatchy High said two agents showed them badges stating they were with the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal law prohibits making serious threats against the president, and Julia and her parents say what she did was wrong.

Comment: If democratic governments were really were “governments of the People, by the People, and for the People,” wouldn’t federal law prohibit the Secret Service from making serious threats against Julia Wilson, instead of the other way around?

Morally speaking, Julia Wilson and her parents were under no obligation whatsoever to concede that she was wrong. Julia Wilson was not wrong. Julia Wilson was right. George W. Bush was wrong. George W. Bush is the one who should be conceding that he is wrong.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

According to Roberts, “Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq has cost 655,000 Iraqis their lives. That is the conclusion of a study financed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for International Studies and conducted by physicians under the direction of Johns Hopkins University epidemiologists.”

George W. Bush is a war criminal, a mass murderer, guilty of the premeditated deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings. How many human beings is Julia Wilson gulity of murdering?

George W. Bush, according to democratic universalist eyewash, is a “public servant,” i.e., a “servant of the public” obligated to serve and protect his employers, members of the taxpaying public such as Julia Wilson.

Instead, George W. Bush, by murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, has provoked the anger of foreign terrorists, who are likely to exact revenge for their deaths.

Julia Wilson has not endangered the life of George W. Bush. George W. Bush has endangered the life of Julia Wilson.

If democratic governments were really “governments of the People, by the People, and for the People,” shouldn’t Julia Wilson be the one questioning George W. Bush for his behavior, instead of the other way around?

If democratic governments were really “governments of the People, by the People, and for the People,” shouldn’t t George W. Bush be apologizing to Julia Wilson? On his knees?

Julia Wilson does not appear to have made any “threats” against anyone whatsoever. She merely expressed anger. As anyone who has ever been in a personal growth workshop knows perfectly well, expressing “a feeling of wanting to stab someone” can hardly be equated with “intending to stab someone,” and still less with “threatening to stab someone.”

Anyone who doesn’t understand this distinction, is obtuse. Anyone who acts on the premise that there is no distinction, is a thug. Anyone who does not understand this distinction, and who acts on the premise that there is no distinction, is an obtuse thug.

The Secret Service and Homeland Security agents who descended on Julia Wilson’s biology class are real life versions of the dangerously literal minded government thugs caricatured in Hollywood films.

Kafkaesque is a term that has been overused, and consequently debased. Here is where it really applies.


Julia Wilson, high school freshman and dangerous assassin

Julia Wilson and her name are about as whitebread Anglo-Saxon Protestant mainstream American as you can get. This is fortunate. I hate to imagine where Julia would be at this moment if her name was say, “Fatima al-Marnissi.” Being subjected to torture and sexual abuse at the American Gulag at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

Sacramento Bee: The couple are disturbed, however, that federal agents questioned a child at school — without her parents present. And First Amendment lawyers question whether the Secret Service over-reacted to a 14-year-old’s comments on a Web site made for casual socializing.

“I don’t condone what she did, but it seems a little over the top to me,” said Julia’s father, Jim Moose. “You’d think they could look at the situation and determine that she’s not a credible threat.”

Here is how Julia Wilson’s family tells their story:

Two Secret Service agents arrived at their Land Park home about 2:30 Wednesday afternoon, Kirstie Wilson said. They told her they wanted to speak with her daughter about threats to the president that she had posted on MySpace.

“She was in molecular biology, and I said I really didn’t want to take her out of class for this,” Kirstie Wilson said. “I said I’d make sure she came right home from school.”

She asked the agents to come back in an hour, and they left.

Then Wilson sent her daughter a text message instructing her to come straight home from school.

“… there are two men from the secret service that want to talk with you. Apparently you made some death threats against president bush. Dont worry youre not going to jail or anything like that but they take these things very seriously these days,” Kirstie Wilson wrote.

“Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble”? her daughter replied, using common teenage shorthand for “Oh, my God.”

Kirstie Wilson called her husband. While they were on the phone, she received another text message from her daughter: “They took me out of class.”

Comment: The federal goons were determined to “teach this little brat a lesson she wouldn’t soon forget” and to “send a message” to other budding troublemakers across the nation who might be “getting too big for their britches. ”

Sacramento Bee: It was a 15- to 20-minute interview, Julia said. Agents asked her about her father’s job, her e-mail address, and her Social Security number. They asked about the MySpace page she had created last year as an eighth-grader at Sutter Middle School.

“I told them I just really don’t agree with Bush’s politics,” Julia said Thursday. “I don’t have any plans of harming Bush in any way. I’m very peaceful; I just don’t like Bush.”

The MySpace page under question was a group page, similar to an online club.

Most of the groups Julia is a part of are fan clubs for movie stars like Jake Gyllenhaal and Ewan McGregor. The group that got her in trouble was called something like “People who want to stab Bush” — Julia said she doesn’t remember the exact name because she soon changed it.

After an eighth-grade history lesson in which she learned that threatening the president is against the law, Julia said she changed the group name to “So Bush is an idiot but hey what else is new?”

The group primarily consisted of her teenage friends who share her liberal political interests, Julia said. She deleted the group page over the summer when she decided that MySpace was juvenile and taking up too much time.

Moose and Wilson say they had no idea what their daughter had posted online.

“I was more than happy to have them talk to her about the severity of what she did. But I wanted to be here with her,” Kirstie Wilson said.

McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said he usually does not notify parents when law enforcement officials come to school to interview students.

“Parents usually interfere with an investigation, so we usually don’t notify them until it’s done,” he said.

Comment: The phrase “interfere with an invesigation” is a euphemism for “angrily demand that the interrogation be conducted in a manner that respects the suspect’s constitutional rights.”


McClatchy High School freshman Julia Wilson, left, with her sister, Maddy, mother, Kirstie, and father, Jim Moose, in their Land Park home. Julia used to run a Web page on MySpace.com, a social networking site for teens, but now says she thinks it’s too juvenile and a time-waster

Sacramento Bee: Sacramento City Unified School District policy calls for parents to be notified but doesn’t say whether it should happen before or after a student is interviewed. State law doesn’t require parental notification.

In any case, said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Julia Wilson’s post did not sound like a “true threat” to the president, making it political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

“The courts have to distinguish between political rhetoric and hyperbole and a real threat,” Brick said. “A reasonable person would have to interpret what was said as indication of a serious intent to commit harm.”

Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said in the current political climate, “the threshold that brings (agents) in has gotten lower.”

Comment: Could it be any clearer? Does anyone truly not see how democracy really works? Democracy is not “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.” Democracy is “government of an elective dictator, by an elective dictator, and for an elective dictator.”

In what would appear to be a cosmic joke, both the R of C and the US of A have been simultaneously saddled with political leaders with nearly identical psychological profiles. Both Chen and Bush are ignorant buffoons. Both Chen and Bush are cunning demagogues. Both Chen and Bush possess the same uncanny ability to trample over their own nation’s basic laws yet somehow retain an iron grip on power.

I for one, don’t believe this is mere coincidence. I believe the Universe is sending both China and America a message, the same message.

The Universe is telling both China and America that this is how democracy really works. The Universe is telling both China and America that this is the sort of political leadership you can expect under democracy. The Universe is telling both China and America that it is time to start thinking about radical new alternatives.

Siege of the City Music Videos

Siege of the City Music Videos
Bevin Chu
October 11, 2006


Shih Ming-teh leads the Siege of the City

An old Chinese expression notes that “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

By logical extension, “A moving picture is worth a million words.”

The following music videos of the September 15, 2006 Siege of the City demonstration by the “Red Shirt Army” convey a sense of the atmosphere of the event far more eloquently than words can ever hope to. For anyone wondering what the event was all about, watch the videos.

Music Video 1

http://www.im.tv/vlog/Personal.asp?Memid=413015&FID=728585

Music Video 1 is set to O Fortuna, from Carl Orff’s earthy and rousing cantata, Carmina Burana. The English titles need a final edit by a native English speaker, but don’t let the Chinglish spoil your enjoyment of an otherwise skilfully made video

Music Video 2
http://www.im.tv/vlog/Personal.asp?Memid=413015&FID=718856
Music Video 3
http://www.im.tv/vlog/Personal.asp?Memid=413015&FID=718849

Music Video 2 and Music Video 3 are set to 紅花雨 Hong Hua Yu “Red Blossom Rain,” a popular song which has become the anthem for the “Topple Chen” movement.

Lyrics
[traditional Chinese] by 小蟲 Xiao Chong, 洪宇 Hong Yu
Music by 小蟲 Xiao Chong, Johnny Chen
Vocals by 趙詠華 Zhao Yonghua, 胡德夫 Hu Defu

紅花開 紅的心 紅的好美麗
為了你 等下去 我還在這裡
人不再 錯花季 雲濃月怎明
傷了心 不離棄 落成紅花雨
花若開 若有你 花才會美麗
盼望你 回頭看 我還在這裡

記得你 那一天 紅紅的眼睛
你的臉 你身影 笑容隨你去
在一起 流眼淚 一起看星星
能有幸 能相遇 永遠不忘記
漂著雨 迎著風 雨過盼風清
你牢記 我牢記 家就在這裡

Not Quite the Nelson Mandela of Taiwan

Not Quite the Nelson Mandela of Taiwan
Bevin Chu
October 04, 2006


Former DPP Chairman Shih Ming-teh

Executive Summary: Pan Blue protestors, in their struggle against ruling DPP corruption, are not wrong to cooperate with Shih Ming-teh. I myself took part in the September 15 圍城之夜 Seige of the City demonstration, and will take part in the upcoming October 10 Ten Ten National Day 天下圍攻 Universal Seige demonstration. But Shih Ming-teh is not merely fighting corruption, he is also promoting ethnic separatism. The most serious problem on Taiwan is not corruption, but racism. Self-hating anti-Chinese racism is both the emotional fuel that drives the Taiwan independence movement and the moral defect at its ideological core. Shih Ming-teh, unlike Hsu Hsing-liang, has never repented his advocacy of Taiwan independence. Shih Ming-teh, sad to say, has never elevated himself to the level of a Nelson Mandela. Therefore Pan Blue protestors can cooperate with Shih to fight corruption, but must reject Shih Ming-teh’s 柔性種族隔離 “kinder, gentler” brand of racist Apartheid.

The Million Citizen Movement to Depose Chen

A September 22 editorial by the China Post entitled “Salute Shih Ming-teh!” [sic] gushed that former Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Shih Ming-teh would go down in history as the first political leader to successfully rally support from both the Pan Blue and Pan Green political camps in the cause of clean government.

How Shih pulled off this feat is worth examining. Shih threw down a challenge. If one million people would contribute NT$100 (US$3) each as proof of their commitment, Shih would lead a mass sit-in before the Presidential Palace, resolutely refusing to leave until Chen either stepped down or his (illegal and illegitimate) second term ran out in 18 months, on May 20, 2008.

Coming from the “Nelson Mandela of Taiwan,” Shih’s promise not to throw in the towel before the goal was achieved carried considerable weight. After all, Shih toughed out 25 years in a cramped prison cell under the Two Chiangs. What was a year and a half in the fresh air and sunlight by comparison?

Shih named his protest movement the 百萬人民倒扁運動 Million Citizen Movement to Depose Chen.

Public response was nothing less than overwhelming. Even Shih was taken by surprise. His target of NT$100 million (US$3 million) was achieved not within one month as anticipated, but within a single week.

Most of Shih’s support came from the estimated one million Pan Blue and independent protestors who surrounded the Presidential Palace on March 27, 2004 to demand a Ukraine style recount. As China watchers have noted correctly, Shih Ming-teh’s Depose Chen movement has “a Green head and a Blue body.”

These Pan Blue and independent voters cast their ballots for the actual winners of the 2004 Presidential Election, Lien Chan and James Soong. These voters were betrayed by a duplicitous Bush II regime determined to give US puppet Chen Shui-bian a second term even though they knew Lien/Soong had won by a 6% margin.

Their frustration over the past two and a half years has been roiling magma beneath an active volcano. These Pan Blue and independent voters have been joined by disillusioned Pan Green voters who regret having supported Chen and the DPP in the past.

As fate would have it, Shih was in the right place at the right time to tap into this reservoir of pent-up frustration. Pan Blue political leaders dropped the ball. Shih Ming-teh snatched it up.

Nelson Mandela ‘s Promotion of South African National Unity

Shih Ming-teh’s reputation as the “Nelson Mandela of Taiwan” is not entirely unjustified. Shih endured 25 years as a political prisoner, just two years short of Mandela’s 27. In terms of sheer suffering, Shih certainly ranks up there with Mandela.


Nelson Mandela, 11th President of South Africa

Shih Ming-teh also deserves credit for championing a 大和解 Grand Reconciliation between 本省人 ben sheng ren, literally “people from this province,” i.e., “Taiwanese” and 外省人 wai sheng ren, literally “people from outside provinces,” i.e., “mainlanders.” I for one, believe Shih is sincere in his desire for intra-island reconciliation.

Unfortunately Shih Ming-teh’s Grand Reconciliation falls considerably short of Nelson Mandela’s truly grand reconciliation, as embodied in South Africa’s Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995.

When Nelson Mandela championed reconciliation following the end of Apartheid, he didn’t champion reconciliation only among some South Africans, he championed reconciliation among all South Africans — blacks, whites, coloured, and Asians.

Furthermore, Mandela’s Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act did not just promote reconciliation, it also promoted national unity, as its name clearly implies. Mandela even named his newly formed administration the Government of National Unity.


Former ROC Vice-president Lien Chan on his historic visit to Beijing

Similarly, when former “East China” (the Republic of China) vice-president Lien Chan embarked on his landmark 2005 Journey of Peace to “West China” (the People’s Republic of China), he did not just promote near term peace, he also promoted Chinese national unity and Chinese reunification, just as Nobel Laureate Willy Brandt promoted German national unity and German reunification via his “Ostpolitik.”

Shih Ming-teh’s Promotion of Chinese National Disunity

By contrast, Shih Ming-teh’s Grand Reconciliation promotes reconciliation only among some Chinese, not all Chinese. Shih Ming-teh’s not so grand reconciliation promotes reconciliation only between ben sheng ren and wai sheng ren on Taiwan, not between ben sheng ren on Taiwan and wai sheng ren on the mainland.

Shih insists on defining Chinese in the Taiwan region of China as 新台灣人 “New Taiwanese” citizens of a would be 台灣國 “Nation of Taiwan.” Never mind that the Republic of China Constitution defines Republic of China citizens as Chinese. Never mind that most Republic of China citizens vehemently object to being defined, against their will, as “citizens of the Nation of Taiwan.”

On September 15, an estimated 500,000 to one million Depose Chen marchers surrounded the Presidential Palace and Presidential Mansion in a symbolic Siege of the City. According to Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou, the demonstration was the third largest in the island’s history, the two largest being the March 13, 2004 Lien/Soong election rally and the March 27, 2004 Pan Blue protest against Chen regime election fraud.


Shih Ming-teh led Seige of the City

Shih Ming-teh lieutenant Wang Li-ping, intoxicated by the seige’s spectacular success, shouted “Long live citizens of the Nation of Taiwan!”

She was booed off the stage and compelled to apologize for violating solemn assurances that the movement’s sole purpose would be toppling Chen Shui-bian, not promoting Taiwan independence.

Meanwhile, Shih rejects reconciliation with wai sheng ren on the mainland, whom he classifies as “Chinese, not Taiwanese,” i.e., foreign nationals, and if truth be told, “enemy aliens.”

Just last month Shih Ming-teh boasted that ever since Hong Kong’s retrocession in 1997, and Macao’s retrocession in 1999, he has refused to set foot in either city. He even boasted that he refuses to fly on any commercial airline flight that traverses mainland Chinese airspace.

Disassociating Taiwan independence from flagrant, shameless, unregenerate ruling DPP party corruption is hardly sufficient to rescue the faltering Taiwan independence movement. Corruption, as repugnant as it may be, is not the central defect at the heart of the Taiwan independence movement.

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.”

This central defect at the heart of Taiwan independence ideology is something that too few political analysts have made an effort to expose and discredit.


Hanging the Head of a Sheep, Selling the Meat of a Dog

The Chinese have an expression: 掛羊頭 , 買狗肉 gua yang tou, mai gou rou, meaning “hanging the head of a sheep, selling the meat of a dog.” The expression refers to an unscrupulous butcher who hung a sheep’s head in his shop window to make customers think they were buying mutton, when in fact they were getting dog meat. The American expression “bait and switch” is similar, albeit not identical in meaning.

The name of Shih’s ostensibly ad hoc organization in Chinese is 百萬人民倒扁總部 Bai Wan Ren Min Dao Bian Zong Bu. Literally translated it means “Headquarters for the Million Citizen Movement to Topple Chen.”


The Official Logo for the Depose Chen Movement

So why was the Headquarters for the Million Citizen Movement to Topple Chen assigned the URL “http://www.newtaiwan.org.tw?”


http:www.newtaiwan.org.tw

Why wasn’t it assigned the URL “http://www.topplechen.org” or “http://www.deposechen.org?”

Why was the Headquarters for the Million Citizen Movement to Depose Chen given the English name “The New Taiwan Foundation?”

Was Shih’s organization really an ad hoc alliance whose sole purpose was to topple Chen, as its abbreviated name in Chinese, 倒扁總部 Dao Bian Zhong Bu, i.e., the Headquarters to Topple Chen, clearly suggests?

Or was Shih’s organization created with an entirely different, longer term end in mind, as its name in English, “The New Taiwan Foundation” suggests?

Looking at Shih’s dubious nomenclature from the opposite angle, why isn’t the organization’s name in Chinese 新台灣基金會 Xin Tai Wan Ji Jin Hui?

English literacy is depressingly low on Taiwan, even among better educated Pan Blue voters. Would making the organization’s name in Chinese correspond to its name in English make its purpose just a little too obvious to the Pan Blue voters who constitute nine tenths of Shih’s support?

Presumably Pan Blue voters have not forgotten who coined the term 新台灣人 Xin Tai Wan Ren, i.e., “New Taiwanese.”

Answer: It was unregenerate apologist for Japanese colonialism Lee Teng-hui.

I’m not saying that Shih isn’t deeply disgusted by Chen’s corruption. I’m not saying that Shih doesn’t want Chen to step down. I am saying that the real reason Shih wants Chen to step down is that Chen is destroying the Taiwan independence movement by giving it a bad name.

In other words, even though Shih is deeply disgusted by Chen’s corruption, and earnestly wants Chen to step down, clean government isn’t Shih’s overriding concern. Shih’s overriding concern is rescuing the Taiwan independence movement. Shih knows that unless he can disassociate the Taiwan independence movement from appalling DDP corruption, his cherished dream of Taiwan independence is done for.

One of the many ironies about the ongoing independence vs. reunification struggle on Taiwan is that many participants in the struggle, Pan Green and Pan Blue alike, don’t understand what will advance their own cause.

On the one hand, if the burly, tatooed DPP thugs who have been physically attacking mild-mannered, middle-class “Depose Chen” protestors realized that former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh was desperately trying to save the Taiwan independence movement, they would be joining the “Depose Chen” protestors, not assaulting them.

On the other hand, Pan Blue voters who have flocked to Shih’s side are not wrong to collaborate with Shih in order to topple the ruling DPP kleptocracy, but only if they remain alert to Shih’s ulterior motives. They must insist that the alliance remain, as advertised, an ad hoc alliance dedicated to deposing Chen, and nothing more. They must not allow their contributions in time and energy to be misused promoting Shih Ming-teh’s 柔性種族隔離 Soft Apartheid.

Shih Ming-teh has the right to promote his own political goals. But he does not have the right to defraud supporters who contributed time and money to depose Chen, only to have their contributions diverted into promoting Taiwan independence.

DPP Hard Apartheid vs. Shih Ming-teh Soft Apartheid

Two weeks ago Chen Shui-bian’s obedient lap dog Yu Hsi-kuen barked at Shih Ming-teh and his 紅衫軍 Red Shirt Army lieutenants. Yu denounced them as “Chinese people who are abusing Taiwanese people.”

Shih Ming-teh was so hurt by the charge he wept openly.

Many confused and disoriented Pan Blue patriots hastened to express solidarity with Shih. They didn’t pause to consider why Shih was so hurt by the charge. They didn’t pause to consider how and why the term “Chinese people” had become an epithet on Taiwan.

Shih wept not because his fellow countrymen on the mainland had been unfairly demonized. After all, Shih doesn’t consider wai sheng ren on the Chinese mainland to be his fellow countrymen. He considers them foreign nationals, even “enemy aliens.”

Shih wept because his continuing, costly, lifelong sacrifices on behalf of Taiwan independence were not appreciated by his comrades in the Taiwan independence movement.

Shih Ming-teh, like Chen Shui-bian and Yu Hsi-kuen, considers himself “Taiwanese, not Chinese.” If anything, more so. Shih sacrificed 25 years of his life for a separate and independent, non-Chinese “Nation of Taiwan.” What, by contrast, did Chen and Yu ever give up for the cause? How dare any of them accuse him of being “Chinese?” The injustice of it all!

Consider two hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario One:

In 1930s Germany, a well educated, upper middle class German intellectual endorses the National Socialist Workers Party’s political goals, but faults the party’s methods as thuggish, hence counterproductive. Offended Nazi Party hardliners call him ugly names — everything from “traitor to the Aryan race” to “Jew lover.” German Jews rush to his side, expressing heartfelt solidarity with him, not realizing he feels hurt not because he disagrees with the Nazi Party’s political goals, but because his good intentions are not appreciated by his fellow Aryans.

Scenario Two:

In 1960s America, a well educated, upper middle class white Southerner endorses the Ku Klux Klan’s policy of white separatism, but faults the party’s methods as thuggish, hence counterproductive. Offended Klansmen call him ugly names — everything from “race traitor” to “nigger lover.” Black civil rights workers rush to his side, expressing heartfelt solidarity with him, not realizing he feels hurt not because he disagrees with white separatism as a political ideal, but because his good intentions are not appreciated by his fellow White separatists.

Shih’s response to Yu’s self-hating anti-Chinese racism should have been:

“Fomenting ethnic hatred among our fellow countrymen by artificially dividing them into “Chinese” on one side of the Taiwan Strait and “Taiwanese” on the other side of the Taiwan Strait is morally contemptible and unworthy of a national leader!”

That would have been the response of Sun Yat-sen, the “Father of Modern China,” whose overarching value was not 三民主義 San Min Zhu Yi, i.e., the Three People’s Principles, as often assumed, but the ancient Chinese ideal of 天下為公 Tian Xia Wei Gong. Often expressed as as 天下為公 世界大同 Tian Xia Wei Gong, Shi Jie Da Tong, the phrase refers to the Universal Brotherhood of Man. Sun Yat-sen was not merely a nationalist who wanted to unify China, but a humanist who wanted to unite the human race.


Sun Yat-sen, Father of Modern China


Tian Xia Wei Gong, Calligraphy by Sun Yat-sen

That would have been the response of Mahatma Gandhi, the “Father of Modern India,” who rightly opposed the political partition of India into two separate and independent nations, one Hindu and one Muslim.


Mahatma Gandhi, Father of Modern India

That alas, was not the response of Shih Ming-teh.

Shih Ming-teh, it pains me to say, fails to rise to the level of a Nelson Mandela, a Sun Yat-sen, or a Mahatma Gandhi.

Shih Ming-teh fails to rise to the level of these great world leaders, because he does not oppose Apartheid. He merely opposes one form of Apartheid while championing another form of Apartheid. He merely opposes intra-island Apartheid while championing cross-Straits Apartheid.

Shih Ming-teh fails to rise to the level of these great world leaders because his vision is too small, too constrained, too insular.

After all, even Chen Shui-bian has realized and acknowledged that “Taiwan independence is both self-deception and deception of others.”


Former DPP Chairman Hsu Hsing-liang

Shih Ming-teh ought to follow the lead of former comrade Hsu Hsing-liang, a one time Taiwan independence radical who has seen through the myth of Taiwan “independence,” and advocates a farsighted policy of 大膽西進 Da Dan Xi Jin, i.e., “Boldly Advancing West.”

Shih Ming-teh, it saddens me to say, is not quite the Nelson Mandela of Taiwan.