Taiwan Blog Feed

FAPA press conference

Big News today: Lee Teng-hui convened a press conference this afternoon to announce that he was giving his vote to Frank Hsieh. Finally. As I sat in a taxi listening to him on the radio speaking in gruff Mandarin, the taxi driver bluntly informed me that Lee would have no effect. That led to a long political lecture by the driver on the rising prices and our failing economy. "People have no money in their pockets!"

This one is going down to the wire....

Jonathan Adams has a piece in the International Herald Tribune on the youth vote. It's up at Thirsty Ghosts:

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the youth vote helped propel the DPP into power. It may have been critical in 2004, when Chen Shui-bian won the presidency by fewer than 30,000 votes.

That year, nearly 60 percent of voters aged 20 to 29 favored Chen, who was seen as promising a fresh start after more than half a century of rule by the corruption-tainted Nationalists, or Kuomintang. But this month a United Daily News poll found a reversal, with more than 60 percent of prospective voters in their 20s now supporting the Nationalist candidate, Ma Ying-jeou.

The DPP's own corruption scandals have been one source of disenchantment. Another has been concern that the party's often strident emphasis on Taiwan's independence from mainland China may be hurting the island's economy and costing it jobs.

My own experience is that it is automatic among the young to say they have no political affiliation, and one has to dig a little to find it. They are very cagey about revealing their political preferences. Note that the poll Adams quotes is a UDN poll -- a KMT paper. Yet I have heard many knowledgeable people say that the DPP thinks it will be lucky to get half the youth vote. The KMT's strategy of impoverishing the island to bring down the Chen government has been very successful.

Speaking of youths, I stopped by the Overseas Student Association Press Conference in Taipei to see what they had to say. Representatives from Taiwanese student organizations from all over the world were there. Unfortunately the media wasn't, since Lee Teng-hui was putting his foot into the race at that very moment. The kids made some good points, but no one was there to listen.

At 3 I dropped in at the FAPA press conference. Lots of local press there. No foreign press. The speeches were delivered in Taiwanese, although the sign pictured above was in English. There was a video in English with various US Congressmen speaking on Taiwan, though, in English. The press conference appeared geared toward the local media....

Frustrating experiences: people complain that there are too many white foreigners speaking for the Taiwanese -- and it is because of the bu hao yi si problem. Taiwanese need to speak out more! Case in point: I got a call today from a reporter for an international publication. He's in Taichung and wants to talk to some Greens -- Taichung being a fairly Blue city. It just so happens there's a planeload of locals in from overseas, all originally from the area, and they have with them a leaven of locals who live there. Interesting people with roots in the area going back a couple of hundred years, and they speak English. Perfect for what he needs! So I swing into action to set it up....only they won't talk to the reporter -- saying they were afraid their English isn't good enough. Really, it seems they are just too shy to talk. But ultimately, if Taiwanese won't talk for themselves, no one will want to speak for them.

[Taiwan]

Wednesday night I stopped by O'Ginny's, which is in a warren somewhere off of Mingsheng East Road, to listen to Jonathan Manthorpe, author of Forbidden Nation, speak on the election and on Taiwan in general. Manthorpe proved to have a rare knowledge of Taiwan, and was a pleasure to listen to. The food was meh, but the eye candy behind the bar was outstanding. Unfortunately, I can't give you directions because I doubt I could find it again -- it appears to be located in a tesseract that expands in every direction as you walk along it. I think I walked around there for about three hours, but never actually got any nearer to Nanjing E Road.

Manthorpe talked for roughly 45 minutes. Unlike many newsman, Manthorpe was aware that the published polls in the pro-Blue papers are nonsense. He said that people he respected from both parties had told him the election was tight. It's Ma's election to lose, but if he screws up, he could lose.

On Tibet, Manthorpe said that everyone had told him that it would have little effect on the election. He did say it could have an effect if the election is close. My own prediction is that if Hsieh wins, the KMT will immediately blame it on Tibet even though they are saying beforehand that Tibet will have no effect.

One thing about the Tibet issue not being discussed: most discussions of the Tibet-Taiwan relationship have focused on their mutual threat from China. The context, in other words, is the sovereignty issue. But it should be kept in mind that there are millions of Buddhists in Taiwan for whom the Dalai Lama is a revered figure, and thousands of Tibetan Buddhists who might well be affected by events in Tibet. In other words, religion is another point of entry for the Tibet issue into local politics, not just sovereignty. Caveat: many of the Buddhist institutions are pro-KMT, another complicating factor. In Taiwan, politics is never simple, one of the sources of its addictiveness....Hsiao Bi-khim also pointed out another connection in the post below -- opening Tibet to China economically through the railway has simply resulted in greater exploitation of Tibet by Chinese -- an obvious parallel to the One China common market. This is a cogent point that might swing a few votes.

Max Hirsch over at Thirsty Ghosts has an article on the Tibet Factor:

Ma's attack on Wen is hardly novel among politicians here. For the ruling, pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, bashing Beijing is virtually a pastime. But Ma -- considered Beijing's best hope for curbing independence moves by Taipei -- has staked his presidential bid on vows to further cross-strait detente.

Those plans now appear in danger as public outrage here over Beijing's ongoing crackdown in Tibet has forced Ma to mothball his ''China-friendly'' persona. With just three days left before the island's presidential election Saturday, the frontrunner is scrambling to prevent rival Frank Hsieh of the DPP from painting him as a Beijing apologist amid the clampdown.

''At the beginning of Mr. Ma's campaign, he was rarely harsh on China. But because of [Hsieh's] attacks for being soft on the Tibet issue, Ma's had to adjust his strategy,'' said Huang Kwei-bo, a political scientist at National Chengchi University.

''I sense a shift [in Ma's rhetoric],'' Huang said.

Making matters worse were Wen Jiabao's Tuesday comments, which ''forced Mr. Ma's hand,'' he said.

''It was very unwise for Wen to talk about Tibet and Taiwan together -- that will remind people here of China's view of the island as a renegade province,'' he added, referring to Wen's blaming the Dalai Lama for riots by Tibetans and then slamming Taiwan's referenda in the same press conference.

As everyone braces for a probable Ma victory, there's a new line out that Ma and Beijing might not necessarily work with each other as well as people like me believe. Lots of people in the community of Taiwan observers are taking that position. I remain skeptical. Because for all that Ma has criticized Beijing, he hasn't said that Tibet should be independent. At heart, I believe, Ma remains committed to the China-as-Zion theology of the ROC. In any case, the focus on Ma is wrong; if Ma himself ran the KMT, I would have fewer worries -- but the ideologues at the top like Lien Chan, who think of themselves as Chinese and despise Taiwan, are running the show. Ma has never shown any ability to stand up to them. I'm afraid that those betting on a Ma show of strength are trying to build castles out of pudding....

[Taiwan]

On major streets at rush hour, the two parties have people standing on street corners with signs, and handing out packets of kleenex. Here a bevy of young beauties supports the DPP.

Today began with a lightning ride up to Taipei to attend some of the events that are happening around the capital as the election approaches. First up was the ICRT Roundtable on the Election. ICRT's Jeffrey Mindich acted as moderator of the panel, which consisted of the DPP's own Hsiao Bi-khim, Ho Si-ying from the KMT, and three academics. Bi-khim was outnumbered, which was not to say outgunned, since two of the academics, Raymond Wu, and Alexander Huang, gave every appearance of being strongly pro-KMT. The third academic, Dr. Lin of the Academic Sinica, did a better job of appearing neutral. I was upset for Bi-khim's sake: on an island with 160 universities, ICRT could only find one academic willing to sound uncommitted? It was an excellent example of the way the KMT's networks continue to pay off -- enabling it to get its people to key events so that it can get its talking points into the media as "analysis."

My notes on the Q&A session are given below:

Jeff began by introducing everyone, and saying that the format called for the reps of the two parties to speak for a minute and then the floor would be open. Hsiao Bi-khim opened

She started by asking, since the two platforms do often appear the same, who is better at getting things done? In terms of general tone of campaign, she said, the DPP was now focusing on "reversing the tide." This concept originated with the "dramatic defeat" in the legislative elections, which has generated tremendous anxiety about one-party domination returning to Taiwan, she said. "This very difficult situation leads us to talk about reversing the tide." After mentioning Beijing's increasing pressure on Taiwan, she turned to the DPP's major themes and major policies. The party's general themes highlighted differences, including normalizing economic relations with trade, and further liberalizing trade, vs opposition to Ma's One China Common Market. Another theme she spoke of was "the need for checks and balances vs one party domination." "Yes" to checks and balances, "no" to one party domination. Yes to job security, no to common market. Bi-khim sounded great -- on message, eloquent, forceful. Very impressive. Totally hot too. Is there a fan club I can join?

After Hsiao came Ho of the KMT. Ho was tall, well-spoken, on message, and bluntly humorous. He hit the usual KMT themes: the economy, "corruption", rapproachment with China. Addressing the One China Market, and One Party dominance, he said that "we believe it is only natural for a political party to pursue the ruling power in the government in both the executive and legislative branches." No one would say in the US that one party dominance is bad. As for the common market, he pointed out that the market is global. Ma wants the cross-strait common market, he said. The term "one china market", he argued, "presupposes area limited to Greater China only." Responding to DPP attacks on the possibility of Chinese labor coming to Taiwan, the DPP says that market is about labor mobility, but the idea that opening will result in 200 million laborers coming to Taiwan is not tenable. He said that the One China Market is very much based on experiences in Europe and other places, based on WTO rules, and that its direction is to have a deeper business relationship with China.

Mindich then compared the US election, with so many issues, to the local election, where the range of issues appears narrow. Is my perception wrong, he asked?

Alex Huang answered first. The China factor "is always there in any campaign." He then offered the KMT interpretation of the One China issue: one campaign, he said, says shelve issues that can't be agreed on and go for practical stuff, the other emphasizes soveriegnty. One side thinks dignity carries more weight, but other side says prosperity comes first, Huang said. Huang's position is a caricature, and a KMT-oriented caricature at that. These little soirees go a long way to explain why the KMT is so good at getting the foreign media to absorb its positions as the conventional wisdom. I had listened to Huang frame the referendum issues to one of the foreign press representatives prior to the panel, so I got a pretty good line on what his political beliefs were.

Mindich, who seemed, at least to me, to monopolize entirely too much of the time that should have gone to the foreign press, asked whether the panel thought that voters understood the issues.

Raymond Wu answered that the presidential elections are are candidate centered, not policy centered. Both Ma and Hsieh have policy white papers, but having such policy studies, he said, is a fact of life rather than a necessity to drive the campaign. Do people actually read the thick policy papers? Wu then went on to criticize the attacks on friends and family in the election. He then went totally off topic to talk about what qualifications each candidate should have, answering a question no one had asked.

Mindich followed up by asking whether issues been ignored for the focus on person.

Jih-wen Lin of the Academica Sinica picked that up, observing that "we know from theory and empircal research that people have already made up their minds." "Probably most voters have made up mind several months before the election." Short-term campaign issues boost turnout and are important in tight campaigns, he said. "If the election were close...but with Ma leading in polls, so...." He finished by observing that "20 days from now" [voters] will forget everything.

Sitting there -- bored to tears, and slowly coming to understand why international correspondents must sooner or later become substance abusers -- I was tempted to ask why anyone would pay attention to polls from pro-Blue papers, with their long record of error, but Mindich beat me to it. I decided not to ask any questions, so that I could preserve the possibility of attendance at future events....heh.

Mindich asked: Previous polls. Do you buy the hype about polls, Hsiao Bi-khim? Have voters made up their minds?

She neatly sidestepped that issue, for as she noted, according to Taiwan law, it is illegal to discuss or disclose polls ten days prior to an election. Instead, she pointed out the absurd polls for the Kaohsiung and Taipei mayoral elections. She observed that people are not willing to disclose their preferences when one candidate or party has a dominate position in media and society.

Mindich then asked whether DPP claims that Ma is pro-China, and in the media, where Ma is sometimes portrayed as pro-China, could be hurting Ma.

The KMT's Ho responded that when the media says the KMT is pro-China, it is a relative term. "Compared to DPP's position, you can say that," he added, with no little humor. Ho said that the KMT believes that there shouldn't be any change in political symbols like anthem and flag and constitution and so in that sense, it is for the status quo. [Yes, dear reader, get out your barf bags!] This assessment Ma has been out there for many, many years, he noted, so Ma's campaign regards this as a constant rather than a barrier.

Mindich then observed that the two candidates appear to be meeting in the middle, with Ma becoming more critical of China, and Hsieh more moderate. Ah, I would add, the power of illusion. Mindich asked whether they would meet in the middle so voters won't know what the differences are?

Dr. Huang said that the change is a technical change aimed at undecided voters. Confirmed or committed voters will not be affected by such tactical changes.

Dr. Lin asked: who are the centrist voters? Some say they don't exist, but they are wrong, he said. There might be more consensus between the two candidates then differences, he noted, adding that the idea is then to shift attention to other issues. "That is why the parties aim at families, at fathers." Everything depends on the undecided voter...how many are there? he wondered aloud. "In this campaign younger people under 35 I would consider that group." He asked: if they come up out to and increase voter turnout to 80%...who are they going to support?

Mindich then asked about the amount of mudsling compared to previous campaigns.

Dr Wu fielded that one, and his party affiliation became blindingly obvious. He started by noting that "negative campaigning is common, look at Geraldine Ferraro, and the negative campaigning by Obama's Reverend." (Except that there weren't any by him, only about him, I mentally corrected). Friends and families of these two candidates were not spared by these attacks and allegations, most of which were not founded, he said. He then took off in flights of fancy. "This is not something voters are accustomed to," he said, piously, "and the extent in this campaign took me by surprise." (Apparently Dr. Wu just flew in from Mars this morning.) Next came the pro forma warning about DPP dirty tricks. I quote verbatim: "We about three days left before the election and you have all been here long enough to know, and you know the 'dirty tricks' and you know that if we have any dirty tricks -- and I think we'll see two responses by the voters -- after experiencing something that happened 4 years ago today -- and I don't think that voters will be suprised by anything..." Anyone nutcase enough to believe that Chen staged his own assassination is living in a KMT fantasy world. I quote more as he moved on to regurgitate the KMT platform: "If there are dirty tricks, we are really having some very dire economic problems, and these quality of life issues are very important to voters, and I don't think if we are unfortunate enough to have dirty tricks in the next few days, voters will buy it." Too bad I couldn't convey the delightful tone of patronizing warning, complete with the piously serious stare at the audience, with which Dr. Wu conveyed these important words. Dr. Wu, your special certificate for a lifetime supply of KMT Koolaid is in the mail....

Readers can see why Bi-khim spent the afternoon wearing the grimly determined look of a Japanese suicide infantryman.....

Mindich finally opened the floor to the people the meeting was ostensibly for. The first questioner was someone from a Russian business magazine, whose name I didn't catch. He asked whether the winner from either camp would appoint a PM from the other camp. This was dealt with quickly, and then Max Hirsch, one of the best foreign reporters here on the island -- [FULL DISCLOSURE: Max bought me dinner once] asked how Tibet affected the election. Max couldn't mention it, but yesterday Ma was saying they might consider boycotting the Olympics over Tibet -- and you can only imagine what will happen to the independence movement in Tibet if it fucks up the Olympics for China -- and then just this morning, after Ma had attempted to separate the Tibet and Taiwan issues, Wen Jibao of China was out there claiming that Tibet and Taiwan were the same issue and China will not be split, etc. Just what we need: China getting all bombastic as an election in Taiwan approaches. I hope voters here get the message....

Alex Huang answered first, guardedly saying that information coming out of Tbet is quite opaque, so it is a difficult question. (I thought that was an admirably evasive answer). He then went on to add that international news agencies have not provided enough information to discuss it in the classrooms. Then he made his main point, which was that his morning class of 69 undergrads care more about job opportunities than Tibet. The pro-KMT slant of that point, if not Dr. Huang, should be obvious.

A woman from the VOA, Peggy Chan (Chen?) asked about Ma, Hsieh, and relations between China, Taiwan, and the US.

Dr. Lin fielded that one, saying that it is "more complicated than we imagine." Lin offered the conventional view that a Ma election will cool down relations between China and Taiwan (MT: I suppose if you call capitulation, "cooling down"), but if China and the US warm to each other, then who is upset? he said. A Hsieh election, he argued, would be a strong signal to the US that Taiwan wants to be separate from China.

Dr. Huang added that the question actually hangs on US election, since so many assistant secretaries won't be confirmed until this time next year.

An academic from the US China policy center at USC then asked a question trying to get a description of the voting population.

Dr. Lin answered that the voting population is not clear. There is a huge group susceptible to mobilization, but which party's? Young people tend to have personal judgments that are perhaps positive to Ma or Hsieh, but will vote party image or issues....

Mindich jumped in to asked about the Pentagon annual report, which stated that the growing economic power of China gives it increasing economic and diplomatic tools to coerce Taiwan. Unless Taiwan can counter china's free trade agreements that it is signing with many Asian nations, then Taiwan faces problems.

Dr. Wu observed that the possible marginalization of Taiwan in the world is a concern with. "Do we need someone to go to Beijing to break the dealock? Or can we go through Washington or some other nation?" Wu then once again veered off topic, determined to bring up issues no one had asked about. In this case he actually noted that no one asked about the referendum, but he went on to discuss it anyway.

The salon was then disturbed by a pro-Taiwan fellow, an old Taiwanese guy, who started a speech attacking the KMT ("I am Taiwanese not Chinese!) but he was hushed up and Mindich politely ignored him. He was too serious to be described as comic relief, but too comic to take seriously.

Simon from Christian Science Monitor was up next. He asked with all the different labels applied to Ma, can Mr. Ho tell us what label we should be using? Everyone laughed at that, but then he moved on to ask what changes Ma would make? What does Ma have to offer that Beijing wants to hear? Perhaps Chen can be blamed, but what really can Taiwan do? he said.

The KMT's HO had a good chuckle over the label, evading it with a joking refusal to answer. "But bottom line is that the cross strait atmosphere must be improved. He then said, "first on the international political economy front, the KMT believes we must bow to wealth." (direct quote, folks. My friends and I sitting there almost died laughing.) The second is tourism, which will improve cross strait relations, he added.

Bi-khim jumped all over that: "it sounds like what Mr. Ho said is exactly what my candidate is proposing." She went on to say that Hsieh is talking about expanding flights. Because a framework for charter flights is already in place, expanded charters are most practical way to achieve that, she said. She then noted that with 70% of the island's investment already in china, investment should be diversified to India, Vietnam, and elsewhere. She also said that Hsieh in economics has been on moderate side, "at least within my party." He talks about normalizing trade relations. She then made an excellent observation -- the One China Market is not just an economic issue, but an issue of sovereignty as well.

A long question about Tibet followed, and Mindich followed on by saying that the DPP has said that if the KMT is elected Taiwan will look like Tibet.

The KMT spokesman, Ho, said that Tibet will have only a "quite limited effect on election." First, he argued, "we believe that most voters have made up their minds" so it really depends on how many voters will be mobilized for their cause. My count is 23% of total population." Who is likely to be affected? he asked. The youngest age cohort. He claimed that he was in constant contact with young people, and Tibet doesn't play a role in their voting. "I asked them if tibet will influence their voting intentions, but our situation is different. We have 90 mile strait between us and China, so it is different." Michael Fahey, sittting next to me and kibbutzing, pointed out that those were Ma's exact words. One way the KMT shapes the media discourse is presenting its political points as "analysis."

Hsaio Bi-khim spoke next. She said that she agrees that "Tibet ... will not create decisive waves", but the election outcome may be close enough that a 1-2% difference in attitude change might affect the outcome. She then described how the Taiwanese and Tibetans had protested side by side, since there was a feeling that they "share a common oppression from China." She then cleverly observed that the Tibetan Railway was supposed to bring economic opportunities but instead has only brought increased colonialism in Tibet -- an oblique reference to the effects of the One China Market.

Mindich then asked what the relative quiet of Chen and Lee Teng-hui meant.

Dr. Wu answered that Chen took step backward and let Hsieh stand out. Wu then gave the strict KMT claim that Chen became symbol of division in Taiwan, and backward steps in policy. Realizing, I think, that he had gone too far, Wu then added that Chen had raised Taiwan consciousness.

Dr. Huang, said that "my personal observation is that Lee Teng-hui has always placed himself at high altitude to observe what is happening on the ground." Huang added that Lee was hurt in the last legislative campaign. "He threw in everything into the TSU vote but was not successful."

Ralph Jennings of Reuters asked: "moving to end of may, what is first thing your candidate will do when elected?"

Ho answered: rebuild trust with US, work on china cross-strait relationship

Hsiao Bi-khim answered: our priorities would not be too different. Hsieh has timeline for charter flights. but our society has became extremely partisan, and of course both parties must take responsibility. Bi-khim often seemed to be positioning herself for a DPP loss, for she then remarked, "For us, how do we ensure that the voice of our part of society will be heard."

ABC News then chimed in with a question about domestic policy moves once elected.

Laughably, the KMT's Ho said that their first move would be to strengthen transparency in government -- laughable, because they've been blocking sunshine bills for the last eight years. He also said they would reduce the budget deficit. Ma has also promised to reduce the corporate tax, Ho said.

Hsiao Bi-khim then pointed out that there's a fundamental contradiction between reducing taxes, reducing debt, and spending $4 trillion on infrastructure projects.

The last two questions enabled the two sides to get in their views, though, responding to a question about the KMT would control its members, Ho made everyone laugh when he growled, humorously, that you don't control people, you control damage.

So true.

[Taiwan]

A sombre Ma overlooks an intersection in Taichung.

First, Taiwan News reports some good news out of the EU:

Members from the European Parliament yesterday issued a statement supporting Taiwan's efforts to become a member of the United Nations, and urged other European Union countries and U.N. members to support Taiwan's U.N. bid.

In the statement, the parliament members also criticized U.N.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his earlier remarks that claimed Taiwan is an integral part of the People's Republic of China.

A total of 100 members from the European Parliament yesterday jointly issued the statement, saying Taiwan, with its 23 million citizens, is a sovereign state. Taiwan has its own Parliamentary and Governmental systems, an independent territory and a distinct population, the statement read.

"Taiwan has never been under the control of the People's Republic of China. On the contrary, Taiwan is a full-fledged democracy that realizes the rule of law and universal human rights. Furthermore, Taiwan has diplomatic relations with 23 sovereign States. For all these reasons the U.N. Secretary-General's statement that said Taiwan is an integral part of the People's Republic of China is clearly false and unjustified," the statement said.

Members of the parliament said in the statement that the parliament has passed many bills to call for more support for Taiwan's 23 million people's participation in international organizations.

A very strong statement, and most welcome! "False and unjustified!" Strong language....

85 year old Peng Ming-min, the 1996 DPP presidential candidate and a lifelong independence advocate, speaks out in an interview with the Vancouver Sun:

"For democracy to function you have to have some self-control. You have to have some restraint," said Peng whose 1964 secretly printed manifesto launched Taiwan's democracy movement with its demand for an end to one party rule and a declaration that the island is a nation independent from China.

That act of defiance against the military rule of the KMT former nationalist government of China, which fled to Taiwan after being defeated in the civil war by Mao Zedong's Communists, earned Peng an eight-year prison sentence. But he escaped to Sweden and then lived in exile in the United States.

Peng returned to Taiwan in 1991 after martial law was lifted and the transition to multiparty democracy affirmed. He was the DPP's unsuccessful candidate in the first free and fair presidential elections in 1996.

What Peng called "the epoch-making moment" came at the next elections in 2000 when current DPP president Chen Shui-bian won and was then re-elected in 2004.

But Chen is leaving on a sour note of public unhappiness, the whiff of scandal and the air of failure.

Peng's bleak view is therefore fuelled not only by the particular grubbiness of Taiwanese politics at this time, but also the strong possibility that Ma and the old one-party dictators of the KMT will return to power.

Most observers would say that the modern KMT is not the repressive and massively corrupt organization that occupied and ruled Taiwan like a subject colony for half a century until forced into the democratic transition 20 years ago.

There's two pages of it. Great stuff. Frank Hsieh was Peng's vice presidential candidate in 1996....

[Taiwan]

Make no mistake: Tibet is an issue for Taiwan, and it is now a hot topic. The PRC shooting people a week before an election here has forced every voter to examine where they stand on Ma Ying-jeou's promise not to sell out the island -- and is a marker of how far Taiwan has come that Ma is forced to excoriate the PRC for its behavior -- the kind of abusive, authoritarian behavior that Ma, ironically, defended when he was working for the regime in the early 1980s. My how the world changes.....

Lots of commentary on Tibet in the local media. In addition to strong statements from Ma and Hsieh, the DPP presidential candidate, Taiwan News had another hard-hitting editorial on the 17th. After describing the incident, it observes:

...Unfortunately, the fate of Tibet and what is occurring in Tibet now have direct and pressing relevance to Taiwan precisely because its current fate may well be our future.

The Chinese Communist Party-led PRC regime has followed four steps in its subjugation of Tibet, which long used to be an independent kingdom ruled by a religious aristocracy, whom did, indeed, as claimed by PRC propagandists, imposed a backward and oppressive feudalist system on the majority of the Tibet population.

Nevertheless, what ultimately happened in Tibet was a tragedy for both the Tibetan religious elite and the vast majority of the "oppressed" which the CCP claimed to be "liberating."

In 1951, the PRC forced a "peace agreement" upon the Dalai Lama led Tibetan government; in 1959, the PRC's People's Liberation Army moved forces into Tibet, followed by massive encouragement of immigration of Chinese into Tibet and the rising Sinification of Tibetan culture and, finally, the co-optation of the Panchen Lama as a Beijing puppet.

Right to decide

Could this happen in Taiwan, with our democratic political system and our modern society and culture?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Indeed, this process may have already started and may accelerate after the March 22 presidential election if Kuomintang presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou wins and returns Taiwan to the "China-centric" rule of the "formerly" authoritarian "Chinese Nationalist Party," which remains the KMT's official name.

The first step has already been taken in the form of the "party to party" forums between the KMT and its former bitter enemy, the CCP, initiated by KMT honorary chairman Lien Chan and PRC State Chairman and ruling CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, who ironically was lifted to high office after a repressive term as governor of the "Tibet Autonomous Region."

The prospect of PLA entry into Taiwan is implied in the Anti-Secession Law enacted by the PRC's National People's Congress on March 14, 2005, under which Beijing gave itself the "legal authority" to use force against a Taiwan that refused "peaceful unification."

The process of Taiwan's assimilation into the PRC may be spurred by Ma's advocation of a "cross-strait common market" with the PRC, one of the agreements of the Lien-Hu dialogue of April 2005.

Last but not least, Taiwan may find that its elected president could well turn into a virtual puppet or "chief executive" if Ma fulfills his campaign promise to "return" to the so-called "Consensus of 1992" and promise to accept "political integration" as a precondition of restored "consultations" with Beijing.

Of course, the fundamental reason why Tibet was open for PRC intimidation, occupation and suppression under Beijing's new hegemony lies precisely in the fact that it stood alone against its far more powerful and massive northern neighbor.

Does this scenario sound familiar?

It should, since Ma's notion of a "cross-strait common market" and his declaration of intent to follow "three noes" of "no unification, no independence and no use of force" posits that Taiwan will face the PRC alone without involvement by the international community or negotiation of such an agreement to end hostilities.

And only the election of Democratic Progressive Party president nominee on March 22 together with the passage of the referendums authorizing our application to join the United Nations will allow the 23 million Taiwan people the right to have a voice to express their resolve to control their own destiny and refuse the fate of Tibet.

What the sad history of the infamous 17 point agreement shows is that China simply will grab what it can take and will do and say anything to do so. Also on tap for Tibet is an online petition:

After decades of repression under Chinese rule, the Tibetan people's frustrations have burst onto the streets in protests and riots. With the spotlight of the upcoming Olympic Games now on China, Tibetans are crying out to the world for change.

The Chinese government has said that the protesters who have not yet surrendered "will be punished". Its leaders are right now considering a crucial choice between escalating brutality or dialogue that could determine the future of Tibet, and China.

We can affect this historic choice--China does care about its international reputation. China's President Hu Jintao needs to hear that the 'Made in China' brand and the upcoming Olympics in Beijing can succeed only if he makes the right choice. But it will take an avalanche of global people power to get his attention--and we need it in the next 48 hours.

The Tibetan Nobel peace prize winner and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama has called for restraint and dialogue: he needs the world's people to support him. Click below now to sign the petition--and tell absolutely everyone you can right away--our goal is 1 million voices united for Tibet:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence/1.php

Tibet also affects the Taiwan vote in another way: thousands of Taiwanese are Tibetan buddhists of one strain or another, and millions of Taiwanese, as Buddhists, revere the Dalai Lama. And now the KMT's Chinese allies are shooting the Dalai Lama's people in the streets.... a week before the presidential election. Taiwan and the Tibetan independence movement are closely linked, going back to the days when KMT agents infiltrated the independence movement in order to direct it at the communists but prevent it from achieving its goal of Tibetan independence, to today, when the democracy movement has forged links to the Tibetan independence movement....

[Taiwan]

Robin Winkler's office flipped me this translation of a piece from the Liberty Times, an interview with Robin Winkler on the Green Card issue. Most foreigners don't get the whole green card thing, especially in Taipei, where there is widespread dismissal of any possibility of its effectiveness. Yes, and they tell me Ma is winning by 26 points in the polls too....


The following translation is an account of an interview with Robin Winkler, a naturalized Taiwanese citizen and former EPA commissioner. The Chinese original appeared in the March 18th edition of the Liberty Times. [Explanatory notes in square brackets].


Attorney Robin J. Winkler said yesterday that based on the US State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual, travel to the US on a non-immigrant visa does not necessarily mean that one has abandoned lawful permanent residence status. Winkler, a naturalized Taiwanese citizen, said that he did not want to see a president elected who could run off to the US at any time. He argued that to show respect to voters, Ma Ying-jiu has a duty as a candidate to produce evidence that he has abandoned his lawful permanent residence status and should not play semantic games.

Winkler said it was incorrect to argue that a US lawful permanent resident loses that status automatically after leaving the US for a few years. [The US Department of Homeland Security takes the position that residency has been abandoned when an LPR is out of the US continuously for more than one year. 8 CFR § 211.1(a)(2). Ma has cited this regulation as proof that his LPR status has been abandoned. However the courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals have consistently taken the view that intent to relinquish permanent residency is the standard, not the length of time that the LPR has been out of the country. For example, in Hana v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2005) an LPR had permanent job, real property, and immediate family in Iraq and never worked, paid taxes, or procured a bank account or driver’s license in the US, and was absent for the vast majority of four years, but her trip was nevertheless determined to be temporary in nature because her failure to put down roots was due to her desire to help her family safely flee Iraq and to take care of her terminally ill mother-in-law and her return was fixed by an early event – the safe emigration of her family from Iraq to the US. Based on this reasoning, the court determined that the LPR had not abandoned her LPR status despite having been out of the US for more than one year. ] According to US immigration law, there must be an expression of fixed intent to abandoned permanent residency. For this reason, Ma needs to fill out the I-407 form. He cannot just say that he has abandoned LPR status.

Moreover, it is also incorrect to claim that because Ma has been issued B1/B2 non-immigrant visas or used this visa, his green card has expired. Volume 9 of the US Foreign Affairs Manual states that consular officers may, at their discretion, issue non-immigrant visas [such as B1/B2 visas] to applicants with LPR status if the applicant needs one. Consular officers may not refuse to issue a non-immigrant visa solely because the applicant has LPR status, nor can consular officers require a visa applicant to relinquish her green card as a condition to issuing a non-immigrant visa. Consular officers [who work for the State Department] do not have the authority to determine whether a person has lawful permanent residence. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) [an agency under the Department of Homeland Security] reserves this authority to itself.

Winkler emphasized the importance of citizen participation in democracy. A candidate who is faced with questions from voters should use all possible subjective and objective means to make the people understand. This is a duty. Ma said [last week after Winkler and another lawyer placed an ad in the China Times saying that Ma's permanent residency was still valid] that Winkler was an environmentalist, not an expert on immigration law. Winkler said that this means that if you are not an expert recognized by Ma, you have no right to speak. Or that as long as Ma knows, others don't need to know. For Winkler, Ma's comments were from another era and represent exclusionary, elitist thinking. If he becomes Taiwan's president, said Winkler, people can think about what kind of example is being set.

Winkler also said that many people were concerned about whether Ma is a US permanent resident who could leave Taiwan for another country at any time. The real issue though, said Winkler, is why Ma won't let everyone know the truth. Proving that Ma does not have lawful permanent residence status is simple--sign a power of attorney and have a respected third party apply to the US government for proof that he has abandoned LPR status. That person can go to the USCIS and copy the information he needs. Access can be applied for today and received tomorrow. Now would be good time. It would stop this waste of social resources and be more environmentally friendly. Is this so hard for Ma?

[Taiwan]

As we pulled into the gas station, this KMT sound truck screamed inanities at us. In Hell the sound trucks run 24-7, and they play pro-KMT music.

Yesterday the family went to the big rally an Gencheng Park in Taichung. Snagged some great Hsieh paraphenalia, and soaked up some that powerful pro-Taiwan feeling.

I snapped this pair of dueling signs on Nanjing Rd in Taichung. The sign on the left has Ma's 6-3-3 promise, while on the right, the sign calls on voters to oppose Ma's One China Market.

We arrived at the rally and followed the crowd into the world of green.

The vendors were out in force. My wife picked up a nifty "Taiwan Nation" hat.

One side of the main rally area. The field extended off to the sides and back for several hundred meters.

Contingents of supporters were bused in from all over the island.

A group of supporters arrives. Note the big smile -- everywhere I went people insisted I take their picture, and offered grins and encouragement.

People arriving. Best part: lots of young people.

Like the last rally I attended<, this one opened with a singer. Crowd and plot both thickening.

Totally hot DPP babes.

A group of young people showed with their "Reverse the Tide" shirts. They looked great, and the shirts were nice too.

Backstage.

Anticipation....

The speeches begin.

The cameraman at work.

Surrounded by a sea of green.

After the initial speeches, groups representing sought-after demographics appeared. Here are the farmers, threatened by Chinese produce.

The crowd cheers.

The crowd says a prayer for the dead of Tibet. Chinese treatment of Tibet is a key indicator of their actual attitudes, for Tibet and Taiwan are exactly the same issue: China attempting to incorporate territories that may or may not have belonged to the Qing empire into its own colonial system. Tibet is an important rallying point for the DPP.

Plenty of old people were there, cheering themselves hoarse, listening intently, crying and clapping. The music, taken from major feature films, was also quite effective. My son, a movie buff, identified the theme from Independence Day. Also heard were the love theme from Braveheart -- the background to Hsieh's speech -- and themes from Saving Private Ryan. Let's see....a film about independence, a film about resistance to colonialism with a bonus hack on the collaborationist noble class, and a film about saving someone.....

Locking up the youth vote.

The crowd eats it up.

Young people in the crowd watched as...

...a group came out to represent students threatened by recognition of Chinese credentials.

This wonderful woman and I had a great time together laughing and cheering.

Lin Chia-lung, Sec-Gen of the DPP, speaks. Lin ran for mayor of Taichung in 2004 and was decisively beaten by Jason Hu of the KMT. Lin also headed the DPP's Tibet liaison organization and spoke on the topic of Tibet as well. The independence forces in both Taiwan and Tibet maintain close links, symbolized by the marriage of a key aide to Lee Teng-hui to the Dalai Lama's nephew.

Lots of faces painted and....

...decorated.

"And the old men shall dream dreams...."

Everywhere I went in the crowd people opened their hearts to me with big Taiwan smiles. "Take my picture! Me! Me!" People held up babies and children, and attempted to jump up to be seen. What a wonderful feeling it was!

Another contingent of supporters demanded I take their picture.

My friend Andrew Kerslake, who joined us for the rally, took this one. The crowd was gigantic, spilling over into areas on the wings of the rally, standing in the streets -- none of the shots taken by myself, my son, or Andrew adequately conveyed the size of the crowd.

Plenty of thumbs up for Hsieh.

Freddy Lim of the metal band Chthonic appeared onstage to appeal to the crowd.

The crowd loves him.

A Hsieh supporter smiles at the camera.

The media contingent set up on a platform overlooking the crowd.

Father-daughter bonding.

The current premier addresses the crowd.

The warmth was incredible.

Supporters cheer the premier's speech.

More young people, followed by....

...performing children.

Vice Presidential candidate Su arouses the crowd. Su's rich, gravelly, basso profoundo rolled across the crowd like an elemental force.

Thumbs up for Frank!

My daughter snapped me.

Hsieh, also a superb public speaker....

....roused the crowd to a fever pitch.

Then they bowed to the crowd.

To confetti, cheers, the boom of air horns and the screams of supporters, the rally closes.

Hsieh and Su came out for the curtain call.

The crowd goes nuts.

Local DPP politicos gather for the big send-off. And so we stayed to savor the atmosphere, stayed with the hard core, with the clean up crew, and with those who had forgotten where they parked their motorcycles.....

As if by magic, the clean-up began.

Outside the vendors make a few last sales....

....as rally-goers waited for their buses home.

[Taiwan]

A Ma-Siew election poster promises 6% economic growth, GDP per capita of US$30,000, and unemployment below 3%. So our "return to the good old days" consists of achieving growth targets already hit in 2004 and 2007. Per capita GDP is already over $30,000 on a PPP basis. I suspect by following China's lead, the KMT means we'll see Chinese-style growth: diddling the numbers to add a few percentage points.

Lots of stuff around the web on a slow Sunday as we wait to go to the big rally this evening...

David from Oz alerts me to this program on Australian Radio on Taiwan independence, with Mark Harrison and Denny Roy, among others. It's downloadable here on the program page. Haven't listened to it yet.

Reuters has a piece on the lack of advanced service skills in Taiwan's workforce:

"It's typically a much more mixed skillset and unfortunately on some of the critical skills, candidates sometimes are lacking," said Liu, whose company employs about 550 staff in Taiwan working in investment banking, securities and asset management. "It's actually quite a handicap for Taiwan in the integration in the global economy."

Managers like Liu are feeling the effects of a brain drain of talent from Taiwan to more global economies like the United States, Hong Kong and China.

Multinational companies also complain that candidates have weak English skills, a lack of talent in management and insufficient expertise in high-level research.

According to the Taipei Times, the Brits are complaining that Taiwan doesn't buy enough China stuff. Can we stop the revolting service to Beijing, guys? It's fair to complain that government procurement isn't open.....

AP's entire list of key facts about the Taiwan election. I kid you not:

WHERE: Taiwan, a democracy over which China still claims sovereignty, is electing a president Saturday, March 22.

THE ISSUES: The economy predominates, but also important is what the two candidates largely agree on: After years of friction with China over whether or not Taiwan is independent, the island needs better relations with its giant neighbor.

THE VIEW FROM WASHINGTON: Taiwan going independent could spark a war with China and drag in the U.S., so the U.S. will be happy to see the issue go into deep freeze.

ROFL. Apparently the candidates and parties have no names.

More from the Desk of Our Economy Sucks: Russia overtakes Taiwan as number 1 emerging market in the Morgan Stanley portfolio. Hey, we're only number two. Wow, we suck.

A Canadian piece discusses the thousands of Taiwanese heading home this week to vote, saying:

"Taiwanese society is very divided right now," said James Chou, chairman of the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society.

"About half of the people support the (People's Republic of China) and the other half has very strong grassroots emotions about the land of their ancestors."

That's just plain wrong. People who vote KMT don't necessarily understand themselves as aligning their vote with China, and it is wrong to see it that way -- even if the KMT itself is aligned with China, and such voters deny or ignore that. Indeed, grasping conversations like:

A: I'm voting for the KMT.
B: Oh? So you think Taiwan should be part of China?
A: No! I am Taiwanese!

...is a key to understanding that vote. UPDATE: Thoth from Canada comments perspicaciously below. Speaking of voting weirdness, another message came from former President Lee Teng-hui supporting Hsieh. Indirectly. A strong public statement would be really great about now, President Dr. Lee Mr. Teng-hui.

Global Voices Online talks about the use of geospatial technologies in human rights campaigns. This is the kind of thing Tibet needs. In Taiwan these technologies are already in use in a nifty project using GPS systems to map aboriginal territories and their resources. More on that after the election.

Russell Hsiao has a short commentary on the Chinese military budget and the Taiwan Strait at the conservative Jamestown Foundation.

Things going on: The USC US-China center is having a soiree on the 26th to discuss the election outcome. If you're in LA, stop by and let me know what they said.


This came into my mailbox:

New Taiwan Cultural Foundation (NTF) is holding an international roundtable on “Assessing the Meanings and Implications of the March 22 Presidential Election” on March 23, 2008. This event is co-sponsored by Center of China-US Cooperation, Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. Many important Taiwanese and international scholars will attend as panelists. This is a good opportunity for you to get the freshest analysis one day after the election.

Time and venue of this event is as follows:

Time: March 23, 2008 at 8:30 am – 12:50 pm

Venue: Room 102, Taipei International Convention Center (No. 1, Sec. 5, Hsin-yi Rd. /信義路五段一號)

Attached please find the detailed agenda, invitation and application form. To sign-up for this event, please fax or email back the application forms by Mar. 17 to: 02-8789-4815 or secretariat@newtaiwanese.org.tw .

It says "the freshest analysis" but I suspect it is going to be a full blast of the Taipei conventional wisdom, regardless of the election outcome.

See you at the rallies today!

UPDATE: What is the problem with BBC? Taipei-based Caroline Gluck writes on the KMT and DPP rallies, with what looks like a formulaic editorial insertion after:

The events, organised by the two main political parties, are also aimed at expressing public opposition to China's anti-secession law.

Passed three years ago, it legalises the use of force against Taiwan if the island formally declares independence.

Earth to BBC: the laws do not "legalize" the use of force against Taiwan. They are pure propaganda, and should be treated that way. Wouldn't it be more neutral to say that the law is a simple declaration that "calls for the use of force if Taiwan formally declares independence" or something similar? "Legalization" simply plays to Beijing's desire to leverage Western cultural expectations about the normative force of law in its drive to crush Taiwan's democratic existence and gives its expansionist desires legitimacy. The BBC would never say "China's national security laws legalize executions of democracy activists" if it were discussing China's security state and that nation's treatment of its political prisoners. So why does it do that here, when the Anti-Secession Law simply does wholesale what China's security laws do retail? Simply put, murder is always wrong, whether it is done by bullets in a prison or by missiles and bombs in city streets. Stop abetting Beijing, guys.

[Taiwan]

Michael Hsiao, the well-known sociologist and advisor to administrations in Taiwan, has a nifty overview of the election and the two candidates at the Jamestown Foundation. Among the highlights:

To Ma, the issue of Taiwan’s “national” identity is more complicated and still burdened by the legacy of the Chinese civil war between the KMT and the CCP. In Ma’s mind, only the Republic of China is sovereign—not Taiwan. At the beginning of Ma’s campaign, he claimed that Taiwan is ROC, but when he was questioned by the conservative KMT old guard he quickly qualified his statement by saying that ROC is not (just) Taiwan. Ma not only separates Taiwan from ROC, but also distinguishes CCP’s PRC from China. He wants to negotiate with China on the basis of the so-called “1992 consensus” and on the condition of what he coined as “mutual non-denial” [3]. When facing DPP’s challenges that he is too pro-China and not pro-Taiwan enough, Ma then hastens to state that in his term as president, he will not engage in “unification talk” with the PRC [4].

Hsiao neatly captures the way Ma changes his position depending on who he is talking to. Also of interest is his open reference to KMT-CCP cooperation, a rarity in presentations in the US:

Since 2004, a visible rift emerged between the new ruling DPP administration and the new KMT opposition on their respective China policies. The KMT began criticizing the DPP for being too reckless to maintain peaceful cross-Strait relations; at the same time, Lee Teng-Hui’s pro-autonomy—if not pro-independence—position was drastically denounced by KMT’s newly-consolidated power center under Lien Chan. Nevertheless, KMT did not formulate or promote a radically different China strategy between 2000 and 2004, which is because Lien Chan hoped to vie for the presidency of Taiwan, and in planning, did not wish to be seen as being too pro-China. Doing so would have been too politically risky, especially when weighed against the rising wave of Taiwanese national identity. After being defeated again in 2004, however, Lien Chan and the KMT took a wholesale anti-DPP policy by openly advocating a pro-China and more reconciliatory position, starting off by initiating several landmark visits by KMT high officials to China. The most significant representation of this shift is Lien Chan’s official visit to China in late April 2005. The meeting in the Great Hall of the People between Lien Chan and Hu Jintao marked the emerging political alliance of the KMT and the CCP—two historical archenemies—to boycott the DPP’s agenda. Lien himself even confessed that his visit aimed to seek the third KMT-CCP cooperation to contain Taiwan independence [1]. Since 2005 to the present, Taiwan-China relations entered an unprecedented era where the DPP, KMT and CCP are contesting one another in a very open, politicized, complicated and sensitive manner for the vote of the Taiwanese people.

Happy reading!

[Taiwan]

Feiren alerted me to this ad by KMT Presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou on the second page of the China Times to mark the 3rd Anniversary of the Anti-Secession Law. Feiren did a quickie translation of it:

We firmly hold that Taiwan's future must be decided by people of Taiwan.
Defend the Republic of China's sovereignty and firmly oppose the Anti-Secession Law.
The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent country nation.
The people of Taiwan have concretely realized democratic government and are masters of their own fate.
We hereby declare that Taiwan's future and development must be ratified and determined by the people of Taiwan themselves.

Feiren -- too busy to blog -- pointed out to me that this language subsumes ROC and Taiwan in a way that many Taiwanese have become used to seeing and is accepted by them. This move, he noted, is a page out of LTH's book: borrowing DPP ideas but subtly altering the language. He further observed that the CW is that sovereignty issues are allegedly having less impact because everyone is disgusted with Chen Shui-bian -- but in reality, it is because the KMT is becoming better at defusing them. Nice observations, man.

If you were Beijing, would you growl at Ma to make him look even more native? In a world where the KMT and Beijing are coordinating policy, what do you think they will do?

A-gu has a great followup to this post: with an interview with Chen pointing out that the DPP has made the KMT 'greener.'

UPDATE: A a brutal Chinese crackdown in Tibet as the elections in Taiwan approach. Peking Duck collects some of the news reports. ADDENDA: People have asked me to reword this for clarity. So I did.

[Taiwan]