Symphony

Drafting Peace in the Pacific: Asia, April 13, 2017

We no longer live in a world without alliances. Yes, individual nations retain sovereignty within their borders. However, the days are over when a single nation will boss and police an entire region alone. One nation can no longer take out an “enemy” in another nation as the “lone ranger”. Any nation that tries will face scorn from others. If a government goes rogue, a plurality of other nations must intervene. This is international political gravity today.

We live in a world of growing alliances between sovereign nations.

China has been seeking respect and peace in its part of the world. The US has been seeking to cut off enemies before they have an opportunity to grow. In the Far East, the US’ solution has been to patrol freely in Asian waters. China’s solution has been to fly its national flag on more soil. Neither process will continue to work. And, if both processes continue, they will lead to unimaginable fallout, what some might think as WWIII, though still not that grand.  · · · →

Standard
Symphony

Gross Hypocrisy in Christian Media

Disclaimer: The news website editorial staff were sent a link to this article as soon as it published. This is not a hit piece, but a critique of a general problem among Christians in media. Pacific Daily Times has reached out to that website in friendship and hopes to follow up with more on positive changes in the future.

News and advertising isn’t easy. The Pacific Daily Times has considered using ad services such as Google. The problem is that these ad services can often post ads that run contrary to the mission of the website itself. This screenshot of an article at a Christian news site is no exception. A sex scandal headline is seen on the left and a sex advertisement on the right at a Christian news website. It was probably not planned by the staff. This can happen to anyone, so use ad services cautiously. Here is an edited screenshot, showing titles and ads as they appear next to each other, with any identifying marks of the website removed:

Christian post contradiction ads editedThe main article is about how people want a Christian leader, Josh Duggar, to pay some legal consequences for mistakes long, long ago, and Christian families are unwilling to forgive and let it go.  · · · →

continue reading
Standard
Symphony

China’s Nationalist Party ‘Blows Up’ at Kaohsiung

A fire hydrant leans in the trench caused by the explosion

TAIWAN—It started in 1990. Some may say it was in 1949 when the Chinese Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and imposed their tyranny and the governmental system that Chinese Communists would soon copy in Beijing. But this started in 1990 when CPC (中石化) built a gas line in Kaohsiung.

Gas lines can rust if not buried in the ground properly. CPC properly buried the line. But in 1991, the City of Kaohsiung put in a sewer passage that left the pipeline exposed, against building code. The city’s plans for the sewer complied with the code. But the construction company did not build according to the code—and the City of Kaohsiung approved the construction that was not to code and went against their own plans. Thirteen years later, on August 1, 2014, the line, rusted from exposure, exploded, destroying six kilometers of roadway, injuring over 300 and killing at least 30. There were plenty of warnings in the hours leading up to the explosion.

Some years ago, CPC sold the gas line to be used for CGTDC (華運) to send propylene to LCY (李長榮). CGTDC sent propylene by the ton to LCY through the underground gas line. But at 8:43 on the evening of July 31, CGTDC was receiving abnormal pressure signals and LCY put in a call that they weren’t receiving fuel. The company kept sending propylene. At 9:20pm, pressure was still low. CGTDC kept sending. Finally, after LCY was receiving nothing, the line was turned off and both companies  went to check the pipeline. They both claimed that the line was in good working order. And at 10:15 pm, LCY requested that the propylene be sent once more. CGTDC turned back on the line. Altogether, at least ten tons of propylene had gone missing and LCY was not receiving.

A rescue worker and his master search for survivers

At 11:35pm, after reports of smoke and calls from concerned citizens, Kaohsiung’s fire department and the Environmental bureau ordered the line shut down. Streets were flooded with puddles of propylene. A fire chief called a younger fireman, instructing him that the entire area would soon blow and to keep his truck away. That chief disappeared in the explosion, but because others had heeded his warning, he saved their lives and died a hero. His body had not been found.

The next day, Kaohsiung City asked for help from Taiwan’s Premier, Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), the head a of the Executive Branch in a system almost identical to Beijing. The city made three requests, including emergency legislation and funding. Premier Jiang said, “No,” to all three requests. Later that day, after leaders from both political parties met with Jiang, he changed his rhetoric, but his famous “three no’s” remained unchanged.

As the investigation continued, the 1990 and 1991 construction projects involving the gas line were revisited. The mayor of Kaohsiung City during the 1990-1994 term was appointed, not elected, by the Nationalist-controlled Taiwan central government. His name is Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), currently the Vice President of Taiwan. Finally, after a week of investigation, Taiwan’s central government gave Kaohsiung City 1.6 billion in Taiwan currency. Torrential rains from August 10 had shut down recovery, repair, and investigation for the better part of a week.

There are many other oddities about the history. While this is Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) second term, Wu was not vice president in the first election. When running for his second term, Ma made a move that still baffles many, to choose a new running mate with little to no explanation. After Ma’s numerous pro-Beijing policies, his popularity had made his reelection almost untenable. Choosing a new running mate could have been a political tactic to be reelected, but only Ma knows his reason for choosing the new vice president to be the former mayor who oversaw the dubious construction that exploded under his watch.

A car sits completely burned in a place with no fire footprint

Was Wu directly responsible? The investigation is ongoing. But one party that cannot escape indictment is the Nationalist party.

So, why didn’t Premier Jiang use kinder rhetoric in response to the explosion in Taiwan’s second largest city? His harsh initial response came days after he answered a court summons for Human Rights violations when students of the Sunflower Movement took his office a few months prior. During the demonstrations, he asked Kaohsiung and Tainan, the twin cities of the south, known for their opposition to Jiang’s same Nationalist party, to send police. Both cities refused. Was this payback? Or could it be that Jiang’s resume, having served as a professor, describes him inexperienced in having to deal with people. He is not and never was an elected politician and has no experience in business. Jiang’s entire life has been lived as an appointed servant who gives orders without having to answer to anyone.

The days of not having to answer are past. It’s not only Jiang or Wu who had to give answers in these last 14 days. Nor Ma who appointed both men. But Taiwan’s entire Nationalist party must now give answers that they don’t have. The coming changes in Taiwan will be as far-reaching throughout Asia as they are both inevitable and foreseeable.

*Photos and reported information courtesy Beau Kang. Written by Pacific Daily Times editorial staff.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Taiwan’s Jiang Could Face International Trial for Using Force on ‘Sunflower’ Movement Protesters; Executive-legislative Conflict Indicates Rising Dictators

After keeping their promise to Taiwan Legislative Yuan Speaker, Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), the students in the “Sunflower” movement who had occupied the nation’s legislature since March 19 demonstrated evidence that contradicts a long-standing, worldwide precedent in court rulings, police action, and decisions made by executive heads of state. This incident may be history’s first evidence, supporting either position, that “constitutional rights”, “individual liberty”, and “protecting national sovereignty” can be talking points of non-terrorist, peaceful citizens of a given country.

This directly contradicts the need for police action against such protests in the past, as has been seen countless times through history. This indicates that police who use force against such demonstrators may be the actual culprits. Should violence eventually break out between police and peaceful protesters with these talking points, the police may be eventually understood to have incited said violence.

According to a trend of reports from US law enforcement such as from Rawls on March 30, 2011 8:28 PM, reports from State police such as Missouri highway patrol in March, 2009, law enforcement “training” is being influenced by publications such as an unclassified report “Rightwing Extremism” from April 7, 2009, from the Department of Homeland Security, with a recurring list of similarities that allegedly identify “domestic terrorists”. Those “indications of a domestic terrorist” happen to include many of the same talking points as the students, who peacefully occupied Taiwan’s legislative chamber from March 19 through April 10, 2014, as indications for a person to be suspect of “domestic terrorism” in the United States. However, there have been no incidents to suggest that this training from DHS is more than speculation, which remains consistent with the argument that police could be responsible for inciting any eventual violence where unarmed protests are concerned.

The now proven-peaceful occupancy of Taiwan’s legislature by unarmed demonstrators who highlighted “constitutional law,” “liberty,” and “national sovereignty,” among many other talking points, could be an argument used in international courts proving that any police force against unarmed protesters is unnecessary and, therefore, a violation of internationally recognised human rights. It has yet to be determined whether a case could be filed against the US Department of Homeland Security in international courts if their reported recommendations have not yet been acted upon by the law enforcement officials they have been instructing.

Where there is no current documentation indicating that “constitutional law”, “national sovereignty”, and “liberty” have resulted in actual “domestic terrorism”, WWII provides significant documentation concerning rising dictatorships. Identifying individuals who resemble the profile of the proven-peaceful occupants of Taiwan’s legislature as “domestic terrorists” is documented as an indication of a rising dictatorship that eventually commits domestic violation of human rights and war crime. DHS’s now defunct pre-dictator-resemblant speculation could be the basis for filing a brief against the US Federal government in international courts as potentially being staffed by personnel who would cooperate with human rights violations if a dictator were to rise to power in their jurisdiction. Evidence of such staff could include David Brown’s now defunct criticism and recommendation of force used against the Taiwan’s recent peaceful protests.

By contrast to Wang, Premiere of Taiwan’s Executive YuanJiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), ordered use of force against unarmed protesters from the same peaceful movement, resulting in bloodshed and ill will. Unlike with DHS, the fact that force was already used in Jiang’s incident may be a basis on which to bring charges against Jiang in an international court, even now.

Wang’s decision as a head of the legislature, not to use force against occupying protesters, has foreseeable ramifications that are unprecedented in world history. These ramifications not only include that unarmed protesters with “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” talking points can remain peaceful if force is not used against them, but they also highlight a contrast between legislative and executive branches. The trend is that legislatures tend toward successful non-force, while executive branches tend toward force that results in conflict and eventual internationally recognised overthrow of the same executive administration.

Adolf Hitler rose to his seat of power after Germany’s legislature was dispatched. DHS has been facing criticism from many in US Congress. And the executive and legislative branches in Taiwan have also proven to have conflict, both between their ideologies where use of force by police is concerned, as well as other internal political disputes between Wang and the executive branch. This not only refers to Jiang, but also includes conflict between Wang and Taiwan’s president, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

Concern over “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” talking points from unarmed protesters is now proven to be unwarranted. Any future evidence to the contraire should be investigated as being potentially fraudulent, with motive of such potential fraud from the relevant executive branch.

Wang’s choice of non-force and the resulting peace demonstrates that “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” talking points indicate less likelihood of “domestic terrorism”, not more. International courts should keep a watchful eye for executive branches that oppose unarmed “constitution/liberty/sovereignty” protests, especially when coupled with rising conflict between that nation’s legislative and executive branches. Such activity should be reported in the form of a brief filed with a relevant international court as a historically-supported indication of a potential rising dictatorship.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Taiwan Demonstrations Continue: Western Media Forgets

As the Sunflower Movement stated upon leaving Taiwan‘s legislative chamber, they would return. The movement never had “tunnel vision”, but was focused on a long list of grievances. The secret “black box” trade negotiation between China and US Military ally Taiwan was only the one straw on the camel’s back.

In this recent round of government v peaceful assembly, the topic is the island’s controversial fourth nuclear power plant. Especially after Fukushima in 2011, the earthquake-plagued people of Taiwan want nothing to do with nuclear energy. So it seems, the government doesn’t care.

Nuclear power objections in Taiwan have been rising and were frequently address during the three weeks that the legislature was occupied. Much of the street art protested nuclear power. Shortly after the students left the chamber, Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) began an “indefinite” hunger strike over the nuclear issue. A crowd quickly surrounded him, attracting many of the peaceful demonstrators from the trade agreement protests.

At 3:00 am this morning, Taipei police began using force to remove a crowd reported to be about 5,000. By 11:00 am, police were reported to have used a water cannon 47 times. Unlike the March 24 incident at 4:00 am, Taipei police can be seen using the water cannon in broad daylight. Though, daylight seemed to be less preferable as it was also reported that by 7:00 am the cannon had been used 45 times.

According to the report of the cannon being used 47 times, police are also “sneaking in” (sucker) punches and kicks at people in the crowd,  as seen in this video. As police stationed in other parts of Taiwan have explained, Taipei’s police may hit peaceful demonstrators merely on account of being fatigued and generally irritable. This statement came from a police officer who is sympathetic to the Sunflower Movement, but was explaining the perspective and disposition that the police have in Taiwan. He added that those police should be held responsible for their actions and, while their behavior was understandable, it is not excusable.

As of today, the “sunflower” presence has been in the spotlight for 40 days and nights. Police have been working extended and difficult hours. Everyone is strained. While police brutality stirs distrust, Taiwanese don’t blame individual officers as much as they blame the Executive Yuan and Taipei City Government for creating situations and administering police in such a way that is irritating the island at large, police and protesters alike. Here is an example of a moment by moment report of police brutality.

While the people have expressed their determined objection to the fourth nuclear power plant in Taiwan multiple times, the government continues to press the matter, as if the government views public opposition as a temporary fad that will quickly pass. The controlling faction, the KMT, announced that the plant’s construction would halt, but said nothing about the program being terminated. This continues a trend of the KMT announcing decisions of the government they control, rather than Taiwan’s government announcing its own decisions. This further indicates that KMT faction members don’t distinguish between their own political party and the government of Taiwan. The KMT also announced government decisions during their trade talks with China, before the legislature was occupied. As explained by the Sunflower Movement’s news page, this “halting” of construction, rather than “terminating”, was interpreted by objectors as the KMT playing a game of politics, intended to appease the people without demonstrable respect for public welfare.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

‘Sunflower’ Students Change History

Read an eBook about the last 21 hours of the Sunflower Movement occupancy.

The Sunflower movement made history this month. As Taiwan’s government was deviating from the will of its people, unarmed students disrupted the legislature by occupying it for three weeks. An unplanned, flash-mob protest met outside the legislature on March 18. Both the students and the legislature’s Speaker, Wang Jin-pyng, took peaceful action and the situation resolved without violence. Wang promised to require transparency for any future trade agreements and the students promised to leave peacefully. After three weeks, the students kept their promise, leaving only a sign translated “Congress of the People” at the front of the chamber and, on the Speaker’s desk, a widely used academic book from the late 19th century with collection of stories on political corruption.

Now, non-violent protesters who highlight “Constitutional compliance”, “individual liberty”, and “national sovereignty” have proven that they can remain non-violent, if the police do not use force to remove them. These actions from the students and Speaker Wang directly contradicts unproven claims from the US Department of Homeland Security, that these three talking points of “Constitution, liberty, and sovereignty” indicated “domestic terrorism” threats and is a historic argument that may eventually be used in international courts to argue in defense of peaceful protests, even if they peacefully occupy government buildings.

As the students left the chamber and appeared on the street, a huge gathering greeted them with a stage, a band, and speakers. Taipei’s chief of police, Fang Yang-ning, had promised not to expel the protesters by force, but then reportedly broke his promise within a few hours. The public responded by surrounding the police headquarters in Taipei. Fang quickly appeared, corrected a previous misstatement about an assembly permit having been revoked near the legislature, offered his verbal resignation, and protesters began to peacefully disperse shortly after; though the mayor rejected his resignation the next day on the grounds that a mob should not be able to force the resignation of a city official.

Here we have a prefect “control” and “experiment” in society, police, and politics. When the people gather to non-violently protest and highlight constitution, liberty, and sovereignty talking points, they remain peaceful if they are not dispersed by force and when the government agrees to comply with their own Constitution and the will of the people. But within the same 24 hours, with the same gathering, in the same city, when the same government breaks its own promises and uses force against the same peaceful protest, conflict arises. There is no other stark contrast of events known to be so clear in history. The conclusion in this incident is plain: Conflict between a government and people peacefully gathering to discuss constitution, liberty, and sovereignty now indicates that the government was most likely responsible, both for provoking the people to protest by ignoring the will of the people governed and by prematurely using force to disperse those protests in response.

According to one unnamed student who initially entered the legislature, the group of 200 students had been protesting at various locations over various issues for over a year. For the recent seven months they had been focusing on a specific “secret black box” trade agreement between Taiwan (coincidentally a US military ally) and China. The students wanted a trade agreement, but not secret meetings between the countries.

According to the informant, on the evening of March 18, students gathered outside Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan. In an unplanned, flash-mob resolution, they decided to take the legislative chamber, without any plan other than to raise awareness of their concerns. The 200 students contacted their friends over the phone and within minutes, 5,000 sympathizers arrived on the scene. Known for his tenacity, Chen Wei-ting broke a window on the first floor, walked around, and opened the door. The 200 students rushed in, the police were overwhelmed, and the unarmed students took the chamber.

Because of typical legislature rules, the police were not allowed to enter the chamber, even to remove the students. Entering the floor of a  legislature often requires special permission, in this case, from Speaker Wang. Through the three weeks of the occupancy, Wang never granted the police such permission. Some in the US have criticized this peaceful decision, claiming that an occupancy could never happen in US Congress. These critics seem unaware how different Taiwan is from the US in culture, puppet politics, and other aspects, which are explained in a separate article elaborating on Taiwan’s “puppet democracy”.

Thinking fast, still with no plan, and expecting to be expelled by midnight, the students held a “two minute” conference and decided to use the legislature’s chairs to barricade the doors. Over the next four hours, police gathered outside, with the growing crowd of 5,000 plus supporters on the street. In the early hours of the morning, the police tried to retake the chamber, knowing they could not enter. They pushed on chairs as students pushed back. This happened three times, about ten to twenty minutes each time, then the police would leave. Police had hoped to grab the students near the door and pull them out, but with the size of the legislature, this was not possible.

Late that morning, students walked around to the back foyer, still controlled by police, and walked upstairs to take the second floor. The police in the foyer did not seize the students because they would have had to move any apprehended students through a growing mob of angry protesters, numbering in the thousands. The students made a quick agreement with the police that for every student taken from inside, more students from the mob outside would enter to take their place. The situation resulted in a standoff where police controlled the external corridors to regulate traffic and keep general peace.

Later that day, students set up a system of medical supplies and security. The following day, several doctors volunteered to help and the students set up a system for supplying food. The entire incident was unplanned. Students improvised from one moment to the next. The world watched and learned about peaceful democracy as these peaceful protesters were joined by lawyers, professors, and student demonstrators from previous incidents such as Tiananmen Square.

Overwhelming support flowed in from around the island. University presidents dismissed classes and excused absences. Teachers hired buses so students could join the demonstration with travel expenses paid. Companies donated food, beverages, toiletries, clean underwear, medical supplies, even USB chargers and batteries. At least three polls reported by the Taipei Times indicate a conservative estimate of 60-80% support for the students (poll 1poll 2poll 3.)

Constitutional background helps the situation come into focus. Taiwan’s Constitution defines mainland China, as well as other territories such as Mongolia, as their own. Most of the Taiwanese don’t care to enforce this claim, extending to most every politician and bureaucrat. However, when another occupying force, such as the Communist Party in Beijing, controls Taiwanese land and aims nearly 2,000 missiles at the island, that force is regarded as hostile and therefore an enemy. Holding secret meetings with an enemy during time of war could be a form of treason, even if those secret meetings include negotiating trade agreements with the enemy.

Whether this could be punishable under Taiwan’s Constitutional law remains to be determined by Taiwan’s High Court. However, it should be noted that the student’s concern, intentional or otherwise, approaches Constitutional questions—is this a situation where the people must defend their own Constitution from their government?

Many experts agree that it is and that, while the police may argue criminal law against the students, the students are able to argue Constitutional law both in their defense and against the government, including the police who defend actions of the government that run contraire to the Constitution. There are some rumblings among the legal community in Taiwan concerning bringing Constitution-based action against some of the head officials, including possible treason charges against Taiwan’s president, Ma. But these rumblings have yet to be confirmed.

There are two other Constitutional matters that help explain angst among the Taiwan electorate. First, legislation does not originate in Taiwan’s elected Congress, as it does in the United States. Instead, it originates in the appointed, non-elected executive cabinet, as is the system in Communist China. If the legislature does not vote specifically against the proposed legislation, it becomes law anyway.

In other words, a Congressional majority is not required to create a new law, but to reject a law created by the President-appointed cabinet. This arguably defines Taiwan as having a “puppet democracy”. It has resulted in a number of policy problems and midnight announcements of new laws, many of which make normal business practices illegal with the only reasonable explanation that it supports companies owned by the ruling political party, the KMT.

Frustration with the Executive Yuan’s de facto “absolute power” over the legislative process explains why a group of students left the Legislative Yuan and occupied the Executive Yuan on March 23. Wei Yang was accused as having organized the invasion of the EY, though the court dismissed the charges on the grounds that there was no evidence. The Deputy Secretary General is now most known for having complained that the students (falsely) allegedly “ate his suncakes“. Wei Yang left for the United States and, at the time of writing this article, was making appearances in and around George Washington University to explain the goals of Taiwan’s Sunflower movement, speaking about freedom and democracy.

The second Constitutional matter is that Taiwan is not typically recognized as a country. People often ask why and the answer is “fear of China”. Even mail couriers list Taiwan as “Taiwan (Province of China)” so that Communist China does not retaliate by blocking those couriers’ shipments to the mainland. The US position on whether Taiwan is a country is ambiguous enough to raise questions of whether US officials fear retaliation from China.

But, in the end, the problem with Taiwan being recognized as a country comes from Taiwan’s Constitution: defining the mainland as their own territory. This creates two main problems: Recognizing a state that claims vast amounts of uncontrolled territory creates diplomatic and international problems, including problem for mail couriers. This problem is more of a practical nature than being about any specific ideology of which nation ought to control which hills and rivers. The second problem, however, comes from a complex grudge within Beijing Communists.

Communist Beijing specifically opposes any law that defines their claimed territory as belonging to any state but “China”. Because Taiwan’s Constitution claims the land as belonging to Taiwan (legally ‘Republic of China’), Communist Beijing does not retaliate. While Beijing objects to Taiwan’s government controlling the island of Formosa (Taiwan’s main island), Beijing still views China as one country with a conflict between two forces. As long as both forces (Communists and Taiwan) agree that there is one China, Beijing is not deeply offended.

The West rarely understands that China’s Asian pride would be “offended” if Taiwan (ROC) were to redraw the map, being yet one more State that defined “China” as not possessing Formosa. China has aimed its 1,800 and growing number of missiles at Taiwan as a standing threat to deter Taiwan from declaring itself independent from the mainland.

So, Taiwan is not recognized as a country by the United Nations nor other authorities, largely because of practical and diplomatic contradiction issues stemming from Taiwan defining itself as “owning” mainland China. But, changing Taiwan’s Constitution to fix this would result in a deeper “offended” attitude from Chinese Communists, who they claim they would, thus, attack Taiwan.

The Taiwanese are not likely to be deterred by China’s missiles and may declare independence so that history can move past the past in which Beijing remains entrenched. But a Constitutional referendum has yet to take place. In short: Why isn’t Taiwan recognized as a “country”?—Because of their Constitution.

This, combined with the problem of Taiwan’s Congress not needing to approve nor being able to introduce new legislation, the people of Taiwan have been calling for a Constitutional referendum for quite some time. These demands are increasing as the nation becomes more and more democratic.

In 1996, Taiwan held their first presidential election. China launched a missile across the island of Formosa. When it detonated near an outlying island, the explosion rattled the windows of local residents, as one student occupying the legislature recalls. Mitch Yang, a Taiwanese with credentials at NASA, was in the US at the time. He appeared on ABC, NBC, and CBS to explain the incident and the protests held at the Chinese consulate in Los Angeles by a local community of Taiwanese. According to Yang, a car tried to run him over. After researching a false license plate on the vehicle, and listening to reports on the police scanner, he and his network concluded that the Chinese government had used local mafia in Chinatown to have him killed.

As Yang further explains, China is paranoid that other nations are trying to take over their country.

Old East Asian culture worships their own absolute power. If, for example, Chinese citizens become happier for any reason other than their government, that government will feel threatened. North Korea is similar in that cult-like praise is given to photos of the three patriarchs of the Kim dynasty, hanging by law in almost every building. The obsession with total control somewhat resembles “bubble” parenting often seen in closed religious circles, where high school students who learn to think independently—even if their new articulation agrees with the beliefs of their parents—are viewed by their parents as “having been brainwashed into rebellion”.

With China fearing any and all contributions to their country that do not come from their government, Beijing’s version of the story is that the “West is trying to invade”. According to Yang, China’s solution to this paranoia-driven “fear of invasion” is to completely control any and all land that China ever once controlled in their nation’s history. This was part of Beijing’s purpose of the “nine-dash line” on an East Asian map printed in newer Chinese passports.

Communist China has an imagined fear that the “West” is trying to invade their country, merely because they can’t maintain “absolute control” over ever sect of society—and their solution is to grab for more “absolute control” in their region.

Power for a Beijing Communist may be explained by the alcoholic who says that alcohol is the “medicine” that treats alcoholism. The Beijing solution to lack of power is more power. It hasn’t seemed to occur to Beijing that 1. their fears are irrational and untrue—which they would know if they stepped outside of their country more often—and 2. that if they can’t control their own territory, they probably will have more, not fewer, control-related problems if they have more territory to control. Insanity, though brilliant, often misses the most basic of calculations.

In 1996, Taiwan’s government stood up to China. A missile was launched, windows rattled, but China changed nothing.

Mitch Yang and a local Taiwanese community stood up to China in the US and someone tried to have local mafia kill him, but he survived. China changed nothing.

In 2014, a group of unarmed Taiwanese college students, accidentally enforcing the complex technicalities of their Constitution, merely by following the conviction in their hearts, took over the chamber of their rogue legislature without planning. The police pushed on the chairs, but could not enter the chamber. China changed nothing.

Wei Yang was groundlessly accused by his own government, but he left for the US to spread truth and freedom. China changed nothing.

Local mafia in Taipei, notoriously affiliated with the ruling KMT political party, made several appearances to incite violence among the students outside the occupied legislature, but, even after a lot of commotion, they left without incident. China changed nothing.

If Taiwan were to hold a Constitutional referendum, and if that referendum removed Taiwan’s conflicting territorial claim with China, Beijing, no longer having a reason for dispute, would likely be angry. Even if Beijing took action, they would create more problems, have more difficulty controlling territory, distract their army’s forces from the ongoing rebellions within their borders, give their neighbors the opportunity to devour a regional menace like ants on a dead cockroach, and, in the end, China would change nothing. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

A new precedent has been set before the world—that peaceful supporters of liberty, constitutional governance, and national sovereignty can win bloodless victories when force is not used against them. This new example in history indicts many tyrants and provocative authorities, including Chinese Communists. Even now, China can change nothing.

Democracy, liberty, and rule of constitutional law are bursting forth in Taiwan as the old power mongers drown in their flooding trenches. Though China changed nothing, the unarmed students of the “Sunflower Movement” have changed everything.

The students didn’t waste time on the chamber floor. They formed a think tank of doctors, lawyers, professors, and professionals. Conversations were rich. More truth was spoken from the platform in three weeks than in the history of most republics. Before the student’s left, they cleaned up, opened the doors, replaced the chairs, a group of Christians among them prayed, and leaders gave a final speech to clarify their purpose to the world.

After bowing, and with sunflowers in hand, they walked out of the chamber and into the annals of history.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Puppet Democracies Are for Children: Washington “Adults” don’t Understand

Taiwan’s government does not have a robust system of checks and balances as the US does. Instead, has the near identical system of making laws as China’s government: new law doesn’t come from Congress or the President, but from the “Premiere”, a non-elected bureaucrat who heads the Executive branch comprised of other non-elected bureaucrats—in Taiwan the Executive Yuan, in China the State Council. The “puppet” nature of Taiwan’s democracy sheds some light on Taiwanese’s overall frustration with their government. It is reflected in the KMT’s recent proud remarks—that excessive power remains in the hands of the Executive branch, unlike Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution—read yesterday’s Taipei Times report for the inside baseball.

According to the Taipei Times article, if the Legislature does not approve the law proposed by the executive bureaucrats, then they have the authority to pass the motion into law as if it had been voted on. This reduces the legislative process to little more than a game of charades. Taiwan is not a true democracy; it is a complexly cloaked dictatorship. That dictatorship is now being threatened by intelligent students and their vast support from around the country. Sunflower movement students have occupied the legislature. The Taipei permanent establishment is not happy.

On Monday, the Speaker of Taiwan’s legislature, a tenured maverick within the KMT, Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), surprised his fellow KMT legislators in a public announcement that he would not allow the legislature to continue any further discussion over the current, secretive, and controversial trade pact on the table until another law was enacted that would give the legislature and the people transparent control over Taiwan’s international trade laws. Other KMT legislators immediately responded by saying that they had been “sold out” by Wang. The Sunflower students, however, responded more positively than the KMT, that they would peacefully leave on Thursday—and they kept their promise.

According to an independent poll, most of Taiwan sympathizes with the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Sunflower movement. These statistics directly contradict reports overseen and disseminated by Taiwan’s government (the National Development Council) suggesting that the public ostensibly sympathizes with the KMT-dominated legislature and KMT President, Ma, who currently has only 9% popular opinion.

David Brown, an adjunct professor at John Hopkins who sits on the AIT board of Taiwan-US relations (having a resume largely indebted to the US State Department) criticized the Sunflower movement in a letter. However, Brown has drawn academic criticism in the UK, as well as slander accusations from the opposition DPP. Brown’s controversial remarks have also been noted by the Taipei Times. Taiwan expat bloggers have also criticized Brown for his letter.

Especially considering that the students left willingly, Brown’s and other criticism has proven unnecessary and inaccurate. Had these critics had their way, there may have been injury in the process of expelling the peaceful students by force. Instead, they left peacefully and without incident. It is undetermined at this time whether Brown and his fellow critics would have preferred the the theory of force or the peaceful arrangement which has, in fact, proven effective.

Brown never lived in Asian countries as a long-term expatriate. He mostly knows Asia through the comfort of Washington or during brief visits to Asia at meetings where everyone wears a tie. The United States democratic republic has survived over two centuries—a near record for democracies. By contrast,  Taiwan’s democracy is exceptionally young. Mistakes of youth are often difficult for older generations to understand, including David Brown.

While an unarmed student-led occupancy of the US Capital building might never be tolerated in America, as the Legislative Yuan’s occupancy seems to have continued in Taiwan, there are some stark differences between Taiwan and the United States that David Brown should have been aware of…

Taiwan is not a global superpower with half of the world trying to nuke it back to the stone age. The main country aiming missiles at Taiwan is China, which reflects Beijing’s petty “pride” more than any political strategy. The US, however, is hated by at least half of the world. Someone is always attempting to smuggle a dangerous suitcase into the Capital building. Not so with Taiwan.

Unlike Taiwan, the US has a legitimate government of the people, however much corruption the US indeed has. While disturbing Taiwan’s legislature seems to have no effect on the island’s puppet democracy, it would legitimately interrupt the legislative process in the US. The main effect that the occupied legislature has had on Taiwan is its exposure of truth to the public: that Taiwan’s government truly does believe that it can continue the legislative process without its puppet legislature. Taiwan’s Executive branch has unabashedly claimed such power, even as the student-led protests developed.

In the United States Legislature, political parties often play “rules games” to block legislation. One of these is known as the “filibuster”. Another tactic relates to “cloture” in the Senate. However, in a puppet democracy such a Taiwan, if the Legislature filibusters or prevents cloture, the Executive branch of non-elected bureaucrats will simply declare a proposed bill as “legally passed” after three months. America’s legislature plays the same games, they just smile a little more when they do it. In Taiwan, the only stall tactics available include locking the doors and allowing a group of disgruntled students to occupy the main chamber of their legislature.

If US Congress decides to go against the will of the people, there are several alternatives the people can take. Any elected Congressman can introduce a new law in Congress. Taiwanese elected legislators, however, do not have this power. Laws in Taiwan are only introduced by the Executive Yuan, which is made of appointed bureaucrats whom no one votes for. This is the key element of Taiwan’s government that makes it a “puppet democracy”. When the government does not allow the people the freedom to introduce their own laws, peacefully occupying a legislature may be the most ethical option during a nation-wide controversy. If anyone in the United States is to critique what is “proper procedure” in Taiwan, their puppet democracy’s law-making process deserves more scrutiny than peaceful students. But, David Brown was not elected either. He too has a resume with “bureaucracy” written all over it. This may help explain why he seems to agree with his bureaucratic counterparts in Taiwan.

Taiwan is also a country of relative peace. Most of the people don’t have guns. In the US, protesters would be more likely to be carrying weapons and excessive force from the police—whether or not it is ethical or legal—would be more foreseeable. In Taiwan, one bloody-faced protester could cost a politician the next election or spark an entire investigation into the responsible bureaucrat. This is not the first student protest that involved police. In 1959 a group of students demonstrators required action from the police when their university President instructed the police that, if even one student was injured by the police, he would personally risk his life to defend the students from the very police he called on. The United States does not have this kind of culture of peace nor the kind of respect that young and old generations have for each other in Taiwan.

The Sunflower students are remarkably peaceful and clean. They don’t litter. They aren’t having illicit sex as the “occupy movement” in America is known for. They conserve water. And, though they have many banners and some overturned tables, most of their premises they occupy are in good order. The loudest complaint the Deputy at the Executive Yuan was that students allegedly ate his suncakes—which sparked a running gag across Taiwan. Actually, the missing suncakes had been taken by his own staff before the student protest incident. When State Legislatures have been met with protesters in America, they were neither as peaceful, respectful, and clean as the student protesters. If American police encountered such exemplary students, they might not know how respond. Neither do the Taiwanese police.

Depending on which polls one uses, 60-80% of Taiwan supports the students. It is difficult for any political leader to take harsh action against such national opposition. More importantly, the United States rarely sees as much unity and agreement as the Sunflower movement is cultivating in their nation.

Taiwan is a young and emerging democracy. Old power structures don’t fall quietly. As freedom and governance by consent of the governed emerge in Taiwan, the best comparison to Taiwan’s situation would be the American Revolution. By those standards, Taiwan raises the bar for America. In defense of the letter by Taiwanese Legislator Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), which David Brown criticized, I’ll agree with Joseph Wu: perhaps David Brown should visit Taiwan and speak to different students. I add that he should read more of his own nation’s history before criticizing peaceful revolutionaries who march on the other side of the world while he sleeps.

The Sunflower students occupying Taiwan’s legislature have demonstrated more consistency and spoken more truth in the last three weeks than, arguably, in the last three decades of Taiwan’s adolescent democracy. In a Forbes interview between Donald Trump and two of his children, Donald summarized the same old problem that many people have, including Taiwan’s young executive and legislative branches, “The one thing I would say for both of you is you have to keep focused. And you’re not always focused, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that you’re both very young.”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Sunflower Students to Leave Taiwan’s Legislature Thursday

先立法,再審查

先立法,再審查 (Photo credit: tomscy2000)

Taiwan legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) announced this morning that he would conduct no further discussions in the legislature concerning trade with China until a new law was passed providing oversight affecting all international trade agreements.

This type of legislation, supporting the DPP (民進黨) and Sunflower movement’s request for transparency, would be a significant change in Taiwan’s legislative process. The Executive branch, led entirely by non-elected appointees spare the President, has historically conducted all trade agreements in secret.

 Sunflower student leaders Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) and Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷) followed Wang’s announcement with a joint statement to the press, that, in light of their request for trade transparency being promised by the legislature’s speaker, the students would leave the legislature’s chamber this Thursday.

President Ma and Wang, both members if the ruling members of the KMT (國民黨) party, have a history of conflict. Other KMT legislators quickly denounced Wang as having supposedly “sold them out” in his announcement that the legislature should provide oversight and transparency in trade agreements, particularly with China.

A bill relating to these measures was approved by the Executive Yuan, which introduces Taiwan’s legislation, last Thursday, though was met with opposition by Lin Chun-hsien (林俊憲), who claimed that the proposed transparency measures would be “in name only”. The discussion continues. Now, after students accepted Wang’s commitment to creating a robust monitoring system for trade agreements, that discussion should be able to resume in the legislative chamber at the conclusion of this week.

The Sunflower students have made it clear that this is not the end of the movement, it is the beginning. Organizers plan to spread their growing trend of gatherings throughout Taiwan and to continue to discuss talking points of freedom, transparency, and the accountability that any democracy must have to its own people.

Enhanced by Zemanta

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Debunking Myths: Was CIA involved with Taiwan’s demonstrations?

While I’m sure some of our friends at CIA would be insulted if I said that they weren’t involved in everything that happens in the world, I suspect that Intelligence participation in the Taipei protests are minimal at most. This comes from a basic understanding of exactly how much Ma, Taiwan’s President, has isolated himself and exactly how much support the island has for the student demonstrators.

30,000 people have camped out in Taiwan’s capital square and their friends of friends encompass nearly everyone on the island. The movement is indisputably student-led. Massive support for the students is beyond manipulation.

One bureaucrat at the Executive Yuan complained that occupying students ate his sunflower and pineapple cakes—which really are delicious. In a nose-thumbing response, several bakeries swarmed his home with cases upon cases of sunflower and pineapple cakes. It is doubtful that CIA had to do much convincing in order for Asians to seize the opportunity to insult a government official by “feeding their enemies”.

While the Taipei City police department requested reinforcements from other cities on the island, southern metropolises Tainan and Kaohsiung, would not send police. Kooks may suspect their refusal as being part of a CIA conspiracy, but that would demonstrate ignorance of two factors: First, basic police and security strategy teaches us that it would be a bad idea to leave the south of the island undefended. The fact that Taipei asked for police from the south, if anything, indicates that the Taipei City government may be conspiring with Mainland China—but that’s another topic altogether. Second, these two cities are in the south, which is highly sympathetic to anyone who would protest the capital district. Asking Kaohsiung to send police to help Taipei may surmount to asking Texas to send police to help rein-in protests in New York—the Texans would likely say, “New York? Let it burn.”

University Presidents around the island have dismissed classes to allow students to join the demonstration. Since many universities receive government money, CIA involvement may be suspected as an explanation. However, there are two issues that make their decision seem real and understandable: First, cutting funds or removing those Univ. Presidents would require an act of the legislature that is currently occupied. The Executive Yuan could try to discipline those Univ. Presidents, but they have their hands full at the moment. Even if classes resumed, Universities may face more pressure for wasting government money on having resumed classes that no one was attending. Second, Univ. Presidents are highly educated and, therefore, understand that the specific CSSTA trade-service pact being protested would cause Taiwan’s economic path to mimic Hong Kong’s last two decades—average income would sink, real estate would go through the roof, and the Univ. Presidents wouldn’t be able to afford nice homes on the beach in which to retire.

Donations from companies around the island swarm to supply the students with their every need. Port-a-potties were brought in. Doctors bring their own medical supplies. A stage sits on the street. Were these donors and volunteers part of some secret brotherhood controlled by CIA? Possibly. Businessmen like to join “old-man frats”. But, their decisions to donate make perfect sense. First, these students are incredibly popular. Donating branded items may prove more bang for the buck to those companies than advertising costs. Second, those companies’ executives fear the Chinese economy’s ability to put them out of business if CSSTA becomes law. Companies having donated supplies to the students required as much coercion as asking a fly to eat poop.

Famous musicians take turns singing songs in protest. Doctors, lawyers, economists, and professors have time limited microphone time because everyone wants to explain why the students are right on the money. Any CIA involvement in this protest would have required 60 years of infiltrating their educational system to convince these experts to agree with these students and to plan to have Taiwan’s President make the public so angry that revolution was unavoidable. That’s not to demean CIA by claiming it isn’t capable of 60-year strategies, but CIA probably wouldn’t take the time for such a small country as Taiwan.

Is CIA involved? A better question is: Where is CIA not involved in anything? Rephrased, is it likely that CIA is especially involved in contributing to this particular turn of events in Taiwan? Probably not. The movement makes too much sense. It’s another organic, grass-roots phenomenon of history. If anything, analysts throughout the America government, political consultants and pollsters especially, all agree: The current Taiwan government’s politicians are so unpopular, not even John McCain would want to speak in their favor.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

China and Taiwan: Provoked to Grab for Power

Whether it’s true or not, China appears to the International community as an aggressor. For half a century, Beijing supported the Kim Dynasty of North Korea. Now, that decision is “blowing up” in Beijing’s face, so to speak. Countries are asking, “Why would Communist China support a North Korea that would do this if China truly wants peace?” Is Beijing apologetic? Of course not.

In the context of regional issues, and especially the recent earthquake and other environmental problems, the best optics for China would be to demonstrate wise priorities at home, tone down their activity in the South China sea, make concessions to India, and back off in other regions. But they don’t. Why?

Though pride is always a factor, it’s hard to say what motivates Beijing. But the Communists seem to be overreaching and this is possibly from complex psychology wars waged by the US over the last several years.

The US “upgrades” Taiwan’s Air Force, rather than doubling its size at a lower cost.

The US spends 8-digit figures on a new office in Taipei, but manages to, “coincidentally”, have union problems with the construction… Since when did Obama ever have union problems? But it’s a great excuse to send more military to Taiwan, as if the US doesn’t already have enough excuses.

The US has been shuffling it’s military throughout the region without significant changes, but keeps claiming that “China” is a significant factor.

The US places a new military base in the northern tip of Australia to “watch” China, but only puts 250 soldiers there, announcing an increase to 2,500 personnel over the next ten years. If I were Beijing, I’d be insulted. Knowing the petty pride of all East Asia, it’s possible that the US intended to offend China, forcing Beijing into irrationality.

China recently increased the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, and now is deploying anti-aircraft carrier DF-21D missiles (see Taipei Times article) to deter US involvement “in case” there is conflict with Taiwan—conflict that could only be brought about by Beijing strategy.

The US hasn’t been the best of friends to Taiwan, especially with the inefficient use of Air Force defense spending.

Ma’s diplomacy seems to have been wasted, both on China and the US. Now, Taiwan is realizing that, whichever political party is in power… Taiwan is on her own.

Things were ostensibly well between Taiwan’s President Ma and China. That’s why Taiwan reelected him. As a Harvard grad, Ma is flouent in both English and international affairs. He doesn’t misspeak. And his rhetoric has been changing.

Before, it was “commerce with China”. Now, he’s considering, “how our military force can effectively intimidate the potential threat… [rather than] whether other countries will be there as our military aid.” That’s a message to both superpowers on the western and eastern sides of Taiwan. “Intimidate”—!? That’s not the same diplomatic Ma who was elected six years ago. It sounds more like Ronald Reagan.

China has been provoked with some of the most subtle psychology the West has ever displayed. DC seems to know Beijing better than Beijing knows itself. What DC doesn’t seem to know is how Taiwan will react. As Tolkien said, “…but his cunning overreached his aim, his words touched too deep, and awoke a fire more fierce than he designed.”

The US has overstretched herself, like butter spread too thin on a slice of bread. A global military, funded nationally, isn’t sustainable, not even with debt owed to China. As the US loses its power, China and India will pick up the slack, but so will Taipei, Japan, and Seoul.

China is moving too fast, too aggressively, but it doesn’t realize this because of the cultural differences between East and West. Beijing BS walks, to some extent, in China. But money talks to both the East and the West. More missiles in the Taiwan Straight, in light of China’s bastard child of North Korea gone awry, will arouse the West, including the Harvard grad leading Taiwan.

Expect a power grab from Taiwan, that DC does not expect, that makes China stand up straighter and makes the US smile with a little more humility.

Taipei Times:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/04/21/2003560318

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

N Korea and Chinese Culture: Escalation Explained

What’s with the rhetoric, fist pounding, and war-drumming?

North Korea has a long history of making threats whenever they need food. In the past, war-talk resulted in lots of food and supplies being sent to North Korea a short time after. Maybe there were talks somewhere in that process, maybe not. But the West cow-towed to the Norks like Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler before WWII.

From this perspective, it seems that Kim Jong-un is begging for food, like the family dog who tries to convince everyone at the dinner table that he’s on the brink of starvation.

But from another perspective, East Asian cultures—Chinese, Japanese, and Korean alike—are famous for “fist shaking” in the place of actual leadership and management strategy. Someone stands up and shouts really loud, everyone within ear shot jumps in line—again, like the family dog being beat with two sheets of newspaper who thinks, with all the noise, he’s being pounded to death. For these cultures, rhetoric is reality and fists get politicians elected.

…not so in the West.

In the West, when someone starts talking too loudly or grabs for too much power, we regard him as a threat to be eliminated immediately. If a leader sounds like Hitler, we call the cavalry. North Korea and Beijing don’t expect this to be the response of the West.

Beijing, in all likelihood, anticipates that their military drills should make the American Navy flee home. That’s how it always works in their Chinese companies and governments and State-registered churches. North Korea is expecting food from UN members. And it’s all having a reverse effect.

On the other hand, Washington seems to be over-reacting. North Korea and China don’t use rhetoric the same way the West does. For the East, empty threats are well-rehearsed and result in power. Such rhetoric is never intended to reflect reality. It helps to be familiar with some psychopathic psychology. Liars never consider making their manner reflect reality because, for them, the truth is not a priority.

Far be it for me to give advice, but I’ll observe that the East is unwittingly giving Washington an excuse to build up full military force in response to half-empty words. Should some military response be in order? Perhaps. But the Far East is not as big of a threat to the West as the Middle East, which has it’s own virtuous base and reverence for truth. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Putin shake their fists, there’s a lot more reality  being reflected.

War in with China and North Korea could reveal an empty shell, like a “wizard” having his levers pulled by a simple man behind a curtain.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

USA’s Mixed Message to China

USA’s Mixed Message to China (mp3)

If politics were a TV show, consider this season of “Pacific Antics”. The United States government has consistently sent “dual messages” to China.

TV Show: ChinaOn the one hand, diplomatic, military, and other foreign-related policy indicates aggressive defense posture and retaliation preparedness should a Pacific conflict break out. A new military base is under way in the northern most parts of Australia. US military forces are continually rearranged with “China” as the recurring, vague reason. Trade and visa agreements with Pacific nations, including America’s former enemy, Vietnam, won’t exactly make China feel like the biggest tiger in the jungle. And Taiwan President Ma’s recent and unusual visit to the Pope’s inauguration doesn’t resound with the same “go along with China to get along with China” rhetoric of Ma’s first term. In case you didn’t know, Chinese Communists don’t like the Vatican.

On the other hand, US domestic policies seem to invite invasion from China. Domestic police authorities appear to be incompetent—checkpoints on roads in the face of the Federal government suing Arizona for enforcing their own laws, expensive inspection at civilian airports coupled with multiple weapons getting past security despite those security increases, and the hiring of criminals by the TSA, just to to name a few. US fiscal policy—and more recently, lack thereof—demonstrates immature priorities while posing a financial threat to China’s investment in the US government. Mass seizure of firearms while cutting corners of due process is resulting in the disarmament of US coastlines.

Remember, the armed civilians of America have been one of the long-standing reasons why many nations have considered the United States nearly impossible to invade. Taking away civilian guns—for any reason—takes away the “impossibility” of a US invasion. If gun confiscation escalates, we certainly won’t have to worry about school and theater shootings—we’ll too busy fighting the Chinese in our own homes with golf clubs and baseball bats.

“Assault weapons” (whatever THOSE are) scare the Chinese much more than they scare Dianne Feinstein.

A slew of US domestic policies have certainly invited Chinese military action. The onslaught of US military and diplomacy maneuvers in the Pacific have deterred it. What gives? Why the dual message?

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that somewhere, deep within the machinations of the mythical US government “war machine”, ostensibly lurking behind the curtain of Oz and kookery and conspiracy nuts… there may be a complex plan to confuse and anger the Chinese, thus provoking Beijing to strike too soon. It could make sense, from a “strategery” (a George W. Bush word) perspective. If China gets angry they may strike early. If they strike early, we can retaliate early. And then we can win earlier and cancel the debt owed to America’s invaders.

Is such a plan really in effect? Probably not, but it certainly looks as if it is.

What would my advice to China be? Well, we’re not allowed to give any advice to China. We who made good decisions and succeeded through free economics have nothing beneficial to offer a nation that pollutes its natural resources, alienates its neighbors, and can’t keep its own working class satisfied. So, I won’t offer advice…

…but if I were China, I’d leave well enough alone and back off on the military buildup since buildup only justifies conflict. No one would even discuss conflict with China otherwise. Not always, but perhaps in this case, the best solution to peace is peace itself.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

What Would It Take?

A friend recently asked me, “Hypothetically, what would it take to tip the tables, break the silence, and move from military escalation in East Asia into either war or peace?”

It was actually quite an easy question to answer. The same event could push the tide either way, though there’s no way of knowing in advance. It’s a rather simple event. But first, we need some background…

In every war, there’s always a straw that breaks the camel’s back, as it were. In WWI it was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania by a German U-boat on May 7, 1915. Interestingly, also on the 7th, but in December 1941, WWII was joined by the US when the Japanese bombed the naval fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on Oahu island in Hawaii. There’s always something that tips the tide.

In the current Pacific scenario, I speculate that everything could shift, merely if Taiwan commandeered the diesel-powered Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. The Chinese purchased the archaic floating fortress from Russia, when it had the name Varyag, given in 1990. It was originally built in the Ukraine and named Riga at its first commissioning in 1988. Stripped of its goodies, the floating shell was purchased by the Chinese in 1998, to be no more than a floating museum.

I suppose Beijing forgot about the museum plans. After being stocked to the deck, followed by a test voyage that started almost 18 months ago, the Liaoning “museum” has been officially observing the sea since September 25, 2012.

But why would Taiwan even consider commandeering it? Why would it be worth the risk? And would Taiwan even be capable?

Within the last few years, Taiwan completed an arms deal with the United States. Taiwan wanted to purchase several new F-16′s, with the updated gadgetry, whistles, and the latest bells. Instead, for about the same amount of money, the US Military insisted on upgrading Taiwan’s current F-16′s. Taiwan wasn’t happy, especially since they could have doubled the size of their Air Force for the same amount of money it cost to upgrade the older jets. But the only other store to buy fighter jets from is Russia. And only America retails the F-16. So, the Taiwanese had no choice. It hurt Taipei, politically.

Every adult male in Taiwan is required to do time in the armed services. So, the entire population is savvy when it comes to military purchase stories in the newspaper. Especially after that arms deal, the USA was demoted in Taiwan’s culture from being a Friend to being a “friend”, with emphasis on the quotation marks. Taiwan’s Air Force was once larger than China’s, but not any more. The Sales Department in Washington didn’t seem to care. Ahh, salesmen.

Taiwan’s president, Ma, a Harvard grad, was elected for his second term this past summer, but he hasn’t started that term yet. He and Obama are in similar situations, though he’s, politically, more of a Romney-McCain hybrid. Diplomatically, however, Ma and Obama both tried the so-called “apology tour” approach with their critics. For Obama, that meant touring Europe. For President Ma, it involved bringing Beijing diplomats to Taiwan and making sure that EVERY Taiwan flag had been removed from the landscape. While many think this might only encourage an enemy, I believe Ma and Obama genuinely thought it might be an effective olive branch, a gift of peace.

In the last few months, however, China’s new passport sported a map of East Asia, with both mainland China AND Taiwan darkened, along with a nine-dash line circling many disputed islands in the South China Sea. Few things could slap President Ma in the face more than this. At last report, Taipei was discussing whether to deny entry to any person attempting to enter Taiwan with a passport containing the map showing Taiwan as a part of China.

As if that wasn’t enough, another page in the new passport reportedly contains a picture of the dearly loved Sun Moon Lake, also in Taiwan. Imagine Iran’s new passport having a picture of Mount Rushmore. Yeah… Not exactly the same “diplomacy” Ma extended. Like I say, serious slap in the face to Ma. And it doesn’t help his popularity any either, especially since his own “apology tour” didn’t sit well with the nation of Taiwanese veterans.

So, what’s this got to do with the price of rice? “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Taiwan’s economy isn’t so hot right about now, though it isn’t exactly in the dumps either. The best thing going for Taiwan, other than HTC sales and Apple engineering contracts, is the fluctuation caused by America’s QE2 and QE3… and QE4 and QE5… but that’s another story for another blog. If the Taiwanese could anticipate the Fed’s schedule, they would make out like bandits. But reading the tea leaves is a skill reserved for George Soros’ back pain. America’s “quantitative easing” doesn’t just hurt the American taxpayer, it hurts the Taiwan dollar also.

Why else is Taiwan’s economy in dire “straits”? Mainly because, as of this recent September, Taiwan has more than 1,600 Chinese missiles aimed at its shores, up 200 from last year! That doesn’t exactly free up the economy to rage like America’s 1950′s. The government doesn’t have the resources to focus on polishing their laws to be attractive to foreign business and getting the traffic lights timed for better flow. They’re mainly focused on keeping Beijing from blowing up the roads and preparing for fallout if Beijing steps over the line. Things are getting tight.

Oh, and remember that Taiwan’s meager budget was forced to “upgrade” its Air Force, rather than doubling its size. Taipei actually went over their budget because Washington “told” them what the price was, even though the States filtered other money back to Taiwan to compensate. Ahh, salesmen.

What would you do if you were in President Ma’s position? Would you wait for next year, when the number of missiles looking up your nose increases to 1,800, possibly more? Would you invite Beijing for another flagless stroll around the island? Maybe take them to Sun Moon Lake this time? Would you call Washington for help?

In a few years, China will be ready to launch their first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Taiwan’s Air Force isn’t getting any bigger, even after going over budget. China’s hand-me-down carrier “museum” from the former Soviets is serving as a test run. Air craft carriers aren’t exactly easy to manage. This is the Communists’ first floating air base. They don’t want to run aground in the Taiwan Strait with a nuclear reactor on board. Best make the mistakes on diesel power.

Sure, I’m speculating big time. But I’ll still say, seizing that aircraft carrier could look really attractive to President Ma these days. No one in Taiwan could ever again say that he’s “soft” on China. It would be very efficient use of their military budget. It might make Washington have a little more faith in Taiwan, atop everything else Taiwan has done to help America.

If Taiwan successfully grabbed the “museum”, Taipei could claim any jets on “display”—at least that might help grow their Air Force. It would be a trophy for intel gathering—CIA would love that… Lots of Chinese to “not” water-board. It’d also help extend the reach of Taiwan’s Air Force, not to mention truncate the length of China’s great army “arm”. Beijing would have to learn all over again when they launch the first air craft carrier officially “Made in China”, four years from now.

China really couldn’t complain, the Liaoning is only a “museum” after all. Washington couldn’t complain. They wouldn’t supply Taiwan with what it needed, so Taiwan “shopped” elsewhere. Besides, we all know the Pentagon loves any excuse to start a new war. It would be like offering tea to a Brit. No one would believe Washington objected, even if they did complain.

The Russians couldn’t complain either. It’d be a great excuse to sell another “museum” to Beijing… Or “Macau”, depending on how China wants to organize it on paper. And we wouldn’t hear any noise from Vietnam or the Philippines. And it wouldn’t be as easy for China to bully the neighbors if the Communists were minus one “museum” aircraft carrier to “show-boat” around in.

Oh… the neighbors… See, in March 2011, Taiwan accidentally gave more money to Japan’s tsunami relief effort than any other country—even more the United States. Taiwan really loves its neighbors. They were occupied by the Japanese in WWII… But they have no problem forgetting the past… they love their neighbors.

At one point, Taiwan tried to recognize Beijing’s government. They wanted to surrender the mainland, shrug, and say, “Okay, Communists, you can keep what you have.” But, Taiwan’s constitution wouldn’t let them. Even if it had, Beijing won’t accept anything but complete surrender… even at “any” cost.

Chinese culture involves a lot more posturing than we see in the Western world. A sudden power grab, like commandeering a diesel-powered “museum” aircraft carrier, could cause the Chinese to shrink back a lot more than the United States if… say… the US had two of its sky scrapers crashed into by private passenger planes… or if a naval base in Hawaii was bombed. (references to history) If someone attacks America, America get’s mad, then America gets even. But, if you shake your fist in a room full of Chinese, they might be scared of you. If they aren’t scared, they’ll be so angry that they won’t be able to think strait. Chinese culture lends no room between the two extremes: fear and red-hot anger.

Seizing the diesel fortress might scare the dragon back into its cave. More than likely, though, Beijing would use the incident to justify an attack, which they have planning openly, but at least they won’t be as strong. Taiwan would also have the advantage of time.

China’s nuclear carrier isn’t finished yet. It’s still in the dock. War in the region would be the perfect time for anyone, say, the US, to “accidentally” lose control of some Tomahawk Cruise missiles, setting China’s naval Air Force plans back another decade. That might also compensate for the fact that Taiwan’s Air Force isn’t getting any bigger. Ahh, salesmen.

It still eludes me as to why China is being so provocative at this point in the game. They are incredibly vulnerable. But, men with ambitions for global domination are likely to be a few pickles shy of a full jar… a few egg rolls shy of a full picnic… a few noodles shy of a full bowl… or, in Beijing’s case, a few jets shy of a full “museum”.

And that’s the other thing. The Liaoning isn’t exactly a Nimitz-class “museum”. Though it’s 999 feet long, and a Nimitz is 1,092, the Liaoning “museum” displaces 55,000 tons while a Nimitz displaces 100,000.

And, for the $30 million [US] dollar question… Can Taiwan do it? Do not underestimate Taiwan’s surgical capability. Taiwan is the land of thick-thigh Aborigines, Monkey masters who kill better than they wrestle, and young men whose only opportunity to master a firearm is through a military career.

Backed by all the American tech they’ve stockpiled—and helped design—through the years, Taiwan could do it if they wanted. And there doesn’t seem to be anything but encouragement from policies of Beijing and Washington alike.

It wouldn’t be enough to sink the Liaoning—Taiwan would have to actually own it. That would either hold back the approaching war for at least another five years, or else make it start when the timing was least in Beijing’s favor. Either way, the loss of life would be significantly less than fighting the inevitable war on China’s timetable.

No matter what happens, there are no guarantees. If Taiwan waited patiently, they might see peace for a thousand years. If all the nations in the region make the best and boldest military decisions, every one of them could still lose. As a Christian, prayer is my weapon of choice. As my pastor said in my youth, “…pray? That’s like having an intercontinental ballistic missile!” Still, that doesn’t deter me from trying to read tea leaves, even without Soros’ back pain.

Let’s say all this wild theorizing has even a “prayer” of coming to pass. If Taiwan lifted the “museum”, beat the Beijing dragon beyond the Great Wall, and kept their national flag flying above their volcanic beaches, what would happen to the Liaoning?

Beijing would want their floating “museum” back. It’s a very expensive “museum”, not to mention Asian pride. Possessing an aircraft carrier might make Taiwan a little less dependent on the Washington Sales Department. If it somehow sunk, Washington, not Beijing, would be implicated. But I don’t think that would happen… It’s not likely any of this would happen.

It’s interesting, though, isn’t it? “Stuff” always seem to start with some boat in the ocean. They said the Titanic was too big to sink. So… Naaah. No… There’s no way. There can’t be. I mean… No. No way. No.

continue reading

Standard