American Institute for Taiwan-China Strategy

 

Home Mission Statement AITCS Publications Feedback AITCS Contents Search

AITCS Publications

 

 

AITCS Publications

 

 
Among the activities in which American Institute for Taiwan-China Strategy is engaged is the submission of editorial material for publication in international newspapers, magazines, news websites, and other publications throughout the world discussing current issues affecting relations between Taiwan, China and the United States. 
AITCS has published a series of monographs concerning relations between Taiwan, China and the United States. These include: 
 
 

~ Seeing Through Doublespeak

~ It's Official: Soong's Opinion Superior to the Rule of Law

~ The KMT Sets Up Shop In Washington, Possibly To Act As The "True Government" of Taiwan

~ Taiwan's Referendum Merely A Red Herring Used By Beijing

~ A Clever Ruse By The KMT

~ "Eugenics" for Democracy in Hong Kong

~ Dear Mr. Chirac

~ Desperate EU Now Courting China on Weapons

~ A Sad Day For Democracy

~ As Taiwan Goes, So Goes Tibet and Hong Kong

~ "Eugenics" for Democracy in Hong Kong

~ Cuba Is Not All That Different From China

~ The Rule of Law

~ Uh-oh Canada

~ Practical Romanization

~ Spotlight China's Tyranny

~ Idealism Won't Protect Independence Like Big Shoes

~ The Politics of Paternalism

~ The Seeds of Independence

~ The Latest Subterfuge - Carving Taiwan Up Into Four Easily Digestible Pieces

~ A Trojan Horse Called Capitalism

~ China and Cuba Keep the U.N. Appeasers Working Overtime

~ A Parable for a Would-Be Giant

~ Know What Could Be Lost - Taiwan Cannot Hide From The Importance of the 2004 Election

~ Thank You, Mr. Soong

~ A Toothless Sycophant

~ Beijing's Cowardice

~ Born in the U.S.A.

~  Open Letter to WHO

~ What's In A Name?

~ Hu Jintao Unwittingly Calls for Democratic China

~ Not Made In Taiwan

~ China, SARS and the WHO

~ China's Embarrassing Hot Potato

~ Postponing President's Trip to Panama

~ We All Lack Objectivity 

~ Risky Collaboration

~ China Can't Get Rid Of An Elephant Called "Truth"

~ China Still The Main Threat

~ BBQ With America's Most Dangerous Neighbor

~ The Mentor's Giant Smile: A Parable

~ Nothing Historic in Hu Taking Over as China's Newest Dictator

~ U.S. Strength Will Protect Taiwan, Not Taiwan's Membership in the ICC

~ The Pretense is gone - The KMT's platform in 2004 will be "Unification at Any Cost"

~ The Best Defense Is A Strong Offense: China Is The Menace In Asia, Not Taiwan

~ China's Secret Politics

~ Pussy-Cat Club International

~ U.N. Must Watch China's Aggression Towards Taiwan

 
 
 
 

 


 

Seeing Through Doublespeak

I read the white paper on democracy that China released on October 19, 2005 called the Building of Political Democracy in China, and was moved to assist those unfamiliar with the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) use of language by offering these translations.

Using its new "Communist Dictionary of Commonly Misunderstood Words," China has once again stepped out onto the world stage and announced with a straight face that it operates under a "democratic" form of government (a lie it floated first in Hong Kong a number of years ago), that it provides religious freedom, freedom of speech and association, and human rights, and that the Chinese government provides a "fundamental guarantee for the Chinese people to be masters in managing the affairs of their own country."

In order to truly understand the white paper, it is first necessary to learn the meaning of commonly misunderstood words in the new Chinese communist dictionary.

For example, the word "democracy" means "no universal suffrage, no freedom of choice, can only vote for the CCP." The word "peace" has been redefined to mean "complete unconditional surrender." All references to "peace" in Tibet, or Taiwan, in reality mean "complete unconditional surrender."

It is interesting to note that this is the definition of "peace" also adopted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in Taiwan, for instance in the title of the "cross-strait peace committee" -- the true purpose of which is to arrange a complete and unconditional surrender by Taiwan to China.

There is also the definition of "freedom," which loosely defined means "freedom with Chinese characteristics," but more precisely, means "slavery" or "no freedom." It is important to understand this because the white paper uses the term "freedom" liberally to describe many of the communist government's purported benefits, including "freedom of speech," "freedom of religion" and "freedom of association."

Thus the white paper touts China's "freedom of religion," while the reality for the country's Catholics and other Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, the Falun Gong, or in fact any religion, is that there is "no freedom of religion."

For those who doubt this, just ask the real Panchen Lama, if you can find him. I suppose that another of the CCP's definitions of "freedom" is "10 years of house arrest in an undisclosed location."

As for "freedom of speech," the white paper touts China's numerous newspapers, its Internet, media (TV and radio) and its Constitution.

But to truly understand how "freedom of speech" is used in the white paper, the definition from the "Communist Dictionary of Commonly Misunderstood Words" must be at hand.  The new definition of "freedom of speech" is "freedom of speech to say only good things about the CCP, and otherwise, no freedom of speech."

The white paper fails to explain the continuing ruthless censorship and filtering of all news and Internet information in China, or the imprisonment of anyone anywhere in the country who dares to criticize the Chinese communist government -- or any of its leaders, actions, policies, rules, laws or principles. In fact the white paper utterly fails to even mention it.

This adds to the understanding of the new definition of "white paper," which is "whitewash."

The white paper also speaks of the purported guarantee in the Constitution for "human rights," but to truly understand this, one must refer to the new dictionary definition of "human rights."

The new definition says "human rights" is "the requirement to live as a CCP adherent, and to praise and follow the CCP, and otherwise, no human rights."

When using this definition, the white paper's meaning becomes crystal clear.

For example, when the following portion of the white paper on human rights is modified to reflect the true meaning, it is more easily understood: "The Chinese Constitution comprehensively stipulates the citizens' [requirement to live as a CCP adherent and to praise and follow the CCP, and other than that, no human rights] and [no freedom]. Based on the Constitution, China has enacted a series of laws on the protection of [the requirement to live as a CCP adherent, and to praise and follow the CCP, and otherwise, no human rights], and set up a relatively comprehensive legal system for the protection of [the requirement to live as a CCP adherent, and to praise and follow the CCP, and otherwise, no human rights]. On the basis of achievements made over the 50-plus years of economic and social development, the Chinese people are now enjoying [the requirement to live as a CCP adherent, and to praise and follow the CCP, and otherwise, no human rights] more comprehensive and fuller than they have ever enjoyed in the past."

Article VII is entitled "Respecting and Safeguarding Human Rights" -- or "respecting and safeguarding the requirement to live as a CCP adherent, and to praise and follow the CCP, and otherwise, no human rights" if read using the new communist dictionary definition.

The white paper states at the beginning of Article VII that "In March 2004, an amendment to the Constitution was adopted by the Second Session of the 10th National People's Congress, which included the statement `the state respects and safeguards human rights' in the Constitution, thus ushering in a new chapter in the progress of China's human rights undertakings."

Well, what they meant to write in the Constitution was that "the State does not respect and safeguard human rights" and, somehow, the word "not" got left out. It is from this source that the new definition of "human rights" springs forth. It is also proof that the white paper (whitewash), is in fact nothing more than the usual "CCP pack of lies" -- defined in the new dictionary as "absolute truth."

How ironic is it that the Constitution was amended to add a provision on human rights without a vote by the people? A government that can do that, can just as easily adopt a provision that takes the right away.

In truth, the white paper is merely a typical justification offered by the CCP for its ruthless dictatorship, using the same paternal arguments about "social stability" that all dictators throughout the ages have used to justify oppression, tyranny, detention, slavery and murder.

One of the most poignant lines in the white paper states that the CCP is the "fundamental guarantee for the Chinese people to be masters in managing the affairs of their own country."

In other words, so long as the CCP remains the dictator of China, no outside nation will interfere. But, the new dictionary is necessary to fully understand this passage. In the CCP's new dictionary the definition of "master" is "slave," and the definition of "managing [their own] affairs" is "doing what the party says, on pain of death."

There are as many as 80 million casualties and billions oppressed by ruthless communist rule who could testify to this reality.

In his novel 1984, George Orwell described the motto that was emblazoned on the government's Ministry of Truth: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."

In Orwell's fictional world, the government behaved in a way that is eerily similar to the actions of Beijing's communist government, and characters in the book suffered similar indignities, and lacked similar rights and freedoms.

In the book, "truth" was only what the government said it was.

In this regard, communist China is no different. "No freedom, no free speech, no freedom of religion, no human rights, no information, no truth, no right to vote, no democracy, plenty of unbridled censorship and lots of overwhelming oppression," has been redefined in the "Communist Dictionary of Commonly Misunderstood Words" as "the good life."

To all whom Beijing subjugates it says, "Believe it, and you will be `free.'"

Welcome to 1984 in Beijing.


It's Official: Soong's Opinion Superior to the Rule of Law

"It's official. The KMT vice-presidential candidate, James Soong has announced that his personal opinion of the law is paramount to the law itself. Never mind that in a democracy the rule of law must be upheld, in particular by the nation's most senior officials. Mr. Soong has declared the President's referendum "illegal", and indicated he believes that's enough to stop it. His legal opinion therefore is presumably superior to that of the President, the legislature and the Judiciary. How can this be in a democracy?

The simple answer is that is cannot. And the simple conclusion is that if the KMT (and its minions, including the city "chiefs", such as Ma Ing-jou) treats the referendum law with disdain, what ill does that portend for whichever other laws Soong or Lien or the KMT don't like, if elected to power in the next election? An official who has disrespect for the rule of law, which he is dutybound to uphold as a government official, whether he likes or dislikes it, will have disrespect and contempt for the nation and for its people. But isn't that the platform of the KMT? Isn't it a platform based on a paternalistic attitude that only the KMT knows what is best for the people, and Taiwanese are too ignorant to know what is best for them? Isn't that the same philosophy as the tyrannical government in China, in its attitude towards Taiwan and towards its own citizens? Handing over the reins of government to such people would be a very dangerous choice. Very dangerous indeed.

The KMT Sets Up Shop In Washington, Possibly To Act As The "True Government" of Taiwan

"The KMT and PFP have opened an office in Washington, D.C. to "present the 'mainstream' view of the Taiwanese people." The new "representative" in Washington, Jason Yuan (鋡?? accused the TECRO of "presenting an unbalanced view of public opinion in Taiwan to the American government." In other words, fresh off the plane, the Pan-Blue "representative" wasted no time creating a further divisive atmosphere for Taiwan in Washington. The interesting thing is that this move is strangely familiar for some reason. It sounds exactly the way China treats the Taiwan government - as though it doesn't exist.

Jason Yuan is acting as though he represents Taiwan, and one of his main purposes is to keep a closer eye on Taiwan's current official representative in Washington, Chen Chien-jen (蝔撱箔?, whom the KMT has accused of disloyalty to "the party" for helping the Taiwan government with relations with the U.S. In other words, now there appears to be a "Taiwan government" separate and apart from the elected government of Taiwan, and that is the "KMT government" - acting almost like a government in exile. With a nod and a wink, Jason Yuan is saying to the U.S. that he in fact is the true representative of Taiwan, not the current administration of A-Bian. It reminds me of the time the WHO sent an invitation intended for Taiwan to Beijing, almost as though the Taiwan government did not exist. The KMT behaves the same way. Jason Yuan is telling Washington it should deal with him, the KMT, not the elected government.

A warning must be issued to the U.S. government not to fall for this subterfuge. The KMT representative does not represent Taiwan - he more closely represents the interests of Communist China. During over 40 years of oppression, there was little "public opinion" allowed in Taiwan that was not silenced, because the KMT suppressed any opinion apart from its own. A return to those dark days of tyranny would be a victory for the voices of dictatorship and oppression, and defeat for the voices of freedom and democracy - China would love nothing more. The actions of Jason Yuan should be closely monitored to make sure he is not purporting to represent a "Taiwan government in exile", making himself in private meetings with U.S. officials an unofficial representative of Taiwan (as opposed to a private person with personal opinions, which free speech can always tolerate). Only the elected government in Taiwan can speak for the country, and I thank democracy for that.

 

Taiwan's Referendum Merely A Red Herring Used By Beijing

"Controversy over a referendum in Taiwan is misplaced. The referendum issue is merely a red herring used by China as an excuse to ramp up its bellicose statements against Taiwan. The proposed plebiscite is nothing more than a poll of Taiwanese on how the people feel about peace in the Taiwan Strait and China's threats against their nation. It has nothing to do with independence. Taiwan need not declare independence, as it is already de facto independent. The communist dictatorship in Beijing is unalterably opposed to democracy in Taiwan because Taiwan offers its people all of those freedoms and dignity Beijing denies to its citizens. Beijing has enjoyed recently an upsurge in "engagement" with many countries due to its beguiling markets, but the world must remember that Beijing is nothing more than a brutal dictatorship, and it has never ruled Taiwan for one day since the communists' takeover in 1949 (nor China for more than 50 years before that). Its claim to Taiwan is only a ruse to destroy the threat of democracy in its backyard.

As a brutal dictatorship, truth often is fiction in Beijing. Recent complaints by Beijing about the proposed "referendum" in Taiwan are no exception, and Beijing's attempts to interfere with Taiwan's internal affairs are nothing more than its continual onslaught against freedom and human rights in Taiwan. The parroting of its referendum position by the Bush Administration and by Chirac is a disappointment to international human rights. The U.N.'s silence is even worse. Let the free peoples of the world, including the U.S., stand up to China in this reaffirmation of the rights of free peoples to self-determination and freedom.

 

 

 

A Call To Review the President's Referendum Is A Clever Ruse by the KMT

"Mr. Shih (letter of 2.5.2004) is sadly misinformed. He charges that if the Chen administration does not follow a procedure which is not lawful (having the referendum passed on by the Referendum Review Committee), then the President must be afraid of something. That conclusion of course is itself laughable.

First, the purpose of the KMT calling for the review in the first place is to have the review committee (which the KMT would control, since its makeup is according to the seats in the legislature) rule against the referendum. The KMT knows that following the legal procedure in the Courts would end up in the referendum going forward. The only way to stop it is to suggest an unauthorized procedure that is controlled by the KMT itself. Secondly, the only acceptable legal procedure for reviewing the legality of the referendum is in the procedures authorized by the Constitution and/or in the referendum law, if any. To say that the government should prove that it is doing something legal by following an illegal procedure is bizarre, and in this case, duplicitous.

Also, to say that there is no imminent threat to Taiwan is to minimize the realities of the cross-strait tensions as the country approaches the presidential elections in March (and since when are 500 missiles not a threat?) Is it not an emergency when a foreign power does all it can to interfere with the election process, to attempt to defeat the incumbent President (including arranging for a criminal fugitive from justice to allege impropriety of the President -- faxed to none other than the KMT?) I would question why I should vote for a party that appears to be the choice of my country's mortal enemy. I would wonder why that mortal enemy chooses that party. I would wonder why that party keeps promising that relations with my country's mortal enemy will improve if they are elected. I would wonder why that party's candidate for President keeps saying he will visit my mortal enemy as soon as he is elected. It sounds very dangerous to me.

No country in recorded history has obtained its freedom without a fight and without controversy. Many times, there are "loyalists" who wish to remain part of the "motherland", and those who wish to be free. When the "loyalists" have lost control, they can be expected to fight with every tool at their disposal to oppose and frustrate independence. That is the case in Taiwan. The KMT "loyalists" are loath to permit Taiwan to become a de jure independent nation, because that would spell the end of their power. The referendum is just one more step in the direction of democracy. The KMT, Mr. Shih, and others who decry Taiwan's independence should just deal with it. The best is yet to come.

"Eugenics" for Democracy in Hong Kong

"Little in Hong Kong is like China. It is the same with Taiwan and Tibet. But China has swallowed Tibet and Hong Kong, and has its rapacious eyes on Taiwan.

Eugenics is essentially selective breeding to "improve" the population. Using eugenics means, "blending" the originality out of the natives. It is the inhumane tool the powerful and ruthless use to subjugate the weak, and to swallow them and their cultures, making them disappear. It is not new, but has been in use for millennia, and in the last hundred years by Hitler, in the Balkans, and elsewhere. Its use today is equated with genocide, a crime against humanity.

Beijing swallowed Tibet, and has continued to dilute it, drenching it in Chinese immigration, practicing the worse kind of eugenics to make the Tibetan culture evaporate. It does the same with religions and anything else it fears. Beijing professes it allows the practice of Christianity, but in truth, it allows Chinese to participate in government churches which are strictly controlled by Beijing, feeding the Party's drivel to the faithful instead of the Word. Again, by diluting the gospel by blending it with communist dogma, the aim is eugenics, to make the faith evaporate.

The same is true now of democracy in Hong Kong. The first step in Beijing's plan of eugenics for democracy in Hong Kong was to set up a democratic system that eliminated democracy. The Chief Executive is picked by those picked by Beijing. Hardly democratic. The Chief Executive has indicated that further developments in democracy will be subjected to Beijing's approval. Hardly surprising. To be sure, the dilution of any democratic system will continue, until there is no de facto democracy. Hong Kong's ideals of democracy will go the way of Tibetan culture.

Taiwan is a much more difficult target for Beijing to swallow. First, it is not a willing participant. Secondly, Taiwan is so alienated from the communist system that there is hardly any chance Taiwanese will ever embrace it as the system of choice (even those Taiwanese Beijing calls "compatriots"). Thirdly, neither Taiwan nor the U.S. are about to allow Beijing to put its grubby paws on Taiwan without a fight, and it is not a fight Beijing wants to risk right now (no matter how loud its whining to the U.S. about interfering in its "internal affairs"). Although some in the KMT are still trying to be cooperative in the "sinicization" of Taiwan (making everything in Taiwan "Chinese"), as long as China remains an oppressive communist dictatorship, eugenics in Taiwan will remain impossible for Beijing.

Hopefully, calling Beijing's eugenics what it is, and addressing it, highlighting it, profiling it, and challenging Beijing to deny it is doing it, will prevent Beijing from trying the same in Taiwan. The question is whether there is still any hope for Tibet and Hong Kong.

All together now, with one voice, let's tell it like it is - Communist China's policy of eugenics. A violation of human rights. Genocide. Where is the U.N. when you need it?

Dear Mr. Chirac - Nice To Know the French Still Cannot Be Trusted To Do the Right Thing

"Old Europe" gravitated even more towards the bizzare in efforts to get lucrative Chinese contracts, and appear independent from the U.S. For 40 years, France has cozied up to China in an effort to spearhead its presence in Asia, and to maintain a clique in the U.N. security council. Now Chirac has declared the alliance between France and China is designed to help institute a "multi-polar world order" which is code for "let's counter everything the U.S. wants, even if it's the right thing". It sounds as though France will do anything it can to ensure one "pole" in the world is France (not likely).

Now, in what must be an embarrassment to French notions of democracy and freedom, Chirac has warned Taiwan it will make a "grave mistake" by doing something as "provocative" as holding a referendum on China's missiles pointed at Taiwan. Chirac termed the referendum "provocation" - but could a vote be more provocative than the missiles themselves? Only in the upside down world of market-driven diplomacy could Taiwan be viewed as "provocative" because it seeks to question China's right to aim 500 missiles at it. Only in the upside down world of market-driven diplomacy would the U.N. agree with China, the grand aggressor, and the grand violator of human rights. But regimes like those of Hu and Castro decided long ago that only communists are entitled to be free - to them, those in favor of democracy and human rights are obviously guilty of "sedition" (a favorite crime for regimes like those of the Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans, Vietnamese and former Soviet Union, and like those of Saddam and other tyrants and dictators).

The remarkable thing is to find France so ardently supportive of Hu Jintao. Just how low has the value of the French "liberte', egalite', and fraternite'" sunk? Looking at the blood red Eiffel Tower, I would say pretty damn low.

Desperate EU Now Courting China on Weapons

Desperate people do desperate things. A child feels he is ignored, and does something awful, hoping for attention. Wanting to prove he is bigger or better, or grown up, he does something inadvisable just because he can. Petulant. The EU, desperate to be a force in the world, desperate for attention and influence, and desperate to shun its impotence, is considering lifting the 15 year old embargo on arms sales to China. Could anything be more overtly petulant? Or stupid?

The EU of course acknowledges the U.S. is steadfastly opposed to arms sales to China, but of course, being the petulant child, smugly states that it will consider such objections only. No one will tell the EU what to do! But hopefully the EU will screw its head on straight before it makes a decision. The embargo arose out of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and crackdown on democracy protests. Hundreds died then. Thousands have likely died or disappeared since - so have basic human rights like freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of the press. The timing of the suggested change in the embargo is strange. Human rights in China have not improved since 1989. They have largely grown worse. And China's aggression has not improved either. It has moved ahead with eugenics in Tibet, gobbled up Hong Kong, and continues to increase its missiles aimed at Taiwan. This week, France plays host to Hu Jintao. What better way to lay rose petals at the feet of the Chinese emperor, than to bear gifts - in this instance, bombs, fighter jets and missiles?

The French are behind the changes. France has been cozying up to China for some time. It would love to sell its mirage jets, and other arms products to the world's largest consumer of arms in the world - the Chinese communists (never mind that you cannot trust China for four seconds). It is the short-sighted plan of what can only be characterized as a group of discontented "spoilers" - now largely impotent nations searching for long gone days of glory and influence, trying to whip up market share in China. In the course of its petulance, however, the EU could endanger the lives of 23 million Taiwanese, 120 million Japanese, all of Tibet, South Korea, and who knows how many others in the Asian Pacific, and the world. Arming China has to be one of the worst ideas in the last 100 years. Not to mention selfish and childish. But of course, we knew that. I wonder what the EU will cook up for a constitution!

A Sad Day For Democracy

It was reported that Mayor Ma suggested KMT controlled cities and counties boycott the referendum proposed to be held by the President of Taiwan in March. Apparently, the KMT believes that as a major political party, it can compel its KMT party members who are elected officials to disobey laws with which it does not agree (as opposed to those declared void by legal process). That indeed is a sad day for democracy in Taiwan. It is the kind of thing that would happen in a one-party system, like China, not a democracy. The rule of law governs democracies, not the rule of tyranny. Citizens express their opinion and can boycott. Workers can express their opinion and boycott. Elected officials must do their jobs according to the law, or they are dismissed or impeached. The only means by which elected officials can address a law with which they do not agree is to follow the legal procedures to have the law changed, whether by legal challenge in court, or by amendment or other legal process, or to have its enforcement stayed until its legality is determined. To suggest that all KMT officials simply refuse to obey the law, and boycott a validly called election (or referendum), calls for anarchy. That also is a sad day for democracy. I am shocked that a man considered a prime candidate one day to become the president of Taiwan would call for such a lawless measure. What measure of a man is it if he cannot resist the voice of corruption and tyranny, even if whispered to him by his colleague, the man in charge? Can he not resist that which he knows is corrupt and wrong? No one, not Lien Chan, not Mayor Ma, not President Chen are above the law. But in a nation of laws, to obey the law is the very essence of democracy, to criticize it the very voice of democracy, and to change it only by legal process and never by force the very heart of democracy. Does a lawyer with a degree from Harvard have any questions about this at all? If the President has the power of defensive referendum (which he does), then the avenue to object is in Court, not in Chairman Chen's boardroom. To be sure if the Court issued its opinion declaring the referendum void, the KMT would be the first to call for the President to desist. Until then, does the KMT not respect the right of the President to call for the referendum, according to the same law? That is how democracy works. But it is no surprise a party that struggled to contain its often terrible oppression for four decades still doesn't get it. What does it portend for Taiwan if the KMT believes it can simply ignore laws it does not like? Does that mean if Lien Chan is elected president, he will simply disregard laws he does not agree with? What if the legislature passes a law he doesn't like? Will he just ignore it? Will he enter into agreements with China that he is not authorized to enter into merely because he believes he can disregard laws he does not like? How a party in opposition behaves is a very good barometer of how that party will behave if returned to power. After four decades of abusive tyranny, and a scant four in opposition, now faced with the challenges of political disagreements, the KMT is advocating anarchy, or lawlessness. What can that possibly mean for the future of Taiwan? And what if the people of Taiwan ignored laws the KMT passes that the people don't like? You can be sure if Lien Chan becomes president, the KMT would be the first to jail every single person who disagreed with its policy, in particular those who voice their objections in public - probably starting with the former president and vice president, the common indicia of dictatorial power, the tendency to quiet the opposition by incarceration. It is the way tyrants behave in a dictatorship. And the KMT is showing its hand in how it deals with the referendum - dictatorial and imperious, urging anarchy, and lawlessness. Remember it. If Taiwan returns the KMT to power, the people will have no one to blame but themselves for the loss of their freedom and democracy in Taiwan. It will be a sadder day for democracy in Taiwan. And for the world.

As Taiwan Goes, So Goes Tibet and Hong Kong

Recently, many have said Taiwan should look to Hong Kong and Tibet as examples of China's plans for Taiwan. It is true Taiwan can see China's treachery at work in black and white in both Tibet and Hong Kong, where the truth is not the truth, and prevarication and propaganda are as much political necessities as Party editorial styles. The plans include eugenics, oppression, dictatorship and false hope. But Taiwan will not go quietly into the night. And China will not brazenly grab Taiwan while the international spotlight is shining on Taiwan's democracy, and while the Taiwan Relations Act is still U.S. law. And like salt in a wound, Taiwan's democracy will grate away at Beijing, as will the furiously increasing capitalism now quickly replacing the tired communist dogma in China. The nature of China's new economy is a puzzle the communists can neither solve nor control, and soon they will realize they have opened a door they can never close again. And Taiwan will stay democratic. It will elect its president, and it will publish and broadcast the good and the bad and the truth, because it is free. Beijing will not pick the editors of the major newspapers, and news will not be filtered through the Communist Party. Beijing will not decide what religions are acceptable, or how to practice them. Indigenous peoples will not be eliminated as a threat. The Internet will be uncensored, and children will learn about other cultures, and other histories, and that Taiwanese are free and their constitution is sacred. I suggest Tibet and Hong Kong look to Taiwan as a beacon, for it is their last hope. As Taiwan goes, so will they go too. If Taiwan can remain free, there remains hope that Hong Kong will one day resume its place in international circles as a free enterprise mecca, and Tibet will celebrate the return of its spiritual leader after so many years of exile, not with knee bent in humble acknowledgement of the Chinese yoke, but with an eye towards finding the lost Child and lost children of Tibet.

"Eugenics" for Democracy in Hong Kong

Little in Hong Kong is like China. It is the same with Taiwan and Tibet. But China has swallowed Tibet and Hong Kong, and has its rapacious eyes on Taiwan. Eugenics is essentially selective breeding to "improve" the population. Using eugenics means "blending" the originality out of the natives. It is the inhumane tool the powerful and ruthless use to subjugate the weak, and to swallow them and their cultures, making them disappear. It is not new, but has been in use for millennia, and in the last hundred years by Hitler, in the Balkans, and elsewhere. Its use today is equated with genocide, a crime against humanity. Beijing swallowed Tibet, and has continued to dilute it, drenching it in Chinese immigration, practicing the worse kind of eugenics to make the Tibetan culture evaporate. It does the same with religions and anything else it fears. Beijing professes it allows the practice of Christianity, but in truth, it allows Chinese to participate in government churches which are strictly controlled by Beijing, feeding the Party's drivel to the faithful instead of the Word. Again, by diluting the gospel by blending it with communist dogma, the aim is eugenics, to make the faith evaporate. The same is true now of democracy in Hong Kong. The first step in Beijing's plan of eugenics for democracy in Hong Kong was to set up a democratic system that eliminated democracy. The Chief Executive is picked by those picked by Beijing. Hardly democratic. The Chief Executive has indicated that further developments in democracy will be subjected to Beijing's approval. Hardly surprising. To be sure, the dilution of any democratic system will continue, until there is no de facto democracy. Hong Kong's ideals of democracy will go the way of Tibetan culture. Taiwan is a much more difficult target for Beijing to swallow. First, it is not a willing participant. Secondly, Taiwan is so alienated from the communist system that there is hardly any chance Taiwanese will ever embrace it as the system of choice (even those Taiwanese Beijing calls "compatriots"). Thirdly, neither Taiwan nor the U.S. are about to allow Beijing to put its grubby paws on Taiwan without a fight, and it is not a fight Beijing wants to risk right now (no matter how loud its whining to the U.S. about interfering in its "internal affairs"). Although some in the KMT are still trying to be cooperative in the "sinicization" of Taiwan (making everything in Taiwan "Chinese"), as long as China remains an oppressive communist dictatorship, eugenics in Taiwan will remain impossible for Beijing. Hopefully, calling Beijing's eugenics what it is, and addressing it, highlighting it, profiling it, and challenging Beijing to deny it is doing it, will prevent Beijing from trying the same in Taiwan. The question is whether there is still any hope for Tibet and Hong Kong. All together now, with one voice, let's tell it like it is - Communist China's policy of eugenics. A violation of human rights. Genocide. Where is the U.N. when you need it?

Cuba Is Not All That Different From China

There is a smiliarity among Communist regimes. They repress, and they survive by keeping the masses ignorant of the outside world. China and Cuba are good examples. Both are ruled by despotic tyrants, both have a one party system which tolerates no dissent, and both utterly restrict and restrain sources of information, such as freedom of the press, and the Internet. In China, it is harder for the government to crack down on surfing the Internet, although the government will do whatever is necessary to prevent unfavorable information from being disseminated to its citizens. In Cuba, the measures are even more draconian. In Cuba, there is no Internet surfing allowed, and in fact, to surf the Cuban intranet and send email, one must wait on a long queue and pay one quarter of a month's salary. The government says that restricting access to the Internet is necessary for the social good. Sounds familiar. The paternalistic communist government deciding the people don't need to know things. Things like what it is like to live in a free and democractic country. What it is like to have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of travel, the democractic freedom to vote for leadership, and the freedom of association. What people outside the country are saying about Cuba, and Castro, and the communists in Cuba. It is the way with communist regimes. They repress, and they survive by keeping the masses ignorant. Cuba is not all that different from China. And China is not all that different from the former Soviet Union. And we all know what happened to the U.S.S.R. Hopefully we can all bid good riddance to communist dictatorships around the world, in China, in Cuba, in Korea and in Vietnam soon. In the meantime, dictators like Hu and Castro will grapple with trying to put their hands over the mouths of 5 billion Internet surfers to keep them quiet about just how dismal things really are over there.

The Rule of Law

What kind of government could we expect under the KMT? It has given us an example today with its response to the proposed referendum. Calling the referendum a "joke", the KMT has called on cities and counties to boycott the referendum, and to refrain from holding the referendum. This is nothing less than anarchy. If there is a democracy, then one would expect a political party vying for the presidency to act within the law, even when contesting the proposals of the opposition. There is a legal procedure within the constitution and the referendum law for determining the legality of a referendum (though through the KMT's control of the legislature, the hope of any real referendum legislation is dim to be sure), and it is that process that must be followed. The KMT called upon the President to refrain from moving forward with the referendum until the legal challenge is completed. Of course that is also something that is up to the legal process itself. A nation of laws must act within the law. If the KMT wishes to restrain the referendum, it must make its case to the constitutional authority empowered to stop the referendum (if that process exists, within the framework of the "defensive referendum"), not call for the city and county governments to defy the national government. It is of course the KMT's best indication to all that its action are imperious, its designs are imperial, and its leadership covets nothing less than a local empire in Taiwan, under Beijing's one country two systems proposal. This is nation of laws. If the president's proposed referendum is not legitimate, then the legal process will determine that is so. The opposition's call for anarchy merely shows the danger in its mindset, and if the KMT is willing to call for anarchy to combat a legal process undertaken by the national government, then it will be willing to employ anarchy to achieve its aims once it takes power, including setting aside whatever vestiges of democracy there are. We can expect curtailment of freedoms, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of dissent. Is there any question that if the KMT takes power, any who defy the government by disagreeing with it will be imprisoned for sedition? Is there any question there will be an end to those freedoms as we know them? Simply look to the manner in which the party conducts itself as to its own members, and as to this national question of law. As to its own members, even as to the nation's representative in the U.S., the party called for his resignation when he served the nation instead of serving the KMT. What price loyalty? The price of your freedom. Beware a party that asks you to violate the law for its own political purposes. This is a party that will not enforce the rule of law, but will set it aside to suit its own purposes, even to restrict the freedoms you enjoy now.

Uh-Oh Canada

It was amusing to read the scathing indictment of American democratic policy offered by Mr. Chou from Vancouver, Canada. The theme is familiar - essentially bash America for not going to the mat against China right now. The same people who criticize America for going to war against Iraq, are so quick to urge the U.S. to do all at its disposal to "free" Taiwan. How interesting. And just what is the policy of Canada in all this? Has Canada embraced the thriving democracy of Taiwan? Has it repelled China's blackmail, has it voted to admit Taiwan to the U.N., to WHO, to any other organization? Does it have an embassy in Taiwan? Does it have diplomatic relations with Taiwan? What did Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister of Canada have to say about Taiwan's independence the last time the Premier of China showed up in Ottawa in December, 2003? Hmm. If I recall correctly, beaming and smiling next to Mr. Wen, it was something along the lines of supporting the One-China policy, welcoming the deepening relations between Canada and China, and grave concern about Taiwan's referendum and moves toward independence. Of course, at the same time Canada and China "inked seven agreements with Canada ... to enhance political, economic and cultural collaboration in areas including agriculture, transportation, animal and plant inspection and quarantine." How interesting. Obviously, Canada will sell out Taiwan for money and market anytime. But Canada is not alone. Most countries in the world have done the same (including the U.S. in many respects), and, sadly, so has the U.N. In his meeting with Kofi Annan at the U.N., Wen achieved the same result. Annan chastized Taiwan, talked wistfully about peace across the strait, and confirmed the "One-China policy". How appalling. The supposed leader of human rights and democratic ideals in the universe, the Secretary General of the U.N., standing there next to Wen, lip-synching the "One-China Policy" anthem, instead of talking about the rights of a people to self-determination (which, incidentally, is his job). How pathetic (Mr. Chou naively suggests the "international community" will support Taiwan, but he ought to know those nations are too busy feasting on Beijing trade to notice Taiwan's plight). Many people bemoan globalization, unilaterialism, American "aggression", the war against terrorism, but at the same time they criticize the U.S. for not more aggressively taking on China. Which is it? Should America be the world's policeman, or not? Should America be unilateral (because truly there are precious few nations that would support the U.S. against China, which would make such action - whoops - unilateral), or not? Should it be aggressive against China (as it was in Iraq, or is against terrorism) or not? Decide which, and stick to it already. What about Canada? It has sold out Taiwan to become China's 10th largest trading partner. Canada does not stand behind "democracy" in Taiwan, and it certainly does not stand up to China. It will not, and cannot - it is impotent to do so. No, the simple truth is that only the U.S. keeps China from marching across the strait. No U.N. resolution, no U.N. troops, not France, not Great Britain, not Russia, not Spain or Italy or Germany or Japan. Only the U.S. And China knows it. And no matter how the Chinese may creep around Washington (or Ottawa) perpetrating their lies and propaganda about China and Taiwan, nobody in the State Department, or the Defense Department or the Congress or the Oval Office believes any of it, or trusts China for one minute. And Beijing knows it. China may have 496 missiles pointed at Taiwan, but Mr. Hu certainly saw Saddam crawl out of a spider hole, and understands how quickly Beijing would fall in a conflict with America. Few in the world want that war - not Americans, not Chinese, and not even the bulk of Taiwanese. So, although the people of Taiwan may be eager to achieve independence (and there are tens of millions around the world who agree), when dealing with a regime as ruthless and obstinate as the Chinese communists, it is not something easily achieved (particularly given the duplicitous public goal of reunification foisted on Taiwan by the KMT regime for the four decades which preceded the nascent democratic government that now is in place). The U.S. has protected Taiwan from aggression for 50 years. It will keep on doing so. And a bloodless revolution will come only when the dictatorship in Beijing crumbles. It is coming, and all we can do is hope to hasten its demise. Sometimes the U.S. and Taiwan will quarrel about how to accomplish it, sometimes not. Friends often disagree. In the meantime, Mr. Chou ought to write letters to his own government and criticize its stand on China, because it is one-sided in favor of China (there is no "Taiwan Relations Agreement" in Canada like there is in the U.S. that requires Canada to defend Taiwan at all costs). Or he can write to Kofi Annan and ask why he speaks up for the Palestinian's right to self-determination every single day, but never once about the Taiwanese. When Canada stands up and supports democracy in Taiwan I will salute Canada. Until then, people who live in glass houses (even pretty ones with crystal vistas and snow-capped mountains) should not throw stones [but it's nice to live in a free society that allows us to disagree with each other and our governments without fear of imprisonment or worse, unlike in some places, like Beijing).

Practical Romanization

There was much debate on the choices between Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin in Taiwan. Tongyong Pinyin was developed to more accommodate English speakers. The argument in favor of Hanyu Pinyin principally is that it is used more universally, particularly in China. Of course, when something is changed, those who are used to the old way resist change. In China, one cannot expect any change, due to political issues. But, purely from the viewpoint of an English speaking person who relies on romanization of Chinese words, Hanyu Pinyin is no better than, and often more confusing than Tongyong Pinyin (which has its own problems). Hanyu Pinyin requires knowledge of its complex phonetic structure in order to pronounce something you see for the first time, and requires some elements of conversion to understand (in other words, an English speaker must set aside normal romanization rules (how we see and say English letters in English) and use the special Hanyu Pinyin rules to use it). For example, it is necessary to know that an X at the beginning of a word must be pronounced "sh" ("Ximen" for "Hsimen"), or that a "Q" should get the "ch" sound (like "MinQuan" instead of "MinChuan"). I prefer the latter, as it more closely resembles what you can see and say, and therefore understand in English. Hanyu Pinyin was developed by linguists who rarely, if ever, comprehend that ordinary people don't master the phonetic nuances of every possible sound in every possible combination in every language when trying to read street signs and store signs (it is a technical system, not a functional one). Honestly, we just want to be able to come close to replicating a sound using letters we can read. Since we never pronounce an X as "sh", or Q as "ch", why use them for such? Of course, there are sounds in Chinese that defy romanization, and for those, we can only hope to come close. And Tongyong Pinyin has its own silly consequences, such as spelling "Danshui" as "Tamshui", and "JiLong" as "Keelung", using a "K" instead of a "g" or "j", and a "p" instead of a "b" (like "Panchao" instead of "Banchao"). The bottom line is to get the system consistent, and to use one that is user friendly, not overly complicated, and immediately confusing to the very people who are supposed to use it. Even Tongyong Pinyin has been modified to make it more useful. It is strange. Those arguing against Tongyong Pinyin argue that it is only suggested to avoid using the system used in China. But to be honest, those arguing for the use of Hanyu Pinyin argue that it is the most widely accepted version, most particulary in China. But what if the best (not most widely accepted, because China would never use anything Taiwanese) system is not the one used in China? Isn't clinging to it a political decision? Let's put politics aside, and simply adopt the easiest system, which is an improved version of Tongyong Pinyin.

Spotlight China's Tyranny

The US, through State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, voiced support for more democracy in Hong Kong after Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (??遣??lt;/CHINESE>) failed to address the issue in his recent speech on the territory's future. Now Beijing has told the US to back off and stop interfering in China's internal affairs. It is the typical statement of an infantile, weak and cowardly regime, the bully that can't stand to be told to its face how awful it is.

The regime that fears words must be insecure, and must have something to fear. China's fear of democracy, or even talking about democracy, is merely the reflection of the weakness in its system of government.

The US, all democratic nations and all people who believe in democracy should continue to talk loudly about the tyranny in China, about the ruthless government, about the executions, the repression, the human rights violations, the suppression of religions, the eugenics policy in Tibet, the imperialistic aggression towards and disregard of human rights in Taiwan, the suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of the press and the long, long list of other freedoms that China lacks.

Bringing outside influences and information to China will lead to its ultimate reformation. While we loathe it, we must embrace it. While we criticize it, we must enlighten it. While we shun it, we must befriend it. Kudos to Boucher for telling it like it is. Now let's hear something about the thriving democracy in Taiwan, and how the rest of the world must prevent China from putting its dictatorial paws on this shining example of free enterprise and freedom.

Idealism Won't Safeguard Independence Like Big Shoes

Idealism Won't Safeguard Independence Like Big Shoes Idealism is wonderful. It spurs change, pushes the envelope on human development, contributes to progress of civilization. It is an essential ingredient in the soup of life. Unfortunately, idealism often fails to appreciate the ruthless and the dangerous. Pragmatism, not idealism must head off disaster. They both serve to drive the ship. One pushes it ahead, one keeps it safe and afloat. It is easy to sit back in Singapore today and summon the nerve to boldly take on China (a recent letter [January 9th] from Jason Lee Boon Hong suggests so). It is simple to be brave from where the threat is not quite so palpable. But idealism about democracy will neither persuade ruthless communist China to let Taiwan go, nor defeat it. For the past months I've read opinion after opinion critical of the U.S. policy (although most of the opinions truly do not understand that policy at all) towards China and Taiwan. The policy of the U.S. has not changed, nor should it. The underpinning of the policy is avoidance of war. If Taiwan were willing to arm itself and its citizens, declare independence, and defend its own territorial integrity with its own military might, the U.S., while not thrilled, would probably stand behind Taiwan fully. But there is no such plan. Instead, the complaint appears to be that Taiwan should be allowed to declare itself free without firing a shot (an idealistic position, attractive to all who love human rights, but naive at best). Never mind it has rarely, if ever, happened in human history (not even in India under the supreme respected guidance of Mohandas Gandhi - thousands upon thousands died during the civil disobedience there). All democratic idealists agree Taiwan should be free. But bringing it about is not so simple. The brutal fact is China maintains sufficient firepower to threaten and possibly decimate Taiwan. The brutal fact is China is governed by dictators who ruthlessly cling to power over 1/6 of the world's population. The policy of the U.S. is to deal with this brutality with diplomacy (and the "big shoes" diplomacy of course includes the implicit (and recently explict) message that if China were to invade Taiwan, Beijing would risk being squashed under those big shoes the same as Saddam (and that threat has kept China at bay for over 50 years). Of course, the idealists criticized the U.S. for not using diplomacy to avoid war with Iraq. Now, they criticize the U.S. -- for what? For using diplomacy to avoid war with China? Sometimes, you simply cannot please people, no matter what you do. What do the idealists suggest? Do they think that if the U.S. threatened China to release Taiwan it would? How naive. How many in the U.N. would vote to support the U.S if it did so? How many in the U.N. would vote to join U.S. warships patrolling the strait if it came to that? If the U.N. members are not willing to even bring Taiwan's membership to a debate, would they vote to support the U.S. and Taiwan in a confrontation with China? It is easy to lob criticism. It is difficult to actually suggest workable plans. There is no solution I've heard from the idealists in the last month of opinions that is workable, and destined to actually secure Taiwan's freedom. No, the solution to the dispute across the Taiwan strait is the evolution of democracy in China. That will take as long as it takes. Taiwan's democracy will continue to thrive and survive. Taiwan has already done all it can, and remarkably well under the circumstances. Slowly but surely the Chinese citizens will learn about democracy and what it truly means, and what capitalism is, and what tyranny and oppression truly is. Beijing's dictators will fall, and Taiwan will be free. Perhaps it will happen sooner than any of us suspect. In the meantime, Taiwan will continue to push the envelope, China will continue to blackmail the world, and the U.S. will continue to avoid war. Take away the U.S.'s implicit threat to China, and it will take only 10 minutes for China to end the debate. Until the U.N. actually does what it was designed to do to protect democracy (and the Taiwans and Tibets of the world)that is the reality on the ground. For now, it's big shoes and idealism rowing the boat together.

The Politics of Paternalism

Dictatorship is the politics of paternalism. A dictatorial "regime" is based on the notion that simple people are never capable themselves of determining how they should be governed, how the government should be run, and most of all, by whom they shall be led. Dictatorship has been the principal vehicle of government in most of the Middle East for millennia, where paternalism governs all aspects of life, from religion to government. In Asia, democracy is resisted often on the theory it is not suited for Asian culture. In both regions the dictatorships are fraught with paternalistic hegemony, the strong and unyielding desire to control the people, and all they think and do, on the theory the people are ignorant, and in the unending quest to perpetuate their control. 

In China, a handful of men choose the government that runs the lives of over a billion Chinese with an iron fist. If asked, they will tell you the vast majority of people aren't capable of deciding such weighty things as who should lead them. It should be left to a select few who are trained in such decisions. To these dictators, democracy is anathema, a threat to the very stability of the government, for it calls their decision into question, holds them responsible for the failures, oppression, tyranny and problems inherent in such a system. 

There are hints of paternalism in Taiwan, too. The KMT long adhered to a paternalistic dictatorship over the Taiwanese on the theory the people were unqualified to choose their own government. There is evidence that is still the unspoken theme of the KMT. Witness the referendum law which the KMT controlled legislature squeezed through. An emasculated statute, it is based on the paternalistic theory that the people cannot decide what issues to bring before themselves in a referendum, but rather only after a laborious and hopelessly convoluted, contrived and controlled process, can an issue be brought to a vote. Nor is there evidence the KMT is prepared to assume the presidency as though it were a continuation of the Taiwan government. All of the rhetoric sounds like a new regime, a new order, a new government. It is of course, to democratically-minded people, frightening. There has never been a "regime" in the U.S. The U.S. constitution provides the blueprint for an orderly continuation of the American government every four years. There is no new regime, new order, new way. There is merely the continuation of the government, which is of the people, for the people and by the people. For over two hundred years, the ship has sailed toward freedom, through rough and turbulent seas at times, but onward nonetheless. Can Taiwan weather these storms? Can the ship continue to steam towards freedom? Taiwan has the power in this moment of democracy to choose its fate. It can choose to continue its unique and powerful trip to a higher ideal, or it can install a captain and crew determined to scrap the democratic ideals, and harken back to the days of their glory, to the paternalism and tyranny. The good news is that at this moment, democracy prevails, and Taiwanese have the power to decide for themselves. It is a glorious and precious choice to possess, many having fought and died to achieve it throughout history. 

The Seeds of Independence

I love Taiwan, and its freedoms and democracy and tenacity. I wish we could join hands across the world and shout at China to make it listen. I wish the world would take notice of Taiwan as a free and independent nation. I wish hypocrisy was not so prevalent among the world's democracies, hypocrisy driven by dollars, not human rights and democracy. I wish peace would come to humanity without grief and pain. Alas, it is the human condition that things so sweet are often obtained only after much struggle. 

I read three editorials today that simply and utterly misconstrue and misunderstand both U.S. policy, and the options available for Taiwan and the U.S. at this moment in history. Many complain about the U.S. admonitions regarding cross-strait relations (which were recently, and always are, given to both sides), and the U.S. requests to tone down the rhetoric. But in today's world, what is the actual human cost of obtaining independence? Does anyone in Taiwan truly believe China would simply turn aside from clinging to Taiwan, giving up its military option? How many Taiwanese citizens are actually willing to take up guns and mortars, shoulder-fired rockets and AK-47s to fight for independence against China (not make a show of it, but actually fight and win it)? On one hand, a parade of anti-war advocates have criticized every effort by the U.S. to eradicate reckless tyranny dangerous to a free world (such as Saddam and Osama Bin Laden), but those same people criticize the U.S. for not being stronger and more strident with China. How strong should the U.S. be with China? Should it sternly warn China (who in the world will stand behind the U.S. if it does so)? Any warning must be backed up by the obvious intention and ability to take action. Should it send a half-dozen aircraft carriers with a couple of hundred thousand soldiers and a few thousand fighter jets to patrol the strait? Who in the world would support U.S. action against China, or even provocative action, even if China attacked first? These are the real considerations in foreign policy. Many in Taiwan do not follow their thinking all the way through from wanting independence to actually getting it.

Few countries in the entire world in the entire passage of 5,000 years of human history have managed to obtain freedom and independence without any bloodshed. Are Taiwanese willing to shed blood for their independence now? It is true that in this terrible situation Taiwan is utterly blameless. The blame, all of it, lies with hegemonic China. But the terrible truth is that is the reality at this moment, no matter how unfair it may seem. An enormous country a stone's throw away with an enormous army and an enormous arsenal of terrible weapons, and a ruthless, tyrannical government unconcerned about the death of Taiwanese, and even of millions of its own people, has historically refused to acknowledge even Taiwan's existence or freedom. 

To some, it may seem an easy thing, which words the U.S. should choose to say today about Taiwan independence. But in the chess game of global politics, when dealing with infantile personalities and governments, like China and North Korea, the words can often lead to danger, and so one must be politic and careful. Even the strongest and most powerful picks its fights, and chooses the time and place for conflict. The U.S. has been criticized for using action and not using diplomacy. Yet here is an example of carefully avoiding what could be the biggest war in human history, and its diplomacy is criticized. But the U.S. policy is to protect Taiwan from such war. While it is true the U.S. cannot simply bestow independence upon Taiwan, it can protect its de facto independence, which it has done for decades. China has not and will not attack Taiwan because it is afraid of the U.S. (as it should be). China does not truly care about being condemned by the U.N. (although most likely that impotent world body would not even be able to do that, because its members are too busy trading in China dollars these days). It does care about Beijing being overrun by Bradley fighting vehicles (and the defeat and pictures of the capture of Saddam has to cause Hu JinTao and his cronies some sleepless nights wondering if they might be reduced to hiding in a rat hole some day to pay for their cruel and mindless oppression, murder, eugenics and tyranny). That is the reality China does understand. 

It is the policy of the U.S. to nurture and work for democracy all over the world, including in China. The U.S. is powerless to actually alter the government of China. It is something that must come from within, and it must start with it stirring in the hearts and minds of the billions of Chinese citizens. By introducing capitalism into the proudly communist China, and ensuring the safety of the winds of democracy blowing across the strait from Taiwan, the seeds of revolution have been planted, perhaps to grow like a wildfire no one can ever stop. Some seeds take a great deal of time to grow, and no one can tell for sure how long it will take for democracy to spring from the freedom of capitalism. If Taiwan truly wants a bloodless independence, it will take some time for the U.S. to arrange that; in fact it will take altering the form of government for the world's most populous nation, no minor task. Excuse us while we try to accomplish that; and by the way, it's possible we may have to say some unpleasant things along the way to your freedom and independence; and, we like to keep our friends close, and our enemies closer. Just keep trusting our love and respect for you, and do what you do best (being creative and hard-working, generous, independent and free), and we'll hurry as best as we can, hopefully without spilling any blood.

The Latest Subterfuge - Carving Taiwan Up 
Into Four Easily Digestible Pieces

There is apparently no end to the subterfuge in KMT politics. Lien Chan has declared his intention to hold a referendum on merging Taipei City and Taipei County (and Hsinchu and Taoyuan counties) into one administration under the control of a regional "District" authority (guess who?), 
creating a "region", a part of his vision of chopping Taiwan into "districts". Sound familiar? It should. Anything that sounds like China's structure should sound very dangerous to voters. 

Sadly, it is nothing more than a ploy, a gambit aimed at using the popularity of Mayor Ma to remove the County Chief, who happens to be a prominent DPP member, and others, to cede as much power to Ma as possible.  It is a clever way to begin the process of growing Ma's power base, and to remove a potential threat to the KMT, and to cut up Taiwan into manageable "districts" for control by the KMT even if the presidential election is lost. There is no sound reason for the move, and the suggested justifications for it are mostly bogus. Lien's citing Los Angeles is strange, particularly because it is not a relevant model. Unlike what Lien is suggesting, there is a separate Los Angeles County administration and City of Los Angeles government. The whole reason for county administrations in the first place is to ensure that cities and rural areas are both represented in a larger administrative government whose purpose is to oversee the intersection of city and rural interests. To put the head of Taipei in charge of Tao Yuan and other suburban areas, and 
merge their administration into Taipei would sacrifice the interests of the 2.5 million in rural areas. Cities and rural areas have different needs, and different interests. It is Lien's way of removing obstacles to expansion of the KMT's power base beyond Taipei through dilution. It is also another step in the creation of Lien Chan's administrative plan for the Taiwan Special Administrative Region. Cutting Taiwan up into four regions sounds suspiciously like "divide and conquer", and a lot like 
something the "provincial governor" or Taiwan's "emperor" might decree. 

Enough of the nonsense for now. Let's hear Lien talk about how he expects to accomplish his cross-strait goals without giving up Taiwan's sovereignty, and why he expects to fare better than the current administration has in that regard (hint: the only way would be to give up on Taiwan's freedoms - just look at Hong Kong).  Voting for Lien and Soong would be a little like going to the race track and betting democracy on a couple of horses who only know how to be ridden and yield to the riding crop, and have no sense of where the finish line actually is, or why they're running there.

A Trojan Horse Called Capitalism

It is of course regrettable the U.S. could not be more supportive of Taiwan in the face of tough pressure from China. But politics and diplomacy often serve to defuse and delay, saving confrontation and aggression for another day. A good tactician picks battles he can win, and prevails. Such is the case here. Few in Taiwan are willing to pick up a gun, and wage war against China for independence. In recent history, there have been few, if any, bloodless revolutions, whereby nations obtained freedom. Some criticized President Bush's comments because of American heritage of democracy, and its own revolution. But in 1776, America's English masters were 3,000 miles and 3 months by ship away. Today, Taiwan is 28 minutes from 450 missiles. The logistics and circumstances are markedly different, and a radically different approach is called for - the primary tactic is a Trojan horse called capitalism.

When the United States says it opposes Taiwan independence, what it is really saying is that it opposes war. That is a sensible position. Taiwan is not manufacturing the trouble, nor is the U.S. Clearly China is the aggressor and the instigator. But for now, the U.S. doesn't want (or need) a war with China, which would be the inevitable result of a cross-straight military gambit by China. The U.S. policy (though not preferable) does not betray or abandon Taiwan. The U.S. is committed to protecting Taiwan from aggression from China. China knows this and despite its bellicose threats, is fearful of waging war against the U.S. at this time. The more bellicose its threats, the more cowardly it sounds. Simply put, the U.S. policy is to wait for the Communist government to unravel, as it surely will. What else can result from a capitalist communist dictatorship (a paradigmatic oxymoron)? It may take ten years or twenty or thirty, or (more likely) it may take five. The solution is beneficial to the U.S. and to Taiwan. It requires patience of course; and it is difficult to tell the oppressed to be patient. It is understandable Taiwan is unsettled by the circumstances.

The steady, relentless march by Taiwan towards democracy is catalytic, having its effect on China, perhaps only incrementally, like water on a stone, but effective nonetheless. The best catalyst for change in China is capitalism. The U.S.S.R. unraveled when the masses saw the opportunities, invited the Trojan horse called capitalism behind the Red Curtain, and rejected communist dictatorship. While it may take longer in China, the result will be the same, and the communists will be gone. Then, even amid the chaos that will result, independent Taiwan will prosper because of its logistical nexus with China. 

Take heart, Taiwan. The endgame for the U.S. is not unification. It is the fall of communist dictatorship. No matter the diplomacy or the politics or the verbiage or the policy statements, that is the endgame, and we shouldn't take our eyes off that target. As the saying goes, keeps your friends close, and your enemies closer. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Wen. Have a look at what a real constitution looks like. Oh, by the way 嚙?there's one just like it in Taiwan.

China and Cuba Keep the U.N. Appeasers Working Overtime

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Thus, the amalgamated mass of third world countries which makes up the large majority of the U.N. General Assembly, together with salivating European sycophants, gleefully oppose the U.S. in everything, and seldom vote for the "right thing" if not politically expedient. An excellent example is the difference between the attitude of the supposed "world body" towards the isolated oft-cited oppressor and human rights violator Cuba, and the politically "invisible" 23 million people who make up the thriving nation of Taiwan. The General Assembly recently voted almost unanimously to lift sanctions against Cuba, despite the refusal of pig-headed Fidel Castro to release his iron grip on democracy and human rights in Cuba (including the life sentences handed out to dozens of "agitators" for mentioning "democracy" out loud). If you speak out against the communist government in Cuba (or in favor of democracy), you will be imprisoned or worse. This is the "heroic" regime supported by the U.N.

On the other hand, the U.N. has repeatedly kneeled before China in ignoring Taiwan, the 16th largest economy in the world, and home to 23 million people who do vote for their own president, do not carry Chinese passports, do not listen to Hu Jintao or his cohorts, or list their place of citizenship as "China". The people of Taiwan are barred by China's blackmail from most international organizations, from the U.N. itself, from most statistical analyses, and Taiwan is forced to participate in many events worldwide under insulting names with almost as much variety as Jell-O, merely to placate China, the world's largest dictatorship and oppressor. But the U.N. ignores the fact that Communist China has not "ruled" Taiwan, ever. Not for one single day. Yet it claims Taiwan belongs to China. The U.N. is of course willing to believe or pretend anything to appease. It will believe North Korea is not a nuclear threat, it will pretend Saddam Hussein is not a threat, it will pretend that Israel, one of the smallest countries in the world, is the most dangerous, it will believe that Cuba is "democratic", and pretend that Tibet and Taiwan are "provinces" of China. That is the sad case of a world body that has sold its heart and soul and its human rights for a pound of appeasement. Who can believe anything such an organization says? Who can rely on it? As long as the appeasers run the system, nothing good will ever come out of the U.N. 

The Would-Be Giant - A Parable

A young giant walked with an older and wiser giant. The young giant was attending his first big meeting of giants, and he was feeling proud, and somewhat arrogant. The two giants stopped, and the young giant looked upon those who had gathered outside their place to watch. "They are insignificant compared to us," he said.
"I feel they look to me to lead them," the wise giant said.
"I can lead them, if only they would obey me," said the young giant.
"They need only to feel safe," the wise giant said.
"I can give them security, if only they would obey me," said the young giant.
"They cherish their freedom," said the wise giant.
"I can give them freedom, if only they would abandon their ways and obey my rules."
The wise giant sighed. "Some lead by sheer power and size, some by example." The young giant looked skeptical, and his eyes searched the crowd outside. 
"I see some of those I wish to rule. If only they would yield to me. For example, that small one over there. It is less than 1/25 my size, but refuses to give in, no matter how hard I press." The wise giant looked into the crowd where the young giant was pointing, and then laughed.
"Why are you laughing?" the young giant said.
"The one you pointed to will not yield," said the wise giant, shaking his head.
"I can force them to. I could devour them without difficulty," the young giant said, his chest swelling.
The wise giant laughed again. "You cannot force them to obey you, and you surely cannot devour them. Small as they are, they cannot be digested, even if swallowed."
"Why not? They are puny compared to me."
The wise giant chuckled. "That one can never be digested by you. It only grows stronger when pressed, and it would be a bitter, bitter pill to attempt to swallow."
"Why do you say that?" the young giant asked.
The wise giant smiled again. "That one is immune from predators such as you. Don't you know?"
"I only know it is annoying. What is it called, this ridiculous pea?"
The wiser Giant leaned in close to the young giant and lowered his voice to a strong and steady whisper. "It is called 'democracy', of course, and small as that one may be, it will never be contained, and it will outlast you and your way for many, many generations. But cheer up. You can survive if you would only yield to it. Think it over." 

The wiser giant turned and walked away, leaving the younger to ponder the terrifying realization he was obsolete.

Taiwan Cannot Hide From The Importance of the 2004 Election - Know What Could Be Lost

In some respects, the presidential election of 2004 is as important as the first election, if not more so. It is not because new ground is being broken, or new directions adopted, or even because new principles will be pressed or heralded. No, this election is more important for what will remain the same, as for what will change. It is the last best chance to preserve the status quo, which, looking around at Hong Kong and Tibet, is pretty damn good. 

Clearly, as the early party strategies appear to have been formulated, a vote for the KMT carries with it the high risk of unification with China (the greatest proof of this risk is the fact that no KMT official has yet to deny this is part of the KMT platform). While it is true that a vote for President Chen carries with it the risk that some provocative statement or act will further erode the non-relationship with China, in the long run, it is likely Taiwan will retain its de facto independence only if the DPP is returned to power. 

However, the problem with the election is not the choices so much as the overwhelming apathy of the electorate. Taiwan's populace appears to have adopted either the fatalistic approach (whatever happens happens), or the "all I want is to earn a good living" approach, which is of course riddled with peril, as it is both shortsighted and a disservice to the generations that follow. Many say there is no hope in supporting Chen Shui-bian because his economic policies were a disaster (ignoring the fact the entire world's economy has been crawling out of a hole for his entire incumbency), and that supporting him would result in further isolation from China and the world. Many see promises by the KMT of a bright economic future with China (likely as a new "Special Administrative Region."), even whispering that "it wouldn't be so bad to be part of China." The KMT is pandering to the baser side of politics, to the basic instinct to gather wealth. It is tantamount to buying loyalty with promises of sugarplums.

It is alarming Taiwan's average citizen may not truly appreciate the rights and freedoms available to them which are now routinely taken for granted. These include the freedoms of press, TV, radio, Internet, movies and culture, protection of human rights, including the freedoms of religion and political affiliation, and the right to travel and move about freely (subject of course to any unreasonable limitations imposed by the posturing and blackmail by China of various nations). 

Nor does the average Taiwan citizen appear to appreciate the significance of the right to choose the future of Taiwan through a presidential election. Over one billion Chinese citizens are disenfranchised. They are ruled by a handful of old men who sit in a dark room and decide the political future of one sixth of the world's population. The government those men design regularly deprives the Chinese populace of human rights, freedom and free thought and beliefs (and Taiwan itself is not so long from its own brand of tyranny). This virus of oppression has crept into Hong Kong, and has been boiling in Tibet for decades. 

That China wishes to export the virus to Taiwan is beyond doubt. The question is whether the Taiwan populace has the courage and determination to make a stand as they did in the last election, and say "no" to the path gilded with gold and laden with tears and tyranny, and opt for another term of de facto independence with the DPP. One can only hope the thirst for freedom prevails over the cries of wolf from the KMT, and their loathsome quest for power at the price of democracy. 

Thank You Mr. Soong

For any Taiwan voter who did not appreciate the gravity of the 2004 presidential election, it has now been made crystal clear by James Soong. Without apparent embarrassment, Soong indicated he would seek a return to "provincial administration" if the KMT-PFP ticket wins the election (presumably because of the "efficiency" of the provincial government - of course he left out "ruthless efficiency", as much of the 50 years under the KMT was "ruthless"). 

There are many Taiwanese who are sadly apathetic about the election, and who feel that the present government could only make things worse. They should also consider the alternatives. All they need do is look to Hong Kong and Tibet for a glance at Taiwan's future under the KMT and China. It is an appallingly scary picture. The "party" line of the KMT notwithstanding, it is the visceral statements of dangerous men that frame the true intentions of collaboration with the enemy. After hearing the KMT try to cover up its rabid pro-China positions and dealings the past few weeks, any voter should realize that four more years with Chen Shui-bian as President is less risky than four minutes under KMT rule.

A Toothless Sycophant

The recent track record of the UN has demonstrated its impotence. It has failed and will continue to fail to act when necessary and to protect when there is a moral imperative.

 

 

 

Its latest utter failure is the "voice vote" of the General Committee of the General Assembly not to add an item called "Question of the representation of the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the United Nations" to the General Assembly agenda, thus once again ignoring the plight of 23 million people.

If the organization purportedly dedicated to preserve peace and freedom throughout the world cannot move past the ideologically malignant blackmail of China, how can it ever be expected to fulfill its role as a body for world leadership?

Simply put, it cannot. It is nothing more than a debating society, and a politically manipulated one at that, as, for instance, in the case of Taiwan, where the debate will not even be on the agenda for the 11th year in a row. The UN has become a toothless sycophant at best, instead of using what should be its considerable weight to further human rights, world peace and security.

Some criticize Taiwan for looking to the US as its ally and protector. In the wake of the second Persian Gulf war, some governments criticize what they see as a tendency for the US to supersede what it considers the dysfunctional UN.

China bristles at the notion of the US taking part in defending Taiwan. But all who know the impotence of the UN agree that were Taiwan to rely on the "good offices" of the UN, Taiwan would be China's next semi-autonomous region within weeks (in fact, China's invasion would likely never make it to the agenda).

All that stands between Taiwan and China's heavy heel is China's healthy fear of the US. China has no fear of the UN nor does it have reason to be afraid. It has managed to manipulate that body for at least three decades. Nor does it fear European nations or the EU, for it has bought them with the lure of markets and money.

Taiwan is a bit larger than Belgium, has a population of more than 23 million people and has one of the world's largest economies. It is also a democratic nation with an elected government and lives under the constant threat of invasion from the world's largest dictatorship.

If the UN, the world organization dedicated to and charged with protecting world peace cannot even talk about Taiwan, much less recognize and protect its existence, who will then? The answer is obvious. And Beijing knows that this is the one truth it cannot manipulate like the salivating genuflections it buys worldwide every day, even with its carefully orchestrated dog-on-a leash trick with North Korea. Sorry, we've seen the trick before. Not impressed. Next.

 

Cowardice rules China

Cowardice is the greatest indication of failure in government. It is evidenced by fear of freedom, fear of information, fear of dissent and fear of knowledge. It is evidenced by a pattern of ritual prevarication, bluster, extreme (and often forced) chauvinism, an internally omnipotent (and often ruthless) military or police and hidden or secret oppression.

 

 

 

These governments and tyrants are easy to recognize. Adolph Hitler was a coward. So were Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot.

No governments in history have been more cowardly than communist governments.

From the Josef Stalin, Fidel Castro and Kim Il-sung regimes to the regimes of Mao Zedong (毛澤東), Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), communists have struggled almost from the outset to forcibly extract loyalty from their subjects through coercion (a sure sign of cowardice and failure) and to restrict the free flow of ideas and information, and even travel (strange how almost no one ever defects to a communist country).

In China, public discussion and debate is strictly limited to subjects chosen by the government, to extents strictly limited by the government.

In order to see what the government is afraid of most, one need only see what the government bans the most. In China, free speech is banned. Talk of democracy is banned. Democracy itself is banned. Free knowledge of the outside world is largely banned. A free press is banned. Anything relating to Taiwan's independence is banned.

Even the picture of the Dalai Lama is banned -- and acknowledging the existence of the chosen Panchen Lama is banned too. Acknowledgement of the gradual ethnic cleansing of Tibet through "sinizication" is banned. How frail this ideology must be to have so much to fear.

The sign of a truly courageous and powerful government is one which opens itself up to democracy, scrutiny, dissent, debate and change, and survives. Talk of Beijing's frailty and cowardice is, of course, banned too. Naturally.

China Off Base

Bruce Springsteen's famous song Born in the USA resounds for Americans. It would be anathema, of course, if suddenly the UK issued a diplomatic fiat to all countries with which it maintains diplomatic relations cautioning them that all persons entering who list their place of birth as anywhere within the so-called "United States" must list their birthplace as the UK instead -- despite 227 years of history to the contrary.

 

 

 

The example is, of course, rather extreme, not to mention highly unlikely and unenforceable. But what if the parties are unequal, or the circumstances a little murky, or the blackmail so high as to cause most salivating countries to blink? Such is the case with Taiwan and China.

China, the world's gorilla, has been throwing its weight around a lot lately, most often by using blackmail, most often directed against Taiwan. The latest gambit has been to instruct all countries that people born in Taiwan must list their birthplace as "China" when applying for Chinese visas. It is a ridiculous proposition of course (though the KMT maintained for decades just that very position, which is where things become "murky" for Taiwan).

Just as Taiwanese do not consider they were born in Japan, despite its colonization of the island, Taiwanese would not consider they were born in China either. Until the communists leave, and the name "China" becomes the country it once was, and may one day again become, the name "China" right now implies a ruthless communist dictatorship which oppresses its people and suppresses truth and freedom.

That communist government has never set foot in Taiwan and has never ruled Taiwan since 1949. Its claims to sovereignty over Taiwan are bogus.

If China can accomplish marginalization of Taiwan, it is not because of its strength or Taiwan's frailty, but because of the overwhelming weakness of conviction in the UN as a whole, and its member nations, and the overwhelming greed for markets and money that captivates the world.

Most countries know China lies and cheats whenever it can, and those nations treat Taiwan with a nod and wink. All are waiting for the bully to trip and fall. Perhaps a crack in the system will start with Hong Kong, the communists' failed attempt to pretend to tolerate freedom. For me, the exit of communist oppression and dictatorship from China could never come too soon. For now, let "born in Taiwan" be a proclamation of pride and satisfaction.

An Open Letter to the WHO

It was bad enough you mishandled SARS in Taiwan by putting politics above world health. Improving World health is your mission and charter, not heeding China's tantrums. It was worse you bowed to the political blackmail of the world's largest dictatorship instead of dictating to it from the strength of the U.N. health agency chartered by the entire international community to safeguard world health. You had the power to tell China what to do, and you blinked instead. You had the duty to tell China to back off from thwarting your efforts in Taiwan based solely on political considerations. It is bad enough you have for seven years consistently barred 23 million people who vote for their own Government from being represented in WHO based on China's 50 year old fiction that Taiwan is part of China. 

Disease and health concerns know no boundaries. You failed in your mission to appreciate and follow this. You have fallen into the same disrepute now that has bogged down the impotent United Nations, which has become a debating society instead of an organization dedicated to and capable of carrying forward with world peace. Just as ridiculous that Libya heads the U.N. Human Rights Commission of the U.N. is your sending invitations to Taiwan for a SARS consortium to Beijing instead of to the Taiwan Government. Where is your head? Is the WHO so impotent that it must do whatever Beijing dictates? What are the worries at WHO? Is it money? Politics? That China will somehow get upset? So what? Or is the WHO leadership somehow making political decisions because of ties to Beijing? 

Because the international community has treated the world's bully with kid gloves, it has grown petulant, emboldened and inconsiderate. After all, it has still not apologized for disseminating SARS throughout the world while it held its tongue concerning the outbreak inside China, and then boldly lied about it. It would rather allow the disease to spread than be honest. Is this the regime you now so blindly follow in dealing with Taiwan? What duty do you owe to the people of Taiwan? Are they entitled to less than those in Rwanda, or Iraq or the Congo? Are they entitled to less than those in China? You have let politics dictate World health. Shame on you! 

What's In A Name? 

Reading the letter of Kris Lao (June 11), I was struck by the apparent misunderstanding (or intentional misconstruction) of "one-China" as that term is used by the PRC. Lao apparently believes Taiwan's problems stem from using the name "ROC" instead of "Taiwan", not from its de facto independence from the PRC. The implication is that the PRC opposes Taiwan because Taiwan allegedly maintains it is the true government of all of the Chinese people. This is fiction. The opposite is true. Taiwan maintains it is an independent nation. When the PRC uses the "one-China" principle, it means there is only one China and that China includes Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and some others as well. You could rename Taiwan "Jell-O", and it wouldn't matter to the PRC. It's attitude towards this island nation would be the same - one of wishful and envious sovereignty. 

China's attitude is not a product of Taiwan's claims of sovereignty over China, but China's claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan is a thorn in China's side, because it is an ever-present example to its 1.3 billion masses that democratic freedom is something to aspire to, and an ever present danger of Chinese language democratic dialogue. With democratic elections in Taiwan, few, if any, in Taiwan seriously adhere to the fiction that the seat of government of the Chinese people as a whole exists in Taiwan. It is true that changing the name from ROC to Taiwan would signal a change in attitude for Taiwan, but changing the name will likely cause the PRC to only increase its pressure on the international community against Taiwan because the name change will only indicate a further acknowledgement of Taiwan's de facto independence. The solution is not for Taiwan to change it name so much as for China to change its government. When the "people" of China actually are given a voice, perhaps the people of Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan will truly feel free from the aggression of their neighborhood dictatorship.

Hu Jintao Unwittingly Calls for Democratic China

 

 

 

 

Hu Jintao announced in a joint statement with Russia's leader, that China wants "a multi-polar, fair and democratic world based on international rights."  It is a fair objective for Russia.  Russia threw off the mantle of dictatorship and adopted a more free and open society than under the Soviet communist dictatorship.  Russia has held elections, and while still a fledgling democracy, the nation is remaking itself into a democratic nation of laws and rights.  When he adopted the position, Hu no doubt was referring to dominance of the United States in the world today, and the fear among "lesser" states that their voices have been subdued in control over international affairs.  In other words, countries like China want their opinions to count in a meaningful way.

 

 

 

 

By "fair and democratic", China meant that its voice would have just as much weight as that of the U.S.  That is "democracy" according to China.  It believes in democracy when it comes to voting on international affairs, so it says.  Is it possible for a sovereign state to clamor for a "democratic" voice in international affairs, and yet deny that same right to its own people with respect to its own affairs?  Is it possible for a country that has oppressed over one billion people and denied them the right to vote or dissent or worship, or even to speak or think freely, and whose government for over fifty years has been run by a string of self-appointed and brutal dictators, to legitimately argue for a "fair and democratic world based on international rights?"  Presumably "international rights" means human rights.  Is it possible a country that routinely suppresses all freedoms, and has year after year the worst human rights record on the planet can pretend it is committed to "a fair and democratic world based on international rights?"  Can Hu be so myopic he does not realize that the single most offensive regime in the world is his own?  Can he be so myopic he does not realize creating a "multi-polar, fair and democratic world based on international rights" would require first of all the dismantling of the Chinese communist dictatorship, where 1/6 of the world's population is under the thumb of brutal tyranny, and granting the right to vote to billions of Chinese? 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it is not myopia.  Perhaps it is more insidious than that.  Perhaps China craves the stage, the spotlight, the trappings of power and position, but does not intend to bestow the simple rights of dignity and freedom to its own people.  Perhaps Hu is talking about what other nations should do, not China.  Perhaps when China demonstrates it truly is a country that is a "fair and democratic [nation] based on international [human] rights" its opinion will count for something. Right now, China is nothing more than a cash cow, and an ephemeral, untested, dangerous and unpredictable one at that.  It is accommodated internationally in the way people step around a viper, or tiptoe around a scorpion, or diplomatically in the way one responds to a blackmailer without conscience.  To earn respect, Hu will be required to actually accomplish what he has unwittingly set out as the goal of humanity.  To rid itself of dictators and oppressors, and brutal regimes, likes that of the Chinese Communist Party.