Should the demonstrations be a DPP affair?

There has been much criticism leveled at the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) since the demon-strations surrounding the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) to Taipei last week. The main accusation, aside from its supposed inability to stem violent protesters, is that in this time of crisis, the party could no refrain from campaigning, using every opportunity to turn the spotlight on star councilors and legislators, such as DPP deputy caucus whip Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩).

There undoubtedly was some of that during the Nov. 6 “Yellow ribbon siege” in Taipei, where placards and banners of prominent DPP members — including Chiu, who is indeed a master at getting media attention — were displayed on vehicles or carried by protesters, which made me wonder if perhaps I had not joined the wrong crowd and had found myself in the thick of an electoral campaign. Seeing this, I could not help but think that such politicians were exploiting the situation for selfish political gain.

On the other end of the spectrum are the groups of students who since last week have held sit-ins at various locations across Taiwan. In their case, serious attempts were made to cleanse their protest of any particular political party. No “pan-green” banners were to be seen, and the organizers kept a safe distance from the DPP or the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), expelling anyone who sought to bring political parties into their discourse. That apolitical stance, if you will, earned the young demonstrators many kudos, often by the same people who had criticized the DPP for stealing the show.

Ironically, many have also lamented the poor organization of the anti-Chen/anti-Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) protests, saying that the demonstrations lacked coherence or coordination and thus rendered the whole affair impotent.

There is some truth in this, and if the opposition is to be coherent and well orchestrated, there will be little choice but for political parties — either the DPP or its smaller ally, the TSU — to step in. For protests and popular movements to be successful, or, at minimum, difficult to ignore by the government, there must be some rallying point, a center of gravity around which people can organize themselves. While the masses have energy, an despite the undoubtedly good intentions of the “Wild Strawberry” movement, that potential will remain untapped if that energy is not channeled through some figurehead. Even in democratic systems — and perhaps even more so in such systems — politics remains a field upon which it is charismatic leaders who carry the ball. Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, or the Solidarity movement in Poland, to use but two examples, would not have been the successful anti-authoritarian movements they were had they not be led by Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa respectively.

Someone needs to provide guidance and must have at its disposal a modicum of resources to give structure to the opposition. Some may not like it, but if the protests are to gain traction and be sustained long enough to attract the kind of attention outside Taiwan that will be required to end the impasse, an organizing force like the DPP — probably the only viable option at present, unless something else emerges — will be necessary. Otherwise, the protests will remain incoherent, disunited and will eventually fade away as the authorities feel no inclination whatsoever to heed them.

Guilty until taken to court

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said on Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-affiliated radio this morning that as Taiwan is a country run by laws, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who was taken to a detention center early this morning over allegations of corruption and money laundering, would be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the government would not meddle in prosecutors’ efforts to determine his guilt.

Ma, who studied law at Harvard but never passed the bar, was probably too jubilant to fully appreciate the irony in his remarks. For given the KMT’s strong hold on pan-blue media in Taiwan, anyone from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) who is already in jail or faces jail over various accusations of corruption is already painted, in the court of public opinion, as being guilty, with little chances of clearing their names. Or that the court has been dragging its feet on 26 separate cases of corruption involving KMT officials, as DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said yesterday.

It doesn’t help, either, that some KMT legislators were celebrating Chen’s detention with public comments and firecrackers on Tuesday night, as if his detention were proof of his guilt before his trial even begins. Or, for that matter, that the Prosecutors' Office could not provide any compelling argument for Chen's detention, let alone why he needed to be handcuffed yesterday.

In such an environment, ensuring a fair and impartial court decision on Chen and other DPP defendants will be a formidable task. In fact, to avoid a repeat of the kangaroo courts that characterized much of the Martial Law era in Taiwan, if the Ma administration means what it says when it claims to respect judicial independence and to be dedicated to the rule of law, should take the lead and invite outside observers to oversee the cases.

No Chinese need apply, though.

Chen’s arrest — terrible timing [UPDATED]

It didn’t take long for critics of the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration to characterize the detention on Tuesday of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on charges of money laundering and embezzlement as a “gift” to Beijing, as during his eight years in power, Chen, an ardent pro-independence advocate, was a thorn in the side of China. Others, meanwhile, claimed that this was payback for the large, and sometimes violent, demonstrations that surrounded the visit to Taiwan last week of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), while some saw it as vindictiveness, or part of a recent series of politically motivated arrests of opposition members by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government.

While the applicability of any of those suppositions has yet to be ascertained, the context in which Chen’s arrest occurred, added to the images, splashed over TV screens across Taiwan, of the former president being led from the prosecutor’s office in handcuffs, can only but fuel an already explosive political crisis in Taiwan, which earlier on Tuesday took a new twist when an 80-year-old member of the KMT set himself on fire in front of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei.

The fact is, Chen may very well be guilty, and if he is, he should pay the consequences, as should any former leader in a democracy and country run by law. However, given the heightened sensibilities of the opposition since Chen Yunlin’s visit last week, prosecutors could not have chosen a worse moment to arrest the former president, as it invites the kind of conspiracy theories listed above. Chen Shui-bian was not going anywhere. Even if he had tried to flee the country (hard to do, when said country is an island), he could easily have been stopped by border officials.

A wiser course would have been to wait some time and allow the emotions brought to a boiling point by Chen Yunlin’s visit and the clashes with police to cool down. Assuming for a moment that none of the theories discussed above are credible, either through incompetence, authoritarianism or a desire to humiliate its opponents, the KMT government nevertheless managed to inflame the situation, made matters worse in Taiwan and opened the door to other demonstrations, violence, self-immolations and who knows what else by people who fear the KMT is selling out the country to China.

Earlier this week, Ma said that Taiwan needed to remain united to survive. No sooner had he said this than the political divide was widened even further by government action. Ironically, through this latest move, the KMT may very well have turned Chen Shui-bian — guilty or not — into a symbol of government oppression and rallying point for the millions of Taiwanese who disagree with the Ma administration.

Associated Press later reported that Chen Shui-bian was taken to hospital late on Tuesday night, prompting the suspension of a court proceeding to determine whether he should be formally detained. The former president was reportedly undergoing examinations for a possible injury sustained en route to court earlier in the day. At about 3:45am, Chen was returned to court, where deliberations were held until about 7am. Chen was then taken to a detention center outside Taipei, while police strengthened security at the site after Chen’s supporters threatened protests. Under Taiwanese law, Chen can be detained for up to four months without being formally charged.

A disgrace? Think again

I have seen many comments in recent days by people criticizing the opposition — more specifically the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — for “tarnishing” Taiwan’s image, or “disgracing” the nation with the demonstrations and occasional violence that surrounded the visit to Taiwan last week by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林). Even here in Taiwan, the anger directed at the opposition has at times reached vitriolic levels, while others have claimed that the DPP has been discredited, dealt a final blow after the initial double hit of electoral defeats earlier this year and accusations of corruption leveled at the family of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and other former DPP government officials.

While it is indeed unfortunate that things had to turn violent — and again, it should be emphasized that those incidents were isolated and came after police had forcefully prevented peaceful demonstrators from displaying so much as the Taiwanese flag — the accusations are, in my view, unfair. Unfair, because they miss the context and put the cart before the horse. They see the violence as calculated and planned well ahead of Chen’s visit, rather than as a reaction to fear, to overwhelming police presence, to the enactment of outdated laws that have no place in a democracy, to the lack of transparency that characterized the negotiations between Chen and his Taiwanese counterparts, and to repeated humiliations as symbols of nationhood, flags, banners, even music, were erased, with force if necessary.

Detractors of those who took to the street last week also fail to look at things in a larger context. On Nov. 2, the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama said in Tokyo that the drive for greater autonomy for Tibet had failed:

My trust in the Chinese government has become thinner, thinner, thinner. Suppression [in Tibet] is increasing and I cannot pretend that everything is OK ... I have to accept failure. Meantime among Tibetans in recent years, our approach failed to bring positive change inside Tibet, so criticism has also increased.

Years of peaceful resistance, of negotiation, had therefore failed to bring any positive results for Tibet, and the main proponent of non-violent action was publicly saying that he had lost all hope. Such news, one day ahead of Chen’s arrival in Taiwan, cannot have gone unnoticed by Taiwanese who are skeptical of the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s peace initiative with Beijing, especially when we take into consideration the fact that in Beijing’s eyes, the main prize is not Tibet, but Taiwan, upon which hinges the credibility of the Chinese Community Party in the eyes of the Chinese. Aware of all this, seeing that decades of peaceful resistance had ended in abject failure, Taiwanese who fear for the future of their nation had every right to voice their opposition to the negotiations and to flaunt their political colors, flags and music. Only when police deprived them of that right in the presence of an overbearing opponent, only when their own government told them that they should hide who they were to please an emissary from Beijing, did some turn to violence. But what choice did they have? Would the world think any better of Taiwanese if they simply capitulated?

Sad though it is that Taiwanese civilians, police officers and reporters ended up getting injured in the clashes, the events last week tell the world that Taiwanese will not go gently into the night, that they are willing to resist anything they see as threatening the foundations laid in lives and suffering and blood by their forefathers — yet another context that critics of the demonstrators have failed to take into account. The wounds of the past are still there, many of those who suffered them are still with us, and they should never be forgotten. In fact, what transpired last week could result in a newfound interest, by younger generations of Taiwanese, in their own history, in what it was like to live under Martial Law, what it meant to live in fear during the White Terror, and who paid with their lives on 228.

There are limits to peaceful resistance and a point where its continuance crosses a line and enters the realm of capitulation. Gandhi, often cited as the perfect example of successful non-violent resistance, was successful because the enemy, in this case Great Britain, was a democracy, and perhaps more importantly, is was a waning power (his involvement in the Indian movement began in 1916, when the British Empire was already in decline, and ended in 1945, by which time the very idea of empire had been discredited). In cases where, unlike the British Empire, the opponent is not a democracy, where its power is not in decline and where the motivation to use force against the weaker opponent exists, peaceful resistance, though a useful tool, will not work on its own. Such a situation obtains in the Taiwan Strait today.

This is what I had in mind when I wrote about the need for angrier Taiwanese youth. Not radicals or extremists, but young people, students, soldiers, who will not accept oppression. True, every violent demonstration counts in its midst some who are there for no reason other than to create trouble, and there might have been some such people last week. But the great majority — those who demonstrated peacefully as well as those who clashed with the authorities — where there for a reason, and their anger was nothing to be ashamed of.

Letter to Human Rights Watch

Readers are encouraged to use the letter provided below, or to write their own, and to contact human rights organization so that pressure can be applied on the Taiwanese government following its abuses of power during the visit of ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin last week (photos from journalist Michella Jade Weng's blog Alive and Kicking [Warning: graphic content]).

Human Rights Watch — Asia

Please allow me to draw the attention of your esteemed organization to recent developments in Taiwan.

With unprecedented (at least since the end of the Martial Law era) police deployments to “ensure security” for visiting Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin last week, many human rights violations were committed by the state. Freedom of speech, expression and assembly were seriously undermined, with individuals arrested for displaying the national and Tibet flag or other symbols of nationhood.

Among a long list of state-sponsored infractions, a music store in downtown Taipei was forced to close its doors for playing Taiwanese music. On Nov. 3, a 34-year-old woman was injured when police pried a Tibetan flag from her hands before arresting her and two other women for “assembling” close to Taipei Grand Hotel, where Chen was staying. On Nov. 5, a French national was taken away by police for shouting “Taiwan is not part of China.”

Using the outdated Parade and Assembly Law during Chen’s visit, Taipei deployed about 7,000 police officers, erected barbed wire and gates to block access to various parts of the city and at venues frequented by Chen and his delegation. While the great majority of protesters who took part in the numerous protests held last week expressed their views in a peaceful and orderly manner, when clashes did occur, police authorities often reacted with unnecessary strength, using batons and other riot equipment. Several injuries have been reported, involving civilians, members of the press and representatives of opposition parties.

Freedom of the press was also severely undermined, with numerous complaints by foreign reporters who had received proper accreditation that they could not access key venues where Chen held meetings with his Taiwanese counterparts. The Association of Taiwanese Journalists (ATJ) and the Taipei Foreign Correspondents’ Club (TFCC) have gone on record in their condemnation of those curtailments. In addition, secret scheduling and last-minute changes to scheduled events meant that on a number of occasions, reporters were forced to follow developments on television and could not cover the events in a manner that is consistent with a free and open society.

There have also been reports of police violence against the media — even when journalists were within designated press areas, which on some occasions were changed without prior notice — and a documentary filmmaker was taken away by law enforcement authorities for filming Chen’s car at Taipei Grand Hotel. A photojournalist affiliated with Central News Agency (CNA) was reportedly dragged away by police at Taipei Grand Hotel.

Taiwanese flags were removed from most government buildings so that Chen would not have to see them, a belittling of the nation’s status by both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and Beijing that not only went against people’s right to self-determination as stipulated by the UN Charter, but also prompted the protests and the escalation that ensued.

Starting on Nov. 6, hundreds of students gathered in front of the Executive Yuan building to protest the use and abuse of the Parade and Assembly Law by the Ma administration and ask that the law be amended to reflect democratic principles. Early in the evening of Nov. 7, police forcibly removed the students and put them on police buses.

While the Ma Ying-jeou administration has portrayed Chen’s visit as a success in cross-strait negotiations, many Taiwanese fear that he is “selling out” the country to China and undermining Taiwan’s sovereignty. The lack of media access only served to exacerbate those fears. Regardless of whether protesters are justified in this belief or not, they should be allowed to express their views and not live in fear of state oppression when they seek to express their discontent at decisions that are being made with lack of transparency, little legislative oversight and with handicapped media supervision. They should also be allowed to express their anger, through protests, when a senior representative of a state that denies their existence, threatens them with more than 1,300 missiles, simulates military invasions, passes an “Anti-Secession” Law that “legalizes” the use of force should the island declare formal independence, and isolates them internationally, visits their country.

Demonstrators were afraid, on edge for the arbitrariness of arrests and unclear rules that accompanied the enactment of the Parade and Assembly Law by the government. As a result, there has been growing apprehension of a return to authoritarian rule and politically motivated arrests, which Taiwanese fought off with sweat and blood from 1949-1989.

Various local organizations, bloggers, academics and media outlets have sought to expose the crimes of the Ma administration and law-enforcement authorities, but sadly, the timing of Chen’s visit, which coincided with the Nov. 4 presidential election in the United States, added to spin by Beijing- and KMT-controlled media, have severely undermined the ability of Taiwanese to make their voice heard in international media.

I therefore strongly urge HRW to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, to bring pressure on the government in Taipei.

November 6 ‘Yellow Ribbon Siege’

It is difficult to determine how many people defied the scalding sun and showed up near Taipei Guest House on Thursday afternoon to protest the presence of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林). But caught in its churning midst, it felt like it was at least in the tens of thousands. (In an ostensible attempt to thwart demonstrators, a last-minute decision was made to move the meeting between Chen and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) from 4:30pm to 11am.)

As expected, demonstrators young and old had brought highly creative banners, placards, flags and posters, whose contents ranged from “Taiwan is my country” to “Made in Taiwan” to various depictions of Chen, Ma, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), to the UN, Tibet and US flags, to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union emblems and slogans. Various groups, Aboriginals and others, were also present. Numerous vehicles, with the ubiquitous flags and blaring horns, took part in the seemingly endless line of demonstrators that meandered the streets, energizing them with slogans and the occasional song.

Once again, two out of three demonstrators were of a fairly advanced age, not unsurprising, given that this was a weekday. Very few foreigners showed up, however. In my four hours or so on scene, I only saw four. On the way to the “siege” meeting point at the Taipei Guest House, a lone vendor, selling smoked sausages at a small stand, was making brisk business. Most 7-Eleven convenience stores along the way were making a killing selling water and bottled drinks.

Overall, the whole demonstration was peaceful, with protesters limiting themselves to throwing water bottles and roses at police officers behind the barbed wire barricades. Most had heeded DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) call and brought horns, whistles, drums and other items with which to create noise. Gas canister horns were distributed for free and, when used in unison, created a deafening wail from which this writer’s ears have yet to fully recover.

On at least 50 occasions I was approached by demonstrators who either asked me where I was from, thanked me for caring for their country and helping out, tapped me on the shoulder, gave me the “thumbs up” or shook my hand. One person gave me a yellow “Taiwan in my country” ribbon, while another offered me cigarettes and yet another gave me a horn, which not long afterwards died on me. A few asked to have their picture taken with me. The atmosphere was extraordinarily welcoming and I have lost count of the smiles and “hellos” I received throughout the afternoon. The last time I was thanked with such warmth and conviction by a people, I was with Palestinian friends, another group that has long been denied what is rightfully theirs by the international community.

At about 2pm, former DPP vice presidential candidate Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and DPP Chairwoman Tsai addressed the crowd, which exploded in a deafening roar, horns a-blow and flags a-flutter. Soon afterwards, demonstrators tore down a section of the barricades and joined demonstrators on the other side. From my vantage point, I did not see police intervene.

ARATS chairman Chen may claim that he and his government are misunderstood by Taiwanese, that in time they will “gain their trust,” but there is nothing to be misunderstood in the more than 1,300 missiles being aimed at this peaceful nation, or in the military exercises held by the People’s Liberation Army simulating an invasion of Taiwan, or in Taiwan’s continued isolation on the international scene resulting from pressure from Beijing. A true friend would not request that the Republic of China flag be removed from the hotel he is staying at. A true friend would not have as a right-hand man an emissary who says — while on a visit to Taiwan — that there will be no war across the Taiwan Strait as long as Taiwan does not declare independence.

Sadly, as the day progressed and after I had left, things turned violent, with protesters throwing stones at police and, at night, police using brutal force against demonstrators on Zhongshan Road and other parts of the city. Police, protesters and members of the media were injured in the process.

Deplorable though this escalation may be, you cannot deploy 7,000 armed police officer, create a sense of siege, erect barricades, block sections of road, dapple neighborhoods with barbed wire, and conduct talks that will affect the welfare of an entire nation with anything less than transparency, and not expect that people will react. Such a muscular deployment was provocative and unnecessary. Moreover, if, in the first days, police had limited itself to preventing violence and not acted as an agent against free speech, escalation may very well have been averted.

The fear of the unknown — the unknown itself — created an explosive situation. Well before the first police line was stormed, well before the first stone was thrown in anger, the seeds had been sown by the Ma administration, which resuscitated an era that Taiwanese had long left behind. On the other side, many of the police officers deployed were young, inexperienced — they had never had to deal with such a situation — scared and bound to overreact. Just as when two armies are brought in proximity to one another, the risks of accidents and things getting out of hand increase.

Let us hope that Chen and his masters in Beijing saw what has taken place throughout the week. Let us hope that the horns and shouts taught them a thing or two about the power of democracy and the determination of a people to keep it alive. Let us hope, too, that the Ma administration got the message that while Taiwanese do not oppose cross-strait talks, there must be transparency, accountability, and that the sovereignty of Taiwan must be preserved. And dignity. Despite the claims by the Ma administration that Chen’s visit was only to discuss economic matters and therefore not political, the long, shameless list of effaced national symbols, the flags removed, official titles snubbed and liberties curtailed, made the whole thing primarily political, relegating the four agreements signed during the visit to secondary news.

One cannot speak of peace, of warming relations, as long as Beijing continues to threaten Taiwan militarily and diplomatically. To treat emissaries of China as if they were friends, and to bend over backwards, as the Ma administration has done, to please Chen and his cronies — turning a democracy into a police state, and Taiwanese against Taiwanese, in a manner of weeks — is unconscionable. It is immensely saddening, after experiencing the warm brotherhood that I felt this afternoon, to see Taiwanese hitting Taiwanese over the visit of a Chinese official. Perhaps no scene touched me more than that of a middle-aged police officer crying as he surveyed what was going on, caught between his responsibility to his troops and the people he is supposed to be serving.

While the Ma administration harps about creating “win-win” situations, this week has been “lose-lose” for all Taiwanese. With Chen having returned to China, now is the time for Taiwanese to heal and mend the sad divide that reared its ugly head this week. (As I write this on Friday afternoon, students demonstrating peacefully are being taken away, one by one, by police officers.)

ATJ accuses government of violating press freedom

By Loa Iok-sin and J. Michael Cole
STAFF REPORTERS

Wednesday, Nov 5, 2008, Page 3

The Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ) released a statement on Monday accusing the government of restricting press freedom as it prepared to welcome Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).

At least two verbal and physical clashes have occurred between local journalists and law enforcement personnel safeguarding Chen and other members of the ARATS delegation since they arrived on Monday.

Cheng Chieh-wen (鄭傑文), a photojournalist affiliated with the Central News Agency (CNA), was dragged away by national security agents at the Grand Hotel on Sunday while he was standing within the designated press area.

Yesterday, reporters engaged in verbal disputes with security officers over press areas that had been changed without prior notice.

“The ATJ strongly condemns security personnel for violently dragging and pushing reporters, and demands that the government explain such incidents and apologize to the CNA journalist,” the statement said.

“Press freedom cannot be compromised,” the ATJ statement said. “Although press passes had been issued to journalists, security officials still intervened and restricted media access. We regret such severe violations of press freedom.”

The ATJ urged the Government Information Office to better arrange media areas to protect press freedom during the next few days of Chen’s visit.

In related news, the Mainland Affairs Council said on Monday that more than 500 local and foreign reporters from 138 media outlets had received approval to cover Chen’s visit.

Among the 574 who received accreditation, 30 were from China, it said, adding that several major foreign news outlets were also covering the event.

However, a survey of major news outlets by the Taipei Times yesterday showed that the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and the Guardian newspapers relied on Edward Wong’s reporting from Beijing, while Canada’s Globe and Mail and the Australian relied on reporting by Associated Press (AP) and Agence France-Presse respectively. France’s Le Monde, the US-based Christian Science Monitor and UK-based Independent were not covering the event.

While the BBC carried a report with a Taipei dateline, CBS News and the Canadian Broadcasting Corp did not report on the event, while CNN relied on AP and Qatar-based al-Jazeera used various news agencies.

The majority of major international news outlets — those that have the budgets to dispatch reporters to cover special events — therefore did not send a correspondent.

Meanwhile, asked by the Taipei Times to comment on the number of foreign correspondents present at major Chen venues, such as the Grand Hotel and Taipei 101, Taipei Foreign Correspondents Club president Max Hirsch said it was in “the few dozens,” adding that he had dealt with “many complaints” by foreign reporters about lack of access to the venues.

Link to article

Day 1 of demonstrations against ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin [UPDATED]

Heavy rain and equally heavy police deployments did not deter small groups from showing their colors at the corner of Zhongshan E Road and Minzu Road in Taipei yesterday. With the Taipei Fine Arts Museum and the Grand Hotel as a backdrop, a few dozen demonstrators gathered at about 11am under the watchful eyes of the hundreds of police officers who had lined up on both sides of the road. All awaited the arrival of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) motorcade on its way to the Grand Hotel.

Nearby, approximately 100 pro-unification demonstrators carrying red banners and the Chinese flag also gathered, engaging in a shouting match with a lone woman on her motorcycle who heckled them from the other side of the street, making the “thumbs down” sign. A handful of yellow ribbons bearing the words “Taiwan is my country” were tied to the motorcycle handles.

One young woman carrying a UN flag was initially stopped by a police officer who asked her to remove a red banner she wore across her shoulder that read “Anti-China; we will definitely win; Taiwan will become an independent country.” The woman refused, however, and the police officer let her continue on her way.

A few minutes later, a friend, named "Lina," used red paint to write words such as “liberty” and “love” on her arms and umbrella, with a handful of police officers watching on while others cheered them.

“I’m not doing anything wrong,” the woman told this writer. “No flag, nothing provocative, right?”

Next to her, another young woman was painting “Formosa betrayed” on her jeans, her hands daubed in red paint.

At one point, a minivan filled with balloons parked in front of the demonstrators, which police officers immediately swarmed. A few minutes later, a window was opened and a few dozen balloons, with hearts and various Chinese characters alluding to tainted Chinese products, escaped and lodged themselves in the trees nearby.

At about 12:15pm, Chen’s motorcade, preceded by police on motorcycles and in cars, arrived, whereupon demonstrators began chanting slogans and waving their balloons. A few small national flags were unfurled, while one woman displayed a large Tibetan flag. Police did not ask them to take the flags away. The bus Chen was on drove by at normal speed, the chairman waving at the crowd.

Asked by the media why she was present at the demonstration, a woman said in English: “President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has betrayed us. That’s why I’m here,” before joining a small group of demonstrators heading for the Grand Hotel.

At about 3pm, "Lina" informed this writer by telephone that she and two other women had been arrested by police and that her finger had been broken when a police officer attempted to take away her Tibetan flag. Police did not tell them why they were being arrested. Later on, a source informed this author that a city councilor and a lawyer had joined them at the police station.

The women were later released.

Full story here

Additional notes on Monday’s protests

It is interesting to note that while demonstrators were arrested for displaying the Tibetan or Taiwanese flags, the about 100 pro-unification demonstrators present at the corner of Zhongshan and Minzu were not bothered by police, even though five or six giant Chinese flags were in full display. It is therefore “legal” to show the CCP flag, but illegal to display the Republic of China, Taiwanese, or Tibetan flags.

At about 2pm, a woman in her mid-30s joined the small group of pro-independence demonstrators I had been following and complained to me that a police officer had just told her he was surprised that she was part of the “pro-Taiwan” gang, as she “looked so professional” — a blatant expression of the prejudicial view that the pro-independence movement is comprised of “uneducated” or “lower-class” Taiwanese, while the pro-unification, or pro-KMT ones are “professionals,” “the elite” and part of a “higher social class.”

As I arrived quite early in the morning, I walked around the scene and mixed with both crowds. While the pro-Taiwan group was welcoming and cheerful, with many people thanking me for joining them and caring about their country, members of the pro-unification camp addressed me with undertones of contempt and were overall intimidating. Their assumption probably was that as a foreigner — the only present at the scene — I was in favor of independence.

Young Taiwanese fear authoritarian revival

By J. Michael Cole
STAFF REPORTER
Taipei Times Monday, Nov 03, 2008, Page 3

Under normal circumstances, these young Taiwanese professionals would be doing just what about any other people their age would do on a Saturday afternoon: rest, or go shopping. But for the three or four sitting at the table sipping cappuccinos and smoking cigarettes, shopping is the last thing on their mind.

It’s only a couple of days before the arrival of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and already their anxiety is palpable. Like many others this past week, they are planning on demonstrating his presence in Taiwan, as well as the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s opening to China.

What truly worries them, however, isn’t Chen’s presence here, or even Taipei’s closer relations with Beijing. Their primary concern lies at home, with what they see as a dangerous and rapid shift toward authoritarian rule under Ma.

“Look at the indictment of [Democratic Progressive Party Tainan City Councilor] Wang Ting-yu (王定宇). It only took them eight or nine days” to conduct the investigation, one said.

Added to this are the government’s restrictions on assembly and demonstrations outside the Presidential Office Building and the many instances where police have disrupted the activities of people who were not breaking the law, such as Wu Ting-ho (吳庭和), a World United Formosans for Independence member, who was manhandled by a group of police officers in front of the Presidential Office Building on Oct. 11.

Wu wasn’t doing anything wrong, he wasn’t breaking the law, one of the young professionals told the Taipei Times. They stopped him because of what was written on his T-shirt. Video footage shown to the Taipei Times also showed two elderly individuals being forced to leave the premises.

“We’re scared,” another said.

Because of the arbitrariness of police action and how unclear the rules about what constitutes a violation of the law have become, “we don’t know what to expect. We don’t know if we’ll be arrested.”

For many of them, such police action is new, as they were too young to remember when the nation was still under martial law.

“Look at the [anti Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)] demonstrations by the ‘Red Shirts’ last year,” one said. “They were allowed to demonstrate for months, to camp at [Taipei Main Station] and the police didn’t bother them.”

Asked if Chen Yulin’s motorcade would try to avoid demonstrators by using the back streets, one of them said: “No. For such an important figure, using the back streets would be a loss of face. His car will use major roads.”

“That’s why there will be such a large police presence,” the person said. “There’s going to be 7,000 police officers deployed for Chen’s visit.”

“We’re pretty pessimistic,” another said. “Maybe some of us want to be arrested. It feels like it’s martial law all over again. Perhaps what the Ma government is doing by cracking down on dissent and freedom of speech is preparing the terrain” for a Taiwan that is part of China.

Link to article

Who is DPA reporting for?

On Oct. 24, the Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) wire agency reported that the Taiwanese stock exchange, the TAIEX, had dropped nearly 3 percent as a result of a mass rally organized by (as it put it) the “right wing” and “separatist” Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for Oct. 25. What the DPA failed to mention, however, was that on the same day, every single stock market in Asia was down, with much more serious drops recorded in Japan (7 percent) and South Korea (9 percent).

No stock analyst worth his weight, let alone critical thinkers, would ever link the drops across Asia with the demonstration in Taipei. It would be equally preposterous to think that the drop in the TAIEX was a result of the demonstration, given that the Taiwanese bourse was being driven down by regional and global trends that had begun weeks earlier. Still, in its report, DPA was establishing a direct correlation between “separatist extremism” and a sagging stock exchange. (Surely, if the demonstration had been such a big deal, the drop in the TAIEX would have been more severe, not less, than in other Asian bourses.)

This highly creative — and downright false — reporting was preparing the terrain for yet another piece of confabulation published today by DPA. This time around, however, the TAIEX was up more than 6 percent, and the wire agency was tying it to … “positive signs in Taiwan-China ties” ahead of “important dialogue from Nov. 3 to Nov. 7 to discuss expanding ties” and a seemingly “goodwill gesture” by Beijing in allowing Taiwan to send former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) as its representative to the APEC Forum in Lime, Peru, next month. (A “goodwill” gesture it certainly isn’t, as the pro-China Lien has visited China on a number of occasions, met its leaders, and is on good terms with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who will also attend the Forum.)

Once again, the DPA failed to provide context and to mention that markets across Asia were climbing sharply, with the bourse in Hong Kong shooting up 12.8 percent, Tokyo almost 10 percent and Seoul 12 percent. Australia, Singapore and the Philippines added 4 percent or more, while Russia's two main indices were also up sharply.

If we were to follow the DPA’s logic, those markets would have been reacting to the so-called “positive ties” between Taipei and Beijing, an altogether farcical proposition. Asian markets were up for a number of reasons, including a US interest cut and a currency deal with South Korea. Like any other bourse, the TAIEX was simply following the trend and, unlike what the DPA would have us believe, the rise had little to do with politics.

As many foreign agencies did when the DPP was in power, the tendency continues to be to discredit the pan-greens on the economy. Back then, the DPP was “mismanaging” the economy, and now that it is in the opposition, its demonstrations are drawing down the stock market. It seems that no matter what the DPP does, it isn’t good for the economy.

Did anyone say bias in the KMT’s — and unification’s — favor?

Rise, o ye Taiwanese youth!

Visitors to this site are well aware that it does not condone, let alone promote, violence, regardless of whether the topic is the “war” on terrorism, the Taiwan Strait, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq. But what The Far-Eastern Sweet Potato does applaud, however, is defense against aggression, especially when a people faces aggression by a stronger opponent (e.g., Palestinians versus Israelis, Taiwanese versus Chinese).

In "Wanted: angrier Taiwanese youth," published today in the Taipei Times, I argue that Taiwan — especially its youth — needs to be far more aggressive, if not angry, in the defense of its sovereignty and democracy, as it faces a formidable opponent that is anything but unmotivated and has expressed its readiness to use violence against Taiwan.

An apolitical, pampered youth living in luxury and altogether disconnected from the traumas of the country’s not-too-distant past is not only ill-prepared to meet the challenge that one day could threaten the very existence of the nation, but also sends a signal to Beijing that Taiwanese simply do not care enough to defend their land.

[中文譯] 徵求：更憤怒的台灣年輕人 courtesy of E.M.E. available here.

What if the Taipei-Beijing courtship failed?*

The election in March of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in Taiwan on Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) economic platform and vow to improve relations with Beijing has led many to believe that the threat of war in the Taiwan Strait — a war that most assuredly would suck in the US military — has receded. Surely, many argued, with weekend cross-strait direct charter flights, intensifying economic integration, a greater number of Chinese allowed to visit Taiwan, KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) meetings and other conciliatory measures, the tensions that characterized the eight years under the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party administration of president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the last term of the Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) presidency from 1996-2000, were a thing of the past.

Even Washington, overtly critical of former president Chen’s efforts to create international space for Taiwan, welcomed Ma’s “modus vivendi” with China and regarded his administration’s efforts as a way out of decades of uncomfortable, and at times dangerous, “status quo.” While that optimism didn’t prevent Washington in early October from agreeing to sell Taipei US$6.5 billion in weapons, including PAC-3 missile defense systems and AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters, the sigh of relief could be heard across the Pacific.

In Beijing, which has always regarded Taiwan as a renegade province and threatened to use force should the latter declare formal independence, Ma’s election in March was construed as Taiwanese’s recognition, however belated, that the island belongs to China. Celebrating the DPP’s abysmal showing in the legislative and presidential elections (the vote was closely watched on Chinese television), as well as scandals surrounding senior DPP officials as well as the Chen family in recent months, Beijing toned down its rhetoric on Taiwan while remaining intransigent in its stance on the island’s status, as demonstrated by its continued opposition to Taiwan’s bids to join multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

While it is true that political tensions across the Taiwan Strait are at their lowest in more than a decade — since 1949, in fact, when the KMT was defeated by the CCP and fled to Taiwan — Beijing’s reading of the significance of the latest presidential election in Taiwan, and its equating it with a desire by Taiwanese to “reunite” with China, carries with it the seeds of future conflict. Part of this misreading could very well be the result of Beijing’s lack of experience with democracy.

Taipei and Beijing are currently courting each other, but if the budding relationship were sour and Beijing’s “love” was unrequited, there is no telling how the CCP, whose legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese is to a great extent contingent on its ability to “reunite” Taiwan, would react. Chances are its response would be of a belligerence that goes beyond the military exercises and firing of missiles off Taiwan’s coast it carried out in 1996, when Taiwan, China and the US ostensibly came the closest to trading blows since the 1950s.

Already there are signs that Ma’s efforts could fail. For one, his administration’s handling of the impact the global economic crisis has had on Taiwan, and more recently on the melamine-tainted Chinese products that entered the Taiwanese market, has led to accusations by many — including former president Lee — of incompetence, while its aloof response to devastation caused by two typhoons earlier this year has alienated many.

Furthermore, the Ma administration embarked on its peace bid with haste and has bent over backwards to please Beijing in a matter that, in the eyes of many, has threatened to undermine the sovereignty of Taiwan and the rights of its 23 million people. Making things worse has been the lack of transparency in the cross-strait negotiations, which has raised apprehensions that decisions on fundamental issues are being made without the consent, or even knowledge, of Taiwanese, which goes against the principles of democracy Taiwanese fought so hard to achieve, and which distinguishes their political
system from the authoritarianism that prevails across the strait.

Ma and his running mate, Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), won the March election with 58.45 percent of the votes, or 7.65 million ballots, to the DPP candidates’ 41.55 percent, or 5.44 million votes. A substantial number of those who voted for Ma did so because they believed the KMT would do better than the DPP on the economic front. In other words, the economy, rather than rapprochement or “reunification” with China, was the principal factor in their voting decision.

What this means is that in addition to the great majority of DPP voters who oppose unification with China, we can expect that a not inconsiderable proportion of those who voted for the KMT is also against unification — especially if it did not come about as negotiations between equals, something Taiwanese have always set as a prerequisite for any talks on the matter.

Thus, fears that the Ma administration is giving too much, too quickly, compounded by its failure to deliver on its economic promises, are threatening to undermine the government, whose popularity has plummeted since it assumed power in May. At this rate, it is unlikely that the KMT will be reelected in 2012, which could not only mean the return of a pro-independence party to power, but would severely compromise the KMT’s ability to implement its peace initiative.

Meanwhile, a mass rally against Ma and his pro-China policies is being organized for Saturday (see map, left), while Zhang Mingqing (張銘清), the vice chairman of Beijing’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait — the main instrument of cross-strait negotiation — who was in Taiwan this week, faced protests on Monday and was “pushed” to the ground by protesters while visiting a Confucian temple in the southern city of Tainan on Tuesday.

Peace in the Taiwan Strait will not come easy, and if the current initiative gets sidetracked, what comes next could have serious implications for peace and stability in East Asia.

* Readers in Taiwan should be aware that this article is intended for a wider audience and includes information that may seem redundant to them.

The dangerous politics of ethnicity

Little did I know when I sat down to write an article about the dangers of using the “ethnic” card in cross-strait relations that, days later, vice chairman of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Zhang Mingqing (張銘清), in Taiwan for a visit, would be “pushed” to the ground by demonstrators during a visit at a Confucian temple in Tainan. Reacting to the incident, Beijing officials said Zhang, who shortly afterwards announced he would cut short his visit to Taiwan and return to China today, was “violently attacked by some extremists, seriously violating his safety and dignity” and expressed “strong indignation and condemnation at this type of uncivilized behavior,” demanding “severe punishment of the culprits.”

Leaving aside the fact that the “uncivilized behavior” the Chinese spokesperson was deploring occurs on a state-sanctioned daily basis throughout China and involves acts of violence that go far beyond shoving, it remains that such incidents (and I do not condone, in any way, shape or form the use of violence to achieve political ends) could play into the hands of demagogues on either side of the Taiwan Strait who seek to turn the conflict into one of “ethnicity,” with China and “Chinese compatriots in Taiwan” — in other words Taiwanese who are in favor of “unification” — on one side, and Taiwanese who oppose it on the other.

As I argue in "Danger in playing ethnicity card," published today in the Taipei Times, this road can only lead to catastrophe and, somewhere down the road, could in the extreme invite a military attack against Taiwan, under the guise of the Chinese military seeking to help its “ethnic” kin and/or restore order, for which there are many historical precedents worldwide.

However minor the incident (it wasn’t the “violent attack” the Chinese spokesperson claimed it was) involving Zhang on Tuesday, the pan-green camp and Taiwanese across the political spectrum should quickly condemn the use of violence and thereby retain the moral high ground. Some could argue that the Chinese, what with their constant threat of invasion, military exercises simulating an assault on Taiwan, firing of missiles off the waters of Taiwan in 1996 and unflagging repression of Taiwanese, had it coming. But violence can only breed more violence and takes us down a dangerous path — one that encourages the reliance on, and feeds off, the “ethnic” card.

PRC spooks back in Taiwan

In July this year, Taiwan’s Government Information Office (GIO) announced, among other policy relaxations, the resumption of the posting of Xinhua News Agency and People’s Daily correspondents in Taiwan, the “first step in implementing President Ma Ying-jeou’s [馬英九] policy to normalize the process for correspondents from the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to carry out newsgathering activities in each other’s territories.”

Queried on the matter on July 17, Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Johnnason Liu (劉德勳) said that Xinhua reporters had not been suspended from Taiwan in 2005 because of “hostile” reporting on Taiwan following China’s enactment of the Anti-Secession Law, but rather because their reporting was “extremely divergent from the actual facts.”

But the situation now, Liu said, is “slightly different,” likely a reference to the rapprochement between the Ma administration and Beijing, adding that “the executive agencies cannot request the media to do reporting or to make guarantees for their reports, [as] this is an absolute precondition of media freedom.” Absolutely.

The problem, however, lies less with whether Xinhua, as a state-owned news agency, will provide skewed reporting on Taiwan (it will), and more with the fact that it serves as a cover for Chinese intelligence officers — something any intelligence agency with counter-intelligence capabilities will tell you. In fact, according to an unnamed Western intelligence service with a solid reputation for its counter-intelligence efforts against the People’s Republic of China (PRC), officials always assume that any new Xinhua reporter posted to the country either works for or colludes with Chinese intelligence. Given the situation in the Taiwan Strait, there is no reason to assume that the function of Xinhua in Taiwan would be any different.

As per new regulations, Chinese correspondents will be given one-time permits valid for three months that can be extended once for three months after getting approval by government agencies concerned. Chinese correspondents already posted in Taiwan will also be able to apply for an extension if the requirement arises. GIO Minister Vanessa Shih (史亞平) also said that to make the application process more convenient for Chinese correspondents, renewable entry and exit permits valid for one year will be issued.

With a greater influx of Chinese coming to Taiwan following the Ma administration’s new policies, the return of Xinhua reporters (and perhaps, starting next year, the arrival of Chinese students at Taiwan’s universities), Beijing finds itself in a far better position to collect intelligence on Taiwan’s defense, command-and-control, communication, emergency preparedness, media and civilian infrastructure. We can also expect Xinhua to establish list of names from the opposition and to be present at any anti-Ma demonstrations organized by the pan-green camp, including the one planned for Oct. 25.

“Reciprocity” and media “freedom” are a deceit, as they continue to be conspicuously absent on China’s part. Through this measure, however, the Ma administration has ensured, by design or omission, that names and pictures of various opposition figures in Taiwan will be circulated in Beijing’s vast intelligence apparatus.

Perhaps we’d better find out who they are and what they look like…

A world transformed: Why Taiwan gets its weapons

Less than a month ago, with the US Congress set to go into recess, very few but the overly optimistic would have ventured that Taiwan would get the go-ahead from Washington to buy the series of weapons it has long sought to obtain. In fact, most analysts were of the opinion that the “arms freeze” on Taiwan would soon congeal into something long-term, if not permanent.

Then, on October 3, Washington announced that it had given the green light on US$6.5 billion in weapons sales to Taiwan, including AH-64D Apache helicopters, PAC-3 air defense systems, Javelin anti-tank missile systems, submarine-launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles, as well as F-16 and E-2T parts. (Not released, however, were UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and 66 F-16C/D aircraft.)

Washington’s decision took most by surprise, not the least Beijing, which after months of being led to believe, based on its reading of the signals coming from Washington, that the US had finally agreed to China’s interpretation of the so-called “one China” principle, lashed out in anger, threatening “grave” consequences for US-China relations. (Rather than agree with Beijing on Taiwan's status, the “arms freeze” was more the result of US unwillingness or inability to spark a new arms race in Asia, where its allies must remain weak enough military to require a permanent US military presence, as with Japan and South Korea, or over-the-horizon US capabilities, as with Taiwan. Weapons sales to Taiwan could propel the Chinese authorities into an acceleration of the already rapid modernization of their military, which in turn could force countries in the region to address their new insecurity by purchasing, developing and deploying more arms. Should such a situation obtain, to maintain hegemonic primacy, the US would have no choice but to invest heavily in its military presence in the Asia Pacific in order to retain its comparative advantage. For more on this, see “Hegemonism behind 'arms freeze,'” Taipei Times, Aug. 1.)

While Washington’s about-face may have seemed sudden and out of character for an administration that, since 2003, had shunned Taipei, it makes sense if it is taken in context, which itself has changed dramatically in the past few months. Although there were some, like US-Taiwan Business Council Chairman and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, who back in July would tell journalists in Taipei that US President George W. Bush had made a promise to Taiwan and that, as a man of his word, he would deliver on that promise — comments that, in other words, hinted at foreknowledge of Washington’s true intentions — it is likelier that the volte-face was the result of a rapid world transformation over the past few months.

Though seemingly isolated from one another, the following factors are nevertheless bound to influence decision-making at the strategic level. They are as follows:

Russia’s invasion of Georgia and the beginning of a new “Cold War”: As I argued in “The wider implications of Georgia” (Taipei Times, Aug. 19), Moscow’s and Beijing’s reaction to US/NATO encirclement, and the opposition to US hegemonism they share with countries like Iran, Syria and Venezuela, is creating a new quasi Cold War, with two main blocs that are, however, less ideologically-driven than during the conflict that from 1949 until 1989 pitted the East against the West. While the divide had been apparent for some time (at the UN Security Council, for example), it took Russia’s intervention in South Ossetia in August to underscore just how wide the chasm had grown. As the world aligns itself into two camps (the West and the “objectors”), Washington is bound to seek to reinforce its regional allies, just as it did during the Cold War. In Asia, this means Japan, India (last month’s landmark nuclear deal is a clear indicator), South Korea — and yes, Taiwan.

North Korea’s change of heart on disarmament: The connection may have appeared tenuous when I raised the possibility in late September (“Beijing’s ‘North Korea’ card no ace, Taipei Times, Sept. 29), but it would now appear, as Defense News Asia chief Wendell Minnick himself pointed out on Oct. 6, that Washington felt it had been let down by Beijing in the North Korea nuclear disarmament talks. The timing is too conspicuous for there not to be a connection. After making his “whatever it takes” pledge to Taiwan in 2001, Bush’s tone changed in 2003, just as the six-party talks with Pyongyang were beginning, for which Washington needed Beijing’s help. Many, as I have, argued that the US’ snub of Taiwan had more to do with its need for Beijing to facilitate the talks than with Washington’s antipathy toward the pro-separatist and “troublemaker” Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). With Pyongyang reneging on disarmament and reopening of the Yongbyon facility, Beijing’s influence on US decision-making may have been severely weakened, and Taiwan may no longer be useful as a bargaining chip. (It remains to be seen what impact the US decision over the weekend to remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, in exchange for the resumption of nuclear inspections, will have on the regional dynamics. If past history is any indication, Pyongyang will comply for a while and then find something else to justify a new round of brinkmanship. Despite this latest development, Beijing’s influence over, and usefulness in the talks with Pyongyang appears to have diminished.)

US presidential election: Regardless of the outcome of next month’s elections, if the Bush administration had left office with an “arms freeze” in place it would have become the baseline for future relations with Beijing, whereas agreeing to the arms sale maintains the status quo and provides the next administration with more flexibility on the China-Taiwan question.

The global economic crisis: For some decision-makers and influential parties in Washington, conflict is a positive development; it distracts the population from fears of a tumbling Wall Street and fuels the defense industry. Faced with the current economic crisis, Washington would be hard pressed to explain to the military-industrial complex why it cannot deliver US$6.5 billion in weapons to its old ally Taiwan. Lobbying by Congress, the defense industry (perhaps even Mr. Wolfowitz, who remains a very influential individual) and states with major defense manufacturers must have shifted into high gear since Wall Street took a hit. At this point in time, if selling weapons to Taiwan means creating jobs and bringing money into the US, Washington will give the okay.

Sino-Taiwanese rapprochement: As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) indicated in a report last week, many in Washington are becoming wary of Taipei’s rapprochement with Beijing since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came into office in May. A Taiwan that becomes “Finlandized” (another reference to the Cold War, this time to Finland’s relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War), or gets too close to Beijing, would be detrimental to US strategic positioning in the Pacific. Though the Ma Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration’s peace bid with China is partly of Washington’s making (through overt US favoritism during the elections in March, which put the Democratic Progressive Party at a marked disadvantage), some in the Bush administration have begun to fear that the Frankenstein monster has gotten out of control and needs to be brought back into line. Selling weapons to Taiwan could be such an instrument, as it is sure to rekindle the “status quo” (pardon the oxymoron) in the Taiwan Strait by infuriating Beijing (Ma, meanwhile, would be hard pressed to refuse the weapons at this point).

Washington’s “sudden” decision wasn’t made on a whim, nor is it illogical, however radical a departure it may seem to be from its policy in the past five years. It is, rather, a response to the new strategic realities that have emerged in succession over the past few months. It has, I fear, little to do with preserving Taiwan’s democracy, and much with a grand chessboard, to use Brzezinski’s coinage, that has been dramatically reshuffled.

C$18.1 billion later

The report is out. Every Canadian household is paying C$1,500 to support a military operation that, by any yardstick, is failing fast — or not so fast, given the seven years that the US, Canada and NATO have been in Afghanistan. Kevin Page, the Canadian parliamentary budget officer who inked the report on the cost of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, admits that the C$18.1 price tag expected by 2011 could even be higher, as some agencies have provided what is, at best, inaccurate accounting, while others (which shall remained unnamed because of their unofficial role in Afghanistan) are probably even more opaque.

Inarguably, the US was distracted in Afghanistan by its ill-timed misadventure in Iraq in 2003, but even if that strategic blunder hadn’t occurred, Afghanistan today would likely still be a mess, with a resurgent Taliban, a porous border with tribal areas in Pakistan and poppy cultivation booming. In fact, seven years on, Iraq or not the dire warnings by Pentagon officials that next year could be “even worse” for Afghanistan would not be unfeasible.

The quagmire is not for lack of good intentions — it’s just plain bad planning and atrocious communication within the coalition. No clear end goals have been set, other than “bringing democracy,” “fighting terrorism” and “rebuilding the country” — all noble goals, except that there are no benchmarks to determine success and the one condition that could make the above possible — negotiating with the Taliban — has been ruled out by the US and most other countries. So the catchphrases remain broad objectives that cannot be met, and even on the rare occasions when clear benchmarks were set, as the Department of National Defense and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) established for their Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kandahar, those remained local and were not part of a comprehensive, country-wide effort, which means that whatever objective was met failed to have an influence at the strategic level, where the “rehabilitation” of the country lies.

The bungled intervention and failure to deliver on initial promises has now made matters even worse and embittered a large part of the Afghan population whose hearts and minds the West was so intent on winning in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. This long string of failures, added to costly mistakes by NATO and the US, has cost countless Afghan lives, given the Taliban time to regroup and turned an insurgency into a regional catastrophe by sucking in Pakistan in a way that al-Qaeda and the Taliban would never have dreamed of seven years ago.

While, compared with the trillion-dollar war the US has waged in Iraq, C$18.1 billion might not seem much, for a country like Canada, whose military is but a tiny fraction of the US’, the bill is a heavy one, especially when one takes into account that Canada’s participation in the Afghan fiasco probably has undermined, as I argue in my book Smokescreen, Canadian security and made it a likelier target for retaliation, either against its troops in Afghanistan or Canadian interests worldwide, including at home. Furthermore, Canada’s image as a peace-loving country, with a rich tradition of peacekeeping, has also been tarnished and given many of its critics ammunition in their accusations that Ottawa is at best a puppet of the US, at worst a willing participant in the US empire.

Close to 100 Canadian soldiers have died serving in Afghanistan. Its security has been undermined. Afghanistan is still a mess and will remain so by 2011, when Ottawa has said it will bring the troops back home (as might many others, which means that the only thing the Taliban has to do is wait another two years before it can fill the vacuum left by departing troops). Had Canadians known how things would turn out, few are those who would have accepted to foot the bill with their taxes.

But it’s not too late to set clear goals and do what the coalition should have done years ago — negotiate. Only by doing this would the West have a shadow of a chance to turn things around, avoid further misery and, perhaps, make 2011 a year by which real progress can be observed. Only by doing this and setting clear goals can the C$1,500 that every Canadian household will have paid (not to mention the lives lost on both sides) be an investment rather than a waste.

Could the Republicans wag the dog?

Global markets tumbled again yesterday after the US House of Representatives shot down the US President George W. Bush administrations’ US$700 billion bailout plan in a rare show of unity among Republicans and Democrats. For weeks now, we have been hearing rumors of a recession, and in the last few days analysts have begun referring to the financial crisis as the worst since the Great Depression of 1929. The world is now holding its breath to see whether the US Fed will submit a revised bailout scheme — hopefully one that, unlike its stillborn predecessor, isn’t so skewed in favor of the wealthy.

What will make matters more complex are the US presidential elections on Nov. 4, which could very well lead to ostensibly “irrational” behavior in the House as Republicans and Democrats seek an advantage over one another on the last leg of the campaign. With the Democrats standing to gain as many as 30 seats in the House — a clear repudiation of the Bush administration, if ever there was one — some Republicans could stoop to a new low in already acrimonious relations between the two parties and seek to create conditions that would advantage the Republicans. Ironically, doing this could well involve behavior that would further undercut the economy (yes, US politics have gotten this dirty)..

Now what would this be? What is the area in which the Republicans believe they have the upper hand over the Democrats, that could rescue their dwindling fortunes?

During his campaign, Republican candidate Senator John McCain has repeatedly argued that his party is stronger on foreign policy and that, conversely, the Democrats under Senator Barack Obama lack experience in diplomacy, are mere “amateurs,” or that they are “soft” on terror and “rogue regimes” like Iran and North Korea.

What, therefore, could reinvigorate the Republican Party and put it back in the race than some crisis involving North Korea (which has already provided the gunpowder by threatening to pull out of the nuclear disarmament talks), Iran (the likeliest candidate), Venezuela or even a “resurgent” Russia weeks before Americans hit the polls? Nothing would work better to distract frazzled Americans worrying about their jobs and their retirement packages, or bolster the country’s slumbering industry, than a new conflict. History is replete with examples of countries going to war after the economy had soured, both as a means to deflect domestic criticism but also because, sadly, war is good for business. Behind the scenes, things could therefore be done to precipitate conflict, or other countries’ policies interpreted in a way that would provide a more “irritable” or less patient Washington with a casus belli.

The Great Depression culminated in World War II, and the stock markets only dropped (ashamedly) after hostilities had come to an end. Ever since, numerous other conflicts that on the surface seemed the result of political brinkmanship turned out to have been partly engineered by, or in response to, market forces, as William Engdahl convincingly argues in his revealing A Century of War. Such a scenario would be especially likely if, whatever comes next, a bailout package were seen by the Wall Street-Washington nexus as not meeting the needs of the corporate superrich (in other words, one favored by the Democrats), in which case some influential individuals (in and outside government, or straddling both worlds, as is frequent in Washington circles) could pull strings and engineer a convenient crisis.

Watch for the headlines in the coming weeks. Should financial instability prevail, trouble abroad could emerge, right on cue.

Beijing's 'North Korea' card no ace

A problem that haunts many “experts” in academia and government is that, by virtue of their expertise on a subject, they tend to lose sight of the bigger picture, as if events in one area could somehow operate in a vacuum and separately from external factors. So ingrained is specialization in academia and intelligence agencies, where topics (“terrorism,” “counter-proliferation,” “China” and so on) are put into boxes, that school often feel compelled to offer courses on regional analysis, as if to remind students that connections exist between the principal subject under observation and the rest of the world.

It was with such thoughts in mind that I wrote "Beijing's 'North Korea' card no ace," published today in the Taipei Times. In my article, I make a case for the influence the six-party North Korean disarmament talks has had on Washington’s and Japan’s policies on Taiwan, and how Pyongyang’s apparent decision to end the talks are resume nuclear work could impact on Washington’s and Tokyo’s approach to the Taiwan Strait. I also take another step back and look at the possible implications of rising tensions between Washington and Moscow (a party to the North Korean talks), the election of conservative Taro Aso as Japanese prime minister and the November elections in the US — all of which point to the conclusion that the era of diplomacy in Northeast Asia may soon come to an end, which is certain to have implications, beneficial or detrimental, for Taiwan.

They still don’t get al-Qaeda

Top US counterterrorism officials on Monday once again demonstrated how little they understand “terrorism” as a tool or the various organizations that fall under its descriptive umbrella. Seven years have elapsed since al-Qaeda struck at the heart of the United States and about twice as much since the organization first popped up on intelligence agencies’ radar screens, which should have given intelligence "experts" plenty of time to understand the phenomenon and its root causes. And yet...

Dell Dailey, the US State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, claims that after years of killing civilians in acts of terror, al-Qaeda is losing its appeal and now faces a possible implosion. He points out that vastly more Muslims than Westerners are killed by al-Qaeda suicide and car bombs — especially in Iraq, where, we are told, local tribes have turned against al-Qaeda in the past two years.

Sadly for Dailey, his understanding of al-Qaeda is flawed on at least two fundamental aspects. First, since Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda has undergone an important transformation and is no longer the vertical, corporate-like organization that it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. Rather, it has turned into a lateral organization with little hierarchy or even structure. In fact, so loose has it become that referring to it as an organization is probably misleading. In the past five years or so, al-Qaeda has instead transformed into a philosophy, an ideology that does not require top-down decisionmaking to resist the opponent.

What this means, of course, is that while “resisting Western encroachment” is al-Qaeda’s overarching ideology, al-Qaeda-ism has become localized. Resistance in, say, Pakistan, differs markedly from resistance in Morocco, or Algeria or the Philippines, where the guiding ideology becomes mixed with very local sets of grievances, political objectives, economics and so on. To claim that al-Qaeda is “imploding” or losing its appeal worldwide is to put all those countries that are facing “Islamic” insurgencies — which includes the Philippines, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Bosnia, Russia, China, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, to name some — in the same basket.

Dailey’s second mistake stems from the Bush administration’s blunders in Iraq and the fabricated truths it relied on post-facto to justify the illegal invasion of the country. Every day, US official refer to al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), as if Iraq were a new front in the US’ war against Osama bin Laden and his organization. The truth is, AQI isn’t an extension of OBL’s war against the West; it is Sunni resistance to US occupation by groups and individuals who subscribe to al-Qaeda-ism, with its own set of local variables. By claiming that al-Qaeda is active in Iraq, the US is merely trying to justify the invasion as part of the “war on terror” and to legitimize the claim, made before the invasion, that there existed an Iraqi-AQ connection. OBL and his henchmen may have issued videotapes calling on Sunnis in Iraq to resist the US, but this was mere rhetoric. The resistance is very local, and no one is calling the shots from some AQ Central in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

These two flaws — which certainly are not Dailey’s alone but remain widespread within the intelligence community — then make it possible for US Undersecretary of State James Glassman to miss the point altogether, when he says that he is “skeptical” al-Qaeda is changing its ways in a matter that would make it resemble other “terrorist” organizations such as Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, which combine local services, governance, schools and politics with extremism. In Glassman’s view, al-Qaeda is a “cult of death” and ergo it is unlikely to turn into an organization with popular appeal. Of course, were he cognizant of the fact that AQ is not, as we have seen, a monolithic organization, he would have realized that rather than being fixed and imploding, AQ is, by virtue of its many local iterations, the very epitome of transformation, which could easily include forms that resemble Hezbollah and Hamas, also movements of resistance that have “matured” into political parties.

This therefore makes Glassman’s prediction that an al-Qaeda than can adapt would be a far more dangerous al-Qaeda a moot point. It already is.

Ironically, as the State Department “experts” were exposing their lack of understanding of AQ, US intelligence was once again making the now-familiar claim that al-Qaeda had “regenerated” its leadership and continued to represent the greatest threat to the US.

From claims of “implosion” to “regeneration,” those in charge of fighting terrorism remain as blind as they were on that pristine morning in September seven years ago.

Where Tsai Ing-wen should not go [UPDATED]

The opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) announced yesterday that its chairwoman, Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), would embark on a three-day visit to the US today. Her schedule includes a speech at her alma mater, Cornell University, and meetings with representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties. While in Washington, Tsai will also be paying a visit to the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation is part of a small circle of right-wing conservative US think tanks that includes the Project for a New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, all of which are connected, financially and ideologically, to the likes of Margaret Thatcher, Richard Pearle, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, and serve the interests of big oil, the US defense industry, and US hegemony, while restlessly attacking multilateralism and the UN. (Among other things, the Heritage Foundation supported the Contras in Nicaragua and sees former US president Ronald Reagan as something akin to the Second Coming. It is also part of the same circle that advocated war in Iraq and would welcome one against Iran.)

Sadly for Taiwan, for historical reasons the majority of its allies or supporters in the US have come from that side of the establishment, likely a leftover of the US military’s close ties to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) during the Cold War. As I have written before, the repercussion of this unholy alliance, or Faustian deal, for Taiwan is that it gives credence to Beijing’s contention that Washington supports Taiwan not because it believes in its sovereign right to exist as a democratic nation, but rather because Taiwan (much like Georgia, come to think of it) serves Washington's purpose in its strategy to encircle China and perpetuate US empire. By failing to establish strong links with the other side of the US establishment — or other countries — Taiwan has put itself into a straightjacket, with only two options to choose from: (a) support from right-wing US conservatives whose institutional reasons for supporting Taiwan are less than honorable (allowing, in all fairness, for a few individual exceptions) and have far more to do with maintaining or strengthening US hegemony; or (b) find itself defenseless and in no position to stand up to China.

This is doubly ironic as the DPP, a party that advocates democracy and freedom and which is rooted in the long struggle against tyranny, willingly continues to seek help and advice from the Heritage Foundation and its likes, as Tsai’s visit this week demonstrates. By embracing the conservative establishment so early in her tenure as chairwoman, Tsai will be giving ammunition to those in China who, rightly or wrongly, see the DPP not as a voice for Taiwanese freedom, but rather as an instrument, or an outpost, of US empire, much like the “democracies,” like Israel, that Washington arms and protects.

UPDATE: It is unfortunate that Tsai currently finds herself in the US, as President Ma Ying-Jeou (馬英九) has basically admitted he will not be able to deliver on any of his “6-3-3” economic goals — annual 6 percent GDP growth, average national per capita income of US$30,000 by 2016 and less than 3 percent unemployment — anytime soon. In fact, he said he would need eight years — or two terms, which he assumes he will get — to realize those objectives.

Tsai and the DPP leadership should be screaming murder right now and leading Taiwanese into opposition to the KMT’s policy of deception.