Print

Mail

wiki links

Letters

Who's burning bridges?

Arrogant. Patronizing. Deeply disturbing. Absolutely stomach-churning. These are the only words that I, an Australian national proudly integrated in Taiwanese society, can find to describe the letter by Zhu Zhiqun (Letters, Dec. 2, page 8).

His letter is an unforgivable insult to all peace-loving Taiwanese, and betrays a racist sense of superiority towards Taiwan that is deeply ingrained in the psyche of the average Chinese chauvinist. Mind you, in the bygone days of the British Empire, the British colonialists shamelessly displayed exactly the same haughty attitude towards Ireland, the US, Australia and all the other British colonies.

First of all, if Zhu does not live, work and pay taxes in Taiwan, then it is not his place to comment on how the Taiwanese government should spend its taxpayers' money.

Second, the Taiwanese economy is in much better shape than the Chinese economy -- at least the Taiwanese government does not cook the books and does not doctor official statistics in order to produce fictitious figures of "stunning" economic growth.

Third, Taiwan is already

an independent nation,

simply with the wrong name,

flag, national anthem and

Constitution.

On this issue Zhu is

accidentally right that the Taiwanese don't need to build a new nation.

Fourth, Taiwan has every right to acquire the best possible weapons to defend itself from the Chinese imperialists and colonialists, whether Zhu and his fellow Chinese imperialists and colonialists like it or not.

Fifth, he states that "China will do anything to prevent the birth of a new Taiwanese nation." So what? For his information, the Taiwanese harbor no more desire to meet Chinese aggression without a fight than the Irish, who hardly could forget centuries of heroic struggle against their former colonial masters.

Make no mistake, I and many of my fellow Taiwanese have vowed that in case of Chinese attack we will not leave Taiwan, and if at that time we are overseas, we will return to Taiwan to fight.

Got the message, Zhu?

Sixth, he suggests that building bridges with China is the only way for Taiwan to defend itself. Has he already forgotten that it is China that has decided to burn these bridges and unilaterally cease all forms of cross-strait

dialogue?

Seventh, if Zhu is so concerned about cross-strait peace, why doesn't he protest against China's increasingly belligerent and hegemonistic behavior?

Sorry, Zhiqun, but your letter sounds like mafia-style blackmail that no self-respecting Taiwanese can stomach.

Brian Vranjac

Kaohsiung

Zhu Zhiqun's comments must be taken with a grain of salt, given their source. Zhu, an Asian relations "pundit" originally from Shanghai, has offered Beijing-oriented observations before in his various

articles and commentaries. I read the Dec. 2 comments, and knew at once these were the offerings of a Beijing apologist (as were the comments Zhu offered in a letter dated Oct. 18, which accused Taiwan of inflexibility on cross-strait

issues).

It takes political gymnastics to come up with the concept that China is not the enemy of Taiwan.

Zhu has criticized John Tkacik's call for a stronger defense for Taiwan as "ill-advised, if not totally

irresponsible."

I submit that offering such advice as "China is not the enemy" is probably a lot more "ill-advised," and is definitely "totally irresponsible." In fact, the advice strikes me as similar to a fox asking the chickens to gather in the henhouse for a group hug.

I quite agree that it takes "two to tango" in any peace negotiations.

But the problem currently is that China apparently has many sycophantic pick-pockets (like France) believing that anything Taiwan does anytime, anywhere to more clearly identify itself is "provocation" worthy of invasion, and that none of the destructive and morally repugnant actions taken by Beijing every single day -- like forcing an international gathering of hairstylists to call Taiwan "Chinese Taipei," lest China withdraw -- are "provocative" or violations of the Taiwanese people's basic human rights.

Apparently, Zhu's point

is that instead of buying weapons, Taiwan should be "building bridges" with Beijing, and that when China becomes a more democratic and prosperous nation, Taiwan could benefit from its close association with China. It's a nice fantasy, but the "instead" part is naive and dangerous advice.

I agree that Taiwan should pursue whatever avenues of peace are available.

But I also strongly believe that Taiwan having the ability to defend itself (through alliances and weapons procurement) is the only thing that will keep China at bay and assure national survival.

There are few examples in history over the past 2,000 years in which making nice with or appeasing the beast has produced true freedom (as opposed to, at best, benign domination).

To the contrary, the equally ferocious, the poisonous pills and the well-defended porcupines have remained free.

Zhu surely must know that the moment Taiwan drops its guard, Beijing will overrun the country, and the likelihood that anything "Taiwanese" would remain thereafter is probably close to zero.

One need only look to the eugenics being practiced in Tibet for a case in the extreme, and to Hong Kong for another case in point.

No one in their right mind wants war.

And if the dual policy of peace and defense is what is needed to preserve the "status quo" -- and Taiwan's surivival -- for as long as it takes the communists to fall, then so be it.

Lee Long-hwa

United States
This story has been viewed 2086 times.