Yesterday in this space, we elucidated the lies currently being bandied about by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as reasons for yet again opposing the purchase of the weapons deemed essential to protect Taiwan from China. We finished by pointing out that the truth of the matter is that the legislature is currently in the power of agents acting exclusively on behalf of Taiwan's enemy. Al-Qaeda controlling the US Congress would be one parallel.
What are patriotic Taiwanese to do while the pan-blues go off to China to sell out their country? First, let's admit this isn't a question typical of a constitutional democracy. Few countries ever find themselves with a large political faction which, in return for a guarantee of perpetual power, wants to hand the nation over to its enemies. The Irish Act of Union in 1801 and the Anschluss and Sudeten Crisis in 1938 are the only even remotely similar examples that come to mind.
Taiwan's position is, in fact, a nightmare whereby expert, well-financed political operators use the freedoms granted to them by a democratic system, and the tolerance given to them by the population, to destroy that system and sell those people into slavery.
The idea of democracy's misuse is as old as the Weimar Republic. And post-Sept. 11, freedom can be exploited for evil purposes, and any polity has to find what it deems a suitable balance between liberty and security. What makes Taiwan's condition unusual, however, is that the lack of a clear Taiwanese identity means that handing the country over to its enemy is unusually easy, in that there is little patriotic spirit among the Taiwanese with which to oppose such a devil's bargain.
This is a result of Taiwan's miserable history of colonization, first by the Japanese and then by the alien KMT regime. The relationship of the Taiwanese to power has always been one of weakness; there has always been some massive external authority against which it is deemed futile to struggle.
This has resulted in a mindset whereby success depends on deft maneuvering within an alien-imposed system, rather than a head-on defiance of that system. Such a viewpoint promotes petty self-interest at the expense of the interests of the people as a whole. A perfect example of such thinking can be seen in the uproar over fruit exports to China, where a few hundred farmers are prepared to trash the authority of the central government in return for being able to send some boatloads of mangoes across the Taiwan Strait.
The pan-blues are set on putting Taiwan under another colonial master, China, with themselves as the master's agents. To prevent this, the Taiwanese first have to evolve a real patriotism, a sense of Taiwan as something worth saving, something worth protecting and fighting for. What is needed is a mass organization, independent of any political party, which can educate and mobilize people with the pledge to protect Taiwan from its enemies, both without and within.
The germ of such an organization was in the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally last year, and the march against China's "Anti-Secession" Law this spring. It's been shown that people can be roused, but so far it has been for a message of peace. Instead, they should be mobilized to send a message of angry defiance -- either you are for a free Taiwan or you do not deserve to live here. They should then begin to suit actions to these tough words.
We know who the traitors are. Why should they continue to enjoy impunity? "The wrath of the Taiwanese" -- it's a phrase that now can only be used tongue-in-cheek. It must become something that pan-blues fear.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs