Many Taiwanese are fascinated by Europe and its diverse population. I suppose that's what comes from growing up on a rock where 98 percent of us have straight black hair and brown eyes. The romantic, olive-skinned, beret-wearing Frenchman; the pasty-faced, tweed-suited, Hugh Grant look-a-like English gentleman; and the blond-haired, beer-swilling Bavarian are all images that endear in Taiwan.
It's only when you travel to Europe, as my gal Cathy Pacific and I try to do every other year, that you realize that the stereotypes couldn't be further from the truth.
Like the inhabitants of its member states, the EU is fascinating. It's a place where a smorgasbord of cultures and people from dozens of countries -- most of whom normally cannot stand the sight of each other -- gather to spout hot air and promulgate frequently ridiculous laws of which nobody takes a blind bit of notice.
As Europeans are largely a liberal bunch, many of the people they elect to represent them in the European Parliament are, well, liberal. But they are a far cry from the unelected bureaucrats that get given the top jobs in the European Commission, the EU's executive body, hence the Grand Canyonesque divide on issues such as supporting Taiwan's bid for international breathing space.
On the one hand you've got democratically elected but powerless representatives like the members of the largest parliamentary group, the European People's Party and European Democrats (EPP-ED), who appreciate democracy and openly support Taiwan and its bids for entry to the UN and the WHO. On the other you have the unelected, commie-appeasing, jackboot-wearing parasites who negotiate backroom deals with Chicoms to stifle Taiwan as if she were a female newborn dumped in the Yangtze.
An editorial in The Economist on July 12 sheds light on one such murky meeting. An internal EU memo prepared by the office of foreign policy bigwig Javier Solano details what went on during a recent secret love-in between Chicom envoy Guan Chengyuan (關呈遠) and a top Europrat.
During the meeting Guan called President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) plan for a UN referendum "provocative and destabilizing, and said China wanted EU support, as it did not want to have to use `the last resort'" -- a euphemism for high-speed direct cross-strait links of the military variety.
The EU lackey's response: "Well, actually Mr. Guan, Taiwan is not and never has been part of the People's Republic of China. So I think you should shut up and get the fuck out of my office, you odious little worm."
Ah, if only.
Instead, the EU brown noser wholeheartedly agreed that "a referendum is against Taiwan's own interests, and offered to send a `clear and forceful' message to Taipei to that effect."
Nice to know that the EU, which cannot even spell the name of our capital correctly on its Web site (www.theparliament.com has it spelled "Teipei" in one article), knows what is best for us.
Portugal, which holds the rotating EU presidency, duly ran off and quickly drafted a private warning on its best notepaper telling us that the referendum would be "unhelpful."
But it's not all bad news: Those thoughtful Portugeezers also sent a note to China asking it to show restraint.
Thanks, EU, we appreciate the empty gesture.
At least The Economist -- unlike most of the rest of the international press -- had the balls to take the EU and China to task for their behavior.
Noting that "a recent EU strategy paper on China calls on Europe to pursue a `dynamic relationship with China based on our values,' notably democracy and human rights," the editorial ends, "one dissenting EU diplomat says the Union is pretending there is `moral equivalence' between Taiwanese election politics and Chinese threats of violence. Certainly, this is not how most people understand the EU's oft-professed values."
Couldn't have put it better myself!
Staying on a Euro note, an increasing number of retired or decrepit former European leaders seem to be making their way to Taiwan to visit the president and blather about transitional justice.
In February we had Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu visit (yes, I know South Africa is not in Europe, but I'm making a point) during commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the 228 Incident. Des waxed lyrical about his nation's Truth and Reconciliation Commission that dealt with the aftermath of apartheid.
A couple of weeks ago, it was the turn of former Bulgarian president Zhelyu Zhelev, who talked about persecution under his country's former communist regime and how Bulgaria implemented a new Constitution.
Then, on Monday, we saw former East German prime minister Lothar de Maiziere talking about how his country dealt with its dodgy judiciary after the fall of communism in 1989.
While it is all very well to have these former leaders here to share their experience on all expense-paid junkets courtesy of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy -- chaired with a straight face by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- they can talk until they're blue in the face because there is a noticeable difference between their experiences and that of Taiwan, as de Maiziere noted, and that is the presence of a legislative majority.
In case they hadn't noticed, the former regime is still very much alive, kicking and popular. A legislative majority is something the Democratic Progressive Party doesn't have and is unlikely to anytime soon.
So, as long as the KMT keeps saying "talk to the hand" when it comes to subjects like party assets and constitutional amendments, there is little chance of any of this "transitional justice" stuff ever happening, bar a lightning strike on the KMT's next Central Standing Committee meeting.
Perhaps out of frustration, and in its desperation to inform a largely uninterested population on the finer points of transitional justice, the DPP sometimes ends up imitating that which it once found detestable.
Take the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, for a start. Though boasting different and honorable motives, the treatment lavished on these former statesmen is similar to that meted out to US congressmen during the heyday of the China Lobby, when Peanut spent vast amounts of cash trying to keep the "Free China" dream alive.
Now we have DPP politicians protesting for the right to wave the KMT's national flag at sports events.
Turning into what you once despised and crossing over to the dark side happens often here and is not a pretty sight. Look at the leader of the Order of the Scarlet Thumb, the now-indicted Shih Ming-teh (
One mention of that pair should be enough to send retired statesmen scurrying back to their homelands -- straight into the arms of leering Europrats.
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US