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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers