Left Flank

Michael Goldfarb adds his strident support for Taiwan's deployment of the Hsiung Feng 2E (Brave Wind) land attack cruise missile, even if the Bush administration is balking. There are two other choice pro-Taipei quotes in the Defense News article Goldfarb excerpts worth emphasizing.

The officials said the HF-2E makes tactical and strategic sense.

«It is the politicians and diplomats who have problems with it,» the MND official said. «How many times have they asked Taiwan not to politicize defense? KMT [The Kuomintang] kills it because it pleases Beijing and Washington, and they think Beijing won't attack Taiwan once they are in power [in 2008]. A dangerous thought.»

(…)

Alexander Huang, a senior associate at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who lives in Taipei, believes the HF-2E project can help Taiwan in missile-related technologies.

«The LACM [land attack cruise missile], if successfully developed, could be a tactical deterrent, and strategic bargaining chip in possible military CBMs,» or confidence-building measures, he said.

«Should a military conflict be unavoidable, firing LACMs with the Taiwan military emblem can indirectly give the U.S. some flexibility in diplomatic terms. Close command-to-command consultation and real-time notification between Taipei and Camp Smith will reduce the risk of unintended incidents. In short, I am not naïve nor hawkish, but I support the program.»

If all else fails, then perhaps the environmental argument that President Chen Shui-bien tabled on a trip to the Spratly's is a decent opening move.

Taiwan Echo utters a panegyric for the narrowly ruling DPP:

Awaiting ahead for Taiwanese is again a sinolized society hijacked by never-fading local warlords --- which is what Taiwanese fought so hard to get rid of. Now they welcome it back with their own ballots.

OK, this is not the anti-Beijing argument, is it?

Taiwan's main opposition Nationalist Party (KMT) thrashed the ruling DPP in legislative elections on Saturday, strengthening its bid to recapture the presidency in March and heralding better relations with China.

I'm amazed any news organization could gloat about a rapprochement between republican Taiwan and autocratic China as anything other than a defeat for freedom and moderation. But, that's what the line has been:

I suppose it is pointless to observe that Chen was widely hailed as pragmatic and conciliatory when he came to power in 2000 and has remained a "moderate" -- only in the Cloud Cuckoo-land of writing on cross strait relations can a lifelong moderate who advocates peaceful democratic change like Chen Shui-bian be portrayed as a "radical." But heck -- why refer to the complexities of history when you can source ideas from the KMT so much more easily?

(…)

Taiwan threatens no one. It carries out policy by peaceful means. It has done so since anyone can remember. And yet, pundits can write that our moderation is "fragile." At any moment, we could break out into.....what? A public referendum? An attempt to enter the WHO? The mind reels. For crissake we're a frickin' democracy here! We're moderate by definition.

Another travesty of the FT article is this:

The KMT won its landslide victory »because Taiwanese people have used their wisdom to vote against corruption and incompetence in the government,» said Tsai Chin-lung, who won a seat in Taichung for the party. »Taiwanese people are really outraged with what the government is doing,» he said.

The result shows that the people of Taiwan want change, said Chao Chien-min, professor at National Chengchi University. »The second thing is the economy: Chen Shui-bian doesn't understand the economy. He always thinks it's OK just to be political.»

To which Michael Turton also replies:

One predominant myth that colors academic discourse on Taiwan, which I have frequently argued against, is that local voters prefer candidates who are not corrupt. I think this election will forever do that myth in. The middle class here does not want clean government -- it wants government that will assure the flow of funds from the center out to the electorate -- and clean government won't do that. The preference for corrupt candidates -- of which there are countless examples here in Taiwan -- also bodes ill for democratic development in China. Jim Mann has already argued in his recent book The China Fantasy that the middle class in China will ally itself with the authoritarian state to protect its privileges against urban and rural poor. Here is another incentive for them to keep the authoritarian state in being -- corruption helps sustain the political economy of local contracting and development that keeps local middle classes happy.

Beijing and the KMT are doing a wonderful job undermining Taiwan's independence, and the Bush administration deserves the assist.

Chicago Tribune has a must-read interview with Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bien:

Q: How should the U.S. promote peace and stability between China and Taiwan?

A: Washington should support Taiwan's democratic development, promote official talks between the governments of China and Taiwan, review the outdated one-China policy and abide by the Taiwan Relations Act -- the law that governs relations between our countries. It should sell Taiwan defensive weapons and otherwise help this country defend itself.

When we hold our referendum on Taiwan's participation in the UN [in March], we hope the U.S. will have a positive attitude toward it. The reason Taiwan enjoys its democracy today is because of the encouragement and support of the U.S. government and American people. We want to make the voice of the Taiwanese people heard throughout the world and to become a formal member of international organizations.

Now that the Bush administration has achieved «something» on the Korean peninsula, perhaps it could do something about Taiwan. But, not just what Beijing wants. Michael Turton's apoplectic response to a Reuters article towing the Communist line,/a> is noteworthy in itself.

It's always worth pointing out: China can bluntly say (1) we're threatening war and (2) we're not going to negotiate even one little bit but you can read in actual analysis from thinking human beings that - I'm not making this up - President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan is a radical. I suppose, from the point of view of a human history that offers us about 100,000 years of conflict settled by force, that democracy and referendums are a rather radical approach....

Taiwan's president Chen Shui-bien gave a great interview to Der Spiegel, and his response to Beijing is just as dramatic and noteworthy.

SPIEGEL: Your desire to be admitted into the UN would be more likely to succeed if you could come to terms with Beijing - just as the two German nations did 35 years ago.

Chen: We want to negotiate with China, and we see Germany as a model. But for the Chinese there is nothing but the One China policy. Beijing apparently has no interest in dialogue.

SPIEGEL: But you consider reunification with China both possible and desirable?

Chen: We have no way of knowing what will happen in the future. Currently, at any rate, reunification is out of the question.

So, can the US Congress help Taiwan?

...the US Congress, which houses the largest collection of invertebrates outside the Smithsonian, took the State Department to task for its opposition to Taiwan's purchase of F-16s, and sent a resolution through the Committee on the F-16 purchase...

The US opposes the deployment of cruise missiles because they are «offensive weapons» but it wants to sell Taiwan submarines- which it told Taiwan it could not have for the twenty years prior to 2001 - because they were «offensive weapons.» And of course, the 1,000 missiles that China aims at Taiwan receive no attention....I guess they must be defensive weapons.

Seriously, readers, tell me who you think is more dangerous, Taiwan or the PRC?