The Foreigner in Formosa

Chinese Communists Would Conquer Taiwan In Three Days

According to the most recent computer wargame simulations conducted by the island nation's Ministry of National Defense.

The ruling Chinese Nationalist Party of Taiwan was said to be horrified by the revelation, and vowed to rectify the country's precarious situation by blocking all weapons procurement bills at least 60 times over the course of the next two years.

Lee Teng-hui On Taiwan's Current Government

From Monday's Taipei Times:

Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) yesterday accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of incompetency, lashing out at his administration for failing to offer concrete measures to curb public apprehension over events such as the recent melamine contamination and the poor performance of the TAIEX.

Now, I've seen a few possible explanations for the governments' poor performance:

1)  President Ma Ying-jeou is attempting to create a precedent for a "Queen of England" presidency for Taiwan.  Unfortunately for him, he has no Taiwanese model for him to draw upon.

2)  The KMT has been out of power for 8 years, and its governing skills are out of practice.

Without disagreeing with point #1, I'd like to elaborate a little upon point #2.  While it's true that the KMT lost control over the executive for the last 8 years, it DID have effective working control over the legislative branch over the same time frame.  So how did it spend its time?  Did the KMT spend the last 8 years KEEPING ITS GOVERNING SKILLS SHARP by actually passing into law legislative proposals that would benefit Taiwan? 

Or did it DULL THAT EDGE by spending those 8 years engaged only in pointless, petty obstructionism? *

I've seen the China Post sneer at former President Chen Shui-bian's record, asking what it was that Chen accomplished over the last 8 years.  I can think of a few things**, but let me turn the question around.  What did the KMT-dominated LEGISLATURE accomplish in the last 8 years?  They had a majority, after all.  Their votes were law -- Taiwanese presidents have no veto power.

Once more,  what legislative successes can KMT lawmakers boast about on THEIR resumes?  Hmm?  Anyone?  Anyone?  I'm waiting . . .

A former marathon winner comes out of a long retirement for a big race.  He thinks he's got a good chance to win again.  But does he?

Not if he's spent the last 8 years scarfing down doughnuts and grousing about how easy kids today have got it.  If he hasn't spent enough time in training, maintaining his skills, our runner's fans are in for a major disappointment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Speaking of pointless, petty obstructionism, here's a case in point:

The Presidential Office is thankful that the US government sent an official notification on Friday to Congress on the sale of five major packages of weaponry to Taiwan, officials said yesterday, adding that the move signaled a new era of mutual trust between Taiwan and the US.

“The notification of the US government put an end to the turbulence of the past eight years and rebuilds mutual trust between the US and Taiwan,” Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chih (王郁琦) said yesterday.

Uh-uh -- you don't get off that easy, Mr. Wang.  Your boss, President Ma Ying-jeou, spent TWO YEARS boycotting those arms packages when he was in opposition.  As KMT chairman, Ma blocked 'em 60 times in the legislature.  Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet . . .  Sixty times.  You can't pawn THAT off on the former president, buddy.

In the end, Ma relented on the special arms bill.  By that time however, America viewed him and the KMT as fundamentally untrustworthy.  And the U.S. put the weapons sale on hold.

And so it was that the KMT was reduced to begging -- BEGGING! -- for that which it had so casually boycotted and dismissed as unnecessary just a few months earlier:

The United States could see its credibility among Taiwanese at stake if it fails to approve a pending Taiwan arms procurement package . . .  [Taiwanese] Defense Minister Chen Chao-min said Monday.

Please, please, please, sell us these weapons.  'Cause if you don't, uh . . . you'll, you'll . . . look really bad.  Really, REALLY bad . . . The passive-aggressive approach -- yeah, that's the ticket!

As for the credibility of the Ma Ying-jeou administration, we'll escape unscathed.  Why, we're a lean, mean, governin' machine.

With the 24% approval rating to prove it.

**  At the top of my head, Chen's accomplishments as president include the de-politicization of Taiwan's military, increased democritization (via a new referendum law) and his partially-successful attempts to de-normalize Taiwanese worship of former dictators Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo.

Set against that record are troubling charges of corruption and money-laundering.  Which if proven true, make his presidency a very mixed bag.

America, Cynical Arms Dealer? - Part I

[The two posts that follow were initially part of a single reply I made to a reader who made this charge in response to one of last week's posts.]

A few times in my comments section I've seen the sentiment expressed that making money is America's sole motivation in selling weapons to Taiwan.  It's kind of a Marxian argument, but never mind.  For in this post, I'll attempt to disabuse the reader of the notion entirely.

Let me assure you, if America's sole interest was simply to make money, it wouldn't bother trying to sell Taiwan weapons at all.  Better instead to sell an equivalent dollar value of products from some American sunset industry, like textiles or tobacco.  That way, America would earn exactly the same thing, profit-wise, while the administration in charge would go on to reap a windfall of votes from older workers, grateful that their jobs had just been spared.*

The kicker to this is that an America that contented itself with only selling textiles or tobacco to Taiwan would need never fear economic retaliation from China.  Because as far as profits from weapons sales go, what the Taiwanese hand giveth, the Chinese hand threatens to taketh away.  Selling weapons to Taiwan is bad business.

Don't believe me?  If an industry is profitable, what does elementary micro-economics predict?  Market entry.  At which point, I humbly point out that there aren't a lot of countries clamoring to get a piece of the "profitable" Taiwanese arms market.  Quite the contrary, in fact.  The number of countries willing to sell military equipment to Taiwan has dwindled to a grand total of one.  Which is precisely the sort of response one would expect from suppliers involved in an unprofitable industry.

At some point in this argument, you might object that Taiwan is offered weapons because it just wouldn't be interested in buying American textiles or tobacco.  Taiwan would find the COST of these things exceeded their VALUE (relative of course, to cheaper foreign alternatives), and would instantly reject them.  But apply that argument to defensive arms, and we suddenly notice a curious thing.

What we notice is that the executive branch of Taiwan's government DOES believe the value of American arms outweighs its costs.  It behooves us then, to explore the reasons why.

[Part II of the reply can be found here.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* This oversimplifies the situation somewhat, because it doesn't take into account the wrath of defense industry workers who've lost out by the policy.  The key here is to remember that workers in sunset industries tend to be older (making them less easy to retrain) and more tied to their locale (owning homes in areas where it might be problematic to find a buyer).  Comparatively speaking then, workers in sunset industries are likely to feel a greater sense of relief and gratitude when their jobs are saved than those working in defense industries.

America, Cynical Arms Dealer? - Part II

In the previous post, I pointed out the folly of believing that America just wants to sell Taiwan weapons in order to make money.  Believe it or not, there really ARE easier ways of making the stuff.

I generally take it as a given that sellers want to sell.  But sales never proceed unless the buyer also wants to buy.  Why then, did the KMT request the special arms package back in the late 90s?  What value did the KMT see in it then?  And more to the point, why does the executive branch of Taiwan's government want to buy it now?

First, let's state the blindingly obvious.  Weapons packages are valuable to Taiwan... because they contains WEAPONS.  Should war break out, having weapons on hand is usually considered a GOOD thing.  Against a full assault, Taiwan needs enough weapons to hold Chinese invaders off for a few weeks until an American fleet can arrive.  A Taiwan that's unwilling to make that investment is a Taiwan that America might not be able to help, even with its best effort.

Besides full assaults, Taiwan also needs to concern itself about possible Chinese "ankle-biter" tactics.  Grant from the start that Patriot Missiles will never be able to protect Taiwan against a missile onslaught like that recently unleashed against Isreal by Hesb Allah.  The cost of such defense would be prohibitive.  But Patriots might come in VERY handy in defending against a one-a-day Hamas-style attack chiefly intended to demoralize Taiwan's civilian population into accepting "reunification" talks on Beijing's terms.

The second reason that weapons are valuable to Taiwan is that they provide military deterence.  They do this by raising the price of war to a level that Beijing might not be willing to pay.  For example, as things stand today, China might calculate that its fleet of submarines could cheaply and easily blockade Taiwan, bringing the island to its knees.  With Taiwan in possession of modern anti-sub airplanes, however, the equation changes.  That cheap and easy blockade suddenly isn't so cheap and easy anymore, now that Chinese subs can be blown out of the water.  Sure, Taiwan's anti-sub airplanes are pretty slow and can be shot down, but that means China has to deploy fighters in order to fight a RATHER expensive air war with Taiwan.  And so, it's time for China to fish or cut bait.  China can either risk a whole lot more forces than it originally intended to...or it can end up leaving Taiwan alone.

The final reason that weapons have value for Taiwan is because they provide political deterence.  What I'm trying to say here is that there is a deterent effect to be gained not merely by the possession of weapons, BUT BY THE POLITICAL ACT OF BUYING AND DEPLOYING THEM.  Such an act in and of itself is a kind of signal which contains information about the level of determination a country or its leadership might have for resisting aggression.  But the converse is equally as true.  A country which DOESN'T attempt to defend itself in the face of aggression, and simultaneously expresses a willingness to barter away its sovereignty in exchange for a peace treaty, ALSO sends a message.  A message of quite a different sort - to both its enemies AND its friends.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript:  Of the three weapons systems currently being considered, the only one I haven't mentioned are the 8 diesel submarines.  Submarines are uniquely capable of surviving a Chinese first strike, and a few of these positioned near China's shipping lanes could have an enormous impact on the amount of oil reaching Taiwan's foe.  Secondly, Taiwanese subs offer the subs of its allies something very desirable, namely, plausible deniability.

For this, let us consider two scenarios: Scenario One, in which a Taiwan san subs is attacked by China, and Scenario Two, in which a Taiwan that possesses subs is attacked.

In both scenarios, China threatens war with any country that attempts to aid Taiwan.  What happens under each scenario when China finds its shipping under submarine attack?

Under Scenario One, China instantly knows that America or Japan is behind the sinkings, and  it retaliates, possibly before the American or Japanese fleet is ready for it.  But under Scenario Two, China can't be sure that anyone other than Taiwan was behind the sinkings.  America and Japan can always deny their subs had anything to do it; they may even be telling the truth.  If China attacks America or Japan at this stage, they hand them a casus belli on a platter.

Before I close, I should point out that I'm not wedded to any of the particular weapons systems I've mentioned here, but I do think it's worth trying to understand WHY Taiwan's military is interested in acquiring them.  It's also worth trying to understand why the KMT party should ever wish to block these weapons from reaching Taiwan.  But that's a question best reserved for another day.

Say It Ain't So, Chen

For myself, the worst thing about the indictment of President Chen's wife on corruption charges on Friday is the sinking feeling that his whole party is going down with him - delivering Taiwan into the hands of Ma "Gaius Baltar" Ying-jeou.*

Sure hope the half-million bucks was worth it.

OK, maybe that's out of line.  After all, Chen's wife, Wu Shu-chen, has been indicted, not convicted.  Maybe the president can explain everything to everyone's satisfaction within the next few days, saving his wife from being referred to his party's internal ethics committee.

Maybe too, it's all just a "big misunderstanding", and Chen won't be indicted when he leaves office.

Maybe.  I can tell you though, it's going to be pretty tough to rustle up support for a first lady who's been "indicted, not convicted."  It's even worse if the public sees the prosecutor as a straight shooter who's already demonstrated his neutrality by exonerating the First Lady on a previous corruption charge.

(Yet one more bad sign is that the KMT has vowed to oust the president, legally.  You know you're in bad shape when the KMT feels confident enough to bring you down using nothing but THE LAW, rather than with violent revolution or American intervention.)

Lots of commenters at the The View from Taiwan are saying they don't see how Chen can continue in office, and I'm inclined to agee.  Therefore, it's probably time to start thinking about what an Annette Lu presidency would look like.  Those who think that squeaky-clean Lu is somehow going to pass muster with the KMT and its allies had better think again:

[People First Party Chairman James] Soong said that it's also imperative for [President Chen's] ruling Democratic Progressive Party and opposition parties to hold a summit to discuss the rights and obligations an acting president should have.  [Emphasis added]

In other words, the PFP and KMT won't see Annette Lu as being PRESIDENT - she'll instead be some kind of ACTING president.  As such, they insist her "rights and obligations" won't be constitutionally-mandated like a REAL president's, but instead be open to inter-party negotiation and future interpretation.  For the last six years of the Chen administration, the KMT and PFP have lambasted Chen for violating the "spirit" of the Republic of China constitution; at every turn, a Lu administration will be excoriated for violating an ad hoc "Agreement on the Powers of Acting Presidents".

Ms. Lu, of course, can avoid all that by knowing her place.  A place which the KMT will be all-too happy to designate for her.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Some of Chen's enemies see no downside, regarding this as an opportunity to boogie down. For Taiwan's China Post however, the worst aspect of the First Lady's indictment is that propriety demands they now shed crocodile tears rather than gloat:

With a very heavy heart, we now call upon President Chen to step down.  We haven't done that before because he was allegedly involved in the misuse of the fund under his control for the conduct of "affairs of state."

Last things first.  The China Post has on NUMEROUS occasions said that Chen should resign, so they have indeed "done that before".  And their "very heavy heart"?  Well, they spent a year-and-a-half alleging that President Chen assumed office by faking an assassination attempt on his own life in order to win sympathy votes, so I don't imagine they're really all THAT cracked-up about it.

For six years now, the KMT and the China Post have accused Chen of a lot of things, alternatively demanding his recall, his impeachment, or his resignation.  Heavy hearts at this moment belong to those who voted for Chen or believed he was innocent, based upon the sheer number of times his critics cried wolf - with no wolf ever revealing its lupine face.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  One person arguing in Chen's defense:

Among those who were apparently willing to stick up for the president was DPP Legislator Lin Kuo-ching who said that he still does not believe a president who was willing to slash his salary in half would become embroiled in corruption for the sum of NT$15 million [$450,000].  [Emphasis added]

I'd forgotten that.  It's certainly inconsistent with the picture of a corrupt Chen that the KMT has painted.

UPDATE #2:  On the subject of V.P. Annette Lu possibly succeeding President Chen Shui-bian:

American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young is believed to have avoided a meeting with [Annette Lu] during his round of visits with Taiwanese leaders after his recent briefing round in Washington.

I'm sure the American government disapproves of Ms. Lu's committment to Taiwanese independence, but if it's true that they've been snubbing her, then that ought to stop.  It's quite possible that Lu may wind up being the next Taiwanese president, for Pete's sake.

UPDATE #3:  The KMT plans another recall motion on Monday, only three days after the First Lady's indictment, and a single day after Chen was to give a speech in his defense.  I think the president's party is still a bit dazed right now.  They'll reflexively defend him, and he'll survive.

In a couple of weeks' time, reality will set in, polling numbers will be known, and some of them might very well be willing to vote the other way.

UPDATE #4:  Did I say the PUBLIC regards the prosecutor as a straight-shooter?  Heck, even the Taipei Times, one of President Chen's staunchest defenders, writes glowingly of him.

UPDATE #5:  It wouldn't be another day in Taiwan if the KMT didn't find yet another excuse to continue blocking the special arms budget:

Observers said the KMT and PFP may continue [to] boycott the arms budget if the president refuses to step down.

State Department Supports Stephen Young

You’re takin’ this very personal.  Tom, this is business, and this man is takin’ it very, very personal.
- Sonny Corleone

For the last three weeks, the KMT and its allies have been trying to make an issue out of American diplomat Stephen Young’s utterances in an effort to divert attention away from their blocking of the special arms budget.  When Young said it was impolite for People First Party chairman James Soong to heckle Taiwan’s president during National Day, the PFP and some members of the KMT began making noises about deportation.  Their calls to have Young declared persona non grata intensified when he delivered a speech in which he stressed the urgency for Taiwan to pass a "robust arms package" by the end of the fall legislative session.  Young’s statements, they objected, amounted to interference in Taiwan’s internal political affairs.

(The China Post printed four hysteric anti-Young / anti-American letters between October 28th and the 30th.  They can be reviewed here.)

The sniping at Young hasn't been limited to threats of expulsion, however.  Just forget that the KMT blocked the special arms bill 68 times over the last two years – that’s irrelevant.  Because suddenly, it's all YOUNG'S fault that the KMT's blocking weapons for Taiwan:

Kuomintang lawmakers [claimed] the warnings Stephen Young…issued would "adversely affect" the progress of the necessary deliberation.

"Now that the ultimatum has been given, we cannot afford to adopt the bill at once," said Tseng Yung-chuan, the Kuomintang legislative caucus whip. If it does, he added, the Kuomintang will be called "a chicken."

What a terrific way to rationalize delay and to try to smear Young in front of his superiors, all at the same time.  We’d really like to move on this, America - really we would - but that guy you sent over sure is making it tough for us to get the job done.  Maybe you’re not aware of this, but here in Taiwan, it’s considered an INTOLERABLE loss of face to take the garbage out after your wife asks you to.

(Especially if she's already asked you 68 times in a row.)

Monday’s papers also reported the KMT employing a bit of poll-a-ganda in a transparent effort to make Young look bad:

"Young's remarks have made the passage of the bill uncertain. It's inappropriate to let it through at this moment, as a media survey had found that 65 percent of the public disapproves of Young," [said Tseng Yung-chuan, director of the KMT policy department.] *

My, my, they really ARE trying to make this thing personal.  Problem for them is, Young's bosses have got his back:

Asked at the daily department press briefing on Friday whether Young still has US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's confidence, spokesman Sean McCormack said that "he's doing a good job" and the department has no plans to recall him from his Taipei post.

The State Department also issued a statement after the press briefing, in which a department official said Young's comments "reflect the United States' long time encouragement of an increase in Taiwan's overall defense spending and for funding a strategy that reinforces stability in the Taiwan Strait."

"Director Young's remarks are fully consistent with long-held US positions and are based on our assessment of Taiwan's defense needs," it said.

It’s not personal, Sonny.  It’s strictly business. I wouldn’t call this merely a defense of Stephen Young; I’d call it a warning.  Should Young be expelled, Washington won’t view it as the "legitimate" comeuppance of an impolitic diplomat - an act confined in importance to a single individual.  Instead, it'll be seen as the rejection of an official who is faithfully and accurately representing American positions - an act of open contempt for American interests.

But hey, the KMT claims Young has a 65% disapproval rating with the Taiwanese public.  So go ahead and knock yourselves out, guys.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The KMT has played this little game with President Chen's approval ratings as well, announcing on previous occasions that Chen's low numbers provided them with sufficient reason not to bring the special arms bill to a vote.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  The KMT on Monday decided to tell America to shut up and sit down:

...the legislature's [KMT-dominated] Foreign and Overseas Chinese Affairs Committee passed a resolution asking the US Department of State to create measures restraining its diplomats'  remarks in Taiwan, saying that Young's statement had violated diplomatic courtesy and could be interpreted as interference with Taiwan's internal affairs.

(Yes I know, the KMT didn't literally tell America to keep silent; they instead told Stephen Young to hold his tongue.  But Young only delivered a message that the American government WANTED delivered.  So in a very real way, telling Young to shut up is tantamount to telling the American government to do so as well.)

What's remarkable here is that it was only five months ago that the KMT was high-fiving America for punishing President Chen for abolishing the National Unification Council, and one month ago that it BEGGED America to ask Chen to resign during the heat of the redshirt protests.

KMT outrage over American "interference" is nothing if not selective.

The Taipei Times elaborated on the measure:

The resolution said that it was designed to prevent US diplomats from hurting the feelings of the people of Taiwan and harming Taiwan's democracy.

It was passed to prevent the feelings of the Taiwanese from being hurt?  Somebody ought to tell the KMT that ever since they started pal-ling around with the Communist Party of China, they've even begun SOUNDING alike.

UPDATE (Nov 5/06):  From Johnny Neihu's Saturday column, a State Department official is questioned by an anti-Young Taiwanese reporter:

Question: Based on the strong reaction from Taiwan's opposition, under such circumstances, Mr. Stephen Young is -- seems to be a liability rather than an asset. So do you have any -- under such [sic] current situation, do you have any plan to recall him or anything else?

Mr. McCormack: No.

Question: Does he [sic] still have confidence in him?

Mr. McCormack: He's doing a good job.

You've heard of push polling, right? This is typical Taiwanese "push reporting" -- or asking leading questions -- in which a reporter turns a personal opinion ("seems to be") into a statement of fact ("under such current situation"). Most responses can then be twisted to make the reporter's opinion look like fact in the write-up, though Sean McCormack in this case very professionally chose not to play the game.

If you watch the video on the State Department Web site, you can sense the contempt McCormack feels toward his interrogator. And my spy in Washington tells me there was some embarrassment among the other reporters.

He's doing a good job.  Not quite the answer the reporter was fishing for.

UPDATE (Nov 10/06):  A Monday column in the Taipei Times had this point to make:

If one looks at the current arms deal as a simple business transaction, how is it unreasonable for a seller to offer the buyer a last chance to make the purchase after he or she has gone back on promises and dragged out the negotiations?

How could this be construed as "political interference?" Opposition politicians could always come out and say clearly that they don't want to buy the US' weapons and be done with it.

Barring any future statements by Mr. Young, this story has pretty much played itself out.  The KMT has turned its attention back to their attempts to recall President Chen, and campaigning against an American diplomat represents a distraction from that effort.

UPDATE (NOV 11/06):  From Thursday's Taiwan News:

KMT Legislator Lin Yu-fang, a member of the defense committee, said his party reached a consensus two months ago to back the purchase of the aircraft.  [the 12 P3C Orion anti-submarine planes offered in the special arms package].

So they reached consensus to support part of the package two months ago, but it took Stephen Young's arm twisting to finally get them moving.  Even the KMT is now admitting that they've been playing political games with this for a while.

What Does The KMT Want Taiwan To Be Armed With? Spitballs?

No, no - BANANAS.  They wouldn't want anyone to think they're STOOPID, would they?

(Photo from the Taipei Times.)

That's a skeletal Uncle Sam clutching a PAC II (Patriot) missile.  Which is pretty scary, if you happen to be a red who doesn't want any of Beijing's 800 to miss their targets.

Communist capitulationists (banana farmers, my foot) marched to the de facto American embassy in Taipei on Friday, offering this bit of choice defense budget advice for their country's leaders:

"Don't buy weapons, buy bananas!*  [Stephen] Young, get out of Taiwan!**"

With stategic vision like that, how did the KMT EVER manage to lose a civil war?

(Hat tip to The View from Taiwan for pointing out that Peking Duck was there, and later blogged about his run-in with the mob.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Taiwan is currently facing a banana glut.

**  Stephen Young is America's top diplomat in Taiwan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  The papers all said that there were "scores" of protesters, which is pretty small considering Taiwan's population of 23 million.  As a Where's Waldo-esque exercise, compare Friday's protesters to the ones in this picture:

(Photo from the March 15/06 ed of the Taiwan News.  Sorry, no link available.)

Same skull mask and gloves, same missiles, same guy in the yellow hard hat.  How much would anyone like to bet that the "banana farmer" of Friday's protest was the "credit card slave" of seven months ago?

Soong Takes Leave Of Absence: Keeps Power, Sheds Responsibility

In the Oct 22nd update of a previous post, I wondered how capitulationist People First Party Chairman James Soong could pretend that he doesn't represent the PFP in his dealings with American representatives.  A few days ago, I received my answer from a few acid comments in Taiwan's China Post:

To justify Soong's claim as an independent, he asked for and of course was given by himself a "leave of absence" from his job as chairman of the People First Party.

Soong's on a "leave of absence", so he doesn't represent the party.  Well, I GUESS that makes sense.  Still, it's funny how it looks like he's still calling the shots over at the PFP:

The People First Party remains adamantly opposed to the [special] arms deal for one more reason now.  Soong and his lawmakers want an open apology from [American representative] Stephen Young for the spontaneous comment he made on National Day*...Soong has made it clear that there would be no compromise on the arms purchase without Young's apology.

Now THERE'S an enticing offer.  Apologize to Soong so that he'll compromise on the arms package.  You know - the one he's blocked 58 times previously from going to a vote.

The China Post's wrong.  The PFP doesn't have another reason to oppose the special arms bill.  It just has another excuse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* For Mr. Young's comments and the reason they were given, see my post, KMT Gripes About America.

Parliamentary Maneuver Of The Week

Dr. Marvin Monroe:  You LIKE attention, don't you Li Ao?

Legislator Li:  Do I EVER!  Ha-haaa!

Dr. Monroe:  Well, we ALL do.  The PROBLEM is, you don't care whether you get GOOD attention, for say, proposing beneficial new laws in the Taiwanese legislature...or BAD attention, for say, opening a can of tear gas inside a crowded committee room while warding off fellow politicians with an electric stun baton.

(Image of Independent Lawmaker (and Taipei mayoral candidate) Li Ao from Wednesday's Taipei Times.  Yes, that's a V for Vendetta-style Guy Fawkes mask affixed to the front of his gas mask.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAVEAT:  Currently, the public only has Mr. Li's word to go on that his gas bomb actually contained what he said it contained.  There's some corroboration in the fact that some committee members left the room coughing and tearing up, but it's somewhat odd that there are no reports of any vomiting.

KMT Gripes About America

You'd think the KMT would be happy.  Earlier this year, their chairman was welcomed with open arms in D.C., while their chief rival was generously offered the opportunity to rub shoulders with American movers and shakers.

In Alaska.

A few years prior to that, something similar happened.  The KMT was bitterly opposed to President Chen's plan for a national referendum, and the Bush administration came out against it.  Chen was forced to alter the referendum's wording, while the KMT gloated at this public loss of face.

But that was then.  Recently they've been asking, "What have you done for me, lately?"

Could the chief [U.S.] representative in Taiwan be named a persona non grata by lawmakers who were mostly U.S.-trained and known for their pro-U.S. stance?

Last Wednesday, the day after the famous National Day "disgrace", some two dozen "pan-blue" (KMT plus PFP) lawmakers actually talked about it.

Foreigners educated in America don't necessarily become pro-American, but let's let that slide.  The disgrace in sneer quotes the China Post refers to is when the KMT and its allies disrupted Taiwan's National Day ceremonies by interrupting the president's speech and engaging in fist fights with the president's party.

If that happened on July 4th in America, would it be a disgrace?  Or merely a "disgrace"?

What irritated the KMT was what the representative said afterwards.  When asked to comment by the local media, Stephen Young said, "They should watch their manners...Go ask James Soong - why?"

(James Soong, chairman of the pro-communist People First Party, heckled the President's speech and disrupted an official procession by marching with them while shouting anti-Chen slogans.)

Stephen Young's candor on this matter wasn't the only thing that upset the KMT.  In addition, they strongly disapprove of his efforts to lobby them into buying the weapons package President Bush approved back in 2001.  The weapons package that the KMT has blocked 58 times over the last two years.*

I imagine Mr. Young has been candid with them about THAT issue, as well.  Candid enough to tell them that their obstructionist record is starting to make America question their commitment to their own nation's  security.

The China Post reveals the real reason for the KMT's obstinacy:

There [was] "[a] sea change in KMT/PFP thinking" after historic visits to Beijing by KMT chairman Lien Chan and PFP chairman James Soong in 2005.  The blue camp's support for a security relationship with [America]...seems in doubt now.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if the KMT did expel Mr. Young.  It might serve as a powerful wake-up call to Washington that the KMT is truly America's ally no longer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The China Post dishonestly tries to divert some of the blame for the delay onto President Chen, claiming that he didn't offer the weapons package to the legislature for two years because of its cost.

The reality is that it took 18 months after Bush's offer for the package to be approved and given a price tag by the American military bureaucracy.  It was utterly impossible for Chen to offer the package to the legislature during that time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  Another bone in the KMT's craw:

The blue camp has been angry with the U.S. for breaking a promise of not recognizing President Chen's 2004 re-election before a recount.

Who made this promise?  The President?  The V.P.?  Some low-level flunky in the State Department?  How could such a promise be issued at all, when it was unclear at the time that there would even BE a recount?

I have no recollection of this promise being mentioned in any of the local media, and I followed the coverage here pretty closely.  What I DO remember is the China Post calling on America not to congratulate Chen until after a recount, but that's quite different from the promise having actually been made.  Perhaps the Post confuses its desires with reality:

If wishes were horses,
Beggars would ride;
If wishes were fishes,
We'd all have some fried.

The China Post then concludes with a complaint somewhat lacking in specificity:

Taiwan's mentor-and-protector is also criticized for failing to stop the Chen administration from degenerating in all aspects, turning Taiwan into a big mess.

Yep, this whole "self-determination" thing really isn't working out.  Could you Yanks do us a favor and dispatch the Delta Force next time madman Chen renames an airport or something?

Thanks a bunch.

UPDATE (Oct 22/06):  James Soong's still pouting:

...Soong said he had turned down a request from American Institute in Taiwan [AIT] officials for a meeting with him next week.

"There is no need [for the AIT officials] to see me. Right now I am not the PFP's representative," Soong said, without elaborating on why AIT officials wished to see him.

Yes, yes, I know, Soong's running as an independent for mayor of Taipei.  But the CHAIRMAN of the PFP pretends that he doesn't REPRESENT the PFP?

Riiight.

He explains his refusal this way:

"It's not the right time to review the arms bill when millions of people are staging a sit-in [against the president]. Furthermore, AIT officials talked nonsense on Double Ten day," Soong said.

Soong's not so shy about talking a little nonsense of his own.  I was at the Taipei Train Station on Friday.  Those "millions of people"?  They're down to a few hundred, at most.

U.S. Suspends F-16 C/D Sales To Taiwan

The story made the front page of both the Taipei Times and the Taiwan News on Tuesday, while the China Post buried it on page 19.  The Bush Administration's message to Taiwan:  You want to play political games with your security?  Include us out.

To be honest, I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner.  What did Taiwan's KMT party leaders think they could do - block the 2001 special arms bill ANOTHER 58 times over the NEXT two years, and get away with it, scot-free?  Bush took the flak from China for offering weapons that the KMT itself requested in the late '90s, and the KMT said thank you by wittingly or unwittingly colluding with Communist China to keep the island undefended. 

So now, the KMT is receiving a little thank you in return - Texas-style.

I DO have a few minor criticisms about the way this was handled.  First, top U.S. officials should have publicly spoken about Washington's growing impatience, which would have given the lie to the KMT's local spin that their intransigence was actually earning America's respect.  Second, the KMT chairman, Ma Ying-jeou, should have been given the cold shoulder during his visit to America back in March of this year.  That would have been a clear sign of Washington's displeasure with the KMT's antics.  Perhaps harsh words WERE spoken to him in private; but politically speaking, those conversations were irrelevant.  Ma was able to return to Taiwan and portray the red-carpet treatment he received as whole-hearted American support for his party's capitulationist policies.

Finally, I think the timing of this is also a mistake.  Right now, all eyes in Taiwan are distracted by the Depose [President] Chen circus, which will soften the impact of this move.  Picture such a bombshell being dropped a month before the Taiwanese legislative elections - that would have been BEAUTIFUL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Oct 6/06):   The View from Taiwan is a bit more indignant over this than I am.  As for myself, I've been expecting some kind of American response to the KMT's stonewalling for a long time now.  But I certainly agree with these sentiments:

If the US really wants Taiwan to purchase those weapons, it needs to lean on the Blues, and hard. It needs to stop coddling KMT visitors. It needs to get credible people over here who will warn the KMT that US patience is exhausted, and that the US will switch its support to the Greens if the KMT does not start serving the interests of Taiwan, and it needs to keep doing that until the message gets through. It is incredible at this late date, with the Blues blocking the arms purchase after promising it would go through, fomenting unrest in Taiwan's streets, paralyzing the government, and cooperating with China, that any American policymaker could consider them a viable partner for future long-term cooperation.

As I said earlier, the timing for this was pretty bad.  There hasn't been so much as a single editorial here in the English papers about the issue, because everyone's preoccupied with anti-Chen protesters.  If you want to send a message to someone, you have to make sure they're at home to pick up the the phone.

UPDATE (Oct 31/06):  America ratchets up the pressure, cancelling an annual meeting between the American and Taiwanese military:

[A Taiwanese Ministry of National Defense spokesman] told the Taipei Times by telephone that an annual meeting in which officials from the ministry's Armaments Bureau travel to the US for exchanges with the US military had been suspended.

A ministry source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Liberty Times, (the Taipei Times' sister newspaper), that the ministry had tried to salvage the situation, but was told that the decision had been made by a high-ranking official in the White House.

Hope the Taiwanese people get the message soon, because the KMT obviously isn't.

UPDATE (Nov 14/06):  Looks like there's still some movement on the F-16 C/Ds.

Well, Isn't That Special?

Sorry for not posting for the last two weeks.  Had a lot of work...and really bad insomnia.

Couldn't let last Sunday's China Post editorial slip by without comment, though:

In the course of planning surprise visits by our president to countries that have no formal diplomatic relations with us, it is sometimes understandable that government officials try to keep their cards close to their chest.

Uh-huh.  Beijing frequently sends its diplomats to cajole or bully other countries into denying planes carrying Taiwanese officials a place to land.  As a result, the Chen administration misled reporters as to President Chen's stopover point, thereby foiling Beijing's plans.  Rather than congratulate Chen for outmaneuvering the Communists, the China Post saw fit to castigate him for, of all things, dishonesty:

From the very start of the nine-day trip, when the Foreign Ministry announced that the president's plane would make a refueling stop in Alaska, it was clear that officials were making misleading announcements.

After the plane took off, reporters on board who were not told where they were going relied on hand-held compasses to confirm they were heading west and southwest, toward Southeast Asia and the Arabian Peninsula, rather than east toward the North American continent. Before his return trip, false announcements were again made suggesting places where President Chen's aircraft would stop over, only to have the president make jaunts to Libya and Indonesia.

[...]

In his announcement made over the aircraft's public address system, President Chen addressed demands that Foreign Minister James Huang step down for blatantly lying about every detail of the trip.

[...]

If Foreign Minister Huang was instructed to tell lies by the president and other superiors, we can forgive him for that. But we should not forgive President Chen for his bizarre and cavalier attitude about telling lies, even if those lies are ostensibly for a good cause.

In the future, President Chen would be wiser to follow the international standard of "refusing to confirm or deny" rather than lying point blank. Rather than do no harm by just keeping mum, President Chen has instead fostered a dangerous culture of lying. (Emphasis added)

Churchill once said that in war, truth is so precious that she should always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies.  That's probably irrelevant though, because the China Post doesn't view the Communist Party of China as being hostile, let alone as being an enemy.  But when its editorialists accuse others of "fostering a dangerous culture of lying", they should perhaps reflect on the possibility that a few of their own fabrications might contribute to that culture as well:

[One of the reasons that the U.S. refused Chen a transit stop on the American mainland is that it] has also been annoyed by Chen's lukewarm response to Bush's 2001 offer of selling an unprecedented robust package of advanced arms to Taiwan.

(From Chen's problems U.S.-made, The China Post, May 9/06)

Staggering.  Chen and his party attempted to bring the arms package to a vote over fifty times, but were blocked each and every time by the opposition KMT party.  Meanwhile, it was the China Post that cheered, or least rationalized, the KMT's obstructionism.

And now, given its own record of hostility to the deal, that newspaper has the face to claim that it was Chen's response that was lukewarm?

Seditious Acts

Saturday's Taiwan News reported on a ceremony marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Deng Nan-jung, a Taiwanese democracy advocate.  Deng was apparently the editor of a weekly magazine, "Era of Liberty", when it published a hypothetical constitution for a Taiwanese republic.  For this, the KMT shut the magazine down, and issued a subpoena for him to answer charges of sedition.  Rather than comply, Deng committed suicide by lighting a few barrels of gasoline in his office.

Sedition charges.  For PROPOSING a new constitution.  And only 17 years ago.  It's easy for the world (and me!) to forget how recently stuff like that was happening here.

Speaking of sedition, the March 22nd edition of the Taipei Times had a letter to the editor with a couple of intriguing paragraphs in it:

...in his interview with [Taiwanese TV network] TVBS on Feb. 28, [KMT leader] Ma said that he suggested the EU consider lifting the arms embargo on China during his recent visits to London and Brussels.  (Emphasis added)

[...]

We...demand that Ma explain why he initiated the discussion of lifting the arms embargo on China in Europe, while in Taiwan his party has repeatedly blocked weapons purchases from the US.

First of all, can anyone confirm that this is true?  I have no interest in spreading falsehoods about Ma Ying-jeou, and if I find out this is BS, then I'll HAPPILY correct it in a new post.  Because the man either said on national television that he lobbied the EU to arm Taiwan's enemy, or he didn't.

If it IS true, then decide for yourself which of the two cases outlined here truly represents an act of sedition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Apr 10/06):  Thanks to Tim Maddog for finding the link to the letter to the Taipei Times.  It's now included in the post.

He was also able to find a transcript of the TVBS interview, and included an excerpt in his comments.  His English translation can be found here.

UPDATE #2 (Apr 10/06):  It seems as though Ma didn't "lobby" the EU to remove the arms embargo on China, but he did provide them with conditions for the embargo's removal (ie: improved human rights conditions in China and "peaceful development" of cross-strait relations).

The tone of the speaker is EVERYTHING in this case.  When asked about whether the embargo should be lifted, did Ma say, "No"...or "HELL NO"?

That makes a big difference.

(I'd be willing to guess that Ma's response to the question was exceptionally mild.  To date, his  harshest criticism of China's Anti-Secession Law has been to say that it was "unnecessary" and "unwise".  Really, does he kiss his mother with that mouth?)

Secondly, I would like to know whether Ma helpfully offered the Europeans those conditions on his own initiative, or whether he gave those answers while being pressed.  If it was the former, then he probably earned a few brownie points in Beijing for giving them an out.  If the latter, then perhaps his answer was foolish, but not malicious.

The reason why I say it was foolish is that proposed conditions for removing the embargo ought to be specific and difficult to meet.  Ma's criteria however, are vague, and therefore too easily obtainable.  Think about the human rights condition:  If China frees a couple of Falun Gong members, won't European merchants of death be tempted to point to that as evidence that human rights are improving?  As for "peaceful development of cross-strait relations", would Taipei accepting a couple of pandas qualify?  Ma set the bar far too low, and didn't even suggest that China should become more democratic.  His little performance may not have been seditious, but it wasn't exactly a vigorous defense of Taiwan's interests, either.

An Open Letter To Tim Russert

Dear Mr. Russert,

With KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou now visiting America on a weeklong tour, the job of interviewing the leader of Taiwan's opposition may fall to you or one of your colleagues.  Much as I hate to tell any of you how to do your jobs, here are a few suggestions from this expat blogger:

1.  Toss a few initial softballs.

By all means, start out slow.  No one likes an interviewer who starts out mean.  But during the warm-up, find a way of informing the viewer that Ma is Harvard-educated.  That way, when you start with the hardballs, the audience will understand that you're questioning somebody from the Ivy Leagues, and not just picking on some poor foreigner who's struggling to put two words of English together.

2.  Hardballs: the main event.

Ma is currently the front-runner for the 2008 presidential elections in a country that has been dubbed "The Most Dangerous Place on Earth" - a place that Americans may one day be called upon to fight and die protecting from Communist China.  You have a duty to them, their families and their countrymen to ask tough questions of the man who would be Taiwan's president.

(Or, as Jason over at Wandering to Tamsui once said in another context, "Ma Ying-jeouuu, you've got some e'splainin' to dooo!")

The main question you should ask is why Ma and his party have blocked the special arms bill from being debated in parliament for the past year.  You might also want to ask him why America should risk blood and treasure defending Taiwan when the KMT party and its allies aren't willing to acquire the diesel submarines, anti-sub aircraft and Patriot missiles that would help to deter such a conflict.

Here are some of his previous excuses.  Whether he repeats them now or not is immaterial.  He should be invited to defend each and every one of them now.

a)  Taiwan's President Chen took too long to present the bill to parliament.

This begs the question, how do two wrongs make a right in this case?  If Chen was wrong in being tardy to present a bill for defensive arms, then how does KMT refusal to consider the bill make Taiwan any safer?

b)  The KMT doesn't trust Chen, so it can't work with him to get the bill passed.*

Ask him whether he trusts in the good intentions of Communist China over that of Taiwan's democratically-elected president.  If he says Chen, then ask him why the KMT can't work with him to pass a weapons bill that has languished for over a year now.  Remind Ma that he has a parliamentary majority - if he thinks it's a bad bill, he can always vote it down.  Why is he afraid of even allowing it to be considered?

If he's frank enough to admit that he trusts China more, then Taiwan AND America are both in for a lot of trouble should the man make it to the presidency.

c)  Taiwan is a democracy now, and getting laws passed takes time in a democracy.

Benjamin Disraeli, the archetype for the modern democratic opposition leader, once said that the job of the opposition was to oppose, never to obstruct.  Firmly advise Mr. Ma that to any reasonable American observer, the boycotting of a defense bill 45 times without offering an alternative more closely resembles obstruction than it does opposition.

(And airy-fairy hand-waving about "general directions" for a defense bill cannot seriously be considered to be credible alternative policy proposals.)

d)  The KMT's hands are tied.  President Chen called a national referendum on additional arms sales during the 2004 election, and the people defeated the motion.  The KMT cannot go against the will of the people.

No, no, no, that won't do at all.  In saying this, Ma and the KMT act as though they're  innocent bystanders near a train wreck, when in fact they were the engineers in the driver's seat.  The KMT wanted the 2004 presidential elections to be about the economy not defense, so it was THEY that told their supporters to boycott the referendum on additional future arms sales**.  As a result, fifty percent of the voters failed to cast votes in the referendum, leading to its failure by default.

Refuse to be drawn into semantics over whether the referendum issue was 'voted down' or merely 'failed to pass'.  What's important here is that the KMT told its voters to boycott the referendum, and now are trying to shift the blame onto the Taiwanese electorate for what the KMT asked them to do in the first place.  This is nothing less than a blatant evasion of political responsibility.

Call him on this.  The KMT told their voters to boycott the arms referendum, then used that boycott as an excuse to subsequently block consideration of the special arms bill.  Could there be any clearer evidence that the KMT simply isn't serious about Taiwanese national security?

e)  China has said that it won't attack unless Taiwan declares independence, so the weapons are unnecessary so long as Taiwan's government doesn't "provoke" the Chinese.

This, too, is dishonest, and Ma shouldn't be allowed to repeat this without some kind of objection.  China has ALSO said that it reserves the right to attack if Taiwan takes too long in coming to the table for re-unification talks.  Its intentions are not quite as benign as Ma would like to portray them.

But if what Ma is saying here happens to be true, then why does Taiwan need ANY American weapons at all?  Selling arms to Taiwan is a major irritant in Sino-American relations, so if Ma is right, then EVERYONE would be better off without those sales.  China would be happy, America wouldn't jeopardize its China-related trade, and Taiwan would get to save its hard-earned money.  Maybe the State Department should announce that they've been persuaded by Ma's impeccable logic, and that ALL weapons sales to Taiwan will henceforth be discontinued.

Just watch how fast the sneaky weasel backtracks then!

f)  The price is too high.

What he's really saying here is that he's come to American soil to tell Americans on national TV that they're price gougers.  Ask him whether he thinks that's going to win him any friends in Washington.

You could also show the audience quotes from members of his political allies, who've brazenly stated that America should GIVE Taiwan weapons, free of charge. 

Of course, ANY price is too high if you're expecting something for nothing.  Let the American people decide for themselves whether the price is truly exorbitant, or whether Ma and his band are just bunch of moochers who want to stroll for free under somebody else's security umbrella.

Whew!  That's a whole lotta excuses!  Almost one for every day of the week.

It would help in all of this to prepare by viewing Ma's previous interview with the BBC.  When the questions get tough, you can count on Ma to patronizingly belittle you for not "understanding" the situation.  Perhaps at that point, you should go on to explain the situation to HIM.

China at present has roughly 800 missiles pointed at Taiwan, and adds 100 to this number every year.  Its defense budget grows yearly by 15%, and it has openly stated that it wants Taiwan to become just another Chinese province or Special Autonomous Region.  One doesn't need to be a Taiwanese constitutional expert or a Harvard-trained lawyer to realize that Taiwan needs a defensive / deterrent force to prevent its own extinction.

Finally, it would also be beneficial to review the China Post's whitewash of the KMT's blockage of the special weapons bill.  I've addressed most of their arguments in this letter, but the China Post further warns its American readers not to "oversimplify" the issue by assuming that the KMT is against acquiring more defensive arms for Taiwan.

How would I respond if I were in your shoes, and Ma were to level the oversimplification charge?  I would merely ask this:  if a young man asks a woman for a date and she refuses - not once, not twice, but 45 times in a row, is the issue really terribly complicated?  Or is the explanation actually very, very simple?

I think we both know the answer to that question.  Good luck, and I hope that some of this turns out to be useful.  Go Bills!

Your fan,

The Foreigner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* At this point, you could cue pictures from recent KMT rallies which Ma has attended, pictures which show effigies of Chen dressed as Adolf Hitler.  Inquire as to whether any KMT members have been sent to any death camps recently.  If the answer is negative, then it's reasonable to pose the question of whether the KMT may be just a teensy, weensy bit responsible for SOME of the lack of trust between Taiwan's political parties.

** It is staggeringly disingenuous for the China Post to now claim that voting for the referendum was a no-brainer, when two years ago it vigorously campaigned for a voter boycott of that very same "no-brainer".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Mar 22/06):  In the post I mistakenly wrote that Ma Ying-jeou was to arrive in the US next week.  He in fact landed in there on Sunday.  The error's been corrected.

(From "Taiwan expatriates cheer Mayor Ma" in the March 21st edition of the China Post .  Sorry, no link available.)

UPDATE (Mar 26/06):  Recall the KMT excusing its lack of inaction on the special arms bill by pointing to President Chen's slowness presenting the bill to the legislature.  The View from Taiwan debunks that claim here and here:

The DPP didn't submit the package until 2004 because the US didn't give them any cost numbers on it until 2002, and the Ministry of National Defense procurement process, which normally takes about 18 months, had to grind through.

KMT's Softness on Defense Causes Officers to Quit Party

It seems that not even KMT stalwarts believe the excuses that the party offers for its blocking of the special arms procurement bill, because an number of Taiwanese military officers have written a letter announcing that they're taking leave of the party over the issue.*

It's a little difficult to gauge how big this story is because the number of defecting party members is unspecified.  The chairman of Taiwan's largest pro-communist party, Ma Ying-jeou, takes it seriously though, saying that:

the KMT sincerely hopes to communicate with those service members who wrote to the defense ministry in order to talk to them about their position on the stalled arms procurement bill.

Is it just me, or is there some kind of veiled threat hidden in that statement somewhere?  As it turns out, the officers in question may have also perceived some kind of danger, because they didn't sign their names to the letter.

Ma said further:

"No military members, regardless of their political affiliation, should support an arms procurement bill if it is not drafted based on professional assessments and if it cannot genuinely meet Taiwan's defense needs."

OK, you're kidding me, right?  Members of the military aren't capable of making their own "professional assessments" regarding Taiwan's defense needs?  The Party knows better?

American readers should note that Ma also said that the KMT was opposed to the special arms bill because it is a "cash-for-friendship" purchase plan.  In essence, he claims that George Bush's armament offer is nothing more than a great, big mafioso protection racket.  Now, if I'm not mistaken, Taiwan was the one that requested these weapons, Mr. Bush was the only leader in the world good enough to offer those weapons, and now Ma and the pro-communists spurn the weapons - and slap Bush in the face to boot!

Good luck with your next weapons request, Taiwan.  You're gonna need it.

UPDATE (Dec 30/05):  Today's edition of The Taipei Times had an editorial that pointed out that this episode represents a violation of military neutrality in political matters.  While  the editorialists agree with the officers' opinion regarding the necessity of the arms sales, they nonetheless take the principled position that the officers should be punished for their foray into the political sphere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I'm shocked - shocked! to find that the story appears on the front page of the anti-communist Taipei Times, and is buried on the second last page of the pro-communist The China Post. 

KMT Blocks the Special Arms Bill for the 36th Time

Boy, they're sure serious about defense, huh?

When I'm feeling charitable, I chalk up their obstructionism to the fact that the KMT are the opposition party, and of course, the job of the opposition is to oppose.  There's some evidence for this, because there are a number of other bills that languish simply because the KMT wants to deny the ruling party any legislative successes.

But sometimes, I take a darker view.  Perhaps the KMT wants a weak Taiwan, and wants America to wash its hands of the place.  Then, the Taiwanese would be in no position to resist when the KMT approaches China with a surrender, er, ah, "peace" proposal.

While the old KMT was a staunch anti-communist party, the new KMT sees things differently.  It looks across the straits, and sees a communist party which tolerates private property, and brooks no political opposition.  In short, it sees a "communist" party that closely resembles the KMT of old.  So the new KMT makes pilgimages to Beijing, cozies up to the communist party, and badmouths America.

Taiwan Must Fix Defense Gaps to Avoid Future War

Updates:  Political cartoons on the subject from the Taipei Times:

KMT's defensive strategy for Taiwan

"Patriots"

The Special Arms Bill

Currently, the most serious military threat to Taiwan is not invasion, but blockade.  The Chinese have a huge submarine fleet, which if unopposed, could easily accomplish this.  Hence this story from The Taipei Times, which outlines Taiwan's need for better submarine detection aircraft.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/10/25/2003277279

Don't expect this to get fixed any time soon, though.  Taiwan's KMT party has blocked voting on the special weapons bill 31 times (or is it now 33?) in the legislature, and doesn't seem to be in a mood for compromise.  Why you might ask, is the KMT blocking the purchase of weapons it itself requested from America in the late 1990's?

The actual excuses that the KMT offers for their actions seem to change from week to week.  Here's a brief list, constructed from memory, along with rebuttals:

1.  The price is too high.

The old KMT of Chiang Kai-Shek or Chiang Ching Kuo would have jumped at the opportunity to buy weapons to resist China; the new KMT spurns the chance.  Government offers to remove certain items from the bill to reduce the price have left the KMT unmoved.  Of course money not spent on weapons can be used to build schools or roads, but what good does that do you if your country's children are turned into communist serfs?

2.  The weapons are outdated.

There is some truth here.  The weapons are, in fact, not America's top-of-the-line.  However, what actually matters is whether the weapons are qualitatively better than the ones available to China.  (I believe that this is true for the weapons under discussion.)  What this argument seems to say is that Taiwan doesn't like outdated weapons; it instead prefers really, really outdated weapons.  Like the ones it currently has.

3.  The Americans just want to make money selling weapons to us.

First of all, if selling weapons to the Taiwanese was such a profitable enterprise, why is it that no one aside from America does it anymore?  Secondly, people have literally thousands of needs that are met by purchasing things from others.  You expect to pay the security guard in your apartment building a fee, so why on earth would anyone expect to get Patriot missiles for free?

4.  The weapons are useless anyways.  America won't intervene in the event of a Chinese attack, so resistance will merely delay the inevitable.

Sad to say, there might be some truth here.  Taiwan would probably fall to a Chinese attack without direct American help.  However, it's total conjecture to say that the Americans wouldn't help.  I personally think that they would, but I cannot be certain.

If the KMT really believes that America won't help Taiwan during crunch time, then it should publicly inform the Taiwanese electorate, and run a political campaign advocating open and transparent negotiations for Taiwan's immediate surrender.  If it wins, then it should avoid the "inevitable" and try to get the best deal that it can.

The failure of the KMT to do this betrays an utter lack of sincerity on their part regarding this argument.

5.  The Second Gulf War shows how self-defeating invasion can be.  The Taiwanese would fight like tigers, possibly with even more ferocity than the Iraqi "insurgents".

Maybe they would, and then again, maybe they wouldn't.  I could be wrong, but I don't think that the Taiwanese have any religious ideology promising them 72 virgins if they die in a suicide bombing.  Insurgencies can be crushed, and the Chinese would have no qualms in employing much harsher measures against Taiwanese resistance than Americans are using in Iraq.  Surely this should be Taiwan's last choice for a defensive strategy, not its first.

6.  Taiwan could unilaterally disarm and it would be perfectly safe.  In the current international climate, China would be prevented from attacking Taiwan by the UN and international opinion.

This bizarre "theory" was actually forwarded in an editorial in a Taiwanese newspaper (The China Post).  You might want to ask the Tibetans how well that worked out for THEM.

7.  We don't want an arms race with China.

You're already in an arms race with China - they're racing and you're standing still.  Soon you'll be left by the wayside.