I've moved the blog back to JosephWangChinaBlog

I've moved the blog over to de.lirio.us

It has a lot of useful features.....

So here it is

http://de.lirio.us/rubric/entries/user/josephwang/tags/commentary?long_form=1

Commenting on Chinese News When It Doesn't Get Too Depressing

Disclaimer: In reading what I say, don't assume anything that I say is objective or free from personal bias. In particular, you can assume that I am being paid by and the agent of, the Bavarian Illuminati, the CIA, the CCP, the KMT, the DPP, the Democrats, the Republicans, big oil, little oil, Microsoft, the Vatican, the Little League, the Lutherans, and the Church of Satan. I write this because I've often gotten into useless and interminable discussions over "who I'm the agent of." Rather than try to argue that no one pays me, I find it easier to just have the reader assume that everyone pays me.

Short term thinking - 3/18/05

This are calming down a bit in Taiwan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45090-2005Mar17.html

It seems incredible to me how people are thinking so strongly in terms of the short term without any thought about long term implications....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC19Ad02.html

There are a few points that Mr Eyton misses. First, Chen Shui-Bian is a pretty tricky lawyer and there are all sorts of things that he could do to push the envelope with regard to getting an independence motion passed. Maybe he never really wanted one, but even giving supportters of independence the hope that he was on his side was a pretty dangerous game to play. Second, the arms procurement plan was always going to pass in some form. Finally, yes it did increase pro-independence sentiment by five points from 15 to a whopping 20 percent. With 50 percent supporting status quo.

It's passed - 3/14/05

Now we need to wait a few weeks before all of the bumpiness gets past.

Also, I think Chen Shuibian started to realize that leading the 1,000,000 person march wasn't that great of an idea. Latest word is that he is inclined not to go. In addition, Lee Teng-Hui, who is no dummy, doesn't want Chen there. Chen is keeping relatively quiet, which is a good thing. The people who are being loud are Joseph Wu and Frank Hsieh. Frank Hsieh is starting to pick up Chen's habit of saying different things to different people. It's not that Frank Hsieh is fundamentally a bad person (neither is Chen). The basic problem is that they are in a political situation where it is impossible to speak with a single voice. (One of the fun things about this is that I happen to think that Chen Shuibian has more moral character than Soong Chu-yu. I would actually trust Chen more than Soong to not betray me for selfish reasons. I just wished I knew what unselfish reasons motivated Chen.)

The maddening thing about the Taiwan straits situation is that like the Israeli-Palestinian settlement, the political settlement is pretty obvious. It's pretty certain that neither unification or independence is going to take place for another generation, barring some sudden (and probably unpleasant outcome). So the outlines of the political settlement to maintain the status quo are pretty obvious. So it is frustrating seeing smart well-meaning people unable to get to the obvious solution. It is also even more frustrating seeing smart well-meaning people dance on the verge of nuclear annihilation.

The one person that really comes out looking reasonably good in all of this is George W. Bush.

Dualities - 3/13/05

Here is a nice article on the "Two Faces of a Rising China" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/weekinreview/13kahn.html which has one fatal flaw in it. It's not two faces, it's two sides of a coin. There are two statements which Beijing believes and which I also consider to be true.

* If China is considered a paper tiger, then it runs the grave risk of Soviet-style national disintegration which is a bad thing. * If China is considered a bad threat, then it runs the grave risk of alienating all its neighbors resulting in confrontation with the United States and a containment policy, which would also be a bad thing.

The thing that the Khan article doesn't quite realize is that if both statements are true, then Chinese foreign and domestic policy ends up as a balancing act. Trying to appear not too threatening yet not too weak.

The problem with considering them two faces rather than two sides of one coin is that you end up with all sorts of incorrect conclusions. For example, if you think of these two positions as irreconcilable then you end up concluding (as Khan mistakenly does) that there are people in Beijing who favor one and people in Beijing who favor the other, and that there is a huge power struggle between the "hardliners" and the "moderates." You also come to the incorrect conclusion (which Khan again also does) that a more global China will be less nationalistic and a more nationalistic China will be less global. In fact that's not the situation. Both statements that I made earlier are considered true by most of the people in Beijing and while there are differences over whether to be "hard" or "soft" in a particular situation, these are rather minor differences.

Also John Pomfret writes his review of three books

http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2005/WP-130305.htm

One good thing about looking at something as complex as China is that the fault lines over what someone sees are no longer China versus the United States. They are more accurately red state versus blue state. It's not a surprise that two of the most pro-China books are written by people in the financial services industry. China and Jiang Zemin have become something of a capitalist darling. The danger is that you might have people who are too ideologically intent on seeing something that they miss something important, one can try to make an analogy between an investment banker that says nice things about China now with all of the leftists that said glowing things about the Cultural Revolution. On the other hand, the response an investment banker is likely to have is just "we are right and they were wrong."

I do disagree with Pomfret's last paragraph though. He is correct that the story of China's rise is complex, but he is incorrect in saying that one book gets the complexity and the others do not. In fact, the story of China's rise is much too complex to be told by only one person. To figure out what is going on, you need multiple points of view. It's probably not a good idea to dismiss any point of view as too simplistic because any single point of view will be too simplistic. It's also a bad idea to dismiss a point of view (as Pomfret seems do) because it is from someone fresh off the boat rather than someone who has decades of experience in China. The perspective of someone "fresh off the boat" is different, but it is not necessarily worse, and it is sometimes better.

However, there is one thing that I'd like to point out and that is that most of the recent books do agree that China is rising. As recently as 1998, there were those (like Gerald Segal and Gordon Chang) that argued that China was not rising.

One other thing. I do think that Beijing will come out of this looking bad, but that the really big loser in all of this will be Chen Shui-Bian. The KMT-PFP will not be participating in Chen's 3/26 march.

http://www.tvbs.com.tw/NEWS/NEWS_LIST.asp?no=tzeng20050313180143

My goodness, how inept can Chen be!!! His march to show how united Taiwan is will only illustrate how divided it is. The man had three months to figure out what to do with the anti-secession law, and to consult with pan-blue about figuring out a united response, and he seems to make making up policy one day at a time. Announcing a million person march at a DPP special conference is not a good way of getting the KMT and PFP to go along.

And the difficulties Chen has with the KMT-PFP are nothing compared to the difficulties that he is going to have with Washington and Tokyo. Both Washington and Tokyo issued some statements that the PRC law was not "helpful." But if you read the actual statements (which called a both sides to remain flexible and not to aggrivate the situation) they are hardly green lights to under go mass demonstrations and to start screaming at the PRC like a rabid dog.

Also the timing for the demonstration is not that great. They couldn't hold it on Saturday, 3/19 because the KMT already scheduled another demonstration for that date. But 3/26 lets almost two weeks pass. If the PRC press spends those 12 days "love bombing" Taiwan, then its going to make Chen look like an out of touch and dangerously radical. It would have been better for him to call up a smaller demonstration on the 3/14.

Will someone explain to me what Chen's motives are? Even the evil ones don't make any sense.

Taking back what I said about Chen - 3/11/05

http://www.tvbs.com.tw/NEWS/NEWS_LIST.asp?no=vestashi20050312154833

It's amazing what a few days will do. Chen says that he wants to lead a million person march to protest the anti-secession law. This is one of those things that is short-term smart but long term stupid. In the short term, he is going to get a lot of good press coverage and make Beijing look bad, score lots of local political points, etc. etc.

The trouble is that after all of the cameras leave, he's going to be in very, very bad shape. If you look at the article by Bonnie Glasserman, the relationship between Taiwan and the United States has gotten bad over the last few years while the relationship between Beijing and the United States has improved. The reason for this is that much as Washington and Beijing disagree, it took Beijing a few months or years to get this anti-secession law going, and it was talking with Washington along the way. Lots of heated words, but no surprises.

Meanwhile Chen does these sorts of things off the top of his head. You have the Financial Times interview in which Premier Hsieh says things like "we'll get back to discussions after a month or so, but of course you have the people's anger to deal with" and then Chen does this to stoke people's anger.

Let my guess what the State Department is going to say on Monday "we call on both sides to exercise restriant and return to dialogue."

Just when I start trusting and liking Chen, he pulls this one. He starts saying "well if Hong Kong turned out so many people and got what they wanted, so can Taiwan." The problem this this logic is that by **saying it out loud**, he is only convincing Beijing to dig in their heels and make himself lose face. Any small chance that Beijing was going to moderate the language in response to Taiwan's concerns is gone. It's almost like Chen wants to sabotage improving relations..... Well, maybe he does..... Also, any change of improve cross-party relations on Taiwan is dead.

Once again, Chen seems to be misreading Washington. Doesn't he learn? Any good will and trust that Chen might have gotten from Washington is gone. Sure you'll have lots of Congressmen talk about how awful Beijing is, but they aren't going to be able to do anything. Bush is not going to let Congress pass any harsh measures.

Oh well..... Mustn't get too depressed or annoyed.... Probably time to take a break and come back in about a month when this is all sorted out......

Maybe things will be better on Monday. This may be Ma Ying-Jiu's chance to really shine.

Professional Wrestling - 3/11/05

This sort of explains what is going on with Ma Ying-Jiu

http://www.tvbs.com.tw/NEWS/NEWS_LIST.asp?no=vestashi20050312134909

The sports analogy I use to think about the Taiwan straits is professional wrestling. There is a lot of screaming and people following a script, and about 99% it's sort of fake, and no one gets hurt much for real. The trouble is that 1% when something goes wrong in the script, and someone ends up seriously hurt.

The Ma-Wang campaign is one of those things that is probably going to be either one of the best things that ever happened to the KMT or one of the worst. This is the first time that I can recall in Taiwan in which leadership of a political party has been contested, and I suppose my nervousness is that this is a jump into the unknown. It might not be a bad jump in the unknown.

Another good Washington Post article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28236-2005Mar11.html

I love this quote

::The editor said the fact that Kuhn is a foreigner is a selling point because many readers believe that any book written about the country's leaders by a Chinese author must be propaganda -- unless it has been banned.

Here is a fascinating interview in the People's Daily gave to the managing editor of the Washington Post. The title is a bit misleading.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/10/eng20050310_176350.html

Also, here is a story that was printed in the People's Daily on China's low economic freedom ranking.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/10/eng20050310_176255.html

Interesting things going on - 3/11/05

Looks like Wang Jin-Ping is going to make a run for it after all.....

http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/Moment/newfocus-index/0,3687,940312017+94031221+0+134258,00.html

Also, this might have something to do with Ma Ying-Jiu calling a press conference next week to be anti-anti-secession

http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS1/2557526.shtml

Also, Beijing is complaining that the law is being misinterpreted on Taiwan....

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/12/eng20050312_176495.html

Which does have a point, but the trouble is that whenever you go into a hostile environment, you have to expect that whatever you say is going to be put in the worst possible light. Right now the MAC is really focusing in making it look like the anti-secession law is a declaration of war, but you have to expect things like that to happen. What I think the PRC should do is to either rewrite the section on "non-peaceful means" to make it restrictive rather than permissive, or probably better yet delete that section completely.

The process is maybe too far along to do this, so the likely (although not definite outcome) is that things will go sort of bad for about a month. The danger is, of course, that when things are unstable that something unexpected will happen to completely blow things up. I'm a little worried about what Ma is doing and about the Ma-Wang competition for KMT chair, because this is sort of the unexpected thing that could make things turn bad. The worst possible situation is if pan-blue feels compelled to join the DPP 3/26 demonstrations.

The fortunate thing is that there are some safety valves. Chen has kept rather quiet, and so has Hu, and keeping the top guy quiet is good in this situation because it serves as a reserve in case things go bad.

Also there is a good article on confidence-building measures in the Taiwan straits.

http://www.csis.org/pacfor/issues/v05n02.cfm

Nice speech by Chen Shui-Bian 3/10/05

He's behaving quite responsibly....

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/detail.asp?ID=59477&GRP=A

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2005/03/11/1110505169.htm

One thing that is hard to do sometimes is to say good things about people you fundamentally disagree with and bad things about people you fundamentally agree with. It's a comforting thought to think that people who agree with you are angels, and people who disagree with you are devils, but things rarely work out that way.

In this case (and after the 3/20 election), Chen is acting pretty well. One thing that Chen has done is to separate his role from being party leader from his role as president, and that gives him a bit more freedom.

Ultimately Chen is going to have to make a decision, however. During the election he had to promise things to two different groups of people with irreconciliable interests. He had to promise moderate policies to moderates, and radical policies to radicals. He is ultimately going to have to betray someone and I suspect it is the radicals that will be disappointed.

I wonder what Ma Ying-Jiu is up to....

http://www.tvbs.com.tw/NEWS/NEWS_LIST.asp?no=vestashi20050311130105

Since Chen mentioned the EU arms embargo, there is an interesting subtlity that I haven't seen mentioned, and that the deal seems to be that the EU lifts its arms embargo against the PRC, and Beijing does not buy any significant amounts of new weapons. Keep in mind that the embargo right now is not airtight. What the EU gets out of this is commercial good will. What the PRC gets out of this is that it no longer is listed as a pariah nation and it gives Washington a black eye.

Explaining subtlity to Robert Kagan - 3/10/05

Robert Kagan writes sarcastically here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22110-2005Mar9.html

:::So I can only marvel at China's latest diplomatic gambits, whose brilliance and sophistication must be so subtle as not to be susceptible to normal modes of analysis.

Now since Kagan admits he doesn't understand what Beijing is up to, let me explain it to him.

• Anti-secession law - If you read the law carefully and if you read Hu's four point speech, you will find a lot of concessions and nice language. Not enough in my opinion, but it is there. Now as far why the bellicose language is there. Suppose Beijing were to totally renounce the use of force tomorrow. Taiwan would immediately declare independence and the United States would scrap the one-China policy. So to implement any hope of ultimate reunification, Beijing has to mention military force, but not so much that it causes a backlash in Taiwan that it can't control.

• Japan - PRC-Japan relations are going through a rough patch, and the US-Japan declaration was intended to send a small message. But it's not a huge message. The message was that peace in the Taiwan straits are an area of joint strategic concern to the United States and Japan. But the United States had to pull some teeth in order to get Japan to go that far. The reason is that even with the ups and down in the political relation, Japan has a huge amount of money invested in China.

• On Australia - Kagan writes

:::Now, anyone who knows the Australian character knows that this kind of blunt "warning" and demand for a loosening of security ties with the United States is precisely the wrong tack to take if you really hope to influence Australian policy. So the Chinese must be operating on an entirely different plane of diplomatic sophistication.

Yes they are in fact. The PRC consumes more Australian exports than the United States. It's likely to overtake the United States as the largest trade partner in the next few years. Australia and the PRC are likely to ink a free trade agreement pact in the next few years.

As far as Taiwan, Australia has already helped the PRC by putting pressure on Papua-New Guinea and Vanuatu to not recognize Taiwan. Whether the ANZUS pact covers helping the US in case of conflict with China is a question that has been discussed in Australian circles. The Australian Foreign Minister Michael Downer hinted that it might not last August (before John Howard corrected him), and the latest piece was just Beijing fishing for some support on One China which it didn't get from Australia (although it did get it from Singapore).

:::It is possible that China hopes to get what it wants by bullying alone and that the Chinese leadership has no real intention of making good on its threats. It is also possible, however, that the Chinese are laying the groundwork for an eventual military assault on Taiwan. Who knows?

If this had been written five years ago, Kagan would have screamed about PRC aggression and mentioned Munich. Today that would be seen as crazy talk. What Kagan doesn't get is a very basic subtlity in foreign policy that the most effective foreign policy aims for peace while preparing for war.

**Of course** the PRC is laying the groundwork for an eventual military assault on Taiwan. What do you think that 12.6 percent per year is going to. **Of course** the PRC has a real intention in making good on its threats. It's really stupid in foreign policy to make a threat you can't or won't follow through on.

But preparing for war and making threats does not mean that you want to use your weapons or that you want to follow through on your threats. War is fundamentally disastrous, and no sane national leader should think of war as anything but an awful last resort, and its pretty clear that Beijing realizes how devastating any military conflict would be. But the world is a harsh and cruel place, and any nation that is so focused on peace that it refuses to prepare or talk of war is going to find itself in a very, very bad situation.

The problem with the American and Taiwanese response to the PRC military buildup is that "talk is cheap." The PRC is increasing its military budget at 12.6 percent per year, and is likely to do so far the foreseeable future. The United States and Taiwan simply are unwilling to raise taxes and make the social sacrifices necessary to match that. Given that to be the case, there are basic limits to how much both the United States and Taiwan are willing to undergo to check the PRC's expanding military power. (And it doesn't help the the US military expansion is in large part being paid for with Chinese money.)

If you aren't willing to finance a hard line policy, then don't talk about it. It will only get you in trouble.

What the US and Taiwan need to do is to figure out what their bottom lines are, what they are willing for fight for and what they are not, and if everyone just talks to each other, I think we can avoid a war that no one really wants.

Interesting juxtaposition of articles - 3/9/05

You have here three articles in which Premier Frank Hsieh seems to be saying totally different things.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48dad926-9102-11d9-9980-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2005/03/09/1110332603.htm

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2005/03/09/1110332603.htm

Also there is this article that says that Chen is going to lead a 500,000 person demonstration on 3/26

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2005/new/mar/today/today-t1.htm

http://www.tvbs.com.tw/NEWS/NEWS_LIST.asp?no=suncomedy20050310101014

Also I was wrong a few weeks ago, it does seem that Ma and Wang are starting to stake out positions in the KMT, maybe

http://www.tvbs.com.tw/NEWS/NEWS_LIST.asp?no=suncomedy20050310122045

Will be glad with this week is over - 3/8/05

All this excitement is really annoying me. Will be glad when the anti-secession law finally passes so that we can move on. The text seems to be a bit harsher than is "helpful" to use the term than the State Department uses, but it's not so bad as to cause a backlash on Taiwan or completely derail things. The DPP is being pretty responsible in holding their supporters back. Most of their statements are in the term if X,Y,Z happens, we will take harsh measures, but X,Y,Z are not going to happen. Frank Hsieh and the DPP are trying to keep their supporters from defecting to the TSU. Chen Shui-Bian is remarkably quiet. He is probably trying to weather things and wait a month or two before restarting talks on transportation links. Also, its important to keep an eye on what the pan-blue coalition is saying on Taiwan, Beijing is in really big trouble if it loses the support of the pan-blue coalition or if it says or does something that requires pan-blue to prove their nationalistic credentials.

I'm actually a bit surprised at how few people have pointed out that the PRC has made some pretty big concessions. One rule about Beijing is that they tend to snarl a bit when making a concession. What I think is going to happen is that as time passes, the bits about the use of force are going to be forgotten and people are going to realize when the dust clears how much Beijing has backtracked from its previous positions. The anti-seccession law is likely to be too harsh to cause pan-green to fall apart immediately, as I was hoping for earlier, but it is likely to cause a lot of problems for the TSU. What the TSU wants is a major backlash on Taiwan. They are unlikely to get one. The demonstration in Kaohsuing over the weekend was tiny by Taiwanese standards (15,000) and about half the people in Taiwan say they haven't heard of the law.

Speaking of public opinion, the demonstrations in Lebanon show how complex and difficult to measure public opinion is. There was a massive pro-Syrian demonstration today in Beirut. I think this took a lot of people by surprise. One thing that you have to be very careful about is that people tend to sympathize with one group or another and assume that one group tends to have much more popular support. Young Western Lebanese wearing Gucchi tends to get more sympathy than the group that brought suicide bombing to the Middle East. But you have to be careful about extrapolating public opinion.

The thing about public opinion is that it can be very complex, fickle, and unpredictable. There are always some surprises, sometimes pleasant ones. For example, now that the Taiwan elections have been over for about three months, I can admit that I was personally very surprised at how well pan-blue did.

Funny language tricks - 3/7/05

First bits and pieces of the anti-secession law are coming out. The really curious thing is again that the English versions are emphasizing the hard parts of the law

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/08/eng20050308_176011.html

Whereas the Chinese bits are **much** softer

http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2005-03/08/content_2666011.htm

The thing that will be interesting is if they actually write "one country two systems" into the law. I don't think so.

There are some interesting parts of the law. The first is that it seems to split up "improving interactions between Mainland and Taiwan" and "talks about the status of Taiwan and the Mainland." This appears to allow for the sort of "unofficial" talks over economic and transportation links that are going on, and will allow for those talks to occur in the absence of official recognition on the part of Taiwan on "one China."

The second is that this is the first time in which I've seen an official document talk in terms of "equal status" talks.

The part on "non-peaceful means" has one interesting part, which is that if all hell breaks loose, the rights of Taiwanese business on the Mainland will be protected. This is interesting because it forecloses pressuring Taiwanese businessmen on the Mainland even in less drastic circumstances.

Here is another very interesting article on the quiet role that the United States has played in all of this....

http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/Moment/newfocus-index/0,3687,940308005+0+0+105840,00.html

The day with no title - 3/6/05

Found this in the Financial Times

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b492842-8eaf-11d9-8aae-00000e2511c8.html

This story is consistent with news coming out of Taipei. Chen Shui-Bian didn't come out with the anti-anti-secession demonstrations. Su Chengchang, the secretary-general of the DPP, made a very interesting statement that if the anti-secession law humiliated the Taiwanese people then Chen would lead a demonstration of 500,000 people. It's an interesting statement because it blunts criticism from deep green that Chen hasn't shown up, and I don't think that if part will come to pass. Also Frank Hsieh has said that the DPP will not vote on any anti-annexation legislation.

I think the deep greens are starting to realize how bad their situation is.....

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/03/07/2003225854

Here is another article....

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/03/07/2003225856

The article is interesting because it reveals how enormously out of touch the writer is with Taiwanese public opinion. There is nowhere near 60-70 percent support for changing Taiwan's national title or completely rewriting the constitution. I'm guessing 20-30 percent support. This is why barring some really serious missteps on the part of Beijing, I believe that hard independence is doomed. I don't think that hard independence is a majority even within the DPP, and the Chen can (and is) moving toward the center on this issue without losing the support of the DPP. He can easily start unofficial dialogue on the three links without losing DPP support.

Accepting "one China, different interpretations" might be too much for him to keep the support of most of the DPP, but he certainly has a good chance to form a coalition with the pan-blues on this issue. If he doesn't do something like this, then the DPP is going to have serious problems in the 2007 legislative and 2008 Presidental elections.

I think that the bickering between the DPP and the TSU is going to get much, much worse. The only hope for hard independence is that Beijing will declare war on Taiwan. Anything much short of that and the sparks are really going to fly between the DPP and the TSU. The trouble is that if the anti-secession law is what I think it is going to be, then the PFP and KMT are going to have no trouble saying that they support Beijing's position. At this point the DPP is already in bed with the PFP and it is going to get pulled along.

Almost over for Taiwan independence? - 3/4/05

I remember 3/19/2004. Sheng Fu-Hsiung had just turned up, and it was certain that Chen Shuibian would lose the election. I was happy. I went to sleep, and when I woke up it turned out that someone shot Chen. So I'm going to be really really careful about feeling too giddy right now. But one has to savor moments like these when things look good. Things change really quickly in politics and if you don't enjoy when things are going well, then things get really depressing.

Hu Jintao gave a major speech on Taiwan. If the anti-secession law is based on the principles in the speech then the game is over for big-I Taiwan Independence. The four points marks the first time in history when a PRC leader has put an offer on the table that has a reasonable chance for Taiwanese voters to accept. The main points of the speech was that Hu separated the concept of "one China" from the PRC and explicitly stated that the two sides of the straits should negotiate as equals. He did not mention one country, two systems, and he also did not make any explicit threats of military force.

The problem for hard independence is that they were expecting a strong angry law, and they did not expect to have a "love bomb" thrown at them. I'm willing to bet that they have absolutely no contingency plans for this situation.

The offer that Hu has put on the table is something that pan-blue will find easy to accept and it will put a lot of pressure on the DPP to agree to a "one China" formulation and the "92 consensus." This is going to cause a civil war to break out among the pan-Greens, and the screaming between the DPP and the TSU is going to get much worse as it becomes obvious that Chen is going to take Hu's offer seriously. Ultimately what I think is going to happen is that Chen is going to be forced to dump the TSU, make peace with the blues, and take up Hu's offer.

The reason I think that the DPP is going to eventually take the offer is that the DPP's core support includes southern rural farmers, who really don't care that much about identity politics, and reform minded urban dwellers. Losing hard independence will hurt the DPP, but Chen is going to have to make a decision as to whether he wants to lead the 60 percent of the people that don't object to a dialogue under a loose version of one China or the 20 percent of the people who do.

I'm just hoping that nothing happens to mess this up.

Tung Chee-Hwa maybe quits - 3/1/05

Now there is something unexpected if true....

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/index.html

If it isn't true that this is going to be very embarrassing for the Standard.

The reaction of Martin Lee is curious arguing that Beijing removing a leader whose popularity is in the single digits is the death of democracy. Heads I win. Tails you lose.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC02Ad08.html - Cornering the Dragon

I'd hardly call the current situation having the confrontationists in the drivers set. Barring Beijing doing something really stupid, there isn't very much that the China hawks can do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/international/asia/01malipo.html

An article on the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979 which is officially forgotten. The SV War is an example that I tend to point to in arguing that Chinese nationalism is not particularly expansionist. Beijing (with good reason) regards the SV War as a pretty shameful episode to be forgotten.

The Secret Clinton Peace Mission - 2/27/05

Clinton is in Taiwan, and there is one obvious aspect of the visit that no one has mentioned. Officially, he is there to promote his memoirs, but I strongly suspect that unofficially, he is trying to broker a cross-straits peace deal. Everyone points out that Beijing is upset that Clinton is visiting Taiwan and meeting Chen Shui-Bian. What is hardly mentioned at all was that he went to Taiwan right after visiting Beijing. Now if Beijing really was that upset then why did they issue Clinton a visa to promote his book in Beijing? Also, Clinton's official iterary in Beijing included only one hospital tour. I do suspect that he was doing something in Beijing other than sightseeing.

I do think that there is about to be a major thaw. One thing that gives me this impression is that the PRC's official mantra has changes. This is what the new mantra is.....

http://tw.people.com.cn/GB/14810/3205415.html

:::We have continued to insist that there is one China in the world and the Mainland and Taiwan are both part of this one China. Although the two sides of the straits are not currently unified, this does not change the fact that the Mainland and Taiwan are part of one China. To improve exchanges and peaceful stability, and to progressively move toward unification is our basic goal and earnest policy. With honesty, sincerity, and patience we intend to increase cross-strait exchanges and cooperation, to improve communications with Taiwan compatriots and mutual understanding, and to achieve bright preconditions for cross strait relations.

Note that there is no mention of the PRC or "one China, two systems." We'll see what comes out on 3/8 with the anti-secession law. Short of some massive blunder, I doubt it will be too bad. Also, I strongly suspect that both the United States and Taiwan have already gotten advance copies of the drafts, and no one is screaming too loudly.

Also, judging from the Taiwan news, the hard independence supporters are now in turmoil. I think its become apparent to then that Chen has abandoned them.

Cross Link - 2/27/05

I got e-mail that a link to Prof. Rudy Rummel has linked to this website from his blog http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/ . Prof. Rummel is a very respected academic whose basic thesis is that power kills, and he coined the word democide. The interesting here is that I pretty much totally disagree with this basic thesis. That's not to say that I'm right. Social systems are complex enough so that no one has all of the answers, and you should read his web blog to see what he thinks and why I might be wrong.

To summarize what I believe, and where this disagrees with Prof. Rummel's thesis.

1) Power kills, but chaos kills more. The Cultural Revolution was one of the worst periods in 20th century Chinese history with about 20-35 million dead. However I would argue that the preceding period in which China was subject to internal turmoil and foreign invasion killed even more people and was even more hellish than the Cultural Revolution.

2) Democracies are hard to create. Of course, democracies are wonderful. So are yachts, but just wanting one doesn't get you one. My view is to form a stable democracy, you need a fair amount of institution building and civil society, and absent those institutions, the result of removing power is chaos.

3) State power isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, I would argue that the United States government is far more powerful than the the government of North Korea. The difference is that the United States government channels its power through a system of laws and the consent of the governed whereas North Korea does not. And I would argue that much of the power of the United States exists precisely because the state acts through constitutional regulation and forms. This is why the United States is a superpower, while North Korea is a merely an international nuisance. Yes North Korea can be pretty nasty to its own citizens, but beating and starving your own children doesn't require much power. No one is looking to Nortk Korea for Hollywood movies or ideas on improving microchips. That's real power.

All of this has a direct impact on my views toward the current PRC government, and I suspect that I'm a bit more sympathetic toward Beijing than Rummel is. First of all, because of (3), I do not think that the Chinese nationalistic impulse to increasing Chinese national power is a bad thing. Beijing is finding that in order to increase its power (particularly its soft power), it has to do things like reform its legal systems, as well as smile and listen more. Also because of (1) and (2) I tend to be skeptical of movements, particularly revolutionary ones that claim to create Chinese democracy. Sure if you could wave a magic wand and turn the PRC into a stable multi-party democracy, that would be wonderful, but I don't think that social systems just work that way.

One other point. His blog right now includes the statement by Amayrta Sen that no democracy ever had a famine. It would seem to me that the Irish Potato Famine of the mid-19th century would contradict that.

Looking up - 2/26/05

Interesting now that things are going well in the Taiwan straits, no one notices. Chen Shui-bian and Soong Chuyu have met and this is going to really moderate the actions of the ROC government. Chen no longer needs the hard line independence supporters to govern, and I suspect they are going to find it very lonely.

Here is an interesting article

• http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/02/26/2003224637

Also, the anti-secession law might come up in next week. I'm betting on something really weak. There is an interesting detail which shows that Beijing really does understand Taiwan politics more than people might think. One of the big announcements that the Taiwan Affairs Office has mentioned is lowering tariffs on Taiwan agricultural goods. Beijing is trying to increase its popularity in southern Taiwan and drive a wedge between the rural farmers there and the pro-independence elements of the DPP (which tend to be urban intellectuals).

• http://taiwansecurity.org/WP/2005/WP-260205.htm

In other news, people are talking about how US-PRC relations are worsening. I really don't see this happening. Sure there are still some anti-China hawks, but they aren't going to be able to do much if Beijing has the support of the business community which besides being interested in trade with the PRC is also interested in lower taxes, which rules out any sort of attempt to match the PRC's military buildup. (Not to mention the irony that said military is being financed to a large degree by Chinese purchase of American debt.)

Also, the anti-China hawks are especially not going to be able to do anything if you don't have a particularly anti-Beijing climate in Taiwan.

The Congressional highlighting of the PRC's growing military strength is probably going to backfire on the China hawks, because 1) the United States doesn't have the interest to counter the buildup if it means raising taxes and 2) highlighting the growing military power on the PRC may just convince most people in East Asia that it would be an increasingly bad idea to fight Beijing.

Lawerence Eyton is always worth reading, but I think he misses the mark badly here.....

• http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GB26Ad06.html

Ma Ying-jiu is the heir apparent of the KMT. Wang Jin-Ping has given no sign that he is interested in the top position, and he certainly doesn't have political base of Ma. Also as far the myth that the KMT is a northern Taiwan party, didn't we end that during the last legislative elections?

Insightful article - 2/21/05

This is one of the most insightful articles on Beijing's strategic goals, that I've read in a long time.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/02/21/2003224007

Also, in the politics makes strange bedfellows, the DPP and the PFP are getting quite chummy. This is one of the problems and limitations with viewing things in terms of a political spectrum, because if you look at things that way, the DPP-PFP cooperation makes no sense.

People's Daily fun - 2/18/05

The English version of the People's Daily emphasizes Chinese resolve to press North Korea, while mentioned quietly the recent statements about China's growing military capability. The Chinese edition puts more emphasis on the US-Japan agreement and doesn't mention North Korea. It also has a "comments" link which serves as something of an online mass rally. I suspect that PRC gets the hint and is going to press North Korea, but it wants to get some domestic mileage from being tough on Japan.

There is an NPR series this week on the internet in China.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504780

Contrary to a lot of people's expectations, the Chinese government is really adept at using the internet to strengthen public support. The comments link on the Japan article is a good example. I doubt that the moderators will allow postings that think that Japan is wonderful for doing this to be posted, but this does give the Communist Party the ability to get people who are genuinely mad about this to feed off each other's anger, in a way that is directed toward Japan and away from the Communist Party. This gets people's emotions up like a political rally, but it is much safer since you don't have people physically in one place, and you can shut it down if things get out of hand.

One thing that NPR has mentioned that is often missed is that the typical internet user in China is far more likely to be pro-government than non-internet users. Who uses the internet, rich people that have benefited from government policies. Who doesn't use the internet are poor people who are marginalized.

Thomas P.M. Barnett has written a piece in which he argues withdrawing US support for Taiwan in exchange for North Korea. http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2005/050215_mfe_barnett_1.html . Personally, I like his thinking because he really has vision. When I think of what he is arguing for, I get nervous because I get nervous at "big ideas." But "big ideas" are important because if you don't have them, you won't stand a chance against people who have other (and worse) big ideas.

If I think of the reasons why I think that Barnett's plan won't work, they are implementation details, and getting political support in Washington and Beijing. But yes Beijing is quite more than willing to get rid of Kim Jong-Il in exchange for US help on Taiwan.

Interesting pattern - 2/17/05

Some interesting things happening under the surface....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33297-2005Feb17.html

http://taiwansecurity.org/AP/2005/AP-170205-2.htm

http://taiwansecurity.org/CNA/2005/CNA-160205.htm

My guess is that someone in Washington is trying to put some pressure on Beijing to do more to coerce North Korea by bringing up the Taiwan issue.... Or maybe not. The other possibility is that its just the start of the Congressional session when a lot of noise gets made.

The Tancredo bill is a bit overblown. He has introduced the same bill for the last several years, and its a concurrent resolution which doesn't mean much anyone. Also, one can see the amazing weakness of anti-China sentiment in Congress by looking at the co-sponsors of the bill, all of whom are very junior members of Congress. I suspect that the concurrent resolution is going to get ignored.

Only Powerful Strength Can Protect Justice 2/14/05

Somebody set up us the bomb!!!!

All your base belong to us!!!

Anyway that line (the title) comes from the North Korean statement saying they have the bomb. Ho hum.... Just trying to get a better negotiating position. Nothing much here.

Who's Hu? 2/6/05

Some articles complaining that Hu isn't the closet liberal people thought that he would be....

• http://atimes.com/atimes/others/sinoroving.html
• http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=408&issue_id=3217&article_id=2369182

Honestly, I have no idea what ever gave people the idea that Hu was a closet liberal. I suppose the idea was that Jiang was "bad" therefore Hu must be good. This suffers from the problem that if your political thinking has only two categories you aren't going to understand what is going on.

Personally, I think Hu is going a pretty good job. The main problem with the PRC right now is dealing with rural income stagnation and the gap between rich and poor. In my opinion, liberalizing political discourse can be put on the back burner for a few years, because if you don't solve the rich-poor problem than you aren't going to have any sort of good political foundation for a liberal democracy. Create a strong middle class, and then the democracy deficit in China will solve itself. Don't create a middle class, and you aren't going to get a nice political system whatever you do.

I think that Willy Lam in particular misunderstands why Hu in invoking Mao and ideological purity. Under Mao there was very little corruption (there was very little money and freedom either). People sometimes don't remember the bad parts of the past and only the good parts, and there is among some in China a nostalgia for the "good old days" when officials weren't corrupt and everyone was more equal (i.e. poor). Personally I think its silly. But part of having a successful political system involves listening to the people, and dealing with opinions that don't quite match your own.

Out of Iraq.....

One of the reasons I've been optimistic about Iraq is I've spent a lot of time reading http://www.sistani.org/ trying to get a good idea of the people that are likely going to be running the country after the elections. Sistani seems to be sane. I think that the thing that gives me a good feeling about him is that the web site seems calm and pragmatic.

NYT article on rural economy 2/2/05

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/international/asia/03china.html

One thing that the article doesn't mention is how wildly different the property rights schemes are from province to province or even county to county. What China has been doing for the last ten years has been to experiment with different rural property and taxation systems, and just seeing what works. What has been the bottleneck for removing all taxes on rural farmers is that the local governments then go broke, but I think that the belief is that the deficit can be made up for by transfers from richer areas.

It also doesn't mention some of the problems and issues that turn up when you have direct private property ownership of law. For example, what is to keep local governments from forcing farmers to sell property rights at too low of a price. Also having collective ownership is something of an insurance policy in which a farmer can go to the city, and if things don't work, he can return home and get land redistributed to them.

This is something that people can (and have) written entire books over, and its an issue that has been discussed and debated in China for a number of years. The basic issue is that China is eventually going to have to urbanize, and the hard part (which no one has the answer to) is how to make this as undisruptive as possible.

Heh.... Heh.... Heh.... 1/31/05

Funny thing. The Chinese version of the People's Daily website had this huge positive front page story about the Iraqi elections for a few hours, and then nothing..... Very interesting....

One of the amusing things about Chinese newspapers (including the People's Daily) is how they like to push the bounds of what can be discussed. One strategy is to post something on the web, and then take it down if someone gets annoyed, which seems to have happened in this case. I'm sure someone high up felt a bit unconfortable about the People's Daily talking so positively about Iraqi national election raising the obvious question about the lack of Chinese national elections. I can imagine some editor telling his boss well no one told us not to cover the Iraqi elections. (wink) (wink) It's also not a coincidence that the English version has an article on local village elections in China.

The book 1984 talks about people rewriting history. The irony is that the ability to rewrite the past actually helps undermine authoritarian regimes. Even if it isn't in print, people will still remember. You write a story, and if the powers that be object, you take it down.

Anyway here is an article that I wrote on the Iraq in November. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK12Ak03.html I'm just amazed at the amount of negativity that is coming out of the Asian Times over the election. It's pretty clear to me that the insurgents are going to quickly end up to be nothing more than a nuisance. The Shi'ites and the Kurds are very much in favor of the new government. Most of the Sunnis are going to eventually go along, leaving the insurgents pretty isolated.

Planes are flying - 1/28/05

Well, we have our first set of planes flying across the Taiwan straits in 56 years. That's a good thing. Also, they buried Zhao Ziyang today after a lot of controversy over the means of burial. Needless to say the second story hasn't been very much in the PRC press.

There is this article in the Washington Post about the PRC having a slight shift in policy toward Taiwan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45595-2005Jan28.html. On the one hand, I don't see that much of a shift in the People's Daily http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200501/29/eng20050129_172276.html, but on the other hand, I do think this is interesting that the topic was started by Jia Qinglin, who isn't particularly high in the hierarchy. Having him raise the topic suggests that what was said was the start of discussion rather than a final proposal.

In Taiwan, Frank Hsieh has is likely to be Premier. The choice of Frank Hsieh as Premier is interesting as it "balances" his future with Su Tseng-Chang, the other likely successor to Chen Shui-Bian who is DPP party chair. Also, all of the talk of a DPP-PFP alliance has evaporated leading me to think that this was all a tactical effort by Soong Chu-Yu to increase his standing in the forthcoming merger between the KMT and PFP. That merger is on hold, but its likely to happen in the next four years.

Things look like they are going to be stable for the next few years. One thing that I'm doing in this blog is probably less political commentary and more economic commentary, because I think the latter is starting to be more useful. I first started writing political commentary in the mid-1990's because there was a huge gap in perception between the PRC and the United States, and since then that gap has shrunk considerably.

Politics and strange bed fellows - 1/15/05

It looks like there will be direct flights between the Mainland and Taiwan. This is part of the PRC's soft-hard strategy, and right now there is a bit more soft than hard. Another interesting thing is that Soong Chu-Yu the head of the PFP is in the United States, and there is talk of a DPP-PFP coalition. I don't think this will happen, because the two parties are a bit too far apart, and a DPP-PFP coalition is likely to have too many people bolt from both sides to create a workable governing majority which is what Chen Shui-bian wants.

http://taiwansecurity.org/CP/2005/CP-130105.htm

It's interesting to look at the motives of the people involved. Chen Shui-Bian just wants a governing majority and this shows how desperate he is to get one. Soong's motives are mainly a desire for power, and some of this might be Soong's effort to increase his negoatiating position with the upcoming KMT-PFP merger which will have to happen before 2007, when the rules for the legislature change. (To simplify, single member districts will greatly hurt small parties.)

http://taiwansecurity.org/CP/2005/CP-150105.htm

That article needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Beijing has been quiet on this, and relying on an unnamed person in Taiwan to get the opinions of people he or she has talked to in Beijing runs in the problem that he said that she said that he said that .... If Beijing really was angry at this, we'd know about it. The other thing is that there are a lot of people in Taiwan who would be happy if Beijing was angry at DPP-PFP cooperation, and these opinions might be intended to scuttle that.

One of the reasons why I think that Beijing is less stupid that people believe it is is that Beijing's attitudes focus on policies rather than people. The reason this is wise is that people are complex and things can change pretty quickly with weird and new alliances. Focusing on policies means that you don't care who does things, rather than what is being done. One problem with American foreign policy is that sometimes the US gets too involved with people rather than policy output.

The big news in Taiwan is actually a girl who died because some hospitals in Taipei didn't treat her. These things are important because they are largely under the radar, but they have some big ramifications. This makes Ma Ying-jiu, the mayor of Taipei, look bad, which affects his chances of running for President in 2008.

One other things that I've noticed in the news is that people are complaining about China not contributing enough to the tsunami effort. I think a lot of this criticism is misplaced, in that China has contributed far more this time to international efforts than it ever had in the past. The problem is that people in the West simply have overinflated expectations of what China can do. There is all this talk about the "China threat" when in fact that PLAN is basically incapable of really large distance operations (i.e. any further than Taiwan). It doesn't have the helicopters, logistics, or training that the United States, the Japanese, or the Indian navies have, and it doesn't have this because the PLAN is basically expecting to fight a war in the Taiwan straits and not in Indonesia. As far as money, China is still a developing nation, and there is a limit to how much it can spend on foreign aid before people in China start complaining about resources being used to fix Sri Lanka rather than Yunnan.

Part of this is because Western news reports of China have gotten a bit past reality and also because people confuse future potentials with current realities. The pendulum is likely to swing the other way in the next few months, that is just the way things are.

Also, this points out why its important for a nation to be rich and powerful. The United States was ability to help out greatly with the situation in the Indian Ocean because it had the military and economic capacity to do so. People sometimes tend to think that spending time and effort trying to be rich and powerful is a waste of effect which detracts from "helping the poor." But things like the Indian Ocean disaster and the continuing mess in Iraq shows how military and economic power have humanitarian elements to it. Yes if you are rich and powerful, you can be nasty and evil rather than good or kind. But if you are poor, you often don't have much of a choice when disaster strikes.

Interesting things are afoot - 1/3/05

People's Daily mentions that http://tw.people.com.cn/GB/14812/14874/3094021.html Wang Jin-Ping the head of the legislative yuan on Taiwan is interested in visiting the Mainland. Also despite the statement by Joseph Wu that the PRC didn't want to see charter flights on the Lunar New Year, it seems that this option is still open http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1026/3094136.html . Also it appears that Koo Chen-Fu has passed away.

Somber New Year - 1/1/05

Here is a link to aid agencies for the tsunami victims - http://www.google.com/tsunami_relief.html

The Indian Ocean tsunami is a classic example of somethng coming out of left field.

In other news. Your standard back and forth New Years Greetings between PRC and ROC. Su Cheng-Chang is likely to be the new DPP chairman, which means that the party is going to start getting reorganized. It will still be a while before the full impact of the December election settles in, and I'll probably not keep much track of events for another two or three months to wait for things to settle down. Lee Teng-Hui is in Japan trying to make life as difficult for the PRC as possible. Beijing is managing the story by ignoring it. I can't help but think that this is payback for the sub incursion a few months ago.

No one seems to have seen a copy of the draft secession law. I think news of that is also going to die down for a while.

Interesting man bits dog story here. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/international/asia/02falun.html Chinese TV Director Sued by Falun Gong Claims Free Speech. I suspect that he is going to win since American law is pretty clear on this point.

Also some pictures on poverty in China - http://www.zonaeuropa.com/02212.htm

Is China a Google or An Enron - 12/25/04

China a Google or an Enron

The interesting thing about this discussion is that is seems that Gordon Chang http://www.gordonchang.com has moderated his views on China collapsing. He thinks that the Communist Party is doomed, but he has moved away from his previous idea of a financial collapse. I think he is too pessimistic about the ability of the CCP to reform, and also I think he way overestimates the development of Taiwan nationalism and a non-Chinese identity on Taiwan. I'm a bit of a contrarian on this, because I happen to think that economic ties between Taiwan and the PRC has moved Taiwan and the PRC much closer culturally as well as economically. I mean does anyone wish to argue that Taiwan and the PRC were more similar when the Red Guards were running everywhere in the PRC? Also, I think that people are missing that quite a bit of the assertive nationalism one sees in Taiwan is because the "presence" of Mainland China is far larger than it was a few years ago, and much of this is a backlash against that.

Much of the idea that Taiwan independence is increasing and natural has to do with efforts by pan-green to get international support and recognition and sympathy as a inevitable democratic movement. The trouble with that strategy is that the last election quite strongly contradicts that idea.

This reminds me of the Stockdale paradox. James Stockdale was a POW in Hanoi for seven years, and he noted the following.

** Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.

And at the same time:

** Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

This comes from the fact that the positive thinking optimists tended to die off of disappointment quickly.

The brutal reality is that a reunified China will not happen in 2005, 2006, or 2008. It might not happen for 20 years, 100 years, or 200 years. But I think it will happen someday, and I think this gives me an advantage over the independence supporters, because they believed that there would be independence by 2008, and since that isn't going to happen, I don't know if they are willing to wait 200 years.

Anti-Secession Law being discussed - 12/25/04

Even though no one seems to know what is in it I don't think it is a good idea at all. Hopefully the law will get buried in the PRC legislative process. The good news is that it seems from the body language that it won't be too destructive. One thing that surprises people is that the PRC has a legislative process at all.

Lawerence Eyton has written some analysis of this http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FL25Ad02.html. He is always worth reading even though I think much of what he says is wrong. I don't think that de-sincization is a natural consequence of Taiwan democratization. The trouble isn't adding Taiwan content (which I believe in myself). The trouble is removing China content, and we can see from the last election that this isn't something that most Taiwanese are enthusiatic about. The other issue is that I think he way over estimates the backlash in Taiwan. Yes some people want to pass an anti-annexation law, but they don't have any serious chance of doing that.

Also I think that Eyton misunderstands the PRC. Taiwan is different from the Mainland, but I would argue that the differences between Shanghai and Yunnan are far more different than Shanghai and Taipei. What Eyton fails to grasp is that the PRC finds the notion of "Taiwan is different so it can secede" threatening because if you accept that principle then pretty much everyone can secede.

The political situation in Taiwan is still a mess from the last election. The knives in the DPP are coming out. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/25/2003216651. The basic problem is that the election results have so challenged the pan-green view of the world that I don't think anyone knows what to do. The pan-greens believed that independence was an irresistible democratic tide which the United States would support. This clearly isn't the case, and the pan-greens don't have a backup plan. Strategically, it was probably a major mistake for Chen Shui-Bian to resign as party chairman. With him in charge, the DPP could start regrouping, but without some sort of leader, the DPP is going to be fratricidal for a while.

Things are also a mess in the blue camp with Lien Chan and Soong Chu-Yu not talking to each other http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/25/2003216650. On the other hand, its much easier to have this sorts of spats, when you've won.

Post-Election Thoughts

Something that I felt this morning was a great deal of sympathy for the pan-Green's, looking at their electoral defeat in Taiwan. I've been in the same situation as they have been in the past, and no doubt there will be other nights in the future, when I'll be on the losing side. So while, I'm in a good mood this evening, one has to remember that in a functioning political system, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

Some quick thoughts:

• On the one hand, this evening was a huge victory for the pan-Blue on Taiwan. But looking at the election results, one notices that the election numbers aren't really that different than the last session, with the blues picking up one seat and maybe a few more non-party supporters. The only reason this was a huge victory for pan-Blue is that Chen Shuibian set expectations for the Greens so high. After his victory in 3/20, he thought that a majority legislature was in site, and the fact that he didn't get anywhere close is seen as a major defeat.

• This is one of those results that seems obvious in hindsight. After all, the last election occurred right when the KMT-PFP were in total disarray. It wasn't too out of the question for the KMT to do better than last time. One thing that the KMT did that was brilliant in hindsight was to keep expectations low, so that a marginal gain in seats is going to seem like a major landslide.

• Something this definitive reveals is that public opinion on Taiwan is rather stable. There don't seem to be any major shifts in opinion since 2001, and what this means is that the March Presidental election did not mark a major realignment. This also calls into question of whether or not Chen would have won if he hadn't got shot.

• It was a bit disturbing that the election turnout was only 60% which is really low. I think a lot of people in Taiwan are getting really turned off to politics.

• I hope that Lien Chan and the pan-Blue are going to be generous in victory. I'm not too happy about Lien Chan trying to force a Premier on Chen Shui-Bian. Also, I really hope that Lien Chan decides to retire on a high note, and open the way for Ma Ying-Jiu to take over.

• Lee Tenghui should also take the hint and retire. He really isn't going good things for the pan-green camp.

• The PFP lost a huge number of seats, but I don't think anyone is particularly sad. At this point the PFP and the KMT are close enough so that the shift from PFP to KMT isn't going to bother anyone. It will be interesting to see the musical chairs that will result from the parties merging as will be essential for 2007 when the electoral system changes. Something that a lot of the observers have missed is that the KMT/PFP/New Party are largely ideologically compatible, whereas the relationship between the TSU and the DPP is much more contentious.

• Chen gambled a huge amount and lost. His constitutional reform project is largely dead. The special arms package is dead. Any chance at redoing referenda is dead. All of the state run enterprises are going to be called "China something" for the forseeable future. The worst thing is that he really has lost the trust of the United States in not taking the "hints" that he was pushing things too far.

• It will be interesting to see how Beijing reacts. This would be a very good moment for Beijing to be generous and to start discussions on transportation links. Also I think the election results will get rid of a lot of the fear that Taiwan is "slipping away" because judging from the election results, it isn't. This is also going to have to force the independence supporters (both moderate and hard line) to do a major rethink since it clearly shows that public opinion is not shifting over to their side, and the notion that Taiwanese consciousness is taking over just isn't happening.

• Li Ao is going to be fun to watch in the legislature.

Anyway off to bed.....