I turned my recent blog post on Barack Obama and Taiwan into an op-ed piece for the Colorado Daily newspaper (which is the newspaper of the University of Colorado at Boulder) and which was published in yesterday’s edition.   The online version is available here.

Here is the published piece in its entirety (with one small typo fixed):

On March 22, Taiwan held a presidential election. Ma Ying-Jeou of the Nationalist Party defeated the Democratic Progressive Party candidate. It was Taiwan’s second peaceful transfer of party power through democratic elections, an excellent sign of a healthy and maturing democracy

Commenting on Ma’s election, Sen. Barack Obama stated that the U.S. should respond by “rebuilding a relationship of trust and support” with democratic Taiwan. “The U.S. should reopen blocked channels of communication with Taiwan officials,” Obama said.

This would actually be a hugely significant step towards recognizing the obvious — that Taiwan is a sovereign and democratic nation deserving of formal relations with the United States. It would also be a step that would undoubtedly annoy Communist China, Taiwan’s thuggish and bullying neighbor.

So does Obama mean it?

When Obama touched on “America’s promise abroad” during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, the candidate mentioned both protecting Israel and standing up for Georgia. And indeed, the U.S. has a long history of both supporting emerging democracies and standing by existing democracies under threat from hostile neighbors. Taiwan certainly fits this bill.

Problem is that the Chinese communists in Beijing claim sovereignty over democratic Taiwan — even though it is obvious that Taiwan functions as an independent state.

Unfortunately, the U.S. continues to appease Beijing’s claim over Taiwan through recognition of “one China,” a weak and outdated policy that goes back to a 1972 “joint communiqué” issued by President Nixon and Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung.

Since then Taiwan has transformed itself from an authoritarian regime and into a representative democracy with a dynamic market economy — precisely the kind of country whose representatives should be able to communicate directly with Washington, D.C.

In October 2007, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 48, which, among other things, called for a lifting of travel restrictions to the U.S. by “high level and elected officials of Taiwan, including the president of Taiwan” and for “direct cabinet-level exchanges in order to strengthen a policy dialogue with Taiwan.”

Yet missing from the very short list of co-sponsors for the resolution was Obama (to be fair, Sen. John McCain, along with the majority of the rest of the U.S. Senate, was also absent as a co-sponsor).

So months before Obama stated that the U.S. “should reopen blocked channels of communications with Taiwan officials,” he had an opportunity to both co-sponsor and help push through his committee a resolution advocating for just such a re-opening of communication with Taiwan.

Actions speak louder than words. And Obama’s failure to take action — even such symbolic action as a concurrent resolution — to “reopen” blocked communication with democratic Taiwan makes his statement about “rebuilding a relationship of trust and support” with Taiwan seem like little more than campaign rhetoric.

Beijing’s toadies at the United Nations are still hard at work appeasing China’s ludicrous claim over democratic Taiwan.  From Taiwan’s Central News Agency:

The United Nations has refused for years to issue press accreditation to Taiwanese journalists for the annual meeting on the grounds that Taiwan is not a U.N. member state.

The policy continued for the 63rd session of the General Assembly that opened Sept. 16 in New York.

Taiwanese journalists used to be able to cover the annual World Health Assembly held every May in Geneva, but authorization was withdrawn in 2004 under pressure from China.

If we ever end up with a League of Democratic Nations–leaving the UN to the thugocracies of the world–one of its first pieces of business, after inviting Taiwan to be a member, should be to bar Chinese journalists.

The 2008 Republican Party Platform was released earlier this month, including positions on both Taiwan and China.

First Taiwan:

Our policy toward Taiwan, a sound democracy and economic model for mainland China, must continue to be based upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act. We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan straits on the principle that all issues regarding the island’s future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China were to violate these principles, the U.S., in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself. As a loyal friend of America, the democracy of Taiwan has merited our strong support, including the timely sale of defensive arms and full participation in the World Health Organization and other multilateral institutions.

A fairly strong statement, but one that seeks to maintain the “status quo” between Taiwan and China…unfortunately, the status quo means Chinese ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan and threats of violence against the Taiwanese people by Beijing..so more American aquiescence to the archaic “one China” policy.

Now China:

We will welcome the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, and we will welcome even more the development of a democratic China. Its rulers have already discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth; the next lesson is that political and religious freedom leads to national greatness. That is not likely to be learned while the government in Beijing pursues advanced military capabilities without any apparent need, imposes a “one-child” policy on its people, suppresses basic human rights in Tibet and elsewhere, and erodes democracy in Hong Kong. China must honor its obligations regarding free speech and a free press as announced prior to the Olympics.

Our bilateral trade with China has created export opportunities for American farmers and workers, while both the requirements of the World Trade Organization and the realities of the marketplace have increased openness and the rule of law in China. We must yet ensure that China fulfills its WTO obligations, especially those related to protecting intellectual property rights, elimination of subsidies, and repeal of import restrictions. China’s full integration into the global economy requires that it adopt a flexible monetary exchange rate and allow free movement of capital. China’s economic growth brings with it the responsibility for environmental improvement, both for its own people and for the world community.

Nice.

Senator John McCain has a lengthy article laying out his view of American foreign policy in the November/December 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs. Here’s a part of his section on China:

China could also bolster its claim that it is “peacefully rising” by being more transparent about its significant military buildup. When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests antisatellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts. When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note. When China enjoys close economic and diplomatic relations with pariah states such as Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, tension will result. When China proposes regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia, the United States will react.

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests. U.S.-Chinese relations can benefit both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values.

“Periodicaly shared interests” sounds about right as a policy towards China, at least as long as Beijing remains a thuggish authoritarian regime.

In a recent post, I wondered which U.S. presidential candidate would be better on supporting democratic Taiwan over the communists in Beijing and gave a slight edge to Senator McCain (though both candidates appear to support a continuation of the ridiculous “one China” policy).

As a part of America’s acquiesence to Beijing’s false claim of sovereignty over democratic Taiwan, there are travel restrictions on Taiwanese officials to the U.S. and bans on direct communications between U.S. government officials and their counterparts in Taiwan. So would President Obama put an end to these restrictions?

From the Formosan Association for Public Affairs comes this tidbit from Senator Obama’s comments on Taiwan’s March 2008 presidential election:

The United States should respond to Ma Ying-jeou’s election by rebuilding a relationship of trust and support for Taiwan’s democracy. The U.S. should reopen blocked channels of communication with Taiwan officials.

Does Senator Obama mean it?

Back in October 2007, U.S. Senator Tim Johnson introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 48 (S.CON.RES.48) a resolution which:

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) restrictions on U.S. visits by high-level elected and appointed officials of Taiwan, including the President of Taiwan, should be lifted; (2) the United States should allow direct Cabinet level exchanges in order to strengthen a policy dialogue with Taiwan; and (3) it is in the U.S. national interest to strengthen links with the democratically-elected government of Taiwan and demonstrate stronger support for democracy in the Asia-Pacific region.

Concurrent resolutions are not submitted to the president, and lack the force of law. Rather they are intended, among other things, to express the sentiments of the U.S. Congress in a formal way towards a particular issue.

Yet missing for the very short list of co-sponsors for the resolution is Senator Barack Obama (to be fair, Senator McCain’s name is also absent from the list).

The resolution was sent to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs for consideration in October 2007, and that was the end of Congressional action on the resolution thus far. Among the members of the foreign affairs committee is U.S. Senator Barack Obama. As a side note, the chairman of the committee is U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, who is now Senator Obama’s vice presidential running mate.

Point is that months before Senator Obama stated that the U.S. “should reopen blocked channels of communications with Taiwan officials” he had an opportunity to co-sponsor and help push through the foreign affairs committee a resolution advocating for just such a re-opening of communication with Taiwan.

Of course, President Obama could make the sentiment of S.CON.RES.48 a reality by simply ordering the U.S. State Department to begin direct communcation with the Taiwanese…but would he?

For now, the pro-Taiwan edge still goes to McCain.

“Both Ways” Beijing is at it again. The regime recently echoed a longstanding Chinese theme that nations should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. This is, of course, hogwash. Beijing is more than willing to use its significant clout to affect the internal affairs of other countries when it suits the regime, especially when it comes to China’s efforts at marginalizing Taiwan internationally.

In a recent speech in Thailand, just before heading off to the Olympics in Beijing, U.S. President Bush tweaked China over its human rights record, including the detention of political dissidents, human rights and religious activists and other human rights abuses by Beijing.

In response, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman tweaked right back at Mr. Bush:

“We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.”

Really?

In 2007, my Independence Institute collegue Dave Kopel and I wrote about Costa Rica dropping diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to enter into a stronger economic and diplomatic relations with China:

In June, Costa Rica ended nearly sixty years of diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to establish diplomatic relations with China. Not only a victory in Beijing’s efforts to smother Taiwan’s independence, the Costa Rican switch is further evidence of China’s growing influence in Latin America—a growing threat to democracy and to U.S. interests.

Announcing the diplomatic switch, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias cited a desire to strengthen commercial ties and “attract investment” from China. Arias then thanked Taiwan for its “solidarity and co-operation” over the last sixty years, noting that Taiwan has been “very generous.”

But the next day, Arias denounced Taiwan for being “stingy.” Sounding as though he had taken emergency talking points from Beijing, Arias grumbled, “Considering the few friends they have, they don’t treat them very well.” Arias continued, “Without a doubt, we will get more help from China.”

So if Beijing actually believes that no country should interfere in the internal affairs of another, why would Costa Rica have to end its relationship with Taiwan in order to “get more help from China?”

As Kopel and I continue:

China insists that the price of trade relations is the severance of diplomatic relations with independent Taiwan. A 2005 Heritage Foundation report warned that “China has launched a major diplomatic offensive in Central America and the Caribbean to stamp out Taiwan’s diplomatic legitimacy in the region and supplant Taiwan’s influence among these young democracies with its own.” The report observed that China has been “translating its economic success -and its search for resources to fuel its economic growth—into greater influence in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

So perhaps the U.S. should go ahead and call Beijing on its bluster about not interfering in other countries’ affairs by re-entering into formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and maybe even throw in a trade deal with Taiwan. Then when Beijing throws its predictable temper tantrum, the U.S. can gently remind the regime that other countries (China) should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations (in this case, foreign policy decisions by the U.S.).

Nick Cohen from The Observer ( a British newspaper) reminds us that China is still a communist regime, and thus Beijing’s claims of a “green” Olympics needs to be viewed through the prism of authoritarian propaganda honed to a fine skill through years of practice…he also notes that Beijing has found some useful idiots from the West to help prop up the  illusion:

The Communist party of China has beautified Beijing for the Olympics. The Organising Committee for the games has ordered one million cars from the road and told factories to shut down, so foreigners will believe that one of the most polluted cities on earth can hold ‘the green Olympics’.

The president of the Olympic Committee gabbled his appreciation. Jacques Rogge, a sports’ bureaucrat who appears to have learnt nothing from the 20th century, lauded China’s ‘extraordinary’ efforts. The statistics proved the authorities had done everything that ‘was humanely possible’, and the statistics never lie.

Greenpeace, so harsh on democratic countries, was as excessive in its praise. After registering a few reservations, it declared the dictatorship’s work was ‘tremendous’ and ‘positively unique’. Beijing was providing ‘important lessons to other Chinese cities’.

The eyebrows of Jonathan Fenby, who has just published The Penguin History of Modern China, shot up at that. When the games are over, the factories will reopen, he said. The Olympics will have secured a few long-term benefits – more homes and workplaces will burn gas rather than coal – but when set against China’s vast pollution problem these gains will be tiny.

Cohen then reminds us why it is such useful idiots are so easy to come by (and always have been for communist regimes):

The gullible admire dictatorships because they think the great leader and his politburo can cut through objections and force the recalcitrant to obey orders, and we have had no shortage of fantasies about the better China that would come if only the party embraced greenery.

In The River Runs Black, a book every environmentalist needs to read, Elizabeth C Economy points out that the fantasies can never be realised. Even if the centre wanted to change policy, its writ does not run in the provinces. Local officials are in the pocket of or related to factory owners and ignore inconvenient decrees. If the courts, the press or doctors in local hospitals complain, they silence them. Change is impossible without democratic reform – which is as far away as ever.

The editorial board of my hometown newspaper, the Denver Post, have taken both Beijing and its toadies at the International Olympic Committee to task for falling short on promises made…the money excerpt:

The Chinese desperately want the $40 billion games to be lauded as a success — a showcase for athletes reaching superlative heights against the backdrop of a perfect city.

Unfortunately, the early reports paint a far from perfect picture.

Instead of human rights improvements, the situation has worsened. Even as Beijing publicized the establishment of “protest zones,” dissidents were detained or jailed. So-called troublemakers have been denied entry to the country. In Beijing, taxi cabs are wired for eavesdropping. And Tibet, which has long clashed with Chinese authorities, remains closed to the outside world.

Furthermore, journalists in Beijing to cover the games have reported their Internet access is being filtered, with some websites being blocked.

Inexplicably, the IOC appears impotent in applying pressure on the Chinese to keep their promises. That is, if the IOC is even trying.

In the face of growing concern by athletes over air quality, the IOC’s chief medical commissioner said Tuesday that the Beijing air looks like pea soup because of its “humidity.” What?

The U.S. Olympic Committee seems to be taking its cues from the IOC. When four members of the U.S. cycling team got off a plane in China wearing air masks distributed by the USOC, their actions were questioned by USOC officials. USOC CEO Jim Scherr reportedly said the cyclists were “overly cautious.” The cyclists ended up making a public apology to the Chinese.

The events leave us wondering why the great effort to soothe the Chinese ego?

Nice! The folks at the Post don’t seem quite as timid as the New York Times editorial board, who have acted genuinely surprised that a communist regime is granted the Olympics, and then continues to act like a communist regime.

Prior to the opening of the Olympics in Beijing, I posted about why President Bush should not attend the games, such as this argument from the Heritage Foundation. But as long as Mr. Bush is in Beijing, here is an excerpt from a compelling and witty argument by Nick Gillespie at Reason Magazine (disclosure: Nick has been good enough to publish my work in the past) as to why Bush attending the Olympics is a good thing:

But the most interesting performance of this games may have already taken place a couple of days ago, starting in Thailand of all places. That’s when President George W. Bush actually sounded presidential for a change and made an unambiguous statement about human rights and China:

“We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China’s leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential….We press for openness and justice, not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs….

“The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings.”

A Chinese spokesman responded with a courteous screw-you: “We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues.” At the opening of the new U.S. embassy in China, Bush reiterated his theme of freedom and engagement: “We strongly believe societies which allow the free expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful.”

If you care about civil liberties, foreign policy, government spending, expansions in executive power, Social Security reform, traditional African dancing, or you name it, Bush’s presidency has been the sort of ongoing disaster-cum-embarrassment that the baseball team he used to own, the Texas Rangers, faces on an annual basis. And there is plenty to criticize in terms of Bush’s current appearance in China. Not his going to the opening ceremonies of the Games in the first place, but his failure to meet openly with Chinese dissidents or directly address a nation-wide audience in China.

Despite the high-flying rhetoric of athletic competition, the modern Olympics, restarted in 1896, were conceived of as a political act—a way for the French to avenge on the playing field their battlefield defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (it’s one reason why participants compete as part of national teams rather than as individuals). True to this origin, the Olympics have always provided a stage for world politics, both official and unofficial, well-intentioned and murderous. Hence the grotesque displays of Nazism in 1936, the student protests in ‘68, the terrorist atrocities of ‘72, Eric Rudolph’s bombings in ‘96, and various boycotts, such as President Jimmy Carter’s withdrawal of the United States team from the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter’s boycott, done in the name of human rights, accomplished absolutely nothing. I’m willing to say that Bush is a worse president than Carter (who at least deregulated airline ticket pricing and interstate trucking, and invited Willie Nelson to the White House), but it’s Bush who has gotten it right when it comes to superpower-charged Olympics.

To have Bush out there, saying what he’s saying where he’s saying it—and pursuing a larger policy of engagement via trade and other forms of exchange—is absolutely the best way to pull China into something approaching Western-style democracy, complete with robust individual rights and the sort of economy that will ultimately force governments to loosen up. Milton Friedman famously said that as people get richer, they demand the ability to live however they want—that economic freedom, which increases prosperity, helps create the conditions for political freedom. It seems clear that the Chinese government, like all governments, doesn’t want to yield power if it can avoid doing so. It’s also clear that the more a country trades with the world—for goods, services, and even cultural identities—the less its government can control its people. Here’s hoping that the Beijing Olympics, regardless of the predictable and bizarre repressions going on right now to ensure a “stain-free” event, push that process along.

No big surprise here…turns out that the assurances by both Beijing and the International Olympic Committee that journalists covering the Beijing Olympics would have full access to the Intenet were lies.

From the International Herald Tribune (July 30)

The Chinese government confirmed Wednesday what journalists arriving at the lavishly outfitted media center here had suspected: Contrary to previous assurances by Olympic and government officials, the Internet would be censored during the upcoming games.

Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have been unable to access scores of Web pages – politically sensitive ones that discuss Tibetan succession, Taiwanese independence, the violent crackdown of the protests in Tiananmen Square and the sites of Amnesty International, Radio Free Asia and several Hong Kong newspapers known for their freewheeling political discourse.

On Wednesday – two weeks after its most recent proclamation of an uncensored Internet during the Summer Games – the International Olympic Committee quietly agreed to some of the limitations, according to Kevan Gosper, chairman of the IOC press commission, Reuters reported.

Sounds like the communist regime in Beijing is acting like…well, a communist regime.

The Tribune continues:

The Chinese government and the IOC had repeatedly suggested up until two weeks ago that the 20,000 journalists covering the games would have full Internet access. Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic committee president, declared that the foreign media would be able to report and publish its work freely in China and that the Internet would be uncensored.

Wow, Jacques Rogge and the other bumbling bueracrats at the IOC really are just a bunch of toadies for the regime.

« go back — keep looking »

Recently Written

• Downzoning northwest Denver is contrary to sustainable development goals
• Why Denver’s new zoning code should allow accessory dwelling units (granny flats)
• More Communist Paranoia From Beijing
• How President Obama can show support for Taiwan
• Taiwan supporters in U.S. Congress alive and kicking
• Communist Chinese Authoritarianism at its Paranoid Worst.
• Is The U.S. Postal Service Practicing Beijing Appeasment?
• Che and Mao, Icons for the Clueless
• Beijing Pouts Over Sarkozy Meeting With Dalai Lama
• More Chinese Influence in Africa

Categories

• Africa
• Burma
• China
• Colorado
• Darfur
• Denver
• Denver zoning code
• Espionage
• Ethiopia
• Falun Gong
• Genocide
• Inner Mongolia
• milestones
• Mount Everest
• Mugabe
• Nepal
• Olympics
• Personal Freedom
• Taiwan
• Tibet
• Uighers
• Uncategorized
• Zimbabwe

Archives

• August 2009
• February 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008

Blogroll

• Dave Kopel
• David Harsanyi
• Dream for Darfur
• Independence Institute
• Sam Adams Alliance
• SudanReeves
• The Cauldron

Admin

• Register
• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Search