Whenever I get upset at the ridiculous lies that I hear or read in the media, I try to remember that the people telling them cannot be held entirely responsible for their own actions.
After all, mankind abandoned the progress it had made in civilizing itself at some point during the late 1960s, as far as I can make out. We cast aside the Age of Reason in favor of marijuana, rock-and-roll and relativism. And two out of three ain't bad.
At the time, it all seemed like a pretty good idea, but only because we were forced to compare it to what had come before: the 1950s, with stultifying intellectual oppression and a stark world of moral absolutes.
I'm Old School. So although I try to accept that individuals can no longer be held accountable for their own words, and that even obvious lies must be viewed as the moral and intellectual equivalent of the truth, I just can't do it.
However, this is all getting somewhat off track.
What has occasioned this philosophical ramble -- or sophomoric rant, if you prefer -- is China's rather predictable reaction to the US Department of Defense's Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2006.
I have to admit, I no longer look forward to these reports the way I did back in the 1990s.
Once you have heard the sentence: "China's economic growth, growing diplomatic leverage, and improvements in the PLA's [People's Liberation Army] military capabilities, contrasted with Taiwan's modest defense efforts, have the effect of shifting the cross-Strait balance in Beijing's favor," you have heard it a thousand times.
And of course, China's response was equally predictable:
"China is a peace-loving nation and has insisted on a way of peaceful development, with a national defence policy that is defensive in nature," said Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao (劉建超), according to a May 24 story from the Press Trust of India, in a story run on the Times of India's Web site.
The only thing surprising about this is that God didn't strike Liu dead on the spot. But I assume that one must have some kind of special agreement with the Almighty -- or the Devil -- before one can become a spokesman for the Chinese bandits.
"Taiwan is an inseparable part of China's territories. The Chinese government sticks to the policy of `peaceful reunification and one country, two systems,'" Liu said.
Inseparable? But Comrade Liu, they are already separated: geographically, politically, economically and socially. Try walking across the Taiwan Strait sometime. Or try criticizing your leaders in an opinion piece in the China Daily.
Furthermore, why does Beijing keep trying to sell us this "peaceful reunification" shtick when they've already told us in writing that they'll invade us if we "move toward independence," the catch-all phrase that China's "Anti-Secession" Law employs.
What will China do if some of us "move toward independence"? Or if just part of Taiwan declares independence? Let's find out:
Dear China,
I, Johnny Neihu, being of sound mind, do hereby declare that I and the district of Taipei which is my namesake are moving toward independence. We shall continue moving in this manner until such time as we see fit, and assert our right as responsible parties to move in whichever direction we desire, without fear of coercion or obstruction.
Truly yours,
Dr. Johnny Neihu IV
Well, big things have small beginnings, as they say. So write that off as my tiny gesture toward the establishment of individual liberty and peace worldwide. Now let's hope that that black-market PAC-3 Patriot anti-missile battery I bought the last time I passed through Tripoli still works.
I can't think of Libya anymore without being reminded of the ridiculous position that Taiwan has been reduced to when it tries to conduct diplomacy.
Witness this year's World Health Organization (WHO) debacle.
"Although Taiwan's participation in the WHO has not been institutionalized, de facto contact [with many countries] has been established," Taiwan's de facto ambassador to Switzerland Shen Lyu-shun (
The only thing that should be institutionalized, as far as I can see, is Taiwan's diplomatic corps.
We failed to join the WHO again? Gee, you mean Taiwan failed to completely overturn the entire structure of international politics this year? How surprising. Maybe we should increase the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' budget. I'm sure if we put a few more posters in subway stations in Brooklyn, we'll succeed next year.
However, it was good to see that at least some people seem to have a sense of reality.
Before his arrival in Taiwan on Wednesday, Deputy US Trade Representative Karan Bhatia exhibited the kind of level-headed restraint that one wishes the rest of the US political establishment could exercise.
Agence France-Presse ran the following exchange in a story on May 24:
"But the US official played down the political significance of his visit to Taipei, from where he is due to travel on to India and Vietnam.
`I recognize that my visit over there is likely to be noted by the media there. That's fine,' Bhatia said. `But what I would stress is that this is not intended to be a political trip.'"
Now mind you, this is an actual US official speaking. Normally we are subjected to reams of stories about people who are not even in the US government anymore, who come here on the Taiwanese taxpayer's dime, pretending they have the inside scoop about what's happening in Washington.
What they really want, of course, is to cash in by pushing the private companies they work for.
But hey, not everyone is Therese Shaheen.
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS