立法院

我加入路透社當菜鳥時剛剛解嚴不久，立法院開始大打出手，記憶猶新那是外國同事用來捉弄說笑的好武器，最好的回覆就是順著說笑皆大歡喜：對啊，這次打得不好，我要去抗議！你別惹我，我跟台灣國會議員一樣厲害！別的國會都學我們開打，不過我們還是比較猛！ 但玩笑之餘，我也不忘急急說明反對黨如何得不到剛剛解嚴時的媒體的版面，如此下下之策可以理解，他們都是讀了很多書(咦是韓導嗎)，很有理想的人等等。 過了解嚴之初的困境，媒體漸漸開放百家齊鳴，其實不太需要激烈肢體動作引起注意了，再有立法院打架事件總讓我覺得非常羞愧，此時反而是在台北的英國美國同事玩笑之餘反過來安慰，新興民主總是如此，台灣沒有經過流血革命政變走到這一步，在亞洲堪稱異數。 台灣什麼樣的亂象都還是會有，看看英國幾百年的民主，國會開議還跟演舞台劇一樣的傳統，每次看到都很羨慕人家那麼彬彬有禮跟BBC影集一樣，而如今英國的民主社會是何等荒謬！改天有空再來寫一篇。 在民主道路上台灣執政黨(不論是哪一黨)一定還是會跌跌撞撞，自然有許多不盡人意的地方，但是能夠因為民進黨以前大鬧國會，就一股腦說國民黨只是依樣畫葫蘆嗎？國民黨有228，民進黨執政了也可以來一個嗎？要不要規定學校不說台語就罰錢？如果願意去了解國民黨在台灣的所作所為，都不可能把任何一個政黨與其類比。檳榔黨雖然可惡，因為歷史環境，目前還沒有機會做到國民黨的罪孽深重。 國民黨執政的年代，年輕不懂事的我說支持民進黨是因為我要支持反對黨，有朝一日國民黨變成反對黨，我還是支持反對黨！漸漸我知道不管國民黨在什麼位置，都無法同情。歷史包袱放在一邊，這幾天國民黨的作為，已經超越了正常人可以接受的程度，從陳雪生到陳玉珍到咬人的那個誰，這樣杯葛議事，讓台灣在世界上蒙羞。 然而支持民進黨，就被認定為1450或是執政黨的內外宣，說穿了只是不喜歡對民進黨的支持罷了。也有可能說一樣爛，只是要掩飾對國民黨的不捨，失望或是尷尬而已。

學歷

講古又來了，我發這種文都是故意的。 當年我還在新加坡工作，已經準備搬去澳洲，不過我這輩子沒考過托福GRE什麼的，管它的，申請就是了。 結果學校來信說需要托福成績，當年是這樣現在不知道。我想了一下覺得很麻煩，因為我就是重考生啊，北一女畢業也考不上公立學校，考試成績可以想像。於是直接打電話去新南威爾斯大學國際關係研究所，轉了幾個人，終於轉到似乎是可以做主的人。 我解釋了我沒有托福成績，也不想浪費時間去考，聊了幾句，對方很爽快地說，妳的英文沒問題，不必附托福成績。 就這樣我就去讀研究所了，我去讀研究所純粹因為不知道離開路透社之後要幹嘛，就先讀個書再想想。為什麼申請新南威爾斯？只因為我會住在雪梨市中心。很高興這麼多年後學歷可以拿出來支持我的論點如下。 對我而言，學歷完全無用，不知道為什麼有人會炫耀自己是北一女台大榜首第一名斐陶斐，還要秀手機殼 🙄🙄🙄 喔忘了那個最重要我台大醫科的，我住過美國一年。。。TMD 全都滾啦，一群不知道哪裡來的夜郎 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Jimmy Carter - a peanut farmer's legacy

Deng Xiaoping meets Carter in 1979

Submariner, peanut farmer, civil rights champion and Nobel prize winner Jimmy Carter was the 39th President of the United States and a key player in the dramatic 1978 geopolitical switch in Sino-American relations, which left Taiwan on the outside. 

The lifelong democrat and humanitarian is now 98 and in hospice care, his race almost run.

Carter’s legacy and his deal to officially recognise China after the communists took control, plus his subsequent role in building the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 is a legacy all of us on this small Pacific island live with to this day.   

Known as the ‘Charlie Brown of American politics’ because of his connection to peanuts, Carter inherited Sino-American rapprochement from the Ping-pong diplomacy of the early 1970s which lead to 37th President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 and eventually the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and China under Carter. 

Hitherto, the US had considered China as an aggressor after its support of North Korea during the 1950-1953 Korean War, and, more importantly, was supporting democracy over communism. Likewise, in 1955 the US waded into Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism, although it is notable that the Vietnam War ended in 1975, pretty much at the same time as America was seeking to normalise their relationship with communist China. 

I have often wondered whether the rapprochement in Sino-American relations seen during the 1970s was based on a feeling by the US that the embarrassment of losing the Vietnam War persuaded them that diplomacy was better than war and that diplomatic containment of China was the better option. 

Small comfort to the fact the Korean and Vietnam Wars killed around two million people each if you include all military and civilian deaths. Let’s not forget thousands of wounded, scared and displaced.  

On China’s side there was perhaps the same feeling, in as much as losing 180,000 Chinese infantrymen to US artillery and support of the North Korean regime was of little or no  benefit to China. Maybe it was better to embrace the world and its markets to build wealth and improve the lives of its population, rather than fighting wars on the basis of a belief in a political regime. 

It would appear that over the course of two proxy wars based mainly on ideology, both China and the US came to terms with the futility of it, and decided diplomacy was a better option.  

Remembering, of course, that the Cold War with Russia after World War II, and the subject of nearly all spy and James Bond movies at the time, was about a clash of ideologies, ergo, communism vs democracy and not about territorial/economic gain.

Carter’s China visit on January 29, 1979, coincided with Deng Xiaoping’s rise to power and his huge and strategic market-economy reforms which led to him being known as "Architect of Modern China". During my time in Beijing as Reuters Editor for North Asia, I often commented to my friends  abroad that it didn’t seem like I was living in a totalitarian communist dictatorship, but in a capitalist society. 

Deng managed to create this and subsequently the fear of the spread of communism from China bleed away and the west relaxed enough to establish diplomatic relations, leaving Taiwan to one side as there were bigger geopolitical, and more important at the time, economic issues to worry about. 

Which is why Taiwan finds itself in its current ridiculous diplomatic impasse. China insisted that as part of the deal, the US cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and both sides were more interested in what the deal could bring in terms of money and economic advantage. Taiwan’s standing in the world became a “Ah well, I’m sure we can sort that out later.”   

Perhaps with a closer eye on ideology than economics, Republicans at the time were angry with the deal and in April 1979, US lawmakers passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which gave Taiwan nearly the same status as any other nation recognized by the United States. It also ensured that arms sales to Taiwan continued. 

In place of the U.S. Embassy in Taiwan, an “unofficial” representative, called the American Institute in Taiwan, would continue to serve U.S. interests there. Over forty years later, little has changed and the architect of the situation is currently close to the end of his life.

While this historical background seems not to have changed too much over the decades, the one thing, to my mind, that has changed, is the Chinese administration. While I was working as a journalist in Beijing I was regularly taken to task by the Foreign Ministry about stories we had written and there was aggression towards foreign correspondents. 

I left China as Xi Jinping took over and it is clear his regime is less tolerant of foreign journalists and the administration is more belligerent in the wider field of diplomacy than previous executives.

Therein lies Taiwan’s problem. On the one hand there is a powerful ally, the United States, bound by law to help and that has not changed. On the other hand there is a more aggressive and more nationalistic administration on the mainland. 

Indeed, America has recently added to its original 1979 Taiwan act to include other issues. You can view this at this US government website Taiwan Policy Act 2022 but you need to scroll down to find the additions made in 2022.

As a “Major Non-NATO Ally” Taiwan can likely rely on being treated muchlike Ukraine, should they be invaded by a neighboring power. I have purposely avoided the use of ‘superpower’ as Russia has proved it is not, given its failures in Ukraine. The perception that China is a ‘superpower’ is likely also incorrect considering likely reality vs perception.

Which leaves those of us living in Taiwan and enjoying the sunny days presaging a balmy spring and summer wondering what to expect. For those of us who can vote the decision is clear. 

The forthcoming presidential election is a single issue election given what has happened in Ukraine and NATO’s reaction to it. Taiwan has leapt to the top of the global news agenda in countries where hitherto the bulk of the population had never really heard of Taiwan, muchless thought about its position in the world. 

Since the invasion of Ukraine, the world has become much more aware of Taiwan’s plight and from what I read in the world’s free press the broad consensus is on Taiwan’s side. This has empowered the west to show more overt support of Taiwan, evidenced by high profile visits from the likes of the 52nd speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi last year. 

Taiwan is high up in the global mindset, the world is more Taiwan aware, and diplomats see being on Taiwan’s side as backing democracy vs communism and perhaps heading off desperately sad situations such as that which is fast developing in Hong Kong. 

Looking at the diplomatic turbulent history, and the sad and lonely battle Taiwan has endured from China’s bullying in the past years as fighter jets invade our airspace and ‘military war games’ threaten our very borders, I worry about how the electorate will vote in the 2024 election. 

The next election has but a single issue - relations with China.

A KMT administration would undoubtedly be more favourable towards closer ties with China, that is a given and something all voters need to understand. 

If this democracy votes KMT and therefore for closer ties with China I can see diplomats around the world, including those of Taiwan’s greatest allies thinking. “Ah well, they have democratically voted for closer ties with China so let’s not bother so much and spend money and effort to help protect the. It would seem they are OK with China taking them over.”

There are, of course, other factors like Taiwan’s strategic position militarily in the US Pacific defense lines put in place after World War II, but if the population ostensibly votes for closer ties with China in a fully democratic election, the diplomats pushing for Taiwan to even hold its own in the world may well reduce their efforts and give it up as a lost cause. 

After all, they may say, they have democratically voted for it….so be it. 

Tinkerty tonk...