Category: China

Good going CKS

A professor from Australia’s Monash University has a piece in the Sunday edition of Taipei Times that confirms what I’d always suspected about Taiwan’s ostracization from the international community. Namely, that it was all Chiang Kai Shek’s fault.

Chiang lost the ROC its UN seat

n mid-1971, the US and other countries began to push for a “dual representation” solution. The Australian ambassador to Taipei, Hugh Dunn, wrote on June 4, 1971, to then Minister of Foreign Affairs Chow Shu-kai (周書楷): “What we would see as a desirable finish is that the People’s Republic take over the Security Council seat, and that Taiwan remains on as a member, an ordinary member, of the UN … If the UN recognizes the PRC instead of the ROC as occupying the Chinese seat, and nothing else is done, Taiwan would be out in the cold. We wouldn’t favor that resolution.”

Chow showed some willingness to adjust to the new situation. When talking to the Japanese ambassador to Taipei, he said: “Although I have no way to approve of it and under the circumstances must express my opposition, we could tolerate its existence.” The English phrase, “We can live with it,” is added to the Chinese text.

In an “absolutely secret” secret document dated Aug. 3, 1971, the ministry laid out the options and Taiwan’s preferences. The first preference was that the “important question” motion be passed, which meant that the PRC would require a two-thirds vote to be admitted. The second preference was “dual recognition.” But even at this late moment, after more than 20 years of rejecting any alternative to “one China,” the Nationalist authorities would not openly embrace dual recognition.

So back in 1971 the USA, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and possibly other countries were all ready to support a motion granting the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) independent membership in the UN simultaneous with the recognition of the People’s Republic of China (aka Red China/Mainland China) as the holders of the Security Council seat. From today’s perspective, at a time in which the PRC’s economic, political, and military power is rising fast it we forget how powerless they really were back then – isolated internationally far more than Taiwan is today, their economy and social structure devastated by the Cultural Revolution. Had the ROC/Taiwan government actually put its support behind a two nation, dual representation structure at that time, China would have had absolutely no chance of opposing them, and the absurd fiction of the ‘one China policy’ would have never gotten off the ground.

A solution to the U.S.-China trade deficit?

With the successful launch and return of the Shenozhou 6 earlier this week, China is in the grips of space fever. And like most other things Chinese these days, it hasn’t taken long for someone to figure out how to make a buck/RMB/yen/Euro.

The Taipei Times is running a story today with the headline:

“US company begins selling lunar land rights to Chinese.”

A US company has set up operations in China to sell land on the moon for 115 yuan (US$15) a hectare, cashing in on renewed interest in space travel after the successful five-day voyage of Shenzhou VI.

The so-called Lunar Embassy, touted as the first extraterrestrial estate agency, started operations on Wednesday in Beijing, the China Daily reported.

It will issue customers a “certificate” that ensures property ownership, including rights to use the land and minerals up to 3km underground, said Li Jie, agent for the company in China.

“We define it as a kind of novelty gift with the potential of unlimited increase in value,” said Li.

Lunar Embassy was set up by US entrepreneur Dennis Hope in 1980, 11 years after the Apollo II mission first landed on the moon.

Hope believes a loophole in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty makes his sales legitimate. The agreement forbids governments from owning extraterrestrial property but fails to mention corporations or individuals.

Apparenly, it isn’t just the Chinese that are buying. According to the article, over 3.5 million customers have been served a little slice of the lunar pie, and Hope has branches in 7 other coutries, including the US, Germany, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

I have no idea on what basis this guy thinks he can claim the moon on a commerical basis, but there is one interesting plot twist:

The company could run into problems in China, though, with the Chaoyang District branch of Beijing’s Administration for Industry and Commerce launching an investigation.

The Beijing News cited Chaoyang bureau staff as saying sale of land on the moon was not listed as the company’s business when it was registered.

I wonder how much longer it will be before we have a headline that reads: “Chinese company begins selling lunar land rights domesically.”

Chinese capitalism in action

From the BBC:

‘Babies for sale’ on Chinese eBay

Chinese police are investigating a report of attempted baby trafficking on an internet auction site, according to a state-owned newspaper.

The advertisement was reportedly placed on eBay’s Chinese website, Eachnet.

Boys were advertised for 28,000 yuan ($3,450) while girls were offered for 13,000 yuan ($1,603), Eachnet manager Tang Lei told the China Daily.

The offer could have been a hoax, but it comes as baby trafficking is seen as an increasing problem in China.

Chinese IP law: it’s not the size of the book, but how you use it

I just got back from a talk given by Mark Cohen, an American intellectual property lawyer currently serving as U.S. Patent and Trademark Office attaché in the Beijing embassy. Very, very enlightening.

This guy literally wrote the book on Chinese IP law. One of his PowerPoint slides was a picture of the book from its side. The reason he put this on a slide: he was talking to an American businessman on a transpacific flight, and mentioned the book in conversation. The businessman said it must be one of the shortest books ever. It’s actually about 500 pages… as thick as many of the casebooks we get in American law schools.

Honestly, if I were sitting next to Mr. Cohen, I would have had the same reply. The impression most people get of intellectual property law in China is: “what intellectual property law in China?” What Cohen had to say was a paradigm shift for me: the problem is really that there’s too much IP law in China!
Continue reading Chinese IP law: it’s not the size of the book, but how you use it

Yasukuni revisited

We kind of knew it was coming: Koizumi went again. Protests broke out in Beijing and Hong Kong. Best dismissal EVER:

Koizumi told reporters in Tokyo that he made his visit as a private citizen and not in an official capacity, saying that “China and South Korea will eventually understand.”

The angry reactions in China and Korea are covered in more depth in AFP’s article.

UPDATE: Another great Koizumi jab: “In principle other people should not meddle with matters of the heart… much more, foreign governments should not say ‘you should not’ when the Japanese are offering sincere condolences to the war dead from Japan and other parts of the world.”

Google and Taiwanese sovereignty

I originally started writing this post in response to this post on Ridingsun and never quite got around to finishing it, but now that Google has announced they are changing their designation of Taiwan from “Taiwan, province of China” to merely “Taiwan,” I figure I’ll just publish it.

The official US position is stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, passed in 1979, and has never been changed since.

Don’t forget Taiwan’s government is still known as the Republic Of China, and according to its constitution still considers itself a claimant to sovereignty over all of China, of which Taiwan is just a single province.

If you look at the actual text of the ROC constitution, Article 2 states
“The president and the vice president shall be directly elected by the entire populace of the free area of the Republic of China.”

By limiting voting to the populace of the “free area”, i.e. Taiwan and the surrounding islands, the implication is that mainland China is “unfree territory of the Republic of China.”

Article 11 also states
“Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.”
again, making clear that Taiwan still legally considers itself part of China (although apparently the best part).

If constitutional interpretation is too dry, you can follow the reasoning at the blog Those Who Dare.

Or simpler yet, they can just look at the vehicular traffic on Taiwan’s roads and take note of the license plates that read Taiwan Province.

Yes, the current president’s party (I hesitate to say ‘ruling party’ since they control oly a single branch of the government, all branches of which are basically stuck in deadlock due to partisan bickering) endorses formal independence from China, but unless they succeed in revising the constitution and changing the country’s official name, it’s very unrealistic to expect foreign businesses to do so.

Incidentally, I would be thrilled to see the ROC officially change its name to Republic of Taiwan, so don’t think that I’m actually in favor of reunification. Just try and realize this isn’t just a matter of Taiwan’s independence not being recognized internationally, it stil isn’t even recognized domestically.

The story behind the famous Tiananmen photo

The BBC has a wonderful first person account of the story behind this iconic photograph.

I looked around for cover but there was none – the only areas that offered any protection were back up Changan Avenue near the Beijing Hotel. About the time I reached some trees along the avenue the soldiers opened up on the crowd at the top of the square. There was panic as people were being hit.

It was impossible for me to shoot pictures as it was too dark and using a flash was out of the question. I looked around and decided that about the only shot left was from the roof of a building with a long exposure of the square and the mayhem.

I went into the Beijing Hotel, which had a commanding view of the top of the square, but when I went in, I was tackled by members of the Public Security Bureau (PSB), China’s secret police.

One of the PSB ran up to me with a electric cattle prod and hit me in the side with it. Others punched and kicked at me. They ripped my photo vest off me and took all the film I had shot that evening. They were going to keep the cameras but I convinced them they were useless without film, so they returned them and I told them I was going to my room.

The PSB had missed three rolls of unexposed film in an inside pocket of the photo vest.

For comparison, here’s a photo I took that shows you the same piece of street on a better day.

Taiwan, Amtrak and the ISO

I just mentioned that the editor of the CIA world factbook seems to consider Taiwan an oddly stateless territory. This makes a little more sense if you read about why Amtrak recently changed Taiwan’s entry in their website’s country selection form from “Taiwan, province of China” to merely “Taiwan.”

In the letter, the FAPA pointed out that in a 1996 memorandum, the US State Department stated that since the US has no diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, US officials need to refer to Taiwan as “Taiwan.”

Amtrak was established by the US Congress and receives funding from the government, therefore, what they do should be in accordance with the rules set by the government, the letter said.

According to the article, Amtrak changed their website in response to a letter of complaint written by Wu Ming-chi (吳明基), president of Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

“I was informed that Amtrak takes no position regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan and simply lists all countries around the world according to ISO 3166-1 provided by the International Organization for Standardization, which does not list Taiwan as a province of China”, said Wu Ming-chi (吳明基), president of FAPA in the letter.

The funny thing is, he has his facts completely wrong. If you actually look at ISO 3166-1 on the ISO web site, you’ll see that they DO list Taiwan as “TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA!” Whatever the US government policy on Taiwan’s name is, it’s a little funny that Amtrak responded to a complaint that didn’t even correctly cite the International Standard Organization’s name for the country. In fact, the FAPA website even contains a letter of complaint written to the ISO about this very issue, written by the same man who had claimed in a different complaint that the ISO has NOT referred to Taiwan as a province of China! And I just noticed that both letters were written ON THE SAME DAY! I think my head is spinning.

July 18, 2005

Masami Tanaka, President
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
1, rue de Varembé, Case postale 56
CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

I write to you today to express my serious concern about the ISO 3166-1standard which lists Taiwan as a province of China. This issue has caused strong feelings on the part of Taiwanese around the world. I therefore urge you strongly to correct this factual error.

I understand that ISO seeks to stay politically neutral and uses UN sources when developing the ISO standard 3166-1. As stated in the FAQ section on your ISO website, “the printed edition of the [U.N.] publication Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use gives the name we use in ISO 3166-1.” However, I would like to point out that the UN Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use does not list Taiwan at all – let alone lists Taiwan as a “province of China.” (See: the on-line version of the Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use on the UN website. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm) Moreover, the FAQ section from your website adds that, “since Taiwan is not a UN member it does not figure in the UN bulletin on country names.” Thus, there is no source for the use of such misinformed
labeling as “Taiwan, Province of China.”

In addition to the validity of the source the ISO uses when referring to Taiwan, we would also like to point out that it is incontestable reality that Taiwan is not a part of China. All this, despite China’s political claims to the contrary. Taiwan is a de facto sovereign nation
that democratically elects its own president and government officials. The Communist government in China has never exercised any jurisdiction over Taiwan since it was established in 1949. If the ISO intends to stay politically neutral, as it prides itself of, labeling Taiwan as a province of China, simply because China says so, would constitute a double standard.

I urge the ISO to revise the 3166-1 standard and eliminate the term “Province of China” from its listing of Taiwan.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Cordially yours,

Dr. Ming-chi Wu, Ph.D., President
Formosan Association for Public Affairs

I think that if Dr Ming-chi Wu wants his complaints to be taken seriously in the future, he should start by keeping his own facts straight.

(Thanks to Michael Turton’s blog for pointing out the Amtrak article.)

Taiwan in the CIA World Factbook

Since everybody has been talking about Google’s classification of Taiwan, it’s kind of fun to see how the CIA World Factbook contorts a little bit to list them properly.


Yes, under their dropdown menu of “Select country or region,” Taiwan gets the odd distinction of being placed at the end of the other-wise alphabetized list, along with the European Union.

BBC reports on the beginning of a disturbing trend

Satellites to monitor panda sex

Scientists in China plan to use satellites to track pandas to learn more about their sexual behaviour.
A Chinese-US project will use Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to monitor panda movements in a reserve in remote Shaanxi province.

It is part of an attempt to understand the panda’s poor breeding record.

To summarize-

Stage 1: We us satellites to track the sexual habits of pandas and calculate the best ways encourage their reproduction.

Stage 2: The panda population explodes.

Stage 3: Our panda masters use satellites to watch US having sex.