Taiwan - China's Other Problem

"We are also determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

President G W Bush 8th March 2005

Whilst the media has been focused on the ongoing situation in Tibet and its struggle for freedom, the situation in Taiwan has been generally overlooked, and yet it exposes the double standard at the heart of US/UK foreign policy.

Taiwan first applied for UN membership in July of last year. The Chinese government, however, saw this as a threat to the unity of China and gave very clear warnings to Taiwan should they continue to proceed along these lines, threatening to use force if it continues to pursue a course of independence. Despite these continued threats, the Taiwanese government decided to press forward with a referendum on UN membership which was scheduled to take place today. What is particularly interesting about this fight for freedom and democracy, is the stance taken by the United States and the United Kingdom.

In the light of the Bush administration's 'commitment to democracy' (as opposed for their lust to control the earth's resources), one would expect there to be noises of encouragement emanating from the White House - no such luck. Instead, the United States government has been echoing similar sentiments to that of the Chinese government - this is not a welcome development. When discussing the proposed Taiwanese referendum towards the end of last year, Condoleeza Rice said the following:

"We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."

'
Provocative'? 'No real benefit?'. Unusual terms to describe the desire of the Taiwanese people to be free, an ideal that the Bush administration apparently believed in. How quickly these high ideals are abandoned when faced with a more serious foe than the pathetic offering of the Iraqi army. Could it be that the US only supports democracy when it knows it can defeat the enemies of this high ideal? When it could lead to a conflict they would likely lose, suddenly democracy doesn't seem that important anymore. And yet, Bush claims to 'support the growth of democratic movements' across the world.

It now appears that the movement towards independence has been nothing more than a blip in the recent history of Taiwan. Reports suggest that Ma Ying-jeou, of the Kuomintang party, has won the election by 17%. Ma has committed himself to even stronger ties with China and has proposed a formal peace treaty with Beijing. Although it is difficult to say how much impact the reaction to the referendum from Beijing and Washington has had on the poll (the referendum did not garner enough votes to be valid), the threat of military invasion from China would have done much to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the Taiwanese. Furthermore, Ma has been particularly clever in his campaigning. Understanding that there was growing concern regarding the situation in Tibet, Ma criticised the authorities in Beijing to ease fears at home whilst also claiming he would not push the issue with China (thus preserving the facade of independence and pleasing both his masters in Beijing and Taiwan).

The real winners in this election has been the capitalists, who have been pushing for closer ties with China for some time. China has been a major source of business for Taiwanese capitalists in recent years, as one Taiwanese resident pointed out:

"Nowadays Taiwanese capitalists hire at least ten million workers in China and almost all Taiwan’s top 50 manufacturing companies have subsidiaries there. The mainland’s abundant cheap labour, cheap land, tax-breaks and subsidies for foreign companies, mean that China has actually become the main source of profit for Taiwanese capitalism".

Even in communist China's sphere of influence capitalism rules, no wonder the US was keen to turn a blind eye to the calls for democracy in Taiwan. As a result of which, it appears that the flame of democracy has been extinguished in Taiwan, and both China and the US have conspired to snuff it out.

Abercrombie Defends Support of WHINSEC

You may remember a little while back that many Democrats chose to support the establishment of WHINSEC, the successor to the School of the Americas. Well, I have finally had a reply from another one of the Democrats who supported the continued funding of a terrorist entity designed to pervert the course of democracy in South America. The following is an email I received from Neil Abercrombie:



Let's hope you do keep monitoring WHINSEC, Neil. Otherwise you are nothing more than a Bush crony.

Corporate Pressure Yielding Results in Burma

First, some good news regarding Burma. It would appear that some of the pressure on companies who invest in Burma is starting to pay off. This from the Burma Campaign website:

UK Timber firms start to pull out of Burma

30 Sep 2007

The Burma Campaign UK today warmly welcomed announcements by Timbmet and K J Howells and Son that they will no longer sell teak from Burma. Timber exports are a major source of revenue for the regime in Burma.

Both companies have featured on a ‘Dirty List’ of companies directly or indirectly funding the regime in Burma. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list.php

In an email to the Burma Campaign, K J Howells stated: “In light of the recent brutal treatment of the Burmese people by the military, we have made the decision to end all ties with suppliers of Burmese products, and will not place any further orders until a democratic government is put in place. I have contacted my primary supplier, who has also announced their withdrawal of ties with Burma, and we are now together looking at alternative sources.”

“We warmly welcome the withdrawal of these companies,” said Mark Farmaner, Acting Director of the Burma Campaign UK. “Companies buying teak from the regime are helping to pay for the bullets being used on the streets of Burma. We call on all timber companies to stop selling Burmese teak.”

Timbmet will phase out imports of Burma teak by the end of the year. K J Howells will make no further purchases of Burmese teak. Both companies have been removed from the ‘Dirty List’.

For more information contact Mark Farmaner on 02073244713.

Good news indeed. Perhaps other timber firms that invest in Burma might like to take this into account. I would strongly recommend emailing other timber merchants who rely on Burmese timber and informing them of the stance some of their competitors have taken. It might just increase the pressure.

It has also emerged that there will be an International Bloggers' Day for Burma on the 4th October. To find out how you can play a part, visit the 'Free Burma!' site here. So far, 463 people have signed up to take part in the action. Get the message out there. Tell as many people as possible about the situation in Burma. The monks need our support and we need to keep the pressure up on our establishment to ensure that they keep the pressure on the military junta.

Corporate Responses to Situation in Burma

Quick off the mark, I have already had replies from the corporations I have contacted regarding the unacceptable situation in Burma. Here are the responses so far (you can see original emails by clicking on the company name):

Orient-Express

Dear .....

Thank you for your recent email to Orient-Express Hotels which has been passed to me for reply.

I fully understand your concerns about tourism to Burma. Orient-Express is an a-political organisation. The fact that we operate holidays to Burma does not imply support of the regime. The company takes the view, based on its experience, that opening up countries to tourism and interaction between ordinary people is a positive move, which can be a catalyst for long term social change.

The company has operated a river cruiser, The Road to Mandalay, in Burma since December 1995. We also own The Governor’s Residence, a hotel in Rangoon. We employ some 150 Burmese people on board Road to Mandalay and around 110 at The Governor’s Residence, to all of whom it gives training, secure employment and prospects of advancement. An estimated one thousand other people from Burmese ethnic groups, who are shopkeepers, tourist guides and other local suppliers, also benefit from the influx of visitors to the ship and the hotel.

The company’s experience is that tourism can and does bring positive benefits to ordinary people and this is borne out by the comments of its Burmese staff and suppliers who welcome tourism for the exposure, income and employment it brings. They do not want to see an end to tourism in Burma.

I appreciate that you may disagree with this view and respect your right to do so.


Yours sincerely

Pippa Isbell
Vice President, Corporate Communications

Orient-Express Hotels, Trains and Cruises
20 Upper Ground, London SE1 9PF
Tel: +44 (0)20 7921 4065 Fax: +44 (0)20 7921 4765 Mobile +44 (0)7775 703725
Email:
Internet: www.orient-express.com
Latest news: www.orient-express.com/web/oe/c7a_press.jsp

Bamboo Travel

Dear....

Thank you for your e-mail.

In response to your comments I would like to say that before this company was actually founded, as a specialist in travel to Southeast Asia, we did a lot of soul searching as to whether we should or should not feature Burma in our portfolio of countries. We visited the country and looked extensively at all the arguments for and against offering travel to Burma. Part of this research involved talking to Burmese people and companies (non-government) and others who knew the issues much better than ourselves.

We chose to offer holidays to Burma not only because it is an amazingly interesting place to visit but also because the people of Burma are downtrodden by their government and need all the help they can get from the outside world. From our research it was clear that tourism is one arena where foreign money can reach the individual and can make a difference to some people's lives. Hence we like to think that by sending people to Burma we are in some small way assisting the people there.

You say that tourism is an important source of income for the regime however you neglect to mention that it is also a vital source of income for thousands of ordinary Burmese who work in the tourist sector. What happens to these people when their livelihood is taken away?

Please also bear in mind that we are only offering holidays, we are not forcing anyone to travel and we always suggest that people acquaint themselves with the situation in the country before they decide to travel.

Lastly let me state that few things would give this company greater pleasure than to see Aung San Suu Kyi released from house arrest to take her rightful place at the head of a democratic government of Burma.

I hope the above helps you to understand our position vis a vis offering holidays to Burma.

Yours sincerely


Tim

Tim Milner

Director

Bamboo Travel

Robbins Timber


Dear ,

Thank you for your email. We are very concerned and conscious of the human rights situation in Burma, and have for sometime been actively seeking to find alternative sources of supply of teak, and frequently suggest alternative materials to our customers. From a commercial viewpoint, material (when available) from alternative sources is often not of sufficient quality for the intended purpose, and there is frequently no suitable alternative to teak from Burma.

Our shipping agent has for many years employed several staff in Burma, and naturally has a moral responsibility for their welfare, whilst acknowledging that their, and our continued purchase of teak contributes to financing of the military regime. This quite bluntly leaves us with a moral dilemma.

Having considered this matter in depth some months ago, we have decided our business is not in addressing political issues, but in trading responsibly with materials which are appropriate for the needs of our customers. The moral issue remains however, and we continue to reduce the amount of teak we purchase from Burma, whilst increasing pressure for verification that all material is legally sourced.

A matter such as this is always very complicated, and a total lack of export to the West whilst reducing funds to the military regime will also have a negative impact on the many ordinary people employed in industry and leave the door open for other growing economies to provide the funds this regime needs.

Should you wish to research further information on this subject, the following websites may be of interest:

http://www.icg.org/library/documents/asia/burma_myanmar/078_myanmar_sanctions_engagement_or_another_way_web.pdf

http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library.php?campaign_id=52&filter=reports_documents&ml_lang=en

Regards

Richard Bagnall

M.D.


No surprises, but at least received responses.