​Triggered by the 'Missile Misfiring' incidence happened in Taiwan Strait, Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow of Cato Institute, wrote, on July 6, an article with an alarming title, America Should Step Back from the Taiwan Time Bomb. The misfiring of the supersonic Hsiung-Feng III (means brave wind III) anti-ship missile flew only 45 miles within mid-line of the strait hitting a fishing trawler registered with Taiwan and killing its skipper and injured three crew men. The incident has not raised much reaction from Mainland China but caused a political storm in Taiwan, ranging from criticism of the military training and discipline to speculated political motives behind a possible orchestrated accident. 

Carpenter regarded this incidence as another step in the deterioration of relations between Beijing and Taipei since the successful winning of the presidency and legislature in Taiwan by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). China's Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council did make a statement about the incident, "(it) caused severe impact at a time when the Mainland has repeatedly emphasized development of peaceful cross-strait relations." Carpenter pointed out even though Tsai Ying-Wen was not as strident as Chen Shui-Bian in open advocacy of independence for Taiwan, but she embarked on an extremely conciliatory policy towards Japan. Indeed, she is seemingly following the directive of Lee Deng-Hui, the former Taiwan President born by a Japanese parent, to resist Mainland China by leaning towards Japan. After Tsai's inauguration, Taiwan for the first time held a memorial service for the victims of the Tiananmen student protest which is a sore spot now openly admitted by the CCP. These recent events may be interpreted as having damaging effect on the cross-strait relations. But whether or not Taiwan
Strait can be characterized as a ticking time bomb is questionable.


Based on the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act passed by the U.S. Congress, the United States has a real, however loosely defined, obligation to defend Taiwan if she is attacked. This is the fundamental reason for Carpenter to write his warning article that Taiwan is a time bomb and the U.S. needs to re-evaluate her Taiwan policy in view of the above incidents that are occurring. Carpenter was right to point out that if the fishing trawler was a Mainlander’s boat or worse a Mainland naval vessel, the reaction of the Mainland would not be a mild one. However, Taiwan- Strait may be a time bomb, but in my view, it is not a ticking time bomb since its fuse lead is controlled by a two-step ignition switch, one in the hands of Mainland China and another in the hands of the U.S. Carpenter's concern is well taken, but neither Mainland China nor the U.S. has the intention of throwing the ignition switch yet. Therefore the Taiwan-Strait bomb is not ticking from both the U.S. and Mainland China's point of view. 

Let’s agree with Carpenter for a moment that the Taiwan-Strait is a time bomb. We may ask the
Question: Who has set the time for the bomb to explode? I venture to say that neither Mainland China nor the United States is the one setting the time. In fact, based on ‘the joint Shanghai Communiqué’ announced in 1972, the United States recognized the one and only China and expected a unification process without a specific time table for the Mainland and Taiwan. Since Mainland China has not set a time table for ‘unification’ with Taiwan, thus, Taiwan-Strait is never considered as a time bomb as far as China and the U.S. are concerned. However, Carpenter's concern is not entirely groundless based on the events happening in the past decade. Taiwan's democracy is seriously challenged, not from Mainland China rather from Taiwan’s internal changes. The current Taiwan-Strait situation can be described with a biological metaphor - growth of a tumor turning to be cancerous. Cancer is like a time bomb and its explosion is unpredictable. The only effective treatment for cancer is to find the causes of its growth and then remove or suppress the causes. Conversely, if the cancerous cells are fed with stimulating fuel, then an explosion in the Taiwan-Strait is not only possible but unavoidable.


The anti-Mainland China attitude and policy are the fuel feeding the growth of cancerius cells in Taiwan. What the Americans, the Mainland Chinese and the Taiwan people should ask is a question: while Mainland China is embracing capitalism and trying government reform making concrete progress for the people and the economy, (by the way, it is for the people world-wide and for the benefit of the global economy), why does the DPP of Taiwan conduct a 'hate' government in the name of democracy? A small group of people in DPP hate history, hate mainlanders, hate veterans, even smear the Chinese culture and inheritance and distort Taiwan’s history, brainwash the youth and create hatred among Taiwan’s residents.  Why? Don't they know they are feeding the cancer and they are ticking the time bomb? 
 
Mainland China has offered Taiwan trade favors, privileged status for Taiwan residents to enter the Mainland and do business there, as well as breathing space on the world stage; and they have not applied any real military threat to Taiwan for decades. Why does the DPP still paint Mainland China as a brutal regime? Are the Hong Kong people worse off than 20 years ago? Are the Tibet people worse off than 20, 30, 50, or 70 years ago? No, they are not. Chinese people world-wide are cheering for the change and transformation of China and they are trying to stop the Cold War mentality of the world - no hatred, no jealousy, no discrimination but embracing collaboration and co-prosperity. China has a long history which has shown that the Chinese people are not war mongers. Chinese has absorbed aggressors, for example, the Mongolians and the Manchurians and cultivated them into Chinese with their peace loving Chinese culture.


American citizens may not have paid enough attention to the Chinese history, but they are not stupid to ignore the facts if presented to them. An Anti-China strategy may be pushed by Japan to woo the U.S. and her ‘Pivot to Asia Pacific’ policy but the U.S. is clearly weighing all the pros and cons and carefully balancing her geopolitical interests. The U.S. military industrial complex may be leaning towards a legacy foreign policy, but the debate on the right China policy is still going on. China has been growing too fast and she realizes that the fast economic growth is not sustainable. For self interests, the U.S., of course, would rather see China to grow at a moderate non-threatening rate. So in reality, the U.S. and China really do not have an irreconcilable conflict. Therefore, there is no reason for the U.S. or China to turn on the ignition switch of the Taiwan-Strait bomb, so dramatically characterized by Carpenter.   
 
No, Americans will not fight and die for Taiwan's fake ideology battle, especially when it has all the signs of right-wing Japanese imperialist notions: denying and white washing war history and justifying Japan's invasion and colonization of Taiwan. The current South China Sea saga will be only a temporary distraction to China for slowing down China’s fast rise. The U.S. will let no one, neither Japan nor Taiwan; hijack her U.S. China policy as she realizes that the US-China relationship is so critical to her future as well as to the world economy. Eventually the American people with better understanding of the historical facts about Taiwan, South China Sea and China will steer the US China policy back to a mutually beneficial path!
 
 
 

​John Mearsheinmer is one of my favorite author and speaker on foreign relations. I like to follow Mr Mearsheimer's articles not because I always believe he was right about his conclusions rather  I was always intrigued by his analyses and arguments about the international relations at hand. In fact, John advocates his theory of hegemony, which has a significant followers in the diplomatic and military circles in the United States and world wide, with a safe disclaimer: his hegemony theory can not predict future since future, not like past, is not a being and is not predictable. Nevertheless, John's analysis and carefully selected historical evidences are very powerful and intellectually stimulating, hence making his essays very interesting to read.
 
Recently Mr. Mearsheimer published a long essay, entitled, Say Goodbye To Taiwan, in a website (May 2016),www.chinausfriendship.com based on his old article published in National Interest (March-April 2014). The title of this article for sure will catch lots of eyeballs, but its content essentially contains his hegemony theory and uses Taiwan as a case study. Based on hegemony theory, he analyzes what the U.S. will do regarding China's desire to reunify with Taiwan and Taiwan's desire to maintain de facto independence. He assumes that China will continue to gain power and the U.S. will be reluctant to go to war against China on behalf of Taiwan. Then he concludes among the three options, 1. Developing nuclear deterrence, 2. Developing conventional military deterrence and 3. Adopting a version of Hong Kong Strategy; Taiwan has no choice but accepts option 3. In essence, Taiwan will be eventually reunified with Mainland China, just a matter of how far beyond a decade of time.
 
After reading this essay (unlike Mr. Mearsheimer’s other essays), I do not necessarily disagree with John's conclusion, but I do beg for difference in John's arguments or analysis to reach his conclusion. Here I would like to offer my comments based on an Oriental philosophy and historical facts. On the Mainland China-Taiwan reunification issue (to some degree the Korea reunification issue), the current situation is entirely created artificially, possibly partially promoted by the U.S. attributable to hegemony behavior Mearsheimer characterized, but not due to China following a hegemony theory. This is my main disagreement with Mearsheimer's arguments. I shall list my reasoning below.
 
I believe that in the Orient, particularly in China, the hegemony theory and behaviors are well understood, however, China through her several thousand years of history (experienced hegemony behavior as early as Chun Qiu and Zhan Guo eras, 771-221 BC), had developed a philosophy not to pursue hegemony but honor the "Wang Dao". In history, China has repeatedly adopted the "He Qing" policy to deal with the aggressors from the North (Marrying the Emperor's princess to the King of the aggressive northern state to avoid war which is always devastating to the people) rather than pursuing a hegemony strategy. China has also built the Great Wall (1100-223 BC) consuming enormous resources and man power for defense rather than resorting to military build-up to defend or conquer others. In Ming dynasty, after successfully dispatching "Zheng He" (1371 - 1435) to explore the world seven times (1405 through 1433) with a large fleet consisting of ships longer than 400 feet, the emperor after knowing that the rest of the world was far less developed than China had ordered destroying the big ships and forbid further exploration as waste of national treasury. In Qing dynasty (1644 - 1911), the ruler repeatedly swallowed the hegemony and colonial behaviors of the Western power and the Imperial Japan to the point that China was near annihilation. These historical evidences illustrate one thing that the Chinese people firmly prefer to "Wang Dao" which is the opposite of "Ba Dao" as the governance and nation building philosophy. This firm belief has a strong influence on Chinese political leaders.
 
Naturally, there were debates about the merits of "Wang Dao" (this philosophy may be explained with modern language as soft power and rule based foreign policy) versus "Ba Dao" (essentially the hegemony theory, ruling by power and preventing the rise of other hegemons), but the Chinese people and statesmen overwhelmingly preferred the "Wang Dao" philosophy. This philosophy may have caused China to be defeated militarily numerous times, but in Chinese history, the conquerors, such as the Mongols and Manchurians (when they were powerful and invaded and occupied China), gradually yielded to the Chinese "Wang Dao" philosophy. This philosophy gives Chinese tremendous tolerance to military invasion, but the greater the tolerance the greater the resolve in resistance, this was proven in WW II, while many Western countries quickly surrendered to Nazi military force, the Chinese was extremely resilient to the powerful and cruel Imperial Japanese Army. Despite of Japan's superior military force and determined objective to conquer China, the Chinese resisted for nearly a decade eventually defeating Japan. The nuclear bomb might have accelerated Japan's surrender, in fact, it was China who tied up Japan's huge army and exhausted it to eventual failure. Japan may deny it out of shame but it is the real truth.
 
Taiwan had a treacherous history as a part of China's sovereignty. Taiwan had been captured and ruled by foreign invaders a number of times, first by the Dutch (1624 - 1662) then by the Japanese (1895-1945). Post WW II, the anti-communism ideology artificially separated Taiwan from Mainland China again. Taiwan depended on the U.S. protection and the U.S. was viewing Taiwan as a strategic island as Mearsheimer pointed out, an unsinkable carrier right between the East and South China Sea. Whatever the political maneuver on the island, be it pro-independence or color revolution, I believe the fate of Taiwan is not in the hands of the U.S. nor Japan, simply because the Chinese people believes in their unwavering reunification principle. Politics, propaganda, even brain wash may change the mood of people (more likely the young people for a period of time), but the traditional culture including the "Wang Dao" philosophy has a tremendous staying power. Just like China eventually gave up communism and pursue her own governance system principally influenced by the "Wang Dao" philosophy, Taiwan would find a suitable democratic system compatible with her culture and tradition. No matter which political party is in control, the political leaders will accept the "Wang Dao" philosophy. The Japanese tried very hard to ‘Japanize’ the people in Taiwan for fifty years, but the people remain to be Chinese in culture and in tradition. 
 
The Chinese people including many overseas Chinese firmly believe and expect reunification of Taiwan and mainland but there is no specific time table for it. In the "Wang Dao" philosophy, people are extremely patient towards political systems and political changes. Mainland China will not use force to reunify with Taiwan unless a foreign party is involved to spoil the natural reunification process. Taiwan will not declare independence and has no compelling reason to do so (nothing to gain and everything to lose). The people across the Taiwan Strait do have patience to observe the natural changes to embrace a mutually acceptable political system. During this wait-and-see process, there may be external political influence trying to terminate the process, but in today's fully developed communication environment, people can not be manipulated and fooled for long, the "Wang Dao" philosophy will eventually prevail over the hegemony theory. The hegemony behavior of the Western countries in the 19th and 20th century will eventually be diminishing in the 21st century simply because nuclear deterrence will render hegemony behavior not workable, a point Mr. Mearsheimer concedes. Human race will have no choice but accept "Wang Dao" philosophy and abandon hegemony theory to avoid the destruction of the human race. Taiwan will be reunified with Mainland China eventually, in agreement with Mearsheimer's conclusion but for a different reason.

On June 30th, the 16th President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte was inaugurated. Rodrigo "Rody" Roa Duterte was born on March 28, 1945, the year the Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allies and a year before the real independence of the Philippines was granted by the U.S. Therefore, President Duterte can be considered as a post WW II generation. Duterte entered his presidential campaign in late 2015, the 70th anniversary of WW II; there was not much mainstream TV coverage in the U.S. on Duterte’s election victory and campaign, even less news coverage on the Philippines war history. However, on the Internet, there is a lot of information on Philippine’s modern history and Duterte’s personal story which American citizens seem to be ignorant. Duterte is not a typical politician; he has a unique political career and possesses a ‘Trump like character’ as a presidential campaigner. In this column, I would like to make a brief review of the modern history of the Philippines, a detailed description of Duterte as the Philippines’ new leader and a comment on his “soft landing” remark regarding settlement of the Sino-Philippine South China Sea (SCS) dispute.

The modern history of the Philippines suffered from colonial power like China did but as a small country the Philippines was fully occupied by the Spanish in the 19th century. China as a big nation, although maintained independence, was victimized by the invasion of seven Western nations and the Imperial Japan. In 1897, a 28 year old Emilio Aguinaldo started a revolution in the Philippines against the Spanish rule but failed and exiled to Hong Kong. In April 1898, the Spanish-American war broke out, the U.S. won the war and settled with Spain by the Paris Treaty which allowed the U.S. to annex the Philippines as the U.S. territory (The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 2/6/1899). Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines and tried to gain independence by convening an assembly and drew up a constitution but his effort faced the resistance of the U.S. resulting in a guerrilla war against the U.S. On March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo was tricked and captured by the U.S. troops, a size of 65000. Aguinaldo pleaded allegiance to the U.S. but the rebels fought on. In the end, after the infamous Massacre of Samar, retaliation to the insurrection, the U.S. General Jacob Smith directed the Samar Island Massacre by killing all men above 10 years old. Although Jacob Smith was court-martialed and forced to retire but the U.S. took over the administration of the Philippines in 1902. The U.S. rule lasted till 1935 when she approved “the common wealth of the Philippines” and finally granted the real full independence to the Philippines on 7/4/1946 after the end of WW II. In 1962, Philippines changed her National Day from July 4th to June 12th commemorating the Philippine Declaration of Independence from Spain on June 12, 1898.

The Republic of Philippines has a democratic government having three interdependent branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial; a system similar to that of the U.S. Corruption has been a pervasive, long-standing problem in the Philippine government. (Philippine improved her ranking in Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from 105 to 94 in 2013) President Ferdinan Marcos and his wife Imelda (1972-1986) practiced corruption on a grand scale. Former President Joseph Estrada was impeached for corruption in 2000 and convicted on 9-12-2007. Former President Gloria Arroyo was impeached several times since 2006 for electoral fraud and other political crimes and on October 5, 2007, she was impeached for corruption (Arroyo pardoned Estrada on 10-25-2007). President Benigno Aquino won the presidency in 2010 on a good government platform to combat corruption. During 2010, the government convicted 42 officials in 125 corruption cases including House Representative and university president. The public perceived serious corruption in the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the nation’s prison system. The Philippines Presidential Election in 2016 was hard fought but Duterte won in a decisive vote of 16.6M, 6.6M more than his closest rival, former Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, backed by Aquino. This landslide margin certainly cemented Duterte’s leadership for a six-year term of Presidency. 

Rodrigo Duterte came from a political family with father Vincente Duterte served as the Mayor of Davao, Ceba and governor of Davao Province and mother Soledad Roa served as a civil leader. He was first appointed Vice Mayor of Davao City in 1986 at age 0f 41. He served to term limit till 1998 then ran for Congressman of the 1st district of Davao Coty. In 2001, he ran for Mayor again and got elected, then in 2004 and 2007, served a total of seven terms (service of 22 years). Duterte was urged to run for the Philippine presidency numerous times and offered job as the Secretary of Interior four times but he rejected them. He was reluctant to run for Presidency in 2015 considering his age (71 if elected) but eventually he formally signed election filing on 12/8/2015. He is known for his straight forward and tough languages in his speeches; hence, Duterte has been compared to Trump, the US presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee on anti-media and rough language. Apparently, the Filipino voters loved his ‘Trump like character’; one wonders whether the majority of American voters in November would likewise vote for Trump.

Duterte is a unique public servant who not only has made a number of significant achievements but also has demonstrated his strong ‘righteous’ character and conservative philosophy with little concern of ‘political correctness’ similar to Trump’s behavior. He is especially known for his stance against drug crime and earned a nickname, “the punisher”, for taking tough actions against drug dealers. He is also a strong human rights fighter for minorities as well as philanthropic in his deeds of opening drug rehab clinics and offering P1200/month to addicts to kick the habit as well as offering aids to typhoon and earthquake victims in Philippines. He has won international awards for his mayoral administration running a large urban city. He has reduced Davao City crime rate drastically and established the first free call 9-1-1 in his city. Through executive orders, he imposed comprehensive anti-smoking ordinance, ordered all shopping Malls and commercial centers to install high-end closed circuit TV at all entrances and exits. Duterte has passed the city’s Women Development Code to uphold the rights and dignity of women, the first and only code in the Philippines.

On the inauguration day, Duterte convened his first cabinet meeting, enacting a number of initiatives: establishing a 24-hour complaint office, De-congesting Aquino international airport, eliminating airport privileged treatment for cabinet members, studying healthcare models (Cuba system), stopping online gambling and evaluating the implication of arbitration court ruling regarding the SCS dispute with China. After the inauguration in a press meeting, Duterte expressed his desire of a “soft landing” on the SCS issue, a most constructive official statement on the Sino-Philippine SCS Dispute from the Philippines. As we observe the current developments in the SCS, it is clear that the SCS tension has been artificially raised under the banner of “Freedom of Navigation”. In reality, there was no navigation problem, no pirate activities nor shipping incidences. Over half of the world commerce (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, etc) transport their goods through South and East China Sea without accidents or navigation problems. Why can’t any SCS dispute be resolved through bi-lateral negotiations? China has denied the arbitration court’s jurisdiction on the Sino-Philippine SCS dispute. A friendly Sino-Philippine relation is definitely beneficial to both countries, since each is treating reform and fighting corruption as top priority while maintaining a healthy economic growth. President Duterte as a mandated new leader has an excellent opportunity to navigate the SCS issue into a “soft landing” so that both countries can focus on their own domestic issues. We wish him success.   
​