This morning, I read two pieces in the Contra Costa Times Travel section for Sunday, December 12, 2009. Both pieces were about China. The first was written by Carol Pucci, Seattle Times, and was about travelling around China independent of tourist groups, and I found the description of China to be one I’ve experienced many times since my first trip in 1999.

The second piece by John Boudreau, Mercury News, was a comparison between traveling to Taiwan and the mainland. Although it wasn’t as entertaining as Carol Pucci’s piece in the Seattle Times, it was interesting. However, I felt the piece by Boudreau was a little misleading when he wrote, “China maintains democratically ruled Taiwan as its territory. Taiwan, on the other hand, has evolved independently of Beijing since Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces fled to the island from Mao Zedong’s communist soldiers in 1949.”  That statement is accurate, but I felt it wasn’t telling the whole story.

When Mao and his Chinese Communist Party won China in 1949, Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang were the overloads of China. Chiang Kai-shek was a dictator and China had never held popular elections like in America and Europe, so in reality, one totalitarian government forced out another one. 

It wasn’t until the 1986, under pressure from the United States and the United Nations, that Taiwan became a multi-party democracy and held elections.  If they had not done that, the United States was threatening to stop protecting them from the mainland. That’s the primary reason that Taiwan became a democracy. A year later, Chiang Ching-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek’s son, lifted martial law. Until that day, Taiwan had been ruled by one party just like mainland China and was oppressed by martial law—thirty-seven years of martial law.

The big difference between these two one party systems was that in China, the communists leaned toward helping the working class improve their lifestyles while in Taiwan the rich and powerful were favored and everyone else was a second class citizen.  When Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists ruled mainland China, the situation was the same. The poor people wanted change and that was what Mao, for better or worse, gave them. Under the Nationalists, there were drugs, prostitution, dangerous gangs, and women were second-class citizens. The communists dealt with those issues after they came to power—sometimes brutally.  Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists could be brutal too.

What is martial law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Off the beaten path in China
by Carol Pucci
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2009331844_trpucci14.html

China Crossings
Travel in China and Taiwan
by John Boudreau
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-living/ci_13977794

Peaceful Intentions?

China’s relationship with Taiwan is shaky to the say the least.  Both the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Kuomintang (KMT) started as allies, first in the fight to end Imperial Chinese rule and then against Japanese occupation.  Not long after WWII ended and civil war ensued, Communist forces routed the KMT republicans, prompting them to flee to Taiwan.  Since 1949, both sides have built their military capacities specifically with the other’s defeat in mind.

In the last 25 years, however, things have changed. Taiwan has transformed itself from a police state into a multi-party democracy, and China has grown from a reclusive communist regime into one of the most important capitalist economies in the world.  With the election of Ma Ying Jeou as the Taiwanese President, diplomatic cross-strait relations have improved remarkably.  Last year’s resumption of direct flights and new trade agreements were heralded as significant progress.

Still, old enmities persist.  The events of 2009 have curtailed the openness of the prior year.  Taiwan suffered a series of typhoons, the botched handling of which cost Ma’s government considerable domestic credibility.  When opposition mayors in the worst-hit counties independently invited the Dalai Lama to visit the displaced, it was a clear attempt to leverage Ma’s need for domestic reimaging against his desire for progress with Beijing.  The result was predictable: Ma welcomed the Dalai Lama and Beijing condemned the visit as separatist action against China (as it does all of the Dalai Lama’s actions). In the weeks following, mainland tour operators decided/were directed to cut Kaohsiung from their itineraries, to which the city of Kaohsiung responded by adding a documentary on the life of exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer to its annual film festival.

Just when the status quo of saber rattling and petty insults appeared to have regained the upper hand, Ma made another overture, although it may not have looked like one.  Ma admitted to Reuters on 18 Oct that the mainland has tipped the military balance of power in its favor, specifically mentioning the overwhelming number of short range missiles aimed at the island.  While Ma announced Taiwan would continue to purchase military equipment from the US, he said he did not want an arms race.  Heard in the context of Taiwan’s 10% reduction of military personnel over the last 15 years, Ma’s comments seem genuine.

President Ma continued, “If we are to negotiate a peace agreement with the mainland, certainly we expect them to do something about those missiles, either to remove them or dismantle them.”  In the spirit of the SALT agreements between the US and USSR, Ma’s request ought to be viewed as an early step to peaceful reunification.  The argument seems straightforward: if you wish peaceful reconciliation, remove the threat of imminent attack as a gesture of good will.  Some historians believe Ronald Reagan’s demand that ‘Mr. Gorbachev tear down this [the Berlin] Wall’ prompted Soviet leadership to take the kind of specific action needed to build trust.  In much the same way, Beijing should seize the international moral high ground by redeploying the missiles presently aimed at Taiwan.

No major power wants to see the South China Sea become a warzone.  This fact can be powerfully leveraged by the PRC if they would only give the international community cause to see its efforts at peaceful reunification as sincere.  If and when the PRC puts forward an offer for reunification that appears credible to the international community, Taiwan will be under pressure to accept.

If the PRC does wish to reunify Taiwan and the mainland, Beijing would do well to recall the initial overtures between Gorbachev and Reagan, as they began stepping back from the Cold War detente.  In that context, Ma’s comments sound a lot like Ronald Reagan’s, ‘Trust, but verify’.

I have had a close interest in China ever  since the “Peking Spring” more than thirty years ago but I had not published anything relating to China until 2007-2008 when I published the ten articles listed below:

“Understanding China”, The Statesman Oct 22 2007

“India-US interests: Elements of a serious Indian foreign policy”, The Statesman Oct 30 2007

“China’s India Aggression”, The Statesman, Nov 5 2007,

“Surrender or Fight? War is not a cricket match or Bollywood movie. Can India fight China if it must? “ The Statesman, Dec 4 2007

“China’s Commonwealth: Freedom is the Road to Resolving Taiwan, Tibet, Sinkiang” The Statesman, December 17, 2007

“Nixon & Mao vs India: How American foreign policy did a U-turn about Communist China’s India aggression”. The Statesman, January 7 2008.

“Lessons from the 1962 War: there are distinct Tibetan, Chinese and Indian points of view that need to be mutually comprehended,” The Statesman, January 15, 2008

“China’s India Example: Tibet, Xinjiang May Not Be Assimilated Like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria”, The Statesman, March 25, 2008

“China’s force and diplomacy: The need for realism in India”, The Statesman, May 31, 2008

“Transparency and history” (with Claude Arpi), Business Standard, Dec 31 2008

With new tensions on the Tibet-India border apparently being caused by the Chinese military, these may be helpful for India to determine a Plan B, or even a Plan A, in its dealings with Communist China.

Subroto Roy

Kolkata

“Inisiatif politik Aidit, melontarkan gagasan Angkatan Kelima, sebenarnya adalah semacam take over atas suatu gagasan yang muncul sebelumnya pada kwartal terakhir tahun 1964”. “Terkesan pada mulanya Soekarno tertarik sedikit saja meskipun memperlihatkan sikap cukup menyambut baik gagasan itu dan untuk seberapa lama belum menunjukkan sikap persetujuan yang jelas”.

KARENA meninggal dunia di tahun 1925, Dr Sun Yat-sen tak berhasil menyaksikan rencana-rencananya rampung terwujud. Ia meninggalkan dua kelompok kekuatan di belakangnya, yakni Chiang Kai-shek bersama sayap kanan Kuomintang-nya dengan tentara yang sudah lebih kuat di satu sisi dan pada sisi lain Partai Komunis Tjina yang juga sudah memiliki sejumlah besar manusia yang terlatih sebagai militer. Pada dasarnya sejak awal kedua kelompok ini tak pernah cocok, dan terpaksa ‘bersatu’ dalam satu belanga hanya karena mengikuti kemauan Dr Sun Yat-sen. Setelah Sun Yat-sen meninggal dunia, Jenderal Chiang Kai-shek agaknya sudah merencanakan untuk pada waktunya mengusir para instruktur Rusia kembali ke negerinya dan membersihkan militer dan pemerintahan dari unsur-unsur komunis. Namun sebelum itu, ia memanfaatkan pasukan tentara –termasuk orang-orang komunis di dalam tentara– untuk suatu operasi militer penaklukan, tidak sekedar mengertak seperti rencana semula almarhum Sun Yat-sen, terhadap para panglima militer terutama di bagian utara daratan Cina, satu persatu.

Chiang Kai-shek berhasil karena masing-masing warlord itu berdiri sendiri, tidak punya hubungan satu sama lain. Chiang pun menundukkan yang terkuat, rezim Shih-kai yang menguasai Peking dan sekitarnya. Chiang lalu menjadi yang paling kuat untuk saat itu, karena selain menguasai militer dan telah mempersatukan seluruh kekuatan militer se-Cina melalui penaklukan, ia pun seperti halnya Sun Yat-sen mengawini seorang puteri keluarga Soong dari Shanghai, keluarga pedagang amat kaya dan memiliki akar pengaruh yang kuat di Cina pada masa itu. Setelah berhasil mengkonsolidasikan kekuasaannya, yang mulai terpetakan sejak 1928 dan menuntaskannya di sekitar tahun 1930, Chiang lalu mulai menjalankan rencananya sejak lama, mengusir orang-orang Rusia dan melakukan pembersihan terhadap orang-orang Partai Komunis Tjina.

Kaum komunis ini terpaksa mengundurkan diri ke bagian tengah dan selatan. Dari daerah-daerah terpencil di sana mereka melancarkan perlawanan dengan pasukan gerilya, dan itulah cikal bakal Tentara Merah. Tahun 1931, Mao Zedong, salah satu pendiri Partai Komunis Tjina dan kemudian menjadi pemimpinnya, dari provinsi Kiangshi memproklamirkan berdirinya Republik Sovjet Cina. Di wilayah-wilayah yang dikuasainya Partai menata ulang tanah-tanah pertanian. Mereka merampas tanah milik para tuan tanah, membagikannya kepada para petani untuk digarap sebagai sumber penghasilan partai. Tapi Chiang Kai-shek yang tak mau mengambil risiko lebih besar kelak di kemudian hari, pada tahun 1935 segera menyerang wilayah yang dikuasai kaum komunis. Mao dan pengikutnya terpukul dan lari ke arah barat untuk kemudian berputar ke utara menuju pangkalan yang mereka telah bangun beberapa tahun sebelumnya di Cina Utara sebelum ‘perang’.

Mao dan lebih dari 300.000 ribu Tentara Merah serta sejumlah kader partai dan pengikut, menempuh hampir dua puluh ribu kilometer pada daerah-daerah yang sulit dan berbahaya keadaan alamnya. Berkali-kali berhadapan pula dengan suku-suku terpencil yang curiga sehingga tak jarang melakukan serangan bersenjata yang menewaskan banyak dari mereka. Bahkan menghadapi serangan gabungan di wilayah Tibet dan Mantzu. Dihujani batu dari lereng-lereng gunung, dan tersiksa oleh serangan-serangan malam yang mendadak dan mematikan, tatkala kebanyakan dari mereka lelap karena keletihan.

Selain karena pertempuran sepanjang jalan, korban-korban di kalangan Tentara Merah berjatuhan pula karena keganasan alam, pemangsaan khewan liar hingga pada kematian tertelan rawa dan kubangan lumpur hisap. Tapi mereka akhirnya berhasil tiba di tujuan. Peristiwa perjalanan panjang menempuh belasan ribu kilometer dan memakan waktu berbulan-bulan yang penuh penderitaan dan kematian inilah yang dikenal sebagai Peristiwa Long March yang bersejarah. Di tempat tujuan, mereka langsung menghadapi pula babak baru Perang Saudara Cina, yang sempat jeda di tahun 1937, karena harus ikut menghadapi serbuan tentara Jepang ke daratan Cina. Setelah jeda, perang saudara diteruskan dan dimenangkan kaum komunis. Chiang Kai-shek bersama pengikutnya lalu melarikan diri menyeberang laut ke arah Timur ke pulau-pulau Taiwan.

Pengalaman Cina Komunis dan Tentara Merah, menjadi salah satu sumber inspirasi kaum komunis di Asia, termasuk bagi Partai Komunis Indonesia. Peristiwa Madiun tahun 1948, memakai model perjuangan Cina Komunis dengan Tentara Merah-nya. Di Madiun, PKI menggunakan kekuatan militer bersenjata dan memproklamirkan suatu Republik Sovjet Madiun. Tapi tak berusia panjang.

Model Tentara Merah sebagai sayap militer partai, menjadi semacam obsesi bagi para tokoh PKI yang menguasai kendali partai. Ketika sudah berada di atas angin pada tahun 1964-1965 gagasan sayap militer kembali dikembangkan, melalui infiltrasi ke tubuh tentara. Cukup memadai tetapi belum mencukupi untuk suatu orientasi kekuasaan. Dan pada awal 1965, Aidit melontarkan gagasan pembentukan Angkatan Kelima. Gagasan itu pertama kali dilontarkan oleh Dipa Nusantara Aidit, Kamis pagi 14 Januari, ketika akan dan sewaktu menghadap Presiden Soekarno di Istana Merdeka.

Inisiatif politik Aidit, melontarkan gagasan Angkatan Kelima, sebenarnya adalah semacam take over atas suatu gagasan yang muncul sebelumnya pada kwartal terakhir tahun 1964. Sewaktu Soekarno berkunjung ke Cina, dalam suatu percakapan, Mao Zedong dan kemudian Chou En-lai, mengusulkan agar Soekarno mempersenjatai buruh dan tani bila ingin memperkokoh diri dan memenangkan perjuangan melawan kaum imperialis, khususnya dalam konfrontasi terhadap Malaysia. Mao yang merasa punya pengalaman historis dengan Tentara Merah yang revolusioner yang menopang berdirinya Republik Rakyat Tjina (RRT), berkata tak cukup bila Soekarno hanya mengandalkan tentaranya yang sekarang. Percakapan yang lebih terperinci terjadi antara Soekarno dengan Perdana menteri Chou En-lai. Sang perdana menteri menyampaikan pendapatnya dengan  ungkapan-ungkapan terus terang kepada Soekarno, bahwa Soekarno tak bisa seratus persen mempercayai tentaranya, terutama Angkatan Darat, karena banyak perwiranya yang pernah dididik di Amerika Serikat sampai sekarang masih punya hubungan-hubungan khusus dengan Amerika Serikat. Banyak pimpinan tentara Indonesia adalah termasuk kaum reaksioner, bukan kaum progresif revolusioner yang bisa diandalkan melawan kaum imperialis. Maka kaum buruh dan tani yang dipersenjatai itu, harus dibentuk di luar koordinasi tentara, sebagai Angkatan Kelima yang berdiri sendiri.

Sejak awal pula, Chou En-lai sudah membayangkan kesediaan RRT membantu bila gagasan itu mau diwujudkan. Belakangan muncul angka bantuan awal yang akan diberikan dan katanya disetujui Mao, berupa 100.000 pucuk senjata Tjung, sejenis senapan ringan buatan RRT. Dengan jumlah senjata itu saja, setidaknya bisa terbentuk sedikitnya 10 divisi bersenjata. Terkesan pada mulanya Soekarno tertarik sedikit saja meskipun memperlihatkan sikap cukup menyambut baik gagasan itu dan untuk seberapa lama belum menunjukkan sikap persetujuan yang jelas. Agaknya, Presiden Soekarno masih memperhitungkan juga faktor reaksi dan sikap Angkatan Darat nantinya.

ADALAH Aidit yang dengan gesit  mengambil alih gagasan itu dan merubahnya menjadi suatu inisiatif politik. Dan sebenarnya, ketika pembicaraan Soekarno dengan para pimpinan Cina itu terjadi, Aidit pun dengan cepat pada waktu yang hampir bersamaan telah diinformasikan oleh Duta Besar RRT di Jakarta mengenai adanya pembicaraan tentang gagasan Angkatan Kelima tersebut. Aidit pun tampil dengan gagasan itu. Tatkala tampil terbuka pertama kali dengan gagasan itu, bersama Aidit pada 14 Januari 1965 di Istana Merdeka itu hadir Ketua Umum Barisan Tani Indonesia (BTI) Asmu serta dua tokoh unsur Nasakom lainnya, yakni Idham Chalid Ketua Umum NU dan Hardi SH Ketua I PNI/Front Marhaenis.

Masih sebelum menghadap kepada Presiden, Aidit dicegat oleh Bernhard Kalb wartawan Columbia Broadcasting System, Amerika Serikat. “Saya akan mengusulkan kepada Presiden Soekarno agar kaum buruh dan tani segera dipersenjatai”, ujar Aidit kepada Bernhard. ”Seluruhnya lima belas juta orang, siap dipersenjatai !”. Sepuluh juta buruh, lima juta petani.  Tetapi kemudian sempat terjadi pertukaran kata yang keras antara sang wartawan dengan sang pemimpin partai, setelah Kalb melontarkan beberapa pertanyaan yang tampaknya dianggap menyebalkan oleh Aidit. Setelah pertemuan dengan Soekarno, Aidit menegaskan kembali kepada para wartawan, bahwa ia memang mengajukan tuntutan kepada Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Bersenjata RI, kaum buruh dan kaum tani yang merupakan sokoguru revolusi, segera dipersenjatai. Menurut Aidit, Soekarno menyambut baik tuntutan PKI itu. Maka pada petang harinya, Harian Warta Bhakti, organ pers Baperki, menurunkan berita dengan judul besar “PKI usulkan 15 djuta massa tani dan buruh dipersendjatai”.

Selang tiga hari, agaknya PKI berhasil menciptakan kesan bahwa tuntutan itu telah menjadi tuntutan seluruh kekuatan politik yang ada. Lembaga Kantor Berita Nasional ‘Antara’ menurunkan berita tentang adanya kebulatan tekad bersama yang menuntut agar sokoguru-sokoguru revolusi segera dilatih dan dipersenjatai. Menurut berita bertanggal 18 Januari 1965 itu, “Sidang bersama Pengurus Besar Front Nasional dan Pucuk Pimpinan Partai-partai Politik, Organisasi Massa, Golongan Karya serta lembaga-lembaga persahabatan, hari Minggu malam (17 Januari) dalam kebulatan tekad dan instruksi bersamanya, mendesak kepada pemerintah dan alat-alatnya yang berwenang untuk segera  melatih dan mempersenjatai sokoguru-sokoguru revolusi, sebagai jaminan utama guna mencegah dan mengalahkan tiap bentuk agresi Inggeris dan agresi Nekolim pada umumnya”.

Sidang bersama menurut berita itu lebih jauh, berlangsung di Gedung BPI (Badan Pusat Intelejen) dipimpin Wakil Sekertaris Jenderal PB Front Nasional AM Rachman. Berita itu menyebutkan secara jelas beberapa nama yang berperan dan turut serta dalam sidang yang mengambil keputusan mengenai Kebulatan Tekad. Nama-nama itu, yang adalah tokoh-tokoh kelompok komunis, antara lain Anwar Sanusi, Mohammad Munir, dan Ir Surachman yang dikenal sebagai Sekertaris Jenderal PNI. Satu nama lain yang disebutkan adalah Menteri Koordinator/Ketua DPRGR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Gotong Royong) Arudji Kartawinata seorang tokoh unsur A dalam Nasakom.

Kehadiran beberapa nama tokoh partai politik, organisasi-organisasi massa dan Golongan Karya disebutkan dalam berita, namun tanpa pencantuman nama orang dengan jelas. Dan memang, belakangan beberapa pihak menyangkal keikutsertaannya dalam kebulatan tekad. Tapi ada pula yang tak terberitakan lagi pembenaran atau sangkalan keterlibatannya di media mana pun. Selain tuntutan mempersenjatai para sokoguru revolusi, kebulatan tekad itu menyatakan pula mendukung sepenuhnya kebijaksanaan dan keputusan Presiden/Pemimpin Besar Revolusi untuk keluar dari PBB (Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa). Sepuluh hari sebelumnya, Soekarno memang mengambil tindakan drastis menyatakan Indonesia keluar dari PBB. Keluarnya Indonesia ini adalah sebagai reaksi atas terpilihnya Malaysia –yang justru menjadi sasaran konfrontasi Indonesia kala itu– sebagai anggota Dewan Keamanan PBB. Bagi Soekarno, tentu saja keberhasilan Malaysia menduduki kursi dalam Dewan Keamanan PBB dan kegagalan Indonesia mencegahnya, merupakan kejadian yang menjengkelkan.

Berlanjut ke Bagian 3

These days, communist China is beginning to look a lot more like its imperial predecessor. The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) awesome wealth and power have transformed its once formidable foes like Taiwan and Japan into cowed tributaries of yore. Now, it is no longer considered shrewd to speak of changing the Middle Kingdom. Scholars and politicians who used to pontificate about slowly molding China in the image of western liberal democracy have learned a harsh lesson: you don’t change China—China changes you.

During the early years of China’s economic reforms, the country was seen as a humble backwater. Its plucky ambition attracted only benign curiosity from the West, akin to the curiosity adults bestow upon a child playing by himself. In time, this mild curiosity gave way to amusement and ultimately to intense interest and concern.

Today, Eastern and Western states alike shift their eyes from the United States to China, trying to decide with which power to cast their fate, asking: which is the true Rock of Gibraltar?

Judging from recent political developments in Taiwan and Japan, East Asia may well have already chosen its favorite: China. In March 2008, Taiwanese voters elected Kuomintang (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou President of the Republic of China. Ma’s victory and his party’s overwhelming success in the 2008 legislative elections were pleasant news to the ears of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. The KMT, once the archenemy of Communist China, had morphed over the years into a more tolerant, less Red Scare-crazed political organization. By 2008, it had become a veritable pussycat compared to Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The KMT promoted engagement and eventual reunification with mainland China, while DPP firebrand and two-term President Chen Shui-bian spearheaded his party’s provocative pro-Taiwanese independence stance. Evident by the outcome of the 2008 elections, the people of Taiwan were prepared to bridge the Taiwan Strait and strengthen ties with a government they once sought to eradicate. It wasn’t Beijing’s charm that drove the Taiwanese towards its colossal neighbor. It was a mixture of economic opportunism and political fatalism.

When trying to instill a sense of responsibility in others people often recite the adage: no one can make you do anything. The saying is true enough and does a superb job of emphasizing freewill and self-control but it fails to address the fundamental problem of coercion. Granted, theoretically speaking, no one can force another to do something; however, one can do everything in one’s power to make a person’s life extremely difficult if they refuse one’s wishes. China has for years been squeezing Taiwan in such a way. It hasn’t forced Taiwan into its fold per se. However, communist China has worked tirelessly to preclude the Taiwanese people from choosing independence. At its crudest the PRC has resorted to harassing and intimidating Taiwan.

Beijing has been especially crafty in its political marginalization of Taiwan. Through a series of cunning Cold War political maneuvers, in 1971, Beijing succeeded in stripping Taiwan of its United Nations membership and replaced the island nation as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. How, you might ask, did the CCP execute such an astounding feat? The answer is quite simple: it waited patiently. No, the PRC didn’t undergo a rapid liberal-democratic makeover. The CCP didn’t moderate its politics or lessen its human rights abuses. Chairman Mao’s party only needed to bid its time until the world was willing to give it what it wanted.

By 1971, the political milieu in which the CCP operated had changed greatly. During the 1960s, numerous newly independent third world countries were admitted to the UN General Assembly. China courted these countries and cultivated them into a support base for its UN membership bid. Thus, the PRC gained the votes it needed to wage its coup. Plenty objected to allowing Chairman Mao’s mad experiment in communist statecraft into the ranks of the UN’s supreme governing body. But what could be done? The PRC had the numbers it needed to impose its will; so the opposition stood by impotently as they were defeated by their own beloved democratic process.
Ironically, the PRC’s UN victory took place in the midst of Mao’s infamous Cultural Revolution, one of the darkest periods in modern Chinese history. Unfortunately, irony is lost on those blinded by the fog of war. The Nixon administration, caught up in Cold War power politics and struggling to extricate its country from a sticky situation in Vietnam, looked to its new Security Council colleague and saw a potential partner—what it should have seen was a cold opportunist.

In the years after the Second World War, Sino-Soviet relations soured to such an extent that the two communist powers ended up in a series of brief but bloody border conflicts in 1969. Aware that its two great Cold War foes had turned on one-another, U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and others in the Nixon administration, being the realists that they were, thought that they could win the allegiance of China and thereby shift the Cold War balance of power in the United States’ favor. Of course, as history has been written: the Nixon administration’s China diplomacy was an indubitable success—it helped to isolate the Soviet Union even further, and it delivered China from the dark recesses of the communist underworld to the light of liberal democracy. Even today, to say that 1970’s U.S.-China rapprochement was a resounding victory for U.S diplomacy is to speak the gospel truth. In actuality, the U.S. sold itself too cheaply and set U.S.-China relations on a dangerous course.

The Nixon administration’s dealings with China were the beginning of a deeply flawed negotiating pattern with the PRC that has seriously undermined the interests of democratic states the world over. The pattern has been one of give and take: the rest of the world gives and Beijing happily takes. U.S.-China trade, the foundation of U.S.-China relations, has been skewed horribly to benefit the PRC at the expense of average Americans. The U.S. trade deficit with China has ballooned over the past decade without U.S. officials taking any serious actions to rectify the matter. All the while, the PRC has utilized unfair trade practices including currency manipulation, investment restrictions, and appallingly lax labor and environmental regulations to suck money from foreign coffers. Of course, U.S. officials won’t admit that they have been steadily losing ground to a Mandarin-styled oligopoly; they won’t even acknowledge that China has made a mockery of its World Trade Organization membership—which China was able to gain with the support of the United States. Rather, U.S. officials have tended to argue that China is a backward country that can benefit enormously from Western tutelage. But China should not be mistaken for postwar Japan; South Korea; or Taiwan. The PRC is not eager to emulate foreign populist political systems nor is it in a position to have such systems imposed on it. On the contrary, the CCP has fashioned its own quasi-democratic one-party political system that cannot realistically support true democratic reform. Therefore, real catalysts for change will have to come from outside, not inside, China’s current political system. This means that efforts by the U.S. and other democratic countries to change China by working with the CCP are futile at best and extremely counterproductive at worst.

By no longer questioning the legitimacy of the CCP as a governing power, the world community obviates any leverage it might exert on the PRC. The Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 was a missed opportunity for democratic states to band together and demand democratic reforms in China. Likewise, the weak response of the world community to the 2008 Tibet unrest heartens the CCP in its claim that the strife of China’s minorities is an “internal issue” and only concerns the Chinese government. It is blatantly obvious by now that China’s economic strength is making it less and less susceptible to foreign influence and, conversely, more influential with other states. The supposed win-win trade relationships China has been developing with other countries may well be the CCP’s underhanded means of subjugating its adversaries. Currently, states are too preoccupied with economic issues to consider China as anything but a trade partner. But China is more than—a market—a lender—a supplier—it is an economic and a political actor. So, when China signs trade pacts with Taiwan and ASEAN there is more than money at stake.

The recent general election in Japan is a perfect example of how China has used trade to gain political power. For decades, Japan’s center right Liberal Democratic Party produced prime ministers that have for the most part either outraged or mildly offended Beijing. But, this summer’s elections brought a new party and a new kind of prime minister to power. The victorious Democratic Party of Japan and its president the new prime minister of Japan, Yukio Hatoyama, appear ready not only to support strengthening ties with China (as did previous Japan’s previous prime minister, Taro Aso) but to reduce Japan’s military cooperation with the United States. Prime Minister Hatoyama and his party are committed to reorienting Japan towards Asia which some have equated with turning Japan’s back on the United States, its greatest ally. This may seem an abrupt shift in policy but it has been a long time in the making. Japan’s trade relationship with China has been growing for years. China has supplanted the U.S. as Japan’s largest trade partner and the political consequences are now becoming manifest.

In essence, the United States’ flawed China strategy can be described as all carrots and no sticks. The danger for the U.S. and other countries is that the CCP has gained so much economic and political clout that it now holds most of the cards. Before when the U.S. had relatively more power than it does today, U.S. officials made too many concessions to China. They were content to believe that they could tolerate the PRC’s human rights violations, bad trade practices, unwarranted arms build-up, and general bad neighborliness in the international community because trade, they thought, was the panacea for all of China’s ills. First wealth then freedom became the mantra in Beijing and Washington. Unfortunately, wealth and freedom are not inextricably linked.

The China of today must be a rude surprise to the naïve scholars and government officials who once claimed that the CCP’s authoritarian rule would be demolished by China’s growing middle class. Karl Mark famously called religion the opiate of the masses; however, in China, money is the drug of choice. China’s middle class is more interested in accumulating wealth than accumulating civil liberties. Powerless peasants and remote ethnic minorities are the only people left that persistently challenge their illegitimate authoritarian government. Foreign powers like the United States now tread lightly when nearing the PRC’s turf. At present, the U.S. is carefully trying to decide whether honoring its commitment to protect Taiwan by selling it more than $6 billion worth of military hardware is worth incurring China’s wrath. The prospects of the dealing going through don’t look good especially considering that President Obama is scheduled to visit Beijing in November and a cooperative China seems to be vital to the United States’ economic recovery. So the CCP’s intransigence wins again. China’s influence in East Asia grows stronger, its economic ties tighten, and freedom—once a major issue, and then an afterthought—becomes an after-afterthought.

“Berbeda dengan Angkatan Darat, sumber dana politik PKI sedikit lebih terselubung dan nyaris tak terbuktikan, karena tak ada pihak yang betul-betul memiliki bukti-bukti hitam putih aliran dana PKI”.

ADALAH menarik bahwa dalam kurun waktu Nasakom, PKI yang menempatkan perjuangan kelas sebagai kegiatan politik ideologisnya, boleh dikatakan tak pernah menyentuh wilayah persoalan kesenjangan sosial yang terkait dengan kelompok etnis Cina. Hubungan PKI di bawah Aidit dengan Cina Komunis –Aidit dianggap sebagai kelompok sayap Peking– dan keberadaan Baperki sebagai organisasi kaum peranakan Cina di Indonesia yang berkiblat kiri, dapat menjelaskan mengapa PKI relatif menjauhi masalah kesenjangan sosial dan ekonomi yang terkait dengan etnis Cina di Indonesia. Terdapat pula unsur pragmatis dalam hal ini.

Secara umum, sumber dana untuk segala kegiatan politik PKI tak banyak disinggung. Ini berbeda dengan kelompok jenderal yang memegang kendali Angkatan Darat yang berhadapan dalam pertarungan politik dan kekuasaan dengan PKI. Sumber dana ‘non budgetair’ para jenderal saat itu senantiasa dikaitkan dengan perilaku korupsi, terutama karena posisi sejumlah jenderal atau perwira tentara dalam berbagai badan usaha milik negara, yang sebagian adalah bekas perusahaan Belanda yang dinasionalisir pada tahun 1957. Termasuk di sini adalah Pertamin dan Permina yang kemudian hari dilebur menjadi Pertamina, dan diserahkan penanganannya kepada seorang dokter yang juga adalah perwira Angkatan Darat, Ibnu Sutowo, yang berpangkat kolonel kemudian naik ke jenjang jenderal. Beberapa posisi penting di bawahnya umumnya juga dipegang kalangan tentara. Konsesi di perusahaan perminyakan ini diberikan sebagai bagian dari semacam deal politik maupun saling pengertian –yang mungkin saja tak pernah diucapkan dengan cara yang betul-betul terus terang– antara Presiden Soekarno dengan pihak militer di bawah Mayor Jenderal Nasution sebelum Dekrit 1959.

Berbeda dengan Angkatan Darat, sumber dana politik PKI sedikit lebih terselubung dan nyaris tak terbuktikan, karena tak ada pihak yang betul-betul memiliki bukti-bukti hitam putih aliran dana PKI. Sumber dana utama PKI di masa-masa awal sebelum Pemilihan Umum 1955 adalah dari gerakan dan jaringan komunis internasional. Selanjutnya, sumber dana itu bergeser yang mulanya terutama datang dari Moskow menjadi lebih banyak berasal dari Peking, tatkala Aidit secara kasat mata membawa PKI lebih berkiblat ke Peking. Namun Moskow tak pernah sepenuhnya menghentikan bantuan keuangan, karena pemimpin blok Timur itu masih tetap mengalirkan dana ke kelompok PKI sayap Moskow yang masih eksis sebagai faksi ‘urutan kedua’ di tubuh partai tersebut. Apalagi, di balik yang terlihat, ada gambaran bahwa Aidit tidak pernah betul-betul meninggalkan Moskow. Menurut Muhammad Achadi –Menteri Transmigrasi dan Koperasi pada Kabinet Soekarno– hingga dekat-dekat saat terjadinya Peristiwa 30 September 1965, Aidit tetap menjalin hubungan dengan Moskow. Aidit pun –tanpa banyak diketahui pihak lain– berkali-kali datang ke Moskow sekitar waktu tersebut.

Sumber dana dalam negeri PKI, termobilisasi melalui Jusuf Muda Dalam yang memegang kendali Bank Sentral. Tapi sumber keuangan PKI lainnya yang tak kecil juga berasal dari kelompok-kelompok pengusaha bidang perdagangan dan industri beretnis Cina yang berhaluan kiri dan atau punya alasan ataupun kepentingan lain. Bandingkan dengan Masjumi, yang sebelum menjadi partai terlarang memperoleh aliran dananya antara lain dari satu dua ‘pengusaha’ anggota Masjumi yang mendapat fasilitas lisensi –di zaman bermunculannya pengusaha aktentas yang sekedar memperjualbelikan lisensi tersebut– melalui suatu program yang sebenarnya dimaksudkan untuk membantu ‘pengusaha nasional’  pada masa tokoh PSI Soemitro Djojohadikoesoemo menjadi Menteri Perdagangan dalam kabinet Natsir di tahun 1950-1951. Suatu ‘ladang’ yang sempit dan ringkas. Pengusaha aktentas memang bukan jenis yang bisa sepenuhnya diandalkan.

Sebaliknya, pada tahun lima puluhan, menteri-menteri yang berasal dari Masjumi juga banyak membantu pengusaha nasional. Jusuf Wibisono, Menteri Keuangan dalam Kabinet Sukiman-Suwirjo (1951-1952) dan Kabinet Ali Sastroamidjojo II (1956-1957) selama setahun-setahun, pernah antara lain membantu TD Pardede, pengusaha asal Sumatera Utara beragama Kristen dan anggota PNI. Hal serupa dilakukan pula sebelumnya oleh Sjafruddin Prawiranegara yang menjadi Menteri Keuangan dalam Kabinet Natsir (1950-1951) dan pada dua kabinet lain pada masa-masa sebelumnya. Menurut penuturan Pardede (kepada Professor Deliar Noer), suatu kali ketika usahanya menjadi besar dan sukses ia mendatangi keduanya, serta M. Sanusi tokoh Masjumi yang juga seorang pejabat di Departemen Perindustrian, untuk memberikan ‘amplop’ sebagai tanda terima kasih. Dengan cara yang baik-baik dan menyenangkan, ketiga tokoh Masjumi itu menolak menerimanya.

Selain karena faktor militansi tinggi yang dimiliki massa PKI, kelancaran aliran dana yang dikelola lebih efektif dan efisien –dan harus diakui relatif tak ‘tergigit’ oleh pengelola partai, seperti yang terjadi pada beberapa partai politik lain waktu itu– menjadikan manuver-manuver politik PKI lebih mobile dan efektif pula. Maka PKI muncul menonjol di berbagai lini medan pertarungan politik dan kekuasaan.

Hanya satu obsesi PKI yang belum juga tercapai, yaitu keberhasilan menciptakan sayap bersenjata yang tangguh, yang dengan gemilang dicapai oleh Partai Komunis Tjina di bawah Mao Zedong (Mao Tsetung) masih sejak tahun-tahun awal sejak kelahirannya. Sebagai ganti dari belum terpenuhinya obsesi tersebut adalah keberhasilan dalam kadar tertentu dari PKI menginfiltrasi dan menyusupkan pengaruhnya ke tubuh militer, khususnya Angkatan Darat, yang menjadi lebih intensif setelah terbentuknya Biro Khusus PKI di tahun 1964. Kelak akan ternyata bahwa pada saat dibutuhkan sayap PKI dalam militer, meskipun mencapai tingkat yang cukup signifikan, tidaklah bisa mencapai hasil optimum.

Partai Komunis Tjina yang lahir tahun 1921, meskipun lebih muda setahun dari PKI, dalam banyak hal dijadikan PKI sebagai percontohan dari waktu ke waktu, termasuk dalam obsesi memiliki sayap bersenjata yang andal. Pintu masuk untuk memenuhi obsesi tersebut, di luar dugaan dibuka oleh Dr Sun Yat-sen pemimpin Republik (Nasionalis) Cina yang pada sekitar tahun 1920 mengalami akumulasi kekecewaan terhadap pihak barat. Melihat keberhasilan Revolusi Bolsjewik dan berbagai keberhasilan Lenin setelahnya, Sun Yat-sen yang memiliki sikap dan pandangan yang sosialistis, terangsang untuk berhubungan dengan Uni Sovjet dan berharap bahwa dari hubungan itu nantinya ia bisa mendapat apa yang tidak didapatnya dari barat sekaligus bisa mengakhiri beberapa perlakuan buruk pihak barat pada Cina. Lenin, pemimpin Sovjet, ternyata tanggap dan segera mengalirkan banyak bantuan kepada Cina yang dipandangnya dapat bergeser ke kiri di bawah Sun Yat-sen yang juga memahami Marxisme dan Sosialisme dengan baik. Salah satunya adalah pengiriman sejumlah penasehat politik dan militer.

Satu di antara program prioritas Sun Yat-sen kala itu adalah memperbesar militer Kuomintang dengan bantuan para penasehat militer Sovjet itu. Memperbesar militer menjadi kebutuhan objektif bagi Sun Yat-sen, karena pada masa itu sebagian besar panglima militer di berbagai wilayah cenderung menciptakan diri sebagai warlord di daerah kekuasaannya masing-masing dan banyak menunjukkan ketidakpatuhan kepada pemerintah pusat. Sun Yat-sen mendengar banyak laporan mengenai perilaku seenaknya dari para panglima wilayah itu, yang bekerjasama dengan tuan-tuan tanah dan orang-orang kaya setempat, memeras dan menindas rakyat dengan berbagai tindak kekerasan. Mereka pun mengorganisir kegiatan kriminal dan premanisme untuk tujuan ‘komersial’ serta pengumpulan keuntungan materil, mulai dari pelacuran, permadatan hingga berbagai macam pemerasan. Kelompok ‘kriminal’ ini juga bersenjata dan berlaku sewenang-wenang. Para panglima dan perwira-perwiranya, bahkan sampai prajurit lapisan bawah, sangat koruptif.

Situasi ini dianggap Sun Yat-sen sangat melemahkan Cina dan bisa membawa Cina ke ambang kehancuran. Untuk mengatasinya, Sun Yat-sen membutuhkan militer Kuomintang yang diperbarui dan diperbesar, sehingga akan lebih disegani dan mampu menundukkan para warlords itu. Sun Yat-sen bertindak ‘radikal’ dengan membuka pintu bagi Partai Komunis Tjina turut serta sebagai sumber daya manusia ‘baru’ dalam pengembangan militer itu serta mengakomodir para kader partai komunis ke dalam institusi-institusi pemerintahan. Sejumlah besar kader Partai Komunis mengalir ke sekolah militer baru yang didirikan dan ditopang instruktur-instruktur militer dari Rusia (negara ‘induk’ Uni Sovjet). Ia mengangkat seorang perwira kepercayaannya, Chiang Kai-shek, sebagai pimpinan sekolah militer itu.

Suatu program lain, yang menyenangkan bagi Partai Komunis Tjina dipimpin Mao Zedong adalah program penataan ulang tanah –land reform– bagi para petani kecil di daratan Cina yang pada masa itu menjadi salah satu kelompok masyarakat sasaran pemerasan dan penindasan fisik dari para tuan tanah yang bekerja di bawah topangan dan lindungan para tentara korup. Para petani dijadikan sebagai ‘kuda’ yang diperas tenaganya, sementara anak-anak gadis mereka dijadikan sebagai objek seks bagi lapisan berkuasa beserta para kaki-tangan mereka dan setelah puas menikmatinya dijadikan pelacur di rumah-rumah hiburan. Program land reform diharapkan Sun Yat-sen menjadi jalan menyelamatkan petani dan karenanya akan memperoleh dukungan petani sebagai lapisan akar rumput guna menundukkan para warlord.

Berlanjut ke Bagian 2

Stellen wir uns mal vor, in Berlin würde eine Linkspartei-Regierung die Stasi-Gedenkstätte Hohenschönhausen schließen und Walter Ulbricht eine Gedenkhalle widmen. Unvorstellbar, oder?

Kürzlich ist es mir gelungen, zwei nicht ganz unwichtige Themen in einem deutschen Medium unterzubringen: Die Rück-Umbenennung der Chiang-Kai-shek-Gedenkhalle (zuvor “Nationale Demokratie-Gedenkhalle”) und die Schließung der Gedenkstätte im ehemaligen Militärgefängnis Jingmei.

Beides sind Beispiele dafür, dass Teile der regierenden Kuomintang-Partei sich vielleicht doch noch nicht so ganz von ihrer autoritäten Vergangenheit (ca. 40 Jahre Einparteienherrschaft per Kriegsrecht, zehntausende tote Taiwaner) distanziert haben.

Der Beitrag lief in der Sendung “Fokus Asien” im Radioprogramm der Deutschen Welle. Man kann die Sendung hier nachhören und den dazugehörigen Internettext lesen.

Mir fehlt die Zeit, die Geschichte des Gefängnisses und der Namens-Kontroverse um die Gedenkhalle hier im Detail aufzurollen. Ich hoffe, irgendwann kann ich das nachholen. Bis dahin bildet Euch ein Urteil anhand des Radiobeitrags und dieser Bilder.

Für die Öffentlichkeit nicht mehr zugänglich: Das ehemalige Militärgefängnis Jingmei (eigentlich auf dem Stadtgebiet von Xindian, nicht Taipeh).

Eine sehr schöne Fotogallerie des Jingmei-Gefängnisses vor und nach der Schließung mit weiteren Informationen hat Günter Whittome erstellt.

Die Menschenrechts-Gedenkstätte im Jingmei-Gefängnis.

Blogger David Reid über die Eröffnung der Gedenkstätte 2007 und die geschlossene Ausstellung 2009.

Stacheldraht und Polizisten sorgten dafür, dass die Rück-Umbenennung der Chiang-Kai-shek-Gedenkhalle ungestört über die Bühne ging. (20.7.2009)

Berichte über die Rück-Umbenennung der Chiang-Kai-shek-Gedenkhalle in der Taipei Times (regierungskritisch) und der China Post (regierungsfreundlich).

Nur wenige Demonstranten protestierten vor der Absperrung. (20.7.2009)

Als einer ihrer ersten Amtshandlungen hatte die KMT-Regierung nach dem Amtsantritt im Mai 2008 den alten Zustand in der Gedenkhalle wieder hergestellt.

Innenraum der CKS-Halle im März 2008: Zu Füßen des Diktators eine Ausstellung über Taiwans Demokratiebewegung. Die Drachen sollten den "Wind der Freiheit" o.ä. symbolisieren.

Die Gedenkhalle heute: Absperrung statt Ausstellung. Außerdem wurde wieder eine Ehrenwache (nicht im Bild) aufgestellt.

Im Souvenirshop der CKS-Halle gibt es T-Shirts mit dem Diktator zum Auf-der-Brust-Tragen.

KMT-Präsidenten unter sich: Chiang Ching-kuo (1978-88), sein Vater Chiang Kai-shek (bis 1975), Ma Ying-jeou (seit 2008).

In times past, I have made half-assed attempts to come up with a refutation of Nigel Harris’ The Mandate of Heaven, an article written in 1978 which attempts to lay out the “history” of the People’s Republic of China and inparticular, the political corruption and tyranny of Mao Zedong. I read this book several years ago after it was brought up during a debate with a Trotkyist fellow. On the surface, it appears to be a book made primarily of hyperbole, rumour and dramatic damnation, but as I read deeper, analyzed its content, traced its sources and in general studied it and its background, I began to see that its factual errors appeared to be outright lies.  During that debate I spent a day or two briefly refuting some of the claims made and vowed later on that I would spend more effort into a larger refutation of it.

Some background: Nigel Harris was a leadership figure in the UK-based Socialist Worker’s Party (SWP), itself an affiliate of the International Socialist Tendency (IST), a Trotskyist “international” composed of various political activists adhering in one form or another to Trotskyism and its ilk. The SWP and the IST were founded by Tony Cliff, whose followers are charged with the monicker “Cliffites”. Today Nigel Harris is a more moderate centre-left political figure, having worked for the World Bank and an activist in such issues as immigration and the arts.

What will follow will be a piece-meal article that I will continually add to as time goes by, as its estimated length will probably require several days of writing. Now, without further pause, let’s begin.

COLLABORATION
Nigel Harris’ first chapter, titled “The Worker’s Revolution”, quickly dives into the peculiarities and nuances of China’s revolutionary periods from 1911 to 1926. In it he describes, in apparent detail, the level of dissaray, chaos and anarchy in China during this period; the state of foreign imperialist domination, the unchecked power of well-armed warlords and mercenary armies, and a fledgeling worker’s movement peering from the stormclouds like a ray of hope and sunshine.

He continues to describe the birth and growth of the Koumintang and the Communist Party of China, and their relations with the Communist International and, by extension, the Soviet Union. He describes how the COMINTERN and, obviously, Stalin, exhuberantly embraced tghe Koumintang and Chiang Kai-Shek as unquestionable revolutionaries and men of progress, and how Chinese communists were strictly ordered to comply with Chiang and the Koumintang at all costs — even if it meant betraying workers and peasants who the KMT would crush on a regular basis.

Several paragraphs are devoted to this bleak outlook; how the KMT crushed fledgeling worker’s organizations and uprisings, banned unions and popular assemblies and routinely purged communists and left-wingers at every turn, an apocalyptic tale of suppression dotted with calls from the COMINTERN to hold their tongue, to not question the KMT for fear of shattering the KMT’s nationalist anti-imperialist alliance.

Throughout, Nigel makes repeated jabs about Stalin’s involvement in the whole affair; his constant subservience to the KMT, his material and financial support and his constant appraisal that the KMT was to China as the Bolshevik Party was to Russia.

This seems a lot to believe. Did the Comintern force the Chinese Communist Party into subservience to the ruling-class-aligned KMT? Did the Chinese Communists pledge unconditional loyalty even as KMT soldiers gunned down striking workers and protesting peasants? Did they conspire to keep a veil of silence over the butchering of China’s workers and peasants?

The chapter seems rife with contradictions. While adamantly claiming that the Communists maintained strict loyalty to the KMT, he explains how at every turn the KMT acted to purge Communists and leftists; were they so blind and helpless that they would line themselves up infront of a KMT firing squad at Stalin’s “orders”?

Of particular note, Harris repeatedly claims that the KMT’s northern expedition — the conquest of villages, towns and cities under the control of warlords — followed a constant and predictable route: First, the Communists would advance, spreading propaganda, organizing the workers and peasants and assembling popular councils and committees to overthrow the warlords and foreign and national bourgeoisie; that the KMT would then come in, suppress the workers and peasants through force, killing countless Communists in the process and secure their own control.

Even as Communists organize and arm self-determined workers, incite them to stand up against oppression and defend themselves with workers’ militias and armed cadres, Harris claims this was all part of the act — that those Communists were heartlessly setting up the workers and peasants, and themselves, to be massacred; in effect, gathering the enemies of the KMT into a clearing to be more easily gunned down with rifle and machinegun.

And this, he claims, was all part of Stalin’s plans. That the author is a Trotskyist seems confirmed in his ability to bring Stalin to blame for each and every anti-worker incident in the whole of China.

There are small amounts of truth in the text — as you’ll soon learn, Harris based much of his writing on facts, albeit facts taken out of context, spliced together and shown in a certain light as to make it seem something it is not. The KMT, for instance, does seem to have had a close relationship with the Bolsheviks in Russia, and the Communist Party of China, during its younger years, did support the KMT in its campaign of national liberation. These are perfectly logical courses of action to take; during the early 1920s the Communist Party, founded in actuality in 1921, contained a tiny number of members in a country with a population in the hundreds of millions. The KMT  for its part was a more-or-less centrist party, more a coalition of various progressive forces in China — from workers, peasants, petit-bourgeois, low-tier landowners and nationalists — who sought, through the KMT, to fight the rampant warlordism and foreign domination which plagued China and promote a central government of national unity. It was, for a time, the only political opponent to this chaos; its thousands of members had experience in China’s earlier revolutionary periods, and its goal — a bourgeois revolution to bring China into the 20th century and rid itself of fuedalism and chaos — was one which should have been supported.

The Communists on their part were a young, but growing force. The period of 1911-1926 in China was one of unprecedented social unrest. China’s tiny proletariat, based primarily in its eastern cities which themselves were the domain of foreign capitalists tapping China’s resources and manpower to produce goods and commodities to send to the west, were in a state of uproar; factories, warhouses and shops went on strike in protest of foreign domination, while peasants rose up against the tyranny of their warlord masters. The Communist Party grew exponentially during this period, tapping into and eventually dominating the underground political scene in the cities and eastern countrysides. Many thousands, and eventually millions, rose up against their bitter shackles and cried out for freedom.

It was a coup d’etat which finally brought the KMT and Communists to blows. As the KMT planned its great Northern Expedition — a military campaign set to recapture important Chinese towns and cities and liberate them from warlordism and foreign domination — it also planned a great purge of its ranks. During the workers uprisings — which it at first supported due to its anti-imperialist nature but then began to oppose due to its anti-bourgeois nature — the KMT would come to realize the danger communism posed to its future ambitions. For the KMT did not seek to liberate the people from exploitation — merely to liberate them from foreign exploiters so that it could become China’s ruling class in its post-revolutionary period. Up until that point, the KMT was a progressive force. China’s self-determination could not be secured without the expulsion of foreign power from Chinese soil, and the defeat of the authoritiless warlords, both of whom the KMT pledged to fight. But it was the KMT, it is true, who struck the first blow against the Communists and the workers movement; in a sudden, almost overnight move, thousands of communists and workers leaders were arrested and executed, and workers uprisings across eastern China were crushed.

We know how this played out as it is written in the halls of the Communist Party’s own history, through documents, letters, messages, propaganda and articles. An alliance with the bourgeois “spirit” of the KMT was never out of the question; Marx himself would write: “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.” Fuedalism, warlordism and foreign domination were the order of things in China during the 1910s and early 1920s and it was the KMT who represented the most developed form of struggle against this sociopolitical order.

Despite this, Mao seems to explicitely refer to the growing dissent within the revolutionary movement — with Chiang and the right-wing of the KMT on the one hand, and the Communists and the left-wing of the KMT on the other — and urges caution for the future during his writings in 1926. He recognized that, while the KMT did, for the moment, represent the pinnacle of progressive movements in China, they did not represent the revolutionary proletariat and exploited peasants. In an article named Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, written in 1926, he explicitely refers to the enemies of the proletariat — “the warlords, the bureaucrats, the comprador class, the big landlord class and the reactionary section of the intelligentsia attached to them”. This seems to refute the claims that a veil of secrecy was laid over the eyes of communists at the time; that subordination to the KMT (which itself was composed of warlords, beauraucrats, compradors, big landlords and reactionary intellectuals) was the most important thing and that Chiang and the KMT were under no circumstances to be antagonized, criticized or publically called-out.

It is true that during this period there was a rift within the Communist Party itself, between those who wanted to follow Chiang and the KMT and those who held the tenets of revolutionary communism as above all else. Chen Tu-hsiu was a prominent member of the “right-wing” faction who urged the party to comply with Koumintang demands lest the KMT attack. It was primarily these oppurtunists who, ironically, became the victims of the KMT’s purge; they stood hoitily in their fortress of Wunan as frail tailers of the KMT and were easily caught and executed, while more revolutionary men and women, Mao himself included, were participating in activities across the country. It could be said with some amount of accuracy that the KMT purge was more helpful to the party then damaging; like a rampant disease, only the strongest and most determined communists survived.

And while the Comintern and Stalin did not represent foreign generals ordering the Communist Party of China to do this or that, we do know that they did apply pressure to form an alliance with the KMT, and supported the KMT militarily. It is true, afterall, that during the early 20s the KMT defined the progressive revolutionary movement in China. But their support did not amount to a betrayal. Communists were active in nearly every peasant or worker uprising during the late 1920s, and bore the brunt of the KMT’s viscious suppression; and it was the Communists who were the focus of Chiang’s coup and purge in 1927. Uneducated comrades within the Communist Party were caught off-guard, believing that their continued loyalty to the KMT assured their continued protection. Those head-smart comrades survived the purge, and would take up the cause of the revolution that the KMT was in the process of abandoning.

It is impossible to see any real form of “subordination” to the KMT on the part of the Chinese communists. There was co-operation, yes of course, but not blind subordination.

FROM DEFEAT TO VICTORY TO… VICTORY?

Harris’ next chapter deals with the immediate aftermath of the KMT coup of 1927. In brief, it explains the immediate reaction of the Chinese communists and the Comintern: to abandon the workers, abandon the principles of Marxist revolution.

The accusation is bitter and contradictory; Harris goes so far as to claim that the Communist Party’s real defeat came at their own hands and not the KMT; that through their own abandonment of worker solidarity they segregated and alienated themselves from the masses, focusing instead on the growth of their own future power. As he says, “The tactics Communists should follow in such a situation had been outlined at the third Congress of the Communist International in 1921. The party should try to take up the limited material interests of workers through established trade unions, no matter how corrupt their leadership, to build a defensive “united front” of all workers in order to restore their confidence in their capacity for collective action. In Tsarist Russia, the Bolsheviks had survived defeat by such methods.”

This, of course, isn’t quite true. In Tsarist Russia and during the revolutionary period, this was not the established way of things. Not all unions could be worked with, as the Krondstadt “rebellion” showed; the development of workers’ Soviets is not the same as the development, co-operation and “takeover” of trade unions, which are often administered by petit-bourgeois or even capitalists themselves, who turn the workers’ eyes away form the real issue of state control and focus them instead on issues such as benefits and wages and vacation time. This plague, this beauraucratization of unions has only worsened to this day. Unions are seen as little more than a tool for a worker to defend his gains. Not as revolutionary tools; not as tools for change, but rather the opposite, tools to maintain the status quo, to fight change. This reliance on the ineffibility of the official union is a common disease infecting revolutionaries, then as it did now. The Chinese communists were quite correct in their appraisal of the situation; during that period there existed mainly two forms of unions. “Sanctioned” unions which were little more than tools for worker control controlled by thugs and gangsters on the payroll of capitalists; and “yellow unions” (as Harris points out), corrupt, beauraucratic unions which were defeatist and minimalist in nature. To bring about a socialist revolution in China, these tools, which were at the control of the bourgeois, would need to be swept aside; replaced by real organizations of workers and peasants, operating outside of the state’s baleful influence.

And for this reason, according to Harris, the Communist Party fell from grace; not because of the thousands of dead Communists and workers’ leaders, not the purged offices and burnt houses of the KMT’s rage — those events had little to do with it, apparently — but through the Communist’s own inability to realize that it should have given up all hope of national conquest and focused entirely on the plight of the worker and his limited, small-scoped defense against capitalist exploitation.

This was not the way  the Bolsheviks accomplished their success in 1918. On the contrary, the Chinese Communist’s actions bare much more resemblence to Lenin’s actions during the period of the Russian revolution; organizing workers independant of state control; urging those workers to go further than protecting what limited rights they currently had but to fight for more rights; and to secure state control.

Harris is stuck on the old dogmatic principles that every revolution should look exactly like the Russian (or more accurately, should look exactly like how they see the Russian revolution). Differing conditions, socially, politically, economically, have no say in this decree; if the revolution does not follow the steps laid out by Lenin (and Trotsky), then it is not a revolution.

Fortunately, Mao, and other leaders of the Communist Party of China, were much more adaptable then that. They realized that conditions in China were much different than in Russia in 1918. They realized that revolution in China would not come under the command of the Comintern or Russian revolutionaries. They realized that in order to carry out a revolution in China, to fight back against their setbacks at the hands of the KMT, to secure a future for a socialist China, they would have to break the mold, as it were; to create a new revolution, of a new style.

Harris goes on to criticize Mao’s statement, which he quotes: “Only after wiping out comparatively large enemy units and occupying the cities can we arouse the masses on a large scale and build up a unified political power over a number of adjoining counties. Only thus can we arouse the attention of the people far and wide.” And herein this accusation, we find the first questionable use of quotation and sourcing that Harris uses. He continued in his next sentence: “It followed that urban workers became no more than ancillary. The militants of the labour movement were now required to leave the cities as recruits for the partisans.”
Harris’ first quote comes from an article dated January 1930 called “A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire” — a quote famous article in Maoist circles. While Harris claims that the above quote are evidence of the CPC’s abandoning of the urban proletariat, this very article seems to say differently: “…the present task of the Party [here the words "in the big cities" should have been added] is to win over the masses and not to stage immediate insurrections.” it says at one point. “Proletarian leadership is the sole key to victory in the revolution.” It continues: “Therefore, it would be wrong to abandon the struggle in the cities”

Rather than form the ideology that the peasants were the only revolutionary class in China, as many of Mao’s detractors claim (and thus, they say, are proof of the revolution in China not being communist but being bourgeois at best), the Chinese Communists were very adamant in maintaining the dominancy of the urban proletariat, as small as it was, on the revolution; that it was a worker’s revolution in which the peasants would ally themselves with rather than the other way around. Mao would even go on to say: “in our opinion it would also be wrong for any of our Party members to fear the growth of peasant strength lest it should outstrip the workers’ strength and harm the revolution. For in the revolution in semi-colonial China, the peasant struggle must always fail if it does not have the leadership of the workers, but the revolution is never harmed if the peasant struggle outstrips the forces of the workers.” In other words, while leadership of the proletariat is necessary for any Chinese revolution, this does not mean that the revolutionary potential of the peasants should be stiffled or suppressed; if anything, and reflecting the reality of China at the time, the peasants served as a much more powerful and numerically superior revolutionary force than the much smaller proletarian population, which according to their best estimates numbered only around 5,000,000 in all of China’s eastern cities, compared to China’s population of over 300,000,000.

The rest of the chapter deals with the immediate aftermath of the Communist victory in 1949; the various betrayals of the revolution during the 1945-1949 period; and, of course, finds room to include a bit of sectarian damnation of Stalin’s ever-present meddling hand.

Of the more notable accusations are statements that the Communist Party granted amnesty to rich landowners in exchange for their loyalty against the KMT; protecting assets of rich peasants; that the peasants must be bribed to maintain their loyalty to the Communist Party and not the KMT.

A particular quote Harris gives — “the masses in the newly liberated areas will not be able to tell which of the two parties, the Communist party or the Kuomintang, is good and which is bad” – is blatantly taken out of context. The original quote from the original passage is:

“Reduce rent.  In accordance with the November 7, 1945 directive of the Central Committee, all areas must launch movements in 1946 for the reduction of rent and interest in their newly liberated areas, movements on a large scale, of a mass character, but with leadership. As for the workers, their wages should be appropriately raised. Through these movements the broad masses should be able to emancipate themselves, organize, and become the conscious masters of the Liberated Areas. Without these determined measures, the masses in the newly liberated areas will not be able to tell which of the two parties, the Communist Party or the Kuomintang, is good and which is bad;”
Rather than securing domination of the masses by the Party, Mao seems more concerned with emancipating the masses — more accurately, giving the masses the ability to emancipate themselves and lead themselves in the liberated zones. This is telling of the motivation driving the work of the Communist Party — not to become masters of the masses, but to allow the masses to become masters of themselves, with the party serving only as the vanguard, the most advanced portion of the revolutionary movement organizing the defense of that revolution against its outward threats.

To be continued…

“Tiananmen” means “gate of heavenly peace,” which may seem ironic in the context of the student protests of 1989.  Unless, of course, you believe that peace is somehow the end result of struggle, in which case, the “Gate of Heavenly Peace” would be a perfectly appropriate portal to Chinese politics.

The gap between these two perspectives is the chasm that underlies my feeble efforts, then and now, to understand the events I witnessed twenty years ago.  I like irony as much as the next guy, but the older I get, the more I begin to think that irony is the outcome of our (meaning western) inability to appreciate the weird mysteries and happenchance that so often structure events.  “Gate of Heavenly Peace—how ironic!” might be a classically western response.  But what do we know of “Heavenly Peace?”  And not knowing, how can we proclaim it ironic?  Doing so is easy and lazy, it means we don’t have to dig deeper or ask more penetrating questions, of ourselves, of our memories.

New Taiwan Dollar, from Wikimedia

For the past few days, I’ve been reflecting on how my months of living in Taiwan prepared me to comprehend the complexities of Chinese politics in general.  My complete and utter ignorance of Taiwan’s political “situation” when I arrived in the winter of 1988 underwent a series of quick challenges as complete strangers would often engage us in political conversation.  One elderly gentleman invited Eleni and I up to his office for tea, “gave us chiclets, talked about history, economics, politics, communism.”  Another guy took me out to dinner at the Grand Hotel, where I learned “about ROC [Republic of China] politics—the KMT and the DPP, and whether or not reunification is still a viable option.”  Through various encounters of this sort, I learned “that one must be very careful about what one says” in terms of politics there.  Especially when the “one” in question was a left-of-liberal graduate of a Portland, OR liberal arts college, a devoted reader of Mother Jones, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky.  In the Reagan era, I was pretty used to swimming against the mainstream of politics, but I was not interested in getting into political battles as a guest in another country.

In 1989, Taiwan was still under the martial law erected by the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) back in 1947.  Taiwan, or “Formosa” as it was known to Westerners, was first settled by Han Chinese in the seventeenth century (there is scholarly controversy as to whether those settlements constitute “colonies”).  In 1895, Taiwan became a Japanese colony and remained such until 1947 when the Chinese Kuomintang government, facing defeat by the Communists, fled to the island under Chiang Kai-Shek.  The resulting Legislative Yuan, comprised of representatives from various districts around mainland China, positioned itself as the legitimate, if exiled, ruling government of all of China and so remained the single-party government of Taiwan for over 40 years.  But in the late 1980’s, the logic of KMT rule was coming under increasingly critical scrutiny, as the aging—and dying—population of legislators began to force the issue of electing Taiwan residents into positions of political power. Wikipedia notes that “The primary political axis in Taiwan involves the issue of Taiwan independence versus Chinese reunification,” making for a strange tension between intense hostility toward the People’s Republic, and longing for the homeland, strengthened by cultural bonds of language, religion, and familial ties.

In one of those odd coincidences of fate, my own hometown of Marysville, California played a role in this history.  In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Marysville was home to a

thriving Chinese population, and at the turn of the century was home to Sun-Yat Sen, founding intellectual and president of the KMT, as he worked among the Chinese diaspora to build support for the 1911 overthrow of the Qing dynasty.  As a child, I enjoyed the annual Bok-kai festival and opening of the temple to the general public, so that in Taiwan the sounds and scents of temples and festivals reminded me of my childhood home.

Twenty years ago today, on 4 May, “approximately 100,000 students and workers marched in Beijing making demands for free media and a formal dialogue between the authorities and student-elected representatives. A declaration demanded the government to accelerate political reform.” [Wikipedia:[2] At the time, I was almost as clueless about the modern political history of the People’s Republic of China as I had been earlier about Taiwan’s.  I did not know about the tradition of student protest in Tiananmen square, and the importance of those movements in Chinese political memory.  Ninety years ago today, in 1919, the May Fourth movement was launched in Tiananmen square as students, merchants and workers protested the government response to the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for replacing traditional Chinese values with increasing openness to science and technology.  The 1989 students and their supporters interpreted their own actions through the lens of the 1919 movement, as patriots struggling for transparent governance and modernizing economics.  Deng Xiao-ping’s Communist Party faced a no-win situation, with the imminent historic visit of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in mid-May and all the international visibility that would bring, over against the widespread popularity that the students were gaining among Chinese people in every province.

And so, in an odd twist, both Chinese governments faced challenges to their hegemonic power at the same time in 1989.  In Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party was gaining ground in its challenge to the one-party rule of the KMT, which would result in the lifting of martial law and open elections within a few short years.  On the mainland, the student challenge would take a different route. 

What did I learn about Chinese politics, entering its history through the portal of Taiwan in the sunset years of the Kuomintang?  Only that the animus behind those politics are deeply, complexly different than those at work in the western world, that I could never fully understand it.  I learned that the surface impression was never—could never be—the full story.  This lesson gave birth to an ambiguity—or to an ability to entertain, if not embrace, paradox that has never left me.

Some random notes:

• Top Ten politician recipients of AIG bonuses, 2008: Obama, Dodd, McCain, Clinton, Baucus, Romney, Biden, Larson, Sununu, Giuliani.
• Previous recipients of AIG largesse include: George Bush, Bill Clinton, Alphonse D’Amato, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and just about every prominent Democrat and Republican in the past few decades. For example, 1990 recipients include Pelosi, Schumer, Gore, Rangel, Daschle, Liebermann, Gramm McConnell, Domenici, etc. etc.
  
• AIG stands for American International Group. It is primarily an insurance corporation. It was founded in 1919, in Shanghai, The Republic of China, as American Asiatic Underwriters Federal, Inc. U.S.A. (AAU) by two Californians, Cornelius Vander Starr  and Frank Jay Raven.
• Cornelius Vander Starr was an OSS agent. OSS stands for the Office of Strategic Services. The OSS was was the predecessor of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency.
• C.V. Starr joined the US Army in 1918, at age 27, during the First World War, was promoted from Private to 2nd Lieutenant in 8 months, and was then deployed to Yokohama, Japan, as a clerk at the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. The Pacific Mail Steamship Company was a subsidiary of American International Corporation (AIC).
• AIC was a creation of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., Andrew Mellon, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie, as a vehicle for American plutocratic control of world resources.
• AIC was organized in New York on November 22, 1915, by J.P. Morgan interests, with major participation by Stillman’s National City Bank and the Rockefeller interests. The general office of AIC was at 120 Broadway. The company’s charter authorized it to engage in any kind of business, except banking and public utilities, in any country in the world. The stated purpose of the corporation was to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.
  
• Russian oil resources were handled by the Nobels and the Rothschilds, until the Russian government forced the Rothschilds to sell their interests to Royal Dutch Shell. Count Witte had banned Rockefeller’s Standard Oil from Russia.
  
• In 1909, the US Department of Justice sued Standard under federal anti-trust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce by: “Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent.” Standard Oil was ordered to be broken up in 1911.
  
• AIC was officially “organized by bankers, business men and engineers of the United States [with the aim to] promote the organization of corporations or associations to bring together foreign and American bankers, businessmen and engineers, for the transaction of business and the development of undertakings which will be mutually advantageous.”
• Early AIC directors: George J. Baldwin, Charles A. Coffin, William E. Corey, Robert Dollar, Pierre S. du Pont, Philip A. S. Franklin, Joseph P. Grace, Robert F. Herrick, Otto H. Kahn, Henry S. Pritchett, Frank A. Vanderlip (Assistant Secretary of Treasury for McKinley 1897-1901, negotiated National City Bank $200 million loan to finance Spanish American War, vice president then president of National City Bank 1909-19, member of the Jekyll Island group of bankers that wrote bill that became Wilson’s Federal Reserve Act of 1913), Charles A. Stone [Director of the Federal Reserve Bank], Percy A. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan, William L. Saunders, James A. Stillman, Guy E. Tripp, Edwin S. Webster, Albert H. Wiggin, Daniel G. Wing, Beekman Winthrop, William Woodward, Matthew C. Brush, Philip W. Henry, Richard B. Sheridan, Thomas W. Streeter, James J. Hill, Theodore Vail, Edwin F. Webster, Ambrose Monell, James A. Stillman, Beekman Wintrop, Henry S. Pritchett, Robert S. Lovett, Joseph P. Grace, Cyrus H. McCormick, Charles H. Sabin, W.E. Corey, J. Ogdan Armour.
• Sorry for unedited repetition here. A Wikipedia entry on this megacorporation would be handy. I tried to post one but was unable to. Maybe I followed the wrong procedure. Perhaps someone else would like to try.
  
• Directors of American International and some of their associations in 1917 [according to Antony C. Sutton, in Wall Street and the Bolshevik RevolutionThe interlock of the twenty-two directors of American International Corporation with other institutions is significant. The National City Bank had no fewer than ten directors on the board of AIC; Stillman of NCB was at that time an intermediary between the Rockefeller and Morgan interests, and both the Morgan and the Rockefeller interests were represented directly on AIC. Kuhn, Loeb and the du Ponts each had one director. Stone & Webster had three directors. No fewer than four directors of AIC (Saunders, Stone, Wiggin, Woodward) either were directors of or were later to join the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. We have noted in an earlier chapter that William Boyce Thompson, who contributed funds and his considerable prestige to the Bolshevik Revolution, was also a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — the directorate of the FRB of New York comprised only nine members. [Washington Post, February 2, 1918: "William B. Thompson, who was in Petrograd from July until November last, has made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria...."]]: * J. OGDEN ARMOUR Meatpacker, of Armour & Company, Chicago; director of the National City Bank of New York; and mentioned by A. A. Heller in connection with the Soviet Bureau. * GEORGE JOHNSON BALDWIN Of Stone & Webster, 120 Broadway. During World War I Baldwin was chairman of the board of American International Shipbuilding, senior vice president of American International Corporation, director of G. Amsinck (Von Pavenstedt of Amsinck was a German espionage paymaster in the U.S., see page 65), and a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation, which financed the Marburg Plan for international socialism to be controlled behind the scenes by world finance. * C. A. COFFIN Chairman of General Electric (executive office: 120 Broadway), chairman of cooperation committee of the American Red Cross. * W. E. COREY (14 Wall Street) Director of American Bank Note Company, Mechanics and Metals Bank, Midvale Steel and Ordnance, and International Nickel Company; later director of National City Bank. * ROBERT DOLLAR San Francisco shipping magnate, who attempted in behalf of the Soviets to import tsarist gold rubles into U.S. in 1920, in contravention of U.S. regulations. * PIERRE S. DU PONT Of the du Pont family. * PHILIP A. S. FRANKLIN Director of National City Bank. * J.P. GRACE Director of National City Bank. * R. F. HERRICK Director, New York Life Insurance; former president of the American Bankers Association; trustee of Carnegie Foundation. * OTTO H. KAHN Partner in Kuhn, Loeb. Kahn’s father came to America in 1948, “having taken part in the unsuccessful German revolution of that year.” According to J. H. Thomas (British socialist, financed by the Soviets), “Otto Kahn’s face is towards the light.” * H. W. PRITCHETT Trustee of Carnegie Foundation. * PERCY A. ROCKEFELLER Son of John D. Rockefeller; married to Isabel, daughter of J. A. Stillman of National City Bank. * JOHN D. RYAN Director of copper-mining companies, National City Bank, and Mechanics and Metals Bank. * W. L. SAUNDERS Director the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 Broadway, and chairman of Ingersoll-Rand. According to the National Cyclopaedia (26:81): “Throughout the war he was one of the President’s most trusted advisers.” * J. A. STILLMAN President of National City Bank, after his father (J. Stillman, chairman of NCB) died in March 1918. * C. A. STONE Director (1920-22) of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 Broadway; chairman of Stone & Webster, 120 Broadway; president (1916-23) of American International Corporation, 120 Broadway. * T. N. VAIL President of National City Bank of Troy, New York, * F. A. VANDERLIP President of National City Bank. * E. S. WEBSTER Of Stone & Webster, 120 Broadway. * A. H. WIGGIN Director of Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the early 1930s. * BECKMAN WINTHROPE Director of National City Bank. * WILLIAM WOODWARD Director of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 120 Broadway, and Hanover National Bank.
• The certification of incorporation of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was filed May 18, 1914. … In 1917 the three Class A directors were Franklin D. Locke, William Woodward, and Robert H. Treman. William Woodward was a director of American International Corporation (120 Broadway) and of the Rockefeller-controlled Hanover National Bank. Neither Locke nor Treman enters our story. The three Class B directors in 1917 were William Boyce Thompson, Henry R. Towne, and Leslie R. Palmer. We have already noted William B. Thompson’s substantial cash contribution to the Bolshevik cause. Henry R. Towne was chairman of the board of directors of the Morris Plan of New York, located at 120 Broadway; his seat was later taken by Charles A. Stone of American International Corporation (120 Broadway) and of Stone & Webster (120 Broadway). Leslie R. Palmer does not come into our story. The three Class C directors were Pierre Jay, W. L. Saunders, and George Foster Peabody. Nothing is known about Pierre Jay, except that his office was at 120 Broadway and he appeared to be significant only as the owner of Brearley School, Ltd. William Lawrence Saunders was also a director of American International Corporation; he openly avowed, as we have seen, pro-Bolshevik sympathies, disclosing them in a letter to President Woodrow Wilson. George Foster Peabody was an active socialist.
• Louis Brandeis, in “Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It” (1914) attacked the use of investment funds to promote the consolidation of various industries under the control of a small number of corporations, which Brandeis alleged were working in concert to prevent competition. Brandeis harshly criticized investment bankers who controlled large amounts of money deposited in their banks by middle-class people. The heads of these banks, Brandeis pointed out, routinely sat on the boards of railroad companies and large industrial manufacturers of various products, and routinely directed the resources of their banks to promote the interests of their own companies. These companies, in turn, sought to maintain control of their industries by crushing small businesses and stamping out innovators who developed better products to compete against them.Brandeis supported his contentions with a discussion of the actual dollar amounts – in millions of dollars – controlled by specific banks, industries, and industrialists such as J. P. Morgan, noting that these interests had recently acquired a far larger proportion of American wealth than corporate entities had ever had before. He cited extensively to testimony brought forth by a Congressional investigation performed by the Pujo Committee, named after Louisiana Representative Arsène Pujo, into self-serving and monopolistic business dealing. Attention to the book was amplified by Brandeis’ nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1916.
• Brandeis wrote about how the robber baron Schiff had exploited flaws in the American capitalist system to illegally raise the funds that went to the Russian revolutionaries: “Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the Union Pacific bankers. It was in pursuance of a promise which Mr. Jacob H. Schiff—the senior partner—had given, pending the reorganization, that Mr. Harriman first became a member of the Executive Committee in 1897. Thereafter combinations grew and crumbled, and there were vicissitudes in stock speculations. But the investment bankers prospered amazingly; and financial concentration proceeded without abatement. The bankers and their associates received the commissions paid for purchasing the stocks which the Supreme Court holds to have been acquired illegally—and have retained them. The bankers received commissions for underwriting the securities issued to raise the money with which to buy the stocks which the Supreme Court holds to have been illegally acquired, and have retained them. The bankers received commissions paid for floating securities of the controlled companies—while they were thus controlled in violation of law—and have, of course, retained them. Finally when, after years, a decree is entered to end the illegal combination, these same bankers are on hand to perform the services of undertaker—and receive further commissions for their banker-aid in enabling the law-breaking corporation to end its wrong doing and to comply with the decree of the Supreme Court. And yet, throughout nearly all this long period, both before and after Mr. Harriman’s death, two partners in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were directors or members of the executive committee of the Union Pacific; and as such must be deemed responsible with others for the illegal acts.”
  
• Brandeis: “We must break the Money Trust or the Money Trust will break us.”
• Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Partners admitted, 1929.01.01: Sir William Wiseman, 43, Chief of the British Intelligence in US 1916-19, mentor to William Stephenson, Delegate to 1919 Peace Conferance, at Kuhn until 1960; Lewis L. Strauss, 32, wartime confidential secretary to President-Elect Hoover.
• MI5 and French and Spanish security services monitored Trotsky’s movements prior to February Revolution, 1917. Late March, 1917: MI5 agent dispatched a message to London saying Trotsky had set sail “with $10,000 subscribed by Socialists and Germans” (in NY) to Petrograd. Agent ordered the ship to be detained in Halifax. Trotsky arrested with five Russian comrades. Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, officer Claude Dansey arrived in Halifax: “I told Captain Malkins, the Naval Control Officer, that I believed the new Russian government would at once ask for Trotsky’s release, and that we should be unable to hold him, and that, unless they were very certain of the source of information against him it would be much better to let him go before he got angry.” MI6 station chief in New York, William Wiseman, informed Dansey that the information against Trotsky had come from a Russian agent “in whom he had great confidence.” Dansey reported: “There is a strong possibility that he was an agent provocateur, used by the old Russian Secret Police. I told Wiseman he had better be discharged at once, and he said that he was going to do so.”  After four weeks in Canada as German prisoners, Trotsky and comrades headed for Finland, then Russia. Trotsky organized Red Army.
• William Averil Harriman: Named by Soviet defectors as KGB. Main Wall Street gobetween for Nazi industrialists, esp. Thyssen. Assassination of Ngo Dinh.Vice President, Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1915-1917. Director, Illinois Central Railroad Co., 1915-1946. Member, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, 1915-1954. Chairman, Merchant Shipbuilding Corp.,1917-1925. Chairman, W. A. Harriman & Company, 1920-1931. Partner, Soviet Georgian Manganese Concessions, 1925-1928. Chairman, executive committee, Illinois Central Railroad, 1931-1942. Senior partner, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., 1931-1946. Chairman, Union Pacific Railroad, 1932-1946. Co-founded Today magazine with Vincent Astor, 1935-1937 (merged with Newsweek in 1937). Administrator and Special Assistant, National Recovery Administration, 1934-1935. Founded, Sun Valley Ski Resort, Idaho, 1935-1936. Chairman, Business Advisory Council, 1937-1939. Chief, Materials Branch & Production Division, Office of Production Management, 1941. US Ambassador & Special Representative to the Prime Minister of Britain, 1941-1943. Chairman, Ambassador & Special Representative of the US President’s Special Mission to the USSR, 1941-1943. US Ambassador to the USSR, 1943-1946. US Ambassador, Britain, 1946. US Secretary of Commerce, 1946-1948. United States Coordinator, European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan), 1948-1950. Special Assistant to the US President, 1950-1952. US Representative and Chairman, North Atlantic Commission on Defense Plans, 1951-1952. Director, Mutual Security Agency, 1951-1953. Candidate, Democratic nomination for US President, 1952. Governor, State of New York, 1955-1958. Candidate, Democratic nomination for US President, 1956. US Ambassador-at-large, 1961. United States Deputy Representative, International Conference on the Settlement of the Laotian, 1961-1962. Assistant US Secretary of State, Far Eastern Affairs, 1961-1963. Special Representative to the US President, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 1963. Under US Secretary of State, Political Affairs, 1963-1965. US Ambassador-at-large, 1965-1969. Chairman, President’s Commission of the Observance of Human Rights Year, 1968. Personal Representative of the US President, Peace Talks with North Vietnam, 1968-1969. Chairman, Foreign Policy Task Force, Democratic National Committee, 1976. Member, American Academy of Diplomacy Charter, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Knights of Pythias, Skull and Bones Society, Psi Upsilon Fraternity and the Jupiter Island Club.
• Some Harrimann-Nazi interests seized in 1942 and returned after the war: Union Banking Corporation (UBC), Holland-American Trading Corporation, The Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, Silesian-American Corporation.
• George Herbert Walker president of W.A. Harriman and Co. in 1919.
• Samuel F. Pryor, a friend of Walker’s from St. Louis, president of Remington Arms in WWI.
• Matthew Brush, president first of American International Shipbuilding, then in 1923 of American International Corp. (AIC).
• Prescott Bush, Walker’s son-in-law, vice president of W.A.Harriman and Co. from 1926, after two years at AIC-connected, U.S. Rubber.
  
• 1963.11.02: ROV President Jean-Baptist Ngô Đình Diệm [Ngo Dinh Diem] assassinated. , Ho Chi Minh: “I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid.” North Vietnamese Politburo: “The consequences of the 1 November coup d’état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists … Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists … Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d’état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last.” After Diem’s assassination, South Vietnam was unable to establish a stable government and numerous coups took place during the first several years after his death. While the U.S. continued to influence South Vietnam’s government, the assassination bolstered North Vietnamese attempts to characterize the South Vietnamese as supporters of colonialism. Kennedy gotten rid of on the 22nd. Johnson installed.
• US Ambassador to Vietnam in 1963: John Cabot Lodge, UN Ambassador 1953-60. Following removal of Diem, Lodge suggested to State Department that ROV be made to relinquish its independence and be made a US protectorate for the sake of stability.
• Mass. Senate race: 1916: John F. Fitzgerald [JFK's grandfather] defeated by Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr; 1952: Henry Cabot Lodge defeated by John F. Kennedy; 1962: George C. Lodge [HCL's son] defeated by Ted Kennedy.
• …
• AIC purchased: Allied Machinery Corporation (export of machine tools to Europe, with offices in France, Italy, Switzerland, and Russia), Horne Company Ltd (British Far Eastern firm with a network of offices throughout the Orient), Carter Macey & Company, Inc. (an export agency specializing in tea and owning a widespread network of plantations and selling agencies), United Fruit Company (partially acquired, extensive fruit plantations and selling agencies in South and Central America), Grace Russian Company (with the Grace Corporation, extended the facilities of AIC into Russia), Midvale Steel Company (controlled), China Corporation and Siems Carry Railroad and Canal (formed to handle financing and construction within China), Allied Construction Machinery Corporation, Allied Sugar Machinery Corporation, Latin American Corporation, Pacific Mail Steamship Lines, the International Merchant Marine on the New York Stock Exchange (but lost interest when Great Britain invoked its agreement with the previous owner J. P. Morgan), Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation, American International Steel Corporation, American Balsa Company, Allied Construction Machinery Corporation. Allied Sugar Machinery Corporation, American International Terminals Company, Carter Macey & Company, F. W. Horne & Company, Ulen Contracting Company, Holbrook Cabot & Rollins Corporation, International Products Company, New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Rosin & Turpentine Export Company, United States Rubber Company, United States Industrial Alcohol Company, Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation, Midvale Steel Corporation, G. Amsinck & Company, Symington Forge Corporation, Remington Arms, The Robert Dollar Compan
• AIC formed a new subsidiary: The American International Shipbuilding Corporation. The new subsidiary was to build fifty ships immediately for the Emergency Fleet Corporation. The AISC was also to purchase land and construct a shipyard using Government funds. The American International Corporation built one of the largest shipbuilding enterprises on what is currently Philadelphia International Airport. It was just a bog that needed massive improvement and had to be built up to enable a dry foundation to be laid for the establishment of the American International Shipbuilding Corporation. This was a major profiteering scam of WWI.
• The AIC Hog Island Yard was built on the bog six miles southeast of the Philadelphia City Hall, its surface raised by fill dredged from the Delaware River. The yard laid its first keel on 12 February 1918. The yard covered 846 acres and comprised 250 buildings. It had 80 miles of railroad track; 3,000,000 feet of underground wiring; a hospital; YMCA, hotel, cafeteria, trade school, 12 service restaurants and 5 mess halls. Twenty locomotives, 465 freight cars and 165 motor trucks hauled material within the yard. Hog Island’s telephone traffic was equivalent to that of a city of 140,000 inhabitants. The 50 ways of the yard extended about a mile and a quarter along the Delaware. Altogether there was a water frontage of 20,000 feet. Fifty ships could be built on the ways while 28 were being fitted out at the piers simultaneously, making a total of 78 ships under construction at one time. There never before had been conceived or executed a plan for the fabrication of ships on such an enormous scale. Every steel fabricating plant in America, 88 of them in all, from Montreal to Kansas City, funneled steel plate into Hog Island and machinery and gear from hundreds of manufacturing plants all over the country poured into the mammoth assembly plant. On August 5, 1918, the first ship was launched in the presence of Woodrow Wilson and a crowd of 100,000. The ship was only 65% riveted, and much additional work had to be done on it before it was turned over to the Shipping Board. This did not happen until after November 11, by which time the war was over. The fate of the $70 million worth of ways, scaffolding, partially built ships, railroad and the numerous buildings, warehouses, hospitals and water and sewer system has not been documented.
• AIC was quietly merged into The Adams Express Co.: “As a result of an exchange of shares offered by The Adams Express Co. to stockholders of American International Corp., corporation has become a majority-owned subsidiary of The Adams Express Co., which owned at Dec. 31, 1945, 61.3% of the stock of American International Corp.”
• AIC’s income rose commensurate with the misery index of the period.
• AIC was significantly involved in the Russian Revolution of 1917.
• AIC’s ownership/control of the United Fruit Company in South America influenced South American revolutions.
• AIC and its income were dependent upon demand for resources, and its skills at large production capacity capability.
• AIC’s highest profits accumulated in 1917, 1919, and especially 1929
• National City Bank benefited most from AIC.
• Between 1927 and the beginning of World War II, I.G. Farben doubled in size, an expansion made possible in great part by American technical assistance and by American bond issues, such as the one for $30 million offered by National City Bank. By 1939 I. G. acquired a participation and managerial influence in some 380 other German firms and over 500 foreign firms. The Farben empire owned its own coal mines, its own electric power plants, iron and steel units, banks, research units, and numerous commercial enterprises. There were over 2,000 cartel agreements between I. G. and foreign firms — including Standard Oil of New Jersey, DuPont, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and others in the United States.
  
• A post-war investigation by the U.S, War Department concluded that: Without I. G.’s immense productive facilities, its intense research, and vast international affiliations, Germany’s prosecution of the war would have been unthinkable and impossible; Farben not only directed its energies toward arming Germany, but concentrated on weakening her intended victims, and this double-barreled attempt to expand the German industrial potential for war and to restrict that of the rest of the world was not conceived and executed “in the normal course of business.” The proof is overwhelming that I. G. Farben officials had full prior knowledge of Germany’s plan for world conquest and of each specific aggressive act later undertaken.” [Elimination of German Resources, p. 943.] Senator Homer T. Bone to Senate Committee on Military Affairs, June 4, 1943: “Farben was Hitler and Hitler was Farben.”
• I.G. Farben invented, produced and distributed Zyklon B gas, used in Nazi concentration camps. Zyklon B was pure Prussic acid, a lethal poison produced by I.G. Farben Leverkusen and sold from the Bayer sales office through Degesch, an independent license holder. Sales of Zyklon B amounted to almost three-quarters of Degesch business; enough gas to kill 200 million humans was produced and sold by I.G. Farben. The Kilgore Committee report of 1942 makes it clear that the I.G. Farben directors had precise knowledge of the Nazi concentration camps and the use of I.G. chemicals.
  
• The Berlin N.W. 7 office of I.G. Farben was the key Nazi overseas espionage center. The unit operated under Farben director Max Ilgner, nephew of I.G. Farben president Hermann Schmitz. Max Ilgner and Hermann Schmitz were on the board of American I.G., with fellow directors Henry Ford of Ford Motor Company, Paul Warburg of Bank of Manhattan, and Charles E. Mitchell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  
• The U.S. arm of the VOWI intelligence network was Chemnyco, Inc. According to the War Department, “Utilizing normal business contacts Chemnyco was able to transmit to Germany tremendous amounts of material ranging from photographs and blueprints to detailed descriptions of whole industrial plants.”. Chemnyco’s vice president in New York was Rudolph Ilgner, an American citizen and brother of American I. G. Farben director Max Ilgner.
• Farben operated VOWI, the Nazi foreign intelligence operation, before World War II and the VOWI operation was associated with prominent members of the Wall Street Establishment through American I.G. and Chemnyco.
• The U.S. War Department accused I.G. Farben and its American associates of spearheading Nazi psychological and economic warfare programs through dissemination of propaganda via Farben agents abroad, and of providing foreign exchange for this Nazi propaganda. Farben’s cartel arrangements promoted Nazi economic warfare. Standard Oil of New Jersey restricted the development of synthetic rubber in the United States at the behest of I. G. Farben. As the War Department report puts it: “The story in short is that because of Standard Oil’s determination to maintain an absolute monopoly of synthetic rubber developments in the United States, it fully accomplished I.G.’s purpose of preventing United States production by dissuading American rubber companies from undertaking independent research in developing synthetic rubber processes.”
• In 1945 Dr. Oskar Loehr, deputy head of the I.G. “Tea Buro,” confirmed that I. G. Farben and Standard Oil of New Jersey operated a “preconceived plan” to suppress development of the synthetic rubber industry in the United States, to the advantage of the German Wehrmacht and to the disadvantage of the United States in World War II.
• See U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain other Propaganda Activities. 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, Hearings No. 73-DC-4. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1934), Volume VIII, passim.
• Fortune Magazine, Vol XI, No. 1, Jan., 1935: The Yanks in Shanghai: “The U. S. has at last reached a dominant position in Shanghai trade, but the American Shanghailander owes few thanks to Congress or to the foreign policy of the White House. … While successive Secretaries of State continued to hold apologetically to the principle of extraterritoriality, American business was forced to seek, with no little shame, the protection of British guns. American traders left Shanghai, and left behind them no American bank, and only memories of those two great American trading and shipping houses, Russell & Co. and Olyphant & Co. … The thousands of U. S. [Protestant] missionaries did not go out to trade, but they did carry on a spiritual warfare that had material repercussions in America as well as in China. Religious, philanthropic, and educational societies invested from $40,000,000 to $ 50,000,000 (gold), which is equal to the investment of all other nations put together; and the annual U. S. remittances to Chinese missions, etc., traditionally in the millions of dollars and totaling $ 8,000,000 (gold) in 1928, have always played a certain part in balancing China’s international trade. Much of this money went to the endowment and support of schools, two dozen colleges, and half a dozen big universities, where ambitious Chinese students become acquainted with the wonders of the big democracy across the Pacific. … The American commercial advance in China was resumed toward the end of the nineteenth century when the Standard Oil Co. out-grew its American market for kerosene. Learning that 400,000,000 Chinese were burning sesame oil in their lamps, Mr. Rockefeller set forth to tap that enormous market in the nineties. With its head-quarters in Shanghai, his company expanded until its hong name, Mei Foo, became a passport to the most distant villages of the interior. … In 1904 Frank Jay Raven, the first of the modern American taipans, came to Shanghai to set up a group of banks and land companies. … The National City is now the biggest U. S. financial agent on the Whangpoo, making no important investments, but financing millions of dollars’ worth of U. S. trade. In 1919 Mr. Raven was joined by Cornelius Vander Starr, who proceeded to make Shanghai the insurance center of the Orient. After the World War one began to hear that Henry Ford was about to revolutionize China with hundreds of millions to be spent in plants and roads. But nothing ever came of this, and Mr. Ford has no plant in China. Meanwhile, and during the booming twenties, there came a flock of U. S. companies whose stocks were soaring in New York — General Motors Corp,. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Eastman Kodak Co., the National Aniline & Chemical Co., and Colgate-Palmolive-Peet. American brokers, led by Swan, Culbertson & Fritz, installed batteries of telephones on the Bund, which put into the discard the oldtime exchange operator who called on his customers with pony and trap. … In 1926 an income-tax ruling protected the incomes of the taipans from the clutches of Washington. … In Shanghai…the U. S. now supasses all competitors in volume of trade. But in one branch of industry there are scarcely any competitors: the U. S. has a virtual monopoly among foreigners in the air. This came about in 1928 when Washington got rumors that the entire civil aviation program of the Nanking Government was about to be turned over to the German Lufthansa. The State Department got in touch with Aviation Exploration, Inc., a small syndicate headed by Clement Melville Keys for the purpose of surveying new air routes and turning the information over to some line for development. In March, 1929. a group headed by William B. Robertson, one of Lindbergh’s backers, arrived in Shanghai with a Curtiss Falcon mail plane, a Curtiss Robin training ship, a Loening, and a small flying boat. After various vicissitudes, the China National Aviation Corp. was set up and now has a non-monopoly contract with the Chinese Government, good until 1940. Forty-five per cent of its stock, originally controlled by Intercontinent Aviation Inc., was eventually bought by young Juan Terry Trippe’s Pan American, and the real development was on. … Through the contacts gained by establishing air routes, American aviation companies are selling planes to the Chinese Government by the dozen. Their planes dominate the Chinese market. … It appears that the Yankee has come to the Yangtze for good. But strangely enough, even though the American trade is the biggest, the American position is not the strongest. The casual visitor mentally notes that the Yankee puts on a bad show in the Orient. What with the sturdy British tradition, what with the aggressive Japanese, what with an obscure foreign policy, the U. S. does not seem able to perform as a big international power. Her prestige has not been helped by the recent manipulation of silver prices by Congress. Yet the new government at Nanking has for its heroes the fathers of the American Revolution. Hundreds of influential Chinese have been educated in America and welcome our trade, our capital, and, at least until recently, our institutions.
  
• In 1918, Ford’s closest aide and private secretary, Ernest G. Liebold, purchased an obscure weekly newspaper, The Dearborn Independent for Henry Ford. The Independent ran from 1920 until 1927. The newspaper published “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” which was discredited by The Times of London as a forgery during The Independent’s publishing run. In February 1921, the New York World published an interview with Ford, in which he said “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on.” Along with the Protocols, anti-Jewish articles published by The Dearborn Independent also were released in the early 1920s as a set of four bound volumes, in a non-Ford publication in Weimar Republic Germany cumulatively titled The International Jew, the World’s Foremost Problem. Ford denied any knowledge of these publications. In January 1937, a Ford statement to the Detroit Jewish Chronicle disavowed “any connection whatsoever with the publication in Germany of a book known as the International Jew.” In July 1938, the German consul at Cleveland gave Ford, on his 75th birthday, the award of the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner.
  
• November 1910, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department A.P. Andrews, along with many of the country’s leading financiers, who together represented about one-fourth of the world’s wealth, arrived at the Jekyll Island Club to discuss monetary policy and the banking system, an event which some say was the impetus for the creation of the Federal Reserve. Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote several years later: “Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written… The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York’s ubiquitous reporters had been foiled… Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry… Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.”
• In 1918, C.V. Starr traveled from Yokohama to Shanghai.
• In 1921, C. V. Starr founded Asia Life Insurance Company.
• In 1931, International Assurance Company, Ltd. was established. It was renamed American International Assurance Company, Ltd. in 1948.
• C.V. Starr later founded The Starr Foundation, which today makes grants in the following areas: Education (“applications for an endowed scholarship fund are accepted from schools on an invitation-only basis”), Foreign Exchange programs, Population Control, Refugees, Public Policy (“concentrated its giving in the area of public policy on international relations”), and The Environment. it gives between $100 and 200 million each year to these global causes. Although the foundation is one of the largest in the country in terms of assets, with some $3.3 billion in 2006, it maintains a low profile. The Foundation remains closely affiliated with the AIG, with several officers and directors serving both entities. With sustained gifts and investments from the company, the Foundation has become of the largest private foundations in the United States. It is now headed by Maurice Greenburg.
• Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg is former chairman and CEO of AIG, which under his tenure, was the world’s 18th largest public company and its largest insurance and financial services corporation. He is currently chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr and Company. In 1962, Greenberg was named by Starr as the head of AIG’s North American holdings. In 1968, Starr picked Greenberg as his successor. Greenberg held the position until 2005, when he stepped down amid a major accounting scandal and was replaced by Martin J. Sullivan. He is currently the subject of New York State civil charges. Greenberg is a friend and client of Henry Kissinger, utilising his consultancy, Kissinger Associates, for advice and operations in a number of countries, particularly in Asia. In 1987 he appointed Kissinger as chairman of AIG’s International Advisory Board. His sons are Jeffrey W. Greenberg, former chairman and CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC) before he was ousted, and Evan G. Greenberg, president and CEO of ACE Limited. Together, he and his sons controlled a major portion of the insurance industry. Mr. Greenberg is Honorary Vice Chairman and Director of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. In the 1980s, his extensive foreign connections prompted the Reagan administration to offer him a job as Deputy Director of the CIA, which he declined. He was appointed as a member of the Hong Kong Chief Executive’s Council of International Advisers 1998-2005. He is a former Chairman and currently a Trustee of the Asia Society, Trustee Emeritus of the Rockefeller University, and is an honorary Trustee of the Museum of Modern Art, all three institutions founded by the Rockefeller family. He is also a former Chairman and current member of the US–Korea Business Council, a member of the US–China Business Council, and the Business Council. He has served on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange, the President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations, and the Business Roundtable. He is a past Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. On September 20, 2006, the Council on Foreign Relations hosted a small meeting of select council members with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On March 15, 2005, AIG’s board forced Greenberg to resign from his post as Chairman and CEO under the shadow of criticism from Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of the state of New York. On May 26, 2005, as part of a series of actions against leaders of large corporations, Spitzer filed a complaint against Greenberg, AIG, and Howard I. Smith (ex-CFO of AIG) alleging fraudulent business practice, securities fraud, common law fraud, and other violations of insurance and securities laws. All criminal charges were dropped,but the State Attorney General’s office is still pursuing Mr. Greenberg in civil court for many of these same criminal allegations.
• C.V. Starr was a Freemason, until he was expelled from the Rotary Club.
• Frank Jay Raven was also a Freemason. He also founded the Raven Trust Co., the American-Oriental Finance Corp., the American-Oriental Banking Corp., and the Asia Realty Co. [$70,000,000 in assets in 1935.]
• Starr took over Raven’s Chinese businesses after Raven was imprisoned for economic crimes. Starr’s agents were Singlo Hsu, whose son would later run the Starr Foundation, and Artemis Joukovsky, a fluent Chinese-speaker who had served under Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak (“Kolchak-Polar”) in Siberia, and Polish Cavalry officer George Moszkowski.
• According to the Starr Foundation, “the starting premise” of AAU/AIG was to “promote human unity”.
• During 1918, Cheng Biguang turned against the Guangxi clique, and was subsequently assassinated. In May, 1918, the Extraordinary Session of Parliament was controlled by the Guangxi clique, and was restructured so as to replace y 1918 in which the generalissimo with a committee of seven executives consisting of Sun Yat-Sen [Sun Zhong-Shan], Tang Shaoyi, Wu Tingfang, and Tang Jiyao on one side and Lu Rongting, Cen Chunxuan, and Lin Baoyi on the other. Sun Yat-sen resigned, left Guangzhou to Shanghai.
• Sun Yat-sen (1866.11.12 or 1870.11.24 – 1925.03.12), a.k.a. Sun Dixiang, Sun Yixian, Sun Wen, Son Bun, Son Nakayama, Sun Zhongshan, 孫文, 孫中山, 孫逸仙, was co-founder and first leader of the Chinese Guomindang [KMT Kuomintang, Zhong-guo Guomindang, 中國國民黨], which was reformed on 1919.10.10 from the Guomindang and the Revive China Society, which had been founded on 1894-11-24.
• Sun Yat-Sen was the first provisional president of the Republic of China [ROC], which was founded in 1912.
• Sun Yat-Sen in 1918 wired Lenin in Moscow, seeking to create a fraternal United Revolutionary Front.
• In 1920, Sun and the KMT were restored in Guangdong.
• US troops were stationed in Vladivostok, Siberia, until April, 1920. The US then protested against the Japanese presence in Siberia. US calls for war with Japan increased, but the Japan-Britain alliance gave the US pause, as they had no wish to go up against the Royal Navy. The tide turned in the spring of 1921, when the British Admiralty announced it would accept naval parity with the United States. Also, at the British imperial conference in June, 1921, Canada convinced the delegates to oppose renewal of the Anglo-Japanese treaty for fear of conflict with the U.S. The Anglo-Japanese treaty came to an with US threats to recognize Irish independence, and the Belgians, Italians, French, Japanese and British attended conferences in Washington 1921-22 that resulted in general losses for Japan.
• In 1923, the KMT and its government accepted aid from the USSR.
• Soviet advisers began to arrive in China in 1923 to aid in the reorganization and consolidation of the KMT along the lines of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, establishing a Leninist party structure that lasted into the 1990s.
• The most prominent Soviet advisor was Mikhail Borodin, a Comintern agent, who re-wrote the KMT constitution with Sun Yat-sen’s endorsement.
• “Mikhail Markovich Borodin” was Mikhail Gruzenberg, who emigrated to the US in 1908. He attended Valparaiso University. After the October Revolution, he worked in the foreign relations department of the CPU. From 1919 to 1922, he had  operated in Mexico, the United States and the United Kingdom. He was the chief Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia, under the alias of Alexander Gumberg, and was a confidential adviser to the Chase National Bank in New York and Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation.
• Borodin’s sons attended the American school in Shanghai.
• Shanghai Clubs, 1939 (est. pop. 4,000,000 Chinese and 100,000 foreigners): Air Defense Club, Alliance Francaise, Amateur Dramatic Club, , American Association of Shanghai, American Association of University Woman, American Bar Assocoiation, American Boy Scouts, American Civilian Relief Committee, American Club, American Legion, American Masonic Temple Association, American Oriental Association, American University Club, American Women’s Club of Shanghai, Amicale de Anciens Combattants de la Grande Guerre, Anglo-Jewish Association, Arbeitsgenoinschaft der Deutschen Frau in Ausland, Armenian Relief Society, Artists Rifles Regimental Association, Associacao Macaenae de Socorro Mutuo de Shanghai, Associated Foreign Charities in Shanghai, Association Amicale Sino-Belge, Association of Polish Residents, Association of Yugoslavian Residents in China, Association Sportive Francaise, Australian & New Zealand Society, Automobile Club of China, Boy Scouts Association, Bramtoco Tennis Club, Brit Trumpeldor, British Forces Recreation Centres Fund, British Forces YMCA, British Residents Association of China, British Returned Students Union, British Universities Society of China, British Women’s Association, Canadian Club of Shanghai, Casa d’Italia, Cathedral Men’s Club, Catholic Circle, Central Club, Cercle Francais, Cercle Sportif Francais, China Associated Motor Cyclists, China Association, China Kennel Club, China Ratepayers’ Assoc. of the French Concession, Chinese Medical Association, Chinese National Cttee on Intellectual Cooperation, Church of England Men’s Association, Clarendon Residential Club, Club Lusitano, Columbia Country Club, Committee for Assistance of European Jewish refugees, Country Club, Customs Club, Daughters of the American Revolution, Den Danske Hjaelpeforening, Den DanskeTennisklub, Den DanskieLaeseforening, Den Danske Samfund I Shanghai, Det Norske Samfund I Kina, Deutsche Geminde, Deutscher Club, Deutscher Garten Klub, Deutscher Hockey Club, Deutscher Theater-Verein, Durham University Society in China, Engineering Society of China, Estonian Benevolent Society, Fascio Italiano, Finnish association of China, German East Asiatic Society, Girl Guides Association, Girls’ Friendly Society, Guards Association of Shanghai and North China, Harbour Lights Guild, Hellenic Benevolent Society of China, Helvetia, Hongkew Golf Club, Hungjao Golf Club, Hungjao Area Association, Hungjao Ladies’ Golf Club, Husi Golf Club, Hwa Lien Association, Indian Merchants Association, International Chess Club, International Recreation Club, Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Electrical Engineers, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, International Amateur Radio Association of China, International Recreation Club, Iranian Residents’ Association of China, Italian Naval League, Jewish Committee of Shanghai Women’s Organisations, Jewish Communal Association of Shanghai, Jewish National Fund Commission, Jewish Committee of Shanghai Women, Jewish Women’s Benevolent Soc., Khalsa Sporting Association, Kiangwan Country Club (golf), King’s Daughters’ Society, The Keys (Shanghai business Girls Club of the YWCA), Ladies Club, Ladies. Golf Club, Latvian Association, Liga Civica Portuguesa, Lion Association, Lithuanian Association of Shanghai, Masonic Club, Mercantile Marine Officers’ Club, Minghong Yacht Club, Ministering Children’s League, Missouri Society Of China, Netherlands Ladies’ Club, Ningpo Association, Numismatic Society of China, Old Carthusian Society, Oxford and Cambridge Society of Shanghai, Pan-Pacific Association of Shanghai, Parsee Club, Parsee Cricket Club, Polish Youth Association, Pony Club, Portuguese Women’s Association, Radio Association, Rotary Club of Shanghai, Royal Air Force Association of Shanghai, Royal Asiatic Society North China Branch, Royal Empire Society, Royal Engineers Old Comrades’ association, Royal Society Of St. George, Rumanian, Association of China, Russian Central Charity Committee, Russian Charity Home, Russian Chess Association, Russian Emigrants’ Association, Russian Emigrants’ Committee, Russian Ex-Officers’ Club, Russian Mercantile Marine association, Russian Orthodox Confraternity Charity Organisation, Russian Tennis Club, Russian Women’s League, Russian World War Invalids’ Union and Home, Shanghai Amateur Billiards Association, Shanghai Amateur Swimming Association, Shanghai , American Amateur Athletic Assn, Shanghai Athletic Club, Shanghai Badminton Association, Shanghai Benevolent Industrial Association, Shanghai Bowling Club, Shanghai Bowling Congress, Shanghai Burns Club, Shanghai Camera Club, Shanghai Chinese Ratepayers Association, Shanghai Choral Society, Shanghai Club, Shanghai Cricket Club, Shanghai Engineers’ Club, Shanghai Football Association, Shanghai Football Club, Shanghai Golf Club, Shanghai Hebrew Relief Society, Shanghai Hockey Association, Shanghai Hockey Club, Shanghai Homing Pigeon Club, Shanghai Horticultural society, Shanghai International Bridge Club, Shanghai International Y’s Men’s Club, Shanghai Junior Golf Club, Shanghai Ladies’ Hockey Association, Shanghai Ladies’ Tennis League, Shanghai Lawn Bowls Club, Shanghai Lawn Tennis Association, Shanghai Medical Society, Shanghai Nippon Club, Shanghai Paper Hunt Club, Shanghai Pharmaceutical Association, Shanghai Philatelic Society, Shanghai Polo Club, Shanghai Race Club, Shanghai Recreation Club, Shanghai Real Club, Shanghai Rifle Association, Shanghai Rowing Club, Shanghai Rugby Union Football Club, Shanghai Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Shanghai Squash Racket Association, Shanghai Track & Field Association (International), Shanghai Wheelers, Shanghai Y’s Men’s Club, Shanghai Yacht Club, Shanghai Zionist Association, Short Story Club of Shanghai, Ski & Winter Sports Clubs of China, Societe Belge de Bienfaisance, Society Of Chartered Accountants in China, Society Of Russian Jurists, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Society of Shanghai, Sokol (Russian Sporting Association), South African War Veterans Society, St. David’s Society, St. Andrew’s Society of Shanghai, St. Monica’s Society, St. Joseph’s Benevolent Society for Chinese, St. Patrick’s Society, Swedish Association in China, Swimming Bath Club, Swiss Club, Toc H. (Shanghai Branch), Trinity College of Music (London), Tuesday Evening Club, Union Church Badminton Club, Union Church Tennis Club, Union Church Women’s Guild, Union des Officiers de Reserve Francais de Shanghai, Union Jack Club, Union of Russian Army & Navy Men, Union of Russian Cossacks, United Russian Public Organisation, United Services’ Association, United Spanish War Veterans, U.S.S. Panay Memorial Association, World’s Chinese Students’ Federation, Yangtzepoo Bowling Club, Zero Club.
• Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) was probably the most internationalist of the Russian Communists. He also most strongly promoted terror as a necessityof revolutionary strategy. According to Trotsky’s doctrine of ”permanent revolution,” the Soviet revolution could only be safeguarded by promoting revolutions abroad. ”Without direct aid from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to retain its power and to turn its temporary supremacy into a permanent socialist dictatorship,” he wrote in 1906.
• Leon Trotsky was on a mission as a refugee in New York for three months in 1917, until he was assisted by American Communist agents to return to the USSR via Canada and Finland to overthrow the Kerensky regime. His New York income was $12.00 per week, supplemented by some lecture fees. His income was $244.00. Of this $244.00 Trotsky was able to give away $310.00 to his friends, pay for an expansive New York apartment and a chauffeured limousine, provide for his family, and save the $10,000 that was taken from him in April 1917 by Canadian authorities in Halifax.
• Besides raising American capital for the revolution, Trotsky’s mission in the US was to organize the American comrades, centred around the journal Novyi Mir (New World) and the nascent Federation of Russian Branches. Prominent and active US Communists were: Gregory Weinstein, Nicholas Hourwich (Nikolai Gurvich), his son Nicholas Isaac Hourwich, Blankstein, Niemanov, Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, Griliches, Zapolsky, Oscar Tyverovsky, Ashkenudzie, Batiitch, Bogopolsky, Voiciekhovsky, Gurin, Grielihes, Dudinsky, Dudarik, Effitchik, Lipa, Litvinovitch, Mislig, Radziavanovitch, Yakobtchuk, Aneekovitch (Chicago), George Ashkenudzie/Askenuzi, Berezovsky, Biegun, Dudarik, Galey, Golos (California), Gureen, Mislig, Pochodnia, Radziavanovitch (Detroit), Szuk (Erie, PA), Teshchanovich (Detroit), Zavadsky (Nunteecock), Alexander Stoklitsky, Abraham Jakira, K. Radzivanovich, Chramoff, Berstein, Golos, Ossin, Perepelkin, Rouchlis, Visotsky, Cosuschik (Boston),  Deviatkin (Chicago), Strij (Detroit), Svetlov/Svietlow (Chicago), John Reed, his wife Louise Bryant, Harry Wicks, C.E. Ruthenberg, J. Kaminski, Dr. Kopnagel, Jacob Feldmark, Zivko, Rovin, Saks, Mendelsohn, and Boris Roustam-Bek.
  
• Jennings C. Wise, in Woodrow Wilson: Disciple of Revolution, comments, “Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson, despite the efforts of the British police, made it possible for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport.”
• Trotsky had boarded the S.S. Kristianiafjord in New York on March 26, 1917, holding a U.S. passport, in the company of other revolutionaries, Wall Street financiers, and American Communists. Lincoln Steffens, the American Communist, wrote: “The passenger list was long and mysterious. Trotsky was in the steerage with a group of revolutionaries; there was a Japanese revolutionist in my cabin. There were a lot of Dutch hurrying home from Java, the only innocent people aboard. The rest were war messengers, two from Wall Street to Germany.” Lincoln Steffens was en route to Russia at the invitation of Charles Richard Crane, former chairman of the Democratic Party’s finance committee. Charles Crane, vice president of the Crane Company, had organized the Westinghouse Company in Russia, was a member of the Root mission to Russia, and made at least twenty-three visits to Russia between 1890 and 1930. Richard Crane, his son, was confidential assistant to then Secretary of State Robert Lansing. According to the former ambassador to Germany William Dodd, Crane “did much to bring on the Kerensky revolution which gave way to Communism.” And so Steffens’ comments in his diary about conversations aboard the S.S. Kristianiafjord are highly pertinent:” . . . all agree that the revolution is in its first phase only, that it must grow. Crane and Russian radicals on the ship think we shall be in Petrograd for the re-revolution. Crane returned to the United States when the Bolshevik Revolution had been completed and, although a private citizen, was given firsthand reports of the progress of the Bolshevik Revolution as cables were received at the State Department. For example, one memorandum, dated December 11, 1917, is entitled “Copy of report on Maximalist uprising for Mr Crane.” It originated with Maddin Summers, U.S. consul general in Moscow, and the covering letter from Summers reads in part: “I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of same [above report] with the request that it be sent for the confidential information of Mr. Charles R. Crane. It is assumed that the Department will have no objection to Mr. Crane seeing the report.”
  
• In summary, Charles Crane, a friend and backer of Woodrow Wilson and a prominent financier and politician, had a known role in the Menshevik phase of the Russian Communist revolution and then traveled to Russia with his guest, American Communist Lincoln Steffens, who was in touch with both Woodrow Wilson and Trotsky. Trotsky was carrying a passport issued at the orders of Wilson and $10,000 from supposed German sources. On his return to the U.S. after the Bolshevik phase of the revolution, Crane was granted access to official documents concerning consolidation of the Bolshevik regime.
  
• In 1921, Dr. Daniel Russell Hodgdon, President of Valparaiso University, at Valparaiso, Indiana, resigned without notice , in attempt to bring attention to the revolutionary movement fomenting at the university. Dr. Hodgdon described the Lutheran campus as a “Hotbed of Bolshevism and Other Cults.”
• Comintern stands for The Communist International, also known as the Third International. It was founded in Moscow in March 1919, after the dissolution of the 1916 Second International (1915 Zimmerwald Conference). The International intended to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”
• Vladimir Lenin (Ulyanov), Leon Trotsky and Christian Rakovsky (Krastyo Georgiev Stanchev, Krastyo Rakovski, Cristian or Kristian, Racovski, Racovschi, Rakovski, Ristache, Khristian Georgievich Rakovsky, Khrystyyan Georgiiovych Rakovsky, H. Insarov, Grigoriev) delegated Grigory Zinoviev (Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky) as the Chairman of the Executive of the Comintern. Prominent Comintern leaders were Angelica Balbanoff (Balbanov(a), Benito Mussolini’s Marxism teacher), Victor L. Kibaltchitch (Victor-Napoleon Lvovovich Kibalchich, Victor Serge Serge, “Le Rétif”, The Restless One, The Stubborn One, who was expelled from the Communist Party and eventually interned in a Gulag for his dissent regarding the USSR’s China policy), Vladmir Ossipovich Mazin (Mazine, Lichtenstadt), and Emma Goldman.
• US Comintern agents included:  Jack Johnstone (TUEL), L.E. Katterfeld (CPA), Oscar Tyverkovsky (“Baldwin”), Ludwig E. Katterfeld (“Carr”), James P. Cannon (WPA, “Cook”), Alexander Trachtenberg (WPA), Arne Swabeck (CPA?), Rose Wortis (TUEL), Max Bedacht (CPA), Max Bedacht, Alexander Trachtenberg, Alfred S. Edwards (“Sullivan”), Martin Abern YWLA), John Edwards (YWLA), William Z. Foster (“Dorsey”), Earl Browder, Charles Phillips (“Manuel Gomez”), Richard B. Moore, Roger Baldwin (ACLU), Benjamin Gitlow, J. Louis Engdahl, Chi Ch’ao-ting, Scott Nearing, John Williamson (YWL), C.E. Ruthenberg (“Sanborn”), Jay Lovestone (“Powers”), Otto Kuusinen, Jules Humbert-Droz, Alfred Wagenknecht, Otto Branstetter, Louis C. Fraina, and John Pepper.
  
• James P. Cannon to the Comintern: “We have a large proletariat in America, but the party has only 20,000 members of which only 2,000 are in the English-speaking organizations. The American proletariat is politically very backward and the most elementary tasks are necessary in the attempt to set it in motion.”
• In New York, the Oriental Branch (CPUSA) and the Japanese Labour Union raised funds for the support of the comrades at the University of the Toilers of the East.
• The Comintern instructed Eugene Debs to pressure the Socialist Party to endorse the CPU-KMT United Front.
  
• The Comintern’s American Commission, tasked with determining which comrades should engage in legal or illegal activities, and the matter of a World Negro Congress, consisted of: Radek, Bukharin, Kuusinen, and Losovsky (later replaced by Melnichansky) from Russia; Valetskii and Domski from Poland; Katayama, Japan; Kurela, Finland; Raavenstein, Holland; Eberlein, Germany; Lackie, England; Kobler, Czechoslovakia; Gamelon, France; Assaria, Italy; McLean, Ireland; and McDonald, Canada.
• John Reed, Speech at the Congress of the Peoples of the East, Baku, Azerbaijan, 1920.09.04: “I represent here the revolutionary workers of one of the great imperialist powers, the United States of America, which exploits and oppresses the peoples of the colonies. You, the peoples of the East, the peoples of Asia, have not yet experienced for yourselves the rule of America. You know and hate the British, French and Italian imperialists, and probably you think that “free America” will govern better, will liberate the peoples of the colonies, will feed and defend them. No. The workers and peasants of the Philippines, the peoples of Central America and the islands of the Caribbean, they know what it means to live under the rule of “free America.” … The Negroes, whom they lawlessly burn alive, are beginning to see that their only hope lies in armed resistance to the white bandits. … At the present time the American capitalists are addressing friendly words to the peoples of the East, with a promise of aid and food. This applies especially to Armenia. Millions of dollars have been collected by the American millionaires in order to send bread to the starving Armenians. And many Armenians are now looking for help to Uncle Sam. … Many Armenians are grateful to America for its attitude to the Armenians who suffered from the brutality of the Turks during the war. But what has America done for the Armenians apart from issuing wordy declarations? Nothing. I was in Constantinople at that time, in 1915, and I know that the [Protestant] missionaries refused to make any serious protest against the atrocities, saying that they had a lot of property in Turkey and so did not want to bring pressure to bear on the Turks. The American ambassador, Mr. Strauss, himself a millionaire who exploited thousands of workers in his enterprises in America, proposed that the entire Armenian people be shipped to America, and himself donated quite a large sum for this project to be carried out; but his plan was to make the Armenians work in American factories and provide cheap labor so as to increase the profits of Mr. Strauss and his friends. … Why do the American capitalists promise aid and food to Armenia? Is it out of pure philanthropy? If so, let them feed the peoples of Central America and help the Negroes of America itself. No. The main reason is that there is mineral wealth in Armenia, and that it is a big reservoir of cheap labor which can be exploited by American capitalists. The American capitalists want to win the confidence of the Armenians with a view to getting their claws into Armenia and enslaving the Armenian nation.”
  
• Lenin was at that time bending every effort to convince international “Left Communists” of the necessity for compromise and participation in electoral and Parliamentary politics; he warned of the danger of their becoming revolutionary sects. In his discussion of the ‘national and colonial question’, Lenin emphasized the necessity of inspiring Soviet-type revolutions in the Asiatic colonial countries. He was aiming primarily at India and China.
• Initial Comintern constituents were: Spartacus League (Germany), The Communist Party (Bolshevik) Russia, The Communist Party of German Austria, The Hungarian Communist Workers’ Party (in power during Béla Kun’s Hungarian Soviet Republic), The Finnish CP, The Communist Party of Poland, The Communist Party of Estonia, The Communist Party of Latvia, The Lithuanian CP, The Belarusian CP, The Ukrainian CP, The revolutionary elements of the Czech social democracy, The Bulgarian Social-Democratic Party (Tesnjaki), The Romanian SDP, The Left-wing of the Serbian SDP, The Social Democratic Left Party of Sweden, The Norwegian Labour Party, The Danish Klassenkampen group, The Communist Party of Holland, The revolutionary elements of the Workers Party of Belgium (who would create the Communist Party of Belgium in 1921), The groups and organisations within the French socialist and syndicalist movements, The leftwing within the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland, The Italian Socialist Party, The revolutionary elements of the Spanish SP, The revolutionary elements of the Portuguese SP, The British socialist parties (particularly the current represented by John Maclean), The Socialist Labour Party (Britain), Industrial Workers of the World (Britain), The revolutionary elements of the workers’ organisations of Ireland, The revolutionary elements among the shop stewards (Britain), The Socialist Labor Party of the United States, The Left elements of the Socialist Party of America (the tendency represented by Eugene Debs and the Socialist Propaganda League of America), IWW (United States), IWW (Australia), Workers’ International Industrial Union (United States), The Socialist groups of Tokyo and Yokohama (Japan, represented by Comrade Katayama), and The Socialist Youth International (represented by Willi Münzenberg).
• The central policy of the Comintern  was that Communist parties should be established across the world to aid the international proletarian revolution.The Comintern became known as the “General Staff of the World Revolution”.
• The Communist Party of China was established in Shanghai on 1921.07.01.
• In 1924, the KMT and CPU frromed an alliance.
  
• The KMT turned to German advisors after its break with the Comintern.
• Parts of the Shanghai Jewish community played an important role in the development of Communism and connections with the Soviets. Baghdadi Jews had settled in the 1800s, includi the Sassoons and Kadoories. Western Jews settled in Shanghai following the enforced opening of China to Western trade in 1842. They financed the Children’s Palace, the Peace Hotel, Shanghai Mansions, and many other colonial architectural works. By 1932, nearly 40% of members of the Shanghai Stock Exchange were Sephardic Jews. This Jewish elite was joined in the 1900s by Russian Jews fleeing pogroms and, later, the Russian Revolution. The Russian Jews did not mix much with Shanghai’s Jewish elite. Shanghai was a free transit port, requiring no visas, police certificates, affidavits of health, or proof of financial independence. There were no quotas. The Jewish community was mostly destroyed by the Chinese Communists in 1949, as Jews fled, their properties were requisitioned, and synagogues where destroyed.
• Local groups, such as the Ashkenazi Philanthropic Society of Shanghai, worked with industrialists such as Jacob H. Schiff to defeat the Russian Army at Port Arthur. Schiff arranged $410,ooo,ooo in loans to the Japanese government, or 47% of the total war costs of $860,000,000. Besides hating Russians in particular, Schiff also wanted to see the defeat of a white nation. As a multiculturalist, Schiff was opposed to Herzl and Zionism (although he funded Palestinian settlements), believing that Jews should assimilate and thrive as he had done in the US. Schiff’s actions were perceived in Russia as  evidence of the power of “International Jewry”, Jews’ loyalty to one another, and proof of the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In 1905, Schiff was awarded the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure; in 1907 he was honored with the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun. Schiff was the first foreigner to have been personally awarded the Order by Emperor Meiji in the Imperial Palace. Other consequences included the rise of  communism in Shanghai, and the rise of Zionism, as the Japanese allowed the thousands of Jewish prisoners-of-war to organize their own study groups, newspapers, political organizations. It was in a Japanese prison with 500 other Jewish inmates that Joseph Tempeldor first developed his Zionist consciousness.
• Later, in the failed Fugu Plan (河豚計画, fugu keikaku; so-called because the Jews were perceived as like a fugu, a puffer-fish whose poison can kill if the dish is not prepared exactly correctly), Japan worked install European Jews in Japan-controlled China to work for the benefit of Japan. In June and July 1939, these schemes, under long names like “Concrete Measures to be Employed to Turn Friendly to Japan the Public Opinion Far East Diplomatic Policy Close Circle of President of USA by Manipulating Influential Jews in China,” and “The Study and Analysis of Introducing Jewish Capital” came to be reviewed and approved by the top Japanese officials in China. Methods of attracting both Jewish and American favor were offered, including the sending of a delegation to the United States, to introduce American rabbis to the similarities between Judaism and Shinto, and to bring these rabbis back to Japan, to introduce them and their religion to the Japanese. Methods were also suggested for gaining the favor of American journalism and Hollywood. But the majority of the documents were devoted to the settlements. A number of sites in Manchuria were suggested, as well as areas near Shanghai. The Fugu Plan allowed for the settlement populations to range in size from 18,000 up to 600,000. Details of the land size of the settlement, as well as infrastructural arrangements, including schools, hospitals and the like were also detailed, for each level of population. It was agreed, by all the planners, that Jews in these settlements would be given complete freedom of religion, along with cultural and educational autonomy; while the Japanese were wary of giving the Jews too much political autonomy, it was felt that some freedom would be necessary to attract settlers, as well as economic investment. The Japanese officials asked to approve the Fugu Plan insisted that, while the settlements could appear autonomous, controls needed to be placed behind the scenes to keep the Jews under close watch and control. It was feared that the Jews might somehow penetrate into the mainstream Japanese government and economy, influencing or taking command of it in the same way that they had apparently done in many other countries.
• The Tripartite Pact brought an end to such plans. With the beginning of war with the USSR, Japan deported Jewish refugees to Shanghai. Nazi Colonel Josef Meisinger, chief of the Gestapo, arrived in Shanghai in 1942, urging the Japanese to exterminate the Jews there, or put them to work. Instead they were restricted to a ghetto until war’s end, except for Baghdadi Jews, some of whom were imprisoned as enemy nationals. Ellis Jacob, a Baghdadi Shanghai Jew: “The military commander in Shanghai forced stateless refugees from Europe to move into a ghetto. Life was tough. Food and water were very poor. Disease was rampant. People had dysentery and cholera. But people from Europe were very resourceful, and pretty soon little coffee shops and pastry shops popped up. Newspapers in German and Yiddish popped up in the ghetto. But they left our family alone. We were not refugees. We continued with our Jewish life. They did not bother us at all.” Toward the end of World War II, American warplanes bombed military installations and fuel reserves in Shanghai “leaving pillars of fire and smoke that lasted for days. It was kind of tough and kind of dangerous, too, but it was a very exciting time for me.” [Jacob, The Shanghai I Knew: A Foreign Native in Pre-Revolutionary China.]
• Comintern infiltration had motivated Japan’s signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact with Nazi Germany in 1936, but Stalin’s 1939 alliance with Hitler and fears of a Soviet attack before Japan had “solved” “the China Problem” increased Japanese desires to get closer to the Nazis.
• Jacob Schiff also helped fund the Russian Revolution, and provided refuge to Kerensky, a fellow Freemason. After the success of the Russian Revolution, Schiff tried to pressure Wilson to end the the war against Germany, seeing no need to continue, and concerned with the welfare of Germany’s Jewish community. He then extended loans to the Bolsheviks. [Al Gore's daughter is Karenna Aitcheson Gore Schiff, wife of Andrew N. Schiff, associate of Nany Kissinger.]
• The ethnic and political situation of Shanghai became increasingly complicated as White Russians and Cossack warlords sought refuge.
• Admiral Aleksandr Vasiliyevich Kolchak (Kolchak-Poliarnyi, “Kolchak the Polar”) was a Romanian-Russian naval commander, polar explorer and later head of part of the White forces. He served on the cruiser Askold and later commanded the destroyer Serdityi, and destroyed the Japanese cruiser Takasago. He became a prisoner of war in Nagasaki. His study, The Ices of the Kara and Siberian Seas, was printed in the Proceedings of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, and is considered the most important work on this subject. In 1917, Kerensky, fearing Kolchak, ordered him to leave immediately for America. Kolchak returned to Russia via Japan and Manchuria. He had offered to enlist in the British Army, and the British were inclined to accept his offer, with plans to send him to Mesopotamia, but London decided that Kolchak could do more for the Allied cause by overthrowing the Bolsheviks and bringing Russia back into the war on the Allied side. So Kolchak returned to Russia. Arriving in Omsk, he agreed to become a minister in the Siberian Regional Government. In November 1918, the unpopular regional government was overthrown in a military coup d’etat, but Kolchak refused to take power. The Socialist-Revolutionary (SR) Directory leader and members were arrested on November 18 by a troop of Cossacks under Ataman Krasilnikov. The remaining cabinet members met and voted for Kolchak to become the head of government with dictatorial powers. He was named Supreme Ruler (Verkhovnyi Pravitel), and he promoted himself to Admiral. The arrested SR politicians were expelled from Siberia and ended up in Europe. The SR leaders in Russia called for Kolchak’s death, resulting a small revolt in Omsk on December 22, 1918, which was quickly put down by Cossacks and the Czech Legion. In January 1919 the SR People’s Army joined with the Red Army against Kolchak. His northern army under the Russian Anatoly Pepelyayev and the Czech Rudolf Gajda seized Perm in late December 1918The plan was for three main advances – Gajda to take Archangel, Khanzhin to capture Ufa and the Cossacks under Alexander Dutov to capture Samara and Saratov. Kolchak’s good relations with General Alfred Knox meant that his forces were partly armed, munitioned and uniformed by the British. The White forces took Ufa in March 1919 and pushed on from there to take Kazan and approach Samara on the Volga River. Anti-Bolshevik risings in Simbirsk, Kazan, Viatka, and Samara assisted the Whites advance to a line stretching from Glazov through Orenburg to Uralsk. The Bolshevik Central Executive Committee made countering Kolchak their top priority. But as the spring thaw arrived Kolchak’s position degenerated – his armies had outrun their supply lines, they were exhausted and the Red Army was pouring newly raised troops into the area. Kolchak had also aroused the dislike of potential allies including the Czech Legion and the Polish 5th Rifle Division. Kolchak could not count on Japanese aid either; they feared he would interfere with their occupation of Far Eastern Russia and refused him assistance, creating a ‘buffer state’ to the east of Lake Baikal under Cossack control. The 7,000 or so American troops in Siberia were strictly neutral regarding “internal Russian affairs” and served only to maintain the operation of the Trans-Siberian railroad in the Far East. The American commander and  Woodrow Wilson disliked the Kolchak government, which they saw as royalist and autocratic. In the summer of 1919 the partisans of Altai Region united to form the Western Siberian Peasants’ Red Army. The Taseev Soviet Partisan Republic was founded southest of Eniseisk in early 1919. By the fall of 1919, Kolchak’s rear was completely disorganized. About 100,000 Siberian partisans siezed vast regions from Kolchak’s regime even before the approach of the Red Army. In February 1920, some 20,000 partisans took control of the Amur region. Ufa was taken by the Red Army on June 9 and later that month the Red forces under Tukhachevsky broke through the Urals. Freed from the geographical constraints of the mountains, the Reds made rapid progress, capturing Chelyabinsk on July 25 and forcing the White forces to the north and south to fall back to avoid being isolated. The White forces re-established a line along the Tobol and the Ishim rivers to temporarily halt the Reds. They held that line until October, but the constant loss of men killed or wounded was beyond the White rate of replacement. Reinforced, the Reds broke through on the Tobol in mid-October and by November the White forces were falling back towards Omsk in a disorganised mass. The Reds were sufficiently confident to start redeploying some of their forces southwards to face Anton Denikin. Kolchak also came under threat from other quarters: local opponents began to agitate and international support began to wane, with even the British turning more towards Denikin. Gajda, dismissed from command of the northern army, staged an abortive coup in mid-November. Omsk was evacuated on November 14 and the Red Army took the city without any serious resistance, capturing large amounts of ammunition, almost 50,000 soldiers, and ten generals. As there was a continued flood of refugees eastwards, typhus became a serious problem.
  Kolchak had left Omsk on the 13th for Irkutsk along the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Travelling a section of track controlled by the Czecho-Slovaks he was sidetracked and stopped; by December his train had only reached Nizhneudinsk. In late December Irkutsk fell under the control of a leftist group (including SRs) and formed the Political Centre. One of their first actions was to dismiss Kolchak. When he heard of this on January 4, 1920, he announced his resignation, giving his office to Denikin and passing control of his remaining forces around Irkutsk to the ataman, G. M. Semyonov. The transfer of power to Semyonov proved a particularly ill-considered move. It appears that Kolchak was then promised safe passage by the Czecho-Slovaks to the British military mission in Irkutsk. Instead, he was handed over to the leftist authorities in Irkutsk on January 14. On January 20 the government in Irkutsk gave power to a Bolshevik military committee. Following the arrival of an order from Moscow, he was summarily sentenced to death along with his Prime Minister, Viktor Pepelyayev.
• The J.P. Morgan firm, which controlled Guaranty Trust, provided financial assistance to Admiral Kolchak. On June 23, 1919, Congressman Mason introduced House Resolution 132 instructing the State Department “to make inquiry as to all and singular as to the truth of . . . press reports” charging that Russian bondholders had used their influence to bring about the “retention of American troops in Russia” in order to ensure continued payment of interest on Russian bonds. In August 1919 the secretary of state, Robert Lansing, received from the National City Bank of New York a letter requesting official comment on a proposed loan of $5 million to Admiral Kolchak; and from J.P. Morgan & Co. and other bankers another letter requesting the views of the department concerning an additional proposed £10 million sterling loan to Kolchak by a consortium of British and American bankers. Secretary Lansing informed the bankers that the U.S. had not recognized Kolchak and, although prepared to render him assistance, “the Department did not feel it could assume the responsibility of encouraging such negotiations but that, nevertheless, there seemed to be no objection to the loan provided the bankers deemed it advisable to make it.” On September 30, Lansing informed the American consul general at Omsk that the “loan has since gone through in regular course” Two fifths was taken up by British banks and three fifths by American banks. Two thirds of the total was to be spent in Britain and the United States and the remaining one third wherever the Kolchak Government wished. The loan was secured by Russian gold (Kolchak’s) that was shipped to San Francisco. The timing of the previously described Soviet exports of gold suggests that cooperation with the Soviets on gold sales was determined on the heels of the Kolchak gold-loan agreement. Summer 1919 was a time of Soviet military reverses in the Crimea and the Ukraine and this black picture may have induced British and American bankers to mend their fences with the anti-Bolshevik forces, and so have a foot in all camps, and so be in a favorable position to negotiate for concessions and business after the revolution or counterrevolution had succeeded and a new government stabilized. Assistance was given on the one hand to the Soviets and on the other to Kolchak — while the British government was supporting Denikin in the Ukraine and the French government went to the aid of the Poles. On October 8 and 9, 1919, the Berliner Zeitung am Mittak accused the Morgan firm of financing the West Russian government and the Russian-German forces in the Baltic fighting the Bolsheviks — both allied to Kolchak. The Morgan firm strenuously denied the charge: “This firm has had no discussion, or meeting, with the West Russian Government or with anyone pretending to represent it, at any time.” Documents found by Latvian government intelligence among the papers of Colonel Bermondt, commander of the Western Volunteer Army, confirm “the relations claimed existing between Kolchak’s London Agent and the German industrial ring which was back of Bermondt.”
  
• St John of Shanghai and San Francico was born Mikhail Maximovitch. In 1934 he was ordained a bishop and assigned to the diocese of Shanghai. In Shanghai, Bishop John found an uncompleted cathedral and an Orthodox community deeply divided along ethnic lines. Making contact with all the various groups, he quickly involved himself in the existing charitable institutions and personally founded an orphanage and home for the children of indigents. It was here that he first became known for miracles attributed to his prayer, and as a public figure it was impossible for him to completely conceal his ascetic way of life. Despite his actions during the Japanese occupation, when he routinely ignored the curfew in pursuit of his pastoral activities, the Japanese authorities never harassed him. As the only Russian hierarch in China who refused to submit to the authority of the Soviet-dominated Russian Orthodox Church, he was elevated to the rank of archbishop by the Holy Synod of ROCOR in 1946. When the Communists took power in China, the Russian colony was forced to flee, first to a refugee camp on the island of Tubabao in thePhilippines and then mainly to the United States and Australia. Archbishop John travelled personally to Washington, D.C. to ensure that his people would be allowed to enter the country.
• Ralph Shaw: “The Russians with their long tradition of cultural pursuits were pre-eminent in making Shanghai one of the best-known artistic centres in the Far East. Flight from the Bolsheviks had bestowed on the city the presence of ballerina from Moscow and St Petersburg, first-class opera singers and, most popular of all, musical comedy stars such as Sophie Bitner, Rosen and Valin who became in exile almost as great an attraction as they had been in Moscow.”
• Single White Russian women in China were often desperate to acquire a passport. The lot of the Russian male in Shanghai was pitiful. What prospect could be offered a former officer in the Czarist army working as a caretaker. Young Russians often turned to drink or drugs. A common sight in the French Concession, particularly in the vicinity of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Route Dourner, was the young Russian begging, or drunk, or drugged, or lying on the pavements.
• Georgii Chicherin gave Sun Yat-Sen vague hints that the USSR would withdraw from Mongolia and China. From 1920, Yurin, Paikes and Adolphe A Joffe visited Shanghai.
• Chiang Kai-shek was an honorary Comintern member. In 1920, Chiang was overwhelmed with the desire to go to the USSR and learn how to go about implimenting a Communism revolution. Sun Yat-Sen was more skeptical, asserting to George Chicherin that Communism would never work in China, and insisting on Soviet withdrawel from Chinese territory. Joffe agreed with Sun.
  
• In 1923 Chiang Kai-shek, one of Sun’s lieutenants from the Tongmenghui days, was sent to Moscow for several months’ military and political study.
• After meeting with Chiang, Chicherin sent Borodin to Shanghai.
  
• The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was under Comintern instructions to cooperate with the KMT, and its members were encouraged to join while maintaining their separate party identities, forming the First United Front between the two parties. The KMT established three “Great Policies”: Co-operation with the USSR, the admission of Communists, and organizing the Workers and the Peasants.
  
• Soviet advisers also helped the Nationalists set up a political institute to train propagandists in mass mobilization techniques.
  
• The USSR funded the creation of the Nationalist Party of China Army Officer Academy [The Whampoa Military Academy, 中國國民黨陸軍軍官學校, 中国国民党陆军军官学校], under the guidance of Borodin and  General Vasilii Blyukher (‘Galen’). Borodin appointed Commandant Chiang Kai-shek as its leader. Instructors included Lin Boqu, Ye Jianying, Nie Rongzhen and Chen Yi. Lin Biao was a graduate.
• The Communist University of the Toilers of the East or KUTV (Коммунистический университет трудящихся Востока or КУТВ) was established by the Comintern in 1921, under the direction of Karl Radek (Karol Sobelsohn). Students included: Chiang Ching-kuo [蔣經國, 蒋经国, Nikolai Vladimirovich Elizarov, Николай Владимирович Елизаров, ROC President 1978-1988, applied to join CP USSR but rejected as a Trotskyite], Liu Shaoqi [PRC President], Deng Xiaoping [PRC leader], Hồ Chí Minh [President of Vietnam]. Nazım Hikmet, Hasan Israilov, Khalid Bakdash [Secretary of Syrian Communist Party 1936-1995], Fahd [Secretary of Iraqi Communist Party 1941-1949, Harry Haywood, Manabendra Nath Roy [co-founder of Mexican and Indian Communist parties], Sen Katayama [US and Japanese CP], Tan Malaka [Indonesian CP], and Sultan Ghaliev.
• From Comrade Stalin’s remarks at the inauguration of the KUTV: “In countries like Egypt and China, where the national bourgeoisie has already split up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but where the compromising section of the bourgeoisie is not yet able to join up with imperialism, the Communists can no longer set themselves the aim of forming a united national front against imperialism. In such countries the Communists must pass from the policy of a united national front to the policy of a revolutionary bloc of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie. In such countries that bloc can assume the form of a single party, a workers’ and peasants’ party, provided, however, that this distinctive party actually
  represents a bloc of two forces -the Communist Party and the party of the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie. The tasks of this bloc are to expose the half-heartedness and inconsistency of the national bourgeoisie and to wage a determined struggle against imperialism.”
• The Sun Yat-sen Communist University of the Toilers of China (莫斯科中山大學, Коммунистический университет трудящихся Китая имени Сунь Ятсена) was established by the Comintern in Moscow, from 1925 to -1930, under the initial leadership of Radek. It was formed from the Chinese department of the KUTV, as a training camp for Chinese revolutionaries from both the Guomintang and the Communist Party of China. Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Zhang Guotao (张国焘, 張國燾) and Xiang Zhongfa (向忠发) were amongst the instructors. Students included Wang Ming (王明), “The 28 Bolsheviks”, Chiang Ching-kuo, Zuo Quan, Deng Xiaoping, He Zhonghan and Deng Wenyi. Pavel Mif (Mikhail Alexandrovich Fortus), the minister of Eastern Department of the Comintern, took over from Radek, and was sent to Shanghai to direct the CPC. Other prominent Chinese Bolsheviks were Zhou Enlai (周恩来, 周恩來) and Li Lisan (李立三).
  
• CPC-KMT Civil War
• In 1932, Soviet Military Intelligence’s Fourth Directorate dispatched Otto Braun to Harbin. From there he traveled to Shanghai, where he joined the local Comintern bureau. There he was in military affairs under the orders of “General Kleber” (Moishe Stern, Lazar Stern, Emilio Kléber, Mark Zilber, Manfred Stern, Li De, 李德), and in political issues under Arthur Ewert, a fellow German Communist. In 1933 Braun left for Ruijin, then capital of the Chinese Soviet Republic, where he became a military adviser. Braun joined the Communists and Koji Ariyoshi, on the Long March. In 1934 Braun assumed a command position in the early First Front Army, together with Zhou Enlai and Bo Gu - with authority to make all military decisions. The First Front Army’s suffered great causalities. Mao already distrusted alien advisors from the Comintern, especially after Henk Sneevliet’s disastrous advice. Mao then took Braun’s position, the Comintern was pushed aside, and “Native Communists” took control of the CPC.
• Koji was a Communist OSS liaison between the Americans and Mao in Yenan. He became one of the leaders of the Hawaiian Communist Party and a comrade of Obama’s father, Frank Marshall Davis.
• The OSS helped arm, train and supply Mao Zedong’s Red Army Ho’s Viet Minh in French Indochina.
• Manfred Stern was a member of Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU). He would later lead the International Brigade during the Spanish Civil War, as General Kléber. He led a partisan unit in Siberia against the White Army of Admiral Kolchak and fought in Mongolia against the Baron Ungern von Sternberg and Bogd Khan. In 1921 he was elected to the Constituent Assembly of the short-lived Far Eastern Republic. In 1929, he became the GRU’s chief illegal resident in the United States. Based in New York and operating under the cover name of Mark Zilbert, he managed a network of sources and agents involved in the theft of military secrets. His associates were Paula Levine and Leon Minster the brother-in-law of Vyacheslav Molotov (Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skriabin, who became Soviet Foreign Minister after Stalin’s Nazi allies objected to Minister Meir Henoch Mojszewicz Wallach-Finkelstein, who sometimes performed with Harpo Marx). Stern traveled in 1932 to Shanghai, where he was not very useful. He died of exhaustion at a Gulag labor camp in Sosnovka in 1954.
• Charlie Soong was a Hakka Chinese Methodist minister and businessman who made a fortune selling Bibles in China. His children were: Soong Ai-ling (wife of HH Kung 孔祥熙, who was the richest man in China, envoy to Hitler, ROC Minister of Industry and Commerce 1928–1931, Minister of Finance 1933–1944, governor of the Central Bank of China 1933–1945, on Central Executive Committee of KMT), Soong Ching-ling (wife of Sun Yat-Sen, Honorary President of the PRC 1981, Vice-Chairman of PRC 1949, Stalin Peace Prize 1951, Joint Head-of-State of PRC 1968-72) , Soong Mayling (“Dragon Lady”; wife of Chiang Kai-Shek, friend of Eleanor Roosevelt, Lt. Gen. Joseph Stilwell, and Henry Luce; first Chinese national and second woman to address both houses of the U.S. Congress, 1943), Paul T.V. Soong (governor of Central Bank of China,ROC Minister of Finance 1928-1931 and 1932-1933, Minister of Foreign Affairs 1942-1945, President of the Executive Yuan 1945-1947, Head of ROC delegation to SF UN Conference on International Organization), T.L. Soong, and  T.A. Soong. [宋家姐妹: 一個愛錢、一個愛權、一個愛國 ~~ The Soong Sisters: "One loved money, one loved power and one loved China."]
• …
  
• AIG was positioned to gather information on factories, bridges, roads, railways, construction, banking, personal information, health records, cargo shipping, ports, munitions, manufacturing, etc.
• The Insurance Intelligence Unit was a component of the OSS and its elite counterintelligence branch X-2. Previously, Germany had 45% of the worldwide wholesale insurance industry. The Insurance Intelligence Unit was headed by OSS chief, William “Wild Bill” Donovan, and Cornelius V. Starr. Nazi insurance warfare was directed by Ernest Stiefel, who mapped the entire system, who also engineered the hiding of assets. Starr stopped co-operating with Donovan in China and Formosa, and shifted to working with British Intelligence.
• Starr sent OSS insurance agents into Asia and Europe before WWII even ended. When the Nazis faced defeat, and German insurers began losing money, the U.S. agents learned that Nazi insurers were pleading for peace. In late 1943, insurers advised Hitler’s people that “ruin threatens all life and fire insurance companies in Germany.” As Germany was heavily bombed and casualties mounted, the Nazis prohibited insurance companies from selling new policies.
• The greatest Soviet spy in the American nuclear weapons program, and one the most important spies of the 20th century, was Georgii Abramovich Koval (“Delmar”). The present Russian government has claimed that Koval was “the only Soviet intelligence officer” to infiltrate the project’s secret plants, saying his work “helped speed up considerably the time it took for the Soviet Union to develop an atomic bomb of its own.” Koval’s parents were Bolsheviks from Belorussia, involved with the Yidishe Kolonizatsye Organizatsye in Rusland [ICOR, Organization for Jewish Colonization in Russia], a money-raising front group of the American Communist Party. In 1932, the Kovals emigrated to the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidzhan. In the USSR, Koval was trained by the G.R.U., the military intelligence agency, and then sent back to New York (1940-48) to gather information on chemical weapons. He then gained access as a US Army officer to the top levels of the Manhattan Project. The Russian government’s revelation is an embarrassment to Washington, which kept Dr. Koval’s spying secret. In Russia, Koval taught at the Mendeleev Institute.
• In New York, Koval had replaced Arthur Aleksandrovich Adams (“Achilles”), a Swedish-Russian Jew who had been exiled from Russia after the 1905 revolution. He went to the US in 1905 and became a Major in the US Army. In 1919, he went with C.E. Martens’ American trade mission to the USSR. From 1925 to c. 1935, he became deputy head of the Main Board of Aviation Industry of the USSR, making frequent trips abroad, establishing a network, and collecting technical and industrial information. He was sent to the US where he set up a firm and established a network of over 20 experts from US military industrial enterprises. He returned to the USSR from 1938-39. After returning to the US, he got information on the Manhattan Project from his agent “Eskulap”, who was associated with the the Chicago Met Lab. In 1944 Eskulap gave Adams 4000 pages of documents relating to the development of the Atomic Bomb. Eskulap’s wife worked for “Chicago University”, and he was perhaps a medical doctor. He may have been Clarence Hiskey (“Ramsey”). Adams was also connected to Pavel Mikhailov (“Moliere”) the GRU station chief in New York. After US intelligence discovered Adams’ espionage, they had Hiskey drafted into the Army. Adams may have then used John Hitchcock Chapin and Edward Manning, but both denied any espionage. Adams’ agents included Irving Lerner, a photographer, and Eric Bernay, owner of Keynote Records. The FBI were under orders not not to arrest Adams, and he returned to the USSR in 1946.
  
• The law firm of Tommy Corcoran, the Washington lawyer for CATCL and T.V. Soong, had links to the US China Lobby and of organized crime. His partner W.S. Youngman joined the board of U.S. Life and other insurance companies, controlled by C.V. Starr with the help of Philippine and other Asian capital. Youngman’s fellow-directors of Starr’s companies have included John S. Woodbridge of Pan Am, Francis F. Randolph of J. and W. Seligman, W. Palmer Dixon of Loeb Rhoades, Charles Edison of the postwar China Lobby, and Alfred B. Jones of the Nationalist Chinese government’s registered agency, the Universal Trading Corporation.
  
• AIG is the biggest foreign insurance company in Japan.
  
• …
• A Nazi Party branch was established in Shanghai in 1932.
• …
• Ironically, while the Nazi Neuordnung involved the genocide of the Jews, their Japanese ally’s “New Order in East Asia” (co-operative rule under Japanese control, centred around plans for Manchuria) involved, at times, various Jewish colonization schemes, especially in Manchukou. In a petition to Prime Minister Abe Nobuyuki, Dr Abraham Kaufmann of the Jewish National Council of the Far East pledged Jewish support for the fascist government’s New Order in exchange for the Japanese establishment of a Jewish territory within occupied China.
• Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise of the  Federation of American Zionists and the American Jewish Congress attempted to block relief efforts from assisting Shanghai Jews, viewing them as fascist collaborators. Wise also banned relief for residents of the Warsaw Ghetto and dismissed reports of the Shoah as propaganda and conspiracy theories. Professor Saul Friedlander, The Years of Extermination, p. 304: “In the spring of 1941 Rabbi Wise had decided to impose a complete embargo on all aid sent to Jews in occupied countries. … Strict orders were given to World Jewish Congress representatives in Europe to halt forthwith any shipment of packages to the ghettos… ‘All these operations with and through Poland must cease at once,’ Wise cabled to Congress delegates in London and Geneva, ‘and at once in English means AT ONCE, not in the future.’”
• Ironically, Wise was an NAACP colleague of Schiff the Shinto Saviour, and had likewise celebrated that the Japanese had humiliated Russia. Following the Japanese victory, Wise gave sermons condemning Standard Oil and anyone else agitating for war with Japan as “traitors”, and, like Schiff, praised Japanese moral superiority over the degenerate West.
• Wise suppressed reports of the Shoah in accordance with Stalin’s directives. The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC, Еврейский антифашистский комитет Yevreysky Antifashistsky Komitet, ЕАК) was formed in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West. Solomon Mikhoels, the popular actor and director of the Moscow State Jewish Theater, was appointed the JAC chairman. The JAC’s newspaper in Yiddish language was called Einigkeit (אייניקייט “Unity”, Cyrillic: Эйникейт). The JAC broadcast pro-Soviet propaganda to foreign audiences, assuring them of the absence of anti-Semitism in the USSR. In 1943, Mikhoels and Itzik Feffer, the first official representatives of the Soviet Jewry allowed to visit the West. In the US, they were welcomed by a National Reception Committee chaired by Albert Einstein and by B.Z. Goldberg, Sholom Aleichem’s son-in-law, and American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. The largest pro-Soviet rally ever in the United States was held on July 8 at the Polo Grounds, where 50,000 people listened to Mikhoels, Fefer, Fiorello La Guardia, Sholem Asch, and Chairman of World Jewish Congress Rabbi Stephen Wise. Among others, they met Chaim Weizmann, Charlie Chaplin, Marc Chagall, Paul Robeson and Lion Feuchtwanger. They returned to the USSR with $33,000,000 for Stalin, as well as machinery, medical equipment, medicine, ambulances, and clothes. On July 16, 1943, Pravda reported: “Mikhoels and Feffer received a message from Chicago that a special conference of the Joint initiated a campaign to finance a thousand ambulances for the needs of the Red Army.” Towards the end and immediately after the war, the JAC became involved in documenting the Holocaust. This ran contrary to the official Soviet policy to present it as atrocities against all Soviet citizens, not acknowledging the specific genocide of the Jews. The contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. In January 1948, Mikhoels was killed in Minsk by the Soviet secret police agents who staged the murder as a car accident. In November 1948, Soviet authorities launched anti-Jewish Doctors’ plot campaign. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with disloyalty, bourgeois nationalism, cosmopolitanism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests. In January 1949, the Soviet mass media launched massive propaganda campaign against “rootless cosmopolitans”, unmistakably aimed at Jews. Markish observed at the time: On August 12, 1952, at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed in the event known as the “Night of the Murdered Poets” (“Ночь казненных поэтов”). According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (200 Years Together), the JAC grew to have about 70 members, inclding: Solomon Mikhoels, Solomon Lozovsky (Soviet vice-minister of Foreign Affairs and the head of the Soviet Information Bureau), Shakne Epshtein, Itzik Feffer, Ilya Ehrenburg, Aaron Katz (a General of the Stalin Military Academy), Joseph Yuzefovich, Leib Kvitko, Peretz Markish, Isaak Nusinov, David Bergelson, David Hofstein, Benjamin Zuskin, Ilya Vatenberg, Shlomo Shleifer (Chief Rabbi of Moscow), Leon Talmy, Khayke Vatenberg-Ostrowskaya, Lina Stern. Emilia Teumim,Solomon Bregman, Boris Shimeliovich.
• Harry Yarnell, US Navy Planning Commission, 1918, suggested that the US should support Japanese colonization in Siberia, arguing that the territory was sparsely populated and was not really Russian, and that it was essential for America to turn Japan into more of an Asian than a Pacific power.
• Other prominent Soviets dealing with China and agents there were were Jenkel Gamarnik and Blücher and Terenty Derebis, who also worked together to develop an industrial complex on the Amur called Komsomol’sk with slave labour (Cossacks, Mensheviks, Christians, SRs, etc.).
• In the 1920s and 30s, the USSR spent between 5-10% of all capital investment in the devlopment of Dal’krai, which included the Amur, Kamchatka, Ussuri, northern Sakhalin, Primorsk, Kolyma, and Jewish Autonomous oblasts. In late 1938 Dal’krai was reorganized into the Primorsk and Khabarovsk regions. Cossacks, Koreans, Buryats and many others sought refuge in Japanese Manchikou, in Hokkaido, and in parts of the Far East regions.
• Jews were settled along the Amur railroad. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was established in 1934, and Birobidzhan was created at the crossing point of the Amur line and the Bira River, about 100 miles west of Khabarovsk. The Party’s Jewish Section had hoped for a homeland in the Crimea, Ukraine, or Khazakhstan, but The Party, in its infinite wisdom, deterined that Siberia was the best place for Jews. This was a major success for Jews. A mere 17 years earlier, permanent Jewish settlement had been limited to the tiny area of much of present-day Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Bessarabia, Ukraine, and parts of western Russia; but now they were spread all over the Siberian Gulag network, and had their very own homeland! The first Synagogue was established in 2004. The Oblast’s population is about 5% Jewish.
• The Jewish Autnomous Oblast was also created in order to counter the influence of Zionist Jews like Dov Ber Berochov (d. 1917) and Nachman Syrkin (Nahman or Nahum Syrkin), who had argued that it was essential for Jews to establish a multiethnic, secular proletarian dictatorship in Palestine, which would be greatly appreciated by the Arab masses. Ber Borochov: “When the waste lands are prepared for colonization, when modern technique is introduced, and when the other obstacles are removed, there will be sufficient land to accommodate both the Jews and the Arabs. Normal relations between the Jews and Arabs will and must prevail.”
• Syrkin: “Internationalism, not only in its attenuated modern sense but also in a cosmopolitan spirit of the Enlightenment, is undoubtedly the ideal toward which history is striving. The blending of all the nations into a higher unity, the creation of one humanity with a common language, territory, and fate -the dream which the greatest spirits of all eras have shared -this conception is undoubtedly the great victory of the human mind over the accidental and the unknown in history. Nationalism is always an accidental creation; it is not a phenomenon of historic reason. Nationalism is only a category of history, but it is not an absolute. National differences arose in certain states of history and they will disappear at a higher stage.”(1898)
• Syrkin: “Only by fusing with socialism can Zionism become the ideal of the whole Jewish people – of the proletariat, the middle class, and the intelligentsia. All Jews will be involved in the success of Zionism, and none will be indifferent. The messianic hope, which was always the greatest dream of exiled Jewry, will be transformed into political action. … The Jews have the opportunity to be the first to realize the socialist vision. … What is utopian in other contexts is a necessity for the Jews. The Jews were historically the nation which caused division and strife; it will now become the most revolutionary of all nations. From the humblest and most oppressed of all people it will be transformed to the proudest and greatest. The Jews will derive their moral stature from their travail, and out of the pain of their existence will come a pattern of noble living. … Israel is like a sleeping giant, arising out of the darkness and straightening up to his unknown height. His face is illumined by the pain of the world which he has suffered on his own body. He knows his task: to do justice and proclaim truth. His tragic history has resulted in a high mission. He will redeem the world” (1898) [Apparrently this mission has now been expropriated by Barack Hussein Obama, the new Jewish messiah.]
• Syrkin: “Only cowards and spiritual degenerates will term Zionism a utopian movement. Zionism is a creative work of the Jews, and it, therefore, stands not in contradiction to the class struggle but beyond it. Zionism can be accepted by each and every class of Jews. The Jewish proletariat, the poor Jewish masses, the intelligentsia, and the middle class, can justifiably oppose a Jewish state which may be based on the principles of capitalism. True, the Jewish state, regardless, can greatly eradicate the Jewish problems, but the modern world is so permeated by social and economic ideals that masses will not accept, and rightly so, a capitalistic Jewish state.” (1898)
• Syrkin: “Internationalism is the road to Socialism. … The principle of progressive nationalism must be proclaimed as holy and inviolate for only progressive nationalism makes internationalism possible, and internationalism is the prelude to socialism.” (1917)
• Jacob Schiff sponsored Syrkin’s delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference. Syrkin’s fellow delegate, Louis Marshall praised the Bolshevik slaughter of the Romanovs as the greatest event since the French revolution.
  Marshall had spent decades slandering Russians in the press and in speeches as “cunning” “devious” schemers, had campaigned to ban literacy tests for immigrants (seeing them as discriminatory against Jews), and had succeeded in 1911 in having America abrogate its commercial treaty of 1832 with Russia. Marshall failed in his campaign against the introduction of passport controls for immigrants in 1919, arguing that such restrictions were antisemtic.
• From his base on Wall Street, Schiff was the foremost Jewish leader in what became known as the “Schiff era,” grappling with all major issues and problems of the day, including the plight of Russian Jews under the czar, American and international anti-Semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism.
• Paul Nathan (Germany), Lucien Wolf (UK) and Jacob Schiff (US) coordinated Jewish anti-Russian activism in Germany, the UK, and the US, with the main objective of isolating Russia and obstructing every sort of Russian-Western alliance. According to Zosa Szajkowski, Nathan was in charge, and with the exception of Zionist activities, no important action was taken on behalf of Jews from 1903 to August, 1914 without the coordination of these three. [Zosa Szajkowski, "Paul Nathan, Lucien Wolf, Jacob H. Schiff and the Jewish Revolutionary Movements in Eastern Europe 1903-1917," Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 3-26.] One of their main goals was to avoid war between Germany and Britain, arguing that both countries should naturally be united against Russia.
  
• Schiff (e.g. in a letter to Nathan, 1904.12.28) insisted that only regime change could bring any improvement to the status of Jews in Russia.
• Nathan (letter, 1905.02.12) suggested offering the Grand Duke and various Russian nobles bribes to overthrow the Tsar and institute a republic. Schiff responded that that would be an uncertain course, and would besides be too expensive. Schiff concluded that revolution would be the only reasonable course of action (letter, 1905.12.29). Schiff later wrote to Natahan (letter, 1906,10.06), that to bribe Count Witte would only be “a waste of Jewish money.”
• Assimilation was a major concern for the three. They were concerned about miscegination and the conversion of Jews to Christ in the Orthodox Church. Wolf argued that any assimilation should be “mechanical, not chemical”, explaining, “I want the race preserved, but the spirit merged.”
• Lucien Wolf wrote to Louis Marshall (letter, 1907.12.11) that the only hope for Russian Jews was for Western Jews “to conduct a persistent and inplacable war against the Russian government.” Accordingly, prominent Western Jews did all they could to demonize and isolate Russia.
  
• Nathan sent various communist publications to Wolf, which he translated and circulated amongst the liberal elites (Bertrand Russell, Ramsay MacDonald, HG Wells, etc) to raise anti-Russian consciousness and sympathy for revolutionary goals.
• Ramsay MacDonald was PM 1924 and 1928-31. On 1924.09.15, the British Commintern representative received a letter from Zinoviev stating that a resolution of the relationship between the UK and the USSR would “assist in the revolutionising of the international and British proletariat [and] make it possible for us to extend and develop the ideas of Leninism in England and the Colonies.” MacDonald’s labour government was aware of the letter by at least 1924.10.25, but chose not to publicize it. A scandal ensued when the letter was published in the Daily Mail. Labour lost the election.
• Following the failed revolution of 1905, the Jewish troika of Nathan, Wolf, and Schiff worked on behalf of relief for the Russian “political prisoners”.
• On numerous occassions the three expressed the belief that it was only natural that Jews should be disproprtionately represented in any revolutionary movements as the Jew is naturally more inclined towards the spirit of liberty.
• LucienWolf was a urinalist and an activist. He wrote Darkest Russia in 1912, as part of his campaign to turn the British elites towards Kaiser Bill’s “liberal” Reich and against the dirty Russians. Sharman Kadish [Bolsheviks and British Jews, 1992], citing Chimen Abramsky, says that Wolf was regarded as “Public enemy number one of the Tsarist Government” in England. By 1913, he  was depressed that his efforts to demonize Russia and increase English sympathies for Germany were not bearing fruit. His propaganda campaign, even after hostilities with Germany began, and Russia and Britain were allies, effectively ended his urinalism career.
  
• The Germany-promoters were known as the Potsdam Party. Jewish support for Germany and open hatred of Russia may have had the effect in Britain of increasing support for Russia and hatred of Germany. For example, Leopold James Maxse, editor of the National Review, attacked people like Wolf as “The Russophobe Jews to whom Russia is always in the wrong. … All the gutter squirts of the Ghetto were turned upon Russia. … Even good-natured easy-going Englishmen accustomed to be trampled on by the least desirable aliens, are growing restive under the odious Hebrew domination., which has operated exclusively in the interests of Germany.”
• In 1916, Wolf became an advisor to the Foreign Office. Then he expressed his concern that Teutonic triumphalism would be a disaster for German Jews.
• After the war, Nathan and Wolf turned their attention to the League of Nations, the need to support Germany against France and Poland, the need to have Russian Jews be given land in the interior and have them moved away from the Soviet border, and numerous other schemes.
• Wolf attended the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and drafted parts of the treaties (dealing with the status of  minority populations in conquered territories) that would so enrage the German people, to Hitler’s benefit eventually. (However, Wolf opposed the treaty as excessively anti-German)
• After the war, American Zionist leaders reported to Justice Louis Brandeiss that German and Austrian Zionists had assured him that all during the war they had supported the enemy (Britain) and should not be treated as Germans.
  
• One of Wolf’s main projects was to counter the widespread belief that influential Jews were attempting to influence public policy. He wrote, The Myth of the Jewish Menace in World Affairs, 1920.
• …
• During the Great War, there was a propaganda campaign on behalf of the German Reich on the part of German Jews in Eastern Europe (especially in Russian Poland), trying to convince Eastern Jews to betray their homelands on behalf of the Germans, who would bring freedom and opportunities to the Jews of the liberated East. While the campaign was not very successful, one result was increased discrimination against Jews, who were then regarded as untrustworthy and treasonous.
• …
• Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha, 1st Baron Hore-Belisha of Devenport, a Liberal National MP, was in 1937 appointed by Neville Chamberlain as Secretary of State for War replacing the popular Alfred Duff Cooper, who later resigned from the government over Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. However, Hore-Belisha was viewed as a warmonger and a Bolshevik. He was called “Horeb Elijah”. Hore-Belisha sought permission to introduce conscription in 1938 but was rebuffed by Chamberlain, who would not agree to increased defence spending. In early 1939, he was finally allowed to introduce conscription. He fired three prominent members of the Imperial General Staff, thereby angering Field Marshals John Dill and John Gort, the latter of whom, it was reported, could not bear to be in the same room with the H-B. He banned a popular armed forces song that went, “Onward Christian Soldiers, you have nought to fear. Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear. … Die for Jewish freedom, as a Briton always dies.” In 1940, he was dismissed from the War Office. He was accused of having dragged Britain into the war in order to protect Jews, and was considered a warmonger who did not have Britain’s interests at heart. By 1940, his relations with Lord Gort, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and commander of the British Expeditionary Force in France, had no confidence H-B. He was also unpopular with his fellow ministers. Chamberlain considered H-B as Minister of Information, but decided against it considering the negative propaganda effect of having a Jew in that position. H-B was offered the post of Presidency of the Board of Trade, which he refused. In 1945, he was appointed Minister for National Insurance.
• Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay believed that Hitler’s antipathy to Jews arose from his knowledge “that the real power behind the Third International is a group of revolutionary Jews”. In 1938, he introduced a Private Member’s Bill called the ‘Companies Act (1929) Amendment Bill’, which would have required that shares in newspapers be held openly and not through nominees, since he believed that the British press was being manipulated and controlled by international financiers based in New York who wanted to “thrust this country into a war.” In 1939, his wife gave a speech claiming the national press was “largely under Jewish control”, and that “an international group of Jews .. were behind world revolution in every single country.” Ramsey claimed that Neville Chamberlain had introduced conscription “at the instigation of the Jews” and claimed that the Conservative Party “relies on .. Jew money”. He set up the The Right Club in May 1939, in an attempt to free the Conservative Party of “Jewish money”. The logo of the Right Club contained the initials “P.J.” for “Perish Judah”. On the second day of World War II  (1939.09.04), Ramsay wrote a poem with the lines: “Land of dope and Jewry, land that once was free; all the Jew boys praise thee, whilst they plunder thee. Poorer still and poorer grow thy true-born sons. Faster still and faster, they’re sent to feed the guns. Land of Jewish finance, fooled by Jewish lies, in press and books and movies, while our birthright dies. Longer still and longer, is the rope they get, but — by the God of battles, ’twill serve to hang them yet.” Ramsay said that the negative reaction of many newspapers proved that Jews controlled the press. Ramsay did not get along with the British Union of Fascists. He campaigned for peace.  Interned under Defense Regulation 18B, after having been shown records of FDR plotting to violate the US Neutrality Act, by Tyler Kent, an American spy, Ramsay submitted parliamentary questions from prison. His son died in the war. Ramsay was released in 1944, and tried to have Edward I’s 1275 Statute of Jewry reinstated (usury was banned and Jews were given 15 years to comply). He wrote The Nameless War in 1952.
• Tyler Gatewood Kent was born in Nowchwang, Manchuria where his father was the U.S. Consul. He was educated at St. Albans School, Princeton, George Washington, the Sorbonne and the University of Madrid. Through his father’s connections, he joined the State Department and was posted to Moscow under William C. Bullitt, the first American ambassador to the Soviet Union. He fell in love with an NKVD translator, was suspected of being a Soviet agent, and collected data that he felt would confirm antisemitic beliefs in the US. He was then assigned to London in 1939, where he encoded and decoded communications between FDR and First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill. He brought some of the messages home with him, including ones of FDR trying to figure out how to violate the US Neutrality act. He was observed associating with a Nazi agent, Ludwig Matthias, and White Russia Adm. Nikolai Wolkoff, the former naval attaché for Imperial Russia in London. Wolokoff’s daughter Anna introduced him to Irene Danishewsky, the wife of a British merchant who was a frequent visitor of the Soviet Union. She became Kent’s mistress. Early in 1940, through Anna Wolkoff, he met Archibald Maule Ramsay, MP, and joined Ramsay’s The Right Club. Ramsay gave Kent the Right Club’s membership list for safekeeping. Kent showed Anna Wolkoff and Ramsay the FDR-Churchill messages. Wolkoff made copies of some, that she forwarded to Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr. Wolkoff asked fellow Right Club member (and MI5 agent) Joan Miller if she could pass a coded letter to William Joyce through the Italian embassy. Miller had Kent, Wolkoff and Ramsay arrested. In 1940, he was sentenced to 7 years. Upon his return to the US, he engaged in anti-Communist activities, and was the subject of six inconclusive FBI investigations as a suspected KGB agent.
• …
  
• After undertaking many official studies, including the translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, many in the Japanese government and military in the 1930s believed that they could use the support of International Jewry to gain access to world markets and financing, gain sympathy for Japan in the United States, and generate international support for their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Col. Yasue Norihiro and Capt. Inuzuka Koreshige were among those hoping to utilize Jewish capital and connections. The massive support that Jacob Schiff had managed to provide Japan convinced many Japanese of the Jewish control of the international banking system, and many believed that Roosevelt was also a Jew, who would react favorably to a Jew-friendly Japan. Others noted that prominent Shanghai Jews, Sir Victor Sassoon especially, were intensely hostile to Japanese interests, were funding the Nanjing (and then Chongqing) government of Generalissimo Chiang, and were allied with British and American imperial interests.
• …
• AIG greatly profited from the US occupations of Japan and Germany, by providing insurance coverage for US personnel.
• …
• AIG was expelled from China in 1949.
• AIG’s former chairman and chief executive, Maurice Greenberg, spent years cultivating allies in China and the United States. During Greenburg’s tenure, the company donated generously to the political campaigns of Republicans and Democrats alike, and spent heavily on public projects in China’s. Greenburg is an old confidant of Zhu Rongji (朱镕基, 朱鎔基, Chinese premier 1998-2003). In his earlier post as mayor of Shanghai (1987-91), Zhu recruited Greenberg to serve as one of the city’s foreign advisers. By 1975, Greenberg had secured permission to call on officials in China. In 1992, AIG was granted permission to sell life insurance in Shanghai and the southern city of Guangzhou. Those licenses were the first granted to a foreign insurance firm by the People’s Republic of China. And as China’s leaders embraced market reforms, AIG won additional operating licenses in several coveted business areas that were off limits to other firms.
• AIG now operates several branches in Communist China and is the only foreign company allowed to own 100 percent of its Chinese insurance subsidiaries.
  
• 1995: The AIG companies were granted life and non-life insurance licenses for Guangzhou by the People’s Bank of China.
• American International Assurance (AIA, 美國友邦保險), a subsidiary of AIG, is Honk Kong’s number one insurance company. It has offices throughout the Asia-Pacific region including in China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Malaysia, Macau, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam.
  
• 1996: AIA signed a 30-year lease agreement on the building at 17 Zhongshan East No. 1 Road in the heart of Shanghai’s famous Bund. This special building was home to C. V. Starr’s original Shanghai insurance companies. AIA-Zhongda Actuarial Center was established in Guangzhou.
• 1997: On approval from the People’s Bank of China, AIA Shanghai General Insurance Division was re-named and established as AIU Insurance Company Shanghai Branch.
• 1998: AIA celebrated its historic return to Shanghai’s Bund.
• 1999: The AIG companies obtained licenses from the China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) to operate life and non-life insurance business in Foshan and Shenzhen. AIA and AIU Foshan sub-branches and Shenzhen branches were officially opened to operate life and non-life insurance. AIA-Keda Actuarial Center was established in Hefei, capital of Anhui province.
• 2000: AIA Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. was established.
• 2001: The AIG companies were granted approval from the CIRC to set up wholly-owned life insurance operations in Beijing and Suzhou, as well as two sub-branches in the cities of Dongguan and Jiangmen in Guangdong Province. A representative office was opened in Chengdu, Sichuan Province.
• 2002: AIA branch offices were opened in Beijing and Suzhou, and sub-branch offices in Dongguan and Jiangmen. AIG Consulting Services Co, Ltd. was established in Beijing. AIG Global Investment Corporation (Asia) established a representative office in Shanghai. AIA-Beida Actuarial Center was established in Beijing.
• 2003: The AIG companies acquired a 9.9% stake in PICC P&C’s outstanding share capital at its Initial Public Offering in Hong Kong, and reached a co-operative agreement with PICC P&C to develop the accident and health insurance market in China.
• 2004: AIG Global Investment Corporation, Huatai Securities Company Limited and three other participants were granted approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) to start preparatory work for the establishment of AIG-Huatai Fund Management Company Limited. The compamy was approved to open business in November.
• 2005: Approved by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, The Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, AIG Global Investment Corp. raised its stake in AIG-Huaitai Fund Management Company Limited, from 33 percent to 49 percent. AIG Private Bank Ltd. received approval from the China banking Regulatory Commission to set up its representative office in Shanghai. It is the first foreign private bank to receive approval to open a representative office in Shanghai.
  
• The status of AIG and its privileges in the  People’s Republic of China was the main sticking point in the PRC’s entry into the WTO, which was finalized on Sept. 13, 2001.
• Olin L. Wethington, former Special Envoy on China for the U.S. Department of the Treasury 2005, is Chairman of AIG Companies in China, reporting to AIG Senior Vice Chairman Edmund S.W. Tse. Wethington was also Counsellor to the Secretary of the Treasury, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Director of Economic Policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, Special Assistant to the President and Executive Secretary to the Economic Policy Council at the White House, Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade at the U.S. Department of Commerce, a partner in the D.C. law firm Steptoe & Johnson, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
• In 2002, Warren Buffett, the world’s richest man, became involved with Maurice R. Greenberg at AIG, with General Re providing reinsurance. On March 15, 2005, AIG’s board forced Greenberg to resign from his post as Chairman and CEO under the shadow of criticism from Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of the state of New York. On February 9, 2006, AIG and the New York State Attorney General’s office agreed to a settlement in which AIG would pay a fine of $1.6 billion.
  
• US SEC Bulletin: “AIG to Pay $800 Million to Settle Securities Fraud Charges by SEC: Over $1.6 Billion to be Paid to Resolve Federal and New York State Actions. (Washington, D.C., Feb. 9, 2006) The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today the filing and settlement of charges that American International Group, Inc. (AIG) committed securities fraud. The settlement is part of a global resolution of federal and state actions under which AIG will pay in excess of $1.6 billion to resolve claims related to improper accounting, bid rigging and practices involving workers’ compensation funds.”
• In 2009, Warren Buffett invested $2.6 billion as a part of Swiss Re’s raising equity captal. Berkshire Hathaway already owns a 3% stake, with rights to own more than 20%. Swiss Re (Schweizerische Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG) is the world’s second largest reinsurer, after having acquired GE Insurance Solutions (Ligi 2006). Founded in 1863, Swiss Re operates through offices in more than 25 countries. General Electric owns 8.9% of the firm.The Swiss Reinsurance Company was the lead insurer of the World Trade Center during September 11 attacks which led to an insurance dispute with the owner, Silverstein Properties.
• Swiss Re was among the first foreign reinsurers to enter China after the country gradually opened its insurance market. The company set up representative offices in Beijing and Shanghai in 1996 and 1997, and opened its Beijing branch to conduct life and non-life reinsurance business throughout the country at the end of 2003. Swiss Re began integrating GE Insurance Solutions, building on its talents, franchises and client base. According to Michel M Lies, a member of Swiss Reinsurance’s executive board, China has been on top of the agenda in Swiss Re’s overall strategy. Swiss Re is in the vanguard of the struggle against Global Warning. At the end of WWII, though the Treasury Department wanted to keep harsh economic restrictions on the defeated Axis powers, the State Department prevailed, and German and Japanese insurance industries resumed operations after the war. Munich Re and Swiss Re are, once again, the two biggest insurance wholesalers in the world. There are ongoing Swiss court cases involving the role of such firms in the handling of Nazi assets, their connections to Nazi insurance warfare under the direction of Ernest Stiefel, and the nonpayment of insurance claims to dependants of Shoah victims.
  
• After public pressure, Muslim Arab plutocrats were forced to sell their interests in US ports to AIG. “This is an appropriate final chapter to the book on the Dubai Ports World deal,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. “This is very likely to receive broad support in Washington and throughout America.” AIG Global Investment Group  is an asset management firm with more than $635 billion in assets. The company’s managing director, Christopher Lee, said the company is “very committed to ensuring that the company continues to be one of the industry leaders in setting standards for port security.” Dubai Ports World is based in the United Arab Emirates and is the largest marine terminal operator with 51 terminals in 24 countries. Thankfully, US port security is now in the hands of the US patriots at American International …
  
• …
• Current AIG board members: Stephen F. Bollenbach (CEO of Hilton Hotels 1996-2007), Marshall A. Cohen, OC (CEO of Molson 1988-96, former International Councillor for The Center for Strategic and International Studies, member of the Executive Committee of The British-North American Committee, former member of the Trilateral Commission, former the Chairman of the International Trade Advisory Committee for the Government of Canada), Martin Feldstein (Reagan economist), Ellen V. Futter (President of Barnard College 1980-93), Stephen L. Hammerman (Former Vice Chairman, Merrill Lynch), William Cohen (US Senate Armed Services Committee and Governmental Affairs Committee 1979-1997, member of the Senate Intelligence Committee 1983-1991 and 1995-1997, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense 1997-2001, played a large role in directing the Operation Desert Fox in Iraq and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, supported the expansion of NATO, viewed proliferation of WMDs as the most serious problem facing US, advocates “universal service” in War On Terror, Co-Chair with Madeleine Albright of Genocide Prevention Task Force, John McCain’s Best Man), Richard C. Holbrooke (US Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, broker of Dayton “Peace” Accords in Bosnia, Lehmann Bros., Council on Foreign Relations), Fred H. Langhammer (CEO of Estée Lauder, 2000-04), Edward M. Liddy (Post-bailout CEO of AIG,  CFO at G. D. Searle & Company when Donald Rumsfeld was CEO), George L. Miles, Jr. (CEO of WQED Multimedia), Morris W. Offit (Founder of OFFITBANK), James F. Orr III (CEO of UNUM Corporation 1987-99), Virginia M. Rometty (Senior VP at IBM, Michael H. Sutton, Chief SEC Accountant 1995-98), Edmund S. W. Tse (Vice Chairman of AIG), Frank G. Zarb (US Energy Czar, 1974-77, Chairman and CEO of the National Association of Securities Dealers and head of NASDAQ 1997-2001. The Frank G. Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University is named after him. The school is connected to Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Hong-Ik University in Seoul, and The Merrill Lynch Center. Facilities include the Martin B. Greenberg trading room and C.V. Starr Hall.), Chia Pei-yuan (Vice Chairman of Citicorp and Citibank, N.A., 1994-1996; a Director of Citicorp and Citibank, N.A., 1993-96; assumed responsibility for their global consumer business in 1992, and was senior customer contact for corporate banking activities in Asia; Trustee of the Asia Society; Director of the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Director of Baxter International Inc.; Director of Case Corporation; Director of CNH Global Inc.; Director of Singapore Airlines Ltd.).
• US Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, 1848 : “We think we may now indulge in everything with impunity, as if we held our charter of liberty by “right divine”–from Heaven itself. Under these impressions, we plunge into war, we contract heavy debts, we increase the patronage of the Executive, and we even talk of a crusade to force our institutions, our liberty, upon all people. There is no species of extravagance which our people imagine will endanger their liberty in any degree. But it is a great and fatal mistake. The day of retribution will come. It will come as certainly as I am now addressing the Senate; and when it does come, awful will be the reckoning.”

To be continued…

Soong Ching-Ling, Peoples’ Republic of China; Honorary President, (1893-1981) (Madame Sun Yat-Sen) Leader of the Women’s Department of the Kuomintang

Soong Ching-Ling was born in Shanghai on the 27th of January in 1893 to well-educated, Christian parents. Before marrying Dr. Sun Yat-sen, Ching-ling traveled to the United States for her education; she and her three sisters became the first Chinese girls to be educated in the states. At the age of eighteen, Ching-ling began to speak out against the conditions of women in her country in a non-violent manner which expressed her ideals of Liberty and Equality.

 For the next seven decades, Soong Ching-ling became an active character within both the political and social arenas of Chinese culture. She came to be known as “the Mother of China” by both the main political parties, the Kuomintang and the Communists.

 Source Cited:http://people.brandeis.edu/~dwilliam/profiles/ching-ling.htm

Ocorreram duas Guerras do Ópio: a primeira no período 1839-1842 e a segunda no período 1856-1860. Foram guerras entre a China e a Grã-Bretanha. A primeira guerra do ópio foi iniciada pela Grã-Bretanha usando como motivo o combate feito pelo imperador e líder chinês ao contrabando de ópio com a prisão, expulsão dos traficantes e apreensão do ópio contrabandeado. O contrabando de ópio era praticado principalmente pelos comerciantes ingleses situados em Cantão. Com a vitória da Inglaterra a China foi forçada a assinar o Tratado de Nanquim em 1842 pelo qual foi humilhantemente submetida a franquear ao comércio com a Inglaterra cinco portos e a extinguir a sua firma comercial encarregada de efetuar o comércio com os empresários ocidentais e pagar uma indenização de guerra e entregar ao domínio inglês a ilha de Hong-Kong, além de permitir que em cada um dos cinco portos permanecesse fundeado um navio de guerra inglês.
A segunda guerra do ópio teve como motivo o fato de oficiais chineses terem revistado um navio de bandeira inglesa. Nesta segunda campanha a Grã-Bretanha teve como aliada a França. Com a derrota da China foi imposto o Tratado de Tianjin que obrigou a China a abrir mais 11 portos ao comércio com as potências ocidentais, a garantir liberdade de movimentação aos mercadores europeus e aos missionários cristãos. de Marxist Internet Archive

A Guerra do Ópio, Sun Yat-sen e os Três Princípios do Povo (16/11)

What Brought the Fear?

Chiang Kai-Shek (CKS) have been detested and adored by the many.  Some refer him as a brutal, psychopathic dictator who spent his 25 years at the helm engaged in a reign of terror.  For some others yet, they see him as a leader and a hero who have brought the Taiwan’s Chinese, democracy.

Sun Yat-Sen arrived over  hundred years ago, however when Chiang arrived, there reigned the unforgettable white terror.  Why…??

Despite differences from presidential candidates, however, favour leans towrds the building closer ties with China’s capital, Beijing.  A twist: to seize the inititiative and bring fury to the nationalists, the government has come tot he idea of writing-out Chiang from Taiwan’s history.

In the photo is Mao Ze-Dong and Chiang Kai-Shek, in toast to the defeat of the Japanese. (Mao had originally imprisoned the Nationalist (Chiang), however, upon the invasion of the Japanese army, Mao offered a join of forces to defeat them, which at first, he (Chiang) declined.)

“People should move forward and not drag this up,” a visitor,  Ting Le-Chin, comments.  “This is a tourist spot and we shouldn’t be showing people our bad history.” 

Her opponent leaned onto the counter in replying, “Emotional?  He killed so many innocent Taiwanese people.”  (Please refer to February 28, 1947, aka 228.)

Since the immigration of the ‘Nationalists,’ (thosse whom had lost the Chinese Civil War - hence having brought forth the massacre), Beijing has insisted that Taiwan is part of China, and has warned Taipei that any attempt to declare full independence will result in military action and grave consequences.  

China refuses diplomatic relations with any nation that recognizes Taiwan (as compared to: Chinese Taipei, China, PRC).  The UN refused membership following 1971 and Costa Rica had, as well, severed their ties with Taiwan.

It is against this background, that the battle over the right to preserve the memory of CKS, is being fought over.  Either parties equally would like to portray it as symbolic of the future direction of the country, however the people’s sentiments are otherwise, less convinced.

What was once THE hilight to the Memorial Hall (the routine in change of guards), however, has been taped-off from public entry.  Tourists visiting to pay dued respects to the former leader and dictator, had to make the inconvenient drive to the Chiang Kai-Shek Culture Park at Tashi (大溪), where the government has dumped dozens of statues of Chiang removed from public buildings.

Garden of the Generalissimos: Hundreds of unwanted CKS statues from all over Taiwan have found a home in Cihu, Taiwan.

Andrew Nien-Dzu Yang, member of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies think-tank, observed that the issue was holding less importance in people’s lives.  Students are taught that he was an authoritarian who brought harm to Taiwan, while the older generation, who remembered and lived through the history, are more fraught.

Nearly a third of a century has passed since his death; the memory of the old dictator is being effaced, from the removal of the generalissimo’s statues and to the renamed streets, and even the Taoyuan International Airport (a name which is currently used and accepted, internationally).  Such changes have provoked a political row, which has engulfed Taiwan’s national defense minister,  Lee Jye, whom since, was expelled from the KMT party (Chiang’s former ruling party) for allowing the old nationalist’s statues to have been removed from the military bases.

Casting the 228 Incident (video in Mandarin, but is a good one, nonetheless) as a clash between Taiwanese and KMT “outsiders”, the DPP has been much criticized for re-opening old wounds with the Taiwanese public, but created a sense of anxiety in Beijing.  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may have been crossed with the generalissimo, they fear that Taiwan, by breaking the tradition of Chiang’s legacy, may further harm relations with the China.

CKS' diary: two key pieces of evidence for this are how much CKS cursed (罵) people close to him, and how much private, even confessional, material is in the diaries. (CKS used to give himself demerits for looking lustily at women.) Prof. Yang argued that CKS would not have wanted this kind of material to be made public. (BTW, as Prof. Lu mentioned, the confessions and self-criticism in CKS's diaries didn't necessarily turn him into a saint...) One result of the private nature of Chiang's diaries, according to Prof. Yang, is that we can learn a lot more about what was really going on in CKS's head at certain important historical moments, such as the 1926 Zhongshan Warship Incident and the 1936 Xi'an Incident.

Why the Taiwanese reject “reunification“ – has an answer…  The tragic events that have unfolded in the Beijing capital proves what the Taiwanese already knew: that Chinese leaders will revert as much as it takes, to oppress measures to hold their position of power.  This alone, is reason the Taiwanese have advocated a free and democratic Taiwan, separate from the Republic of China and People’s Republic of China – and have always rejected “reunification,” whether under the rule of KMT authorities in Taipei or the Communists in Beijing.

The Taiwanese never believed the capital’s [Beijing] promises in the freedom to maintain its own political and economic institutions under the “one country, two systems” policy, as exercised with Hong Kong.  The experience of the Tibetan people after 1949 further demonstrates the emptiness in their promises.  The events were clear that the Chinese rulers do not hesitate in the use of brutal force, even against their own.

Two Hours, in the Time of Two Years

The official change of title into the National Taiwan Democracy Hall Memorial (臺灣民族記念館) was was announced by former President Chen Shui-Bian (陳水扁) on May 19, 2007.

At a separate setting on Sunday, May 20, Chen announced that the military guards (who perform a change of guard every two hours for tourists), were to be removed.

“As for the disposal of the statue, we can think about that. I heard that the doors of the hall can be locked up,” Chen said.

Chen accuses CKS and the KMT regime of serious violations of human rights and of oppressing democracy advocates during their half century rule which came to an end with his inauguration in 2000.

(Photo, courtesy of TAIPEI TIMES, by Lo Pei-Der) A policeman holds up a coat to cover the private parts of an old man who dropped his pants and shouted ''Chen Shui-Bian has no balls'' in protest on the renaming of CKS Memorial Hall to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall during a name change ceremony Saturday, May 19, 2007.

>>> Interesting Poll: Approval ratings between CKS and Chen Shui-Bian<<<

According to the Cultural Heritage Protection LawCultural Heritage Protection Law: a temporary historical site cannot be altered or damaged in any way.  Any made attempts to remove the statue from the hall would hold legal consequences, the committee entrusted by the department to review the cultural value of the hall, considers the statue as of the building’s structure, department director Lee Yong-Ping (李永萍) explains.

A member of the 908 Taiwan Republic Campaign Saturday, May 19, 2007 tries to pull the bars from a window in the wall surrounding the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall during an event the campaign called "Tear down the feudal wall and open up a democratic space.'' The event coincided with the ceremony changing the hall's name from CKS Memorial Hall.

At a news conference she called at the Legislative Yuan, the DPP Legislator, Lin Shu-Fen claims that the city government was using double standards to protect the outer wall of the CKS Memorial Hall, which is only 27 years old, while [they were] planning to tear down the wall around the Confucius Temple in Talungtung, which is nearly 200 years old; a plan which dates to when Ma Ying-Jeou was mayor.

Ma had agreed that the wall around the Confucius Temple should be torn down “to make it more approachable for the public,” Lin said.

Saturday, March 3, the (then) Taipei Mayor, Hau Lung-Bin reported to have planed the construction to tear the wall around CKS Memorial Hall, of which required the approval of the city government.

Lin Shu-Fen, Legislator to the DPP.

In a ceremony on Saturday, May 19, 2007, Lee protest that the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall did not exist because the legislation approved that the name-change was incomplete.

Placing banners to “publicize something that does not exist” may be illegal, she said, adding that the management office may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000 under the Cultural Heritage Protection Law.  The bannering she referred to was of the unveiling ceremony (held within the same day), of which two [huge] banners displayed wild lilies (as the symbol of the democracy hall) to cover either sides of the building.

Once the city government had caught up in the name change, their response since, had been consistent.

At a forum hosted by the Ketagalan Institute (website in traditional Chinese) in Taipei, DPP Secretary-General Lin Chia-Lung (林佳龍) debated that the name change was a simple matter of right or wrong, and a sign that the country had fully adopted democratization.

“If we want to walk down the road of democracy, we must face pain and accept the changes that come with it,” he said.

Blood, Sweat and Tears

It had taken two decades for Chiang Ching-Kuo (蔣經國) and Lee Teng-Hui (李登輝) in introducing a peaceful transition from martial law to pluralistic democracy of which protects human rights, and at last internationally celebrated upon the two-term rule of former President, Chen Shui-Bian (陳水扁).

(Photo, courtesy of Nationmaster) Side view shortly after the renaming ceremony.

In 2006, 37 DPP legislators approved the proposal in the relocation of the CKS’ memorial to his tomb in Cihhu, and to have the current structure be renamed Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.  They added in mentioning that the law authorizing a memorial for Chiang does not specify the site; a change in locale could thus be enacted by a simple executive order.

The proposal attracted support as another step in the direction of rectifying names and symbols, associated with Taiwan’s authoritarian past to make inclusive of the unique Taiwanese culture.  (Interesting fact:  The island has had a few names. “Republic of China” was only titled after 1947 by the ROC government, whom had lost in the battle of the Chinese Civil War.  Prior to 1947, the island had been referred to as Taiwan, and Formosa (prior to the Dutch invasion, however, the name is still continued in reference to the island throughout some countries in West Europe to this date).

In 2007 the Ministry of Education of the Executive Yuan (part of the executive branch of government led by the DPP) agreed in renaming the hall.  Support and resistance followed, mainly along party lines, materialized immediately.

The Memorial had been listed as a “third tier” landmark on the government’s list of protected heritage sites, however  the Executive Yuan had demoted it to a “fourth tier” landmark.  The name change, therefore fit within the laws which states that fourth-tier landmarks may be modified (by the Executive Yuan directly through Organic Reguations, rather than via Organic Acts which require the approval of Legislature).

The official ceremony occurred on Mary 19, 2007: the [then] President Chen unveiled a plaque in front of the memorial bearing the title, National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (Traditional Chinese: 國立台灣民主紀念館).

Chen announced that the change reflects the citizens’ desire “to bid goodbye to the old age and to show that we Taiwanese are all standing firmly behind the universal values of freedom, democracy and human rights.”

He noted that May 19, the date of the ceremony, marked the 58th anniversary of the imposition of martial law on Taiwan; an even which birthed the military rule over the island for 38 years.

Ten Minutes, Today

The honour guards have returned to the CKS Memorial Hall in Taipei to the warm welcome from the citizens Saturday, January 24, 2008. At 9:00 a.m. sharp, the gates opened, and revealed a head armed forces honor guard officer leading two honour guards from the army, and another two from the navy, marching before the statue of CKS.

(Photo, courtesy of the China Post) Huge crowds gather around the CKS Memorial Hall in Taipei to watch and take photos of honor guards changing shifts at an interval of one hour from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. everyday. Officials expect the return of the changing of the guard performance to lure back more tourists.

Sun Teh-Hsin, captain of the honor guard, proudly announced the routine of a 10-minute changing of the guard ceremony every hour between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily, which as well involves a flag-raising and flag-lowering ceremony at 6:30 a.m. and 5:10 p.m., respectively.

“Perhaps the honor guards were a bit nervous, so they quickened their pace a little and the ceremony was completed a few minutes earlier than usual,” Sun noted.

“But overall, the performance was good,” he went on, adding that it usually takes three months to train an honor guardsman.

Traditionally, all three branches of the armed forces served as honor guards for a mandatory four months.  A new arrangement has been compromised to three months, through the help of the Ministry of National Defense, witness the [three] forces take part in each performance.

The Ministry of Education, which oversees the facility, reports to have to spend NT$1 million to switch back the original plaque by the end of July, indirectly referring to Chiang’s name, located above the main gate, leading to the hall (was previously renamed to an epigraph that reads “Liberty Square“) on the main gateway will no longer be introduced.

A high-ranking military guard, performing during the ceremony at the CKS Memorial Hall.

Funny Fact: The area has once been a jail.

Zhengxu Wang

With Taipei claiming that Taiwan and Mainland China are two regions of one country, many Western observers are left puzzled about how Ma Ying-jeou’s government manages the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty.

The fact is Ma’s official stance on cross-Strait relationship remains unchanged. He has long maintained that his is a “Constitutional One-China” Principle (xianfa yizhong). That is, according to the Constitution that governs Taiwan, Taipei is the seat of the Republic of China (ROC), whose territory includes Taiwan as well as the Mainland of China.

Under this Constitution, Taiwan and its isles are the “Free Region” of the ROC, while the Mainland, the area under the People’s Republic of China (PRC), is the “Mainland Region” of the ROC.

Within this constitutional framework, Taiwan is a region of the ROC and so is the Mainland. Hence it can hardly be disputed that Taiwan and Mainland are two regions of one country.

The confusion arises only because many observers have a limited understanding of the term “China,” which they take to mean the People’s Republic of China. They therefore find it surprising that Ma claims Taiwan is a region of the ROC, and at the same time a part of the PRC.

more…

(Photo courtesy of FANG PIN-CHAO, Taipei Times, dated to March 13, 2004)
The event, which took place throughout the nation’s 25 cities and counties, climaxed when the alliance’s presidential candidate, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), made a dramatic gesture in Taipei and prostrated himself, kissing the ground alongside his wife Lien Fang-Yu (連方瑀) and KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-Cheng (林豐正) in front of the Presidential Office.

Lien said the move was meant to demonstrate his love for Taiwan.

Lien Chan has served as Chairman under the KMT from 2000 – 2005.

The name originated from Lien Heng (known for his writing, “The General History of Taiwan“)who, sick with liver cancer during his stay in Shanghai, wrote to his pregnant daughter-in-law (in Xi’an) :

“China and Japan will battle inevitably.  If the child born is a boy, name him Lien Chan, signifying that the strength coming from within oneself will never diminish and can overcome the enemies and be victorious.  It also has the meaning of reviving the former nation, reorganizing the light and hope of our homeland.” (『中、日必將一戰，如生男則名連戰，寓有自強不息，克敵制勝，有復興故國、重整家園光明希望。』)

Everyone is “on pins and needles” with the issue of the “Taiwan Strait,” no matter which side one is speaking from.  Lets look at the man who has been the head and Chairman of the Kuomintang (KMT) party for so many years, Lien Chan (連戰).  Believing that “Taiwan should seize the chance,” he says, “In such a situation, Taiwan would suffer a serious negative impact if it keeps a close mind.”  Before we dissect and look into what he’s said (the opportunity), lets first look at what got him there.

What environment and family did he come from?

How did he enter the KMT party?

What influence did he have as a Chairman?

List of the Chairman’s actions…

Environment:

Born in Xi’an, Shaanxi province, China as an only child to Lien Chen-Tung (連震東) and Chao Lan-K’un (趙蘭坤), he was not considered  member of the “Mainlander group in Taiwan” due to his Taiwanese familial roots.

Lien earned a Bachelor’s degree in political science (in 1957), and a Master of Arts in International Law and Diplomacy (in 1961) from National Taiwan University (NTU).  Continuing his education in the University of Chicago (where he received a Ph.D. in political science in 1965), married former Miss ROC (Taiwan), Fang Yui.

Returning to Taiwan in 1968 as a visiting professor of political science in NTU, he as well served as Chairman of the Political Science Department and Dean of the Graduate Institute of Political Science the following year.

Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) Honorary Chairman Lien Chan (R) delivers a speech as his wife Lien Fang-yu (C) applauds after an ancestor worship ceremony at Lien's Ancestral Hall at Maqi Village in Zhangzhou, a city in southeast China's Fujian Province on April 19, 2006. Lien's ancestors lived in Maqi Village and moved to Taiwan in 1628. Lien Chan and his family members worshipped ancestors at his hometown of Maqi Village.

The Father: His father, Lien Chen-Tung, bought their first piece of land in 1949, currently recognized as the site of the second hall of the Idee Department Store in Nan-Jing West Road, Taipei.  Documents prove that in the year prior to the land purchase, the KMT government had nationalized the property as early as 1950, having transferred over to Lien [father] in 1951.  This land, unfolded a series of scandals later on, which had been investigated by former Taipei mayor (at the time), Chen Shui-Bian (陳水扁).  Along to the property, the family had illegally purchased farming land, used for commerical purpouses.  In 1961, Lien [father] used the same method in purchasing another piece of land (within the same area), completing the land recategorization only five years later, in 1966.

The father is not alone in scandalous land-purchases, the oldest daughter, Lien Hui-Hsin (連惠心) was documented at the age of two having purchased (another) farmland in the Shih-Lin District in 1959 when Lien [father] was studying in the United States, later changed into building land in 1972.  According to the Agriculture Development Act (ADA, 農業發展條例), only the people who are able to cultivate the land are eligible to buy farming land was not passed until 1973, the previous Land Law (土地法), passed in 1930 held equivalent regulations on farmland purchases.

The calling to move back to Taiwan and family’s list of properties (shooting the family’s wealth into Taiwan’s 11th place), molded his fate into a political career.

(Photo courtesy of Xinhua) Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi (R) talks with Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) Honorary Chairman Lien Chan at a banquet in Xiamen, southeast China's Fujian Province, Oct. 18, 2006. Wu held the banquet Wednesday night in honor of the representatives of the Cross-strait Agricultural Cooperation Trade Fair.

Enter, the KMT:

The social and political climb started when he served as an Ambassador to El Salvador (1975 – 1976); to Minister of Communications and Transportation (in 1981 – 1987); then promoted as the position many remember him for, Vice Premier (in 1987 – 1988); to Foreign Minister (in 1988 – 1990); to a powerful and influential position as Governor of Taiwan Province (in 1990 – 1993) and finally appointed in 1993 as Premier of the Republic of China (ROC, or Taiwan).

Former President, *Lee Teng-Hui appointed Lien as Vice President in 1996 while retaining premiership.  Dual positions lead to an unpopular image among the people while opposition parties claimed that this action is in conflict with the Constitution, leading to a Council of Grand Justices decision ruling that Lien’s retention of these dual roles was “constitutional but inappropriate.”  Wisely following advice of the Council, he stepped down as Premier in 1997, but held his Vice Presidency status.

Lien was a Vice Chairman to the KMT party (1993 – 2000) and held membership to the Central Committee within equal time period (1984 – 2000).  His term as Vice President could not help boost his popularity and remained under the image as being arrogant, aloof and out of touch with the public.  This was the start of a trend, unrolling before himself down the years, even to present time.  His father, Lien Cheng-Tung, held position as the Interior Minister of the Taiwanese Agriculture Policy and through his influence, the family made further farmland purchase (throughout the 1950’s and 60’s), then illegally rezoning them.  Quoting a DPP Legislator, Tang Bi-A, “It is doubtful that Lien Chan and his father could accumulate billions in wealth for their family when both of them were government officials receiving limited salaries.”  The Lien family was already within Taiwan’s top wealthiest, recognized people.

Visiting Chairman of the Kuomintang (KMT) Party of China Lien Chan delivers a speech upon his arrival at the Beijing Capital International Airport Thursday April 28, 2005. Lien said it is the "common aspiration" of the people from both sides of the Taiwan Straits to build a peaceful and win-win future. (newsphoto)

Influence As A Chairman:

After KMT’s political defeat in 2000 with Chen Shui-Bian’s presidency, Lien assumed leadership in the KMT and in following, adopted a platform to erase the Lee effect from Taiwan and “Return to the Good Old Days,” a call to return to the rule of Chiang Ching-Kuo.  The party launched a support to eradicate Lee supporters, and held membership to drive to attack KMT loyalists.  This action followed a drop in membership as many of the former members as a compulsory act of conscripted military service never renewed.  Lien, now a Chairman, held forums in discussion of erasing the KMT’s image as a corrupt institution and promised to release property seized by the party following the Japanese exodus.

The forums changed the image of the KMTs forever: there is now a friendlier KMT party, one that would attempt to listen to the public voice.

Having returned properties to the government, the scandal still did not leave the hearts of the damaged.  People believed and criticized that Lien was freely submitting the land to local governments as a form of payoff in exchange for political support.  In the 44-member City Council, the KMT party holds the largest number of 11 seats, the DPP 9 seats, the TSU (Taiwan Solidarity Union) 5 seats, and the PFP (People First Party) 3 seats.  The other 16 seats are held by the Independents.

(Photo courtesy of daylife) Lien Chan (L) former chairman of the Kuomintang party (KMT) meets with Chinese President Hu Jintao at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on April, 29, 2008. Lien Chan flew to China on April 28 for a nine-day trip. Lien met Hu, the fourth meeting between the two since his historic trip to the mainland in 2005.

Actions That Speak Louder Than Words:

April 26, 2005, Lien Chan traveled back to China, meeting with the Communist Party of China (CPC) heavyweights, such as CPC leader, Hu Jin-Tao.  The meeting is recognized as the greatest level of exchange since Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Ze-Dong’s meting in Chong-Qing (August 28, 1945), in celebration of victory in the Second Sino-Japanese War and discussed a possible compromise in the [then] impending Chinese Civil War.  April 29th of the same year, Lien presented a speech at Beijing University and met with China’s President, Hu Jin-Tao, reaching the ever unforgettable “5-point Consensus, reaffirming that Taiwan is part of China and that the two parties would work together to ‘prevent Taiwan independence.’ “

In Peru, President Ma Ying-Jeou hand-selected Lien as a special envoy in representing Taiwan, participating as “Chinese Taipei” at the APEC in 2008.  With this status, he was able to make a second visit with Hu, known as the “highest level of official exchange betweent eh Mainland and Taiwan on the international stage.”

THE Talks on November 21, 2008 and Beyond…

On November 21, 2008, Hu Jin-Tao, general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and his wife Liu Yong-Qing met in Lima with Kuomintang (KMT) Honorary Chairman Lien Chan and his wife Lien Fang-Yu.

“You are our old friend and I am very glad to meet you again today,” President Hu said, directed to Lien. In the meeting, Hu spoke highly of Lien’s many contributions and efforts in the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations that KMT and China, together, have so long desired.

Hu, in noting the current cross-Strait ties, mentioned the registered sound development, and the four agreements having been signed by (China’s) Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) during its visit with the Taiwan-based Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF).  SEF is responsible for the newly direct shipping and flights, postal services and food safety, and for having brought substantial benefits to compatriots in either side of the Taiwan Straits.  Success of the visit indicates development of [cross-Strait] relations in turning over a new leaf and into an admirable perspective.  Hu adds that through enhancing exchanges and cooperation shall greater ignite the common aspiration and the general trend.

Hu calls the compatriots of both sides of the Strait are one family: It is within this crucial moment that both sides should embark on communication and through cooperate in trade and like economic cooperation, turn challenges into opportunities.

In delight of a rare second visit, Lien referred the current meeting as an indication of further development and growing cooperation and adds that the greater Taiwanese are excited and welcome the agreements.  He continues, agreeing with Hu: contributing to global economic growth should be successful with equal compliance.

What Lays Beyond ‘The Talks,’ the opportunity :

General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee Hu Jintao (R) holds a meeting with Lien Chan, Honorary Chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), on Tuesday afternoon in Beijing. (Photo, courtesy of Xinhua}

Hu, from a meeting in the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in central Beijing, he fondly recalls the original meeting with Lien that had taken place nearly four years ago: the first official summit between the CPC and the KMT in the past 60 years.  Hu called for resuming the talks on basis of the “1992 Consensus” as early as possible in resolving issues within a practical manner.

“The Chinese nationality will realize a bright future in its great rejuvenation, a common glory for the compatriots of the two banks,” said Hu, adding that by compatriots sharing the same fate, we all belong to the same big family of the Chinese nationality.

Having attended a Legislative Yuan committee meeting, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Francisco Ou was in high hopes of Taiwan’s intention to join the WHA or  the World Health Organization where he and Lien (representing President Ma Ying-Jeou) met at an Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) informal summit in Peru in late November 2008.  Since Ma’s Presidential inauguration and the historic discussion on the Taiwan Straight, the United States has been encouraging in relations, the U.N. is one step closer to recognizing the ROC, and China offered their historical first offering to Taiwan: Pandas.

(Photo courtesy of China Newsphoto/Reuters/Corbis) Lien Chan, the honorary chairman of the Taiwanese KMT party, and his wife visit a panda research centre during a tour of mainland China in October. China offered a pair of pandas as a gift to Taiwan.

Lien asked if there were chances for Taiwan to join the U.N.-affiliated organization, the Foreign Minister complimented Lien as “persuasive” and have since, been on friendly terms with the Chinese president.  Ou states that Taiwan has a 60% of chance in succeeding, particularly in view of a long period of preparations the people have have before the WHA convenes in May (of this year).

“People on both sides of the Taiwan Straits are pleased with the mainland’s decision to donate a pair of pandas to Taiwan compatriots,” Lien said soon after the annoucement by Chen Yun-Lin, director of the Taiwan Work Office of CPC Central Committee and the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council.

(photo courtesy of AsiaNews) China-Taiwan dialogue resumes: trade and tourism to avert crisis.

Globalizing through China:

Thanking on behalf of Taiwan, Lien addressed, “People on both sides of the Taiwan Straits are pleased with the mainland’s decision to donate a pair of pandas to Taiwan compatriots.”

Lien as well welcomed China’s decision in expanding the access of Taiwan’s agriculture to 18 species – from the current 12, and exempting tariff on (minimum) 10 species of Taiwan fruits.  This is of great significance to the farmers and agriculture industry, in Central and Southern Taiwan.  Since the decision to allow straight flights, sightseeing tours is another “epoch-making” movement for the both sides: the welcoming of Mainland Chinese tourists to the island.

“We all witnessed how tourists from the mainland have helped boost the economic recovery in Hong Kong after the travel go-aheadwas given years ago.” comments Lien on the subject of Chinese tourism in Taiwan,  “Almost all the world’s major countries have placed great importance on the mainland, viewing it as an important place to improve competitiveness and expand markets.”

“In such a situation, Taiwan would suffer a serious negative impact if it keeps a closed mind,” he said, adding that now is a crucial time to “seize the market and business opportunities, and a way out” on China.

A recommended read, from the Institute for National Policy Research, titled: A New Beginning for Taiwan-China Relations?

January 17, 2009 by scholars and writers from the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia.

Special guest of Home party; lawyer Wang Ching-Feng (王清峰). Home party is founded by leaders of Reds (November 25, 2007) to continue on "anti-corruption and depose-Chen" movement from street into government system. Their first mission is to nominate the candidates for legislative election 2008... Official website of Home Party (紅黨成立酒會)

Letter addressed from Wang…

Letter addressed to Wang…

Dear President Ma,

We the undersigned, scholars and writers from the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia, consider ourselves long-time supporters of a democratic Taiwan. We write to express our concern regarding the erosion of the judicial system in Taiwan during the past few months.

On two previous occasions we have publicly expressed our concerns to Justice Minister Wang Ching-Feng, but the Minister’s responses are troubling in their persistent failure to acknowledge that there even is a problem, and in their attitude of denial that the judicial process is flawed and partial. We trust that our raising our concerns with you as President will be treated as advice from international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation.

First we may mention the fact that your administration has not yet acted upon recommendations – made both by Freedom House and Amnesty International – to conduct an independent inquiry into the events surrounding the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yun-Lin, and in particular the police behavior and infringements on basic freedoms.  The establishment of a scrupulously neutral commission is essential if there is to be a fair and objective conclusion on the disturbances that occurred during the Chen Yunlin visit.

Second, we are concerned about the legal proceedings in the case of former President Chen Shui-Bian. The switch of the case from a three-panel court that released him on his own cognizance on December 13th to a court that subsequently re-incarcerated him on December 25th – both Christmas Day and Constitution Day – seems to have resulted from political pressure from KMT members of the Legislative Yuan. In his commentary in the South China Morning Post of January 8th 2009, Prof. Jerome Cohen presented details of such political interference in the judicial system, while the Associated Press on January 4th also gave incisive insights in the process that took place.

Third, we are deeply concerned by the widespread pattern of leaks to the media regarding ongoing cases – leaks, which because of their content and nature can only have come from the prosecutors’ offices.  As was reported by the Associated Press on January 4th 2009, prominent observers in Taiwan such as Prof. Wang Yeh-Lih of National Taiwan University charge that these leaks come from prosecutors, who “consistently violated the principle of guarding the details of investigations during the Chen case.”  This pattern of behaviour displays a distinct bias in the judicial system and a disregard for fair and impartial processes.

The lack of attention to professional judicial standards reached a new low with the skit by several prosecutors who satirized those whom they are prosecuting.  We are disturbed by Minister Wang’s defending this as “just for fun.”  Press agencies quote the Minister as saying: “It was just a play to help everybody relax.  There’s no reason to take it too seriously.”  In our view the actions by the prosecutors and the comment by Minister Wang display a lack of judicial professionalism and political neutrality.

We reiterate that any cases of alleged corruption must be investigated, and that if the defendants are found guilty in a scrupulously impartial process, they should receive just punishment after trial.  We thus emphasize that the political neutrality of the judicial system is a fundamental element in a democracy.  The examples mentioned above indicate that the investigative process has been conducted and sensationalized to the extent that both the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence have been seriously jeopardized.  Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.

In addition to the harm done to the personas of those accused, the international image of Taiwan has suffered.  A president of a country bears political responsibility for the conduct of his subordinates’ actions, and we therefore urge immediate and decisive action to correct the severe flaws in the process that are staining the national honor, perhaps irreparably.

Taiwan’s judicial system must be not only above suspicion but even above the appearance of suspicion of partiality and political bias.  We appeal to you, Mr. President, to restore the credibility of the judicial system in Taiwan and ensure that your government and its judiciary and parliamentary institutions safeguard the full democracy, human rights and freedom of expression, for which the Taiwanese people have worked so hard during the past two decades.

A protester waves a flag with characters for "Taiwan" against the policy of "Leaned Down to China and Betray Taiwan" to Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou in front of President Office, Saturday, Aug. 9, 2008, in Taipei, Taiwan. Protesters worry Ma will exchange the "Peace Agreement" with China by Taiwan's paramountcy and make Taiwan blank out of the world.

And then, there’s more…

January 10, 2009 by Liao Ji-Bin. founder of the 228 Association (reference to February 27, 1947 massacre).

“… the Investigation Office of the Taiwan Branch of the Chinese KMT Party (中國國民黨台灣省黨部的調查室) supplied the book of lists and systematically butchered the cream of society of Taiwan. They put judges, prosecutors, lawyers, doctors, teachers, pastors, painters, national assemblymen, senators, newsmen and the like on the blacklist, which was not a single page but was a book of many pages. Since it was unlikely to investigate these many people in 10 days, this proved that the Chinese KMT Party had already acquired the list of the would-be killed. Once Chiang Kai-Shek’s supporting forces showed up, they asked the Garrison Command to take this chance to eradicate these innocent elite of Taiwan. It goes without saying that the Chinese KMT was the mastermind for slaying Taiwan’s elite in the 228 Massacre.“

Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (2nd L) gives a speech while Hsieh's wife, Yu Fang-chin (L), vice presidential candidate Su Tseng-chang (2nd R) and Su's wife, Chan Hsiu-ling (R), listen during a rally to commemorate victims in the 228 event in Taipei February 28, 2008. Thousands of people were killed when Nationalist troops crushed an island wide riot on February 28, 1947, an event known as "228" in Taiwan. The Chinese characters read, "Pray for Taiwan. Love and Peace."

-February 15, 2006 by Lung Ying-Tai, in same reference (as above),
in a letter to Chinese envoy, Hu Jin-Tao (a recommended must-read).

“24 January 2006 thus marks the day when this one remaining throat has been cut.  And before the editors and staff of Freezing Point were informed of the execution of the “throat-cutting“, all words and phrases connected to Freezing Point were already erased from the internet.  Not one trace left.”

 

Former Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian (3rd R) and Vice President Annette Lu (2nd R) pose photo with victim’s relatives in front of monument of the 228-incident in Taipei on March 27, 2008.  The 228 incident was an anti government uprising on February 28, 1947 ( 2-28 ) that was crushed by the KMT government, which resulted in may civilian deaths.  Taiwan’s outgoing President Chen Shui-bian inaugurated a monument in memory of the thousands of people killed or prosecuted under the former authoritarian Kuomintang (KMT) government in this period of suppression.  Taiwan’s outgoing President Chen Shui-bian inaugurated a monument in memory of the thousands of people killed or prosecuted under the former authoritarian Kuomintang (KMT) government.

November 20, 2008 on detention and attack against citizens.

“According to the information received, since November 3rd, 2008, the city of Taipei has been heavily occupied by more than 7,000 police officers.  The authorities have taken many drastic measures, including: confiscating and damaging property, harassing and assaulting people who came too close to undefined or vaguely defined areas, clearing communal highway lanes with force, conducting random searches and arrests, and restricting the freedom of movement of citizens…

“… we fear these aggressions in fact aim at suppressing the right to freedom of expression of citizens.  To supplement this violence, there are also unprecedented restrictions which clearly overpass the limits of ensuring security…

“… seem to be aimed at silencing political opinions rather than protecting security, and thus they blatantly violate the Constitution of Taiwan, notably Articles 11 and 14 which protect freedom of expression and international human rights standards.”  (Taiwan version)

(Footnote: the extremeness of these actions…

“Only if flagpoles are seen as weapons or if flags are used to attack other people may the police take action against them, the observers said. After police on Monday forcibly kept people holding balloons from coming close to the conference venue or police exclusion lines, legal observers said that balloons could not be forbidden unless they have dangerous items attached to them or pose some other kind of real threat.”)

November 25, 2008 by Jerome F. Keating on the abuse of rights.

“Those who perpetrated these violations, particularly in the National Police Agency and National Security Bureau, must be held accountable, in accordance with Article 24 of the Constitution of Taiwan, which stipulates that ‘Any public employee who, in violation of law, infringes upon the freedom or right of any person shall, in addition to being subject to disciplinary punishment in accordance with law, be liable to criminal and civil action. The victim may, in accordance with law, claim damages from the State for any injury sustained there from.’

“… FIDH calls upon the government to amend the Parade and Assembly Law, in particular:  to abolish the requirement for mandatory permits and adopt the system of voluntary basis and the clause on special area of restriction, which gives too much discretion to the authority to restrict people’s freedom of association and freedom of expression.  In addition the authorities should abolish the order to dismiss as well as the provisions on special criminal punishment, which is a legacy of the martial law era.”

(Footnote by yours truly: Latest article [Wednesday, Jan 07, 2009] on martial law is titled, “Taiwan: Falling into China’s Orbit?“)

March 31, 2008 titled as “Taiwan: Voices after Presidential Election” (sections translated).

“This time a mainlander born outside Taiwan can be accepted by the majority who are identified with the local.  In this vein, we can expect in the future, a ‘new Taiwanese‘ or ‘aborigine‘ becoming our leader.  We can also start to reflect upon the existence of ‘ethnic consciousness’, whether such awareness is necessary.  We can say no to the divide, threat and agitation created by politicians.

“Finally KMT takes the political power back.  Mr. Ma has accomplished the dream of being a complete politician with ruling power.  Now we can examine if KMT can…”

(Footnote: A website dedicated to the “New Taiwanese,” entitled, ” ‘New Taiwanese’ Unnecessary to Argue Over Who is Taiwanese and Who is Not“)

Inset: DPP deputy caucus whip Chiu Yi-Ying lies on the ground after being felled by President Ma Ying-Jeou’s bodyguards yesterday. Main picture: Ma walked away from Chiu after she said she hoped he could do a better job protecting Taiwan’s sovereignty. Chiu then shouted at Ma, asking him why he was bullying Taiwanese and was pushed to the ground. (PHOTO: KE SZ-CHI, TAIPEI TIMES)

In a blog titled, Many Faces of Ma Ying-Jeou: There were only about 700 Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan between 2004 and 2007.  The estimation now exceeds 1,000.

“]

Chen Chih-Chung, son of former Taiwan leader Chen Shui-Bian, and his wife Huang Jui-Ching walk into the prosecutor's office in Taipei on November 14, 2008. [Agencies

(Click through there to view a video: Monday, August 25, 2008 edition of Talking Show (大話新聞) has video of Chen Shui-Bian’s son and daughter-in-law returning to Taiwan, facing the media, and showing up for interrogation.  Host Cheng Hung-Yi (鄭弘儀) and panelist Ho Po-Wen (何博文) discuss the media’s fabrications.)

A personal recommendation on a video, here.

Compliance:

Chen Shui-Bian’s very own son, Chen Chih-Chung (陳致中) and daughter-in-law, Huang Jui-Ching (黃睿靚) have agreed to wire the amount of NTD $570 million, back to Taiwan!  Chen is currently held in prison over money laundry in millions of NT during his presidential term, the suspects are reported to be Chen (father always takes the blame for the family), his wife Wu, the son and daughter-in-law.

It seems that the family has finally caved under the prolonged harassments, media pressure and Chen’s indictment.  Not to mention to feeling of betrayal among the DPP supporters.  The last agreement follows the couple’s stated willingness to return another USD $21 million in funds (as well deposited within Swiss bank accounts), the very funds that prosecutors are alleged to believe to be connected to the family’s money laundering activities.

According to the sources within Special Investigation Division under the Supreme Prosecutors Office, the couple identified the flow of NTD $570 million in a deposition on December 18, 2008.  The funds have not been frozen by Swiss authorities, despite the ongoing investigation, and may be kickbacks from Taiwanese businessmen for preferential government treatment for their companies.  In defense, the former first family insists that the funds it funneled abroad were political campaign contributions.

Theorizing:

(photo dated to Friday, August 15, 2008) Peter Wang, convener of the ‘‘908 Taiwan Nation Movement,’’ breaks a statue of former president Chen Shui-bian at a press conference. Wang said he was angry and disappointed with Chen for his inaccurate reporting of election campaign funds and for the funds’ transfer to overseas bank accounts. PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES

(About Petere Wang: “Peter Wang (王獻極), organizer of the annual rally and convener of “the 908 Taiwan Nation Movement,” said Taiwan needs to abolish the ROC Constitution, terminate the ROC system of government, write a new constitution for the Taiwan Republic and implement a new Taiwan Republic system of government.

Wang also criticized President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-China polices, which he claimed risked selling out Taiwan.”)

Does this, “funds for political campaign” make it any more right?  Returning it to Taiwan’s government, what would it mean…??

Simply put: stealing money from the former first family and using it as an action in confession to the alleged crime.  Wait…  Say this is all true, is anyone willing to say that according to this theory, Chen is in jail over presumptions??  That it truly is, politically motivated??

Lets go on with this theory and review what the prosecutors have to say:

The prosecutors declined to confirm whether Chen and Huang have signed authorization letters allowing them to scrutinize their Swiss bank accounts and have the money returned.

The couple indicated that there are “willing to discuss a plea bargain“ and have the USD $21 million (the only amount reported to have been forzen by Swiss authorities) returned to Taiwan.  So it is confirmed: KMT have devised their plan well and their own prosecutors outweight the rights privlidged to the former first family.

What is political freedom?

It is being re-defined due to recent activities with the past week.  How is the former first family fighting?  It doesn’t seem like anyone is willing to fight back except Chen, with the pupblication of his book: a release of his inner-most thoughts, experiences and raw emotions.  How dangerous is this for politics?  Very.  No politician has ever been so raw and spoken as Chen Shui-Bian.

So what is going on with the former first lady?  The Taipei District Court will subpoena the former president’s wife, Wu Shu-Jen (吳淑珍) on February 10 – 11, 2009, in start of a series of pretrial hearings.  It seems like an elliptical race: no end and no beginning, the only way to pause is to stop.  Refer to Newton’s law of motion.  It’s a rat-race unfolding before our eyes.

One may ask the most important question in this case: What was the money originally used for?  According to the prosecutors, they were bribes in connection with a land procurement deal and in helping a contractor win the tender for a government construction project.

With this thought, lets review.  If it was money taken from the government – with intention to use it (give back to) in the government, how is it “theft” or considered as “money laundering?”

In an article dated back to July 01, 2006 from taipeitimes, already explains the situation:

(Photo dated for Friday, June 31, 2006) Reporters surround the first family's doctor, Huang Fang-yen, as he walks into the Taipei office of the Bureau of Investigation. PHOTO: FANG PIN-CHAO, TAIPEI TIMES

The first lady has been accused of intervening in a Sogo acquisition deal and improperly accepting Sogo gift vouchers.

Huang Fang-Yen (黃芳彥), [Chen's family doctor and] deputy superintendent of the ShinKong Hospital in Taipei, was allegedly the middleman who accepted and delivered the gift vouchers to Wu from interested businessmen.

The gift vouchers were allegedly worth around NTD $6 million (USD $185,000).

Huang allegedly dined with the head of My Humble House Group Tsai Chen-Yang (蔡辰洋), the former chief of Waterland Financial Holding Co. Walter Lin (林華德) and Taiwan Financial Asset Service Corp. chairman Hung San-Hsiung (洪三雄) in 2002 September to discuss the Sogo deal.

In February 2003, Huang is said to have dined with Far Eastern Group chairman Douglas Hsu (徐旭東), Pacific Distribution Investment Co. chairman Lee Heng-Lung (李恆隆), Walter Lin, and former Presidential Office deputy secretary-general Chen Che-Nan (陳哲男).

Hsu acquired ownership of Sogo in 2004.

The allegations against Wu have been denied by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who has said he would resign if any member of the first family had improperly accepted vouchers.

In his televised address to the nation last Thursday Chen reiterated that his wife had never directly accepted Sogo gift vouchers from Lee Heng-lung, former chief of the Pacific Group, Chang Min-Chiang (章民強) or Hsu.

To view the list, by the KMT party, of DPP’s government scandals, you may view them through this link as a PDF document.

Supporters of former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian shout slogans during a night rally in Taipei November 22, 2008. Around 1,000 supporters protested on Saturday against Chen's arrest, which they called a political plot. A probe into the ex-president's suspected role in several money-related crimes will be finished by year end, possibly leading to an indictment, a special prosecutor's spokesman said. The banner reads "Political prosecution, return my innocence, the judiciary is dead, the country mourns".

History that’s almost too unbelievable to be true, almost as if it’s a story come-alive from a novel.  Ma Ying-Jeou (馬英九) and the KMT party appear to find endless accusations, filing one after the other, against former President, Chen Shui-Bian (陳水扁).  As a prisoner, number 2630 with only one cell-mate, Chen’s faith is ever as strong, however feels as if there is no end in site.

Monday, January 19, public prosecutors filed two additional charges against Chen at a pretrial session for his case at the Taipei District Court.  What new charges could they be based on?  Nothing new apparently: additional counts of “extorting property and demanding forcibly through influence” and “profiteering in a non-authority status” in a bribery case surrounding a Lungtan land procurement deal in 2004.  But wait, doesn’t this sound familiar?  Doesn’t it sound like past KMT actions reported by the people, only to be hushed later through bribery and political intimidation?

Forbes.com: Taiwan's Richest, #19, Leslie Koo

Well, according to the prosecutors, Chen pushed for the government’s purchase of the land for the construction of a science park by taking advantage of his presidency, once after the First Lady, Wu Shu-Jen, accepted bribes from Taiwan Cement chairman, Leslie Koo, in TaoYuan County of northern Taiwan.  The estimated amount is stated to be NTD $300 million (USD $8.9 million) from bribes within the deal back in December, 2008.

In searching for past articles on KMT’s harassment, threats, acts of political intimidation and bribery reported by farmers, landowners and other citizens – somehow disappeared from search – just when it was available prior to January 2008.  I can remember one such article from etaiwannews.com, a local farmer in Central Taiwan reported to the local news how the KMT party came to ask him to voluntarily sign-over the land to the party.  When he refused, the visitors resulted to diplomatic actions, held the farmer at knife-point, it was an offer he could not refuse.  After reporting it to officials, the case never developed since he signed-over “voluntarily” to the KMT representatives…

Chen’s three lawyers described the pile of charges as “salt on his wound,” arguing that during his 17 years of service as a lawyer, had never seen such an addition of new charges to an indictment.

“If such a thing were true, I could not die in peace,” Chen comments on the bribery accusations, in a court proceeding.

Chen Shui-Bian is seen Monday stepping-out of a detention centre in Taipei.

Chen Shui-bian pleads, “not guilty,” to the recent charges (receiving bribes in a land deal).  He appeared at a Taipei court for a pre-trial hearing on graft charges, which he believes to be politically motivated.  The 58-year-old Chen admits to his wife having transferred $20 million abroad without his knowledge  also well admitted to the case of submitting bogus expense forms, however the amount was strictly used for and labeled as “secret diplomatic missions“.

Quoting from a report by taipeitimes.com,

“Why did they need to add these two charges?  It is because they know that the initial charges were too weak to convict me,” Chen said.  “For the Lungtan case, I was actually trying to help boost the nation’s economy.  How can that be called corruption?”

“No [other defendants] have ever named me as bribe recipient and I don’t know why I was charged with taking bribes,” he told the court.

The session, heard by Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-Hsun (蔡守訓) and judges Hsu Chien-Hui (徐千惠) and Wu Ding-Ya (吳定亞), began at 9:30am (footnote by yours truly: court began at 9:-30 am today, simultaneous to the publication release of his book.)

The Beginning:

A man buys copies of former president Chen Shui-bian’s new book at a bookstore in Taipei yesterday next to a sign that carries the cover of the book. (PHOTO courtesy of AFP, dated to Monday, January 19, 2009.)

One of the first cases to be charged against the former President is of him having stolen selected “top secret” files from the Presidential Office.  All files within the office are handed done from one president to the next, including those classified as official, confidential, top-secret, etc.  Removing any file or document is considered a federal offense.  It was believed that Chen had taken the reported files, as to protect Taiwan from Ma after his inauguration.  When brought into hearing, Chen defended that due to the confidentiality of the documents, they cannot be presented or discussed in court.

Category five did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Presidential Office.  Presidential Office Secretary-General Chan Chun-Po (詹春柏) remarked.  The Chen administration defended that the documents, pertaining to six diplomatic missions, were classified material under the protection of the “Classified National Security Information Protection Act (國家機密保護法)” and that prosecutors nor court should not be allowed to see them.  In following, they asked the Presidential Office to voluntarily declassify the documents so the trial may resume.  Chen’s office, on August 06, 2008, issued a statement calling Ma’s actions “illegal” and “unconstitutional.”

DPP Legislator, Gao Jyh-Peng (高志鵬), spoke in a press conference that Chen has been advised to file lawsuit against Ma, arguing that his decision would constitute an offense against national security.

He said the Council of Grand Justice’s Ruling No. 627 issued in June 2007: recognizes the president’s confidentiality privilege, and that given such a privilege, the president could determine whether a document should be kept confidential for national security or national interest concerns.

Since Chen’s approval in the permanent classification of the documents in reference to diplomatic secrets as confidential information, Ma would be violating the law and the Constitution by opening the documents, said Gao.

For now, the court date is set for February 24: if proven guilty, he may face a life sentence in prison.  13 others involved, includes: Chen’s wife, son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law.  The prosecutors added to the attention that Chen’s son holds a Swiss bank-account with $22 million, believed to be a colletction of illegal proceeds.

“Everybody wants to struggle upstream, Chen writes, but sometimes a person must make sacrifices in return for a bigger reward and sometimes a person messes up not because the person is stupid, but because he is too intelligent.  “

this would be the chance to listen to his last defence." “]”]

Review and Criticism:

In the book, “Taiwan’s Cross,” (the cover depicts a photo of the former President in handcuffs with fists in the air, exclaiming, “POLITICAL PERSECUTION, GO TAIWAN,” Chen questions former premier Frank Hsieh’s (謝長廷) presidential campaign strategy and insinuates that he [Hsieh] should be held solely responsible for the political defeat in 2008’s presidential election.

Of the chapters and sections within the book, one chapter “Striving Upstream,” stands out.  Chen writes a rare display of emotions compared to his reserved, but passionate image, that it was unfair for him to shoulder the responsibility as a whole for the party’s defeat in 2008’s presidential election.

Hsieh plans to invest more to help the elderly, children and disadvantaged groups. (Courtesy of Hsieh-Su campaign headquarters)

“The Democratic Progressive Party’s biggest opponent does not lie on the outside, President Ma or the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT),” says Chen through the words of his book, “… But it lies on the inside.  The party is not united and everybody has his or her own axe to grind.”

On the debate of Hsieh’s political campaign, Chen speaks of Ma’s green card status appearing to have been the Hsieh campaign’s sole issue.  Along with which in early February of 2008, Hsieh accused Ma of adopting “double standards,” stating that Ma, together with his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), talks about loyalty and clemency on TV, but treats people indicted for graft like convicted felons.

Many a passer-by would stop to hear for a brief moment before continuing on their way.  In Taipei City, not all citizens nor students may be able to speak Taiwanese, let alone understand it, as appose to Central or Southern Taiwan.

It was just “one bad show dragging on for too long.”  Supporters remember all too clearly the campaign season at the time, recollecting how the campaign seem to mainly stress the issue of independence, attaining membership in the United Nations, and the opposition’s political errs – all in Taiwanese.  Though the show of strength in Taiwanese identity and union seems to be a strength, the lack of speaking on other issues, failed.

After Thoughts:

I would like to conclude this article in an after thought with a piece from taipeitimes.com, in 2004.

Lee Tung-Hui said that Taiwanese should use three core principles in defining their relationship with China: first that Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China are two separate countries which do not belong to each other; second, the confirmation of “Taiwan First,” i.e., thinking from a nationalist perspective centered on the interests of Taiwan; third, counting China as a hostile country until it renounces its military threats against Taiwan.

Much of the discussion of the need for a new constitution centered on the lack of clarity about who should actually govern in Taiwan’s semi-presidential system.

“Taiwan is a political system neither led by the president nor by the Cabinet. The president cannot dismiss the legislature when the legislature is running amok and vice versa,” Lee Hung-Hsi said.

He said it was necessary to draft a new constitution because it was impossible to amend the current one.

“To have the Constitution amended, regulations require that the amendment has to be proposed by at least one fourth of the legislators, at least three-fourths of the legislators have to be present at the session and at least three-fourths of the legislators present at the session must support the amendment.  But with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) dominating the legislature, any amendment is destined to fail.  So we can only resort to making a new constitution,” he said.

Lee Hung-Hsi pointed out that the current Constitution was written in 1946 and promulgated in 1947 in China.  It reflected the needs of China, and it had nothing to do with Taiwan.  Taiwan needed a constitution of its own, he said.

“Someone has even been saying amending the Constitution would cause chaos in the country, but even China has amended its Constitution in the past and we didn’t see Chinese people running amok after that,” he said.

According to Chen Po-Chih (陳博志), chairman of Taiwan Thinktank, the KMT was trying to preserve the current Constitution to enable it to hold on to power at some level.

Lee Tung-Hui is as well known for being a splitist, as an article (September 2003) would depict.  A believer of Taiwan Independence moved and molded the nation into individuality and encouraged the reintroduction of the long-lost Taiwanese identity.

“In regards to national identity, Lee supported the Taiwanese localization movement, which prioritized anything Taiwanese and opposed anything Chinese.  Lee believed that Chinese and Taiwanese identities were completely incompatible.”   -Harvard International Review (HIR), “Crafting the Taiwanese“

Cast members of the film "Ballistic" Chang Hsiao-chuan (L) and Hu Ting-ting pose for photographers during a news conference in Taipei January 8, 2009. As Taiwan ex-president Chen Shui-bian waits behind bars for a graft trial after losing an appeal for release, a film about his controversial election eve shooting will debut on the island this week. The Hong Kong action movie "Ballistic" uses a fictional plot to revisit March 19, 2004, when incumbent Chen and his running mate Annette Lu were shot and slightly injured during a campaign rally in southern Taiwan. They won the race a day later.

January, 18th, Sunday in New York was a windy and freezing 14 degrees (Fahrenheit), former Vice President, Annette Lu visits the United States as a member of the Taiwanese delegation to January 20th inauguration of U.S. President-elect, Barack Obama.  Despite previous reports over unresolved disputes, the three joined in hands, in obligation to temporarily rest aside the rumors. Foreign Minister, Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊) left a comment on January 12 that he had originally hoped for one delegation, but differences of opinion lead a split into three.  The official delegation is led by Wang Jin-Ypng (王金平), along with two members of the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) and opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).  Wang was  previously head of Taiwan’s delegation group in George W. Bush’s inauguration of 2001.

Taiwan delegations to attend Obama’s inauguration arrived New York on Jan. 17(local time). Three delegation leaders shake hands to clear up reports about their disputes. Legislative Yuan President Wang Jin-pyng (center), DPP former vice president Annette Lu (left), KMT vice chairman John Chiang (right).

Another report states the viewing process: there was to be ten in all, all within the KMT ruling party with exception of former Vice President Lu.  In the process of group formation, DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-Wen (蔡英文) expressed her  discontent that three KMT chiefs were invited but none from the DPP (she has been most recently recognized for dismissing the financial probe as a ‘witch hunt‘).  The MOFA managed in conclusion to compromise in the ordeal and “handled with respect” to each party’s representative and the Legislative Yuan; however the DPP remains cautious.

According to the DPP party, MOFA’s Deputy-Minister, Andrew Hsia (夏立言) was documented as to once having discussed previously with Tsai in matters of ‘group member selection‘, reminding that one seat has been reserved, in list, for DPP’s recommendation.

Former Vice Premier Tsai Ing-wen won the race for chairperson of the Democratic Progressive Party May 18, 2008, garnering nearly 20% more votes than opponent, Koo Kwang-Ming. Tsai took over the position from Frank Hsieh May 21, becoming the first woman in history to lead the party.

In the meeting, when Tsai asked about KMT choices other than lawmakers, Hsia defended that the [KMT] selected three local chiefs (including Taipei City Mayor Hau Lung-Bin (郝龍斌); Taoyuan County Magistrate Eric Chu; and Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) – recognized for his 2007 speech, “To Culture a Pearl: The Visionary Growth of Taichung“), for their language skill and global perspective.

Tsai criticizes KMT’s arrogance in overlooking the opposition party, “There are DPP local heads who have great language skill as well.”

After lengthened discussions, the DPP party willfully chose Annette Lu as party delegate, among KMT’s Tainan City Mayor Hsu among local chiefs and Legislator Tsai from lawmakers.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - Inauguration Day: Swearing-in ceremony, Inaugural Parade, and official Inaugural Balls. The 2009 inaugural events are expected to draw record breaking crowds to Washington, DC. Washington Metro is gearing up for the events with increased hours and security. Broadcasting available live at 11:30 AM, EST. (photo dated to January, 2005)

Lu referred Obama, the US president-elect as “the king of the world” and was honored to have studied under the same university: Harvard University of Massachusetts.  Under his leadership, Lu is in hope for the order being restored world-wide, especially referring to the cross-strait relations, in developing in “a peaceful, stable, and normal direction.”

Relations between Taiwan and the US has soured over recent years, said KMT Vice Chairman John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), in hopes to bridge the bond as soon as possible.  The delegations are reported to depart from New York to Washington D.C. on January 19, one day prior to the inauguration.

Focusing on Annette Lu:

A file photo of former Vice President Annette Lu. Lu will be among the group members sent by Taiwan to attend US President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony, said the MOFA on January 3, 2009.

An evening newspaper is about to reach every subscriber in Taiwan or world wide with “wholesome mental fare.”  Sunday, January 18, Lu announces “YuShan (Mount Jade) Evening News” as the name and is currently in promotion, hoping to raise NTD $600 million (USD $18 million) and solicit at least 30,000 subscribers to help jump start the newspaper.

Head quarters for the paper will not been established until the first stage of fund raising has been completed, hopefully by the end of February with a launch of an on-line version.

According to Lu, with NTD $100,000; the investor will hold a shareholder status; NTD $10,000 will secure an honorary member status with a free three-year subscription; and USD $300 for overseas subscribers (three-year subscription).

Former Vice Premier Wu Rong-I (also known for his speech, “The Rise of China: Challenges and Opportunities“) is to serve in management position along with a tentaive staff of at least 90.  In a news conference, she says that the paper will serve as a launch pad for a “civic journalists’ movement” in Taiwan.  Lu recalls the severing of relations between Taiwan and the United States in 1979 and that the former DPP Chairman Huang Hsin-Chieh (in the same year) established the Formosa Magazine as an instrument for many changes in the island.  Formosa Magazine was created in influence to September 8, 1979’s “Mandarina Crown Hotel Incident (or KaohSiung Incident).”

Lu added that the proposed evening newspaper, available for sale at 3 p.m. daily, will focus on local and international politics, culture, science and technology, as well as on other events and values, to “help enrich, normalize and globalize Taiwan.” The paper will also run a “focus forum” on important daily events, she added.

Reflecting:

Photo taken November 11, 2008 shows former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian raising his hand with handcuffs at the prosecutor's office in Taipei. Taiwanese prosecutors on December 12, 2008 indicted former president Chen on corruption charges, a spokesman said. His wife, Wu Shu-Chen, and 12 others "were indicted on corruption, money laundering, embezzlement and document forgery charges," commented Chen Yun-Nan (director and spokesman of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office), in a press conference.

One would have to wonder however, if the publication of the paper has anything to do in relation with former president, Chen Shui-Bian’s book (published for public release officially today, and a book launch press conference scheduled for tomorrow: Tuesday, January 20, 2009), written during his custody, under the title of “Taiwan’s Cross” with the cover depicting the unforgettable photo of Chen raising his handcuffs in the air as being carried away from the prosecutors, into the Taipei Detention Centre in the past November, 2008.

The contents include his prison diaries, an autobiography, and detailed thoughts on Taiwan Independence.  A second book is to be published later this year, a memoir of 50 letters from prison to associated, prominent figures as DPP chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen and President Ma Ying-Jeou.

DPP lawmaker Lawrence Kao, a well recognized Chen supporter, described the book as “a memoir published too early.”

The release of this book should be popular among pro-Chen supporters as well as those who oppose the former president: contents of the book is recognized as the first time he has unveiled personal feelings on allegations of money laundering and corruption.

“Taiwan’s Cross” consists of two sections: “Long Live Taiwan” (five chapters, each representing a stage in his life including: rebirth after death, striving upstream, visions, persistence on principles and Taiwan independence) and “Prison Conversation” (a diary kept during pre-trial detention in a two month period [November to December, 2008] and of his current imprisonment).

Chen inscribed 3,000 words with a five ballpoint pen and 100 pages of A4 paper – within a 32-day pre-trial incarceration, of the amazing and much publicized, 13-day hunger strike.

Will Lu have the same amount of determination?

I would like to conclude this post with a quote from a government website, of a questioning taken at a daily briefing in Washington D.C. on July 31, 2003.

Taiwan: Vice President Annette Lu Transit (Taken Question)

Question: Did the U.S. deny a visa for Taiwan Vice President Lu to transit through the U.S.?

Answer: No. Consistent with our longstanding policy, we have from time to time approved transits for Taiwan’s senior leaders, when they travel overseas, for their safety, comfort and convenience while respecting the dignity of the traveler. We will continue to do so.

We would have to refer you to the Taiwan authorities for information concerning any possible travel plans by Vice President Lu. We are not aware of any recent announcement by Taiwan regarding such plans.

QUESTION: Richard, there are reports that the Vice President of Taiwan was denied a stopover right in New York on the way somewhere else. Do you — are you aware of that, and is that really true?

*MR. BOUCHER: Not aware of that. I’ll see if there is anything we can say on whether or not there was a request for a visa, maybe not.

*Richard Boucher, Former Spokesman

Current Status:

Appointment Assistant Secretary,

Buerau of South and Central Asian Affairs

Term of Appointment:

Febrauary 21, 2006 to Present

Spokesman, Richard Boucher  “]

[Fomer

Three Taiwan groups, outraged by President Ma Ying-jeou’s comment last week that it was not a good time for the Dalai Lama to visit, plan to invite the exiled Tibetan leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Taiwan for religious purposes, reports said Tuesday.

Kaohsiung County Magistrate Ynag Chiu-hsing on Monday reportedly joined Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in welcoming the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan.

“The majority of Taiwanese support (the) Dalai (Lama)’s visit. We are studying the possibility of inviting world religious leaders, including (the) Dalai (Lama), to attend an inter-faith religious exchange activity which may be called ‘religious United Nations,” Chiu-hsing reportedly said at a meeting of the county government.

On Tuesday DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ying-wen also expressed her welcome to the Dalai Lama.

“The Dalai Lama is a courageous and respectful leader as well as a symbol of hope, freedom and human rights in Tibet. He has fought for the freedom of Tibet and raised world awareness and concerns about the difficulties and challenges facing Tibet today. He is a world-respected religious and political leader,” Tsai said in a statement.

“If the Dalai Lama thinks my invitation would be appropriate, it would be the pleasure of both myself and the DPP to invite him for a visit,” the statement said.

The DPP and the Kaohsiung county and Kaohsiung city governments’ invitations come after Ma said last week that it was not appropriate for Dalai to visit Taiwan at the present moment, apparently for fear that the spiritual leader’s visit would hurt the fast-improving Taipei-Beijing ties.

“Certainly the Dalai Lama visited Taiwan twice as a religious leader. We generally welcome religious leaders from all over the world to visit Taiwan, but I think at the current moment, the timing isn’t appropriate for that,” Ma said last week, when asked at a meeting with foreign correspondents in Taipei about the Tibetan leader’s apparent wish to visit the island for a third time.

The remark by the Beijing-friendly President Ma, who in the past welcomed the Dalai Lama to Taiwan, came as a shock to many Taiwanese people, including Buddhist and political groups.

The Dalai Lama made a historic first trip to Taiwan in March 1997 and visited the island again in 2001, triggering strong reaction from China.

Irked by Ma’s remark, Legislative Caucus of the pro-independence DPP, who forged closer ties with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile during their eight-year rule, which ended in May, said they would file a non-binding motion inviting the Tibetan leader. DPP also said Ma’s comments would only create misunderstandings about Taiwan overseas, as well as damage the island’s will to seek democracy and freedom.

“Apparently the decision was another indication of Ma bowing to Beijing’s pressure,” DPP spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang said in a statement last week.

“This again proves that he does not think about Taiwan’s sovereignty. We are suspicious that he is unable adequately to safeguard both Taiwan’s democracy and its sovereignty,” he said.

“I urge the Dalai Lama to drop the idea of visiting Taiwan, because Ma is a ‘puppet emperor’ for Beijing. As long as he is in office, the Dalai Lama cannot possibly be allowed to come here,” DPP parliamentarian Chiu Yi-ying said.

“President Ma rather has the special envoy of a country pointing 1,300 missiles at Taiwan come here than a Nobel Peace Prize winner,” said DPP lawmaker Huang Wei-cher, in a reference to the Nov. 3-7 visit to Taiwan by China’s top cross-straits negotiator Chen Yunlin.

DPP lawmakers contrasted Ma’s recent statements with his words before he took office last May, when he threatened a Taiwanese boycott of the Beijing Olympics over the repression of protests in Tibet.

Even parliamentary speaker Wang Jin-pyng – a senior member of the governing Kuomintang – suggested the president should think again on the issue. If the main emphasis of the Dalai Lama’s visit is on religion, there is no problem, the Kuomintang politician said.

The Presidential Office later retracted Ma’s comments.

“A visit by the Dalai Lama could still be arranged at a proper time in the future,” presidential spokesman Wang Yu-chi said.

Yu-chi said the government has always been concerned about the situation in Tibet and added that Taiwan never received any opinions about the matter from China.

By Zhengxu Wang

China’s top negotiator with Taiwan Chen Yunlin arrived in Taipei on November 3. The following day, a number of historical agreements were signed between the two sides, enabling much closer economic and cultural links between the mainland and Taiwan.

The visit by Chen, president of the semi-official Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), is the highest level by a Chinese official in 60 years. For sure, this visit will go down in cross-Straits history as a major breakthrough. The agreements reached during this visit marked an important step toward a peaceful and prosperous Taiwan Strait.

During the week Chen was on the island, Taiwan’s pro-independence forces staged several large-scale protests. One of their major arguments was that by receiving Chen’s delegation, Taiwan would lose sovereignty and dignity. They insisted for example that Chen cannot be received before he addressed Ma Ying-jeou as President.

more…

Die jungen Taiwaner werden spöttisch Strawberry Generation genannt. Weil die nach ca. 1980 Geborenen Taiwans Militärdiktatur nicht mehr bewusst erlebt haben, weil viele von Ihnen Freiheit und Wohlstand als selbstverständlich hinnehmen, und weil sie als so empfindliche Sensibelchen gelten wie… nun ja, Erdbeeren nun mal.

Was zur Zeit quer durch Taiwan passiert, könnte diesen Ruf zumindest teilweise ändern. Als Reaktion auf die Polizeigewalt gegen Demonstranten rund um den Besuch eines chinesischen Unterhändlers hat sich eine Studenbewegung geformt, die für Meinungsfreiheit und gegen staatliche Willkür auf die Straße geht. Sie tragen schwarz, um sich nicht vor den Karren von politischen Parteien spannen zu lassen, und sie nennen sich Wild Strawberries.

Es begann mit einer Sitzblockade vor dem Executive Yuan, also der Regierung. Mittlerweile harren sie in Taipeh vor der Chiang-Kai-Shek-Gedächtnishalle aus – dem Ort, der auch National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall heißt, an exakt der selben Stelle, an der im März Tibeter gegen die Niederschlagung der Unruhen in ihrem Land demonstrierten. Und an anderen Städten im Land passiert ähnliches.

Wie viele Studenten und Professoren sich beteiligen, ist unklar. Einige hundert sind es auf jeden Fall. Vielleicht schon einige tausend?

Dies ist offenbar das “offizielle” englischsprachige Blog der Bewegung. Eine Zusammenfassung ihrer Ziele auf deutsch (mit Fotos) steht hier. Es gibt auch Live-Feeds der Kundgebungen, Online-Petitionen und dergleichen mehr.

Die Studenten sind offenbar Realisten und klug genug, dass sich fürs Erste auf drei ganz konkrete Forderungen geeinigt haben:

• Präsident Ma und der Premierminister sollen für die Vorfälle um Entschuldigung bitten.
• Die Chefs von Polizei und Staatssicherheitsbehörde (was ist das denn?!) sollen zurücktreten.
• Das Versammlungsgesetz soll so geändert werden, dass Demonstrationen ohne vorherige Anmeldung möglich sind.

In diesem Blog schildert ein US-Taiwanesischer Student aus Taipei, wie er die Dinge erlebt. Und wie so oft lohnt sich ein Blick ins Blog von Michael Turton, der immer eifrig protokolliert, was wichtig ist.

Im größeren Kontext dazu ein gewohnt meinungsstarker Leitartikel in der Taipei Times mit dem Titel Ma is handing Taiwan to China:

“The Ma government is already taking orders from Beijing and its goal is to turn Taiwan into a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China by 2012, either legally or de facto. (…) How can the Taiwanese resist the KMT selling out of Taiwan? Any resistance movement should be nonviolent. (…) The methods include massive street demonstrations, boycott of pro-unification media and KMT owned businesses and peaceful non-cooperation with the Ma government.”

Werden die Studenten durchhalten, oder wird ihre Bewegung wieder verpuffen? Wird Präsident Ma sich entschuldigen, oder wird er die Diskussion aussitzen? Und wann berichten endlich westliche Medien über die Ereignisse?