The Chinese Nationalist Party
The KMT still think they rule all of China, including Taiwan, Mongolia, and Tibet. They somnambulate through their daily lives imagining that they won the presidential election last year. Today's Taipei Times reports that a "delegation" "of Chinese Nationalist Party heavyweights will travel to China to pay respects to Sun Yat-sen, and might even hold discussions in Beijing."

Yeah, right. The part about paying respects being the main purpose of their trip is an obvious cover, and I'm not fooled for one minute.

And under whose authority are they going to the capital of China? The self-declared "Emperor" (and KMT chairman) Lien Chan, of course! He first announced the plans on February 28 this year -- a date which most Taiwanese remember due to the events of February 28, 1947 which led to the murder of tens of thousands of Taiwanese citizens and the jailing of countless others simply for being Taiwanese.

Fifty-eight years later, I can understand why Taiwanese still hate Lien Chan and the KMT. The real question is: "Why do Lien Chan and the KMT still hate Taiwan so much?" Well, their name is still the "Nationalist Party of China."

The whole pan-blue alliance
Once again, the pan-blues have found the small bit of common ground on which they can cooperate these days: opposing Taiwan's defense budget, calling the arms procurement "unneeded." Even after the pan-greens reduced the proposed amount from NT$610 billion to NT$480 billion, the obstinate opposition pan-blues swallowed their pride and conspired to leave Taiwan defenseless in the immediate wake of China's so-called "anti-secession" law designed to legislate an arbitrary military invasion of Taiwan -- and this occurred on the same day that a "spy ship" was spotted off Taiwan's coast.

Why do the pan-blues hate Taiwan so much that they would leave it defenseless? Perhaps they enjoy masochistically kowtowing to their masters in Beijing?

The China Post and AFP
The editorial in today's China Post ("PRC law not all minuses") takes a "Life of Brian" approach to the "anti-secession" law.

One of the perceived "non-minuses" is this: " Throughout the anti-secession law, there is no mention that the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China."

WTF?! If I hold a gun to someone's head and don't actually say out loud that I'm going to kill that person, is this somehow "positive"? To be honest, I haven't read the entire text of the law [See UPDATE below], but I did see the part about using "non-peaceful means" whenever they see fit. I'd also bet that if the law had actually retracted the "sole legitimate government" crap, it'd be all over the news. In fact, the China Post printed this lie (via AFP) yesterday:

[ U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] reiterated that the U.S. maintains a "one China policy" that recognizes Beijing as the sole government of all China, including Taiwan...

First of all, to "reiterate" something means that you've said it previously. The truth (and you can Google it yourself in less than 2 minutes) is that:

In the [three U.S.-Chinese] communiques, the United States recognized that Beijing considers there is only one China, including Taiwan, but did not explicitly adopt that view as its own.

In a letter to the editor of the China Post late last night, I broke it down for them to make it easier to understand:

1) "Beijing considers there is only one China, including Taiwan."
2) The US "recognizes" that Beijing thinks this way.
3) The US "did not explicitly adopt that view as its own."

In fact, the inclusion of the words "Beijing considers" leaves the statement purposely open-ended. Nevertheless, it should be simple enough for the China Post editors, but I'm sure they'll continue to be purposely ignorant of such obvious facts.

Topping things off, today's editorial-of-denial comes to the conclusion that " Taiwan should enact a 'unification law,' not a provocative 'anti-annexation law,' to balance the anti-secession law..." Why are they calling Taiwan the "provocative" one, echoing the exact sentiments of Xinhua? Oh, never mind. Their name is The China Post, after all.

Why do the China Post (in Taiwan) editors and AFP hate Taiwan just as much as the state media in China does?

UPDATE: The English version of the "anti-secession" law of March 14, 2005 published in the People's Daily Online has this to say (Caveat lector: This is from an "official" translation via state media):

Article 2 There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means. [Emphasis mine]

Duh! If you know the PRC's definition of "one China," then you'd know that when they say the things I've indicated with bold text above that what they mean is that "the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China."

The law also contains these "mega-minuses":

Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, "We can attack your country, steal your land, replace your leaders, turn your lives upside down, and kill you whenever we decide to do so, and the 23 million people of Taiwan had better not even think about the word 'independence' or we might get really mad." Remember, China's precondition for any talks with Taiwan is the acceptance of their "one China" policy, which essentially amounts to a surrender by Taiwan.

Fuck that!

Go read the full text of the law for yourself. (It's only 788 words long.) [Big-5 Chinese version can be found here, or try a Babelfish discombobulation here.]