On China, Republicans won't get out of their own way

I don't have a good cover photo tie-in so enjoy this one just because I like it.

Earlier this week, a few well-meaning people shared footage of Senator Tom Cotton grilling TikTok CEO Shou Chew on his nationality and ties to the Chinese government.

Chew is Singaporean, not Chinese -- at least, regardless of how he identifies culturally, he is not a citizen of the People's Republic of China. The clip made for good drama, and was delivered so unwittingly by Cotton to give his opponents fodder for calling Republicans Sinophobic, naive, and racist.

These commenters are not wrong. Tom Cotton sure does come across as racist in that clip, and frankly, his worldview is racist. Here he is in 2020 asserting that the "founding fathers" purposely put the nascent United States on a course to ending slavery -- a claim for which there is no evidence except someone's fever dream desire that the system they were born under and are proud of is also systemically racist. And in case it's not clear, "slavery was seen as a necessary evil", even if true (it's not true), is not good enough.
This pespective, for instance, is racist:  

 Cotton clearly states that he is pleased that American chattel slavery died long ago. But he also clearly states that he thinks this country was only made possible by importing non-consenting persons into forced and uncompensated labor, with all the attending horrors. 

 

I'm sorry, but no, the fate of enslaved people was not some sad inevitable necessity to build a 'great nation'. No nation founded on slavery which then defends that origin can be great, because their foundation is pure horror. It must be possible to build a nation without slavery. If we can't, maybe nations shouldn't exist. Slavery was bad but necessary is execrable excuse-mongering and Tom Cotton is a racist. It's no surprise, then, that he'd question an Asian man in the most racist possible way.

If you're a well-meaning liberal who is fine criticizing the United States (please continue, by the way, that place sucks) but desperately wants to view eery other country in the world through the most positive lens possible, it's easy to stop there. "Look at this Sinophobic racist," you can say, and you won't be wrong.

It makes it easy to say criticizing China is racist even though it's not true because, well, look at this racist opposing Beijing in the most racist possible way. Liberals and the left have ignorant adherents, just like the right. Perhaps they are fewer and less malicious, but they exist, and many of them seem hell-bent on turning "US bad" (true) into "other countries good, probably" (not true per se). It's often just contemporary Orientalism. China is far away and has a very different culture and thus it's Exotic and Exciting, and can't possibly be Run by a Brutal Genocidal Regime. They're primed to defend TikTok because it's Asian and Asian Things Good, but -- and I hate to tell you this -- not all Asian things are good. Groundbreaking, I know. This bothers me a lot, because when it comes to TikTok, the US government is not wholly wrong.

I personally won't use TikTok. In fact, after learning how malicious WeChat is, I won't use any Chinese app. TikTok has been accused of using similar malware. I would recommend nobody use any such app, but clearly the world doesn't listen to me. To their detriment! TikTok may be Singaporean, but its parent company is ByteDance, which is Chinese. In general, Chinese companies are beholden to the CCP for their continued existence. Nice company you got there, shame if something were to happen to it, that sort of thing.

You do what the government says, give them the data they demand, publish what they tell you. You never, ever criticize. Otherwise, you might end up in jail like Jimmy Lai or in what sure looks like exile -- like Jack Ma.

More specifically, ByteDance has an internal CCP committee. Most if not all Chinese "private" companies do. They've been accused of spying on Hong Kong protesters (almost certainly true) and their former head of engineering has said this:  

 

Yintao Yu, formerly head of engineering for ByteDance in the U.S., says those same people had access to U.S. user data, an accusation that the company denies.

Yu, who worked for the company in 2018, made the allegations in a recent filing for a wrongful dismissal case filed in May in the San Francisco Superior Court. In the documents submitted to the court he said ByteDance had a “superuser” credential — also known as a god credential — that enabled a special committee of Chinese Communist Party members stationed at the company to view all data collected by ByteDance including those of U.S. users.

 

Insiders also allege that TikTok is tightly controlled by ByteDance. This isn't a loose parent/subsidiary relationship. 

It's not just something alleged by a gaggle of racist senators, either. It's the subject of FBI investigations. Everyone from investigators to insiders agrees that data from US TikTok users is available to the CCP via ByteDance.

I don't know if TikTok should be banned necessarily, but I do support governments around the world insisting ByteDance divest itself of TikTok for it to keep operating in their country. This is something the Chinese government will most likely never do -- the whole point is CCP data harvesting and media influence -- which means the rest of the world has to force the issue. Which, to be honest, most countries probably won't do, as most lack the stones to stand up to Beijing. Before you come for me, by the way, I do think there's a difference between TikTok/ByteDance's data harvesting and Google's. Both are problematic, but Google isn't controlled internally by a US government committee insisting it turn over user data both domestically and internationally. Google has the power to collect such data, at least internationally, and the US government can request it, and that's very bad.

However, it is not the same as direct government involvement and frankly control of what sure seems to be a purpose-built data harvester and global media influencer. They're both bad, but one is a hell of a lot worse. Which brings me back to Tom Fucking Cotton. He didn't have to hand his opponents a ready-made Look At This Racist clip, but he did. He could have questioned Chew in a reasonable way, about real concerns, and maybe helped convince Americans that they should indeed be wary of TikTok. But he couldn't get out of his own way to do that. Republicans, in general, can't, even when they're not entirely wrong. It bothers me even more that Tom Fucking Cotton is a big supporter of Taiwan. Probably for the wrong reasons, but he is.

I understand that Taiwan needs to work with every party, and cultivate support wherever it can. It's not in a very good position vis-à-vis China, and doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing its allies. I used to be concerned that pro-Taiwan sentiment being associated with the American right was a problem, and frankly, that's still a worry. Now, however, I worry as well about rejecting any and all support that isn't perfectly aligned with our own values. This isn't just because Taiwan cannot afford to make support for its continued existence a polarizing or partisan issue. It's also because we don't all have the same values. Taiwan has leftists, but isn't a country chock full of them. Not every independence supporter is on the left! It has reactionaries, but again, they don't represent a consensus. Personally, I sympathize with the left but I'm not a communist (I'm nothing because ideology is for the dull, but if I were going to pick a leftist ideology that makes more sense, I suppose I'd be an anarchist, or at least anarchy-adjacent). Avowed conservative public figures who aren't quite Tom Fucking Cotton support Taiwan too. We're never going to all agree, and it sounds frankly very Leninist to try and force us to.

It will never stop bothering me that we have to deal with reactionaries, though. I vomit in my mouth a little every time the Heritage Foundation pops up in relation to Taiwan (hurk). I don't try to engage in more advocacy because I personally will not associate with people who think I, as a woman, do not deserve full human rights and bodily autonomy. But we do have to deal with them, which means that when it comes to Taiwan, Tom Fucking Cotton and all his crappy friends are sadly not going away for the time being. If Cotton can't even get out of his own way on an issue he's not totally wrong about, and stop being racist for the 2 minutes it would have taken to not ask Chew those stupid racist questions, it's very hard to trust him on Taiwan. If all he can see his (frankly correct) hatred for the CCP, then all he sees in Taiwan is a nation that stands in opposition to the CCP. Which it does, but Taiwan is so much more than that, too. We don't need people like him to approve of everything Taiwan does right, from national health insurance to marriage equality. Fortunately, he gets no say in Taiwan's domestic governance. But I can't help but wish he and other Republicans who are ostensible Taiwan supporters could deal with Beijing intelligently, and get out of their own way when trying to stand up to a brutal genocidal regime who is absolutely using fun little videos to harvest your data and oppress protesters. After all, they're not wrong about TikTok, and they're not wrong about Taiwan. Doing so, however, would require them to be less racist and I'm just not sure they can pull that off.

The Great Game Was A Great Idea

The face of every analyst if China invades Taiwan

 By Thadtaniel McDorpington III

The world has changed. Over the past decade, we have witnessed a distinct shift toward a renewed competition between the great powers. The bipolar struggle between the U.S. and China is the new Great Game of the 21st century. In fact, when it comes to Taiwan, the only two countries which matter are the U.S. and China: Taiwan is merely the piece of land they are fighting over.

In my previous work, I noted that the best way to ensure peace between the U.S. and China was for the U.S. to appease China. Expanding on that notion, the best way forward for averting war in East Asia is to treat it the way colonizing powers treated Central Asia in the 19th century -- that is, the Great Game. As we can see from Central Asia today, nothing bad resulted from that. Thus, it is an excellent framework to use in 2024 when discussing Taiwan. 

As today's rivalry over Taiwan is exclusively a Great Powers issue, I am unaware of whether Taiwan has people living on it or not. It is a place on a map whose strategic position is of interest to the U.S. but close to China, which has created a flashpoint. They also produce semiconductor chips there, but it is unclear who produces them. The U.S. needs those chips, but China wants to control their production, and that is the biggest dispute driving the issue. 

Taiwan must belong to someone, but debate rages regarding who exactly that is. The U.S.? China? Some other power or group of people as yet to be identified? The world may never know. 

Thus, if we wish for peace in East Asia, the most obvious solution is to work with China. As they are surely sincere negotiation partners who are open to a variety of outcomes, not just the outcome they demand, we must provide them with assurances. Perhaps we might even convince them that Taiwan could someday choose to be oppressed by them -- wouldn't that be something! 

And you never know: some people like the taste of hard leather. We should simply encourage those elements who prefer boots to be spit-cleaned for an outcome that is...well, not war exactly. Backing people whose end goal is dictatorship has never gone wrong.

All that really matters, after all, is avoiding war. Other concepts, like human rights and self-determination, are, shall we say, flexible. Besides, Taiwan is not a Great Power and therefore not inhabited by any humans worth speaking of, so who would even benefit from those human rights?

The best way to avoid war, of course, is to reassure Beijing that the U.S. will not fight one. As with Britain and Russia playing a rather violent chess game across Asia, China only wants Taiwan to spite the U.S. If the U.S. backs down, surely China will back down on Taiwan! Even if they don't, is it really in the U.S.'s interest to fight a war over some rocks? 

The logic is perfect: if China faces no opposition, from the U.S. or globally, on Taiwan, and is in fact assured that nobody outside Taiwan wishes to fight a war over it, China will realize that the path to conquering Taiwan is too easy, and thus not take it. 

If they do try to take it, then Taiwan, which may be a place where real people live, should defend itself. If it can't defend itself, then China should be allowed to annex it. What happens after that is nobody's business, and if there is a uprising in Taiwan that China has to put down violently through a series of genocides, we can register our shock by insisting we had no idea any of that would happen and how unfortunate it is, as we do nothing.

That's how international law and basic ethics are meant to work, and thus form the foundation of the Great Game. In some cases we even fund the genocides so they happen faster, but I do not specifically recommend it in this instance. Rather, inveighing against China after the fact while taking no specific action is sufficient for us to continue to believe we are good people with reasonable foresight.

Another option is to give Beijing everything else it wants in the hopes that it will be distracted from Taiwan. Surely they will not use our good-faith negotiation and offers of commodities and chip access to take more time building an ever-stronger military that they will use to conquer Taiwan regardless of all of the gifts we bestow upon them. There's certainly no precedent for that, nor any precedent of a country trying to control one of its smaller neighbors by interfering in its self-governance, calling resistance to that interference "separatism" and "color revolution", threatening to invade said neighbor, and then doing so. As that has never ever happened before, it definitely won't happen agai---I mean it won't happen.

It simply makes sense: tensions are raised over Taiwan. As nobody could possibly know who raised them, the U.S. must to everything in its power to keep China happy. Just as it is a well-known fact that respecting rules set by an abuser will undoubtedly cause the abuse to stop, we should respect all of China's red lines until we can figure out where these tensions come from. 

If the U.S. gives China everything it asks for and reassure them that we do not want a war, the situation over Taiwan may remain tense. That is acceptable, as I do not personally know anyone whom it would affect. In fact, I do not believe it would affect anyone at all, as it would not be a problem for the U.S. specifically. This is the normal way of things, and in the Great Game, Taiwan, which may not actually be inhabited, must accept that it will exist forever in a tense situation in which its neighbor threatens a violent annexation, and its possible allies equivocate on their support. 

Summer Flowers Dining Room

I don't do restaurant reviews often these days. This is partly a natural evolution of the blog, and partly because as a diabetic, I can no longer enjoy food in the same way. Chef Joseph, however, is an exception. His erstwhile Joseph Bistro was a favorite; fine food, creatively prepared at prices entirely reasonable vis-à-vis quality. It was one of our go-to restaurants for special celebrations and the occasional birthday. 

Joseph Bistro closed several months back. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say I was gutted: where else was I going to get my lamb scented with argan oil, my fish with lemon pickle or my stinky tofu curry? I'd also included it in a Taipei city guide I helped edit recently. I'd confirmed it was open, and then it closed. It'll be a long waiting game until I can rectify this, if I'm asked back for the next edition. 

Fortunately, Joseph isn't gone from the Taipei culinary scene. He's now heading up Summer Flowers Dining Room, a restaurant with fare so delicious I'm breaking my "I don't really do restaurant reviews anymore" rule to talk about it. (And perhaps I should revisit that stance in general. I get sick of politics sometimes.) 

Summer Flowers has also moved; it's in the Shinkong Mitsukoshi Diamond Towers near Zhongxiao Fuxing -- specifically, the one still under comstruction next to the green Sogo. To be honest, I prefer establishments with their own street entrance; in general I'll avoid going into most department stores if at all possible. This location is fine, however -- the elevator brings you to a floor with only restaurants. There are no noisy floors packed with slow-moving shoppers and terrible music. 

(As you can see, I may have been traumatized a few times by ATT4Fun. Now, I'd rather not go to a restaurant there than brave that hellhole. Diamond Towers isn't so instinctively horrible to me.) 

There is more than one chef at Summer Flowers, and the menu is a little different from Joseph Bistro. The appetizers include more traditional Indian fare -- they even have samosas and dahi puchka! A few staples remain; Joseph Bistro always backed up its more adventurous dishes with beautifully-made curries in the more traditional sense, including unusual choices with a stronger emphasis on southern Indian food than most Taipei restaurants with a connection to India.

It took us awhile to check out Summer Flowers due to both holiday obligations and illness, but then Brendan finished (and passed) his Master's program and we booked a table to celebrate. The vibe of Summer Flowers is a lot more modern, with lots of mood lighting accentuating reds and grays. A gallery of ornate mirrors adorns the long wall. Most tables are for two, and there's bar seating as well as at least one table for larger groups. 

We started with the chorizo-stuffed squid and fish polichatu -- grouper steamed in a leaf with coconut milk and spices in a Kerala style. Both were delicious; the flavors of the fish were more delicate, whereas the chorizo inside the perfectly-cooked squid was an absolute flavor explosion. I found myself rolling it around on my tongue to get as much flavor as possible before actually consuming it. 

Fish polichatu

Chorizo-stuffed squid

The portions are smaller (but the price accordingly a bit lower) than Joseph Bistro; instead of choosing two appetizers and two curries, we were recommended to choose three and left comfortably full. We went with the Sikkim Pork Ribs -- pork being a fairly rare meat to actually find in India. In fact, because my longest stretch of time there was living with a Tamil family who happened to be vegetarian, I didn't eat much meat at all. Occasionally I'd grab a plate of Chicken 65 for lunch when they weren't around, though. The ribs were exceptional; I can see why they're one of the most popular items. I've never been to Sikkim, which is in the extreme northeast; Calcutta is as close as I've gotten to that region, as well as the northern edge of Bangladesh. (Oh yeah, I've been to Bangladesh. There's not really a story there -- I had the opportunity to go and took it, and it was a memorable travel experience.) 

We paired all of this with half a bottle of Chablis chosen by Joseph himself. It was a perfect pairing; Indian food works well with light, slightly sweet whites. Nothing too dry, but also nothing too syrupy. Summer Flowers also offers beer and cocktails, the cocktails being India-inspired and a new venture for them (I don't recall any on the menu at the old bistro). I want to go back just for the lamb rack and a drink! 

The pork ribs are served with pickled bamboo and carrot, which set off the flavors perfectly. The meat falls right off the bone so it's easy to split between two people. 

Sikkim Pork Ribs

I'd be lying if I said we didn't eye the NT$1,800 "Nawab's Table" lamb rack. Joseph Bistro's argan oil-infused lamb is one of my greatest culinary memories, after all. But this was Brendan's celebratory dinner and he was leaning toward the pork. I did not regret this at all. 

We also ordered two curries with garlic naan: Rajasthan red lamb mas, which is the spiciest dish on the menu, and Udupi temple sambar, which is not. The lamb mas bills itself as cooked in whole garam masala, smoked red chili powder and shallot yoghurt curd, and did not disappoint. In fact, every dish on the menu had a good level of heat, without ever being overpowering or underwhelming. 

Rajasthan red lamb mas and Udupi temple sambar with garlic naan

The sambar took what is usually a side dish in southern India -- it's not a soup, you're meant to pour it over tiffin like idli, dosa and vadai -- and turned it into a dish in its own right. Big chunks of lamb, eggplant, potato and pumpkin bulk up what is usually a thin, spicy-sour breakfast accompaniment. (Or where I lived, all-day accompaniment. In Madurai, idli is not just for breakfast). I'm very picky about food from places in India I've actually been. If you serve me regular chicken curry and call it Chettinad chicken, I will hold a grudge (this is a real thing that happened. The blasphemy). I've been to Chettinad, don't play me. 

Well, I've also been to Udupi and the sambar did not disappoint. Was it exactly like what you'd get in Udupi? No, but it wasn't supposed to be! The final result of this creation was still a fantastic vegetarian option. 

Gulab jamun with kheer

I don't get to eat a lot of dessert these days, but my blood sugar has been stable and even in normal range recently, so I figured one treat night couldn't hurt. We chose the gulab jamun, which is like two desserts in one as it's served in a kheer (rice pudding) with casheews and pistachio powder. I love both kheer and gulab jamun, but let Brendan eat most of this. 

Our second dessert -- such decadence from someone who on a typical day stops herself at four squares of a chocolate bar if she has any dessert at all! -- was a Joseph Bistro classic back in the day: crusty spiced red wine apple with cinnamon cream. It's exactly what you want a very fancy apple tart to be. The apples are steamed in red wine and layered on crispy French pastry. Generous dollops of cinnamon cream melt into it for a truly perfect cold-weather dessert. 

Crusty red wine apple with cinnamon cream

The thing is, the red wine apple isn't some tiny fleck of dessert you might get at most fine dining establishments; it's a big honkin' dessert for two that we easily could have split without a second option. I'm happy we got to try the gulab jamun and kheer, but considering my blood sugar, we probably should have stuck with one choice. I'm not too bothered about it, though; we skipped cocktails and tea (masala chai truly has to be sweet). You know, for health. 

The bill came to an entirely reasonable NT$5000 (or very close to it). For a meal like that, to celebrate something special, it was money well spent. In fact, I cannot imagine getting a meal of this caliber in the US or any Western country for anything close to that price. 

All in all, don't wait. If you miss Joseph Bistro or even if you've never heard of it, don't sleep on this new restaurant. 

Five great things to read after the election

I spend so much time critiquing the media that sometimes, I like to point out pieces that are worth reading. The well-written (or spoken), thoughtful stuff that either makes you think, teaches you something, or elevates Taiwanese voices above the general din of foreign commentators. 

Not all of these are about the election specifically. Some are, but some are more about critical points and interesting ideas being made more accessible to international audiences, simply because more Taiwanese voices are slowly starting to be heard. 


A survey of Taiwanese history

First up is one I've already linked: Kathrin Hille's survey of Taiwan's history in the Financial Times. This is the article to give someone who doesn't know much about Taiwanese history, but would like to learn more. It gets a lot of little, often-overlooked details right without being overly long. For example, it's one of the only historical surveys clarifying both that the Qing, for most of their colonial reign, did not control all of Taiwan, and explores in some detail how 'not Chinese' Taiwan really became under Japanese colonial rule -- including in the minds of most Chinese leaders.

These crucial details are often overlooked in historical summaries of Taiwan, which tend to make it seem more tied to China than it ever really has been. It's engaging, readable and accurate. I honestly can't think of anything I'd fix. 

Why Taiwan's election matters -- for Taiwan, and for the ideals of democracy

Next, Michelle Kuo's excellent piece in The Guardian is well worth a read. I love this one because it centers everything Taiwan has gotten right. Essentially, that Taiwan may have its issues but the fundamentals are good. It also correctly positions Taiwanese democracy as something that grew out of the resistance movement to KMT dictatorship. That is, it came from the Tangwai, the fighters, the Taiwanese insisting on something better. 

Certainly, KMT supporters want to believe that they are the party of democratization, because it's easier to take comfort in that than to think about all the ways their party attempted to stop it from happening, and the leaders they take as role models were objectively bad people. (The one KMT leader who is actually owed some respect, Lee Teng-hui, is the one they kicked out of the party.)

Moving back to Taiwan

Next up is a fascinating listen-and-read from NPR on Taiwanese Americans who have chosen to move back to Taiwan. It addresses all sorts of topics, from how their families might feel about their choices, to the relative feeling of safety in Taiwan despite the geopolitical threats.

There's a lot here that expats who do not have Taiwanese heritage, like me, might not necessarily realize when it comes to Taiwanese Americans who make the move, and topics we probably wouldn't think to investigate on our own. 


Emily Y. Wu on CNN

After the election, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Emily Y. Wu on the election results and what they mean for Taiwan. I want to see more of this -- getting Taiwanese voices in the international media rather than bringing on some rando white guy commentator. Wu's answers were articulate and thoughtful, providing perspective on the results and why China's threats have not deterred Taiwanese voters. She does especially well in describing why, exactly, Taiwan is already an independent nation. 

I get so tired of "should Taiwan be independent" or "will Taiwan get independence" or "can we support Taiwan independence" as though Taiwan is not currently independent. If it isn't, who governs it? Someone other than the people of Taiwan? 

I was a little taken aback by Amanpour's seeming lack of preparation. She says Lai referred to Taiwan as "Republic of Taiwan, China", and then double-confirmed it. Of course, he did no such thing. He calls it exactly what President Tsai has always called it -- either Republic of China, Taiwan or Taiwan, Republic of China. Could you even imagine what would happen if a president of Taiwan switched the two names?

Amanpour also seemed to brain fart on President Tsai's name, but hey, we all have bad days. Regardless, Emily was insightful and worth listening to.

An election scholar's take on the results

Finally, there's Frozen Garlic's take on the election results. There's little here that I didn't already know, but Batto lays out a clear narrative of what happened, and what it might mean for the parties, the government and the nation going forward. He spends a lot of time discussing who might be speaker, what it could mean, and how much power the TPP now wields in the legislature (as well as what would happen if there were a battle over Lai's premier pick, and how that would affect the various parties -- especially the TPP). 

The only thing I'd add is that it would be interesting to see the DPP back the TPP's Huang Shan-shan as speaker. I'm not sure they will, and it would be unusual for the speaker to come from a party that holds only eight seats, but it might be a way to get the TPP to consider the DPP's agenda more favorably, rather than simply trying to convince the TPP to support the DPP pick for speaker. 

As a bonus, if you're interested in how the tiny parties did, there's Donovan Smith's take to read, as well. He spends less time on the speaker and premiership and more on how various parties' fortunes have risen and fallen.