WA State Senatorial Candidates, Part 4: Schalk Leonard

Here is Schalk Leonard's response to my e-mail regarding candidates' stance on Taiwan:

Richard:

Thank you for writing.

I agree with you - Democracy is precious and must be protected.

I believe that the relationship between Taiwan and China must be resolved primarily by the two - through peaceful means which respect the voice of the people.

Sincerely, Schalk Leonard

P.S. Have you seen my Chinese-language campaign video on YouTube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBha2qB_EfA

I'm beginning to sense a bit of complacency within the Republican camp in their responses to my questions regarding Taiwan. While Mr. Schalk Leonard is running under no party affiliation, his response is similar to what the other Republican candidates (Paul Akers & James (Skip) Mercer) have stated - that they see Taiwan as a friend and must be protected. To that I say, by what means and to what extent. Perhaps I indeed needed to guide them more than I had, by asking specific questions in regards to arms sales, support for Taiwan on the international scale, and China's intimidation tactics.

Nevertheless, Mr. Leonard was able to touch on something that none of the previous responses had mentioned - the resolution of the Taiwan issue should be decided primarily between Taiwan and China. When you hear this, you often get a mixed response due to the intricacies of the relationship, often involving a third party - Japan or the US. I do believe that Taiwan's future ultimately needs to be decided by Taiwan themselves, not by China nor by the US. At the same time, the "One China" issue will have to be settled by China and Taiwan (specifically the KMT) as these are the two main parties that still maintain "One China" in one sense or another. But lastly, I do hope and see that the US maintains a part in this relationship and ultimately the resolution of the stand-off between China and Taiwan. History has shown that without the US involvement in the Taiwan Cross-Straits, Taiwan may already no longer be "Taiwan" as we know it today.

So while it sounds "right" for Mr. Leonard to state that this needs to be settled by China and Taiwan through peaceful measures, he may be overlooking the problem that a majority of Taiwanese already see themselves separate from China. Thus, a joint resolution of this issue is not in the best interest of Taiwanese, as the Chinese are not Taiwanese.

In regards to his statement in the voter's pamphlet, Schalk Leonard sort of vaguely describes America as a country in "deep pain." His statement does not really get into any specifics of today's issues, so it's a bit hard to understand what he's getting at. For the most part, it comes across as a, "we're in trouble, come lets get together and rebuild this great nation," type of hope speech. Here's an example:

As for our neighbors of the wider world? The peoples of the old countries from whence our forefathers came? They know to find their way in their own time and own way. They always have and always will. And we honor them as our neighbors. We join them for mutual endeavors, when they stumble and fall we lend them a hand, and we respect the fences they have built. Good fences make good neighbors.

I think he's talking about immigration issues here, but at the same time talking about allies across the world. If so, it makes me wonder if what he means when he stated that the Taiwan issue must be primarily decided between China and Taiwan, is that he hopes the U.S. stays out of it as, "they know to find their way in their own time and own way." Might be a stretch though, since he mentions right before that about the countries from "whence our forefathers came."

Anyways, that's Schalk Leonard on Taiwan for you! Oh, and do check out his video in Chinese, his pronunciation is quite clear... that is the Chinese zh ch sh.

For which candidate will I be spotlighting next, I'm not sure. That's all the responses I've received thus far. Those that have not responded for whatever reason are: Dino Rossi, Clint Didier (only sent an automated response saying he might not respond to every e-mail due to time), Mike Latimer, Charles Allen, and Senator Patty Murray. I hope to get at least one more, but this may be it.

Make sure to return your ballots before Aug. 17, 2010 as I believe that's the last day to do so. Please feel free to circulate these responses to anyone who may be interested in hearing what they had to say about Taiwan. All links have been updated on the first post.

WA State Senatorial Candidates, Part 3: Bob Burr

Continuing with the spotlights on the senatorial candidates, Democratic leaning Bob Burr and his wonderful response to my e-mail:

Hi Richard:

Thanks for the inquiry. I agree with you that this issue is off the radar screen of most people in Washington D.C. but that it could re-emerge big time. Taiwan is small, with less than 2% of the population of China; yet, on most economic measures, it is more like a country 20% China's size. One of my earliest political memories is of Quemoy and Matsu and that left a lasting impression.

While I was at Prudential, I was instrumental in setting up agencies designed to serve the Chinese communities and worked closely with several immigrants from both Taiwan and the mainland. The work ethic, value of education and family orientation that I observed was something that I wish was more widespread in American society. It came as something of a surprise to me--and a revelatory one at that--that the Taiwanese immigrants were more favorable towards reunification than the Chinese. I am hardly an expert in the area. I do believe that the United States should try to have friendly relations with both countries and do not believe the Hong Kong model will work for Taiwan. I don't want to see something doing well subverted nor its people subjected to restrictions. Thus, if the Chinese got to the point of playing the "it is us vs. them" card strongly, I would choose "them"--the Taiwanese. Unfortunately, I have limited confidence that our government would take such a stand if its hand was forced.

I believe that the People's Republic of China and Taiwan are two separate entities and that neither holds rightful dominion over the other. Taiwan should be a member of the United Nations. I am not a fan of United States arms sales to the world, but approve of sales to Taiwan. I approve of the growing trade and movement towards rapprochement between the two countries.

In summary, I would hope not to have to be moved from a position of neutrality/fence sitting an China vs. Taiwan and have the two entities amicably resolve their long-standing differences; however, in a serious showdown situation, my support would be to Taiwan.

楚简康万年，闻雷。

Bob

Simply, wow. His depth and candor in his response is quite refreshing to hear. Mr. Burr starts off with acknowledging my statement that the Taiwan issue is currently on the back-burner, but at the same time realizes that this issue can and likely will be a potential flash-point in the future. This is one of the vital points about discussing Taiwan, China, and U.S. relations - realizing that this delicate dance between the three is a big deal. Having someone know a lot about the history between the three and the current situations doesn't do much if that same person does not feel like it is a potential area for "big" things to happen on an international scale.

Mr. Burr moves on to discuss more of his past experiences with both Taiwanese and Chinese, and includes an interesting comment of which I'm not sure how to take. Burr states,

"It came as something of a surprise to me--and a revelatory one at that--that the Taiwanese immigrants were more favorable towards reunification than the Chinese."

Overlooking the error of him in saying reunification rather than unification, this is quite a revelatory one as well to me. While I'm not sure during what time he was at Prudential working with these Taiwanese and Chinese, but from what I've seen is that a lot of those Taiwanese that immigrated to the U.S. between the 70s to 80s are those that were negatively affected by the martial law era of the KMT in Taiwan at the time. As a result, they likely have a negative view of the KMT and of China in general. But, I do not doubt Mr. Burr has come across Taiwanese that view unification favorable.

The latter half of his response, Mr. Burr wraps up by basically saying were it to come down to a showdown, he would support Taiwan. This definitely sounds good actually hearing him say it, but also I believe most politicians would support this notion if it really came down to it in the end. But at the same time, he is frank in saying that he has limited confidence in the U.S. actually holding up with Taiwan against China.

All in all, Mr. Burr left a great impression on me - not only being one of the first to respond back but also with honesty and knowledge of the situation. While some of his analysis may be different than what the majority of Taiwanese want (Taiwanese supporting unification vs not & Taiwanese supporting ECFA and not- his comment about rapprochement) I believe he definitely has a better handle on the Taiwan & China issue than incumbent Patty Murray.

For his statement on the voter's pamphlet, Mr. Burr is a strong proponent of changing up the current senate in a big way - eliminating private financing for elections, eliminating the excessive lobbying that results in "earmarks, tax breaks, and legislative concessions," and basically calling for the removal of all incumbents. In short, Burr's closing line is, "Say no to the status quo. Vote Bob Burr."

While I may still receive a few more responses from other Democrats, but for those Democratic leaning voters of Washington who also want to see the best for Taiwan, take a good look at Bob Burr and consider him instead of Patty Murray for the 2010 Primaries.

P.S. Not sure what the Chinese at the end means, anyone care to chime in?

Edit 8/9/10: Thanks to Henry for providing a translation for the Chinese in Bob Burr's response:

"The last two words; Un-Lei is his family name Burr - Famous Blast (Thunder). The first five; not so sure- could be said a foreign person with simplicity and robustness sustaining ten thousand years."

WA State Senatorial Candidates, Part 2: Paul Akers

Continuing with this mini-series on Washington State Senatorial Candidates, here's Republican Paul Akers, in response to my e-mail:

Richard,

Hello, I am Jeremy, volunteer coordinator for Paul Akers’ campaign, and I am following up with your e-mail because Paul is out of the office. .

Paul supports the Taiwan Relations Act that gives the United States an important legal commitment to this vibrant democracy. The U.S. provides tangible security and stability to the Taiwan Straits which helps Taiwan interact with China on its own terms. This act requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." China’s communist party should not be supported in anyway.

If you would like to know Paul better, you may call him personally at his direct cell line at 360-941-3748.

Thank you,

Jeremy Jasman

Paul Akers for US Senate

From a volunteer coordinator for a candidate, this is probably what I would have expected. Although the last line about not supporting China's communist party "in anyway" probably tilts his campaign stance towards something that supporters of Taiwan would be more comfortable with.

Besides that, the beginning and middle are pretty much standard responses - recognizing and/or supporting the T.R.A. and all the sub-acts within it. The problem with these types of responses is that they do not delve into the real problems at hand. For example, the T.R.A. states that the U.S. should provide arms of defensive nature; but we have seen that it isn't just a simple "I want this, I'll sell you it" relationship going on between Taiwan and the U.S.

Something I would look to see in comments about the arms sales would be along the lines of, support for newer F-16s and advanced combat systems (Aegis), as well as commenting on the root of the problem - China's missile build-up against Taiwan.

I do believe that if Mr. Paul Akers were to be able to respond personally, he might have more to offer than his volunteer coordinator. Still, thanks to Jeremy for responding as I have not received responses from Dino Rossi and Clint Didier.

As far as his statement in the Voter's Pamphlet, Akers is big on small government and bringing back power to the local level. He places emphasis on balancing the federal budget by cutting taxes and spending.

Up for tomorrow, Democratic leaning Bob Burr - and it's a good one.

Lastly, all signs point to a Murray (incumbent) v. Rossi showdown in November. Murray because she's incumbent, Rossi because he's gotten the name recognition down over the past 6-8 years due to his race for WA State governor. It is quite disappointing, since I believe both of these two may actually be the same in terms of what they would do with Taiwan as they are largely supported by the "establishment" Democrats and Republicans. In fairness to Patty Murray, I will send her an e-mail about this again. Maybe she will surprise me (us) and respond?

Edit: Paul Akers and Clint Didier came out with a new type of campaign ad today, aimed at taking down the two front-runners, Murray and Rossi. It's an interesting strategy, take a look at this link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TWAyQbS5PQ

WA State Senatorial Candidates, Part 1: James (Skip) Mercer

I received a few responses to my e-mail to senatorial candidates over the past few days in regards to their position on Taiwan. Here's the first of them, James (Skip) Mercer.

Hi Richard,

I have been to Taiwan twice in the last 15 months conducting research for
the US Navy. I believe that friends and commitments are important.
Taiwan is a friend and our commitments must be honored before our
fears.

Skip

Not exactly much at all in terms of depth in his answer, but it's quite possible that the short and simple answers are the most concrete ones. While his first sentence about him being to Taiwan really does not bear much on his position on Taiwan, his stance (I believe) on Taiwan shows in the last two. A simple statement like, "Taiwan is a friend and our commitments must be honored before our fears," is reassuring to voters who have at least some part of their mind on Taiwan.

Looking into the Voter's Pamphlet that gets sent out to the households, James (Skip) Mercer is stated to be a professor at the University of Washington in the Applied Physics Laboratory. Interesting tidbit: I did some work for a graduate student who was working on underwater acoustics for the APL as well. He claims that his work doing research for the U.S. Navy over the past 40 years has, "prepared me for the challenges that face this nation, including energy independence, the truth about global warming, education, identifying key innovations, and national defense."

The most striking thing that I find in his statement in the pamphlet is that he states he will only serve one term (six years), as he is not looking to make this a career. For that I think that makes him a great candidate that, as he says, "will not be answerable to any corporation, union, or PAC."

Next up, Paul Akers.

Also, I have sent similar e-mails to Schalk Leonard, Mike Latimer, and Charles Allen.