Risk of Chinese attack has heightened

Up Next

　

Risk of Chinese attack has heightened: US official
　

TENSIONS: A deputy defense official told Congress that the Ma government's decision to hold talks with Beijing may not be enough to offset China's threat
　

By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Friday, Jun 27, 2008, Page 1

The danger of a Chinese military attack on Taiwan has increased materially in the past few years as the balance of force in the Taiwan Strait continues to tilt toward Beijing, and it is not clear whether the efforts of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government to draw closer to China has offset the rising danger, a senior Pentagon official told Congress on Wednesday.

US Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia James Shinn told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee that Ma’s decision to open discussions with Beijing “at least appears to have reduced the threat and the probability of the use of force,” but added that he’s not sure “if you add [the Chinese buildup and Ma’s efforts] together, what the net effect is.”

In any event, Shinn said: “We’d have to conclude that as the balance has shifted toward the mainland [sic], it has materially increased the danger across the Strait.”

Shinn became the first official in President George W. Bush’s administration to publicly comment on the US action in freezing the sale of some US$12 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, saying the move was initiated by the Ma administration, not the US.

“I don’t believe that we made a decision to put things in abeyance,” he said in response to a question. “This was driven, as far as I understand, by Taiwanese domestic politics.”

Shinn did not elaborate and refused to answer questions from the Taiwanese media after the hearing.

His testimony contradicts assertions by others that the US decision predated Ma’s election as president and reflects concerns over China’s opposition to the arms sales and Bush’s anger over actions by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), which China tagged as steps toward independence and top US officials branded as provocative.

Advocates in Washington of that view say that the Bush administration, buoyed by Ma’s cross-strait policies, merely concurred with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s request in line with the US’ domestic and foreign policy needs.

Pressed by committee members, however, Shinn said that US policy on arms sales to Taiwan has not changed and that Washington remains committed to fulfill the language of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, with the US pledging to sell sufficient arms to Taiwan to defend itself against a Chinese attack.

In written testimony presented before the hearing, Shinn chastised China for doing little to reduce its hostility toward Taiwan.



“There is much more that Beijing can do to support reducing cross-strait tension, demonstrate flexibility with respect to Taiwan’s international space and to reduce the threat to Taiwan presented by the PLA’s [People’s Liberation Army] sustained military buildup opposite the island,” Shinn said.

“On these counts, we have seen little progress from Beijing. We continue to see growth in PLA capabilities deployed opposite Taiwan, and we will watch closely for signs of Chinese steps to shift the balance further even as we encourage Beijing to work with Taiwan on more positive actions to reduce tensions,” he said.

While Shinn looked favorably on Ma’s moves toward Beijing, he did so with a caveat from the military perspective.

“It has certainly been a positive political development that the Taiwanese are engaging in what appears to be constructive discussions or negotiations with Beijing,” he said.

But from a military point of view, “it doesn’t alter our focus on our job with respect to both deterring coercion in that part of the world and responding to possible changes in Chinese political intent over the longer run,” he said.

One major source of Shinn’s comments on China’s increasing edge in the Taiwan Strait was the Pentagon’s latest annual report to Congress on China’s military might, released in March.

Shinn pointed to annexes in the report showing that China has 100 major warships and 33 submarines in its fleet near Taiwan, compared with 42 and 4 respectively for Taiwan.

China also has 440,000 military personnel in the area compared with 130,000 for all of Taiwan, and 530 major warplanes within cross-strait range, compared with 430 for Taiwan.

In addition, China has 2,800 tanks and 2,900 artillery pieces in the area, as well as more than 1,000 missiles, Shinn said.
　

　

TEACHING A LESSON
Members of the Taiwan Association of University Professors and other organizations yesterday protest against alleged political persecution of former Ministry of Education secretary-general Chuang Kuo-rong by National Chengchi University in Taipei.


PHOTO: LIAO CHEN-HUEI, TAIPEI TIMES

　

　

DPP slams Beijing over WHO block
　

HEALTH CONCERNS: The party said that Japanese media reports on the issue prove that the KMT and China's promise of support for Taiwan's bid was nothing but a lie
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Jun 27, 2008, Page 3

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday accused Beijing of politicizing health and disease concerns by blocking Taiwan’s bid to join the WHO and slammed President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) proposal of a “diplomatic truce” as a servile act that has failed to elicit a friendly response from Beijing.

“What the administration gets in return is Beijing grabbing a mile after being offered an inch,” DPP Spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said.

Cheng made the remarks in response to Japanese media reports alleging that China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Chairman Wang Yi (王毅) told a Japanese delegation on Monday that Beijing would never accept Taiwan becoming part of the WHO, although it would look into setting up an international network that could be a “new framework” independent of the international body to include Taiwan in information on disease outbreaks.

Wang’s remarks proved that Taiwan’s financial assistance and humanitarian aid after the devastating earthquake in China’s Sichuan Province and the resumption of talks between the two sides’ quasi-official agencies did not change Beijing’s attitude toward Taiwanese.

Wang’s action also proved that the promises made by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) were nothing but a lie, Cheng said.

Cheng was referring to Hu’s claim that the Chinese government understood the frustration that Taiwanese feel in seeking to join global organizations and promised to make the issue a priority, including Taiwan’s goal of joining the WHO.

Hu then pledged to discuss Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, including the WHO, in future talks.

Cheng described the proposal of a “diplomatic truce” and the government suspension of military procurement from the US as a “servile act” and “voluntary disarmament.”

If the administration failed to respond positively to China’s demand for unification, Beijing would step up its effort to steal the country’s diplomatic allies, augment its missile deployment against Taiwan, further suppress the country’s international space and use Taiwanese businesspeople to pressure the administration to push its political agenda, Cheng said.

The Presidential Office declined to comment on the matter, saying it needed to verify whether Beijing had said it would not accept Taiwan’s membership at the WHO.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said that the information the office obtained was inconsistent and the office was in the process of confirming it.

　

　

PRC asks Japan to support 'unification'

AP, BEIJING
Friday, Jun 27, 2008, Page 3

China is urging Japan to support its goal of unification with Taiwan, Chinese state media reported on Wednesday.

Beijing’s top official on Taiwanese issues was quoted as telling visiting Japanese member of parliament Otohiko Endo that unification with Taiwan would bring advantages to Tokyo.

Wang Yi (王毅), head of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, didn’t say what those benefits were, according to the Chinese reports.

According to the reports, Wang called the Japanese public’s lack of consensus on the benefits of unification “regrettable.”

Wang is a former ambassador to Tokyo.

China hoped that Japan would “express understanding and support” for unification, Wang was quoted as saying.

His remarks follow the resumption of dialogue between Taiwan and China aimed at strengthening economic links while avoiding political differences.

　

　

　

　

Clear signal needed on disputed isles

Friday, Jun 27, 2008, Page 8

In March 2004, the last time controversy over the Senkaku (Diaoyutai, 釣魚台) islands surfaced, the US State Department affirmed that the United States Mutual Security Treaty with Japan covered the islands.

“The Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since having been returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972,” State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. “Article 5 of the 1960 US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security,” he said, “states that the treaty applies to the territories under the administration of Japan; thus, Article 5 of the Mutual Security Treaty applies to the Senkaku islands.”

So while the US may not take a position on “the ultimate sovereignty” of the islands, certainly their inclusion in the US security commitment to Japan makes apparent where its sympathies lie.

Where does sovereignty lie?

On the issue of sovereignty, let me make clear what the State Department cannot: The Senkaku islands are Japanese.

The Senkakus are a set of eight small uninhabited high islands in the rich fishing waters of the East China Sea that are administratively part of the Ryukyu island chain. They are defined under Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as within the “Nansei Shoto” and the US was granted the “right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters” by the treaty. The US occupied and administered them for 27 years after World War II and in 1972 returned the islands to Japanese sovereignty as part of the Okinawa Reversion.

Japan first claimed the Senkakus in January 1895 after decades of shipwrecks and near disasters had convinced Tokyo that lighthouses needed to be erected there. The claim on the Senkakus, as such, had nothing to do with Japan’s colonial occupation of Taiwan as part of the settlement of the Sino-Japanese War that same year.

At the turn of the last century, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said, a Japanese businessman named Koga found that the main Senkaku Island held a fresh-water spring that could sustain about 200 people. He then brought workers, food and supplies to the main Senkaku Islands and built houses, reservoirs, docks, warehouses, sewers and farms for tuna fishing and canning. The tuna cannery business continued until World War II.

Clearly, for the purposes of international law, the Senkaku chain qualifies as “islands” because they are capable of “sustaining human habitation.”

This is important because under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea — to which both China and Japan are parties — an “island” brings to its owner a 200 nautical mile (370km) “exclusive economic zone” and sovereign claim to the resources and seabed minerals therein.

On May 15, 1972, after 25 years of military occupation, the US relinquished to Japan “all rights and interests” over the Okinawa territories, the State Department said, “including the Senkaku Islands, which we had been administering under Article of the Treaty.”

Prior to 1969, neither Beijing nor Taipei indicated any desire for the Senkaku Islands. Maps printed in Taiwan before 1969 either failed to depict them entirely, failed to name them or included boundary delineations to the west of the islands (inferring they were in Japanese waters).

In my collection of maps, I have a facsimile of plate 18 of the Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Fen Sheng Ditu (People’s Republic of China Provincial Map) of “Fujian Province, Taiwan Province” published in mimi (confidential) form by the Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Guojia Cehui Zongju (Headquarters, National Surveillance Bureau), Beijing, 1969, which identified the Senkaku Islands as the “Jiange Qundao” — using the Chinese characters for the Japanese name “Senkaku Island Group” — rather than the Chinese name “Diaoyu.”

A People’s Daily commentary of June 1953, which called on the people of Okinawa to resist the US imperialists occupying their homelands, enumerated the “Jiange” (Senkaku) islands as part of the Ryukyu chain, clear evidence that the Beijing government considered the islands part of Japan even in the heat of the Korean War.

Prior to 1968, no one in either Taipei or Beijing knew of any particular benefit in owning the Senkaku Islands. In 1968, however, geologists K.O. Emery and Hiroshi Niino, writing for the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (UNECAFE), noted that “a high probability exists that the continental shelf between Taiwan and Japan may be one of the most prolific oil reservoirs in the world.”

While this news was greeted with some gratification in Japan, the Republic of China (Taiwan) government — then representing the Chinese mainland at the UN — was spurred into examining Chinese claims to the Senkaku Islands and the seabed oilfields within their orbit.

At one point, Chinese exiles in Taiwan claimed to have “deeds” to the islands granted to a Chinese courtier (and early patron of Chinese universities) Sheng Xuanhuai (盛宣懷) by the Qing Dynasty’s Empress Cixi (慈禧太后). This evidence gained currency in both Taiwan and Beijing and was proffered as the basis of China’s historic ownership of the islands. However, recent scholarly consideration of this evidence tends toward the view that it is fraudulent. The documents of “deed” were not in the style of the Qing Dynasty, nor were the seals correct, nor was the paper of the quality used in Qing records.

Still, today, there are Chinese commentators in Taiwan who insist that the original deed to the Senkaku Islands was “kept in a bank safety deposit box” in Los Angeles, in the custody of Mme Chen Shien-chung, a “lineal granddaughter of Sheng Xuanhuai.”

Although visions of Saudi-scale reservoirs in the East China Sea have now dissipated and the territorial waters issue is now mostly a matter of “face,” oil and gas continue to be the currency of the dispute. Japan, believing that China’s main interest was oil, long ago acquiesced in China’s development of the “Chunxiao” gas beds (“Shirakaba” in Japanese), which lie astride the median line of the overlapping 200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the two countries — if, and only if, the Senkaku islands’ EEZ is counted as Japanese. In private conversations with Japanese officials I have learned an ironic fact — that the Chinese seabed pipeline from the gas field to the Chinese coast was partially financed by Japanese Overseas Development Assistance.

In an effort to assuage strained ties with China, and especially to ease frictions with Beijing over territorial waters, Japan has tried to get the Chinese to accept some “joint development” of the gas fields that straddle their respective EEZs — in return for China’s acknowledgment of Japan’s legitimate claims. But China has consistently rebuffed Japanese efforts to acknowledge that “joint development” of the Shirakaba field is predicated on a Japanese territorial sea claim.

Again, on June 18 the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman insisted that “China’s consistent position and stance on the East China Sea issue have remained unchanged, Chunxiao oil and gas field falls completely within China’s sovereignty rights and has nothing to do with joint development. When it comes to the East China Sea demarcation, China’s position has stayed unchanged that it does not recognize the so-called ‘median line.’”

By reaching out to Beijing and assisting China’s development of the Shirakaba (Chunxiao) field without first getting some Chinese acknowledgment of Japan’s territorial waters claim, Tokyo has made a tactical blunder. China is now in a position to pump dry the Shirakaba field and forestall Japanese action by dragging its heels on the demarcation issue. There are, however, at least three other fields that straddle the median line — Asunaro (Longjing), Kusunoki (Duanqiao) and Kashi (Tianwaitan) — but their delimitations are not dependent on the Senkaku Islands’ EEZ boundary.

In 1972, Beijing’s claims to the Senkaku Islands were delayed a bit by the Cultural Revolution and the Japan-China era of good feeling that persisted for a few years after the Beijing-Tokyo normalization of 1972. But by 2003 China’s rivalry with Japan for the psychological leadership of Asia has impelled China to begin flexing its maritime muscle in the East China Sea.

By August 2005, Chinese fighter aircraft were shadowing Japanese P-3 surveillance aircraft in international waters close to the home islands.

For the first time, the Japanese press reported several years of previous incursions into Chinese waters and airspace by “suspicious” Chinese vessels. “Secret” documents from the Japan Self Defense Force reported that Chinese submarines had entered “in the area” of Japan’s territorial waters at least six times in 2003. Chinese incursions into the Japanese EEZ became commonplace in 2004, with at least 12 EEZ violations by Chinese hydrographic vessels by May of that year.

In June, the Japanese media reported that Chinese submarines had entered Japanese territorial waters the previous November and had shown themselves “very comfortable” with marine characteristics of the Japanese coastline.

In October 2005, the fire-control radar aboard the Chinese Sovremennyy-class warship near the Shirakaba field had “locked-on” a Japanese P-3 patrol aircraft and there were reports that another Chinese naval vessel’s artillery radar had targeted a Japanese coast guard vessel nearby.

Clearly, the Chinese were showing their teeth. By October 2006, Chinese military live-fire exercises in the East China Sea were rumored by the Hong Kong press to involve scenarios for an armed occupation of the Senkakus.

China’s territorial aggressiveness in the East China Sea has alarmed Japan. Japan’s national security bureaucracy clearly sees China as the primary challenge in Asia and is diverting large amounts of funding into missile defense, naval systems and new fighter aircraft.

But Beijing’s diplomats are skilled — they have happily eased their pressures on Japan to woo it away from its concerns, and allies. And while Beijing now avoids antagonizing Tokyo directly, it certainly welcomes Taiwan’s recent involvement in the Senkakus dispute. It helps China make the point that the issue is truly about “Chinese nationalism,” not self-serving propaganda.

China’s revered strategist of Confucian times, Sun Tzu (孫子), pointed out that while countering the enemy’s strategy is of supreme importance, “next best is to divide him from his allies.” The Senkakus issue threatens to alienate Taiwan from Japan. It also has the potential to strain Japan’s trust in the US-Japan relationship. If the US views the recent flare-up as a minor spat between an immature Taiwan and a boorish Japan, and mutes its position, China may well begin to pressure Tokyo directly. Timidity on the part of the US could serve as a catalyst for a situation that goes against its Japanese ally, and ultimately its own interests, over the longer term.

Nothing good can come of a complacent Washington that allows Beijing to fill the leadership vacuum in Asia. The terms of the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty are explicit regarding the Senkakus. It is time for Washington to face up to its responsibilities as an “ally” and make clear its sympathies on the Senkakus issue.

John Tkacik is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

　

Up Next

Falun Gong

Up Next

　

Tainan urges Falun Gong to leave site
　

TAKING ACTION: According to city officials, Falun Gong members have gathered in front of Fort Provincia for a long time, which has damaged the city’s tourism industry

STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA
Wednesday, Jun 25, 2008, Page 1

The Tainan City Government has decided to persuade Falun Gong protesters to leave a historic site where they have maintained a constant presence to highlight their cause.

City government officials yesterday said the decision was reached after a meeting on Monday. If their efforts to communicate with the protesters fail, they will consider further steps, the officials said.

The city was particularly concerned about the possibility of a repeat of an incident on June 21 as the city gears up to welcome the expected influx of Chinese tourists next month.

On that day, a delegation of Chinese travel representatives visited the historic Fort Provincia in Tainan City. The fort was built in 1653.

Fearing that Chinese visitors would clash with the Falun Gong protesters gathered at the fort, the city government reportedly moved the protesters to another spot before arranging for the representatives to enter the fort via a side door.

In view of the city government’s handling of the Falun Gong devotees, some Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) city councilors yesterday expressed concern about the matter, calling on the city government not to remove or use any forceful action against the group.

Tainan Mayor Hsu Tain-tsair (許添財) has previously stated his support for freedom of speech. The city government’s cultural and tourism bureau yesterday said that the city government has long respected the religious thought and freedom of Falun Gong and would not use force against the group.

According to city officials, Falun Gong devotees have gathered in front of the fort for a long time, which officials believe has put tremendous pressure on the city’s tourism.

Bureau chief Hsu Keng-hsiu (許耿修) said that Falun Gong devotees have long maintained a presence in front of Fort Provincia and on the sidewalk of the 300-year-old Sacrificial Martial Temple nearby.

They also post signs, which he said violate traffic regulations restricting the posting of advertisements.

The city government will first “try to persuade them to leave,” and will “refrain from forcing them to disperse for the time being,” he said.

As for the protesters at Anping Fort, a fort in suburban Tainan built by the Dutch in 1624, Hsu said they have rented a pavilion in front of the fort, and are not breaking the law or city regulations.

The city government will not “take any action there.”

China in 1999 outlawed Falun Gong, a spiritual practice invented by Li Hongzhi (李洪志). Li has said that Falun Gong is simply a popular qigong activity that does not have any particular organization, let alone any political objectives.

Falun Gong protesters have since gained the spotlight in many countries protesting against what they say is Beijing’s practice of torturing the movement’s practitioners.

　

　

REACHING NEW HEIGHTS
Students at Taipei City’s Hutian Elementary School hold up their graduation certificates while descending Taipei’s Qixing Mountain yesterday. For the school’s graduation ceremony, teachers took students up the mountain to award them their graduation certificates.


PHOTO: FANG PIN-CHAO, TAIPEI TIMES

　

　

JUST FOR SHOW
Medical staff demonstrate evacuation procedures in Nantou County yesterday. The Soil and Water Conservation Bureau and the Nantou County Government organized the demonstration of evacuation and escape procedures beside the Choshui River. Rescue workers used ropes to save people trapped in a mock three-story building damaged by a landslide.


PHOTO: CNA

　

　

　

　

The upshot of foolishness

Wednesday, Jun 25, 2008, Page 8

Taiwan has had more than its fair share of deplorable behavior on the part of political figures and civil servants. This has included adolescent displays of aggression in the legislature, rumor-mongering and vulgar personal attacks — all of which show a disregard for democracy.

Former Ministry of Education secretary-general Chuang Kuo-rong (莊國榮), however, seems to find it difficult to behave otherwise.

After the disgraceful end to his position at the ministry in March, Chuang returned to teaching at National Chengchi University (NCCU). But last week, when Chuang’s contract came up for review, the school declined to renew it.

At a press conference on Saturday, Chuang accused the university of violating his right to employment and implied that the move was a politically motivated retaliation for his verbal attacks on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) during his campaign in December and March. He offered a mocking apology to “emperor” Ma for daring to “criticize” him in a democratic country and said that some presidents were clearly “semi-deities.”

Chuang said the university had violated procedural rules when it did not renew his contract, an allegation that deserves to be probed. With news emerging last week that outgoing representative to the US Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) had also lost his contract at NCCU, there is in fact reason for concern that the university is not maintaining political neutrality.

The university, however, did cite legitimate concerns in its decision not to re-employ Chuang. NCCU said Chuang had made discriminatory comments, making him unfit for employment at the university.

A university has a responsibility to uphold neutrality and tolerance. Any public profession of discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or other factors is legitimate grounds to doubt a teacher’s suitability.

In December, Chuang attacked Ma and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) by implying they were homosexual and calling them effeminate.

Then, at a campaign rally for Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) one week before the election in March, Chuang made a salacious comment about the sex life of Ma’s late father, Ma Ho-ling (馬鶴凌). His comments provoked a storm of criticism and within hours he resigned from the ministry.

Both incidents showed a lack of prudence that, while alarming, would not be grounds for dismissal from NCCU. But Chuang’s comments in December also revealed a taste for bigotry — and that is of concern to a university.

The inappropriateness of his comments, however, still seems lost on Chuang, who at his press conference showed he had learned nothing from the incident.

Calling a political figure homosexual and his father licentious does not constitute “criticism,” as Chuang euphemistically called it at his press conference over the weekend, but an undignified personal attack that rightly ended his service at the ministry.

Unfortunately, similarly reprehensible behavior by other officials and politicians has in many cases not prompted similar results. National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起), who has fabricated attacks on people and invented history over the years, is just one example. His party’s response, far from castigation, was to reward Su with a top position in Ma’s administration.

But political parties do not alone bear the responsibility for the behavior of their members. The public has the task of shunning unfit candidates, and can do so both in local and national polls. If Taiwan is to see an improvement in its politicians and officials, the public will have to demand it.

　

Up Next

Mr ma

Up Next

　

DPP lawmakers criticize ‘Mr Ma’
　

NAME GAME: SEF chief Chiang Pin-kung backed Ma’s approach and he said the MAC had told him to address Chinese President Hu Jintao as ‘Chairman Hu’
　

By Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA
Thursday, Jun 19, 2008, Page 1
　

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip William Lai, right, holds up a copy of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) during a press conference in Taipei yesterday as he criticizes President Ma Ying-jeou for agreeing to be addressed as “Mr Ma” during meetings with Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin later this year. PHOTO: LIU HSIN-DE, TAIPEI TIMES


PHOTO: LIU HSIN-DE, TAIPEI TIMES


Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday of belittling himself and eroding national dignity by agreeing to be addressed as “Mr Ma” when he meets Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) later this year.

The DPP lawmakers, led by caucus whip William Lai (賴清德), told a press conference that they could not accept Ma’s view of the title he should use in talks with Chen.

Ma told reporters at the Presidential Office on Tuesday that having the head of ARATS address him as “Mr Ma” while he calls him “Mr Chen” would be “the best way to avoid the question of inequality and put aside disputes.”

The position of president is the symbol of the nation, Lai said, accusing Ma of humbling himself and damaging Taiwan’s national dignity. He urged Ma not to belittle himself in his own country.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lee Chia-chin (李嘉進) defended Ma yesterday.

The public should not focus too much on the titles Chen and Ma use, Lee said.

“I think the title ‘Mr’ is a very neutral term,” Lee said, adding that concrete development in cross-strait affairs and reciprocity were more important than titles.

Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) also backed Ma.

“[Ma’s] proposal has made the Ma-Chen meeting possible, which is good,” Chiang said when questioned by DPP Legislator Su Cheng-ching (蘇震清) at the legislature’s Home and Nations Committee yesterday. “We’ve called him Mr Ma on some occasions.”

When Chiang met Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) last Friday after inking agreements with his ARATS counterpart, Chiang called Hu “Chairman Hu” in recognition of his role as chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.

“Why didn’t you call Hu Jintao ‘Mr Hu’? Hu called Chiang “Chairman Chiang” and [you] think it is fine that Ma calls Chen ‘Mr Chen’?” Su said.

Chiang said he had been told by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) before he left for China to call Hu “Chairman Hu.”

Asked by DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-ching (葉宜津) how he would introduce Ma to Chen in Taiwan, Chiang said he would follow Ma’s suggestion and call him “Mr Ma.”

“Everyone is clear that Mr Ma is the president of the Republic of China,” Chiang said, adding that when Chen visits, “[I] believe he would know [Ma] is the president of the Republic of China.”

　

　

Koh in scrap with unification activist
　

PRIVATE MEETING: The outgoing representative to Japan visited the former president who appointed him yesterday, but their staff declined to comment on the conversation
　

By Ko Shu-ling and Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Jun 19, 2008, Page 3
　

A member of the Hong Kong-based Action Committee for Defending the Diaoyutai islands burns a Japanese flag in front of the Japanese Interchange Association in Taipei yesterday to protest the collision of a Taiwanese fishing boat and Japanese patrol vessel off the islands last week.


PHOTO: CHANG CHIA-MING, TAIPEI TIMES


The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday expressed regret after outgoing representative to Japan Koh Se-kai (許世楷) was struck by a protester, saying the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was partly responsible for the incident.

A man who claimed to be a member of the pro-unification Patriot Association (愛國同心會) elbowed Koh outside the building where former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has his office.

Koh visited Chen yesterday afternoon after the envoy was recalled on Saturday by the KMT administration over a dispute with Japan concerning a boat collision near the Diaoyutai islands.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said on Tuesday that he would accept Koh’s resignation.

Koh was appointed by Chen.

Staff at Koh and Chen’s offices declined yesterday to say what they had discussed.

DPP spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said Koh had received high praise both in Japan and Taiwan for his performance. Cheng urged the administration to map out a detailed plan to handle diplomatic incidents like the collision near the Diaoyutais to protect national interests.

KMT legislators had called Koh a traitor and other humiliating words that incited the hostility of die-hard unification advocates, he said, adding that the assault on Koh could have been avoided.

In related news, the DPP released survey results yesterday saying that the majority of voters were dissatisfied with the government’s handling of the Diaoyutai incident.

Chen Chun-lin (陳俊麟), director of the DPP’s Public Opinion Survey Center, said more than 80 percent of those polled said they were in favor of dealing with the dispute in a peaceful manner, while 15 percent said they were against peaceful means.

Lin Chen-wei (林成蔚), director of the DPP’s Department of International Affairs, said the nation’s relations with Japan had been optimal during the past eight years, adding that Koh’s departure was bound to affect Tokyo’s understanding of Taipei.

Meanwhile, former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), who just returned from Japan, yesterday spoke out against Chinese meddling in Taiwan’s dispute with Japan.

She called on the Ma administration to map out a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem in the future, including formulating a maritime policy, establishing a maritime affairs ministry and passing a basic maritime law. adding that Ma is an expert in maritime law.

Lu made the remarks in Kaohsiung. Lu defended Koh and said those who had called him a traitor had gone too far, as Koh had done his best to negotiate with Tokyo over the incident.

Lu said that although some had suggested that the government ask China to step in on its behalf over the territorial dispute with Japan, this kind of strategy would only undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty by leading the international community to think Taiwan is part of China.

At a separate setting, Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) said the military and coast guard would protect fishing vessels whenever necessary.

The minister made the remark during a meeting of the legislature’s Diplomacy and National Defense Committee yesterday. He said the ministry would consider allotting battle ships to the coast guard as most of the coast guard’s ships are old.

Coast Guard Administration Director-General Wang Chin-wang (王進旺) said the owner of the fishing boat that sank on Tuesday last week would be fined between NT$30,000 and NT$150,000 (US$5,000).

Tourism fishing boats must stay within 24 nautical miles (44.4km) of the coast.

“Obviously the boat had crossed that line when the incident took place,” Wang said.

The Coast Guard will finish its evaluation of the situation and submit a report to the Council of Agriculture, he said.

　

　

MOFA bungled reaction to Diaoyutai collision: Koh
　

In the midst of the blame game over the collision last week of a Taiwanese fishing boat and a Japanese marine defense frigate near the Diaoyutai islands, Representative to Japan Koh Se-kai, whose resignation was accepted by President Ma Ying-jeou on Tuesday, sat down with ‘Taipei Times’ staff reporter Jenny W. Hsu to tell his side of the story and share his views on the future of Taiwan-Japan relations

Thursday, Jun 19, 2008, Page 3
　
Koh Se-kai

‧ 1934: Born in Changhua County.

‧ 1957: Earned a law degree at National Taiwan University.

‧ 1959: Finished compulsory military service, went to Tokyo on a full scholarship offered by the Japanese government.

‧ 1960: Joined a student independence movement. Key founder of the Independence Alliance of Taiwanese Youth; blacklisted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government for more than 30 years.

‧ 1962: Received a master’s degree in political science from Waseda University.

‧ 1968: Earned a juris doctor of law at Tokyo University.

‧ 1970: Koh became one of the first central committee members in the World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI) organization founded in New York.

‧ 1987 to 1991: Chairman of WUFI.

‧ 1992: Returned to Taiwan.

‧ 1997-1998: Chairman of the Taiwan Independence Party.

‧ 2004: Appointed the nation’s representative to Japan.

During his term as representative:

‧ September 2005: Japanese Diet voted unanimously to allow visa-free entry for Taiwanese visitors.

‧ September 2007: Taiwan and Japan recognize each other’s drivers licenses.

‧ June 2008: Taiwanese nationals are allowed to write “Taiwan” instead of “China” on Japanese registration documents.
　


Taipei Times: Some Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) have said that you failed to report to the government about the incident in an accurate and timely fashion and that this caused confusion in Taipei. What happened at your end when the incident took place? Could you take us through the chronology of the events including the role you and your office played?

Ko Se-Kai (許世楷): The accident took place around 3am on the 10th. About two hours after the accident, the Taiwanese Economic and Cultural Representative Office’s (TECRO) Naha Branch Office called Taipei and our office to report on the accident and said the boat sank but that all the men on board had been saved. They said they were on the way to Ishigaki Island to visit our men. I gave the go-ahead because the first priority was the safety of these people.

As soon as I arrived at the office that same morning, I called several key Japanese politicians to meet with them. I was able to get two officials from the Ministry of Agricultural, Forestry and Fisheries to meet with me at 3pm and 3:30pm that afternoon. The two officials were directly involved in the incident and said they would report back to the ministry on the issue.

By the end of the night, I had met seven prominent Japanese officials, include a former prime minister and two incumbent ministers. I met with a total of nine high ranking officials that day. We all agreed to keep the incident minimal in order to avoid damaging the much cherished relations between Taiwan and Japan. I called for the immediate release and repatriation of the 16 people on board.

The next day, the Japanese released the 13 recreational fishermen but kept the two crew members and the captain in custody. It just so happened that former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) was scheduled to attend an international conference in Tokyo on the 11th to 12th. That morning, Lu and I visited former Japanese foreign minister Taro Aso to inform him of the matter. Later that afternoon, we also met the Nikkakon, a Taiwan-friendly parliamentary group, in an open setting to make our case. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) also released a “four point-statement” on the issue. On the 12th, I contacted the Interchange Association, hoping to meet their chairman to let him know about the four-point statement and to protest on behalf of Taiwan. The Interchange agreed to meet me at 10am the next day. Our office notified the media. So, in public we only met with Japanese officials twice, but in reality, we kept close contact with Japanese authorities throughout the ordeal.

On the 13th, on the way to the Interchange Association, I received a call from Foreign Minister Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊), who instructed me to tell the Japanese that I would be recalled if the captain were not released.

That night, the Japanese released the boat captain. When I received the news I immediately called Minister Ou to inform him of the release. At the time I thought there would be no need to recall me since they had released the last man.

The next day, MOFA still sent me a telegram demanding that I come back right away. But in the MOFA official press release, they used the word “recall.”

During the negotiation process, our office kept Taipei updated on the latest developments. We called Taipei several times each day. We did exactly what our jobs required us to do. If Taipei was not clear on anything, they could have called us, too. If you are not professional, maybe sometimes it will be hard for you to fully comprehend the situation. The minister probably did not read the daily communication log between our office and Taipei, which would show that we kept in close contact with Taipei. He probably only got his information from the newspaper.

TT: Some people say the Japanese officials’ expression of regret over the incident was not equivalent to an apology. But you have stressed that in Japanese culture, “regret” can also mean an apology. If that’s the case, do you think it is still necessary for the Ma administration to demand a public formal apology from Japan?

Koh: It is international custom that countries do not easily apologize, unless defeated in a war. In many countries, there is a basic understanding of the significance of certain words. Even though the word literally means one thing, it could mean another. But we don’t have such a system in Taiwan. We only look at the literal meaning of the Chinese characters and ignore what the word means in Japan, especially on a diplomatic level.

A few days ago, a Japanese coastal guard official [Hideo Nasu, head of the Coast Guard’s 11th regional headquarters in Naha, Okinawa Prefecture] even said “moushiwake animasen” and took a deep bow. We should accept their good will and not keep pressing for a formal apology.

In diplomacy, when one party shows good will, the other party should reciprocate by lowering its insistence. In this case, the Japanese side has already displayed good will by bending its usual protocol to release the 16 men, agreeing to compensate them and offering a sort of apology over the incident, because the Japanese really want to maintain their good friendship with Taiwan.

To reciprocate Japan’s good will, MOFA should let me go back to Japan immediately. If the Japanese don’t live up to their word after that, then recall me.

Recalling an ambassador is one of the severest forms of diplomatic protest. By recalling me, Taiwan loses its bargaining chip in negotiations. It also affects how Japan evaluates what appropriate compensation is.

MOFA should completely exhaust all of its diplomatic tactics before turning the issue over to the Ministry of National Defense. We must weigh the situation carefully and come up with the best scenario for both sides. We should always reserve protesting as the very last option or else MOFA should be renamed “the Ministry of Protest.”

When everyone is demonstrating good will, we should do the same.

TT: On Monday you refused to report to the Legislative Yuan and said a “soldier can be killed, but not insulted.” Why used such a strong phrase?

Koh: Because they [pan-blue legislators] were already berating me and calling me a traitor even before they had heard my report. If I had gone, I would only have been insulted more.

I am an ambassador of this government, even though I support Taiwanese independence. They should support and protect me. MOFA should have defended me from their insults. But instead, MOFA purposely asked me to go to the frontline, knowing full well they hate me.

The foreign minister even said most of the negotiations with Japan were done in Taiwan. If that’s case, then MOFA has more reason to send someone who was directly involved in the negotiations to report to the legislature. Why ask me?

TT: In your opinion, how has the incident affected Taiwan-Japan relations? What do you see as the future of bilateral ties under Ma’s leadership?

Koh: After Ma was elected on March 22, the foremost concern in Japan was whether Ma was anti-Japan. I tried to quell the concern by telling the Japanese that Ma deeply valued Taiwan’s relations with Japan and that this was evident during his two visits to Japan during his campaign.

In Ma’s inaugural speech, he never mentioned Japan, which sparked some concern from the Japanese delegation. Once again, I tried to assure them by telling them that the Japanese delegation was the second group of foreign dignitaries that Ma had lunch with on inauguration day. It shows that he deeply values Taiwan-Japan relations.

But of course I worry about the future of Taiwan-Japan ties going downhill during Ma’s administration and that’s why I have made a big effort to make sure the new representative will have a smooth transition.

The Japanese already had concerns about Ma’s attitude toward Japan. That Ma was too slow in his reaction to the incident might raise more concerns.

TT: After serving the country for so many years, how does it make you feel to end your career as a public servant this way?

Koh: I have full confidence that I did my job and I fulfilled my obligations. Although President Ma has approved my resignation, he and Ou have publicly commended my efforts as the Japanese representative over the last four years. I am not very close to Ma and I am therefore not very familiar with his Japan policy. An ideal candidate would be one who is well-versed in the Japanese language, culture and has a tacit understanding with Ma.

　

　

CRABERNET SAUVIGNON
A hermit crab crosses a road on Lanyu while dragging its winecup home. The influx of tourists to Lanyu, also known as Orchid Island, has resulted in tourists leaving behind litter such as winecups while bringing home seashells, where hermit crabs normally live.


PHOTO: CNA

　

　

　

　

Words and actions are threatening democracy
　

By Gerrit Van der wees
Thursday, Jun 19, 2008, Page 8

Two recent events have quickly earned the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration the label of troublemaker. Moreover, further actions by the courts and the Legislative Yuan have threatened to undermine the nation’s hard-earned democracy.

First was the political uproar generated by the provocative comments of Prime Minister Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) and the reckless actions by some Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators in response to the accidental sinking of a Taiwanese fishing boat in the waters near the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands. Liu allowed himself to be goaded by the KMT legislators into saying that he “doesn’t exclude war” with Japan over the incident.

While he later retracted the statement, the remark has highlighted a rather unbalanced thinking on the Ma administration’s part on the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty and security. Ma seems to want to defend the nation’s sovereignty over a fishing boat and a piece of rock, but he neglected to mention Taiwan’s sovereignty in his inaugural address. The sovereignty issue was also whitewashed in the recent meetings with China.

If the Ma administration would have sought to determine what really happened in the Diaoyutais, it would have learned that the Taiwanese boat was inside the 19km zone delineated in an agreement between Taiwan and Japan and that the Taiwanese captain was unnecessarily endangering the lives of his crewmembers.

Instead of letting legal authorities handle the case (as the Japanese did, with evenhandedness), the KMT government made a political issue of it, going as far as recalling the nation’s representative to Japan, a very unwise political move as it risks estranging Taiwan from its closest ally in the region. The act could also seriously undermine Taiwan’s security.

At home, Ma has been undermining democracy and fostering the corruption he said he abhors: The judicial authorities are pressing charges against former president Chen Shui-bian in relation to a “slander suit” brought against the former president and two Democratic Progressive Party legislators, one of whom is still serving in the legislature.

The case stems from remarks made by Chen and the two legislators in 2005, alleging involvement of retired vice admiral Lei Hsueh-ming (雷學明), retired rear admiral Wang Chin-sheng (王琴生) and three others in a kickback scheme over the purchase of French-made Lafayette frigates. The two navy officers held key positions under former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) when the decision was made to purchase French frigates rather than South Korean ones.

Former French foreign minister Roland Dumas said that some US$500 million in kickbacks were paid by Thompson CSF, US$400 million of which went through the office of the KMT secretariat-general, then headed by James Soong (宋楚瑜). During his terms in office, Chen encouraged the court system to investigate the case and prosecute those who were found guilty, but this was stonewalled by the KMT-dominated courts.

By allowing the slander suit against the former president to move ahead, Ma has undermined democracy and risks allowing individuals who were involved in large-scale corruption to go unpunished.

A fair and just judicial system should take legal action against corrupt individuals, not whistle blowers.

Taiwanese have worked hard to achieve security and democracy. It would be unfortunate for all that work to be squandered by the provocative words and reckless actions of the Ma administration and by hardline KMT legislators.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.

　

Up Next

Diaoyutals

Up Next

　

Ma reasserts ROC’s claim to Diaoyutais
　

SOVEREIGNTY STATEMENT: The president said Taipei and Tokyo should try to resolve their disputes peacefully, including negotiating fishing rights and sovereignty
　

By Ko Shu-ling and Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Jun 18, 2008, Page 1
　

Japanese demonstrate in front of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Tokyo, Japan, yesterday. Members of the Japanese public gathered there in support of Japan’s claim of sovereignty over the Diaoyutai islands.


PHOTO: CHANG MAO-SHEN, TAIPEI TIMES


President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) asserted Taiwan’s sovereignty over the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands yesterday and called on Tokyo to negotiate fishing disputes and the issue of sovereignty calmly and peacefully. His comments came one week after a Japan Coast Guard vessel collided with a Taiwanese fishing boat that later sank.

“We are not trying to provoke anybody, but the Diaoyutais are part of our territory. Why can we not go there?” he said.

Ma said he hoped the dispute would not affect the friendly relations between the two countries and that he hoped to see Tokyo apologize as the families of the crew wanted the dispute to end peacefully.

Ma made the remarks during a meeting with local reporters at the Presidential Office yesterday afternoon.

Ma said that he would approve the resignation of Representative to Japan Koh Se-kai (�?�) and that he felt sorry that this had to happen.

He also expressed regret over Koh’s refusal to appear for an interpellation session at the legislature, saying it was the duty of a government official.

Ma said he realized that the sovereignty issue was an ongoing dispute between Taipei and Tokyo, but that both should make an effort to resolve the problem peacefully, including negotiating fishing rights and the sovereignty of the Diaoyutais.

“We are an independent sovereign state and we will do our best to protect our territory and sovereignty,” he said.

“We hope Japan will take into account the friendly and cooperative relations between Taipei and Tokyo. We must both take care to preserve such relations,” he said.

When asked whether he wanted to resolve the dispute over the sovereignty of the islands during his four-year term, Ma said that the public should not expect a quick resolution, but negotiating fishing rights was important to prevent similar incidents from happening.

Whether such negotiations would bear fruit depended on the attitude of Tokyo, Ma said, because Taipei could not do it alone.

The president, an avid defender of the nation’s sovereignty over the Diaoyutais when he was younger, has come under fire for failing to reassert sovereignty over the island chain following the June 10 incident.

Ma defended his position yesterday by saying that he was doing a better job in this regard than former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).

Besides, such disputes were the business of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government Information Office and the Coast Guard Administration, he said, adding that those agencies would be failing to do their jobs if the president had to “jump to the front line” following an incident like this.

The public should not expect the president to do so, he said.

While reports have claimed that the Presidential Office pressured legislators and the Ministry of National Defense into canceling a planned trip to claim sovereignty over the islands, Ma declined to confirm whether he had called a National Security Council meeting on Monday night and whether any cancelation was related to that meeting.

Ma said that he had first heard about the sinking of the fishing boat when Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) telephoned him on the morning of June 10.

He did not issue an immediate directive, but asked Liu to get a better understanding of the situation because it was a bad idea to “send in the armed forces if a boat sunk.”

Meanwhile, the premier told Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲) during a question-and-answer session yesterday morning that Ma had given many instructions to the administration and that he was hoping to leave the door open for diplomatic mediation.

Liu said he made an earlier comment about not ruling out going to war with Japan because the captain of the boat was still being held by Japan at the time, but that the nation had to seek rational dialogue now that the captain had been released.

In another question-and-answer session later in the day, he urged Japan to demonstrate “greater sincerity and goodwill” to resolve the controversy.

He also urged Tokyo to resume negotiations with Taipei regarding fishing rights in the Diaoyutai area.

Meanwhile, Japanese Representative Tadashi Ikeda visited Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) at the legislature yesterday.

Ikeda declined to make any comment when approached by reporters.

But Wang told reporters afterward that Ikeda said both captains of the Taiwanese fishing boat and the Japanese patrol vessel should be held responsible for the incident, but the Japanese captain should shoulder the most responsibility.

Ikeda promised compensation to the owner of the fishing boat, Wang said.

Wang told reporters that Ikeda said Tokyo had demonstrated great sincerity to Taipei by saying that it “regretted” the incident.

“Although Japan said it had shown sincerity [to Taiwan] by using the diplomatic term ‘regret’ [in response to the incident], I told him that many people in Taiwan know that ‘regret’ is not equal to an apology,” he said.

Ikeda promised to pass on Wang’s opinion to Tokyo and see if Tokyo could adjust its comments in response to “Taiwan’s feelings,” Wang said.

Wang said he had also urged Ikeda to express Taiwan’s expectations that negotiations on fishing rights near the Diaoyutais should resume, adding that Ikeda also promised to communicate Wang’s viewpoint on that to Tokyo.

Wang said Ikeda visited him in a bid to seek help from the speaker to peacefully resolve the controversy and prevent further incidents from occurring.

Ikeda said he understood that both Taipei and Tokyo would not give in on the sovereignty issue, but both sides should maintain healthy relations and make a joint effort to maintain peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, Wang told reporters.

Meanwhile, former DPP chairman Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) yesterday urged Ma to handle the dispute with Japan in a responsible and calm manner and cautioned on the dangers of “brinkmanship diplomacy.”

Hsieh, who visited Koh yesterday, said Koh had made an impressive contribution to Taiwan-Japan relations, and also did a good job negotiating with Tokyo on the fishing dispute.

He urged Ma to handle the matter responsibly and calmly and map out a well thought out, long-term strategy, instead of letting government agencies or individuals “set the prairie ablaze.”

The DPP legislative caucus also threw its support behind Koh yesterday, while condemning the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for treating officials promoted by the former DPP government with contempt.

“They [the KMT] began to take aim at officials promoted by the DPP once they became the ruling party. It is ugly,” DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) said at a press conference held at the caucus office yesterday morning.

Tsai was referring to the KMT legislative caucus’ continuous complaints about and criticism of Koh during the past few days.

Deputy caucus whip Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) said that Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊) should be responsible for briefing the legislature, not Koh.

“If the KMT wanted to condemn Koh, they should have condemned Ou first,” Chiu said.

Another deputy whip, Pan Meng-an (潘孟安), said that KMT lawmakers had good reason for trying to force Koh from his post.

“KMT Legislator Lee Chia-chin [李嘉進] has been vying for Koh’s position. I am afraid that is why Lee has continued his criticism of Koh,” Pan said.

Japan played down the row yesterday.

“We have already agreed [with Taiwan] to handle the issue calmly, without getting excited,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura told a news conference.

Tokyo called for calm and said it was “very regrettable” that a protest boat along with nine patrol ships from Taiwan had entered Japanese territorial waters on Monday to protest last week’s sinking of the vessel.

The US State Department on Monday called on Japan and Taiwan to exercise restraint in the dispute.

　

　

KMT asked for arms freeze: report
　

‘LAW OF PHYSICS’: The KMT government asked for the freeze in US arms sales to ensure that talks on direct cross-strait flights proceeded smoothly, ‘Defense News’ reported
　

By Richard HazeldinE
STAFF REPORTER, WITH AP
Wednesday, Jun 18, 2008, Page 3

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government asked the US to halt weapons sales to Taiwan in order to curry favor with Beijing ahead of last week’s cross-strait negotiations, the latest edition of Defense News reported.

The periodical on Monday quoted unnamed sources as saying the temporary freeze had been requested because the new government, worried by a troubled beginning to its term, feared the arms issue could jeopardize a promised deal on direct cross-strait flights and the entry of Chinese tourists — key platforms of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election campaign.

However, experts quoted by Defense News were concerned that the freeze, originally intended for the duration of the cross-strait negotiations, could extend until a new administration is installed in the White House next year.

The magazine quoted Mark Stokes, the Pentagon’s country director for China and Taiwan from 1997 to 2004, as saying: “It’s the law of physics. Once you lose that momentum, it’s nearly impossible to get it back.”

News of the arms freeze, which Defense News broke on Monday last week, caused concern among opposition legislators and Taiwan’s supporters in the US, who believed the US government was trying to placate China ahead of US President George W. Bush’s expected trip to the Beijing Olympics.

But Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said on Friday that the party had discovered the KMT was behind the suspension, and demanded that the government explain to the public why it had abandoned arms procurements.

The freeze affects some US$12 billion in advanced weaponry that military experts say is crucial if Taiwan is to maintain a position of strength in negotiations with China.

Defense News also clarified its earlier report on elements in the US government that want arms sales to Taiwan ended. It quoted an unnamed US government official as saying that officials dubbed as “panda huggers” in the US embassy in Beijing, the US Treasury Department and the US State Department were conspiring to stop arms sales to Taipei independent of the KMT government’s agenda.

The official was quoted as saying the reasons included opening Chinese markets to US firms, sustaining the six-party talks with North Korea and the future private commercial interests of US officials.

Taiwan’s representative in Wa­shington Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) said yesterday there had been no disruption to the arms procurement process and that Taipei would maintain its policy of procuring weapons from the US.

Wu, who is set to be replaced as Taiwan’s envoy, said the government remained committed to acquiring the weapons.

“It is incorrect to say that the Bush administration has no intention of selling arms to Taiwan in the remainder of its term,” he said.

Meanwhile, the DPP yesterday alleged that a top US official visited the Presidential Office after Ma’s inauguration to meet National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起).

Cheng said Su told the official “point blank” that to improve cross-strait relations, arms procurements would have to be suspended.

The DPP said Ma was not present at the meeting.

The head of the party’s Department of International Affairs, Lin Chen-wei (林成蔚), said the Presidential Office should state whether Ma was aware of Su’s actions, and called on Ma to state his position on Su’s strategy.
　

　

Diaoyutai islets are not part of Taiwan
　

By Li To-Tzu 李拓梓
Wednesday, Jun 18, 2008, Page 8

Based upon the principles of first discovery and effective occupation of terra nullius, or land belonging to no one, the Diaoyutai (釣魚台) islands unquestionably belong to Japan. If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) cites history and locale as proof of Taiwan’s sovereignty over the Diaoyutais, then the Taiwanese government could lose its firm footing in arguing for sovereignty over the island of Taiwan itself and of the Spratly Islands (南沙群島) in the South China Sea.

It is confounding to see that while the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) seems to be indifferent to safeguarding sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, it does not hesitate to threaten violence against an ally over an uninhabited island that does not belong to Taiwan in the first place.

The intense criticism of the Ma government’s Diaoyutai policy should be considered on two levels. The criticism from KMT members is earnest: They had previously, for inexplicable reasons, obeyed the KMT’s urging and participated in youth movements to “save the Diaoyutais,” believing that the islands are Chinese territory. This, combined with anti-Japanese conditioning, naturally makes their blood boil at the current controversy.

Criticism from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), however, comes from the preconditioning that China is the perceived enemy. The DPP holds friendly relations between Japan and Taiwan in higher regard and is more practical in regard to the Diaoyutai issue. Their criticism of the Ma government’s cowardly behavior was not meant to provoke a tough response from the government, but to force it to admit that its previously impractical policy on the Diaoyutai issue was a mistake.

Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) obviously does not make this distinction. Under criticism from both the pan-blue and pan-green camps, Liu rashly recalled Koh Se-kai (�?�), the Taiwanese representative to Japan. Some have also used the incident to shame Koh and force him to resign. Under fire from legislators, Liu has even declared that war would not be ruled out as a last resort.

One must realize that recognizing a past mistake and being criticized for a mistake are incentives for self-correction — not an encouragement to stubbornly stick to a policy that hurts the nation. The Ma administration should courageously admit that its previous incitement of foolish bravado to protect the Diaoyutais was a mistake — instead of turning around and challenging a major ally to war.

Taiwan and Japan have developed very good relations in the last eight years and their close cooperation on security issues has obviously been a deterrent to China. However, this strategy seems to have changed since the KMT assumed power. Pan-blue politicians have increasingly traveled to China and Taiwan’s main perceived enemy no longer seems to be China.

If so, shouldn’t the national strategy, drawn in accordance with the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the US, be adjusted? The KMT should be proactive in explaining the situation so the public can make a decision. If the KMT still values the treaty, taking a tough stance on such a minor issue as the Diaoyutais is unwise. If it does not need the treaty, then it should explain to the public its new national defense strategy.

The current confusion over Diaoyutais can only mean two things: Either the Ma government wants to change Taiwan’s national defense strategy on the sly, or Liu was caught unaware and has no stance on Asia-Pacific military strategy. Judging by the government’s recent decisions on hiking gas and electricity prices, the latter possibility seems more likely.

Li To-tzu is a doctoral student at Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
　

Up Next

PRC talks

Up Next

　

'Chinese' hackers targeted Congress to mute response
　

CONSTANT ATTACK: US lawmakers said that over the last two years their computers have been hacked by people working from inside China

AP, WASHINGTON
Friday, Jun 13, 2008, Page 1

Two US congressmen, both longtime critics of Beijing’s record on human rights, said computers that had been allegedly hacked by people working from China contained information about political dissidents from around the world. One of the lawmakers said he had been discouraged from disclosing the computer attacks by other US officials.

Republican Representative Frank Wolf said four of his computers were compromised, beginning in 2006. Representative Chris Smith, a senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said two of his computers were attacked, in December 2006 and March last year.

Wolf said that after one of the attacks, a car with license plates belonging to Chinese officials went to the home of a dissident in Fairfax County, Virginia, outside Washington and the occupants photographed it.

During the same period of time, the House International Relations Committee, as the Foreign Affairs Committee was then known, was targeted at least once by someone working inside China, committee spokeswoman Lynne Weil said.

US authorities continued to investigate whether Chinese officials secretly copied the contents of a government laptop computer during a visit to China by Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and used the information to try to hack into Department of Commerce computers.

The US Department of Defense acknowledged last month at a closed House Intelligence Committee meeting that its vast computer network is scanned or attacked by outsiders more than 300 million times each day.

Wolf said the FBI had told him that computers of other House members and at least one House committee had been accessed by sources working from inside China. He suggested that Senate computers could have been attacked as well.

Wolf said the hacking of computers in his Capitol Hill office began in August 2006, that he had known about it for a long time and that he had been discouraged from disclosing it by people in the US government, whom he refused to identify.

“The problem has been that no one wants to talk about this issue,” he said. “Every time I’ve started to do something, I’ve been told ‘You can’t do this.’ A lot of people have made it very, very difficult.”

The FBI and the White House would not comment.

The Bush administration has been increasingly reluctant to discuss or acknowledge cyber attacks publicly, especially those traced to China.

In the Senate, the office of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Humanitarian Affairs, asked Senate officials to investigate whether Senate computers had been compromised.

Wolf said the first computer hacked in his office belonged to the staff member who works on human rights cases, and that others included the machines of Wolf’s chief of staff and legislative director.

“They knew which ones to get,” said Dan Scandling, who is on leave of absence from his job as Wolf’s chief of staff.

　

　

SITTING PRETTY

A Nicobar pigeon, an endangered species, perches on a branch at the National Fonghuanggu Bird Park in Lugu Township, Nantou County, yesterday. The park is celebrating the bird’s birthday tomorrow.

PHOTO: LIN KUI-HSIU, TAIPEI TIMES

　

　

China asks US to stop arming Taiwan

AFP, BEIJING, WITH STAFF WRITER
Friday, Jun 13, 2008, Page 3

'China firmly opposes the sale of US weapons to Taiwan and firmly opposes the military relations maintained between the United States and Taiwan."

— Qin Gang, Chinese ministry of foreign affairs spokesman

China urged the US yesterday to permanently end arm sales to Taiwan, after Taipei reportedly called on Washington to postpone deliveries as it engaged Beijing in bilateral talks.

“China firmly opposes the sale of US weapons to Taiwan and firmly opposes the military relations maintained between the United States and Taiwan,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang (秦剛) told journalists.

“The United States should not just suspend arms sales to Taiwan but stop arm sales permanently,” he said. “Not just partially stop arm sales but thoroughly stop them.”

Qin was responding to US media reports that senior US officials were holding up an US$11 billion arms package and a delivery of dozens of F-16 fighter jets for Taiwan, possibly until US President George W. Bush leaves office.

The Bush administration must give Congress formal notification for the approval of weapons sales to foreign governments, but the Washington Post cited unnamed sources as saying that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley have frozen the deal.

The paper said that no change in policy appeared to have been made, but the effort to send the notifications had been stalled by senior officials including Rice.

The paper said Taiwan had privately urged that the notifications not be sent in the coming weeks as it completes talks with China on launching regular direct flights and expanding tourism.

Rice and other top officials also appeared loath to irritate Beijing amid negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program, it said.

On Wednesday, the Taipei Times quoted Defense News as saying that the US State Department had decided to freeze arms sales to Taiwan.

　

　

Sovereignty at stake in Beijing

Friday, Jun 13, 2008, Page 8

With talks between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) under way, it is hard not to understand the concerns of those who have been calling for Taiwan’s sovereignty to be protected.

This time the talks are being held in Beijing, a factor that is itself full of symbolism.

Not holding the talks on neutral ground, as happened in the past, gives China the chance to frame events as it desires. The venue for the talks, the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, is proof of this, as it is where the Chinese government houses visiting provincial government officials. Thus, Beijing can portray the talks as one of its provinces coming to pay tribute to the seat of power.

All the talk about “putting aside disputes over sovereignty” to create a “win-win” situation for both sides is a red herring because if Taiwan is willing to overlook sovereignty just once, then it is setting a precedent for future talks. The only winner if this happens will be Beijing.

If any attempt is going to be made to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty, then it needs to be done during this week’s talks. However, it remains to be seen whether SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) will follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and lay down the law to the Chinese side.

A failure to do this will be a direct consequence of the string of rash promises made by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) ahead of the presidential election, all predicated on Beijing’s goodwill. Ma got elected with the reputation — however questionable — of being a “can do” politician, but he has had to make major concessions to try to live up to that image.

With rocketing oil and commodity prices delivering an inauspicious beginning to his presidency, he is afraid that failure to deliver flights and tourists by July 4 will deal a devastating blow to his credibility and popularity.

Another consequence of this week’s talks is that China fever is now in danger of developing into a full-scale epidemic, with county commissioners and city mayors now champing at the bit to cross the Strait and hobnob with their communist counterparts. Elected officials are lining up to ditch their titles to take part in economic activities and some are even willing to break the law to do so.

It is hard to believe that these are the same people who so fervently defended the Republic of China (ROC) from the localization moves of the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration and have kicked up such a fuss over this week’s sinking of a Taiwanese fishing boat by the Japanese coast guard.

The government must put its foot down soon and allow the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) to exercise its authority if it is to prove wrong the doubters who said Lai Shin-yuan’s (賴幸媛) appointment was just a publicity stunt.

It cannot afford to order the MAC to cave in, as it did in the case of Kinmen County Commissioner Lee Chu-feng (李炷烽).

Only then can the Ma administration prove it is serious about upholding Taiwan’s sovereignty, something 68 percent of respondents supported in a Global Views magazine poll this week.

How can people trust a government that is prepared to stand up to Japan over the sovereignty of the Diaoyutais while at the same time cower to China?

　

　

Proceed with caution in PRC talks
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Friday, Jun 13, 2008, Page 8

Talks were due to resume between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) yesterday. In a certain sense, these talks will be an icebreaker. Although talks between both sides have been frozen for many years now and the current talks represent some progress, the Taiwanese delegation should still handle the negotiations very delicately.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) have both used an ice analogy, saying that “Ice cannot be melted too quickly, otherwise it could cause a flood.” Still, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has high hopes for improving cross-strait relations with the talks.

This round of talks will be conducted on a higher level than previous ones. The SEF was previously an association designed precisely to keep government officials out of cross-strait talks. However, high-ranking officials took part in past negotiations, with even the vice chairperson of the Mainland Affairs Council attending talks.

The problem with this is that if difficulties are encountered during talks where government officials are involved, it is harder for the officials to pull out and put an end to the talks. So, just why did those officials take part in the previous negotiations? Was it because the SEF was not prepared for the talks or because the government was worried?

Ma has said that unification cannot be discussed for as long as China refuses to change its official stance on the Tiananmen Square Massacre. However, with government officials now set to take part in the upcoming talks, we are in reality moving increasingly closer to unification talks.

In a speech by Ma earlier this month on the 19th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, he focused on Taiwan a lot less than in the past, which was extremely worrying.

On May 13, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) reported on a research paper written by Chan Man-jung (詹滿容) of the National Security Council (NSC) in which she said that changes in Taiwan’s trade policies with China should be carried out according to WTO regulations and that haste be avoided in resuming talks with China.

This is exactly the stance that Taiwan should have had going into the new cross-strait talks. However, with Ma’s preference for “Chinese Taipei,” it seems that on the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty things are about to take a turn for the worse. This is a sad state of affairs.

The way in which both sides tried to annihilate each other in past talks between the KMT and China should be avoided in this new round of talks. What is needed is an understanding of the opposition’s strategy. Li Kenong (李克農), referred to as the most important special agent in the history of the Communist Party of China (CCP) by Mao Zedong (毛澤東), successfully pulled off a counter-offensive plan against General Zhang Xueliang (張學良).

At the beginning of the 1950s, Li directed ceasefire talks when China intervened in the Korean War. After this, Li played a major role in other important negotiations between China and other nations. Li stated that there are seven main strategies in negotiation. The first strategy he defined was expounding one’s political principles to the enemy and making one’s stance clear.

“This is how we gain a political advantage over an opponent. This can be likened to artillery attacks before major warfare is waged,” Li said.

The second strategy Li expounded on was about the details of waging close-range combat. Li stated that this involves understanding the weaknesses and bottom line of one’s opponent.

The third strategy Li talked about was making full use of the inconsistencies of the enemy and grasping their weak points.

Viewed in light of these three strategies, Taiwan has already lost a lot of ground. Ma let China know about his bottom line and intentions far too early. Now, Ma must deliver on the promises he made about direct cross-strait charter flights between Taiwan and China and Chinese tourists coming to Taiwan.

As a result, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) has backtracked on the promise he made to the US about both parties declaring their “one China” policies respectively. In order to deny and play down the success of the outgoing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration in cross-strait relations, Ma has sacrificed the cross-strait charter cargo flights established between China and Taiwan by the DPP.

This clearly demonstrates that the KMT is only concerned with its own welfare and not with Taiwan’s. In terms of inconsistencies, Taiwan not only has inconsistencies between pan-green and pan-blue camps; but also between the government, the KMT and even within the parties in the legislature. There are way too many inconsistencies in Taiwan that China can use to its benefit.

Taiwan experienced the negotiation tactics of the Chinese government back in the 1990s. The problem is with the new government, which has not had time to re-think and adjust its strategies.

Even if the new government is capable of dealing with China, they have not had the time to learn from the experience of our previous government. Such an unprepared government is indeed a rare one in today’s world.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.

　

Up Next

huaren

Prev Up Next

　

Tsai rejects independence criticism
　

Pigeon-holes: The DPP chairwoman lashed out at the Presidential Office for labeling other people instead of clearly answering her question on the so-called ‘1992 consensus’
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Jun 04, 2008, Page 3
　

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen, standing, meets the elected heads of local chapters at the DPP headquarters in Taipei.


PHOTO: CHIEN JUNG-FONG, TAIPEI TIMES


Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) yesterday hit back at the Presidential Office for painting and criticizing her as an independence fundamentalist.

Tsai said that the Presidential Office overly simplified her remarks in an interview, which appeared in three Chinese-language newspapers yesterday, and that she had just asked President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) a few questions.

“I just asked a few questions and I would like to see him answer them,” she said. “It is not a good idea to stick a label on other people.”

In the interviews, Tsai criticized Ma for failing to mention in his inaugural address that Taiwan’s 23 million people have the final say on the nation’s future.

In response, an official at the Presidential Office said there was no need to mention it because it is a fact that Taiwanese have a say on the country’s future because they can elect legislators and presidents.

She also criticized the Ma administration for retreating on the issue of sovereignty. She said she would like to know why the administration wanted to resume cross-strait negotiations based on the so-called “1992 consensus,” without clarifying what the consensus refers to.

Tsai said the administration has now chosen to keep mum on the KMT’s previous contention that the so-called consensus refers to “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”

Tsai said that the Ma government’s plan to apply for WHO membership under the name “Chinese Taipei” without undertaking political negotiations was unacceptable and a step backward.

The Presidential Office retorted by saying that the officials documents of the WTO refer to the country as “Chinese Taipei” and the country did not gain accession to the international body until 2002 when Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was president.

Tsai said yesterday that the details of the WTO application were decided by the then-KMT administration and the DPP administration was not responsible for them.

Tsai also met the heads of local chapters of the DPP in Taipei yesterday. After listening to their opinions, Tsai instructed the party’s Department of Organizational Development to conduct a census of party members as part of its efforts to reform the party following its defeat in the legislative and presidential elections earlier this year.

Tsai called for unity at the party meet yesterday, saying the party was just starting its uphill climb to initiate changes.

Charter bosses attending the meeting reached a consensus that party members should refrain from attacking each other.

In other news, the DPP’s Party Reform Task Force held its first meeting yesterday and decided to propose a reform package on June 18 so it can be ready for debate at the party’s National Congress on July 20.

DPP Secretary-General Wang Tuoh (王拓), who also serves as the convener of the task force, said the nine-member group would discuss three main issues: revision of the party platform, discipline and evaluation and nomination process.

Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), a member of the task force, said that with Tsai as the party’s new leader, the priorities are to reshape the image of the party and to settle the nomination for next year’s local chief elections as soon as possible.

　

　

NOT-SO-WOOLLY WONDER


Visitors look at a skeleton of a mammoth yesterday at an exhibition running through July 5 at the Chiayi Municipal Museum.


PHOTO: CNA

　

　

　

　

Taiwan and the WHO

I fully agree with Andy Knight’s argument that the global epidemic prevention network is not complete without the inclusion of Taiwan in the WHO (“Taiwan Should Gain WHO Status,” May 19, page 8). Justice and basic human health rights to which all human beings are entitled are not served to the 23 million Taiwanese people if Taiwan is left outside the WHO network.

China once again blocked Taiwan’s application to sit as an observer at the World Health Assembly meeting on May 19. This is the 12th time China has ignored the well-being of Taiwanese.

Beijing’s argument that China has provided and would provide protection to Taiwanese during an outbreak of communicable disease is highly suspect, as no such assistance has ever been rendered to Taiwan by China.

Beijing has even had serious difficulty preventing and controlling outbreaks of diseases originating inside China.

Despite the numerous times Taiwanese have provided aid to Chinese following natural or man-made disasters, Beijing has never shown any mercy toward Taiwanese.

For example, for the May 12 earthquake in China, Taiwanese have already donated more than US$150 million, with the Taiwanese Government quickly dispatching rescue personnel and equipment to China.

Despite the ongoing goodwill shown by Taiwanese and the Taiwanese Government, China has not shown any appreciation and continues to block Taiwan’s applications for WHO membership.

For the sake of global health protection and safety, the WHO should not allow China to dictate its policies and leave the gap in the global epidemic protection network unclosed.

Jong Huang
Edmonton, Alberta
　

　

Nobel Prize vs sovereignty

Charles Kao (高希均) told a Singapore newspaper that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) might have a chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize around 2011 (“‘CommonWealth’ founder sees Nobel in Ma’s future,” May 31, page 3). If Kao’s prediction were correct, the cost to Taiwan would be high and the sad precedent set by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho in 1973 would risk being repeated.

Despite the prize, given to Kissinger and Le for their role in the so-called Paris Peace Accords, fighting in Vietnam actually did not stop until the war ended in 1975. Worst of all, South Vietnam was taken over by the North Vietnamese and has been under communist rule ever since.

If Ma won a Nobel Prize for superficial peace, most likely Taiwan would ultimately be annexed by China and Taiwanese would find themselves under Chinese communist control.

Kissinger betrayed not only South Vietnam but also Taiwan. It was Kissinger who helped implement the “one China” policy that has haunted Taiwan since the early 1970s. Even today, Kissinger continues to justify “the territorial integrity of a united China” (“Kissinger: PRC apologist to the end,” May 3, Page 8). Kissinger should review the 1895 Shimonoseki Treaty between Japan and China and the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty between the US, Japan and 46 other countries. Taiwan is not part of China by any means or measures and his continued stance on the matter is regrettable in its failure to accept reality.

Ma, as president of Taiwan, should not follow in Kissinger’s steps in betrayal of Taiwan. The Nobel Prize is a great honor, but it will be not be worth a penny if it is won at the price of the sovereignty of Taiwan, democracy and freedom.

Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio

　

　

How China could erode Taiwanese democracy
　

By Lai I-chung 賴怡忠
Wednesday, Jun 04, 2008, Page 8

Beijing’s warm reception of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) during his visit to China to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was an attempt to use the KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) platform to relieve pressure on the KMT for government-to-government dialogue and marginalize Taiwan’s democratic supervisory mechanisms. Furthermore, the Chinese government has sought to weaken the Taiwanese government’s ability to control cross-strait policy by winning over various KMT heavyweights individually.

From Beijing’s red-carpet treatment of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) during his previous visits, to the resumption of Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung’s (江丙坤) delayed visit to China, to the premise that no promises would be made as to when talks between the SEF and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) would resume, two conclusions can be reached.

First, it shows that China will not accept all of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) requests and has established a model for future cross-strait negotiation: Start with a KMT-CCP platform, launch talks between SEF and ARATS and finally pass resolutions in the KMT-dominated legislature.

This model is very similar to how the CCP manages to pass bills that require the co-operation of other parties: Suggestions are made in the Political Consultative Conference (PCC) and endorsed by the CCP, whereupon the National People’s Congress officially announces them. Similarly, suggestions will be made in the KMT-CCP forum, the SEF and ARATS will engage in consultations, and finally the KMT-controlled legislature will pass the resolutions. Such similarity is turning the KMT into mere political consultants.

This model will have a strong impact on Taiwan’s democracy. Not only will the opposition parties struggle in the legislature without having any influence on the process, the public will also have no chance to understand the process through legislative proceedings, because everything has already been decided in the opaque KMT-CCP forum and its legitimacy will only stem from the dominance of the KMT.

Just because the KMT and CCP discuss economic and trade issues today doesn’t mean they will not turn to political issues tomorrow. Given the lack of transparency, the public will have no way of knowing what kind of sacrifices the KMT will be making in return for more international space.

If nothing is done, our sovereignty and democracy will be in grave danger.

Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of Taiwan Thinktank.

　

　

We’re all Chinese, but two states are possible
　

By Ning Yin-bin 甯應斌
Wednesday, Jun 04, 2008, Page 8

Recently, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) rhetoric promoting cross-strait reconciliation has gradually shifted from “one China, different interpretations” to “the Chinese people,” perhaps in the hope of eventually settling upon a framework for a “Greater China.” This new challenge for the pan-green camp, which insists on Taiwanese independence, should perhaps lead them to consider the possibility of a three-way win-win situation through “Chinese Taiwanese independence.”

The term “the Chinese people” has two meanings and different interpretations. One meaning is the strict academic definition, as in the Schicksalgemeinschaft, or “community of fate,” which gradually developed from the end of the 19th to the 20th century. It is also the modern nation-state shaped by the state apparatuses of the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

For its part, nationalism is an ideology that advocates one nation, one state.

Yet, “the Chinese people” also has a colloquial meaning, as in the so-called huaren (華人), which roughly translates to “ethnic Chinese” and has implications for culture, locale and blood-ties, although not those of political states. The term huaren is also commonly interchangeable with zhongguoren (中國人), or simply “the Chinese.”

However, the pan-green camp has rejected the term “Chinese” and claims that Taiwanese are not Chinese, for the apparent reason that Taiwanese are not citizens of the PRC. In other words, this makes no distinction between the Chinese people and Chinese nationals. The deeper reason is related to the trend of de-Sinicization in Asian countries surrounding China.

Should it ever come to this, a successful move to Taiwanese independence would be contingent on a war supported by Japan and the US, as well as a shared hatred for the enemy. However, the price would be internal division, as the popularity of independence relies upon regarding the Chinese on the other side of the Taiwan Strait as the enemy.

For the politics of hatred to maintain its energy in daily life, an external enemy needs to be transformed into an internal enemy, so that a target of hatred — the enemy, or the Chinese — must be sought within Taiwan itself. In such a scenario, Taiwan would become a battleground between the pan-blue and pan-green camps, or Chinese and Taiwanese.

An era of cross-strait reconciliation may be upon us. The future of Taiwanese independence, however, cannot be based on the hope that cross-strait animosity will return; simultaneously, Beijing will not abandon its goal of annexation.

The future of Taiwanese independence therefore rests on reconciliation with the pan-blue constituency and the backing of Chinese nationals. This implies that the pan-green camp should reconsider the new route of “Chinese Taiwanese independence.”

This “Chinese Taiwanese independence” comes down to former senior presidential adviser Koo Kwang-ming’s (辜寬敏) statement that China and Taiwan are brotherly states, but rather than waiting until Taiwanese independence has been achieved to transform China from an enemy into a brother, the two countries should now start to see each other as family and recognize that Taiwanese are also huaren, zhongguoren and part of “the Chinese people.”

This could reduce the antagonism and lack of understanding harbored by Chinese nationals against Taiwanese independence and substitute hatred with love for our fellow nationals.

Furthermore, although “Chinese Taiwanese independence” insists on “eventual independence,” its “Chinese” flavor still provides room for dialogue with Beijing.

“Chinese Taiwanese independence” also shares a common foundation with the KMT’s “Chinese Taiwan,” as the latter concept already includes the possibility of its existence.

Zhongguoren, “the Chinese people,” and huaren have always existed in different countries. The people on both sides of the Strait are “Chinese people” and zhongguoren. But this does not mean that we cannot have one state on each side.

“Chinese Taiwanese independence” welcomes the new cross-strait situation by “seeking mutual survival through reconciliation” (a Democratic Progressive Party slogan) and “the preservation of differences through finding consensus” (a KMT slogan), and is worthy of serious consideration by the pan-green camp.

Ning Yin-bin is a writer.
　

Prev Up Next