 |
| Published on Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/12/02/2003459958 Japanese representative to Taiwan Saito resigns By Jenny W. Hsu STAFF REPORTER Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009, Page 1 Japan’s Interchange Association — Tokyo’s representative office — confirmed yesterday that Representative Masaki Saito has resigned but said the resignation would not take effect until its board of directors approves it. There was immediate speculation that the career diplomat’s surprise move was linked to remarks he made at an academic conference in May at National Chung Cheng University, remarks that were widely criticized at the time by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Republic of China International Relations Association, Saito said Taiwan’s status was “still unresolved.” The envoy apologized later for his remarks and Tokyo said Saito’s comments were his own views and did not represent the Japanese government. While KMT members attacked him, accusing him of spreading false information about Taiwan, independence supporters hailed him for “speaking the truth.” Shinji Hiyama, the cultural liaison of the Interchange Association, refused to comment on Saito’s resignation except to say Saito was leaving his post for “personal reasons.” It was not clear exactly when Saito tendered his resignation or when he would leave Taiwan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had no information about Saito’s departure. “The foreign ministry has no information about it and it will respect the decision of the Japanese government,” Deputy Secretary-General of the Association of East Asia Relations Nien Shin-shyh (粘信士) told a routine ministry press conference. Ministry spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said Taiwan does not interfere with the decision-making process regarding foreign ambassadors’ postings and he stressed that Saito’s departure would not hurt Taiwan-Japan relations. KMT Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), a former foreign minister, said he “was not surprised” by the news because Saito’s resignation had been expected since the controversy. Chiang, who is a member of the Foreign and National Defense Committee, said Saito had lost all credibility and the ability to function as a diplomat because “hardly anyone in the administration and the legislature was willing to meet him.” “It was unfathomable that a professional diplomat would make such negative remarks toward the country in which he was serving. His resignation was only a matter of time,” Chiang said. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, however, said Saito’s leaving showed that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “China-friendly” foreign policy had interfered with Taiwan’s effort to have “substantive relations” with non-allies. “We are very saddened and disappointed by this outcome. We are very thankful for Saito’s willingness to stand up for Taiwan,” DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) said, adding that Taiwan-Japan ties were at their “lowest point” in a decade. DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-jin (葉宜津) said Saito’s resignation brought shame to Taiwan and the administration must change its China-centric attitude before ruining the nation’s friendship with other countries. The government’s indirect boycott of Saito was the main reason for his departure, Yeh said. China’s influence could have also driven Saito away because ousting a diplomat that believes Taiwan’s status was unresolved fits Beijing’s interests, DPP Legislator Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲) said. KMT Legislator Lee Hung-chun (李鴻鈞), who heads the Taiwan-Japan Parliamentary Friendship Group and is on a visit to Hokkaido, said yesterday that he had learned of Saito’s resignation a few days ago. In addition to the uproar caused by his remarks, Saito felt this was the right time to retire because of the birth of his grandchild, Lee said. ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY CNA Also See: First representative office in decades opens in Japan Also See: EDITORIAL : Exit Saito, enter uncertainty |
我們絕不接受政治法庭的審判結果taiwantt.org.tw 陳前總統在蔡守訓審判長詢問時，當庭表示：「我對司法已經從希望到失望到絕望，所以為了表達抗議，要撤回或捨棄對證人的傳訊與詰問，要解除對三名辯護律師的委任。」這是陳前總統對台灣司法最嚴厲的反抗與批判，也為我們所認同。
事實上，扁案的司法流程走到今日，充滿極端高度的政治性，政治鬥爭的痕跡，處處可見。海內、外所熟知、訾議的司法人員不當公開偵查的秘密資訊；違反法院組織法任由蔡守訓法官進行「併案」審理。無數個例，在在暴露偵審體系嚴重匱乏釐清案情真相公正性與法律尊嚴。
依據資訊，馬英九曾在重要會議上表達對扁收押的意思，政治犯意已嚴重干擾司法獨立的尊嚴，另如兵分十路、兵分十五路的多次大搜索，部分刻意公開讓媒體循線報導；某些特殊財團的大規模搜索，則又因個別屬性加以保密，政治性十足的操作方式，令人難以信服辦理扁案的法律純度。
我們必須明確指出：扁案的偵審過程所出現的眾多違失，若在司法已步上正軌的國家，許多政客、媒體人甚至司法人員，均已有觸犯民事與刑事法條的重大嫌疑，宜 當承受國法的制裁。是台灣司法承接蔣介石訓令處斷雷震刑期；蔣經國濫將黃信介、姚嘉文等八人以非軍人身分提送軍法審判。此種深具政治屬性的司法傳留喪失法 律純度的歷史種因，造成今日扁案偵審充斥「黨司法」的政治雜質。才會肇致陳前總統當庭嚴厲指控「非法起訴、非法羈押及非法審判的政治決定」。
我們明確、強烈的要求：一、以符合國家法律要件的方式辦扁。二、以辦扁的法律尺寸偵辦相關政治案件。否則台灣如果繼續陷入邱毅爆料扁家在日本有十億財產， 姚立明爆料扁家在日本有三百億財產，無數指控「秤採講講」形成極端偏頗的社會公審，從而形成極具政治鬥爭本質的黨法審判，此種審判不論結果如何，其輕佻、 玩忽的偏頗屬性，我們絕不接受，相信海內、外許多人也都不會接受。
鄭正煜（台灣南社社長）
陳昭姿（前台灣北社副社長）
張葉森（台灣客社社長）
楊維哲（台大退休教授）
楊其文（大學教授）
李喬（作家）
曾貴海（台灣社副社長）
黃越綏（前國策顧問）
陳惠凰（台灣南社副社長）
趙健明（成大退休教授）
林重榮（愛台灣協會理事長）
吳應文（六堆社理事長）
馮清春（台灣客社副社長）
楊緒東（大地文教基金會董事長）
陳惠馨（政治大學法學教授）
蔡丁貴（公投護台灣聯盟總召集人）
Former president Chen Shui-bian has written a letter to President Ma Ying-jeou asking him to allow his daughter, Chen Hsing-yu, to leave to register for studies in the US, a legislator said yesterday.
The move came after Chen Hsing-yu broke down in front of her father while visiting the former president last week.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Tsai Huang-liang, who visited the former president at the Taipei Detention Center yesterday, relayed the former president's message to Ma in his “119 letter.”
In the letter, “[Chen Shui-bian] believes that barring his daughter from leaving the country is illegal and unreasonable, and the Ministry of Justice should lift the ban,” Tsai said.
The former president wrote: “If Chen Hsing-yu cannot go to the US, she might not be emotionally capable of dealing [with the situation],” Tsai said.
He added that Chen Shui-bian was worried his daughter might develop a mental disorder or try to commit suicide because of the travel restrictions.
When Chen Hsing-yu visited her father in the detention center on Friday, she reportedly cried to her father about not being able to go to the US as planned.
The former president asked Tsai to go to the Ministry of Justice to plead with Minister Wang Ching-feng to let Chen Hsing-yu go to the US on July 1 to register for school, as she has plans of leaving with her children to study and work in the US.
In response, the ministry said in a statement that it would handle the matter in accordance with the law.
Prosecutors placed travel restrictions on Chen Hsing-yu on June 6, three days after she was charged with giving false testimony during investigations into the former first family for corruption and money laundering.
She was then barred from leaving the country on June 23, after she, her husband Chao Chien-ming and her brother Chen Chih-chung admitted to the false testimony charges.
Source: Taipei Times 2009/06/30
Up Next
DPP proposes parade law amendment
STUDENT PROTESTS: The DPP hopes to abolish the legal requirement demanding that rally organizers seek government approval before staging demonstrations
By Rich Chang, Flora Wang And Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 1
A man with chains wound around his body holds a placard that reads, “The Parade and Assembly Law is unconstitutional” and “Human rights have disappeared” as he shows support for student demonstrators at Liberty Square in Taipei yesterday.
PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus yesterday proposed an amendment to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) that would eliminate the requirement for protest organizers to apply for permission from law-enforcement authorities.
The amendment would only require organizers to report planned rallies to police.
“If the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] caucus does not block the amendment at tomorrow’s [today] meeting of the Procedure Committee and agrees to send it to the legislative floor for Friday’s plenary session, the DPP caucus would ask that the amendment be allowed to skip preliminary review so that it could pass its third reading by Friday. This would mean the students at Liberty Square could go home,” DPP caucus whip William Lai (賴清德) told a press conference yesterday.
Lai was referring to about 400 students led by National Taiwan University sociology professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁) who began a silent sit-in last Thursday in front of the Executive Yuan in Taipei.
The students are demanding that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) apologize for what they term the “excessive force” police used against demonstrators opposing the visit of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) last week.
They are also demanding that National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) resign and that the government scrap the Parade and Assembly Law.
The students were forcibly evicted by police on Friday night because they had not filed an application in accordance with the Assembly and Parade Law. They later reconvened the sit-in at Liberty Square at the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.
Two more groups of students in Taichung and National Cheng Kung University in Tainan launched sit-ins on Sunday echoing their counterparts in Taipei.
Another two student groups began sit-ins yesterday at Hsinchu’s National Tsing Hua University and Kaohsiung in support of the demonstration in Taipei.
The sit-ins have been dubbed the “Wild Strawberry Student Movement.”
Lai said the amendment would allow event organizers to report planned rallies to police, rather than having to seek approval from law-enforcement authorities.
The amendment would also abolish an article banning rallies that advocate communism or “division of national territory,” as well as an article stating that rallies cannot be held around the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, the presidential residence, airports, important military facilities and embassies or offices of foreign countries, Lai said.
The amendment also seeks to abolish the rights of law-enforcement authorities to disperse rallies, Lai said.
According to the amendment, if two individuals or groups wished to hold rallies at the same time and place, law-enforcement authorities would have to conduct negotiations, and if the parties insisted on sticking to their plans, the rallies would be held simultaneously, but separated by barbed wire fences.
DPP Legislator Chen Chi-yu (陳啟昱) said Ma had previously pledged that the Parade and Assembly Law would be amended to a “report” system, and that the streets would be “returned to the public.”
Ma should realize his campaign pledge while his party controls the legislature, Chen Chi-yu said.
The Assembly and Parade Law, which took effect under the KMT administration in 1988, has come under fire from several rights groups over the years as an instrument used by the government to control the public and curb freedom of expression.
The premier said yesterday that the government’s stance on amending the law was in line with that of the student protesters.
When asked for comment, Liu said he would urge the KMT caucus to hold public hearings on how to amend the law, adding that he hoped the demonstrators would also send representatives to attend the hearings.
Liu said the KMT had initiated proposals to amend the law to a report-based system.
Nevertheless, he urged the students to end their demonstration and return to school.
Meanwhile, Minister of Education Cheng Jei-cheng (鄭瑞城) called on the demonstrators to express their viewpoints “legally.”
Hsu Jen-shou (許仁碩), spokesman for the students at Liberty Square, said the government should communicate directly with the students and that they would hold meetings to jointly decide whether they would accept the government’s suggestion and end the sit-ins.
Chanting “the Assembly and Parade Law is unconstitutional and we are being deprived of our human rights” simultaneously at noon, the students in Taipei, Hsinchu, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung continued their campaign amid rain, cold weather and sporadic protests from people opposing the sit-ins.
One woman brought a megaphone with her to Liberty Square and accused the students of “twisting the meaning of freedom.”
“Kids, you should condemn corruption instead,” she said. “Shouldn’t those who launched the rally and instigated the demonstrations apologize?”
Meanwhile, the KMT caucus said it was worth discussing whether the time was right to amend the law.
KMT caucus secretary-general Chang Sho-wen (張碩文) told a press conference that although he sympathized with the student protesters, they should be demonstrating against the DPP.
The DPP had blocked the KMT’s proposals to amend the law 10 times during the sixth legislative session, Chang said.
KMT Legislator Tsao Erh-chang (曹爾忠), a former police officer, said he hoped that reasonable regulations for rallies could be established.
“The objective of amending the law is to help maintain peace in society,” Tsao said.
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) declined to comment when asked whether any caucus had boycotted amendments to the law in the previous legislature, saying only that lawmakers could initiate their own proposals if they saw the need to amend the law.
Wang said it was important that the public should reach a consensus on the matter, because some people were concerned that protests could get out of hand if all people had to do was notify the police if they were planning a protest.
The Presidential Office said that although Ma was in favor of amending the law, it was important the public reach a consensus on the issue.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said the administration supported revising the law, because it had been one of Ma’s election promises.
A Presidential Office official who asked to remain anonymous said that the law had already been amended to bring it in line with the Constitution.
“It is wrong to say that the law is unconstitutional,” he said. “The police may turn down some applications, but that hardly ever happens.
The official said the problem was not whether protesters should obtain a permit or notify the police in advance, but whether organizers could prevent violence. The official said the government had not dispersed the illegal gatherings because they were peaceful and rational.
However, the government would like the students to obtain permits and participate in public hearings so they could also listen to others’ opinions, the official said.
Interior, NPA chiefs grilled over police acts
COMPLAINTS: Both DPP and KMT lawmakers were unhappy with last week’s protests, with the DPP calling security measures excessive and repressive
By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 3
People join the student demonstration at Liberty Square in front of the National Democracy Hall Memorial in Taipei yesterday. A sit-in strike area was set up to encourage the public to participate in the protest calling for an amendment to the Parade and Assembly Law and demanding the government apologize for heavy-handed policing during a visit to Taipei last week by Chinese envoys.
PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES
Under fire from both the opposition and the governing parties over security measures during Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit, Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) and National Police Agency (NPA) Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) insisted at the legislature yesterday that the police had done nothing wrong.
Liao told the Internal Administration Committee that thousands of police officers had been mobilized to secure Chen’s safety and to keep anti-China protesters in check from last Monday to last Friday.
An NPA official said 5,000 officers had been called up from across the country.
Lawmakers from across party lines, however, criticized the security operation, codenamed “Operation Concord.”
“The overly heavy security measures made it seem like we had returned to 30 years ago when the country was under martial law,” Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Chieh-ju (陳節如) said.
“Why did police officers grab the national flag from people’s hands when they tried to show Chen [Yunlin] that we’re a sovereign country?” he asked.
“Are we not allowed to display our own flag on our own territory?” Chen Chieh-hu asked.
Liao and Wang denied police had deliberately confiscated Republic of China (ROC) flags.
“It had nothing to do with the flag — it had more to do with whether the people were standing in a restricted area or what they were trying to do,” Wang said.
Opposition lawmakers were not convinced.
DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) showed a video clip in which police officers grabbed a ROC flag from a group of protesters standing on a freeway overpass as Chen Yunlin’s convoy approached and apparently bent the flagpole in half. Chiu asked Wang to explain what happened.
“The officer was worried that the protesters might have planned to throw the flagpole at Chen’s convoy when it passed. The flagpole, which was made of plastic, was already broken when the protesters clashed with the officer,” Wang said. “So he did nothing wrong.”
Chiu cited several other incidents where she said the police had acted illegally, including stopping or pushing people wearing T-shirts with the word “Taiwanese” on them, halting the distribution of small ROC flags, and stopping people who were waving Tibetan and ROC flags while walking past a building where the ARATS chief was staying.
“The Police Duties Enforcement Law [警察職權行使法] stipulates that when executing an order, police officers should take the measure that causes the least damage to people’s legal rights,” Chiu said. “And the officers are supposed to clearly state the legal basis of their action.”
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Wu (吳志揚) also questioned police actions.
“I think the main objective of your mission was to keep Chen and the delegation safe,” Wu said. “You should not have compromised on his personal safety, but you should not have taken overly restrictive measures on non-security related issues.”
“We just wanted to try to reduce tension — we tried very hard,” Liao said.
But when asked by DPP lawmakers to apologize to the public for the police actions, Liao refused.
However, “there was always room for improvement,” he said.
Wang also rejected a call by KMT Legislator Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to investigate reports that a police district director’s wife took part in the protests.
She told Wang that if a police official “can’t even guide his own wife, there’s no way he can do so for members of the general public.”
Wang said that although he had not heard about the incident, there was no need for an investigation because a police director’s spouse was fully within his or her rights to take part in a demonstration.
The greatest threat is yet to come
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) was the model of professionalism during his visit to Taiwan last week. With his smiles, toasts, gifts and handshakes, he presented to Taiwan — and for those who were watching elsewhere — the facade that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) technocrats have long cultivated.
As many China watchers have observed, CCP cadres are increasingly charismatic and professional, driven less by doctrine and more by political calculation. Part of this strategy has been to reassure the region and the world about China’s intentions as it grows in power and influence — and to their credit, Beijing’s diplomats have been extremely successful in this regard.
Aware that its charm offensive is bearing fruit, Beijing has now turned it on Taiwan, first dispatching ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) and then Chen, both of whom presented a very “human” side of the CPP, tears and all. The only difference this time around, however, is that despite its rational approach to politics, the CCP remains religiously true to doctrine on the issue of Taiwan, which remains of fundamental interest to Beijing and is paramount to the legitimacy of the CCP.
Understanding this zeal is crucial, as it allows us to see past the illusion of warm relations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP. For all the wining and dining, agreements and accolades, Beijing sees the KMT as nothing more than a means to an end: an instrument that can be used as long as it makes the ultimate objective of unification possible. Otherwise, the KMT is dispensable should it get in China’s way.
Beijing’s ability to hide its true intentions and to beguile the KMT should not be underestimated. Like a snake charmer, the CCP appears to have had the KMT government in its thrall since day one. Outmatched by the CCP, the bungling administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) may, to be fair, have failed to comprehend how divisive and disruptive Chen’s visit would be. But Beijing didn’t. It knew full well what would happen and, relying on Niccolo Machiavelli’s old military trick, used the KMT to drive a wedge within the Taiwanese polity.
The plan worked to perfection, with Taiwanese turning against Taiwanese in recrimination. A greater pan-green versus pan-blue divide has emerged, with other factions seeking to distance themselves from the main parties, while the gap between the government and the governed, the police and the policed, has widened. Unable to present a united front, Taiwan has been weakened.
The second leg of China’s plan played out not in Asia, but in the US, with the election of Senator Barack Obama. While the president-elect has yet to prove his mettle, already there is widespread concern that he will not be as good a friend to Taiwan as other presidents have been. Whether or not this is true, it is likely that Beijing will reach that conclusion and do everything it can — through charm, again — to ensure that Obama stays on its side.
Unless the Obama administration clearly states that the US remains committed to defending Taiwan, Beijing could reach the conclusion that the time is ripe for a takeover, especially with Taiwan disunited, disorganized and dispirited.
Who’s really to blame?
After Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) returned home, there was deep disappointment. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, which oppressed the public during his visit, is blaming the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the protests, and the DPP is blaming the protesters and the KMT. What is this nation coming to?
The DPP should not be pushing the blame on the protesters. As people who had to fight for their rights in their own country, they should be supporting them.
The DPP should shoulder full responsibility for the protests, and proudly so. It is very disappointing to see the DPP join the blame game and let down the hardworking protesters — those who trust the DPP to save the sovereignty of this country. How many people will join the demonstration against the pandas if the DPP is pushing its own supporters away?
Is Taiwan too busy trying to save face to protect its own people? Will Taiwanese sacrifice their human rights, their democracy and their own country just for a better economy?
Under police orders, Taiwanese didn’t even have the right to hold up their own nation’s flag, and some had their flags confiscated. People were beaten to the ground with sticks for simply standing in the way of the police.
All the people wanted was to express their own opinion in a land of freedom of expression. Is this a crime?
In Chinese eyes it is. Beijing thinks we need to kowtow and follow its orders as a precondition to talks on improving cross-strait relations. No politics involved this time? How about the signing of the panda agreement?
Even the foreign press is disappointed with the abuse of human rights in Taiwan, but who is supporting the protesters? The DPP? No. The Sunrise store owner? No. She blames it on the police and the protesters. So who supports the protesters except for the protesters themselves? Should we be trying to save face by blaming them or trying to save our country by joining them?
For once, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was right on one point: “You can’t just mobilize a crowd to attend a rally and then say the protesters were not your people when violent incidents occur. Is that being responsible? I don’t think it’s appropriate.”
Taiwanese should proudly join the protesters.
Take a look at protests around the world. Taiwanese protests are harmless compared with the protests even in Europe. Six hundred thousand people protested peacefully, and what did they get in return? Seven thousand police officers and the government’s refusal to offer more rally permits. The KMT government listened, but apparently not in a supportive manner. So it is only natural for the average citizen to respond in the manner the protesters did.
Why did DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) order the protesters to leave at 5:30pm when they were simply protecting their own rights?
Alex Raymond
Kaohsiung
Ma has lost his mandate
When Ma was elected president with 58 percent of the vote he was given a powerful mandate by the Taiwanese public. He promised to “move Taiwan forward.” He had the opportunity to heal divisions in Taiwanese society.
Instead, it seems he is taking the country in the opposite direction. His actions are creating further divisions. He is setting back the cause of reconciliation.
The president has ultimate responsibility for the country’s national security. In the past week he has acted in a manner that shows a reckless disregard for that responsibility.
The actions of police in seizing Republic of China flags while allowing the display of the flag of communist China sent a powerful message to Taiwanese. The country’s sovereignty was under threat as the government sought to kowtow to China. Taking to the streets to peacefully protest was the only avenue people had to express their concerns.
Setting up barbed-wire barricades created a situation in which police and protesters were unnecessarily put at risk. That Ma went ahead with his meeting with Chen shows a distinct lack of judgment.
It is essential that Ma publicly apologize for the incidents that took place last week.
He must also ensure that there is a proper investigation into alleged human rights abuses.
If Ma cannot confirm his commitment to uphold human rights and safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty, then he has lost his mandate.
He is no longer the people’s president.
David Reid
Sindian, Taipei County
Economy not worth the sacrifice
By Cho Hui-wan 卓慧菀
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) just signed four agreements with Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in Taipei, allowing cross-strait direct sea links, daily chartered flights, direct postal service and strengthened food safety.
This is a critical juncture of cross-strait relations, which at times have been so tense that this was considered one of the flash spots in world politics. Although peaceful developments are welcome, neither the government nor the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have contemplated the future of Taiwan comprehensively.
What should Taiwan pursue in the long run? What kind of policies will achieve this? Both the pan-blue and pan-green camp’s China policies are biased.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) asks those who accuse him of betrayal: How have I betrayed Taiwan? He says that direct sea links, expanded charter flights and even a peace agreement are all goals the previous DPP government pursued. Ma also stresses the importance of cross-strait peace and trade to Taiwan’s economic development.
Taiwanese want and expect cross-strait peace and prosperity. What worries some is whether the country’s sovereignty is being compromised in the process of pursuing peace and prosperity. The public desires peace, sovereignty and prosperity — and nothing less. If there is no peace, both sovereignty and prosperity are threatened. Overemphasizing sovereignty, on the other hand, causes tension with China, making prosperity unattainable and possibly eroding Taiwan’s sovereignty. However, sacrificing sovereignty in the pursuit of peace and prosperity is a policy that the public will not permit.
Ma often says that he is doing exactly what the public wants: safeguarding sovereignty while pursuing peace and prosperity. I am sure that is his intention. However, the problem is not his intention but the possible consequences of his policies and conduct.
Ma says that Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan are threats, but that China’s huge market is a prime opportunity so a smart leader should minimize the threat and maximize the opportunity. Smart, indeed. But are the missiles the only threat that China poses? Is sovereignty being safeguarded as long as Ma ensures no war across the Strait? No.
Beijing tasted the flavor of US intervention during the 1996 missile crisis, so it has been actively modernizing and upgrading its military forces to prevent the US from effective intervention. However, military action is not the only means Beijing plans to use to achieve “national unification.” China’s rapid growth has accumulated enormous economic strength and greatly expanded its might in international politics and economics. President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) confidence in China’s strength has afforded him more flexibility in his Taiwan policy. There have been signs that Beijing will seek its “sacred duty of reunifying the motherland” with soft power such as trade.
Taiwanese understood this while Ma talked about cross-strait relations being “area-to-area” relations in an interview with a Mexican newspaper and while Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet delayed its demand for a Chinese apology and reparations for the melamine scandal. Better late than never, but the Cabinet’s hesitation and delay caused doubt that the government will stand up for Taiwan’s interests.
“One country, two areas” is stipulated in a constitutional amendment from 1991. However, when Ma called Taiwan an “area,” he was not teaching a course on the Constitution and was not explaining to Taiwanese the constitutional definition of cross-strait relations. Instead, he was talking to foreign media and to the international community at large. The elaboration was read as political — not legal — and international — not domestic.
“Put aside disputes and create a win-win situation” is the best policy for the two sides of the Strait. To put aside disputes over Taiwanese sovereignty, Beijing cannot demand that Taiwan accept “one China” as a prerequisite for the resumption of ARATS-SEF talks, nor for Taipei to continue its pursuit of de jure independence. When Ma talks to the foreign media or delegations, he should say that he will approach cross-strait relations according to the Constitution while pursuing cross-strait peace.
In foreign relations what is said is important; what is not said is equally important. Both strategies should be used to safeguard one’s position and interests. Because the Constitution also stipulates “one China,” Ma’s mentioning the Constitution would have satisfied the requirement of putting aside disputes. He did not need to mention the two-area definition, which jeopardized Taiwan’s stance that the Republic of China (in Taiwan) is a sovereign state.
The pan-green camp’s demand that no contaminated goods be imported from China is a wish shared by the public. But Taiwan cannot just refuse trade with China in its effort to prevent poisoned goods from entering the country. Establishing a mechanism to screen and exclude importation of tainted goods should be a high-priority goal.
Taiwan lost many economic opportunities over the last few years because cross-strait air and sea transportation was not direct. Market opportunities are abundant in China, so expanded links will bring great economic benefits. But the possibility that China may use Taiwan’s dependence on its market as political leverage is real. Taiwan should strive to link itself with the entire world when linking with China, so that global business interests are connected to Taiwan’s interest and serve to protect it.
Taiwan also needs to strengthen its democracy and freedom and use these soft powers to counter the enormous economic power of China.
As the DPP tries to safeguard sovereignty, it should also propose feasible paths toward peace and prosperity. The government pursues peace and prosperity, but it should be more delicate in what to say and what not to say. Taiwanese want peace and prosperity, but desire sovereignty even more.
Cho Hui-wan is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of International Politics at National Chung Hsing University.
Protesters scare KMT more than China does
By Cao Changqing 曹長青
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
When Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) visited Taiwan last week, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) deployed a police force much heavier than required, sending out security normally used for visits by heads of state.
Before Chen arrived, the government promoted his visit with loud displays including gongs and drums and made numerous security preparations because ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) had fallen during a run-in with independence activists during his visit in Taiwan last month.
At that time, protesters did not make any personal attacks on Zhang, who either tripped or was knocked down while jostling amid a crowd of protesters. As soon as he fell, he was helped up. Nobody punched or kicked him.
Yet for Chen’s visit, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government mobilized 7,000 policemen and the Grand Hotel was closed off by police from the eighth floor up. Such heavy measures were so over the top they couldn’t have been imagined by a comedy writer.
The lengths to which the KMT went to protect a minor government official from China is indicative of its cowardice. Ever since it was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the Chinese civil war, the KMT has been afraid of the CCP. This makes one wonder whether the KMT-led government would beg for mercy — too afraid to even surrender — if China were to invade Taiwan.
The government has treated protesters as terrorists, with police muffling protests, using razor wire and treating ordinary people like bandits or ruffians. This is exactly the kind of attitude that an autocratic government would assume in dealing with protesters. The KMT is beyond help. Whenever there is the slightest commotion, it mobilizes as many troops as it can, as if faced with a formidable enemy. Why is it so nervous?
In treating the public as its enemy, the KMT forgot that the “honored guest” it was showing such great respect for has more than 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan. China is the real source of violence, but the KMT fails to distinguish friend from foe. In its eyes the Taiwanese public is more dangerous than the CCP. When Taiwanese seek to protect their own land, the KMT gets defensive. When the CCP wants to “recover” Taiwan, the KMT thinks it is time to sit down and discuss things.
Not only does the KMT treat its enemies as friends, it is also intentionally moving closer to its enemies. While the KMT dispatched Chen Yi (陳儀) with troops to take over Taiwan in 1945, Chen Yunlin came without troops because the KMT has now become the CCP’s main force in taking over Taiwan.
On the surface, Chen Yunlin came to Taiwan to sign economic agreements, but in reality his visit was a preparation for Ma’s proposal to sign a peace accord with China during his presidency. This peace accord will undoubtedly be an agreement to surrender, as no matter what, it will be forced to conform to the “one China” principle proposed by Beijing that states: “The Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.”
In order to meet this condition and to show his goodwill to the envoy from China, as well as to pave the way for the signing of a peace accord, Ma regards Taiwan as an “area.”
A proverb says that it is easy to defend against foreign enemies, but much harder to guard against thieves within one’s household.
If Ma should not be accused of being a traitor, what other label is appropriate for someone who keeps a close relationship with a foreign enemy that has employed military, economic, trade and political tactics to take over Taiwan?
Cao Changqing is a political commentator. Translated by Ted Yang
Up Next
