20040102-2

=========

Reported on Jan. 2, 3, 4, 2004 ……

Beijing's boondoggle on direct links

On Wednesday, less than three weeks before the Lunar New Year holiday, Pu Zhaozhou -- head of the Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Department of the Civil Aviation Administration of China -- made a new proposal for cross-strait charter flights during the holiday period.

Pu suggested an arrangement under which flights would travel without stopping in cities such as Hong Kong and Macau -- but only in one direction -- from Taipei to a handful of cities in China.

According to Pu, this proposal comes with the condition that next year the charter flights will fly direct in both directions.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the cross-strait deadlock over direct links can see that this offer is riddled with many tricks. The deadlock has come about because China insists on Taiwan's acceptance of the "one China" principle as a condition of any official cross-strait talks on direct links.

The alternative would be to skip official negotiations between the governments, and leave talks in the hands of authorized private groups. The latter option is no different from the former because by skipping formal negotiations between governments, Taiwan would be conceding that cross-strait direct links are domestic links and that Taiwan is merely a "province" of "one China."

After all, no international air links can be launched without involving the governments in question, because doing so would mean flying into foreign territories without authorization and violating sovereignty.

The arrangement under which cross-strait charter flights were made last year did not have these problems. Not only were the flights one-way -- Taipei to Shanghai, which incurred virtually no security risk for Taiwan -- but even more importantly, while there were no changes of aircraft between Taipei and Shanghai, the planes were still required to make stops in places such as Hong Kong and Macao.

So long as flights remained indirect, there was no sovereignty issue involved, and skipping government negotiation was possible.

The proposal made by Beijing this year asks for "direct flights" from Taipei to several Chinese cities without any stopovers. This is something that would require negotiations between governments.

Obviously, if Taiwan accepts one-way direct flights without negotiations this year, then it will have no reason to demand negotiations over two-way direct flights next year.

Bluntly put, this is simply Beijing's way of trying to trick Taiwan into direct links under the "one China" principle.

This seeming "concession" offered by Beijing is no concession at all.

Statements made by Zhang Mingqing, the spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, on Thursday -- the day after Pu's comments -- give a glimpse of what is on Beijing's mind.

Zhang on the one hand harshly criticized President Chen Shui-bian's refusal to embrace the so-called 1992 consensus on the "one China" principle, and on the other hand reiterated Beijing's intention to provide more convenience for Taiwanese businessmen in China, not only in terms of travel but also in terms of investing in China.

Obviously, after the arrests of Taiwanese businessmen on espionage charges recently, Beijing has decided to take steps to ease the fears of the Taiwanese business community.

This new proposal on chartered flights -- unlikely to become reality -- is simply another one of Beijing's gestures to make amends.

-----------------------------------------

On Jan. 2, 2004 ……

Instead of 'five noes,' 'three yeses'

By Gerritvan der Wees

In recent statements, President Chen Shui-bian has indicated that in view of China's military threats and deployment of missiles against Taiwan he might revoke the "five noes" outlined in the inaugural address he gave in May 2000.

After his election in 2000, the situation was tense: not only did China threaten to attack Taiwan, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) faithful in the military and security agencies didn't appreciate the election of the pro-independence Chen.

Chen and his advisers thought it prudent to try to smooth matters over by making a statement saying, "As long as the Chinese communist regime does not intend to use force against Taiwan, I promise that during my term I will not declare independence, will not change the name of the country, will not push for the incorporation of a special state-to-state model of cross-strait relations in the Constitution and will not push for a referendum on the independence-unification issue that will change the status quo. Nor will there be any question of abolishing the National Unification Guidelines or the National Unification Council."

It does not need to be emphasized that the qualifier "as long as the Chinese communist regime does not intend to use force against Taiwan" was all-important.

However, Chen was lectured time and again by arrogant and defeated KMT politicians and back-seat driving US think-tank figures alike that he should stick to the "five noes" no matter what China did.

After three years of continuing military threats and a more than doubling of the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, Chen has now come to the conclusion that the "five noes" have reached the end of their useful life. That is to be applauded.

The fact is that the "five noes" were never popular among his core followers.

They saw the "five noes" as unnecessary roadblocks on the road to full democracy in Taiwan and full acceptance of the nation in the international community.

With the presidential election coming up, Chen is emphasizing the right of the people to hold a referendum and implying that the "five noes" might be about to meet their demise.

He is achieving two purposes: he is rallying his supporters and at the same time making it clear to the world community that China is the real threat to stability and peace across the Taiwan Strait.

There are some in the US administration, and in think tanks and the international media, who perceive Chen to be unnecessarily provocative.

These people should look twice: China is continuing to threaten Taiwan, preventing its international relations from blossoming, and building up an awesome arsenal of missiles aimed at the nation. During the past three years, Chen has bent over backwards to be conciliatory and has held out one olive branch after another only to be rebuffed by China time and again.

It is thus time for Taiwan and the international community to move towards a "three yeses" policy:

Yes to the right of Taiwanese people to determine their own future, free of interference from China;

Yes to Taiwan's right to be a full, equal member of the international community, including the UN; and

Yes to the right of Taiwanese people to choose a name, flag, and anthem which really represent Taiwan.

Instead of kowtowing to Beijing, the US should have an evenhanded policy which upholds the basic principles of democracy and human rights.

It is indeed time for clarity instead of ambiguity.

But the remarks of US President George W. Bush on the occasion of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to Washington seemed more reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain telling the Czechs and Poles to remain quiet in the face of a Nazi onslaught than a US president willing to stand up for democracy around the world.

There is still time: Bush and his administration should make it crystal clear to Beijing that they must back off, dismantle the missiles aimed at Taiwan, and, if it truly believes in peaceful resolution, enter into talks with the democratically-elected government of Taiwan.

The US and other nations would also do well to rethink their policy towards Taiwan: it is not the same country as it was 30 or 40 years ago, when the present "one China" concept came into existence.

At that time, there was a repressive KMT regime, which had lost the Chinese Civil War and imposed itself on a defenseless Taiwanese population. The KMT's decades-long insistence on being the legitimate government of China was as laughable as it was outdated, but it dragged the Taiwanese people unwillingly into the unfinished business of the Chinese Civil War.

The Taiwanese had no part in that Civil War, but their future is still being held hostage to it.

It is time for the international community to break out of the chains that it has imposed on itself and accept Taiwan and its people as full-fledged members of the international family of nations.

Gerrit van der Wees is the editor of Taiwan Communique.

-----------------------------------------

On Jan. 3, 2004 ……

Applying high standards on assets

The focus of the presidential campaign is now on the personal assets of the candidates. Both the pan-blue and pan-green camps have launched massive propaganda offensives on the issue.

The battle is now reaching new heights, with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan having brought a defamation lawsuit against President Chen Shui-bian yesterday. Both side have called press conferences to discuss their personal assets, but the public is having a difficult time getting a clear picture of the facts among all this mudslinging.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has attacked Lien and his father Lien Chen-tung by questioning how they amassed NT$20 billion during their careers as civil servants. For its part, the KMT has attacked a foundation set up by Chen, the value of which has increased by 125 percent over the past three years while the rest of the country has seen its wealth shrink.

With the endorsement of his accountants, Lien also disclosed his personal assets yesterday, whose total value, according to him, was NT$1.34 billion -- not NT$20 billion that the DPP had claimed.

The figure disclosed by Lien is obviously a far cry from what most Taiwanese understand his family wealth to be. The Lien family controls the Lien Chen-tung Foundation and a number of investment companies. They were not on the list of assets disclosed by Lien yesterday.

Besides, Lien has a track record of forgetting -- he forgot to report a massive "interest-free loan" he gave to Wu Tse-yuan to fund his Pingtung County commissioner election campaign.

As for whether the public will believe Lien's disclosure yesterday, perhaps those who have believed him in the past will always believe him and those who haven't, won't.

The public is actually more concerned about the sources from and methods by which the assets were acquired, because these questions have much to do with a politician's integrity.

The legend of the Lien family's wealth has long been known all over Taiwan. The family's wealth is the primary reason that Lien moved rapidly up the bureaucratic ladder, but it is also a political stigma he has been unable to wash away.

Lien tried to explain his family's wealth by saying that his mother was very good at financial management. Such an explanation is not persuasive.

Lien claimed that the family had acquired its assets legally, but legality is merely the minimum moral standard.

As with the issue of the KMT's handling of its assets, legality may be a suitable standard to apply to some people, but the public will use higher standards to scrutinize candidates for public office.

In its attack on Chen's personal assets, the KMT omitted the fact that Chen had spent the remainder of his campaign funds on the establishment of the Ketagalan Institute, and insinuated that Chen's family had used special privileges to engage in insider transactions. To investigate these allegations will not be difficult. The KMT could face a backlash in public opinion if the allegations turn out to be false.

It is no sin for politicians to have wealth. But in any case, society's evaluation of a tenant farmer's son is vastly different from its evaluation of a powerful family's scion. This has created inequalities in the campaign.

Lien must prove to the public that the assets amassed by his family have nothing to do with politics. Every shred of doubt must be cleared up.

We hope Lien can use high standards to explain and handle his family's and party's assets. We will use the same high standards to scrutinize Chen's assets.

-----------------------------------------

On Jan. 4, 2004 ……

Bravely follow the democratic path

By the Liberty Times editorial

Subsequent to the declaration by President Chen Shui-bian that a defensive national referendum will be conducted on the day of the presidential election on March 20, the Legislative Yuan recently passed a resolution requesting Taiwan's allies to ask the UN to demand the removal of China's missiles targeting Taiwan and to ban further missile deployment against Taiwan.

The series of moves seeks, on one hand, popular expression of resentment against the Chinese missile deployment through a referendum and, on the other hand, seeks to make the people of the world understand the barbarism of Chinese military threats against Taiwan, so as to invite their support in condemning the largest remaining totalitarian regime in the 21st century.

If peace can be maintained between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, prosperity and stability in the Asia-Pacific region will be facilitated. In contrast, if conflicts and polarization persist, regional unrest will result, including the danger of war.

Since Taiwan opened up cross-strait exchanges, it has made constructive contributions to China, as large amounts of capital, technology and talent have poured into China, making Taiwan a major contributor to the rapid economic development of China.

Yet China continues to insist on the "one China" principle even as it seeks to attract more investors from Taiwan.

It has adopted a two-handed policy.

With one hand it seeks to peacefully unify with Taiwan under "one country, two systems."

But with the other hand, it maintains that if Taiwan refuses "one country, two systems," it will not hesitate to launch an invasion.

As it continues to use such tactics, China has not forgotten to expand its missile deployments against Taiwan.

The number of missiles has increased to 496, and the figure continues to grow at the rate of 50 each year.

These missiles can reach Taiwan within a matter of minutes.

To the people of Taiwan, this is a matter of life and death.

The military strength of Taiwan is not nearly as great as that of the US. The US' military strength made it possible for the US to demand that the Soviet Union remove missiles from Cuba against a backdrop of a looming world nuclear war.

Therefore, Taiwan is seeking to use a peaceful referendum and make proposals to the UN as ways to express the repulsion and outrage that the people feel about Chinese missiles. This is an appropriate thing for a sovereign independent country seeking to protect the lives and homes of its people to do.

In other words, Chen's motive in seeking to conduct an anti-missile referendum through the legal authority granted by the Referendum Law is defense of the nation.

This is the passive resistance of the oppressed. It is in no way an active provocation nor will it incite regional conflict.

Therefore, the March 20 referendum, regardless of whether it is referred to as a "defensive referendum" or "preventive referendum" or "referendum for peace," the underlying theme is to oppose Chinese military threats.

However, very regrettably, misled by China, democratic countries including the US, Japan and members of the EU have serious concerns about the motives for and impact of the referendum.

They worry that Taiwan plans to hold a referendum on the issue of unification-independence, which they believe will only lead to cross-strait conflict and a disastrous war.

Therefore, since Taiwan declared its intention to conduct a defensive referendum, US officials have repeatedly questioned the necessity of Chen's move. During a summit meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, US President George W. Bush expressed US opposition to any unilateral move for change by either Taiwan or China, and then singled Chen, suggesting that he intended to make unilateral changes.

As indicated by Chen Chien-jen, the head of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, the current situation in the US-Taiwan relationship is "unprecedented," and much needs to be done to patch things up.

In addition to all this, the Japanese government, which has usually remained low-profile about the Taiwan-Japan relationship, recently had Katsuhisa Uchida, Director of the Taipei Office of Japan's Interchange Association, visit Presidential Secretary-General Chiou I-jen to express Japan's concerns about Taiwan's referendum.

EU officials have also voiced strong concerns about Taiwan's defensive referendum.

These voices of concern from the international community are being heard as a result of Chinese pressure.

But the concerns also indicate the government's insufficient effort to communicate with the international community and publicize its policies.

Diplomatic channels of communication have not performed their functions well either, so a situation has arisen in which the international community cannot understand the peaceful nature of Taiwan's defensive referendum.

This has led to worries in the international community that Taiwan may be on the verge of becoming a "troublemaker."

Therefore, the government's most pressing task at this point is to change misconceptions in the international community so that our friends can understand that the defensive referendum is simply a means through which Taiwan is seeking to pursue the universal value of peace, which is something compatible with the founding ideals and human-rights values of democratic countries.

We call on the international community to recognize that Chinese deployment of hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan is an act of terror that no independent sovereign country -- not just Taiwan -- can accept. Our European, Japanese and US friends should have the moral courage to voice support for the people of Taiwan, rather than staying mute or even becoming an accomplice to Chinese aggression.

History has taught us a lesson: that pacifism and tolerance on the part of the international community do not bring peace and stability.

Instead, ambitious superpowers take advantage of tolerance and are encouraged to invade other countries.

Prior to World War II, the US and Europe sat idly by as Germany invaded its neighbors. The US and Europe believed that German aggression was none of their concern. This allowed one of the most horrible episodes in human history to take place.

This part of our past serves as a harsh lesson.

Therefore, against a backdrop of Chinese military threats, the US, Japan and Europe can, by siding with Taiwan, not only preserve the democratic way of life, but also make a wise choice that will ensure the interests and security of the free world.

While the international community may still have its doubts, the government should not back down from its determination to hold a defensive referendum.

Taiwan has faced Chinese obstruction on all fronts -- political, diplomatic and economic -- and even blatant military threats on a long-term basis. However, Taiwan has transformed itself from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, and has left behind the shackles of the Chinese civil war between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party.

Therefore, the country should express and voice its resentment of Chinese oppression, so as to forever walk out of the shadow of Chinese hegemony and follow a path of its own.

At a time when the entire world is waiting for an answer from the people to the question of whether Taiwan is an independent country or part of China, we cannot afford to be divided internally.

The people have no choice but to move forward and bravely follow the path of democracy.

-----------------------------------------