20040112

=======

Reported on Jan. 12, 2004 ……

It is time for China's people to speak up

`They need to be asked their opinion.'

By Richard C. Kagan

President Chen Shui-bian has asked the people of Taiwan to vote in a referendum challenging China's military strategy of aiming nearly 500 missiles at Taiwan.

I would like to suggest that Chen go one step further. He could ask the Chinese people to sponsor the following opinion polls:

First, should Beijing allow referendums in China? China claims that it is against only Chen's referendum. But does China support the democratic procedure of referendums? Premier Hu Jintao claims that he is listening to the people. But how does he do this?

Second, do the Chinese people want to kill their son or daughter in an attack on Taiwan? The "one child" policy has limited the ability of Chinese families to expand. Do they really want to take the risk of losing their precious offspring in an attack on Taiwan? Let's have a referendum on whether the Chinese people want to die to retake Taiwan.

Third, how about a poll on reunification? There was a report that students at Beijing University wanted to ask their fellow Chinese whether or not they wanted to reunite with Taiwan. This proposal was quickly squashed. But why? Do the Chinese really want to absorb Taiwan into their new empire? How many really care about Taiwan? Let's ask some Tibetans, some Uighurs, some Hmong, some very rich people in Shanghai and Tientsin.

Four, what is the Chinese perception of the value for Taiwan to be united with China? We could ask several questions. Would the quality of life in Taiwan improve if it was part of China? (By the way, we would need to educate the Chinese about the meaning of the term "quality of life.") Would the income of the Taiwanese be improved? Would the Taiwanese have more freedom of speech, voting, religious expression? If nationalism is the only reason to reunify, what would the Chinese be willing to sacrifice for nationalism? Their environment? Their health? Their lives in a war with Taiwan? Last year I traveled on a moped in the hills around Hsinchu. As I puttered through little villages and ate at small restaurants, I tried to visualize how annexation by China would benefit these people's lives. I could think of nothing. Would either the Chinese in China or the Taiwanese really want to create another level of bureaucracy -- ie, Beijing -- to negotiate their happiness, welfare, economic activities, travel, religious rites and legal system? What type of person in Beijing would want to be posted in Taiwan to oversee the lives, livelihoods and living conditions of the Taiwanese?

Five, do people in Fujian want missiles aimed at Taiwan on their shore? Is the entire policy of uniting Taiwan with China nothing more than a prop for the military? Let's take this mobilization of wealth, people, militaristic policies, international threats away from the military. Who would benefit? The possibility of democracy? The daily lives of the Chinese people?

Six, what province would want to have the military building missiles on the their territory? Tibet? Xinjiang? What cities would want such missiles? Shanghai? Nanjing?

It is time, in the words of Mao Zedong, to have the Chinese people stand up. They should be given the opportunity to voice their concerns about China's aggressive and wasteful foreign policy toward Taiwan. They need to be educated about the consequences. They need to be asked their opinion. To use a variation on an old Chinese idiom: A long journey [to enlightenment] begins with a single thought.

Richard C. Kagan is professor of history at Hamline University.

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

On Jan. 12, 2004 ……

New book reveals Chen's hope for cross-strait ties

STRATEGIC INTERESTS: The president says China wants to annex Taiwan for tactical superiority and that only a liberated PRC can reduce security concerns in the region

By Chang Yun-ping, STAFF REPORTER

President Chen Shui-bian says in his latest book that Taiwan can never become a second Hong Kong because such a move would jeopardize regional security and open a strategic passage for China to dominate the western Pacific.

His latest book, Believe in Taiwan -- President A-bian's Report to the People, which will be released on Thursday, details Chen's views of cross-strait dynamics over the past three years and provides his perspectives on the future of China-Taiwan relations.

Chen says China has always opposed and oppressed Taiwan's democracy, as it demonstrated in the past two presidential elections, because China sees Taiwan's democracy as the greatest provocation.

Describing the rise of China as a major power in Asia as the realization of the Chinese "Monroe Doctrine," Chen says China has become a hegemonic power in Southeast Asia, a situation generating mixed feelings among other Asian nations.

"If China eventually is liberated as a free nation, the threats of China will diminish; however, if China remains as a robotic dictatorship state, the threats from China will always cloud neighboring Asian countries," he says in the book.

The president points out that China is a continental power, and the key to China's becoming a real regional power is control over the sea. However, as the People's Liberation Army Navy still lacks the ability to project power beyond its coastal areas, China hasn't been able to become a regional power in the western Pacific.

In this regard, Chen says Tai-wan is the key to China's becoming a regional power in the western Pacific, as once Taiwan has been annexed, China's access to the Taiwan Strait would bring the whole western Pacific under its influence.

To that end, Chen says, "If China wants to control Taiwan, it is not necessary to occupy Taiwan. All it needs is to support a pro-China political power in Taiwan and make Taiwan a second Hong Kong. In that case, the Chinese vessels could travel to eastern Taiwan, bringing greater challenges to security in the Asia-Pacific area."

Chen also says China will "use business to surround the government, use the economy to push for unification and use force to prevent Taiwan independence."

Moreover, Chen says Beijing has now used the Americans to pressure Taiwan as the latest tactic to suppress Taiwan's democratization.

The "one country, two systems" experiment has suffocated Hong Kong's development, Chen says, so the system will soon prove itself "a mission impossible" because it goes against the basic logic of political power and human nature in pursuing freedom.

Chen says the greatest challenge China faces is not Taiwan, but western China, where many people still live in dire poverty.

"There are very few counties in the world that can allow vast proportions of its land and people to live poorly and to allow such a huge gap between the rich and poor, while trying to maintain political stability. The problems in this area will become a grave issue for the future of China," Chen says.

The president says he delivered utmost goodwill in his 2000 inaugural speech and had wished China would put aside the controversial "one China" principle to tackle the practical matters that would mutually benefit both sides.

However, Chen says, China turned a deaf ear to his goodwill and remained obdurate on its "one China" principle, which insists on Taiwan's acceptance of the "one country, two systems" formula for unification.

After the next election, Chen says, China will have to rethink its resistance to dealing with his administration and reopen dialogue with the Taiwanese government because, he believes, he will win the election and become a majority leader.

He says China and Taiwan will have to develop confidence-building measures to reduce tensions and improve mutual understanding.

He suggested the both sides send representatives to initiate dialogue and communication channels so as to reduce cross-strait misunderstandings.

Chen also expresses the hope of reopening dialogue with China, saying, "We are willing to sit down for talks with China in any location. Passively, the talks can clarify mutual understanding and reduce misjudgment; while positively, they could facilitate reconciliation and dialogue opportunities."

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

On Jan. 12, 2004 ……

In response to our critics

Some of our readers are shocked! shocked! to find that we have ideas of our own. How dare you write such pro-green editorials, say our critics. What happened to the idea of objectivity? Frankly we are getting so tired of this kind of nonsense that we might as well put the record straight.

There is much to be done among historians of journalism in tracing the curious idea of objectivity. We say curious because it is quite obvious that people start newspapers because they have an agenda they want to promulgate. Newspapers are first ways to seek influence, then money-making businesses; they are not public services.

They provide news about current affairs to attract readers, but that news is, in a way, only bait. The kernel of a paper is its editorial and opinion pages. Papers exist to get views across, usually the views of their owners and the views of the people the owner has put in place to run the paper. Every paper has its opinions and its prejudices; these are what one usually thinks of as the paper's distinctive voice.

In some countries this is more discernible than others. There is an obvious difference between the watery liberalism of The Washington Post and the aggressive conservatism of The Wall Street Journal, even in the US where "objectivity" is fetishized. In Britain, on the other hand, there is simply no pretence that papers are "objective." They are not politically neutral and nobody would buy them if they were. In Britain the paper you read defines your political stance -- and often social class. Readers buy these papers to be informed -- they certainly contain lots of news -- but also to find out what people who think much as you do yourself are saying about the major issues of the day, on the opinion pages. But even the news is slanted, and readers know this. A bomb attack in Iraq will be covered in The Times very differently from in The Guardian despite the facts being exactly the same. And this, mind you, on the news pages.

Here at the Taipei Times we have never made any secret of our stance. We support Taiwan's continued de facto independence and we support de jure independence but are well aware of the problems involved in establishing it. We support, above all, selfdetermination for the people of Taiwan in all matters and deplore those either within or outside Taiwan who would stand in the way of this. We believe that Taiwan is a nation, but has yet to forge a national consciousness. We believe this has much to do with the colonial-style rule of the KMT government between 1949 and the mid-1990s; to build Taiwan as a nation it is, therefore, essential to dismantle both the political and cultural legacy of that era -- dedicated as it was to repression of native consciousness. Everything needs to be changed from the Constitution to schoolbooks to street names. China is another, foreign country. We oppose unification.

That said, it should be obvious why with such core values we appear to be pro-green. Alert readers will, of course, know that we have sometimes been scathing toward the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government in the last three and a half years. We are far from thinking that it is above criticism. But if you support Taiwan's development as an independent nation, as a liberal democracy, corruption free and governed by the rule of law, there is simply no other political allegiance you can currently hold. The blue camp stands for everything that a healthy Taiwan has to move away from if it is to realize its destiny as a nation. Of course you might disagree with this, you might not want Taiwan to be an independent nation. In which case we say, without apology, we are not writing for you.

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

On Jan. 12, 2004 ……

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

On Jan. 12, 2004 ……

Which side are you on?

Yang Ji-charng, Columbus, Ohio

David Evseeff (Letters, Jan. 8, page 8) described President Chen Shiu-bian as selfish, stubborn and inexperienced and wrote that US soldiers may die as a result of his proposed referendum, though the details of the referendum are yet to be determined.

Obviously, it is not fair to view this referendum as a gimmick. Like the presidential election, the referendum is an exercise of democracy.

In previous elections, China launched missiles into Taiwan's waters and verbally coerced Taiwanese people in order to affect the results of the elections. In both cases it backfired because the US government and Taiwanese people were firm.

This time, China is more sophisticated and seems to be having some success. It convinced the US, the EU and Japan that any referendum will lead to the destabilization of the area. The US seems not to be firm this time in terms of supporting its democratic ally. It looks as if Chen was deemed provocative and careless in wanting to change the status quo unilaterally.

The cooperation between China and the pan-blue camp seems to be enjoying the upper hand and working perfectly now, because the pan-blue camp tactically retreated on its own referendum while leaving Chen out to dry. However, peace and stability are what the people in Taiwan want, and also to preserve prosperity.

Chen is no different from US President George W. Bush. Both are publicly elected and know very well the importance of peace and stability.

Taiwan's needs are to join the UN and WHO so its people can live proudly and with dignity; to ask China to take the gun away from its head so its people can live without fear; and to change the outdated Constitution so Taiwan's people can live in the real world instead of living under a fantasy that its territory includes China and Mongolia.

These are legitimate human rights issues. In Taiwan, people and parties have been divided over these issues for more than 50 years. Can Taiwan afford another 50 years of this?

Certainly, the dispute with China should be resolved peacefully through dialogue. However, with China's insistence on the "one China" precondition for dialogue, it will just be a stalemate unless Taiwan surrenders its sovereignty.

Which side are you on? The evil empire's side, or democracy's?

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

On Jan. 12, 2004 ……

Grow up, start thinking

Cheng-Mei Hsieh, Tainan

David Evseeff, your comments (Letters, Jan. 8, page 8) about our president's right to hold a referendum are a useful example of how hypocrisy and arrogance flourish among some of the foreign teachers in Taiwan.

Your lack of knowledge of your own country's history is typical, but also a sad reflection on how the education system has failed you. Let's refresh your memory and remind you why you are able to speak freely, albeit ineptly.

Your own country's forefathers fought to gain freedom and the right to self-determination against a force that was determined not to give them that freedom. Your countrymen fought because they believed in themselves and they believed that another country had no right to undermine their pursuit of liberty. I'd like you to think about the consequences had the founders of your country claimed to support democracy, as you have, and then, as you have, suggest it was only a big joke on the citizens.

Your hypocrisy is most evident in your preoccupation with the perceived danger to your own country's citizens, while you only fleetingly mention your Taiwanese friends. I feel sorry for the people here in Taiwan that may be depending on you.

Perhaps your real concern is not what our president does and does not have the right to do but rather maintaining the status quo so you can continue to draw your paycheck.

China's use of threats and force against Taiwan is not only wholly undemocratic, but is also immoral. Remember morals?

The Taiwanese have the right to ask themselves whether or not they oppose a potential military strike on their country. This is about what's right and wrong and not about Chen.

It is time for you to grow up and become a thinking member of the society you have chosen to seek employment in, instead of spending your time commenting on issues which only expose your suspect morals and your relatively low intelligence.

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