20040305
=======
Against democracy on March 5, 2004 ……
Academics skeptical of Beijing
IMPARTIAL? Beijing says it will not
interfere with the election, but it is interested
By Melody Chen, STAFF REPORTER
Government officials and academics yesterday said they doubted an announcement by China's National People's Congress (NPC) that Beijing has no interest in Taiwan's presidential election.
China "has never interfered with elections in Taiwan and also has no interest in the ongoing election," said NPC spokesman Jiang Enzhu.
The Chinese parliament's new session opens today in Beijing.
"No matter who comes to power
after the election, we hope he can accept the `one China' principle, on which
basis the two sides of the Taiwan Strait could hold dialogue and negotiations
and realize direct links," Jiang said.
President Chen Shui-bian flatly rejects the "one China" principle, while Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan cleaves to that principle, albeit with an interpretation of his own.
"`One China' refers to the Republic of China, which is Taiwan. There is only one China in the world," Lien has said.
Chang Wu-yen, a professor at the Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University, said Beijing has emphasized its lack of interest in this month's election in order to clear itself of the suspicion that was attempting to sway the result.
"The fact is that China has never been so concerned about an election in Taiwan," Chang said.
Beijing's refusal to renounce the possible use of force against Taiwan is one of the factors causing the US to see China as playing a destabilizing role in the Taiwan Strait, Chang said.
Chang was reacting to comments made on Tuesday by US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, Powell said: "We do not support Taiwan's independence, and we oppose moves by either side to unilaterally change the status quo."
"In this regard, we also strongly oppose the use of force or its threat across the Taiwan Strait. China's military build-up opposite Taiwan is destabilizing. We urge a posture more conducive to the peaceful resolution of existing disputes," Powell said.
The US is worried about Beijing's refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, Chang said.
While stating that the US adheres firmly to its "one China" policy, Powell also noted the policy is defined by the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.
The Mainland Affairs Council , which has called for China not to attempt to influence the election, has been closely observing the preparations for this year's NPC session but made no public comments on its spokesman's remarks.
A council official, however, said it is unlikely the NPC would come out with ground-breaking cross-strait policies during the session because China wants to avoid drawing a strong reaction from Taiwan ahead of the vote.
Chen Chung-hong, director of the council's department of information and liaison, said recently that Beijing has strengthened cooperation with think tanks in the US and Europe as part of efforts to reform its international image.
China has devoted large sums to promoting its cross-strait policy in the international community and its businesspeople have sought ties with US officials and academics.
"Chinese businesspeople have great influence on other countries' politics and media because of their business strength. Taiwan needs to pay attention to these people," Chen Chung-hong said.
-----------------------------------------
On March 5, 2004 ……
Opponents of the rally are against democracy
By Paul Lin
The 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally was a great success.
Around 2 million people of all ages joined hands even in remote areas on Saturday to form a 500km-long human chain from Hoping Island near Keelung to Changlung in Pingtung County. In high spirits and in a peaceful atmosphere, people said "yes" to Taiwan and "no" to China.
Only by speaking out against China's missiles and protecting peace in the Taiwan Strait can the country stand up and maintain prosperity. This massive public mobilization has rocked the whole nation, China and the entire world. Its profound significance will gradually surface.
The main theme of the rally was to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and self-awareness and say "no" to China. This was another kind of democratic referendum, making the voice of the Taiwanese people heard by China and the whole world.
Beijing certainly is very scared and therefore on the eve of the rally it manipulated the Hong Kong media to again hype the National Security Bureau's secret account scandal, attempting to smear the rally's most important figure, former president Lee Teng-hui. But the huge turnout proved that China's attempt had failed.
Deplorably, some pan-blue politicians cannot change their old habit of bowing and scraping to China. Clearly, the rally was aimed at displaying the Taiwanese people's solidarity to China and the entire world.
These politicians did not join and even distorted it.
The rally clearly showed Beijing the determination of the people of Taiwan to protect the nation, but these pan-blue people branded it an activity to create ethnic division.
Even though they were intimidating people in order to prevent them from attending the rally, they nevertheless held a "Heart-to-Heart Rally," which included a blood donation drive to symbolize ethnic reconciliation, marked by the slogan, "I am in your blood and you are in my blood."
But they have never criticized the Chinese government, which has suppressed Taiwan, undermined its internal solidarity by using the independence-unification issue and threatened it with missiles.
Does the "you" in the above slogan refer to the bandit regime across the Strait? Why are they afraid to take Beijing to task?
The pan-blue camp has followed the pan-green's initiatives on both the referendum issue and constitutional reform.
But they only put forth fake proposals to deceive those who do not realize the truth, thereby messing up the election campaign and the nation's political situation.
This is most obvious with the government about to hold a referendum based on the Referendum Law, which was passed by the pan-blue-dominated legislature after being altered to become something completely different, because the pan-blue alliance did an about-face under strong pressure from China and withdrew the five referendum questions it had originally submitted. It is now pulling out all the stops to oppose the referendum and is even appealing to the public not to vote.
Their disregard for and manipulation of the people's basic right to hold a referendum is in fact poisonous residue left over from their authoritarian mindset and cannot be separated from their longstanding disregard for the people. It is also sinful to brown-nose an anti-democratic, autocratic regime.
The rally attended by 2 million people symbolizes the formation of a new Taiwanese "gemeinschaft of destiny."
People's love for peace and self-awareness constitute an important force to prevent China from launching attacks and destroying democracy.
Paul Lin is a commentator on politics based in New York.
-----------------------------------------
On March 5, 2004 ……
Taiwanese-American groups give Bush 9,000 letters
By Charles Snyder, STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Representatives from seven organizations representing Taiwanese-Americans presented around 9,000 letters to US President George W. Bush Wednesday urging him to support the March 20 referendum, in return receiving what one member of the delegation felt was a sense of "tacit support" for the referendum.
The group spent an hour with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Randall Schriver delivering the letters, which were signed by US citizens of Taiwanese descent and their friends during a two-month signature campaign by the organizations, and discussing the referendum issue.
According to group members, Schriver agreed to deliver the letters to the White House and assured the group that the White House knew of the contents of the petition.
"I left with the impression that the referendum was enjoying tacit support by the US government," Bob Yang, the chairman of the World United Formosans for Independence-USA and a leader of the group, told the Taipei Times, although he did not quote Schriver as saying that.
Schriver quoted a recent statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell as the definitive US policy toward the election, according to Yang. In that statement, delivered in answer to a question while addressing a Feb. 11 hearing of the House International Relations Committee, Powell said that Taiwan is a "democratic place," and "if they choose to have a referendum, they can have a referendum."
Powell also said the administration does not see the need for a referendum, and cautioned against actions to change the "situation" in the Taiwan Strait, although he did not use the phrase "status quo."
The most important message to come out of the group's meeting with Schriver is that the referendum was Taiwan's choice, Yang said.
The meeting also dwelt on US defense commitments to Taiwan. Yang quoted Schriver as saying that the commitment to provide defensive arms to Taipei is as strong as ever, although Washington is still concerned over Taiwan's lack of progress in committing funds to buy the weapons the US has promised.
In this, Schriver singled out the failure of the Legislative Yuan to approve adequate funds.
In the letter to Bush, dated Jan. 16, the signatories warned that US non-support for the referendum could have serious negative consequences for Taiwan and the region.
"It would be self-defeating for the US to pressure President Chen Shui-bian to abandon the referendum," the letter said.
"President Chen's disappointed supporters could abstain from voting en masse to protest his betrayal of democracy. The electoral victory of the KMT-PFP pan-blue alliance will most likely result in Taiwan's capitulation to China within a couple of years."
"This will terminate our [America's] role as the guarantor of peace in East Asia and usher in seminal turmoil in the region," the letter said.
The letter urged Bush to reaffirm that the status of Taiwan must be settled peacefully with the assent of its people, and urges him to bolster the US military presence in the Western Pacific in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Pentagon's own recommendations, "to deter Chinese military action against Taiwan."
In a press conference prior to the Schriver meeting, the group criticized Bush's statements after meeting last December with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
Bush "seems to have sided with China when he met with Wen," said Formosan Association for Public Affairs vice president Chen Yen-sen, an opinion shared by other delegation members.
The group wants Bush to "make a more favorable comment regarding the referendum," said Milton Chen, president of the North American Taiwanese Professors' Association.
He also said Bush should make a statement urging China to withdraw the 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan.
Nora Tsai, president of the North American Taiwanese Women's Association, said "just a gesture" from Bush in favor of Taiwan "would say something."
Other delegates represented the Formosan Association for Human Rights, the Formosan Association for Public Relations, and the Taiwanese Association of America.
-----------------------------------------
On March 5, 2004 ……
HK pro-democracy lawmaker defends trip to Washington
AFP AND REUTERS , HONG KONG
Under-fire Hong Kong legislator Martin Lee compared himself to US civil rights leader Martin Luther King yesterday as he defended a decision to campaign for democracy in the US.
"Martin Luther King had a dream -- my name is Martin too and I have two dreams," he said on Hong Kong cable TV news from Washington.
"I have a dream of democracy in Hong Kong and to be able to return to China," he said.
The Democratic Party legislator has caused a storm back home and in China by flying to the US to address a hastily convened Senate East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee hearing on democracy in the territory.
Lee -- who is traveling with fellow
pro-democracy Legislator James To and human-rights activist Lee Cheuk-yan --
was branded a "clown" and a "dreamer" by Chinese officials
who say he has brought foreign interference into China's internal affairs.
Lee has said he would tell US senators that the people of Hong Kong want full popular elections from 2007, but that he would not ask them for help.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry weighed into the fray yesterday, warning the US to stay out of its business.
"We, the Chinese government, resolutely oppose any attempts to interfere in its internal affairs," said foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.
"Hong Kong's democratic issue is China's internal affairs, and the Basic Law has earnestly safeguarded the democracy of Hong Kong and its people's democratic rights," Liu said.
"The Chinese people are wise enough to handle Hong Kong affairs according to the law, and any random comments from external forces are not necessary," he said.
The foreign ministry also posted the statement on its Web site (www.fmprc.gov.cn).
Earlier, senior officials berated Lee and his mission.
"A few people always like going overseas to ask for help," news reports quoted the vice-minister of commerce as saying before branding them "clowns."
Lee's mission comes amid a heated debate over the future of democracy in the territory.
Democrats want full elections of the chief executive by 2007.
But Beijing has quashed hopes for an early transition to democracy, overshadowing the debate with a discussion about patriotism and whether or not democrats like Lee would be considered patriotic enough to hold office.
-----------------------------------------
On March 5, 2004 ……
Finding the chain of equivalence
By Yen Chueh-an
Following the lifting of martial law, the nation's democracy has moved forward by leaps and bounds. From the full-scale election of the legislature to the direct election of the president, provincial governor and city mayors, from the freezing of the provincial government to the abolition of the National Assembly, from the transfer of power in 2000 to the current heated referendum debate, there have always been people who worried that the sky would fall and who therefore tried to apply the brakes.
But while they were looking for the brake pedal, the people swiftly moved on to the next stage.
Looking back at the elections to increase the number of legislators in the legislature ("unconstitutional"), the founding of new political parties under the new-party ban ("illegal") and the alarmist statements made in the book T-day published in 1994 ("war"), we see that any kind of positive or negative statement may be the subject of gradually increasing attention and debate. But through the democratic process, the result is an advancement of the general situation. I guess the referendum will bring the same result.
But are there also some demands that in spite of the democratic process remain in the dark, forgotten. Political maneuvering inevitably requires a representative chain of equivalence relations [A=B=C=D, and so on] in order to bring about popular cohesion, promote a wave of collective activities, and bring legitimacy to the discourse.
"Democracy" and
"people" are two of the most important symbols of general representativeness
in modern politics, but if the two cannot be included on the actual political
battlefield to become part of a chain of equivalence in a meaningful discourse,
they will remain empty concepts.
"People" thus must be equated with the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong.
For contemporary Americans, liberal democracy is equated with the US Constitution, the American way of life, US diplomacy and anti-terrorism. The greatest differences of understanding this equation are no more than the question of whether terrorism should be opposed in the manner advocated by US President George W. Bush.
In our chain-of-equivalence conflict, "Taiwan," "Taiwanese people," "Taiwanese sovereignty and independence," "democratic reform" and "referendum" are equated with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), President Chen Shui-bian, the pan-green camp and former president Lee Teng-hui, while "the Taiwanese people," "the happiness of the people of Taiwan," and "fighting for the economy" are equated with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People First Party (PFP) and the Lien Chan-James Soong presidential ticket.
Because there really is some distance between the symbols for Taiwan on the one hand, and the Lien-Soong ticket on the other hand, the pan-blue camp is forced to promote a system of negative equations, such as equating the referendum to war, and the DPP is forced to promote provocation of ethnic groups and so on.
It is worth noticing that "black gold" -- which used to stick to the KMT like glue -- this time around has been pushed to the rear. Maybe it is like Kao Lang said -- most of the "black gold" disease disappeared when the KMT went into opposition.
But doesn't this carry the implication that "black gold" in fact is "white gold," and even a source of nourishment for this kind of liberal democratic government, and that this kind of government is a crucial link in the food chain of modern vested interests?
One important function of the chain-of-equivalence discourse is that it hides this food chain. But people are not stupid, and it is impossible that they will not see the existence of the food chain.
Referendums on the national level --
Taiwan's, for example -- risk reducing the complexity of the chain of
equivalence, but by refusing to vote we instead place ourselves in the midst of
a reductive polarized opposition, using passive inaction to actively verify and
even expand the reduction of the chain of equivalence, thereby covering up
reflection over the food chain -- for example, opposition to missile purchases.
The Lafayette frigate-related Yin Ching-feng case made us see how the Taiwanese people fattened pan-blue politicians and international arms dealers. How can they not say "no" to US arms dealers now that they are given the opportunity?
Letting there be conflict over seemingly indisputable options is to dissolve reductive equivalence. The chain of equivalence and the food chain will not disappear. We may not be able to do more than to demystify the former and expose the latter.
Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------