20040531

=======

Voice on May 31, 2004 ……

"If President Chen had talked about constitutional reform or revision or amendment, it would not have attracted the level of concern that it did."--- Shelley Rigger

Words speak louder than actions in cross-strait politics

Shelley Rigger, Brown associate professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College's department of political science, has written several books on Taiwan, including ``Politics in Taiwan'' and ``From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party.'' In Taipei last week to attend a conference entitled ``New Vision of Taiwan Strategic Security Based on Taiwan Entity'' on May 26, Rigger shared her thoughts on recent development of cross-strait relations and impact of President Chen Shui-bian's inaugural speech with ``Taipei Times'' reporter Melody Chen.

Taipei Times (TT): Taiwan always says China misunderstands its efforts to deepen democracy as steps toward independence, such as the referendum and the constitutional reform. Do you perceive any independence intentions in these democratic steps?

Shelley Rigger: There are individuals and groups of individuals within Taiwan who have the long-term ambition of achieving formal and complete independence. Some of them do imagine some of these steps can move Taiwan in that direction.

There is the possibility that for some individuals, [independence] is the intention behind changes like the referendum. But I do not agree that this is President Chen Shui-bian's) or the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) intention.

I don't think President Chen has a timetable for independence that begins with passing the referendum law and [ends with] implementing the constitution in 2008 to achieve independence.

TT: Beijing says it will not hear what Chen Shui-bian says but will only see what he does. China's leaders said they are willing to sacrifice the 2008 Olympic Games to crush independence movements in Taiwan if necessary. How should President Chen react to such statements?

Rigger: We want to take the Taiwanese leadership at its word. If you say this is what you are doing, then we accept that's what you are doing. It's not healthy and it doesn't get us anywhere to constantly be questioning, doubting and probing. We have to believe in each other; otherwise we are getting nowhere.

But likewise, we have to accept what the People's Republic of China [PRC] says to some extent as being what's really in their heart. If we compare their statements in objective measurement of their interest, it is easy to believe what they say.

What they say is: `We don't need to push unification. But we must prevent independence.' What they are preparing to sacrifice everything for is to stop the move toward independence.

President Chen has a lot of room for taking actions that convey the message that he is not trying to push for the way.

TT: From Beijing's statements on May 17 and 24, it is clear China still has a lot of doubts and concerns about Taiwan moving towards independence. What may Taipei do to remove the suspicion?

Rigger: Part of the problem is, of course, the PRC always imagines the worst. Maybe that's a strategic necessity for them.

They always plan for the worst possible case. They assume constitutional reform will be Taiwanese independence.

The way constitutional reform was initiated and discussed at the beginning of the political campaign really gave them more reason to make this argument. I don't think the Americans would have been inclined to accept their logic except that there was some reason to do so.

[President Chen] made a big announcement on Sept. 28 talking about a new constitution. That really gave the PRC a lot of ammunition to use. They said only new countries get new constitutions. New countries use a new constitution to reconstitute their country.

If President Chen had talked about constitutional reform or revision or amendment, it would not have attracted the level of concern that it did.

The fact he is now back to the constitutional reform, revision and amendment in his inauguration speech, in a way, took a big circle to get back to where we started. That process of going around damaged US-Taiwan relations. It also damaged US-PRC relations.

There may be something in the logic that [taking the circle] was necessary and valuable.

But I am not smart enough to see that. I see that damage was done and I don't know how it moves us forward.

Taiwan could pursue constitutional revision through the painful process outlining the existing constitution. I have been talking to some people in the blue camp recently, and they agree the electoral system needs to be reformed. They understand the balance of power between the president and the legislature is unfixed.

TT: You said the "one country, two systems" formulation is dead in Taiwan. Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS (a Honolulu-based research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington), suggested that China invent a more creative and flexible principle to apply to cross-strait relations, such as "one country, two states" or "one country, two governments" model. What do you make of the idea?

Rigger: If that is something the PRC could accept, that would be hard for many Taiwanese to swallow. But it might be possible because Taiwan could get a lot of benefit from putting this conflict behind it.

The "peace rising" in China is inevitably closing in on Taiwan. There will increasingly be a desire in Taiwan to make the situation better. If you could get the PRC to talk about something like the "one country, two states," even though a lot of Taiwanese don't want to think of themselves as Chinese, they might go for it anyway if they are pragmatic enough.

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

On May 31, 2004 ……

DPP must be true to its ideas, ideals

By Peng Pai-hsien

On May 20, under the leadership of its chairman, President Chen Shui-bian, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) began its second four-year period in government. With this historical choice, the people of Taiwan have affirmed Chen's slogan "believe in Taiwan, persist in reform" and put an end to the longstanding nightmarish monopolization of Taiwan's politics and economy by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We therefore believe there is a national consensus reaching across party lines that Chen's most important task, apart from consolidating national security, national defense and diplomacy, is to actively work toward improving the economy.

Taiwan's economy is certain to face a challenging international economic environment in the 21st century. The nation should unite and be flexible in response to sudden future changes. Given its control over resource allocation, Chen's government should make particular preparations for and propose strategies capable of leading the nation in the face of challenge and generating good economic results.

Facing the immediate international situation, Taiwan should first of all prepare for stiff competition resulting from economic globalization. Every nation, industrialized or developing, does its utmost to promote economic growth, and even the communist world is now casting off its rigid "-isms" and dogma and is turning to market economics. The government is responsible for proposing strategies to deal with Taiwan's survival and development in the face of global competition. We believe that one important economic issue Chen and his government must deal with is proposing a global economic strategy for Taiwan as it becomes integrated into the international community.

Taiwan cannot hide its head in the sand for ideological reasons, but must identify with Asia and accept the fact that China is finally about to take over from Japan as Asia's biggest economic power. Where does Taiwan position itself in this changing situation? And, in particular, the 2008 timetable for writing a new constitution is certain to intensify cross-strait tension. What will the resulting situation be? These are challenges to Taiwan's economy.

Furthermore, the question of whether Chen's new government will be able to consolidate public trust in the economy will be crucial to building a soaring Taiwanese economy. It is therefore necessary to review and affirm the key importance of economy and human resources. People with economic talent cannot all be trained in one fell swoop, and talented individuals are not at anyone's beck and call. Trampling over talent is a terrible waste of resources and a loss for the society.

It is generally recognized that the DPP's talent structure is tilted toward law and politics and that the party lacks expert economic talent. A responsible party should pay long-term attention to the training of economic talent.

The public's view of the importance a party attaches to the economy and its ability to solve economic problems is an important part of building social trust. This is an area where the Chen government has to change. Be it the tang wai movement or the DPP, their historical inability to acknowledge the importance of economic issues has meant that Taiwan's democracy movement has always had to play the role of an opposition party.

When it comes to the DPP's performance in the economic arena, I remember when I, Chen, Frank Hsieh, Lu Hsiu-yi, Yeh Chu-lan, Chen Ding-nan and 16 other DPP members were first elected to the legislature 14 or 15 years ago. During the first legislative session, Chen Shui-bian served as caucus whip, and I served as convener of the caucus' budget team, writing the "DPP Caucus 1990 Budget White Paper." This was the first important step toward the opposition's participation in the national budget review, where we attacked the government from the point of view of resource allocation. At the time, this won a certain level of recognition among the middle class.

During the second legislative session, Hsieh served as caucus whip. I served as convener of the caucus' finance and economics group, where I planned a series of public hearings called "Diagnosing Taiwan's Economy." Participants included several well-known scholars and 30 of Taiwan's most outstanding economic experts. In the conservative environment of the time, this group changed the way many people viewed the DPP.

I was also responsible for creating the hearing report for the caucus. At 11 hearings over three months, we gave Taiwan a first peek at the DPP's attempts at diagnosing the national economy. Many of these experts have later gone on to become important members of Chen's government and national policy team. Three years later, Hsu Tien-tsai joined our ranks, and the DPP's financial and economic record impressed on the public the idea that the DPP was a possible future ruling party.

Looking back at the difficulties during these pioneering days, I cannot help hoping that the DPP will be able to build on the spirit of its days in opposition, when, despite its weakness, the party managed to gain a correct understanding of Taiwan's social economy.

I also hope the DPP will be able to remember that during those early days it could only rely on its influence in the legislature to impress the party's potential on the public. Gradually building wide public support on that foundation, it then finally defeated the KMT to become the ruling party.

The government must now respect the promises it made when asking for voter support during the presidential election campaign. It must respect the importance of the economy and human resources, listen to public complaints and accept the advice of industry and academia.

The DPP should use the huge executive system and its resource distribution power to build wealth and create benefits for the nation and its people, while staying true to its early political aims.

Peng Pai-hsien chairs the Taiwan Professors Association's socio-economic group.

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

On May 31, 2004 ……

Mutual trust key to military policy

By Pu Ta-chung

China and Taiwan are like two fractious schoolchildren. They draw a line across their desk to separate themselves, then falsely accusing each other of purposely putting an elbow across before running to their teacher (the US) to complain. Recently, there have been a number of incidents in which China and Taiwan have each accused the other of crossing the "middle line" of the Taiwan Strait.

Taipei has accused Beijing of using both military and diplomatic threats during the run-up to the presidential inauguration on May 20, and incidences of "middle line" violations have increased. Beijing has berated Taipei for inciting its fighters to provocative behavior, hoping they will provide a pretext for President Chen Shui-bien to influence opinion against the "motherland," and has threatened to shoot any planes crossing the "middle line" out of the sky.

Despite this rhetoric, the two sides are not without a tacit understanding in military matters. Since China came out badly from a number of past air engagements, both sides now understand how far they can go. The basic principle has been that neither side will cross the line that divides the Strait; passenger carriers, cargo vessels and supply vessels which pose no threat being exempt from this rule.

In fact, surveillance craft make intermittent forays across the line, and these are simply monitored; in fact, even fighters cross over occasionally to test the oppositions radar coverage, but even this falls into the realm of a cross-strait understanding, and though the air force is always mobilized to block and drive off the intruders, there has never been an exchange of fire. It has been like this for the last few decades. But more recently, crossing the line has suddenly elicited severe warnings. This somewhat unexpected response is probably the result of political factors.

The speed and accuracy of modern weapons are better than ever before and this kind of unstated understanding between the two sides is now wholly insufficient. More sophisticated and precise mechanisms need to be put in place to prevent accidental military escalation. Countries with similar military capabilities are usually willing to have such a consultation mechanism in place, but if there is a significant differential in military capability, there is a lack of willingness to have such an understanding with an enemy power. Since the spy plane incident [in April 2001], China and the US have established a preventative mechanism. But the former is still unwilling to establish a similar mechanism with Taiwan.

We still hope that such a mechanism of mutual trust can be established to prevent the escalation of unintentional conflict that may draw in the US and lead to huge losses on both sides. China should agree to a consultative mechanism for military matters if it wants to avoid an unintentional conflict with Taiwan, especially now that Taipei is installing medium-range and cruise missiles, and also because nuclear capability is so easily acquired these days. This has nothing to do with politics, and is simply a precaution. China has no reason to reject it.

Looking at the experience of 50 years of peaceful coexistence in [Western] Europe and the crisis management mechanisms that operated during the Cold War, we can see that there are three mechanisms to reduce the chances of an accidental military conflict: a purely defensive military, military transparency and the telephone hotline. The first has already been established by Taipei, but not by Beijing. This is understandable and is hardly surprising. Military transparency refers to revealing and explaining each other's military deployments, military exercises, along with the establishment of a monitoring mechanism.

China and Taiwan could achieve a partial realization of this simply by expanding and systemizing the current mutual understanding on military matters. The establishment of a hot line is probably the most important preventative mechanism and it can help resolve misunderstandings that could lead to a major conflict the moment they happen.

If Beijing rejects the first two of these options, it should at least accept the third. As Taipei is in a position of weakness, its need for such a mechanism is the more urgent. Nevertheless, for the interest of both sides, it's about time that they begin negotiations in relation to establishing a mechanism of mutual trust in military matters.

Pu Ta-chung is a journalist based in Taipei.

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

On May 31, 2004 ……

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