Food war

A Taiwan food company put out rice crackers packed with icons of US President George W. Bush and his Iraqi Counterpart Saddam Hussein last week in Taipei.

Lien Chan makes China an issue

KMT Chairman Lien Chan's speech following his -- inevitable -- nomination as the party's presidential candidate contained this little gem: "I will push for immediate opening of a direct air link with China and sign several agreements with China so that Taiwan and mainland people can live in peace."

A pity that Lien wasn't more forthcoming because we urgently need to know what these agreements might be. Right now it is hard to know whether Lien is a pathetic King Lear: "I will do such things, though I know not yet what they be ..." or whether he is moving one step nearer to his goal of selling Taiwan's sovereignty for Beijing's anointment of him as the Tung Chee-hwa of the Taiwan Special Administrative Region.

What sort of agreement does Lien have in mind? What sort of agreement would be palatable to Beijing? Direct links perhaps -- there is little popular resistance to what most take as a common-sense measure ignoring, perhaps unwisely, the important security issues involved. But it seems from Lien's speech that the agreements are in addition to the opening of direct links. So what might they contain?

We know what Beijing wants: an end to Taiwan's diplomatic efforts and a commitment to some kind of reunification. This seems to be something that the KMT of Lien Chan -- unlike the KMT of Lee Teng-hui -- is prepared to offer. Taiwan's quid pro quo will of course be some kind of peace treaty, supposedly lifting the military threat from China. If this is the case we immediately have to say that it is a very one-sided deal since Beijing gets a commitment from Taiwan that is in all practical senses irrevocable -- for any future move on the part of Taiwan's government to pull out of it would be regarded as a cassus belli -- while Beijing's commitment is something it can tear up any time it likes.

One might expect Beijing to want an agreement by Taiwan to cease its purchase of advanced arms from the US. After all, it will reason, why spend so much on advanced weapons when Taiwan faces no military threat. To agree to this is to agree to Taiwan's extinction in anything like its current form. But will Lien see it like that?

To speculate more on what Lien might be willing to sign is probably a waste of time at this stage until he has made his aims clearer and provided real policy details. After all, he might only be talking of restarting the SEF-ARATS consultation process which produced landmark agreements in, er, recognition of each other's registered mail.

But something else bothers us. Before the last presidential election PFP Chairman James Soong sensibly pointed out that it was a waste of time for a leader of Taiwan to go to China until there was a consensus in Taiwan over what his negotiating position should be. Three years later we are still no nearer to such a consensus. It is regrettable that the Chen Shui-bian government, in order to avoid controversy and intra-party dissension, has done little to fire the tough public debate that would be needed to form one.

But taking a cue from Soong, we have to ask Lien this: Since there is no consensus among the people of Taiwan about relations with China, how does he think he can speedily sign agreements with China on their behalf? Lien might claim that victory gives him a mandate. But it would do so only if China, not that KMT favorite, the economy, is the main topic of the election. So when the DPP attacks Lien on China during the campaign and the KMT accuses the DPP of trying to cover up its own lackluster record, the answer is, no -- China is central to the KMT platform, that is what the election is about. Lien said it was yesterday.

Annan finding his voice

NO MORE MR. NICE GUY：Having watched the UN fail to prevent war in Iraq, its leader is trying to make sure that his organization has a role in the relief work

As Kofi Annan sees it, the time for low profiles is past.

A war has erupted without sanction from the UN, and as its secretary-general, he has to peak up about the conflict, look to the future of Iraq, and keep the Nobel Prize-winning institution from reverting to its Cold War self: a bypassed, impossibly intricate bureaucracy, an off-off-Broadway stage featuring small-time diplomatic dramas.

So Annan has spent the past three weeks offering pointed observations: first about who failed whom and now about who is paying the price and what can be done about it. It is, he acknowledges, the “most difficult” moment of his four decades at the UN.

The defiant Iraqi government, the US-British coalition and the splintered Security Council itself, all have been on the receiving end of his pointed reminders.

“Now I have to play an active role in this delicate next phase, where we are looking at a humanitarian situation: post-conflict Iraq, and where we go from here,” Annan said in an interview on Friday.

He said, “And that’s why I’m up front and why I’m going to be” up front.

If the UN is going to be pulled back from the brink of yet another cycle of irrelevancy, the pulling can’t be done from inside a bureaucratic foxhole. So Annan has emerged to lead his own kind of low-key charge into the chaotic unknowns of the Iraqi future.

His aggressive public diplomacy is energized in part because he came late to the conclusion that this war was unavoidable. To the incredulity of at least one seasoned envoy, Annan says that he did not realize until about four weeks ago that a second Persian Gulf War had become inevitable. “How could he believe” that war could be avoided, said this senior diplomat, a man too seasoned to attach his name anywhere near such thoughts.

But, Annan said in the interview, that was indeed what he believed.

“Even with the buildup of forces, I felt it was still possible to resolve the issue peacefully. I felt the mounting pressure on the Iraqi regime and leadership, with the inspectors on the ground, conducting intrusive inspections, with appeals from peoples all over the world in the Arab region, with the pressure the US was putting on, that it ought to be possible to disarm peacefully.”

Then came the presentation of a proposed US-British-Spanish resolution effectivey authorizing war, and Annan said he began to wonder: “Can we turn this thing around? Can we stop this train?”

The answer was “no.” That was also the answer to his next, urgent question: Whatever happens, can the Security Council unite? An now “no” has become Anna’s answer to the question: Should I still keep a low profile?

All sides are lashing back. Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Washington Post colummist, used the words “disgusting” and “deeply offensive” to describe Annan’s remarks about “humanitarian casualties” in Iraq, particularly in a Baghdad marketplace.

As Richard Holbrooke, the US ambassador to the UN during the Bill Clinton administration, observed, “Because of his quiet charisma and great political and personal skills, he has become the most powerful and best-known SG since at least Dag Hammarskjold. This puts him under much greater scrutiny and pressure.”

Annan’s willingness to play an up-front role has been episodic. That fact is odd for some, since, on the public stage, he is something of diplomatic rock star—or, as one of his longtime acquaintances calls him, a “secular pope.”

When it comes to post-conflict Iraq, Annan has stressed his role as a simple servant of the Security Council, but he did take some time detailing the UN’s record in post-conflict situations.

“There are areas where the United Nations has had quite a bit of experience facilitating a political process and emergence of governments. We did this in Afghanistan. We did this in Kosovo,” he said.

He said the UN was taking the lead on the humanitarian situation, although a parallel relief operation has already been assembled by the US. The UN has also played a role with other international agencies in the reconstruction of societies.

Then he paused, clearly not wanting to get ahead of himself, and said, “This does not mean I’m looking for a job. I’m just giving an idea of the areas where we’ve had some experience.”

Iraqis carry an injured employee at the al-Salhiya telecommunications center after it was hit by a missile during an air raid on Baghdad yesterday. The raid took place as journalists were on a tour organized by the Information Ministry to be shown damage caused by overnight bombing.