If not Tung, then who?

More than 50,000 people gathered outside the building housing Hong Kong's Legislative Council Wednesday night to demand not only the resignation of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, but more importantly, the popular election of the chief executive and the implementation of democracy in the territory. It was the second large-scale anti-government political demonstration in Hong Kong in little over a week.

Beijing isn't that happy with Tung these days either. Its displeasure was shown by the fact that he has come under fire from the pro-China camp in the territory. One of Hong Kong's representatives to the China's National People Congress, Ma Li, said the performance of Tung's government over the enactment of an anti-subversion law has not lived up to the expectation of the central government.

According to Ma, the law is the only thing Beijing has asked Tung's government to enact since the handover and yet he has failed to deliver. Ma also asked just what Tung had ever done to help ensure passage of the anti-subversion bill. Other members of the pro-China camp criticized Tung for allowing even minimal changes to be made to the bill, saying it was now "a toothless tiger."

Beijing's sycophants may think the current draft of the bill too weak, but popular revulsion with the proposed legislation has escalated, and with it, anger with Tung. During Wednesday night's protest, the crowd loudly booed when Legislative Council member Audrey Yu said Tung had told her that democracy was very low on the priority list for people in Hong Kong.

Yet it is unlikely that China's rulers want Tung to step down now. The indefinite postponement of the second reading of the anti-subversive bill was just about all the insult they can stomach at present. The bill was unlikely to pass after the head of the Beijing-linked pro-business Liberal Party withdrew his party's support earlier this week, saying more time was needed to consider the security law.

The delay, however, should not be interpreted as Beijing backing down. From the way that Chinese officials have kept silent up about the postponement, it's clear that they're keeping a low profile to avoid fanning the flames of public anger. Beijing is unlikely to allow the anti-subversion legislation to be scrapped or to allow direct elections. It can't afford to let people think that it can be muscled around by protests and demonstrations.

So what will happen? Will Tung budge or, more specifically, will Beijing give in to demands that he go? The chances look remote. Anyway, who would replace him? Anyone put in by Beijing would be just another one of its toadies, just as unresponsive to Hong Kong's residents' demands or criticism as Tung has been. Most analysts don't even think that there will be a reshuffle of the Executive Council, which underwent a slight shifting of portfolios just a few months ago, after Tung's "reelection."

For six years Tung and Beijing have tried to pacify the territory's residents with appeals for social stability, unity and patriotism. But since neither have been able to do much to revive Hong Kong's economy -- another sore point -- their appeals lack credibility with almost everyone besides party hacks.

Social stability and economic development are important issues, but Beijing remains as blind as the KMT's martial-law era regime was to the fact that they are sorry excuses for depriving people of their fundamental rights and freedoms. The Hong Kong people's demand for democracy is a worthy aspiration, but they have awoken a little too late. They are unlikely to get much of a say in their government, given Beijing's abhorrence of anything that could challenge its rule. Nevertheless, we wish them luck.

DPP backs HK activists

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

"Hong Kong used to be the pearl of the orient. But the pearl has lost its luster under `one country, two systems.'"－Lee Ying-yuan, DPP deputy secretary-general

The DPP yesterday voiced support for activists in Hong Kong protesting against Beijing's imposition of an anti-subversion law and dismissed China's "one country, two systems" formula as something Taiwanese people will never accept.

"Taiwanese people can identify with the pains and desperate urge of Hong Kong people to seek full democracy and to choose their own leader," Lee Ying-yuan, DPP deputy secretary-general, said yesterday in response to protests in Hong Kong on Wednesday night.

"All 23 million Taiwanese can be the backbone for Hong Kong people in their cause to gain freedom and democracy," Lee said.

A former political dissident and longtime democracy activist, Lee said Taiwan has had similar experiences as Hong Kong in struggling for democracy.

"Taiwan has come a long way in getting rid of the authoritarian rule of the KMT through a lot of important moves such as the abolishment of the notorious Article 100 of the Criminal Code. The article is analogous to the anti-subversion bill that Beijing is trying to impose on Hong Kong," Lee said.

"The direct election of the president in 1996 was an important sign of the burgeoning of Taiwan's democracy," he said.

Lee said that since coming to power, Chinese President Hu Jintao has been sending signals that his administration wants a break from his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, and is even considering democratization within the Chinese Communist Party.

"We recognize these efforts by Hu and we hope China won't go against the trend of democracy by reining in Hong Kong's freedom," Lee said.

The "one country, two systems" formula practiced in Hong Kong has proven to be a failure and has revealed China's deception to the world, he said.

"Hong Kong used to be the pearl of the orient. But the pearl has lost its luster under `one country, two systems,'" Lee said.

He said such a formula would never be accepted by the people of Taiwan and urged pro-Beijing politicians in the country to beware of China's tricks.

"Taiwan and China are countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is not a part of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan would reject any attempt to be denigrated into a second Hong Kong," Lee said.

US think tank calls for missile shield

DEFENSE: The Atlantic Council says the US should provide Taiwan with the technology to blunt a missile attack from China and urged Taipei to beef up its military capabilities

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

A Washington think tank has proposed that the US consider providing Taiwan with a missile-defense shield against a potential Chinese attack as part of an overall US missile-defense strategy for Asia.

The Atlantic Council, whose members include some of Washington's leading defense, foreign policy and strategic policy officials from administrations over the past three decades, made the recommendation in a report on an extensive trip last November by four of its scholars to East Asia.

The report cautioned, however, that any US missile defense aid to Taiwan must be tailored to fit specific threats facing Taiwan, and has to be seen as a military action, rather than an action with political dimensions.

"The United States should not rule out providing Taiwan with access to military defenses that would blunt, it not defeat, any hypothetical use of PRC missiles," the report said. "US policy on missile defense for Taiwan should be geared to the scale of the threat and to Taiwan's self-defense needs."

The report also warned against accepting a reported offer last October by then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin to US President George W. Bush to reduce China's missile buildup against Taiwan in exchange for a reduction in US arms sales to Taipei.

"The United States should refuse any proposal by China to trade a `freeze' on further missile defense deployment opposite Taiwan for a ban on US missile defense assistance -- much less limits on broader US military sales to Taiwan," the report said.

While previous reports tied Jiang's missile offer to a reduction in US arms sales, this is the first time that the offer has been linked by Washington insiders to any US missile defense aid commitment.

The report, written largely by Walter Slocombe, former under secretary for defense in the Bill Clinton administration, does not hold much promise for Taiwan to develop an effective system to beat back a concerted Chinese missile attack, and indicates that Taiwan would be better off spending its limited resources on other systems to improve its military.

Washington and Taipei should recognize, the report says, that any missile-defense system "would provide only very limited defense, given the scale and quantity of the PRC missile capability facing Taiwan. Furthermore, missile-defense costs would be high and compete with other, arguably higher-priority, needs to modernize and reform Taiwan's military capabilities."

As a result, US cooperation with Taiwan should be "geared to both real military needs and the overall strategic interests of the two sides," and not become a "test" of US sincerity or Taiwan's commitment to its own defense.

The report takes issue with those in Taiwan who see Washington's help in securing missile defense as "not for military effectiveness of a defense, but as a test of the US commitment to Taiwan's defense."

It also rejects any contention by Beijing that "any [US] system defending Taiwan would necessarily have so many links to the United States' own systems as to create an integrated US-ROC defense, and, in substance if not in form, restore the US-ROC military security alliance" in existence before 1979.