20030818

If you want Hong Kong, elect the KMT

The two-day conference on the woes of Hong Kong organized by Taiwan Advocates over the weekend told the well-informed nothing new. The erosion of the independence of the civil service and the rule of law, the manipulation of the territory's justice system, its economic recession -- which has been almost continuous since the handover from British rule -- and now the threats to the basic freedoms of speech and assembly and the ludicrously enhanced police powers of search contained in the Article 23 legislation are well known -- at least to those who pay attention.

It would, however, have been nice to see the conference get the message across about the slow motion train wreck that is post-handover Hong Kong to a wider audience and we assume that this was supposed to be its intention. It is interesting to note that, despite there being an utter dearth of news on Saturday, the pro-China mass circulation morning papers, the United Daily News and the China Times,both managed to lead their front pages with something else.

The former chose the "education ministers take blame for reform problem" story (we thought the story worthy of a small corner downpage on a slow day) while the China Times decided to shock us all with the astounding news that greasy food is harmful to health. An interesting strategy: if you don't like the main news item of the day, ignore it. But the government, the DPP and groups like Taiwan Advocates have to realize that they cannot rely on the substantially weaker pro-green media to wake Taiwanese up about Hong Kong. They are anyway largely preaching to the converted. Since opening to China, the "benefits" of a better political and closer economic relationship are likely to be cornerstones of the pan-blue presidential campaign strategy, it is up to the government and the DPP to make sure that everyone is well aware of just how little Hong Kong has benefited from the same closer ties.

It was interesting to see KMT Chairman Lien Chan on Saturday claiming that the KMT would never accept "one country, two systems." He followed this by saying that Taiwan's destiny was up to Taiwanese to decide. Given that Lien has already made it quite clear he will subscribe to the "one China" principle if he is elected, and he has still not committed the KMT to any referendum over any change in Taiwan's status, his enthusiasm of self-determination seems somewhat contradictory.

But then the problem, at least for the time being, is not what Lien will do if he wins power, but rather to prevent him from winning power in the first place. And it has to be said of the weekend conference that while the discussion of benighted Hong Kong's affairs was interesting, former president Lee Teng-hui's remarks were surely the most significant. The task that we must work hardest to achieve is an avoidance of what he termed "the resurrection of conservative power." Seven months from now we might see the election of a government which, when it takes office two months later, will begin the dismantling of liberal democracy in this country.

The blue-camp leaders do not belong in the presidential palace, they belong in jail. Whatever the demerits of the DPP in terms of its lack of direction and its general fumbling, the party does not have blood on its hands. The KMT can bathe in gore. So, getting away from discussion of Hong Kong, "one China" and the like, here is another theme for the upcoming election which we only hope will be played up as big as possible. It is this: Do Taiwanese really want the murderers back in the ministries?

Hong Kong's fate a red flag for Taiwan

A WARNING: Former president Lee Teng-hui said that the SAR's `one country, two systems' model proves that democracy cannot flourish under Chinese rule

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

Former President Lee Teng-hui yesterday said Hong Kong's current plight under the "one country, two systems" should serve as a warning to Taiwan that freedom and democracy can never co-exist under China's authoritarian regime.

"The `one country, two systems' principle is a self-contradictory formula because an authoritarian regime cannot allow an open and democratic free society. Taiwan is different from Hong Kong in that its sovereignty rests on its 23 million people and therefore, there is no such a problem in Taiwan," Lee said yesterday in his speech to wrap up the two-day international conference on Hong Kong's experiences under the "one country, two systems" formula at Taipei's Grand Hotel.

The two-day conference was held by Taiwan Advocates, a think tank headed by Lee.

Lee yesterday presided over a round-table discussion of the conference under the title of "Hong Kong -- a Lesson for Taiwan," indicating that under the "one country, two systems" formula, Hong Kong has been increasingly uncertain about its economic reliance on China because it has lost its will to seek its status as an independent economic entity in a global context.

"Hong Kong has lost its will to run its economy in a global context; instead it has relied more closely on economic and trade exchanges with China. As a result, Hong Kong has lost its direction because it cannot get rid of its role as simply a port in China's Pearl River Delta and come back to its former status as the Pearl of the East in the context of the global economy," Lee said.

The former president concluded by saying that although Beijing's attempt to enact an anti-subversion law in Hong Kong has clouded the territory's democratic future, the strong self-determination shown by the people of Hong Kong in the July 1 march to protest against China's authoritarian regime has inspired hope for its fight for democracy.

Observing Hong Kong's development after the turnover to China, Lee said China has used "nationalism, patriotism and commercial interests" to package its power and hypnotize the general public.

"Taiwan faces some similar problems," Lee said.

Lee said China's various threats toward Taiwan -- military, political, economic and social threats -- have made some people in Taiwan prefer economic affluence to political freedom. Lee said that these people also believe that if the nation made concessions, Taiwan could maintain peace and stability.

"However, viewing Hong Kong's experience we know not only are they losing their democracy, but their basic rights are being undermined," Lee said.

The round-table discussion yesterday was joined by academics and government officials from Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Taiwan Advocates Vice Chairman Huang Kun-hui yesterday said the "one country, two systems" model proves that the Special Administrative Region is just a slogan China uses to continue its authoritarian rule.

Hong Kong Legislative Councilor Emily Lau said yesterday "through the discussion of the conference, we felt that Taiwanese people expressed a lot of pessimism about Hong Kong's future under the "one country, two systems" model. However as a legislative councilor, I don't agree that Hong Kong's situation is hopeless. I still have to say that we will strive for the utmost freedom and democracy within the system."

Lee Yee, a well-known political commentator from Hong Kong yesterday said "we disagreed with President Chen Shui-bian's remarks that Hong Kong's future is doomed under the `one country, two systems' model, rather we believe that the people of Hong Kong used their power in the July 1 protest -- which is the beginning of hope, rather than the end of it."

Delegates say democracy still has a chance in HK

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

Hong Kong officials and academics acknowledged that democracy will be hard-earned under Beijing's "one country, two systems" formula, but they displayed confidence at an international conference in Taipei yesterday about their ability to fight their way to democracy.

The two-day "Hong Kong under `one country, two systems'" conference hosted by the Taiwan Advocates think tank ended yesterday with a round-table discussion, "Hong Kong -- A Lesson for Taiwan," chaired by former president Lee Teng-hui.

Hong Kong delegates used the discussion to call upon pro-independence Taiwanese to understand their efforts to strive for democracy under Beijing's formula.

People in Hong Kong and Taiwan need to improve their understanding of each other, said some of the dozens of people from Hong Kong who attended the conference.

Hundreds of Taiwanese, many of whom staunchly support independence from China and oppose the "one country, two systems" formula, listened to the round-table discussion.

While Lee said the formula is completely unacceptable for Taiwan, many of the people from Hong Kong expressed the belief that with the people's best efforts, democracy in the territory is still possible under Beijing's formula.

Taiwan cannot establish a reason to reject the formula for itself by describing democracy as impossible, disillusioned or bankrupt in Hong Kong, a senior columnist from the territory said.

Lee Yee, an editor of The Nineties Magazine, said while the people of Taiwan have the right to reject the formula, the people in Hong Kong have the right to choose what they want.

"Taiwan can reject the formula. I totally agree Taiwan should not accept the formula, but that does not mean I think Hong Kong should not accept the formula," Lee Yee said.

Stating that Hong Kong has no choice but to accept the formula, Lee Yee stressed that the people there can still find their own way to democracy.

He said his hope for democracy revived after the massive July 1 demonstration in Hong Kong.

"If the people of Hong Kong could find a way by their feet and force the government to make concessions, they may also open a way by their hands -- by casting ballots in next year's Legislative Council election," he said.

If the people vote for pro-democracy candidates so that more such candidates take seats on the council, they can make Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa hear their voice, he said.

"In the past, I thought democracy shielded our freedom and a law-abiding society. But now I believe with freedom and a law-abiding society, we have an opportunity to promote democracy," he said.

"We hope people in Taiwan could bless us rather than wish that democracy will go bankrupt in Hong Kong [to prove the failure of Beijing's formula]," Lee Yee said.

HK lawmakers urge Taiwan to speak its mind

Emily Lau and James To, both members of Hong kong's Legislative Council, are vocal in their opposition to their government's proposed anti-subversion legislation. During their visit to Taiwan last week for a two-day international conference on Hong Kong under `one country, two systems,' Lau and To took time to share their views on the controversial national security bill with `Taipei Times' staff reporter Sandy Huang

Taipei Times: The mass turnout for the July 1 demonstration against the controversial law has prompted the Hong Kong administration to yield, scale back the bill and defer passage of the legislation. Are you satisfied with the steps the government has taken? What's the status of the proposed bill and how do you think it will develop?

Emily Lau: It is fair to say that the Hong Kong government indeed did make a concession on this issue; it watered down the bill and put it on hold after the mass July 1 demonstration. Aside from that, it was encouraging to many of us as well to see that two top officials [Financial Secretary Antony Leung and Secretary for Security Regina Ip] in the administration headed by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa had resigned their posts shortly after the event.

It is not clear now as to how the proposed bill will proceed as the government, in response to the July 1 protest, is currently revising the bill. I don't think issues concerning the bill will wrap up anytime soon as an open question-and-answer session on the revised version won't be held until later next month. So what needs to be done now is to observe how the situation concerning the bill develops in the coming months.

The current legislative council session will be concluded next July with an election slated for September next year. It is unlikely the bill will pass under the current legislative council; therefore I think we won't see the end of it until next year, or maybe later.

The Hong Kong government of course likes to see the bill develop in its favor. If we stay mute, the government would and could do whatever it wants. The mass July 1 demonstration was an unexpected scene to the government. The massive protest showed that we can change things as long as people stand up in unity and voice our minds.

TT: You mentioned that the bill might not be resolved until the next legislative council is in session. What's your outlook on the fate of the bill if it is to be tackled under the new legislative council elected in September next year?

Lau: It is hard to say. It all depends on the Hong Kong people. I think the July 1 demonstration has greatly changed the political environment in Hong Kong with people now becoming more politically concerned and paying more attention to political issues.

TT: Your visit to Taiwan and participation in the conference, sponsored by a pan-green think tank, has put you under attack back home from Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces such as the Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao, which fired volleys of criticism at you and branded you as a supporter of pro-Taiwan independence. What is your take on that? Do you think there will be anything unpleasant waiting for you upon your return to Hong Kong [on Sunday night]?

Lau: I think what they did was very unreasonable. I don't understand why they did what they did as I have done no harm to Hong Kong as a whole with my visiting here and participation in the conference. I am simply here to make known to outsiders Hong Kong's development and to help them gain better insight into Hong Kong.

I hope nothing unpleasant happens upon my return to Hong Kong. But if it does, I am not intimidated by it either. If I have a chance to come to Taiwan to attend a similar conference, I would be eager to come again.

If Beijing indeed does impose unpleasant actions upon me and puts pressure on me after I get back to Hong Kong, I think it is more likely an attempt to "kill the chicken to frighten the monkey", meaning to punish me as a warning to other people in Hong Kong from having further contact with Taiwan and the like.

I think it is a very stupid thing for the Hong Kong authorities to do if they indeed resort to such a thing. I am not intimidated by it because I believe it right to uphold and fight for our freedom of speech and press.

Lau: I think people in Taiwan should engage themselves to understand more and learn more about Hong Kong and vice versa.

China has long wanted to unite Taiwan under the "one China, two systems" formula and might want to adopt laws similar to Article 23 as part of its negotiations with Taiwan concerning unification. Given that, Taiwan's public should pay close attention to the development of that bill in Hong Kong.

TT: What are the possible impacts on Taiwan if the the Hong Kong government enacts the bill?

James To: Under the proposed bill, many acts would easily be branded as treason against the People's Republic of China. No matter where you are, as long as you are a permanent resident of Hong Kong, which many Taiwanese are if they have stayed in Hong Kong for more than seven years, you will be charged with treason, sedition and subversion and risk the possibility of jail time if you comment on or make moves of any sort in support of Taiwan in the event China launches attacks on Taiwan.

The DPP is now in power in Taiwan. As a ruling party, many big businesses will naturally work to establish contact with the DPP. If the proposed anti-subversion legislation is enacted, these big businesses, many of which might be multinationals, would have to be careful with their donations and participation in events relating to the DPP administration as they would, under the proposed legislation, be branded as groups in support of secession and subversion.

TT: What role do you think Taiwan plays in the face of the proposed bill in Hong Kong?

To: Taiwan should make its opinion known because if it does not, others will not know Taiwan's objections.

To employ an analogy, Hong Kong, returned to China in 1997, is like a girl, long pursued by a guy -- China -- who finally agreed to marry. Now that they are married, the guy no longer cherishes the girl as he did before they were married. Taiwan is like a pretty girl China wants to court. To make it known to China that Taiwan is paying close attention to the way it treats Hong Kong would prompt China to improve its treatment of Hong Kong as it wishes to avoid scaring off its chance of uniting Taiwan.

Taiwan should voice its opinion on Article 23 and make known to China that it is paying close attention and has great concerns over its development. By doing so, Taiwan is not only helping itself but also helping people in Hong Kong. Taiwan's outspokenness would make Beijing more aware of its own actions in Hong Kong and encourage it to proceed more prudently.

`Beijing seems to have adopted a compartmentalized approach to its strategic ties with the US.'

It is hard to develop simple explanations of the games that big powers play either in order to maintain their strategic primacy over others or to enhance it, for their strategic objectives are quite complex. That statement fully describes US-China relations.

Here is one superpower and one wanna-be superpower. The lone superpower is not interested in sharing its primacy with anyone else, but it cannot control or even decelerate the pace of constantly changing global realities that ensures that no one country stays on top forever. That is also one of the most ancient historical realities. China -- one of the most ancient civilizations in the world -- knows that fact eminently better than the US.

As an ancient civilization, China has learned to live with the fact that it will have to struggle in the realms of economic and military power merely to close the gap between itself and the US. However, it has little doubt that it will eventually emerge as a super-power. For ancient civilizations, the phrase "eventually" repre-sents a short duration.

But its overall attitude toward the US would continue to be along a continuum of cooperation or the lack thereof, depending on what is at stake, and how the leaders in Beijing are calculating their country's stakes at any given time. Because, unlike democratic polities, modalities of intra-elite discussions are seldom witnessed by China-watchers, one has to use the rule of reason, which has a universal application, to evaluate the calculations of the powers that be in Beijing.

Relations between the US and the PRC have gone through some noticeable changes in the past two years. Beijing's decision to cooperate with the US in the post-Sept. 11 environment created positive contours in the previously competitive relationship. In the realm of economics, China and the US have developed a symbiotic relationship. China is America's fourth-largest trading partner, seventh-largest export market and fourth-largest source of imports.

Sino-US trade has grown from US$33 billion in 1992 to almost US$150 billion last year. The PRC has attracted US$52.7 billion worth of foreign-direct investment (FDI), thereby becoming the world's top destination for FDI last year. This reality further augments its potential importance as a major trading partner of the US.

Washington and Beijing also view each other with concern as countries that might have reasons for potential confrontation. The US is worried that China is pursuing its long-term political goals of developing its comprehensive national power and ensuring a favorable strategic configuration of power. Leaders in Beijing, on the other hand, remain wary of America's mounting military supremacy. They are watching with concern America's growing presence in Asia Pacific, how it is likely to affect their own country's aspirations to emerge as a global power, and their ability to resolve the Taiwan conflict.

There is little doubt that Tai-wan's unification with the PRC remains one the most obdurate issues of US-China relations. Both countries agree that the conflict related to Taiwan should be resolved; however, the modality of its resolution is the source of major disagreement between them. Washington is adamant about a peaceful resolution, while China has not ruled out the use of force.

In a report issued to the US Congress last month, the Pentagon stated, "While it professes a preference for resolving the Taiwan issue peacefully, Beijing is also seeking credible military options." China's strategy, according to the report, is aimed at diversifying "its options for use of force against potential targets such as Taiwan" and complicating "United States intervention in a Taiwan Strait conflict."

The Pentagon's greatest concern is China's buildup of ballistic missiles in Fujian Province, where 450 missiles are pointed at Tai-wan, and it is adding to its arsenal there at the rate 50 missiles per year. The accuracy and lethality of those missiles is increasing. The report also notes, "China's doctrine is moving toward the goal of surprise, deception and shock effect in the opening phase of a campaign," and is aimed at "coercive strategies designed to bring Taipei to terms quickly."

A noticeable contrast between the recent Pentagon report and its reports issued during the administration of former president Bill Clinton, is that the latest report underscores that the continuing modernization of the Chinese military is aimed at bolstering its arsenal with medium-range missiles, new submarines and destroyers, and is focused on a potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait. Reports issued during the Clinton years stated that China lacked sufficient military might for outright confrontation.

The PRC lashed out at the claims made in the Pentagon report. The Foreign Ministry told Agence France-Presse, "Safeguarding the sovereignty and integrity of our territory is every country's un-doubted right." It added, "The concerned parties in the US spread [rumors of] so-called mainland missile threats to Taiwan in various forms over and over. The purpose is to make excuses, and create public opinion for [the US] selling advanced weapons to Taiwan."

The US remains the leading arms supplier to Taiwan. Last month the Pentagon announced an agreement to ship AIM-120 medium-range air-to-air missiles to Taiwan -- a deal that was aimed at ensuring the military balance in the Taiwan Strait. This aspect of US policy continues to infuriate Beijing's leaders. Thus, the issue of Taiwan promises to flare up periodically, with neither the US nor China seeming to alter their basic positions.

The PRC is also suspicious of the ostensibly permanent US presence in Central Asia. However, this development should be viewed in conjunction with the US-India strategic partnership, whose seeds were sown by Clinton, but it has been given a new significance under President George W. Bush.

China is watching with rapt attention the dynamics of this partnership, since its ties with India are also highly competitive. Even though the surge of cooperation stemming from Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's recent trip to the PRC is the newest development, New Dehli and Bei-jing regard the other as a powerful strategic competitor. As such, the competition between the two major powers for dominance in the Indian Ocean and in the South China Sea is not likely to end anytime soon. Thus, the mounting presence and influence of the US in Central and South Asia fuels the suspicions of Beijing's leaders that the lone superpower is purposely pursuing a policy of containing their country.

One the most noteworthy recent developments in the Asia Pacific is the role of the PRC as a peacemaker between North Korea and the US in the conflict over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. This is an archetypical instance of cooperation on the part of China. There is little doubt that, as a major supplier of food and oil to North Korea, China is capable of exercising considerable influence over Kim Jong Il. The PRC supports the US position that North Korea's nuclear weapon program should unravel; however, it also equally supportive of the prerequisite of security guarantees for Kim's regime.

Like Kim, the Chinese leaders insisted that the Washington and Pyongyang resolve their conflict through bilateral talks. However, given Bush's resolve to conduct multilateral negotiations with North Korea, China opted to change its own position. Now both Washington and Pyongyang have agreed to a multilateral forum of negotiations. China has played a critical role in proposing the specifics of it. It should be noted that Washington has reportedly agreed to have periodic bilateral "side-bars" with North Korea on other issues. If China's role were to indeed resolve the US-North Korea conflict, that development would serve as a major boon for US-China relations.

Beijing seems to have adopted a compartmentalized approach to its strategic ties with the US. The economic payoffs stemming from continued cooperation are too enormous to be sacrificed to bring about unification of Taiwan in the near future. That is not to say that this issue has become of lesser import. On the contrary, economic cooperation with the US is seen as an integral aspect of escalating China's capabilities to pay for the mounting cost of its military modernization, which, in turn, will be crucial to its emergence as a superpower.

Beijing's positive role in persuading North Korea to peacefully resolve its nuclear weapons conflict with the US is also aimed at ensuring enhanced American goodwill, which China must have to further its own global aspirations. Meanwhile, the resolution of the Taiwan conflict may wait another 100 years, an option that late Mao Zedong mentioned many times, even when he was presiding over the formalization of Sino-US relations.

In the ostensibly unending power games among great powers, China knows that the chances of its victory over the lone superpower are slim for now. However, these are games that have many rounds. Victors emerge by maximizing their advantages in niche areas and by expanding the scope of their niche areas into others.

These intricate games last over several decades and often much longer. China's sense of history and its record of endurance afford it a sense of confidence -- that over the long run, its chances of emergence as a superpower are quite good. Look out Japan and India. More importantly, be on guard, US.

Ehsan Ahrari is professor of national security and strategy at the Joint Forces Staff College in Virginia. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Taiwan is very fortunate to have a statesman such as Douglas Paal to represent our best friend, the US, in our nation. ["One hundred days in the new Iraq, Aug.14, page 9.] Many Islamic fundamentalists continue to live in the dark times of the Middle Ages. To kill and to be killed is seen as a virtue. Those who are willing to commit such atrocities are seen as martyrs.

Many of the Arab nations holding this view are under the control of fundamentalists and are members of UN. Yet they refuse to live by the UN's charter, which enshrines the values of human rights, peace and democracy. They enjoy the privileges and the forum of the UN, but refuse to endorse the spirit of its core values.

Very much in the way that Taiwan serves as a beacon of democracy to the Chinese, democratic Iraq will serve as a better alternative for the masses of the Arab world.

The myth that democracy is incompatible with Chinese nationals or Islamic believers can be dispersed.

Respect for the fundamental rights of all human beings will provide better stability, social advancement and prosperity, as described so arrogantly by Paal in his article.