The freedom to question

The visit by Hong Kong lawmakers Emily Lau and James To last weekend doesn't seem to have gone down too well among the territory's officialdom. The China Daily, a mouthpiece for the Beijing government, said in its Hong Kong edition that their visit was exactly why the Article 23 anti-subversion law must be passed as soon as possible. Special vitriol was reserved for Lau, who apparently has committed what in the eyes of the China Daily is the greatest sin of all, commenting unfavorably on "one country, two systems." To the powers that be in both Beijing and Hong Kong it is considered a scandal that opposition lawmakers might go to another country and criticize the government.

Hard to imagine what lengths they might go to if they had to put up with the likes of KMT Legislator John Chang, who tripped off to the US last year to tell everyone who would listen that Chen Shui-bian's government was incompetent and irresponsible and that they should wait for the KMT's restoration before making fresh commitments to Taiwan.

But the criticism of Lau gets stronger. That Lau said Taiwan's independence should be determined by the Taiwanese is taken as extraordinarily shocking.

"By the same token, tomorrow she would most probably incite a referendum to decide on Hong Kong's independence and commit the crime of secession.

"In view of this development, the national security law must be enacted and it must be done as soon as possible," the voice of officialdom writes.

The absurdities should be obvious. The idea behind "one country, two systems" was after all that Hong Kong was supposed to be governed by its residents. When this formula was put forward it was suppose to -- and did -- delude people into thinking that there would be some degree of popular democracy involved. Of course this was not to be, and a fairer description of the current situation is Hong Kong people governed by Hong Kong toadies of Beijing selected by another group of Beijing toadies.

But it is the China Daily's fulmination about a referendum that is the real thigh-slapper here. As if to blacken Lau's name, we are told that she might do the terrible thing of suggesting that Hong Kong people be consulted over their political future. And she might even advise them that this future might be rosier outside of the embrace of the motherland. Good God! Are there no limits to this depravity?

The unpalatable truth is of course that the people of Hong Kong were never asked what they wanted; they were just a football to be kicked between London and Beijing. It is to the eternal dishonor of the British that their last shabby act of empire was to reach a deal with Beijing over Hong Kong without consulting its people. And this was "justified" to the rest of the world by the offensive claim that the people were not interested in politics. And now the Daily insinuates that to suggest that Hong Kong people should be asked about their future is exactly the kind of subversion that makes it vital to pass a law that residents of the territory have categorically rejected -- a law criminalizing the very suggestion that people should be consulted.

For Taiwan this would be laughable were it not that the same "one country, two systems" formula is touted as a "solution" for Taiwan-China relations and that some local politicians seem to think that it might well be the road to take. Hong Kongers aren't to be allowed to question the wisdom of their shotgun wedding with China. Will Taiwanese be allowed to? Will they be asked if they want to? For the very freedom to do this, the freedom to argue on this topic, is, after all, the essence of Taiwan's liberty.

Stressing Taiwan's differences with China

By Lee Yeau-tarn

Countering the blue camp's campaign theme, the "one-China" principle, President Chen Shui-bian proposed "one state on each side of the Taiwan Strait" as his theme for next year's presidential election. However his theme has been so distorted and misinterpreted by the rival camp as "the rich fighting against the poor" that readers would be misled without proper clarification.

After the first democratic presidential election in 1996, Taiwan was identified as a liberal democracy by Freedom House, an organization devoted to the rating of freedom in countries. Taiwan is the second freest country in Asia, behind Japan, with a freedom rating at two out of seven (one representing the freest, and seven the least free).

China, however, was still among the non-democratic countries last year, achieving 6.5 in the freedom rating. Its situation was only better than Cuba and North Korea, two of the least free countries in the world with a rating of seven.

History has told us that democratic politics can best safeguard freedom and human rights and no war has ever occurred among democratic countries. Since the DPP came to power, it has adhered to the principle of human rights and continued to push forward the consolidation of democracy. Beijing on the contrary has not changed much. Its underlying authoritarian dictatorship and militant aggression remain the same, which is in stark contrast to Taiwan's freedom, human rights, democracy and peace.

The one-country-on-each-side theme in fact demands a more precise foundation. It can be specified as Taiwan and China on each side of the Taiwan Strait with one representing a liberal democracy and the other authoritarian dictatorship. The contrast between the two exemplifies their fundamental differences.

Since the DPP took power, the pan-blue camp has focused its criticism on economic problems, ignoring the inevitability of economic cycles. None of the developed countries with a sound market mechanism can avoid the influence of economic cycles.

Faced with the impact of global economic norms, the government of course needs to improve the economy. Yet it is unrealistic to expect Taiwan to have the same double-digit economic growth rate as China as the two countries are in different stages of economic development.

Besides, economic life does not comprise the whole of human life. In his book Political Science, Tsou Wen-hai, a leading authority in the field, outlined five ends pursued by a state: security, order, justice, welfare and freedom. There is no priority among the five and they should be developed in balance. Tsou pointed out that when a country's security is ensured, order maintained and welfare enjoyed, people are still like a bunch of pigs kept in a pen if there is no freedom.

The end of the 20th century has witnessed a dramatic increase of new democracies. There are 89 liberal democracies around the world, according to the latest report, which surveyed the freedom situation in each country between last year and this year. Taiwan is identified as a liberal democracy and its democratic achievement is widely acknowledged in the international community.

Chen's campaign theme can be clearly focused if he starts with Taiwan setting a successful model of transforming into democracy while citing the notable difference between Taiwan's liberal democracy and China's authoritarian dictatorship.

Lee Yeau-tarn is an associate professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Chengchi University.

China blasts HK officials for visit

HARSH WORDS: China's official mouthpiece argued that the lawmakers' participation in a conference in Taiwan proves that the anti-subversion bill must be passed soon

REUTERS , HONG KONG

China's official mouthpiece blasted two Hong Kong lawmakers yesterday for participating in a political seminar in Taipei over the weekend, accusing them of supporting Taiwan's separatism and posing a threat to national security.

The China Daily also said Hong Kong's controversial subversion law must be passed as soon as possible.

Outspoken government critic Emily Lau and Democratic Party legislator James To were invited to the seminar last week by the pro-independence Taiwan Advocates think tank led by former president Lee Teng-hui.

An editorial in the newspaper reserved its harshest words for Lau, who has called on Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to resign and for direct elections to choose the city's leader and all its legislators.

It accused Lau of speaking ill of the "one country, two systems" policy under which the former British colony was returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

"She dared to go to Taiwan to badmouth the `one country, two systems' arrangement and asserted in one voice with Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian that Taiwan's independence or otherwise should be determined by Taiwan people," said the commentary.

"By the same token, tomorrow she would most probably incite a referendum to decide on Hong Kong's independence and commit the crime of secession," the commentary said.

"In view of this development, the national security law must be enacted and it must be done as soon as possible," the commentary said.

Lau was not immediately available for comment.

Beijing's leaders were rattled when half a million people took to the streets in Hong Kong on July 1 to protest the government's failed attempt to push through the controversial anti-subversion bill.

Critics say the bill could threaten basic civil rights and liberties and be used against anyone who criticizes the leadership of Beijing.

Tung later postponed the bill for further public consultations, which are expected to begin next month.

China had hoped the formula guaranteeing Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy could be used as a basis for unification with Taiwan.

To brothers in another world

Keelung bustles with spirits during the seventh lunar month. The Keelung Ghost Month Ceremony goes back 149 years. On the 14th day of the month, which this year was last Monday, a parade is held around the city. In the evening, at the climax of Ghost Month Festivities, water lanterns-elaborate paper houses and boats set afire—are cast out to sea. Each house represents a family’s tribute to its ancestors. The burning edifices also beckon to the lonely souls wandering the dark seas. And tourists are treated to a pyrotechnics spectacular.

Lu takes on Boeing for bum's rush

THE COLD SHOULDER: The vice president said the company should think twice before snubbing her after it signed a contract with China Airlines

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

"Shame on Boeing! Rejecting me is rejecting the Republic of China and Taiwan. We need to guard our dignity and express our anger and give Boeing a warning."－Annette Lu, vice president

Vice President Annette Lu yesterday upbraided the US-based Boeing company for its crude manner in turning down her request to visit a company office.

The Presidential Office defended the vice president saying that Boeing's treatment of Lu was completely "unacceptable" and "unbelievable."

Presidential Office spokesman James Huang said"Boeing just won a big contract with China Airlines last year but the company immediately changed its attitude this year, insulting Taiwan's vice president at China's behest.

"This year the company bowed to pressure from China and refused to accept the vice president's visit. The Presidential Office is displeased with Boeing and many Taiwanese may change their way of thinking about the company."

Lu's trip was arranged so she could visit countries Taiwan shares diplomatic ties with in South America, and she arrived in Seattle, Washington two days ago.

She originally had planned to visit Microsoft Corporation and Boeing's office in Seattle, but Boeing stated that they would not receive her. Consequently she criticized Boeing in public two days ago during a dinner party with the Chinese community in Seattle.

"I can deal with Boeing's rejection, but would they dare make a public announcement and give up the contract they signed with China Airlines last year?" Lu asked.

"Shame on Boeing! Rejecting me is rejecting the Republic of China and Taiwan. We need to guard our dignity and express our anger and give Boeing a warning."

"Originally the US government was quite happy to see Taiwan arrange this visit, but we did not realize that China would not only apply pressure on governments but also on private enterprises," Lu said.

Lu also said that she had protested to the US government, and even if Boeing issued an invitation to her, she would not go again. She called President Chen Shui-bian to inform Chen about the rejection, and she urged the Taiwanese people to call Boeing to protest and maintain Taiwan's dignity.

"When I visited the US this time, there are at least 100 corporations that have welcomed me as the representative of the Republic of China. But Boeing bowed to pressure from China, and bullied a US ally, Taiwan," Lu said.

"Boeing is making trouble for itself. It is no big deal that I did receive a welcome by Boeing. Tomorrow I am meeting with representatives from 13 multinational corporations, fortifying their cooperation with Taiwan."

Lu stressed that she did not mean to praise Taiwan, but were it not for Taiwan's strong opposition against China, there would have been more than four communist countries in Asia, and the fourteen South-American countries Taiwan shared diplomatic ties would be allies of China.

"We have to deliver this message today," Lu said.

During her first day in Seattle, Lu met with Washington State's Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Washington State's Attorney General Christine Gregoire, and visit Microsoft.

`One China' fans ignore rights

The letter by Arthur Li (Letters, Aug. 15, page 8) is accurate in its assessment of Taiwan's history. The US has legally handled the Republic of China with kid gloves for over 50 years, but it is time those gloves came off. It is not wise for Washington to ignore the mounting voices calling for the alienable right of Taiwan to be protected.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty custodial rights of Taiwan, as mentioned by Li, are rooted in the basic civil rights of the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Currently, there are 4 million Americans living under these basic civil rights protections. The former US Trust Territory was also governed by the San Francisco Treaty and its 100,000 island citizens were under these American judicial protection of the very same basic civil rights. However, US former secretary of state Henry Kissinger never gave a damn about them when he was in office.

Meanwhile, Kissinger pushed for the signing of the Shanghai Communique. The question of South Vietnam and Taiwan were quietly abandoned on Feb. 28, 1972. But Taiwan refuses to go away silently.

Thus Kissinger proteges of the "one China" policy have continued to be busy in their serious civil-rights trampling of Pacific islanders protected under treaty.

Former US ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke has a legacy dating from 1979 that inspired the human-rights clause in the Taiwan Relations Act.

But then, his enduring calls for the Fourth Communique on Taiwan have been more than innocent commentary. Since 1999, he has assumed civilian sector employment with the American International Group (AIG).

AIG is the leader of the China corporate lobby and is the only major underwriter of political risk insurance which is needed by 300 American corporations lobbying for China membership in the WTO.

After 1996, the Overseas Political Insurance Corp (OPIC) stopped underwriting political insurance for any US investments in China.

AIG was first encouraged by Kissinger to fill the void left by OPIC. Taiwan is still covered by OPIC; it continues to be an important US government agency to the Taiwan economy.

Stephen Solarz was the leading "one China" policy adviser to former vice president Al Gore, and it was chronicled by author Bill Trippett in the Red Dragon Rising and Year of the Rat. The theft of nuclear technology and the transfers of technology by the former US president Bill Clinton insiders leaves a foul odor in the air around these self-appointed commissars of "one China." Solarz resigned from Congress under allegations of triad connections in Hong Kong.

Stanley Roth was the leading "one China" commissar under the Clinton administration. He started as a staffer under Congressman Stephen Solarz and he later dealt with prolonged Micronesian negotiations for independence in the 1980s. The concept of basic civil rights is wasted on Roth as his speeches have publicly disavowed the human rights clause in Taiwan Relations Act.

Perhaps he should be publicly reminded about those "undefined" civil rights protections of Micronesia. Under the San Francisco Treaty, they were first judicially defined in 1900 by Article 9 as "undefined" civil rights of islanders stemming from Treaty of Paris ratification in 1898. (See Downes v. Bidwell).

Then there is the odious Dr. Kenneth Lieberthal. Reports by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times suggested his professional advocacy of the tacit approval of the PLA invasion of Kinmen and Matsu in 1999. Lieberthal's continuing statements to the press on Chinese leader Hu Jintao are troubling.

It seems the commissars of "one China" policy will never cease to be apologists for the human-rights abusers in Beijing. Then this is not a surprise in light their poor track record under American law for the civil rights of Pacific islanders.

I am not able to fathom how the commissars of "one China" policy can sleep at night. This behavior is not innocent speech nor abstract exercises of intellect when the civil rights of 23 million people are being willfully ignored because of these policy commissars.

Arthur Li is very right about Taiwan's status and the Taiwan civil rights issue will not rest in peace.

Jeff Geer

Manaus, Brazil