20030824

Referendum key step for democracy, forum told

CNA , WASHINGTON

A Taiwanese scholar speaking at a seminar on US-Japan-Taiwan security said that the direct expression of ideas by Taiwan's people in a referendum plays a very important role in the process of the country's democratization.

Lai Yi-chung, director of the Department of International Affairs' Taiwan Thinktank, made the remarks in the third round of the trilateral dialogue with the main topic focusing on the anti-terrorist strategies of Asian countries and other nations.

Lai noted in the trilateral meeting that Taiwan's democratic development can serve as an inspiration for other Pacific nations and for China.

With China's growing military threat against Taiwan, the security promise from the US to Taiwan would guarantee the continued democratic development in the country. Meanwhile, the expression of Taiwan people's thinking is of importance, Lai added.

Among the participants in the meeting were also China-hand from the US-based Heritage Foundation John Tkacik, member of Congress' US-China Security Review Commission June Dreyer, and scholars from Japanese Okazaki Institute.

A Japanese scholar from the Okazaki Institute noted that democracy and liberty in Taiwan are in the best interests of the US and Japan. He urged the Japanese government to strengthen high-level official visits to Taiwan, support Taiwan's bid to participate in the World Health Organization, as well as increase discussions with Taiwan on issues such as anti-submarine, anti-missile and anti-terrorist strategies.

The first round of the trilateral dialogue was inaugurated in Taipei in August last year, with the second round being held in Tokyo in March this year. The fourth round of the meeting will be held in Taipei early next year.

The conclusions of the seminar will be presented to the governments for their reference.

Japan military should be `prepared to aid Taiwan'

ASSISTANCE: A retired rear admiral threw his lobby group behind efforts to get a Japanese commitment to intervention in any Chinese attack across the Taiwan Strait

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

Japan should expand military cooperation with Taiwan and should come to Taiwan's aid, in concert with the US, if China attacked Taiwan, a senior Japanese military analyst told reporters in Washington on Friday.

Retired Rear Admiral Sumihiko Kawamura made his remarks at the end of a two-day meeting of academics from Taiwan, Japan and the US, as part of a "track two" dialogue seeking to find ways to promote closer cooperation and understanding between the three countries.

Afterwards, in an interview with the Taipei Times, Kawamura also expressed confidence that Japan would act to defend Taiwan militarily in the event of a Chinese attack. He said he was optimistic that Tokyo would lift constraints on Japan's Self Defense Force to allow it to come to Taiwan's defense in such an "emergency."

He also said Japan should "welcome" former president Lee Teng-hui to Japan, and allow him to "travel all over the Japanese islands."

He also played down the Japanese government's recent expressions of friendship with China, saying the alliance with the US is more important and takes precedence.

The two-day meeting was co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, the Taiwan Thinktank and the Okazaki Institute. It was the third in a series. The next one will be held in Taipei in January, after which the three sides will produce an overall report on their deliberations and recommendations.

Kawamura said he and his delegation to the trilateral talks will make a number of recommendations to the Tokyo government and raise Taiwan-related issues via such means as articles in various publications.

He expressed optimism that the efforts would succeed, since his group and its leaders have political clout in Tokyo.

During a press conference at the end of the meeting, held at the Heritage Foundation offices, Kawamura said the group would make four recommendations. They are:

First, eliminating the restrictions on Japan's Self Defense Force "as soon as possible," allowing it to come to Taiwan's aid if needed, and "strengthening the deterrent power of the US-Japan alliance." That would include strengthening Japan's political, economic, defense and cultural activities in the region.

Second, supporting the further democratization of Taiwan by "enlightening the Japanese public on Taiwanese affairs." Kawamura complained that the average Japanese "cannot distinguish between mainlanders and Taiwanese."

His group also urged that Japan join a coalition to support the status of Taiwan in international organizations, such as the World Health Organization.

Third, institutionalize strategic meetings, or contacts, or channels with the US and Taiwan. "Because we do not have any direct channels yet, we cannot coordinate if there is a situation like a North Korean ship passing through Japanese waters via Taiwan," he said, recalling the recent seizure by Taiwan of a North Korean ship carrying suspected nuclear weapons materials.

Fourth, establishment of two types of official meetings or channels. One would deal with "the perception gaps."

The second would be to share intelligence and "discuss special issues, including antisubmarine warfare, air and missile defense, CCCISR (command, communications, coordination, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance), anti-terrorism, and such." This should be done on a regular basis.

Asked about Japan's potential help for Taiwan in the case of an attack by China. Kawamura said that "in an emergency, the Japanese government would help the United States. I believe that if there were a number of casualties of US personnel as a result of an action between the United States and China around the waters of Taiwan, the Japanese public could not ignore that. So, the Japanese government would change its current policy, and would help the American forces," he said.

Japan's policy under its constitution now prohibits the Self Defense Force from taking such actions as defending Taiwan or cooperating with the US in such an action.

That would, for instance, forbid the sending of Japan's AEGIS-equipped warships with advanced missile defense capabilities, from being sent to the Taiwan Strait. And, Japan's land-based missiles would be incapable of helping Taiwan because of their limited range.

Change of name must happen: Lee

RECTIFICATION: Taiwan has to abandon the Republic of China name tag if it is to have a prosperous future, the former president said

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

Taiwan's future depends on Taiwanese realizing the importance of changing the county's name, former president Lee Teng-hui said yesterday.

Speaking at a preliminary meeting for groups arranging a massive rally in Taipei on Sept. 6 in support of changing the country's name from Republic of China to Taiwan, Lee also advocated major changes to the Constitution to bring it into line with the reality of Taiwan's situation.

This, he said, was vital to gain more international recognition, as well as to fight attempts by the pan-blue camp, in collaboration with China, to suppress the development of Taiwanese identity.

"I believe the current president must identify with my ideals?I am already retired, so I feel free to speak my mind and speak for him," Lee said.

Lee said the need to change the country's name was also intended to reinforce the cohesion of Taiwan-centered values since Taiwan faces serious challenges domestically from the old KMT authoritarian regime which is trying to stage a comeback.

"Some people have lived in Taiwan for 50 years, but only at election time do they proclaim that they oppose the `one country, two systems' formula, and shout slogans like `Taiwan First.' But their words are said under the `one-China' umbrella," Lee said, alluding to the pan-blue alliance's presidential candidate Lien Chan and his running mate PFP Chairman James Soong.

"Their action is an apparent collaboration with China to limit the development of Taiwan's identity," Lee said.

"The opposition politicians have used all possible ways to deceive the Taiwan public and attack me. But I won't succumb," Lee said.

As the eighth and ninth president of the ROC, Lee said "some people must be confused why I would support the name-rectification campaign. It is because in reality, international society doesn't recognize the existence of the ROC ... and we have to accept this fact and work on the development of Taiwan."

"The ROC Constitution needs to be revised as well. It still claims jurisdiction of a total of 35 provinces in China. How could it be possible for Taiwan to rule 35 Chinese provinces," Lee said.

A staunch supporter of the localization trend in Taiwan, Lee yesterday urged support for Chen's reelection bid to deepen Taiwan's democratic development.

Lee said the opposition camp's criticism of Chen's economic performance was lacking in substance. Pointing out that none of the pan-blue top brass had ever had to steer the country through a global recession -- until 2000 Taiwan had not experienced a serious recession for nearly 30 years -- Lee said he was skeptical that they could have managed any better than Chen.

Lee also lashed out at the combination of Lien and Soong on the presidential ticket and compared it to "a reopened restaurant with an old menu."

"Lien and Soong criticize Chen's administration, but I really doubt they could do better if they were the boss. These people only know about old methods which won't work in this dynamic changing society, which needs a strong sense of identity to be able to find solutions," Lee said.

It is hard not to feel bad for China Airlines (CAL) these days -- with such great responsibility resting on its shoulders. Not only it is CAL's duty -- apparently -- ?to defend the honor and integrity of this country in the wake of the controversies surrounding Vice President Annette Lu's non-visit to Boeing's offices in Seattle.

Now, according to the European Commission, even Taiwan's precious relationship with the entire EU may be jeopardized as a result of CAL's recent decision to purchase aircraft engines from General Electric (GE) of the US, instead of from Britain's Rolls-Royce.

The European Commission is even threatening to lodge a complaint against Taiwan with the WTO for what it says is a violation of the Plurilateral Agreement On Trade in Civil Aircraft (PATCA). Under that agreement, purchasers of aircraft are supposed to make decisions purely on commercial and technical factors -- not political considerations.

That is certainly a most lofty ideal. But, except in very few cases where one bid is clearly better or worse than other bids, it is very difficult to prove whether other considerations played a role in the decision-making process.

The question then becomes "Why is the European Commission making the threat when proving its case will be at best difficult?" In this regard, both CAL and government officials have no one to blame but themselves for creating the impression that "the kid who knows how to throw a temper tantrum will get the lollipops."

The most obvious example is CAL's decision last year to split its purchase order for new commercial jets. It initially leaned toward purchasing from the European maker Airbus, but then ended up ordering some of the aircraft from Boeing after the US government expressed its "concerns."

Comments made at the time by government officials served only to reinforce the impression that the noisy kid got the lollipops after Daddy intervened.

Now, following the Boeing fiasco in Seattle, the Ministry of Transportation has asked CAL to "review" its contract with Boeing as a result of that most-unfortunate incident. Just think what kind of impression is being created about the factors that come into play when CAL makes purchase decisions?

Then there is, of course, the puzzling question of why the European Commission had no concerns about the factors that came into play in CAL's decision last year to purchase 12 Airbus jets and only six Boeing jets. Does this mean that CAL's decision-making process is partial and unfair only when it does not favor European manufacturers?

One also cannot help but wonder, since it's wrong to make purchase decisions based on political consideration, why is it OK to politically pressure and sway such decisions of the politically weak countries and their firms?

The purchasing countries are for all practical purposes victims. It is common knowledge that many governments openly lobby for the business interests of their domestic firms. So why punish the country that gives in to political pressure but not the country that applies the pressure? This is like punishing only the prostitutes but not their customers.

Moreover, it is common knowledge that many foreign powers mix politics with business in their own procurement bids. Just look at the way business and political interests from all sides competed for their slice of the pie in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Taiwan's real sin is being wealthy and yet politically powerless -- making it especially vulnerable to political pressure. The sad thing is that certain foreign powers know only too well about how to prey on this vulnerability.

A few weeks ago, around the time of the sixth anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China, more than 500,000 individuals hit the street there to protest the enactment of the anti-subversion law based on Article 23 of the Basic Law.

The high-profile protests were the equivalent of a vote of non-confidence cast by the people of Hong Kong against the slogans exalted by Beijing, including "one country, two systems," Hong Kong autonomy and no changing people's lives in Hong Kong for 50 years.

What will happen to the real mainstream popular will of Hong Kong and to its future development has become the center of international attention.

At the same time, Taiwan is about to have another presidential election -- an election vividly characterized as a duel between "one country on each side of Taiwan Strait" and "one China" -- which will obviously have a determinative impact on the future of Taiwan.

The experience of Hong Kong over the past six years will serve as a most important reference for Taiwanese people as they decide on their future.

Last week, the Taiwan Advocates -- a think tank for which former president Lee Teng-hui serves as chairman, held an international seminar in Taipei on Hong Kong's experiences under ``one country, two systems.'' Scholars and experts from Taiwan, Hong Kong and other countries were invited to take part in the discussions for the two-days seminar. More than 700 people attended the seminar, demonstrating the high level of public attention received by the issue.

The seminar gave insights into what Taiwan can learn from the example set by the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong and the future reference this example serves for Taiwan, so as to help Taiwan avoid repeating the fate of Hong Kong and taking a path of its own.

This is indeed important at a time when Taiwan society has gradually lost its immunity to the magnetism of China in a backdrop of intensive cross-strait economic and cultural exchanges as well as contacts between the private sectors of the two sides.

The speeches given at the seminar by Lee and President Chen Shui-bian were the most meaningful. Lee's criticisms of the "one country, two systems" focused on the issues of autonomy and self-identity from the political and economic aspects.

He pointed out that the real key to the economic downturn in Hong Kong was the loss of the Special Administrative Region's (SAR) autonomy and identity. He also indicated that the economic and political development of Hong Kong after the handover revealed the restrictions and the structural issues of the "one country, two systems."

On the economic front, the illusion about maintaining Hong Kong's economic prosperity through the help of the Chinese market is gradually fading. On the political front, China's promise to maintain the status quo for 50 years faces serious skepticism as a result of the SAR government's move to enact the anti-subversion law, Article 23.

Lee said that Taiwan has been able to undergo such large-scale reforms and restructuring on the political and economic fronts and to demonstrate its vitality because Taiwan abandoned unrealistic expectations about China. It began to see itself as the primary subject of policy implementation and learned to draft policies based on the welfare and will of the 23 million people living here.

However, Lee said, the development of Taiwan's self-identity, which remains fragile and awaits further nurturing, is not without risks. Besides facing up to the political and economic gravitational forces from China, Taiwan has to deal with the internal voices echoing in unison with China, as well as the decline in the determination of the Taiwanese to be masters in their own house.

Lee warned about the potential comeback of the conservative forces and the ancien regime. They will, Lee said, seek to take Taiwan back into the shadow of "one China." This is the biggest risk that the people of Taiwan will face in the next seven months.

Chen pointed out during his speech that the expected economic prosperity for Hong Kong after its handover to China did not take place. Instead, the handover accelerated the hollowing out of industries and the large-scale increase in unemployment. In addition, the efforts to enact the anti-subversion law in Hong Kong could be deemed a democratic regression.

All this has created a high degree of skepticism in the international community about China's sincerity when it made promises about "one country, two systems."

Hong Kong legislative councilors Emily Lau testified that the drafting of the Basic Law was not done through any democratic process and that the popular will of the people in Hong Kong was not at all respected. The people did not even have the opportunity to cast their votes to confirm their acceptance of the Basic Law as the "mini constitution" of the SAR.

As for the elections in Hong Kong, they are essentially means through which those in power use to protect their own interests. These are even less meaningful than the elections during Hong Kong's colonial days. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa was not only indecisive, but is also guilty of favoritism and ignoring the popular will, Lau said.

As a result, the wealth gap in the SAR has widened. Politics has become a game for the privileged class. The rule of law is no longer respected.

Even more importantly, large numbers of people have become unemployed, and the middle-class has become bogged down by debts. As the quality of life declines, society at large has become filled with discontent.

Now that the people of Taiwan have seen the predicament of Hong Kong six years after the handover, how can they have any illusions and expectations about "one country, two systems."

Before 1997, although Hong Kong enjoyed freedom and the rule of law, it lacked democracy. People were not empowered. As a result, "one country, two systems" and China's promise to maintain the status quo didn't really give the people there anything substantive. The "two systems" is gradually being overshadowed by "one country."

In a nutshell, the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong has disillusioned Taiwan.

I share my sentiments with your editorial ("If you want Hong Kong, elect the KMT," Aug. 18, page 8). Similarly, I hope that the messages of President Chen Shui-bian and former president Lee Teng-hui would register as a serious reminder and warning for Taiwanese voters ("Chen, Lee warn of conservative forces' return," Aug. 17).While Taiwanese could do little, at this point in time, to alter China's authoritarian regime, the people of Taiwan have to seriously consider the impact of a drastic change in their lifestyle should they elect a pro-unification candidate in the presidential election seven months down the line.

Do Taiwanese want a passport bearing the name People's Republic of China on the cover, with Taipei or Kaoshiung listed as the provinces of birth on the first page?

Do Taiwanese want to see their favorite variety shows or drama serials being taken off the air for the simple argument that it goes against the conservative views and policies of the Chinese?

Are Taiwanese prepared for the abolishment of the freedoms which they have become accustomed to since Lee became president in 1988?

Do Taiwanese want a restriction on the level of information accessible by them via the internet or mass media?

Most importantly, would the 23 million Taiwanese want to have a chief executive who merely acts according to the whims and fancies of the Chinese government, with little or absolute no regard for the interests of the Taiwanese people?

All these scenarios are not hypothetical in nature. These scenarios would become a reality if voters do not elect a candidate who is prepared to fight for the cause and interests of Taiwan.

Taiwan needs a leader with clear convictions and not someone who is constantly shifting his stand on certain issues. Contrary to Chen's firm and consistent stance of not subjugating Taiwan's status to China, both KMT Chairman Lien Chan and PFP Chairman James Soong have hinted that they would be more than happy to be known as chief executive and vice chief executive of a Taiwan Special Administrative Region, should they win the polls next March.

If they claim this scenario is the most ideal for the Taiwanese people, they should support Chen's idea of a referendum to indicate the wishes of the people on the complicated issue of `one country, two systems' or `two countries, separate systems.'

After all, in any democratic country, the people's voice should prevail over the interests of leaders with a personal agenda.

Lien has easily and conveniently shifted his aggressive criticisms of Soong from March 2000 to the praise he now sings for his former presidential rival these days.

On that note, how could Taiwanese not doubt that upon winning the presidency, Lien would praise the communist leadership of China as the ideal mode of leadership for Taiwan?

History does not lie. Hong Kong today is no longer the same as it was before 1997. Unlike their Hong Kong neighbors, Taiwanese do have a say in their future.

As a political observer, I feel that the destiny of Taiwan is now at stake. With their ballot, the people of Taiwan will decide if they want a pro-China chief executive or pro-Taiwanese president.

For the future of Taiwan, I do hope that the latter is the choice. However, like China, I have no say in the country's future. The country's fate is in the hands of the voters.

A wise choice is needed, otherwise there would be no turning back, as China is likely to manipulate a pro-unification chief executive into turning Taiwan into Hong Kong No. 2.

How sad that would be, considering how hard Lee has worked in building a sovereign state like Taiwan. And, to say the least, Chen is currently working hard to maintain the sovereign status of the country.

However, Chen needs the confidence and support of his people, via their votes. Chen's win would be a victory for the Taiwanese.