Lee's remarks no problem: DPP

UNCONCERNED: The former president's comments that Taiwan is no longer the ROC reflected Lee's personal perspective and worries over the nation's future, officials said

By Chang Yun-Ping and Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTERS

In response to a remark by former president Lee Teng-hui that "the Republic of China does not exist anymore," DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan yesterday said the former president's remarks reflected his personal long-term political and historical perspectives and that it wouldn't cause a problem for the DPP.

The former president said last Saturday that "the ROC does not exist anymore, but some politicians just don't realize it" while participating in a campaign activity to change the country's name from ROC to Taiwan.

Lee Ying-yuan yesterday said the former president's remarks reflected his long-term perspectives and beliefs over his past 12 years as the nation's president.

"That represented Lee's perspective: The historical responsibility and an insistence on promoting Taiwan's separate identity from mainland China," Lee Ying-yuan said.

He explained that the former president "would only say so because he's worried about whether Taiwan could shape its own national identity."

Cheng Wen-tsan, deputy director of the DPP's department of information and culture, said yesterday the former president's comment was a "unique interpretation" which wouldn't cause any problems for the DPP.

"The bottom line for the DPP's stance on the cross-Strait relations is still the principle of one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait," Cheng said.

Responding to Lee's remark, Cabinet Secretary-General Liu Shih-fang yesterday said that the government respects Lee's personal opinion.

"The government's stance is clear, and that is that Taiwan is an independent sovereign state and its name is the Republic of China," she said.

As it requires a constitutional amendment to change the official name of the nation, Liu said that public consensus is necessary for such a move.

"No matter what impact Lee's remark would have on society, either resulting in social movements or triggering national debates, we don't have any right to tell him what to say or do," Liu said.

Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou yesterday expressed the same opinion.

"The former president has the freedom of speech to say whatever he likes as long it doesn't violate any laws," said Ma, who is in the US on a six-day visit. "However, it will be up to the people to decide whether his remark is appropriate or not."

Academics talk of Taiwan threat

NATIONAL SECURITY: At a symposium held in the US capital, academics said that China's annexation of Taiwan would give Beijing control of key sea lanes

CNA , WASHINGTON

Scholars emphasized Taiwan's strategic importance during the last day of a three-day symposium in the US capital yesterday.

If China were to annex Taiwan by force, Beijing would control the sea lanes through the western Pacific and the South China Sea, challenge US predominance in the Pacific and threaten the strategic interests of the US and Japan, said Hisahiko Okazaki, a former Japanese ambassador to Thailand.

In a speech at the symposium co-organized by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, the Okazaki National Research Institute in Okazaki, Japan, and the Taipei-based Taiwan Think Tank, Okazaki warned that the whole of Southeast Asia would fall under China's sphere of influence if Beijing were to gain control of Taiwan.

He and other Japanese scholars at the symposium were of the opinion that the US and Japan should step up their security cooperation with Taiwan, and share their strategic intelligence and missile defense technology with Taiwan to help the nation stand up against Beijing's military threat.

However, June Dreyer, a political science professor at the University of Miami, dismissed as out of the question any joint military exercises among the three countries because of the Japanese constitution, which renounces war as a means of resolving conflict with other countries.

Tokyo is smart in trying to get rid of the anti-war provision in its constitution in a step-by-step manner, Dreyer said, but before this is accomplished, any discussion about joint military exercises or defense cooperation with Taiwan and the US would be unwise, she added.

Nonetheless, Lai Yi-chao, a scholar from the Taiwan Think Tank, said the symposium has helped Taiwan to realize its strategic status in the Pacific and Asian regions and to learn what Tokyo and Washington expect from Taiwan.

The symposium is designed to be an unofficial channel of dialogue among Washington, Taipei and Tokyo.

The just-concluded symposium was the third of its kind under a two-year program which envisions the holding of four such symposiums. The fourth and last symposium under the program is slated to be hosted by Taipei early next year.

Chen using cross-strait issue for own gain

By Chao Chun-shan

Recently, President Chen Shui-bian tossed up the issue of direct transportation links across the Taiwan Strait. Cross-strait agencies in the Executive Yuan also said operational procedures would be completed soonest. Of course, Chen's harping on again about direct transportation is based on election considerations.

First of all, I believe this is a complementary measure to Chen's campaign keynote -- "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" versus "one China." In Taiwan, business circles have been the most vigorous advocates of direct transportation links, as we all know. To encourage businesses to help him improve the economy, and to prevent them from tilting toward the blue camp, Chen must provide something for business circles to look forward to. That was why Chen said the political obstacles to direct transportation would be cleared after March 20, the day of the presidential election.

Chen wants to use the direct transportation platform's as an "inoculation" against the impact of his one-country-on-each-side dictum. China's acceptance of his conditions for direct transportation would mean tacit acknowledgement of the one-country-on-each-side stance. A curt rejection from China would imply that the other side has not changed its hegemonic nature. Chen can then say righteously that the outcome is not his fault. He can also highlight the legitimacy of "one country on each side."

Secondly, Chen's goal is to force China to take a stance before the election. Chen has stressed that cross-strait relations since he came to power have not been as bad as the outside world has thought. If that is true, why did he raise the one-country-on-each-side dictum? Why did he deliberately prick the sensitive cross-strait nerve? Everyone, including Chen, clearly knows how the cross-strait relations are faring. On the surface, China seems to be ignoring Chen's "one country on each side," but it has been working on the US under the table and trying to pressure the DPP government via the US. After all, China would rather listen to Chen's soliloquy than give him a chance to expand his platform.

Finally, I believe Chen has raised the direct transportation issue for American ears. Chen said Taiwan-US relations have been at their best since 1979. This has left some room for interpretation. In fact, Chen cares very much about the US' response. Even before his inaugural speech on May 20, 2000, he guaranteed that the speech would "definitely satisfy the US." At the time, the US not only praised Taiwan's democratization, but also held considerable expectations about the DPP government. Three years after Chen came to power, however, how much have the substantive Taiwan-US relations improved except for some formalities like stopovers in the US for Taiwanese leaders? The reality is that not only has US President George W. Bush stated clearly that he "does not support" Taiwan independence, but many complaints have also emerged from US officials about the traditional trade and military relations with Taiwan. Recently, the US has even expressed concern about Chen's referendum platform, forcing Chen's administration to send a large delegation to Washington to give an explanation. If we call such relations "good," then I really don't know how "bad" is to be defined.

In any case, Chen still has some foresight in saying resolutely that the two sides of the Strait won't enter the implementation stage of direct transportation until the end of next year. This is because the political changes in Taiwan after the election will inevitably change Taiwan-US-China relations. We may then see some hope for a solution to the "three direct links" issue.

Chao Chun-shan is a professor at the Graduate Institute of China Studies, Tamkang University.

Some advice for China's leaders

By Zhang Jialin

`If Beijing has thousands of reasons for not letting Taiwan join the WHO, its officials should take a moderate and tolerant approach to explain things clearly to the Taiwanese people.'

When former president Lee Teng-hui visited the US in 1995 and subsequently announced that Taiwan would hold a direct presidential election, Beijing immediately staged a military exercise and launched missiles. The result was that Lee was elected by an overwhelming majority in 1996.

In 2000, I led a delegation of Chinese scholars studying in the US to visit Taiwan and observe Taiwan's second presidential election. As we watched the television in our hotel on the evening of March 16, we saw then Chinese premier Zhu Rongji harshly criticize leading figures in Taiwanese politics. With a severe expression on his face, Zhu spoke in a harsh tone and warned the Taiwanese people not to elect the wrong leader or they would regret it. After we heard such a message from Zhu, all of us looked at each other not knowing what to do and felt something was wrong. Just as expected, an opinion poll the next day showed that Chen Shui-bian's electoral support rate went up immediately and that the support rates for Lien Chan and James Soong went down correspondingly. The Taiwanese media jokingly said that Beijing played the role of a "super campaign-helper" in these two presidential elections.

History can play a joke on people. As Taiwan's presidential election is coming up soon, Beijing once again seems to have served as Chen's campaign helper with its recent moves. One was Beijing's resistance to Taiwan's entry into the World Health Organization (WHO). The other was its attempts to push through the Article 23 anti-subversion law in Hong Kong.

Taiwan's intent to join international organizations is a complex and thorny problem. If China takes a laissez-faire approach to Taiwan's attempts, there will be "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" in the international community. If China spares no efforts to shut Taiwan out, China will be unpopular because there must be some rationality behind Taiwan's attempt to seek a space in the international community. Instead of protesting against, shutting out and blocking Taiwan's efforts, China might as well try to provide guidance according to the circumstances. In fact, it is not impossible to solve this problem. In the past, Taiwan had joined various international organizations, such as APEC, the WTO, the Olympics and Asian Development Bank, under the name of "China Taipei" or "Chinese Taipei."

The situation concerning the WHO is different, because the WHO is an intergovernmental organization and only sovereign nations can join it. However, there are always ways to get around the rules. The charters of the WHO and other intergovernmental organizations prescribe that a district of a sovereign nation can become an "associate member." Beijing can help Taiwan become an "associate member" of the WHO or attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) as an observer. Why can't Taiwan join the WHO if it already joined an intergovernmental organization such as the Asian Development Bank? Hong Kong has joined some intergovernmental organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization and World Meteorological Organization, but why can't Taiwan join them? Doesn't Beijing claim that Taiwan will enjoy more rights than Hong Kong under "one country, two systems"? Consequently, it is illogical from a legal perspective to block Taiwan's entry into the WHO.

From a moral perspective, the fact that the 23 million people of Taiwan were kept out of the WHO's medical net during the peak of the SARS epidemic made people feel the lack of humanitarianism and sympathy shown by Beijing. Besides, SARS possibly originated in southern China. No wonder the Taiwanese people felt enraged because SARS patients in Taiwan could not evoke other countries' sympathy and receive care. I know many American scholars who are friendly toward China also disapproved of Beijing's course of action. If Beijing has thousands of reasons for not letting Taiwan join the WHO, its officials should take a moderate and tolerant approach to explain things clearly to the Taiwanese people. They should not adopt a rude, arrogant posture to rebuff the Taiwanese people by saying that "Taiwan is not qualified at all to join [the WHO]." Their words truly hurt the Taiwanese people.

Taking advantage of this WHO incident to build up the Taiwanese people's bitterness and provoke their hatred toward China, Chen then announced a referendum on WHO membership. For Chen, the WHO incident, without doubt, is helping his government survive the economic and political crises that it has been facing in the run-up to the presidential election. It also forced the pan-blue camp to become more passive. According to an opinion poll, Chen's support grew 6 percent after the referendum announcement. Beijing originally planned to block Taiwan's entry into the WHO so as to check the gradual rise of independence activists. However, Beijing's actions have allowed Chen to gradually cut Taiwan off from China and bring Taiwan closer to independence.

Hong Kong's Article 23 anti-subversion law has also had a profound, negative impact on Taiwan. From the very beginning the Taiwanese people have had a lot of doubt about the framework of "one country, two systems." After seeing what happened to Hong Kong, the Taiwanese people will feel terrified about the consequences of "one country, two systems" should Taiwan implement it. Robert Scalapino and Ramon Myers, renowned China specialists in the US, recently said that Hong Kong does not need Article 23. They are puzzled about Beijing setting a time limit for the Article 23 legislation. They also think that the Article 23 incident severely undermined Beijing's work on Taiwan.

Beijing urged the Hong Kong government to quickly implement the anti-subversion law for fear that Hong Kong may become a base for subversion in China. True to form, Beijing showed a lack of confidence in its approach to the Hong Kong problem. Hong Kong was once an international base of operations for spies during British rule, but the activities of these spies never shook China's political power. Will Hong Kong become a threat now that it has returned to Chinese rule? China's economic and political scenes have been quite good after new leaders took over in Beijing. The SARS outbreak has gradually subsided as well. So it is difficult to understand why China feels the urgent need to make Hong Kong pass Article 23 within a time limit. To get to the bottom of the matter, it is easiest to attack and conquer a fortress from the inside. The maintenance of national security requires internal unity and solidarity, not the enforcement of laws and decrees in the peripheral districts. If more people like Liu Liankun and Shao Zhengzhong show up again in Beijing, it will still be useless for Hong Kong to pass 10 national security laws.

Fortunately, the Hong Kong government responded to public opinion and postponed Article 23. But because the incident has already damaged the reputation and practice of "one country, two systems," Chen now has an excuse to resist unification and promote independence. Beijing should review the situation and see what lessons it can learn from the incident and implement the "Three Represents" in its work on Hong Kong and Taiwan. Beijing should seriously study public opinion in both Hong Kong and Taiwan, and attach importance to their interests. Beijing should stop being the lead campaigner of an independence activist.

Zhang Jialin is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Reason not to celebrate

India does not celebrate the birthday of Queen Elizabeth II of England. Nor does Algeria have street parties on July 14. Nations emerging from the shadow of colonial tutelage tend not to have warm fuzzy feelings for the high days and holidays of their former masters. So it is interesting that, if the Republic of China (ROC) is dead, as former president Lee Teng-hui says it is, the island should be expected to celebrate its birthday on Oct. 10.

On Saturday Lee gave an impassioned speech about why Taiwan had to change its name from the Republic of China to Taiwan. His reasons were twofold.

First, he said, most countries and their inhabitants had never heard of the Republic of China or, if they had, they believed it ceased to be in 1949. That the Chiang Kai-shek government was somehow the "real" government of China was a fiction propounded for Cold War reasons. The current government, in keeping the Republic of China name tag, was thereby only showing itself to be completely out of step with the times and, due to the confusion between the ROC and PRC, was in fact weakening its own case for recognition.

Irredentism is not regarded as a desirable trait in countries these days and a country that in its very name seems to suggest implacable irredentism is hardly showing its best face in public.

Lee's second reason was the rather obvious one that it is hard for Taiwanese to work for the betterment of their country when there is so much ambiguity over what that country actually is. Why should a Taiwanese care about keeping assets or paying taxes in Taiwan for its benefit when half the political spectrum is occupied by parties that would hand over to Beijing any benefits that have accrued at the earliest opportunity? Just as Markus Wolfe, the East German spymaster, at his treason trial asked which country it was that he was supposed to have betrayed -- since the county he worked for no longer existed and the country prosecuting him was a recognized enemy -- any Taiwanese might ask which country he is supposed to be loyal to. A particularly bitter irony here is that those who would in ordinary circumstances be the greatest of patriots were "Taiwan" a real state are exactly the ones preparing to go into exile if the blue camp wins the presidential election -- with the inevitable disastrous consequences for Taiwan's autonomy.

We agree with Lee about the necessity of a name change. But we are well aware that this is something not easily brought about. That is no reason, of course, to avoid trying. But there are some easier targets that contribute to Taiwan's identity confusion that might be attended to first. Coming up, in fact, is one of the biggest -- the absurdity of Double Ten Day. Why should the people of Taiwan celebrate something that only has meaning to their mainland Chinese colonial oppressors. Remember, Taiwan was already a Japanese colony in 1911, and it has never, except in KMT mythology, been returned to Chinese sovereignty. Why should Taiwanese celebrate something that happened in a foreign country as their national day? Obviously no reason at all.

So if, according to Lee, President Chen Shui-bian cannot utter his true feelings about the name issue, then let us see the government take a stand on one issue that is in its power. Let us see no celebration on Oct. 10: no parades, no dances, no fireworks. Since it is a public holiday, let the president advise people to stay home for a day of somber reflection on Taiwan's history as a refuge for people fleeing from the awfulness of China, ancient and modern. And let them ask themselves, is this somewhere you really want to go back to?