"We have been calling for the Chinese authorities to cooperate with us to solve the problem," he said.

The return of cross-strait illegal immigrants and criminals is based on the Kinmen Accord, which was signed by both sides' Red Cross societies in 1990.

The accord states that once illegal immigrants have been arrested, a verification procedure should be completed within 20 days and arrangements for repatriation should follow.

"But China has not abided by the accord in handling illegal immigrants and criminals. Taiwan cannot efficiently repatriate illegal immigrants to China but has to accommodate them for a long time. It is unreasonable," Chen said.

Meanwhile, the Executive Yuan is studying the possibility of taking the problem of rampant illegal Chinese immigration to the international community to seek possible remedies.

One possible forum to air the government's grievances could be this year's APEC meeting, Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung said yesterday.

"If Beijing doesn't show sincerity in solving the illegal immigration problem, we'll let the international community know about its inhumane and irresponsible behavior, because illegal immigration is not the nation's problem but the region's problem," Lin said.

Illegal immigrants found hiding in back of truck

AFP AND AP , TAIPEI AND BEIJING

Coast guard personnel found 31 Chinese and three Russian illegal immigrants hidden inside a truck yesterday, coast guard officials said.

The immigrants, all young women, had traveled to Taiwan by boat from China, officials said.

The women told interrogators they had arrived near Hualien before being transferred by truck to Taipei.

They were found hiding in a cramped space behind black panels on the truck in Taipei early yesterday morning.

The women told television reporters they had survived the past few days on bottles of water. Cable TV stations showed them eating a noodle breakfast at a coast guard interrogation center in Keelung.

One woman said the people smugglers on the ship had threatened them.

"If we are discovered and you make a noise, we'll throw you into the sea," one young woman quoted a smuggler as saying.

The same woman told TV reporters the smugglers had said they were taking them to the Chinese city of Fuzhou, not to Taiwan.

The latest discovery followed the deaths of six Chinese women who were forced by their human traffickers to jump ship when they were discovered by the coast guard on Tuesday. Four suspects are in custody.

In related news, China yesterday lashed out at President Chen Shui-bian, saying he had defended the "barbarous" killing of the six Chinese women.

Chen had made "absurd remarks" to distort the facts surrounding the deaths of the women, who had tried to go by boat to Taiwan in search of work, the China Daily reported, citing Beijing authorities.

In his remarks on the deaths, which took place early Tuesday, Chen said China had to shoulder some of the responsibility.

Risking death for a better life

The nation was rocked by news earlier this week that smugglers were willing to toss their human cargo -- 26 Chinese women headed to Taiwan to work as prostitutes -- overboard in a bid to evade capture by Coast Guard Administration (CGA) patrol boats. While the smugglers' heinous conduct must be condemned, this case was more than just an isolated tragedy. The heavy trafficking in people from China is a very serious problem and one that is difficult to crackdown on.

During an inter-ministerial meeting on Tuesday at the Executive Yuan, the CGA and the Ministry of the Interior differed on what should be the target of a crackdown. According to the coast guard, the nation's extensive coastline is difficult to patrol, so it thinks the ministry should focus on reducing market demand for Chinese prostitutes by cracking down on brothels and the sex industry. The ministry, however, noted that once illegal Chinese migrants land in Taiwan, it is difficult to catch them since they can blend into the crowd. Although they may have different accents, this is not sufficient to arouse police suspicions, since many Chinese women are legal residents as a result of their marriage with Taiwanese.

An internal crackdown is also more likely to intrude on the rights and freedoms of citizens and legal residents. As Premier Yu Shyi-kun indicated during the meeting, while Taiwan may have a long coast line, the number of potential landing spots for traffickers are limited. This, however, does not let the ministry off the hook. Efforts must be made to reinforce the crackdown on illegal migration both at sea and on land.

Sea patrols are simply more effective, despite PFP Legislator Cheng San-yuan's concern that chasing smugglers' boats would "injure the feelings of the people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait" and jeopardize the nation's human rights image. This is akin to saying the police should not chase criminals on the street, because the criminals may get hurt. While certainly only reasonable force should be used in any pursuit, the legitimacy of chasing suspects by itself has hardly ever been questioned, except in circumstances where innocent bystanders may be hurt.

To prevent a recurrence of the dump-and-run case, the four suspects in Tuesday's tragedy should be prosecuted for the murders of the six women who drowned. Hopefully, tough prosecution of those who traffic in human beings will deter such conduct.

At the same time, how much is the Chinese government doing to curb human trafficking? Not much. They have also been less than enthusiastic in repatriating Chinese illegal migrants and stowaways detained by Taiwan's authorities. There are more than 25,000 Chinese detainees awaiting repatriation right now. According to the Police Administration Bureau, the cost of providing room and board, health care and other essentials amounts to more than NT$100 million a year. That is a lot of taxpayers' money.

The large number of Chinese risking their lives to be smuggled into Taiwan -- and other countries -- is an indication of the serious economic and social problems that exist in China. People are willing to risk years of indebtedness, even their lives, to escape from a future with no hope of improvement. How ironic, that at a time when so many businesspeople and politicians in Taiwan view China as the land of golden opportunity -- and many who appear willing to sell their souls to Beijing -- there are thousands, even tens of thousands of Chinese who see Taiwan as the "land of fortune" and are willing to risk their lives to reach here.

Chai steps down from media post

MEDIA REFORM: Trong Chai said his job as a lawmaker means more to him than his chairmanship at Formosa TV and that he wishes to comply with the DPP's promise to rid the media of political influence

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

DPP Legislator Trong Chai resigned as chairman of Formosa TV yesterday to comply with President Chen Shui-bian's policy of removing political influence from the media.

Chai announced his resignation yesterday afternoon in a press conference after attending a meeting with the board of directors. Chai, the founder of the TV station, will be succeeded by the company's vice chairman, Tien Tsai-ting, a former DPP lawmaker and ex-chairman of the Taiwan Independence Party.

"To comply with the DPP's long-standing policy of freeing the media of political influence, I've actually been prepared to withdraw from Formosa TV for a long time and have talked this matter over with the president," Chai said.

"I am more interested in politics and my involvement in the TV industry is just a sideline to my political career. Therefore, it is impossible for me to quit my main job as a legislator," he said.

"I sincerely hope that Chen will be re-elected next year. My resignation will play an important part of [realizing] Chen's promise to the public," Chai said.

Chai founded Formosa TV in 1996, a station known for its pro-DPP stance.

While promising to quit his media post, Chai urged the KMT yesterday to withdraw from the operations of the China Television Company and Broadcasting Corporation of China.

The KMT is the dominant shareholder in both companies.

DPP Secretary-General Chang Chun-hsiung yesterday said, "We appreciate Chai's decision to quit the chairmanship of the TV station, which shows his utmost respect for the party's long-standing policy of freeing the media from political influence."

Chang said the resignation is a responsible action and shows Chai's commitment to the DPP, adding Chai is a member of DPP's Central Standing Committee.

Tien, the new chairman, said yesterday, "Though Chai has resigned, we still see a very slow withdrawal of political and military forces from the media. We hope that Chai's resignation will serve as a model for other parties and politicians who are still involved in the media.

"We appreciate Chai's contributions and efforts for Formosa TV, where he built a unique broadcasting culture," Tien said.

Prior to Chai's announcement, local media reported that the Presidential Office had tried to interfere with the appointment of the new chairman, as it was allegedly not satisfied with Tien taking over.

The report said Chai was supposed to meet with Chen yesterday morning and inform the president of his decision. However, the meeting was canceled as Chen didn't want to accept Chai's favor, the report said.

"It was just a miscommunication between the Presidential Office and me about the time of the meeting," Chai said.

Presidential Office spokesman James Huang yesterday dismissed the report, saying the Presidential Office does not get involved in personnel changes at media operations.

"We disagreed with the contents of the report, which is biased and misleading," Huang said.

Huang said the president's goal is to remove political influence from the media and, therefore, would not interfere himself.

In a Central Standing Committee meeting on June 11, the DPP delivered its ultimatum that all party members must relinquish control in media industries before Sept. 5.

Taiwan, Hong Kong and China

By Nat Bellocchi

The conference held in Taipei earlier this month regarding Hong Kong and the "one county, two systems" model was an unusual event. It had both a domestic and external dimension. Primarily, it was meant to be a wake-up call for Taiwanese to understand just what the model was and, if accepted, why it would destroy Taiwan's freedom. It also was an effort to support democracy in the Chinese world.

It was unusual for political personalities from Hong Kong to come to Taiwan and take part in a conference that clearly would be critical of Beijing and "one county, two systems." With the host being former president Lee Teng hui, and President Chen Shui-bian opening the conference with a speech, it was clearly going to be a high-profile event.

The intention of the Hong Kong visitors doubtless was to gain more support from abroad, and from democratic Taiwan. Taiwan in turn hoped not only to show public support for expanding democracy in Hong Kong, and to show that Taiwan's type of democracy works in a Chinese society, but mainly to emphasize the differences between a "one county, two systems" type of political freedom and Taiwan's "people's democracy."

One of the driving forces for highlighting the differences between "one county, two systems" and the freedom in Taiwan-ese people's democracy is that if polls are to be believed, the younger generation seems less concerned about losing some of the country's hard earned freedom while pursuing the objective of making money.

Polls taken before July 1, showed that the percentage of people opposed to the idea of "one county, two systems" had dropped from 87 percent to 70 percent. If such thinking were to lead to a willingness to try "one country, two systems" for Tai-wan, it would obviate the democratic system established in the last decade, and the rationale used by Beijing's leaders -- that democracy is not compatible with Asian values -- would be greatly strengthened.

Some people see the relatively benign reaction by Beijing to the demonstration that erupted in Hong Kong on July 1 as much more sophisticated and a great improvement over Tiananmen. No shooting. Only soft support for the leaders in Hong Kong and an equally soft insistence that Article 23 in some form and at some time in the future will have to be passed. Let time cool emotions and then the objective can move forward.

But greater sophistication shown by the leaders in Beijing will not shrink the fundamental differences between the systems on the two sides of the Strait.

Countries such as Japan, Botswana, India, the Philippines, of course Taiwan itself, and many others, all democracies and all certainly not seen as being "Wes-tern," belie that claim. With the deep negative impact on the people of Taiwan made by Bei-jing's behavior toward them during the SARS debacle, and the demonstrations in Hong Kong that have been so strongly felt in Taiwan, that attitude very likely has changed since those polls were taken.

So in considering Taiwan's interest in accepting or refusing "one county, two systems," the formal position taken by each side of the Strait makes the vast gap between them clear. Words used in describing these positions are often changed, but the gap in real terms remains. China wants "one county, two systems" for Taiwan. Its objectives have not changed; there is only one China, Taiwan is a province of China, not an independent sovereign state; Beijing prefers a peaceful resolution but reserves the right to use force; Beijing is the only legitimate power, and decides on issues of sovereignty, national security and foreign affairs.

By comparison Taiwan's position on unification is: Both sides must acknowledge the existence of two independent and sovereign entities; both sides must agree that the status of each entity is equal. No official negotiations unless China renounces the use of force. China must be democratized and have a free-market economic system.

The most dramatic example among the many differences between Hong Kong and Taiwan can be seen in the two government's attitude toward the people they govern during two incidents, in June 1989 and March 1990. Each was critical in shaping the direction China and Taiwan would take in their respective political systems.

Nine months after the bloody massacre in Tiananmen, students in Taipei gathered at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei to protest undemocratic decisions made by the government, and called for democratic change. I am told the now defunct Taiwan Garrison Command was insisting that it, armed, should break up the demonstration lest it set an unwanted precedent. Then president Lee refused the request. Instead, after he personally pro-mised the students he would open a conference that would be attended by all elements of society to discuss the future of Taiwan's democratization, the students went back to school. A quite different reaction to criticism by the people than that which occurred in Tiananmen.

There is more to this comparison, however. When the organization of the conference was published, there was widespread opposition by many conservatives among the elite of the then ruling party. The concern was that the result would drastically change the direction of democratization and allow the return of dissidents living abroad with quite different political views.

In fact, the conservative members were right, it did both. The results were debated well past the closing of the conference, as one would expect in a real democracy. But they were profound in nature and brought the change the students (and many others) had been demanding.

So one can compare: in Tiananmen, the demonstration ended in bloodshed with no change in the system. In Hong Kong the demonstration importantly showed a broader voice for the people, with no bloodshed, but also with no change in the system; in Taipei, there was no bloodshed, but there was very important change. A people's democracy moved forward. The result in Taiwan, too, was quite different from that in China.

The attitude abroad on "one county, two systems" as a possible resolution of the cross-strait issue is negative. It is based, however, too simply on the fact that Taiwan openly rejects it, meaning perhaps that it possibly can be negotiated. But there is more to it than that, which makes using "one county, two systems" even as a starting point impractical.

First is that their different political history and their different political systems are so incompatible that negotiations are not likely to get anywhere. Second, as long as the people of Taiwan have the power to choose and to understand the consequences, they are unlikely to choose any agreement that results in less sovereignty and less power than they now have.

One doesn't know how much of the coming elections will be run on the issue of national identity. It seems at this point to be inevitable. But in the past, com-mon issues of the moment and personalities often came to dominate attention. To the extent the national identity issue is used, voters, and those abroad with interests in Taiwan, should know well what it faces before it makes a choice.

Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group.The views expressed in this article are his own.

Missiles the threat, not US

Did Tony Weir (Letter, Aug. 22, page 8) intend to trace Ameri-can involvement in Asia or just excoriate the Taiwanese for their infatuation with the US? At one point, he claims Taiwan has "no defense against China except dialogue and negotiation." Yet, near the end of his screed, he finds "Taiwan is free to develop along her own path, with her own ideas, values and sense of pride." Which is it?

Is Taiwan hors d'oeuvre able only to negotiate a place on the dragon's menu or is Taiwan a free, feisty and self-reliant democracy capable of managing its own affairs? If, in fact, Taiwan has no defense, how could it be "free to develop along her own path?" In this universe, freedom is and always has been predicated on a credible defense.

Adding to the credibility of Taiwan's defense is the US support for the Republic of China began with the Franklin Roose-velt administration, and has been fairly consistent ever since. However, you can bet your life no one in the Pentagon wants to fight a land war with the PRC and they have made great efforts to avoid that scenario.

Weir claims that Taiwan faces a "massive ground attack" and that "missiles, aircraft and ships simply prolong the inevitable." Nothing could be further from the truth.

He overlooks or discounts the simple fact that the PRC lacks a navy capable of moving the People's Liberation Army (PLA) across the Taiwan Strait. Were the strait undefended, it could be a vast highway for the PRC's fishing and merchant fleets. In fact, the Strait was and is stoutly defended; once by the US Seventh Fleet and nowa-days by Taiwan's US-sourced fighters, attack helicopters, frigates and tanks.

No, the real threat is not a massive ground attack but missile bombardment by the PLA's M-9s and M-11s.

Does anyone remember the Iran-Iraq war? Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein got the Iranians to sue for peace because he was able to hit Tehran with poison-gas-tipped Scud missiles and the Iranians had no defense and no response. On the scale of atrocities, the poison gas didn't kill that many people, but the Iranians lost the will to resist. At that point, neither their society nor their government nor their industrial base nor their armed forces had been destroyed.

This could happen to Taiwan. The Taiwanese are already trading with the enemy to the tune of billions of dollars annually. How long would it take for the Taiwanese to fold once the whiff of mustard gas is in the air?

Hence, the purchase of Patriot missiles. They seemed fairly effective in recent Gulf war. Despite the questions about them, they are the only anti-missile system available to Taiwan. As most readers know, the PRC has already deployed 450 IRBMs targeted at Taiwan and is now augmenting that force at the rate of 75 per year. Absent the Patriots, Taiwan is defenseless. With enough of them, the chance of a PRC missile attack producing capitulation before the US can act is reduced.

Are they worth the cost? Only the Taiwanese can decide and they have no sense of urgency.

Bruce Franklin

Taipei

China asks Washington to cancel Dalai Lama's visit

AFP , BEIJING

China protested yesterday over the Dalai Lama's scheduled trip to the US next month, asking Washington not to allow the Tibetan spiritual leader to go ahead with it.

"The Chinese side expresses grave concern over this matter," a foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement.

"We have made representation to the American side over this matter, and have requested the US government strictly abide by its promise to recognize Tibet as a part of China, to not support `Tibet independence,' and to not allow the Dalai Lama to go to the US to engage in activities to split China."

The Dalai Lama is expected to meet President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell during his Sept. 4 to 24 visit, his press secretary said on Monday.

China was swift to condemn the plan, saying it would jeopardize moves to build bridges between the exiled leader and Beijing.

"We know very well what the Dalai Lama is up to," said Jampa Phutsok, the Beijing-appointed chairman of Tibet, speaking in the Tibetan capital Lhasa earlier this week to a group of foreign reporters allowed to make a rare visit to the region.

"We are strongly opposed to [President] Bush seeing the Dalai Lama under any guise, this will not be beneficial to the talks with the central government and his [the Dalai Lama's] efforts to improve relations [with China]," he said.

The Dalai Lama will be in Washington for the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and will take part in a remembrance ceremony at the National Cathedral.

He last met the US president in May 2001 at the White House.

China, which has ruled Tibet since 1951, views Tibet as a part of its territory and opposes any official contact between the Dalai Lama and any foreign government.

The Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 after an uprising against Chinese rule was crushed by the army.

Since last fall, envoys of the Dalai Lama have twice visited Beijing for talks with Chinese officials. If successful, the negotiations could pave the way for the return to Tibet of the spiritual leader revered by the Tibetan people.

The Tibetan government-in-exile on Monday also said it was considering sending envoys back to China to help pave the way for "serious negotiations" on the Tibet issue.