Lu has urged all democratic Pacific Rim countries to support the idea, saying that such a union would serve as an international stronghold of democratization in the region.

"If regional integration is the inevitable trend of the development of human civilization, and Europe, America and Africa are able to make great strides, why not the Pacific?" Lu said.

Lu said such a union is needed because 15 out of 39 countries in Asia are not yet democratic and four of the five remaining communist regimes are in Asia, "among which is the rising hegemonic power, the People's Republic of China."

"The Democratic Pacific Assembly could be regarded as the first step toward realizing an Asia-Pacific union. Through this preparatory work, all countries could create consensus and discuss a future framework," she said.

Lu said President Chen Shui-bian had endorsed her idea during last year's Tashee meeting -- a special gathering of top government officials to discuss national security -- and he indicated that the government would make the assembly a priority issue during the meeting.

According to Lu, among those attending the assembly will be leaders of non-governmental organizations, the 1999 Nobel Prize winner and founding father of the euro Robert Mundell, and four vice presidents from Taiwan's Central America allies.

"Former United State Congressman Ben Gilman will serve as joint chairman with me," Lu said.

Lu said the assembly's secondary theme is to promote Taiwan's culture, which she said should become the facilitator of the new civilization of the Pacific Ocean in the 21st century.

"We hope to start a `Discovery of the New Pacific' project and we will launch `Discovery of the New Taiwan' campaign by inviting potential leaders from Pacific democracies to experience the new spirit of Taiwan," Lu said.

China's reforms have stalled again

By Orville Schell

As the 82nd anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party approached last July, the party's new General Secretary Hu Jintao seemed on the verge of announcing a whole new range of reforms. In a ceremony celebrating the promulgation of the current 1982 Constitution, Hu reportedly expressed interest in strengthening constitutional protections against official intrusions in people's lives and in promoting extensive legal reform. Indeed, he was even rumored to be considering more inner-party democratization, greater press freedom, strengthening non-Communist political parties and permitting exiled dissidents to return home.

Such optimistic views were re-enforced when Chinese intellectuals -- even some official academics -- began writing and speaking out in favor of re-evaluating controversial party verdicts on historical incidents (such as the Tiananmen Square massacre). Similarly, there was an increase in public advocacy on behalf of rural workers (who have been migrating by the tens of millions into China's cities), as well as calls for significant constitutional changes.

For example, legal scholar Cao Siyuan began writing on, lobbying for and organizing conferences about constitutional reform. The fact that Cao was detained after the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre, expelled from the party, spent time abroad lecturing and now runs a research consulting firm, seemed no impediment. Cao was careful to stay within the bounds of moderate reformism, yet he openly called for reform within five areas of governance: the Constitution, separation of powers, elections, political parties and the culture of politics.

For their part, Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao were even reported to have authorized a top-level body, "The Leading Group On Revising the Constitution," to draft "sweeping changes" that would be considered next March when the next plenary session of the National People's Congress met. The proposed changes were reported to include an amendment that would guarantee the same rights to property for private entrepreneurs as for state-owned enterprises, the constitutional right of party members to choose their leaders and even some steps toward a multi-party political system.

The party's evident tolerance toward these ideas was assumed to emanate from Hu himself. When Hu also cancelled the traditional closed-door summer caucus of old party elders that takes place each year at the beach resort of Beidaihe, hopes were raised that political reform might actually burst forth.

However, when none of these issues were raised in Hu's July 1 speech to the nation, reform-minded Chinese were palpably discouraged. To the disappointment of many, Hu ended up giving a lackluster oration that, instead of extolling political reform, re-emphasized the dreary notion of the "Three Represents" -- the banal theory advanced by former president Jiang Zemin, which allowed businessmen to be included in the party.

Then reform-minded intellectuals like Cao began to be trailed by Public Security Bureau goons and members attending conferences on legal reform organized by Cao were admonished by the Propaganda Department (the censors) to stop discussing the "three unmentionables," (political reform, constitutional revision and reversing the verdicts on historical incidents).

It was clear that the reform bandwagon had hit a wall. Indeed, the party soon issued a document to think tanks, media outlets and universities banning all public debate on these issues.

What happened? As so often in the past, this latest reform effort hit the limits of permissible party tolerance almost before it got going.

It is an old story in China: calls for reform by liberalizers end up antagonizing conservative party members -- in this case, the political faction of Jiang, who, although not on the Politburo standing committee, still heads the powerful Central Military Commission and wields substantial influence. The reformers were silenced in the name of maintaining stability.

Since the early 1980s China has experienced many iterations of this dynamic. While it is true that some modest residue of progress often remains after these episodes end, China's current political environment is far more censorious and intolerant now than it was in the mid-1980s.

While a process of "peaceful evolution" offers the best prospect for change in this mutating "people's republic," the Chinese Communist Party's demonstrated inability to countenance even the most modest quotients of political challenge -- even with a new generation of leaders in power -- does not inspire confidence in the prospect for piecemeal reform. The failure of this latest mini-reform movement suggests that when it comes to politics, fazhi, or the rule of law, has still made relatively little progress in eclipsing renzhi, the rule of men.

China may be something of a miracle of economic reform, but until changes come in its Leninist governmental system, borrowed from the USSR during the Stalinist era, a truly new New China will never arise.

While one hopes that China will find some way to continue transforming itself peacefully, the Communist Party's continuing intolerance of free expression, and its refusal to allow its people even to discuss in public how their government might be reformed, does not bode well for the future.

Orville Schell is a leading authority on China and a dean at the University of California at Berkeley.

Referendum law can't wait

A referendum was held Taipei County's Pinglin Township on Saturday to seek residents' opinions on opening an exclusive road along the Taipei-Ilan Freeway to the public and making it an interchange. Residents voted overwhelmingly for the interchange, but the Executive Yuan's various ministries and commissions are divided on the issue, as well as exactly what effect advisory referendums should have.

The Pinglin Township administrative office spent NT$500,000 to organize the referendum. Voter turnout was 64 percent, of which more than 90 percent voted in favor of the interchange.

Due to the lack of a legal basis for referendums, however, the ballot is now viewed as a large-scale public opinion poll. The opposition parties have been quick to announce the bankruptcy of advisory referendums in light of the fact the DPP finds the Pinglin referendum unacceptable, yet wants to push for an advisory referendum on several issues around the time of the presidential election next year. Holding non-binding advisory referendums without a legal basis will not solve problems, but will generate more disputes and waste resources, as the Pinglin referendum shows.

The impact of this referendum is worth noting. The executive branch is clearly divided on what force the referendum should carry. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has announced its support for the outcome of the vote. The Ministry of the Interior, meanwhile, is of the opinion that the advisory referendum, though not illegal, has no legal effect whatsoever. Hau Lung-bin, head of the Environmental Protection Administration, said public opinion should not override expert opinion, and that the referendum should not be allowed to override the freeway's environmental impact assessment. Hau is staunchly opposed to building an interchange in a protected water-resource area on which more than 8 million people depend for their drinking water.

The three divergent opinions held by the three government agencies show that the government has not reached an internal consensus on advisory referendums. Premier Yu Shyi-kun wants to avoid overturning the referendum result while also avoiding recognition of it. He hopes to strike a compromise by saying that setting up interchanges is outside the scope of local authorities. But the ruling party still appears inconsistent on the question of exactly what effect advisory referendums should have.

Without a law stipulating the scope, procedure and conditions for a referendum, political parties can use almost any issue as a referendum topic, allowing political issues to spin out of control. Take for example the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. A referendum held in Kungliao Township, where the plant is being built, will yield a very different result from one held in Taipei or nationwide.

Without appropriate legal authorization and administrative regulations, a referendum on the issue will stir up more controversy than the Pinglin vote has done. And how are we to budget for a referendum lacking a legal basis? The budget for the previous advisory referendum on the power plant, held in Taipei when President Chen Shui-bian was mayor and You Ching was Taipei County commissioner, still has not been approved.

Referendums have become part of democratic politics in many countries, given that representative politics has its defects and the public wants direct participation. This engineering project in Taiwan's democracy should be completed as soon as possible. A referendum law acceptable to both the ruling and opposition parties is necessary if we are to legalize the public's expressions of sovereignty and avoid some of the negative consequences of referendums.

Ingrate Feng has misplaced loyalty

By Lee Shiao-feng

After 150,000 people took to the streets calling for the nation's name to be changed, a crowd of Chinese who refuse to identify with Taiwan also organized a march under the leadership of former New Party legislator Elmer Feng.

Holding banners that read "Defend the Republic of China," they demanded the death of former president Lee Teng-hui and called him an "ingrate" and a "traitor." How funny. Didn't Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan say that Lee was pass?? So why did they care so much about someone who was already pass?? What's more interesting, portraits of the infamous dictator Chiang Kai-shek were also in the crowd. Long time no see, Mr. Chiang. That's how lovely Taiwan's democracy is -- people have the freedom to advocate a political myth on the streets.

I admire their determination to defend the Republic of China (ROC). They remind me of their "national savior, helmsman of the times, and great man of the world" Chiang, who once said to us: "Our Republic of China has virtually perished with the mainland fallen into enemy hands at the end of last year [1949]. We're now the people of a conquered nation. How sad if we're still unaware of the fact. Comrades, if we still have some integrity or heart left, restoring the ROC shall be our goal from now on."

In order to show my respect to their determination to defend the ROC, I have listed a few methods for their reference. First, they should fight their way back to China to eradicate the Chinese communists. Why? It is the evil communists, not Lee, the internationally respected Mr. Democracy, who have occupied the mainland. So the ROC can't be restored while the Chinese communists are still around.

Should Feng dare to call upon the public to fight their way back to China, we will immediately drop our appeal to rectify the name of Taiwan and join them.

Second, they should eradicate Mongolia. According to their definition, the territory of Mongolia is still part of the ROC. So they need to take over Mongolia after they defeat the PRC so as to maintain the ROC's integrity.

Third, they should replace the PRC's seat at the UN. They should request the UN to revoke Resolution 2758 passed in 1971 and replace the PRC's delegation with the ROC's.

Should they have difficulty achieving these three suggestions, they can consider pursuing pursuing the following two.

First, they should find out who is responsible for making the ROC flag invisible. In recent years, each time the PRC's personnel or sports teams have visited Taiwan, their people, such as Taipei Mayor Ma ying-jeou, cover or move away the flags or name of the ROC, showing absolutely no regard for the country. In such cases, I haven't seen them step forward and defend the ROC. In the future, they should stand up bravely and find out who has made the country disappear.

Second, they should look into Feng's actions and words. During the rule of Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, Feng spared no effort to oppose democracy and support the Chiangs. Promoted by Chiang Ching-kuo, Feng was grief-stricken as if bereaved of his own parents upon Chiang's death.

I don't know when he started to disobey Chiang's "three no's" policy toward China -- no contact, no compromise and no negotiations with the other side. He has diligently traveled to Beijing and echoed its policy of "one country, two systems" -- a total betrayal of the ROC. The title of "traitor" which he awarded Lee would be more suitable for himself. Therefore, those who want to defend the ROC should investigate Feng's conduct rather than working with him because he helps the PRC market the "one country, two systems" policy.

Last, they accused Lee of being ungrateful. Let me explain what real ingratitude is. Fifty-four years ago when the communists drove the Chiang regime to the wall, had there not been Formosa, Chiang would have had nowhere to go. At the time, US General Douglas MacArthur said Taiwan was not yet an official territory of China so Chinese communists were not allowed in Taiwan after the collapse of the Nanking regime and the US would assist Taiwanese to acquire independence and present the case to the UN.

The US warned the KMT government that the US-led alliance was still responsible for Taiwan so the KMT could move its capital from Nanking to Guangzhou, but not to Taiwan. After fleeing to Guangzhou and then Chongqing, the KMT government moved to Taiwan in the end and was reluctantly received by the Taiwanese.

In return for such kindness, these newcomers have shown little gratitude and do not identify with Taiwan. They have suppressed the island under the outdated banner of the ROC, preventing Taiwan from forming a new country and participating in the international community. And now they accuse Lee of being ungrateful. They are the truly ungrateful ones.

Lee Shiao-feng is a professor at Shih Hsin University.

The nation must state its concerns to the US

By Liu Kuan-teh

Amid a potential rapprochement of the US-China relationship after the six-nation meeting to discuss tensions on the Korean Peninsula, US Secretary of State Colin Powell highlighted the significance of Washington-Beijing relations as the best since then-president Richard Nixon's first visit in 1972.

Despite differences with China over issues such as human rights, nuclear proliferation and the absence of political openness, Powell's latest comments represent a new school of thought when it comes to the question of how to approach China.

Since North Korea is an Achilles' heel to American foreign policy in northern Asia, China stands out as one of the most influential countries that might decide the success of Bush's attempts to solve the North Korean crisis.

There is a dominant approach related to the role of China in this US-led international effort against North Korea. It argues that US President George W. Bush should seize his chance to recast US ties with China by highlighting the two countries' common interest to combat terrorism and the need for strong cooperation on both economic and security issues. A constructive US-China relationship, according to the theory, paves the way for Bush's re-election next year. Therefore, it suggests that the Bush administration should incorporate the idea of treating China as a constructive partner determined to safeguard US interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

In this regard, some urge Bush to set aside talk of power politics and propose a step-by-step program of confidence-building measures to be pursued with China. First among these should be joint action against terrorism, including more extensive intelligence sharing and collaboration in field work. Most importantly, Washington can use Beijing to counteract North Korea's nuclear-proliferation ambitions.

The assumption that China would act in accordance with international order and join a global campaign against North Korea without any precondition is nothing but wishful thinking. In fact, China's hosting of the six-party talks illustrated its intention to broaden its global influence.

While President Chen Shui-bian floated his "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait idea and pledged to hold a referendum to demonstrate Taiwanese people's will to join the World Health Organization, Beijing has indirectly told Washington that such a move might cross the "red line" by pursuing international recognition on sovereignty.

The Chinese leaders appear to have learned some lessons and adjusted their strategy to influence the US from the military threats and verbal attacks of the past. The notion that China might take advantage of the US call for help in its global anti-terror campaign and a joint resolution on the Korean crisis to downgrade Taiwan's position deserves special attention.

Whether the North Korean agenda would be a turning point for the improvement of US-China relations and the meltdown of bilateral differences in areas of trade, human rights and weapons control remains to be seen. However, Taipei should not overlook China's underhanded tactics. Playing a cooperative role in deterring a regional crisis does not mean China will automatically transform itself into a peace-loving, democracy-oriented country.

Powell's statement is by no means a wake-up call for Taiwan. The Chen administration should firmly express its concerns to its counterpart in Washington and ask the Bush administration to promise that Washington would not tradeoff its interests and democratic values to China in exchange for Beijing's conditional support of a peaceful solution to North Korean situation.

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.