UN bid gets help from US Congress

 

HOUSE RESOLUTION: Taiwan advocates in Washington believe the `one China' policy is a fiction and that the country should be allowed to join international bodies

 

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON , WITH CNA

 

A small but growing movement in the US Congress to dump or redefine Washington's "one China" policy gained momentum on Tuesday with a group of House of Representatives members coming out in support of Taiwan independence and arguing that the country be admitted to the UN.

 

Representative Steve Chabot, a Republican and one of the four co-chairmen of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, and Representative Robert Andrews, a Democrat and specialist in national security issues, along with other congressmen jointly introduced a resolution in the House on Tuesday, the day of the opening of the UN General Assembly in New York, calling for Taiwan's membership in the world body.

 

The resolution was introduced by Marilyn Musgrave and co-sponsored by 10 other congressmen.

 

It is the sense of the Congress that Taiwan and its 23 million people deserve full and equal membership in the UN and other international organizations, the resolution says, adding that the US should take a leading role in encouraging international support for Taiwan's participation in these organizations.

 

In an accompanying statement, Musgrave said it is unreasonable for the people of Taiwan to be excluded from full participation in international organizations.

 

"Denying Taiwan membership in the United Nations and other international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, is unacceptable," the congresswoman said.

 

Chabot and Andrews, in a seminar on `one China' sponsored by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation in Washington, argued that the US should recognize independence as official policy.

"`One China' is a fiction, and a dangerous fiction that most of the international community has bought into to mollify China," Chabot said. "It is clear to me, and should be clear to the administration, that while America might recognize `one China,' that `one China' does not include Taiwan."

 

Furthering democracy

 

Andrews urged Washington to pursue a policy of promoting democracy in China for America's long-term strategic interests, and said that, in furtherance of that goal, "the future of the people of Taiwan is the future of the people of the United States."

 

Likening the promotion of Chinese democracy to former president Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech that directed Washington to promote democracy and freedom in the then Soviet Union, Andrews said that "Taiwan is pivotal to that policy" for China.

Demonstrators demanding Taiwan's participation in the UN march near Times Square in New York on Tuesday as the UN General Assembly opened its 58th session.

 

"America is more secure when we're surrounded by democracies [such as Taiwan]," Andrews said.

 

The idea of scrapping the "one China" policy, which has guided American thinking on Taiwan since Washington established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1979, has been pushed by a number of conservative Washington thinkers and some congressman for some time.

 

It gained visibility in June, when House majority leader Tom Delay appeared to call for its elimination in a speech to another conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.

 

At that time, Delay called the possibility of a Chinese takeover of Taiwan "inconceivable," and labeled the `one China' policy as a "diplomatic contrivance."

 

"Some have wanted to transform this diplomatic nuance into a recognition of Beijing's territorial claim over Taiwan -- a recognition that has not and never will exist," he said.

 

In recent years, Chabot said, there has been an erosion of US support for Taiwan by a "thoughtless reverence for the shibboleth of `one China.'"

 

His remarks seemed to be a sign of a split in Republican ranks with the George W. Bush administration, which has reiterated its "one China" policy and reportedly told Chinese President Hu Jintao recently that Bush does not support Taiwan's independence.

 

However, Chabot said, he feels Bush "does not have any philosophical problems with the independence of Taiwan," and noted that Bush often refers to Taiwan as a "country."

 

Taiwan's rights

 

"As long as `one China' is not understood to mean that Taiwan is part of China, then I have no problem with it," Chabot said.

 

"But if carelessness or inattention to nuance or force of habit leads America's political leaders to the mistaken notion that Taiwan is part of China, then `one China' must be dumped, and the United States must declare that while we do not support Taiwan independence, nor do we have any philosophical problems with it," he said.

 

"If that's what the people of Taiwan want, they have every right to it."

 

Andrews echoed that sentiment.

 

"If the democratically elected government of Taiwan one day reaches an agreement, that it feels it is appropriate for its citizens, that results in Taiwan being part of an integrated China, we should recognize that agreement," he said.

 

"However, if such a move is not possible -- which today it's not -- or if it is rejected by the democratic leadership of Taiwan, then we should recognize Taiwan as a free and independent state, sovereign in its own determination," he said.

 

 

Cross-straight transport requires government-level talks, DPP says

 

EQUALITY: The head of the party's Chinese Affairs Department said that air transportation links depend on whether China and Taiwan can normalize their relations

 

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

 

Following China's negative response to the government's proposed indirect cross-strait cargo flights, the head of the Democratic Progressive Party's Chinese Affairs Department, Chen Chung-hsin, said yesterday that negotiations over any transport links between the two sides should be conducted between the two governments.

 

Chen dismissed remarks by Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan that "Taiwan's unilateral air-cargo flights would take advantage of China."

 

"As far as commercial interests are concerned, Taiwan will not take advantage of China," Chen said.

 

Chen said Dragon Airlines Ltd, which operates one passenger flight between Taipei and China via Hong Kong every day, is 73 percent owned by Chinese interests.

 

Air Macau Co, which currently operates 10 cargo and passenger flights between Taipei and China via Macau every day, is 51 percent Chinese-owned, he said.

 

"How could China say we are taking advantage of them, as China will have a majority of the benefits from the cross-strait flights?" Chen said.

 

Chen also pointed out that cross-strait air transportation links will depend on whether the two governments can normalize ties.

 

"The current problem is that the two governments cannot sit down for talks because China will not recognize Taiwan. Without dialogue, how can [cross-strait] direct flights be realized?" Chen said.

 

In response to statements by a board member of China's Civil Aviation Association, Pu Zhaozhou, who said on Monday cross-strait flights should be conducted in a reciprocal way, Chen said.

 

"Taiwan's government will not oppose any form of cross-strait flights.But the premise is that both sides' governments should open up dialogue to discuss matters concerning the exercise of jurisdictions such as aviation regulation controls and customs policies," Chen said.

 

Chen said that according to articles 28 and 29 of the Statute Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, airlines have to gain permission to operate cross-strait flights.

 

"China's aircraft have to apply for the Taiwan government's permission before flying to Taiwan. However, since China doesn't recognize Taiwan, the government cannot open direct flights with China," Chen said.

 

"Taiwan expects equal and reciprocal cross-strait relations that can mutually benefit each other," he said.

 

Chen also urged China to sit down for talks with Taiwan about indirect charter flights between Taipei and Shanghai so that China-based Taiwanese businessmen and their families can fly home to Taiwanb during the next Lunar New Year.

 

 

Ma likens plebiscites to Cultural Revolution

 

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

 

"Some China-based Taiwanese businesspeople have mentioned to me that they didn't know the Cultural Revolution was still going on until they came back here."－Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung quoting Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou

 

Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou yesterday likened the Cabinet's holding of non-biding referendums to China's Cultural Revolution, according to Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung.

 

"Some China-based Taiwanese businesspeople have mentioned to me that they didn't know the Cultural Revolution was still going on until they came back here," Lin quoted Ma as saying during the press conference held after the weekly closed-door Cabinet meeting yesterday morning.

 

Ma was apparently accusing the central government of whipping up populist fervor to undermine the nation's legitimate political institutions.

 

Ma also criticized government agencies for being ambiguous toward the recently held advisory referendum in Pinglin, Taipei County.

 

"Although I agree that people should exercise the right of referendum, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, it's illegitimate to hold a non-binding referendum since there's no existing legal basis for holding one," Ma said.

 

Ma reportedly made the remark during the public opinion analysis session led by Government Information Office head Huang Hui-chen.

 

Pinglin residents voted last Saturday in a referendum to request that the central government open a service ramp linking Pinglin and the Peiyi Freeway.

 

About 98 percent of the those who cast ballots voted in favor of having the Taipei-Ilan Freeway, currently under construction, include a Pinglin exit.

 

"Besides, it's clearly deceiving to hold a consultative referendum, which is referential in nature and not much different from a regular opinion poll," Ma said.

 

His controversial remarks yesterday created heated debate among government officials.

 

Echoing Ma's view, Environmental Protection Administrator Hau Lung-bin said he himself does not support holding advisory referendums because they may cause a domino effect.

 

"The referendum law should specifically stipulate that certain issues such as those in relation to environmental protection should not be the topic of a referendum because it's a professional issue," he said.

 

Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of the Mainland Affairs Council, said that it is "inappropriate" and "disappointing" to liken the holding of referendums to the Cultural Revolution.

 

"We should face and debate the issue [of referendums] calmly and reasonably. It's inappropriate to equate a legal dispute with the government's management of the nation," she said.

 

Minister without Portfolio Hsu Chih-hsiung, assigned by Yu to head the Cabinet's referendum review committee, said that it is a mistake to regard a consultative referendum as an opinion poll.

 

"While only a few people are questioned in an opinion poll, all the nation's people participate in a national referendum, and all regional citizens are polled in a regional one," he said.

 

Citing the examples of the UK and France, Hsu said the nation doesn't necessarily need referendum legislation to conduct a referendum.

 

He also said the Cabinet's means for holding referendums are legal and constitutional, and that they were drawn up in case referendum legislation cannot be passed in time.

 

Minister without Portfolio Yeh Jiunn-rong said Ma twisted the spirit of the Constitution.

"His argument is like putting the cart before the horse," he said. "A referendum is necessary when political, legal and judicial means cannot solve major controversial policies and the implementation of a referendum has to be complimented with political wisdom."

 

Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh called on Ma to use his influence to convince opposition lawmakers to approve the referendum law, which has been bogged down in the legislature for over a year.

 

"It doesn't make sense to deprive the people of their guaranteed right of referendum simply because the legislature has delayed the legislation for the past 50 years," Hsieh said.

 

 

The emperor's running dogs

 

On Tuesday evening, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and the People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong threw a dinner party for representatives of Taiwanese businesses operating in China. Even though it was billed as a party, Lien and Soong and focused on next year's presidential election in their speeches, repeatedly criticizing President Chen Shui-bian's management of the country, calling on the businesspeople to support the KMT-PFP alliance's policy on direct cross-strait links and urging them not to "take the wrong side" in the election.

 

All the blue-camp politicians who spoke during the party sounded as if they were at an election rally. Everything was about the election. Protected by the pro-China media, the pan-blue camp could be said to have good luck. Whatever ridiculous actions they take will be skillfully packaged and sold as if it were something done for the sake of the people, for peace, for anything but the election.

 

Only the Liberty Times (our sister paper) dared prick the pan-blue camp's lies. The pan-blue camp has become a big fraud since the KMT lost power, weaving the emperor's news clothes out of the threads of "direct links" and "China's market," and telling the people that the economy will revive if they swallow the "direct links" elixir and invest in China.

The pan-blue camp is also fabricating charges against people, calling them conservative and protectionist for not opening the doors to China, calling them arrogant for not singing the praises of China, calling them divorced from the trends of internationalization for embracing localization.

 

The pan-blue camp can't really be blamed for this. The world of the pan-blue camp politicians is small -- consisting only of China. When the KMT was in power, the party used the state's education machine to teach that China has a glorious 5,000-year history and culture and is the greatest country in the world. Even out of power, it still dominates the media in this country. The pan-blue media saturates the print media and airwaves with one message: Go to China, or sit here and die.

 

The pan-blue camp has tried to package and sell Sinicization as "internationalization," and tried to use "internationalization" to counter the rise of Taiwanese consciousness. Sinicization is the poltergeist hidden behind internationalization.

 

Mao Zedong once said a liar will begin to believe in his own lies if he says it 100 times.

 

The people of Taiwan are not against China. Nor do they deliberately look down on China's potential. It is just that they know that China is not the whole world. It is only part of it. China's culture was strong for some time, but it is not the only source of learning for Taiwan -- or the rest of the world. Apart from utilizing China's advantages, the people of Taiwan should also look at the strong points of other parts of the world. China is not the answer to every problem.

 

Unfortunately, the people of Taiwan have nowhere to voice their views. The pro-China camp dominates media outlets. Aided by media brain-washing, Lien and Soong have a strong chance of winning next year.

 

The Chinese Nationalist Party has remained the Chinese Nationalist Party -- even after all its years in exile. The party charter and platform is all about China.

 

After starting to call the KMT by its formal name, the "Chinese Nationalist Party," recently, we wonder if KMT spokesman Tsai cheng-yuan will come after this newspaper, lashing out at it for being a mouthpiece and running dog of the Taiwanese?

 

 

Stability is the key to sovereignty

 

By Hong Chi-chang

 

A recent statement by former president Lee Teng-hui has made the question of whether the Republic of China (ROC) exists a focus of arguments between political parties as well as an issue hotly discussed among the public.

 

Let's first look at the statement Lee made at the recent rally held by the Alliance to Campaign for Rectifying the Name of Taiwan: "The ROC no longer exists."

 

What he meant is that the nation's official title, the ROC, is no longer a suitable symbol for the sovereignty of the 23 million people living on the territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu because the national structure of the ROC established in 1912 has undergone drastic changes geographically and politically. The nation's title does not fit its sovereignty implications.

 

Therefore, a movement is needed to correct the situation, building the people's consensus on sovereignty internally and disentangling the tangled sovereignty problem with China externally. Moreover, in consideration of the methods and ways for entering the UN, the ROC seems to have walked an increasingly narrow road.

 

It is therefore rational and natural to consider using other names to attain the goal of entering the UN, not to mention the fact that diversified thinking on various issues is undoubtedly permitted in Taiwanese society.

 

Let's first clarify two facts.

 

First, the territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu enjoys independent sovereignty. The nation's title is the Republic of China. The 23 million people living in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu are called citizens of the ROC.

 

This is a fact and is not controverted simply because this nation is not a member of the UN.

Second, the ROC lacks general recognition in the international community. A majority of countries do not think that the ROC is a country and believe that its sovereignty either has been inherited by the PRC or belongs to the PRC. The international community generally acknowl-edges or recognizes that there is only "one China." This is also a fact.

 

These facts exist indepen-dently. The first fact is fixed and hinges on our confirmation of de facto sovereignty and internal sovereignty. The second fact is restricted by uncertainty in the international community and the PRC regarding the disputes of the ROC's de jure sovereignty and "external sovereignty."

 

But we have to emphasize that using different names to represent sovereignty does not cause any harm to the existence of sovereignty. As long as the Constitution is amended and consensus is reached among the public, a title representing a sovereign entity can be changed.

 

The second act is changeable and more complex. The ROC's predicament is that the international community sees some overlap between the implication of the ROC-represented sovereignty and that of the PRC-represented sovereignty. If the ROC wants to break through the sovereignty difficulty it faces in the international community, this will only be possible after the PRC changes its attitude on the ROC's sovereignty and the international political structure is reversed drastically.

 

Coexistence of the above-mentioned two facts gives rise to inconsistency between the ROC's internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. This situation will undoubtedly have a direct and enormous influence on the nation's interests.

 

We believe that in light of national interests, the name rectification campaign is being taken in the right direction. Pursuing identical internal and external sovereignty tallies with the interests of the people.

 

We also believe that using "Taiwan" as the nation's title can better describe the sovereignty currently held by the people in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and, moreover, settle the controversy over the sovereignty problem with the PRC.

 

But we worry whether the substitution of Taiwan for the ROC can immediately harmonize our internal sovereignty with external sovereignty.

 

The crux actually lies, not in the name of the nation, but in the international political reality shaped by the PRC's powerful existence.

 

As long as this key factor remains unchanged, Taiwan's pursuit of identical internal and external sovereignty is doomed to be a long, laborious process.

 

The notion of "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait has won majority support among the people in Taiwan As time goes by, this consensus will be strengthened, this trend will become more apparent and the structure will be stabilized.

 

On one side is the PRC and on the other is the ROC or a country identified by other names. Such names, in fact, are open to discussion. It takes only two steps -- building consensus and amending the Constitution -- to decide the nation's title.

 

What's more worrying is any alteration to the ROC's title might induce an irrational response from the PRC and drastic changes in international political interactions. This would seriously threaten overall national security as well as economic and social stability.

 

To harmonize internal and external sovereignty is a clear and legitimate goal. But this should be attained from the bottom up -- starting from education and cultural influence, changing names of economic and social organiza-tions, to reinforcing awareness of localization and forming a stronger public consensus.

 

Based on this foundation, we would be able to form natural and distinct sovereignty features and draw a dividing line from the PRC in the international community. I believe this can protect our national security as well as economic and social stability.

 

Hong Chi-chang is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.

 

 

Japan, N Korea face relationship crisis

 

NO PROGRESS: Despite moves a year ago to end hostilities between the two countries, a recent kidnapping admission by North Korea has sparked renewed mutual distrust

 

AFP , TOKYO

 

One year after North Korea and Japan moved to bring an end to decades of hostility with a historic summit, the goodwill has evaporated and relations are marked by suspicion and hostility.

 

North Korea's admission on Sept. 17 last year in Pyongyang that it had kidnapped Japanese citizens during the Cold War era ignited a wave of nationalism in Japan.

 

Hostility over the abduction issue has also combined with growing fears here over North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, dashing hopes of proceeding with negotiations aimed at normalizing relations.

 

"Nothing is more insincere than their [North Korean] attitude," said Toru Hasuike, whose brother Kaoru, 45, was among five Japanese kidnapping victims permitted their first home-coming in 24 years last October after the summit.

 

"I thought the summit was a new start ... but I greatly regret there has been no progress since the five returned home," Hasuike told the Japan Broadcasting Corp (NHK) yesterday.

 

During the summit, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il admitted for the first time that North Korean agents had kidnapped 13 Japanese. Eight of them were said to have died.

 

They were kidnapped in the 1970s and 1980s in order to train the North's spies in Japanese language and culture.

 

Five surviving kidnap victims were allowed to visit Japan but later refused to return home. Tokyo now wants eight relatives of the abductees to be allowed to leave North Korea, and it is demanding more information on other suspected kidnapping victims from Japan.

The two sides are now at an impasse over the issue, with North Korea accusing Tokyo of breaking a promise to send the five abductees back after a fortnight's home-visit.

 

"The Japanese public has never felt this much threat from and distrust of a single nation," the influential and liberal Asahi Shimbun said in an editorial.

 

"Japan has changed greatly over the past year due to North Korea and nurtured an intolerant, irritated society as if it was countering extreme remarks by North Korea," the newspaper said.

 

A week ago, a self-professed rightist made a bomb threat against the Japanese diplomat who was the chief negotiator in talks with North Korea, charging he was too soft on Pyongyang.

 

It was the latest in a string of intimidatory incidents aimed at those deemed sympathetic to Pyongyang including ethnic Korean residents.

 

Relations between Japan and Korea have been fraught since Japan colonized the Korean Peninsula in 1910 until the superpowers divided it into the capitalist South and communist North in 1945.

 

Tokyo has never established diplomatic relations with Pyongyang although talks on the normalization of relations were first held in 1991. Eyeing the US$500 million in aid Japan gave South Korea when it normalized ties in 1965, North Korea has demanded compensation for Japan's rule as a pre-condition.

 

Korea Report chief editor Pyon Jin-Il warned North Korean experts should make comments based on cool observation rather than jumping on the bandwagon of attacking North Korea.

 

"If this continues, it will lead to a violent opinion like `Let's get this done by war,'" Pyon told the Tokyo Shimbun. "This could make Japan, not North Korea, explode," he said.

 

 

Families of snakeheads' victims demand money

 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING: The relatives of four drowned Chinese women came to Taiwan to identify the bodies and are looking for NT$2.5 million in compensation

 

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

 

The families of four of the six Chinese women who drowned last month when the human smugglers they were traveling with forced them overboard in the Taiwan Strait went to Taichung yesterday to identify the drowned women's bodies and demand compensation.

 

On Aug. 26, human traffickers dumped 22 Chinese women into the sea when their boats were spotted and chased by Coast Guard Administration ships near Tungshiao, Miaoli County.

 

The Straits Exchange Foundation arranged for the families to fly to Taiwan on Tuesday night.

 

At a funeral parlor in Taichung yesterday, the families wailed and collapsed as they recognized their loved ones. They also demanded NT$2.5 million compensation from Taiwan's government for each of the women who drowned.

 

Foundation Secretary-General Shi Hwei-yow said yesterday the families could receive maximum compensation of NT$1.3 million but that the amount would have to be decided by a court.

 

If the court grants the full amount, it would be the most the government has ever paid out in compensation to the families of illegal immigrants.

 

According to Shi, the Criminal Victim Protection Law might provide a legal basis for the claim.

 

"But the court has yet to decide whether the law applies to Chinese citizens," Shi said.

 

Since the victims were committing a crime when they died, the court could rule that they are ineligible for compensation, Shi said.

 

The families went to the funeral parlor accompanied by foundation officials, coast guard officers, policemen and Red Cross members.

 

The families identified the four women as Zeng Xiaoli, Xu Ying, Wang Li and Jiang Ming.

 

Upon his arrival at the CKS International Airport, Xu Chaoxuan, father of Xu Ying, said that he last heard from his daughter on Aug. 23.

 

"From then on I heard nothing from her," he said.

 

He fainted after identifying his daughter's body.

 

The foundation, expecting the families to be emotionally unstable when they saw the bodies, had an ambulance standing by.

 

Wu Xinming, Jiang's uncle, held up a photo of her in the funeral parlor when identifying his niece's body.

 

"The human smugglers should be chopped to pieces," he snapped afterward.

 

The families later went to the coast of Tungshiao, where Taoist priests performed the traditional rituals for them to call the spirits of their daughters to return.