20031006

Taiwan treaties offer cold comfort

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

While Taiwan is looking for an answer to its sovereignty problem, academics doubted that international treaties could provide a solid base for Taiwan's independent status.

"Big powers speak louder than international law," said Ho Szu-shen, an associate professor in the department of Japanese at Fu Jen Catholic University.

Many recent debates on Taiwan's sovereignty have referred to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Although the government is firm in its belief that Taiwan is a sovereign country, it has yet to convince much of the international community of the claim.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty, Ho said, can provide Taiwan with a legal and historical foundation for seeking justification of its sovereignty.

But the foundation, admitted Ho and other academics and officials, is not without cracks.

Moreover, Ho said, in the current international arena, national powers speak louder than international law.

If the San Francisco Peace Treaty does reveal anything significant about Taiwan's sovereignty, opinions of big countries like China and the US will still dominate the issue more than the treaty can, according to Ho.

On Sept. 5, 1951, under the leadership of countries such as the US and the UK, the allied nations of the World War IIconvened in San Francisco for a peace conference with Japan.

Lin Cheng-jung, deputy professor at Tamkang University's Department of History, recounts in an academic paper how China's changes in political power in the late 1940s affected the signing of the treaty.

"Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Chinese military region, had been the Supreme Allied Commander in the Asia Region during the war," wrote Lin in her paper The San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Lack of Conclusions on Taiwan's International Status.

On Oct. 25, 1945, Chiang sent representatives to Taiwan and represented the allies at the ceremony accepting Japan's surrender of "the Chinese Theater's Taiwan Province," and temporarily took over control of Taiwan and the Penghu region after the departure of the Japanese Taiwan Governor's Office, Lin wrote.

However, partly due to the military conflicts between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that broke out after World War II and the CCP's founding ceremony of the People's Republic of China in 1949, "Chinese representatives were excluded from the San Francisco Peace Conference," Lin said.

The KMT regime led by Chiang retreated from China and ended up in exile in Taiwan and Penghu, "a region where its legal status had not been decided," said Lin, adding, "The outcome of the civil war in China resulted in a lack of consensus among the allies as to which region was the legitimate representative of China."

The US and other members of the allies bickered among one another over which government of China ought to sign a peace treaty with Japan, Lin wrote.

While Japan eventually chose to sign the treaty with Chiang's regime, "the treaty did not really view the Nationalist government as representing the only legitimate government of China," Lin wrote.

Concerning the question of Taiwan's status and jurisdiction, Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty stipulates that "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."

"Foreshadowed here is the fact that the final question of whom Taiwan belongs to remains undefined," Lin said.

Lin Man-houng, a researcher at the Academia Sinica, said the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan (also known as the Treaty of Taipei) signed by the Nationalist government and Japan had fully assured Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to "the Republic of China."

However, Lin Chien-jung said the Treaty of Taipei, signed in accordance with the stipulations of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, did not move significantly beyond the latter in terms of its content about Taiwan's sovereignty.

Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei says: "Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Pacracel Islands."

The treaty does not grant sovereignty over those areas to the ROC, nor could it have done since Japan had already renounced sovereignty over Taiwan the previous year.

"So the question of whose jurisdiction Taiwan ultimately comes under is still not touched upon in the content of the Treaty of Taipei," Lin Chien-jung said.

Most people think of the contents of the 1943 Cairo Declaration or the 1945 Potsdam Declaration when discussing the issue of the jurisdiction of Taiwan after World War II, Lin Chien-jung added.

The Cairo Declaration says that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."

The Potsdam Declaration demanded that Japan surrender unconditionally and noted: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out."

"However, these `declarations' only state positions and wishes during the war, and although the functions of the declarations remain, they do not have any legal potency," Lin Chien-jung said.

In a speech delivered in July, former president Lee Teng-hui echoed Lin's argument about the lack of legal potency contained in the Cairo Declaration. He also said that the San Francisco Peace Treaty cannot fundamentally resolve Taiwan's sovereignty problem.

"People in Taiwan should think and try to find out the answer to Taiwan's sovereignty problem," Lee said at that time.

Chen says new constitution will be realized

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER , WITH CNA

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday reaffirmed his resolve to "create a new constitution in 2006," urging grassroots supporters to organize small clubs to promote the idea.

"It is an irreversible path for Taiwan to continue with its democratization," Chen said at the founding ceremony of his re-election support club in Taipei County. "And you all must serve as the midwives for the birth of Taiwan's new constitution."

The president first suggested rewriting the Constitution in 2006 at celebrations marking the 17th anniversary of the foundation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) eight days ago. Chen, who also is the chairman of the DPP, said the party should set up a committee to press for constitutional reform and to organize more clubs to advocate the idea.

He also said that the DPP expects to establish more than 5,000 "A-bian supporters' clubs" around the country and in overseas communities. A-bian is Chen's nickname.

Four supporters clubs were established yesterday, three in Taichung City and one in Taipei County that was organized by the Taoists Association.

The association, which used to have close ties to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), is now supporting Chen's supporters' clubs.

Chang said that the president had visited more than 7,000 temples during past three years and that Chen's sincere respect for Taoism has received positive feedback.

The president also said yesterday that the worst hardships for the government were over and that the public should have confidence in the government.

He gave several assurances for his second term, saying that he would do his utmost to achieve the objectives if he is re-elected next March.

"I hope to make Taiwan into a country that boasts the world's largest number of high-quality products and enjoys doubled tourist arrivals ... an unemployment rate below 4 percent and an economic growth rate of more than 5 percent, as well as the creation of 6 million broadband Internet users and 700,000 new jobs by 2008," Chen said.

In Taichung, DPP lawmakers said that the party needed the help of "small groups" to counteract the negative impact of the pro-pan-blue mass media.

"The mass media would like to focus on the DPP government's mistakes and ignore the government's achievements," said Hong Chi-chang when addressing the founding ceremony of an "A-bian supporters' club."

SECURITY CONCERNS: A group of DPP lawmakers have criticized an amendment that would shorten the time Chinese spouses must wait before earning citizenship

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus leaders need to convince colleagues on the merits of a controversial cross-strait statute before the Legislative Yuan launches a final review on Thursday.

DPP members differ over the withdrawal of an extension to a compulsory waiting period for Chinese spouses filing for naturalization following a consensus reached by Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen and pan-blue lawmakers last Tuesday.

Some ruling party lawmakers voiced objections to the withdrawal one day after Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) lawmakers criticized the government's compromise.

DPP Legislator Trong Chai said Chinese nationals married to Taiwanese people should be granted permanent residency as long as they have stayed in Taiwan for eight or more years.

"But it is unnecessary and unwise to grant them citizenship, which would give them the right to vote and participate in politics, because their mother country remains hostile to Taiwan," Chai said.

"We have to speak out against the loosening of restrictions against Chinese spouses because of concerns from a great number of our voters," said DPP Legislator Wang Sing-nan.

Wang revealed that he and his DPP colleagues were considering reinforcing the government surveillance of Chinese spouses.

"The administrative surveillance pledged by the MAC chairwoman, when coupled with the relaxing of restrictions, is at risk because Tsai cannot guarantee her successors will have a similar attitude toward the cross-strait issue," Wang said.

"Therefore, it is imperative to outline surveillance measures in a related law and prevent any break off of the policy," he said.

The extension of the waiting period to 11 years from the current eight was outlined in the amendments to the Statute Governing the Relations between the People of Taiwan Area and Mainland Area, which were initially scheduled to clear the legislative floor last November.

Eager to secure legislative approval, Tsai offered on Tuesday to call off the proposal extension in exchange for pan-blue lawmakers' acceptance of maintaining the current eight-year waiting period.

Beforehand, the pan-blue parties had protested the disparity between rules for Chinese spouses and other non-Taiwanese spouses on the time that they were required to wait before obtaining Taiwanese citizenship.

Chinese women married to Taiwanese should enjoy the same treatment as their counterparts from other foreign countries, who only need to wait four years before attaining ROC citizenship, said People First Party Legislator Feng Ting-kuo and Lee Ching-hua.

The Tuesday consensus was initially seen as a last-minute breakthrough for the revised cross-strait bill until TSU lawmakers refused to ink the negotiatory conclusion.

"The TSU opposed the dropping of stricter regulation on Chinese spouses because the situation could go beyond the government's control when the country loosens rules for Chinese immigrants and student recruits of Chinese colleges here," TSU legislative leader Liao Pen-yen said.

"We will not flinch from a legislative showdown to decide the passage of these controversial articles," Liao said.

Members of the DPP's "Mainstream Alliance," including Chai and Wang, spoke out against the shortened waiting period on Wednesday.

They said that Chinese nationals applying for naturalization should wait for at least 15 years in lights of cross-strait relations.

"There are countries that prevent foreign spouses applying for citizenship, with non-citizen spouses only being granted permanent residency," Chai said.

Legislator Tsai Chi-fang, who belongs to the DPP's Justice Alliance, initiated a petition to demand "a Cabinet review on immigration policy and regulations toward Chinese spouses."

Claiming that Chinese nationals should not acquire citizenship before China offered a renouncement of military force against Taiwan, Tsai collected the signatures of more than 50 DPP colleagues.

A DPP caucus meeting will be held before Thursday, according to DPP whip Ker Chien-ming.

Tsai Ing-wen is also expected to show up in the meeting, where she will hold one-on-one discussions the rebels.

An academic paper about the late president Chiang Ching-kuo released by Academia Sinica research fellow Wu Nai-teh has unexpectedly incur-red denunciation from pro-Chiang people.

As far as academic discussion is concerned, those criticizing the paper should closely read the entire text and put its arguments to test before finding fault. Their emotional criticism, which verges on political wrangling, is inappropriate and has more or less imbued the academic discussion with an authoritarian flavor.

Wu should feel lucky that he only has to face criticism. If this paper had been released when martial law was in place, I'm afraid he might have been placed behind bars.

Chiang is frequently praised for his political conduct in his later years. There are claims that he is the initiator of Taiwan's democracy. Wu's paper reviewed this argument. The paper conducted comparisons and analyses by making reference to or instancing more than 70 Chinese or foreign-language writings.

First, Chiang's lifting of martial law is considered his biggest contribution to the nation's democracy. The question is: How long was martial law in effect before it was lifted during Chiang's tenure in office? Chiang was practically in power for more than 30 years, during which he served first as premier and then as president for 16 years. In comparison, only five months and 13 days of his administration were free of martial law. This fact should be the focus of debate.

What we need to find out is whether or not lifting martial law was Chiang's own initiative, or a passive decision he made in response to the impact of democratic movements. What's worthy of discussion is whether politicians at that time -- now members of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) who still enjoy political power -- advocated continued martial law or its lifting before Chiang announced the lifting of martial law.

Would they have voiced opposition if Chiang had decided to keep martial law in place? This question especially should be put before former president Lee Teng-hui, KMT Chairman Lien Chan, PFP Chairman James Soong and KMT Legislator John Chang, Chiang's illegitimate son.

Second, some describe Chiang's relatively moderate response to the Kaohsiung Incident as another contribution to Taiwan's democracy. But were those arrested and handed prison terms in connection with the incident really guilty? If they were, then how did Chiang intervene in the trial results?

In particular, consider the fact that the 12 top defendants who were given a military trial -- including the late Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Huang Hsin-chieh and Vice President Annette Lu -- were not given death sentences under Article 2 of the Statutes for the Punishment of Rebellion.

Without Chiang's intervention, these defendants would not have had their sentences commuted. If the president intervened in the trial and saved democracy activists, what did that mean? And whether this incident was a case of rebellion and dealt with according to the law is a key point that should be sorted out.

Third, what was the final decision Chiang made 17 years ago in the face of the founding of the DPP? The policy-making process at that time was indeed related to the development of the nation's democratic politics and thus deserves further investigation. Although many DPP pioneers mustered up their courage and seized the critical opportunity to establish the party, they still harbor fear now as they recall the risks they faced at that time.

To retort the allegation that Chiang was a dictator, KMT and PFP members cited the 10 Key Infrastructure Projects to praise him. Is that the residue of authoritarian worship?

A more important question: Are the 10 Key Infrastructure Projects as conducive to democratic development as they are to economic development? Were the projects a result of Chiang's own brilliant decisions or a significant policy made through a certain mechanism? Is it true that author-itarian leaders are more likely to push for major economic pro-jects, while democratic leaders will face various obstacles, which hinder them from advancing any major policies?

Chiang played a vital role in the development of the nation's democracy. Be it merit or fault, it deserves deeper discussion and analyses. Martial law was lifted 16 years ago, but an analysis such as Wu's still invites invective and abuse. We know that many people still have the authoritarian mentality of the martial law period. No wonder 60 percent of the pan-blue camp's supporters believe that "the political environment under Chiang's rule, ie before martial law was lifted, was better for Taiwan."

This is also my last key question: After long-term authoritarian rule, how long will the authoritarian mindset remain lingering in political leaders (including top DPP officials) and the general public? What long-term effect will it have on the development of Taiwan's democratic politics?

Chiu Hei-yuan is a professor of sociology at National Taiwan University and a member of the Taipei Society.

Members of an all-women Taoist ceremonial dance troupe pose for reporters in Taichung County's Taiping City yesterday. The troupe is the first of its kind in a tradition that has been performed exclusively by men.