US-Taiwan ties not deteriorating

By Paul Lin

Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003,Page 8

There has been increased interaction between the US, Taiwan and China in the international arena lately. Some Taiwanese media have reported how the US and China are on good terms while US-Taiwan relations are deteriorating.

Indeed, US-China relations are taking a turn for the better. US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave praise to the improvement, which was demonstrated in the courteous treatment the US extended to Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and the atmosphere between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao at the APEC summit in Thailand.

These two countries' good relations have developed since the beginning of the war on terrorism and were improved by their joint attempt to resolve North Korea's nuclear weapon threat. But is the improvement in bilateral ties superficial or substantive?

To resolve the nuclear arms problem, the US has been praising Beijing's performance. This smacks of political trickery. One cannot not rule out the possibility that the US has expectations of Hu. But if China's human rights problem is not improved and its arms exports to totalitarian countries are not halted, then US-China relations are unlikely to be fundamentally improved.

There has been a plethora of rumors about US-Taiwan relations recently. These rumors say relations are really bad -- in contrast to Sino-American relations. If Beijing were to wage war against Taiwan, it is possible that the US would not intervene. This is, possibly, what some people wish for.

The rumors are as follows: It has been said that the US has been unhappy ever since President Chen Shui-bian issued his "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait dictum last year. The US has also expressed "concern" about Taiwan's attempt to hold referendums, and then there is the controversy over Chen's promise to draft a new constitution. The US reportedly views Chen as a "troublemaker." In a meeting with a Taiwanese delegation in Beijing, Jia Qinglin, the chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, said Bush had described Chen as a "troublemaker" during his talks with Hu.

The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington checked with a US Department of State official who knew the details of the Bush-Hu meeting. The official said, as far as he understood, Bush had not described Chen as a "troublemaker."

The US also felt annoyed by Jia's statement. But the news agencies that reported on the "troublemaker" controversy lacked interest in the US' denial.

Washington has repeatedly said that it "does not support Taiwan independence." But Chinese officials shamelessly translate this into "Washington opposes Taiwan independence." Although Bush uses the words "not support" in his speeches, he sometimes uses the word "oppose." He told Hu that the US "does not support Taiwan moving toward independence."

Some local media gave these comments widespread coverage, apparently in an attempt to prove that Washington does not like Chen. Those Taiwanese politicians and media that condemned the US invasion of Iraq and criticized Taiwan for currying favor with the US during the US-Iraq war have suddenly started to praise Washington. Clearly, they do not want the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government and Washington to enjoy good relations.

Such rumors and slanders have affected some US officials. On Oct. 18, the State Department said that "the US does not favor one candidate or one party over another [in next year's election]. We look forward to working with whomever the people of Taiwan elect as their next president and vice president." Some people have said the announcement was made to correct remarks by American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairwoman Therese Shaheen during a recent visit to Taiwan. They even claimed that there is a subtle competition between Shaheen and AIT Director Douglas Paal.

The State Department denied these assertions, saying that the announcement was made to avoid the impression that Washington supports any candidate. However, the local media that reported Washington's discontent with Shaheen's statement did not publish this information, allowing the erroneous message to spread.

More laughable, the overbearing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chang said that he received the related State Department document before Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien did. How could he know whether Chien had the document or not? Was he trying to indicate that some government representatives overseas had leaked secret information to him? If so, he exposed those representatives as being unethical.

Under such circumstances, the reduction of Chen's upcoming overseas trip -- from 17 to seven days -- has been viewed as irrefutable evidence that the US is unhappy with him. However, Chen has only cut the number of countries he will visit, not the days he will be in the US. Nevertheless, some people are proclaiming the demise of Taiwan-US relations.

Such behavior on the part of Taiwanese politicians or media, whether intentional or not, could only be explained as an effort to echo Beijing's policy of luring Washington.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.

Taiwanese held by China comes home

LIBERATED: Welcoming the release of a man who had been arrested in Shanghai, the Falun Dafa Institute urged Beijing to release its other detainees

By Debby Wu

STAFF REPORTER

Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003,Page 4

A Falun Gong practitioner detained by Shanghai authorities earlier this month was released and returned home two days ago, the Taiwan Falun Dafa Institute said yester-day.

Lin Hsiao-kai, 29, went to visit a friend in Shanghai on Sept. 30.

His family lost contact with him on Oct. 7 and later discovered that he had been detained by the National Security Bureau in Shanghai.

His detention, and his family's efforts to locate him, were given widespread coverage in the local media.

Lin, however, has yet to comment publicly about his experience.

"We are grateful for the media coverage. It's because of the media reports that the Chinese government felt pressured and decided to release Lin," said Chang Ching-hsi, the institute's director.

Chang said that there were still several Falun Gong practitioners from Taiwan detained in China, most of whom are Chinese women married Taiwanese men.

He urged Beijing to release them soon.

Meanwhile, 20 Falun Gong practitioners began a nationwide cycling tour yesterday to demonstrate their opposition to China's suppression of the Falun Gong.

"We are holding this cycling tour mainly to attract the attention of the Taiwanese people to this issue. Taiwanese people are still afraid to talk about human rights and China, because they are afraid of provoking China," Chang said.

"But human rights is something that needs to be maintained with mutual help from everyone," Chang said.

One of the cyclists, 59-year-old engineer Chung Cheng, said that Falun Gong did not exist to oppose any government or organization, and the Chinese government should not suppress the practice just because some officials thought it interfered with their own interests.

"As long as the suppression exists for one day, I'll put my efforts into the rescuing Falun Gong practitioners," Chung said.

Hu Jintao's very offensive speech

By Bruce Jacobs

Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003,Page 8

Chinese President Hu Jintao expressed strong concern about the possibility of being insulted during his speech to Australia's parliament. In fact, his speech has insulted every Australian.

In his first substantive paragraph, Hu states, "Back in the 1420s, the expeditionary fleets of China's Ming dynasty reached Australian shores. For centuries, the Chinese sailed across vast seas and settled down in what was called `the southern land,' or today's Australia. They brought Chinese culture here and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia's economy, society and thriving pluralistic culture."

These statements are poor malarkey. There is not the slightest evidence that Chinese ships visited the northwest coast of Australia, let alone settled here. And the Chinese fleets, though great, had a very limited period of activity. They most certainly did not travel "for centuries."

However, what is most offensive about these statements is that China uses these voyages to claim islands far to the south of Vietnam as Chinese territory. Is China laying the basis for a future claim of Australian territory?

A few paragraphs later, Hu correctly states, "Democracy is the common pursuit of mankind, and all countries must earnestly protect the democratic rights of their people." But it is simply not true that China has "moved steadfastly to promote political restructuring and vigorously build democratic politics under socialism, while upholding and improving our systems of people's congresses, multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party and regional ethnic autonomy." About the only true part of that statement is that China remains under the "leadership of the Communist Party."

A few paragraphs later, Hu says, "China and Australia are different in social systems. This is the result of different choices made by our people in light of their national conditions and the two countries' different historical evolution."

Again, when have the Chinese people had a "choice?" The revolution, when the Chinese people last had some choice, finished in 1949. Since then the Chinese people have had no opportunity to express their wishes about their social system or about their political leaders, local or central.

Finally, in the last substantive paragraph, Hu addresses the issue of Taiwan. He reiterates the Chinese position that "Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory." But he goes on to say, "The greatest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait is the splittist activities by Taiwan independence forces." This is not true on two levels.

First, the only party threatening military action in the Taiwan Strait is China, which persists in refusing to renounce the use of force. Each year, China also adds 50 missiles pointed at Taiwan to its arsenal, so that now the num-ber of Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan is around 400. On the other hand, Taiwan has not threatened China. Nor has the US, Japan or Australia.

Second, according to June polls run by the Election Study Center of National Chengchi University, less than 10 percent of Taiwan's residents identify themselves as "Chinese." Over 40 percent identify themselves as "Taiwanese," while another 40 percent describe themselves as both "Taiwanese and Chinese." Only one of six residents favor unification with China even in the future and those who favor immediate unification number less than 5 percent.

Unlike Chinese, Taiwanese do have the right to vote and decide on their future and, at least at present, they do not want to re-unify with China.

Hu's call that "The Chinese government and people look to Australia for a constructive role in China's peaceful reunification" is very strange. Up to now, China has claimed Taiwan to be an "internal matter" and told other countries to stay out of its affairs.

If Hu is asking Australia to side with China against the US on the Taiwan issue, he is mistaken. Australia has consistently (though more quietly) sided with the US in support of a peaceful resolution of the issue. This Australia-US cooperation on Taiwan started in the early 1990s as Taiwan democratized and has continued under both Labor and Liberal governments.

China's blatant attempts to control Australian democratic institutions are also offensive. The calls and e-mails of the Chinese embassy to Australian media asking that protests against Hu be ignored in reporting is an attempt to transport Chinese practices to Australia. The demand for three guests of the Greens to be removed from the public gallery -- or else Hu would refuse to speak -- is also insulting and unacceptable.

As a China specialist for 35 years, I laud the improvement in the Australia-China relationship. But improvement is a two-way street and Hu should also show respect for Australian democracy. As noted above, Hu said, "Democracy is the common pursuit of mankind, and all countries must earnestly protect the democratic rights of their people." This, of course, includes the Chinese people, who account for one-fifth of mankind.

Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, where he is director of the Taiwan Research Unit.

Editorial: Truth is always the best defense

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan told reporters on Monday that "The Chung Hsing Bills Finance case no longer exists." The man at the center of the case -- People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong -- used biblical quotations last week to admonish former president Lee Teng-hui not to use the case to harm him. Obviously, there is a big gap between how Lien and Soong view the Chung Hsing case and the way most Taiwanese understand it.

Despite his lead in opinion polls, Soong was beaten in the 2000 presidential election because of the Chung Hsing case. Who would have guessed back then that Soong would still be unable to give a coherent -- and credible -- explanation for his conduct three years later?

Lien and Soong are now trying to convince voters that the case vanished into thin air when prosecutors decided not to indict Soong back in 2001 and the KMT announced last February that it would drop its embezzlement allegations against him. They are trying to protect themselves by hiding behind a prosecutorial ruling that the public no longer trusts.

The pair's political judgment appears far different to the expectations and impressions of the public, most of whom think there has been a cover-up. How could the embezzlement accusations become null and void just because the KMT and PFP shook hands and made peace? The public want to know whether the prosecutors' initial handling of the case was appropriate and whether there was any political interference in their decision.

If Lien and Soong really believed in democracy and the rule of law, they should have produced evidence to disprove the charges against Soong, many of which Lien himself made. Since they have not done so, why should they be surprised when their political rivals -- or anyone else -- use Lien's verbal attacks on Soong from the 2000 election to cast doubt on Soong's integrity? How can they expect their behavior or rhetoric to stem the tide of criticism?

The Chung Hsing case involves the misappropriation of KMT assets. Misappropriation is a crime for which a complaint from the plaintiff is not a pre-requisite for prosecution. It is not something on which the parties involved can reach a private settlement and avoid legal repercussions.

More importantly, Soong is a candidate for the vice presidency. It is natural for people to expect higher standards from those seeking the highest offices in the land. The people want Soong to clarify details of the case so that they may be assured of his good character and so that Lien's past accusations may be explained reasonably. Most people don't care if Soong confronts former president Lee in court -- the PFP chairman appears to be trying to use Lee as a diversion to draw attention away from himself and Lien.

When the integrity of politicians comes under suspicion, they should produce evidence to clear their names and to safeguard their dignity. They should not simply engage in passive resistance. If Lien and Soong are not more truthful about the Chung Hsing case, it could damage them as badly as it did in 2000. Quoting the Bible does not mean that God is on your side -- in court, at the ballot box or anywhere else.