Born in Heilongjiang Province, Cao, 50, received a bachelor of arts degree in Chinese from the University of Heilongjiang.

Cao is a former deputy editor in chief of the communist Shenzhen Youth News.

He was ousted from his job in 1986 -- the newspaper was dissolved shortly thereafter -- for daring to suggest in an editorial that then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping was too old to hang on to power and that he should retire.

Arriving in the US in 1988, Cao founded the Press Freedom Guardian the following year and is now a political commentator for Radio Free Asia out of the US, Hong Kong's Open magazine and the Taipei Times.

Cao was a visiting fellow at Columbia University in 1996.

He said he has been developing ideas on democracy since his time in China.

Cao said books such as Animal Farm and Twenty Letters to a Friend were among the books -- banned by the Chinese authorities -- that have helped shape his concept of democracy.

It was not until he came to the US in the late 1980s that he started to take note of issues regarding Taiwan.

"It was only after coming to the US that I started to come across articles about Taiwan and meet people. I began to become aware of the reality of Taiwan's situation and understand the truth about Taiwan," he said.

Cao said that he supports former president Lee Teng-hui's "two states" theory and President Chen Shui-bian's "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait dictum because both men truthfully describe Taiwan's reality.

The same can be said for his support for Tibet's and Xinjiang's self-determination, he added.

Author of Tibet Through Dissident Chinese Eyes: Essays on Self-Determination, Cao has written hundreds of articles for leading journals in the US, Taiwan and Hong Kong pushing the cause of independence for Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang and endorsing democratic reforms in China.

In 1997, Cao, assisted by another Chinese democracy activist, Harry Wu, made a documentary about atrocities in Chinese labor camps.

Cao was arrested by the Chinese police while taking clandestine photographs. He was later released because he holds a US passport.

A Cao aide, who wished not to be named, said that overseas Chinese dissidents can be divided into two groups: those who support Cao's pro-Taiwan independence stance and those who do not.

"What impresses me most is the fact that he, although Chinese, dares to stand up for Taiwan's right to self-determination when speaking with other overseas Chinese," said the aide, a US-based Taiwanese.

As an example, the aide cited a gathering of overseas Chinese democracy activists in Los Angeles in July. At the meeting, the issue of Taiwan came up and the activists concluded that the matter should be decided by China's 1.3 billion people.

After listening to their remarks, the aide said, Cao stood up and rebutted their comments, saying that Taiwan's future should be decided only by Taiwanese themselves.

"Unlike many of these overseas Chinese democracy activists who think of democracy from the mind-set of `greater China,' Cao perceives the values of democracy from the starting point of an individual, whose rights need to be respected," the aide said.

Cao doesn't let opposition from other overseas Chinese sway him.

"The massive criticism against me on this issue will not shake my belief in Taiwan's right to self-determination," he said.

Cao said he feels regret that these overseas Chinese so-called democracy activists have not grasped the true meaning of democracy.

"Democracy is not about a mere giving of freedom to a big group or a nation, it is about respecting a person's value, freedom and rights," Cao said.

"It is blasphemy against the true values of democracy that, on the one hand, Chinese democracy activists insist on democracy and freedom for China, yet, on the other hand, they do not respect Taiwanese people's right to self-determination," he added.

Stressing that he is not an overseas Chinese democracy activist as he has never taken part in democratic movements in China, Cao said he likes to position himself as a "dissident writer."

Levin Liao, editor in chief of Locus magazine and who has known Cao for the past seven years, said Cao has a better understanding of the value of democracy than some groups in Taiwan do.

Lin Yuan-hui, a professor at the National Chengchi University Graduate School of Journalism, said, "Cao's rhetoric is very meaningful to people in Taiwan because he is from China, yet he supports the right of Taiwanese to decide the future of Taiwan."

Taiwan can benefit from greater ties to Panama

By Teng Chung-chian

President Chen Shui-bian exchanged greetings and shook hands twice with US Sec-retary of State Colin Powell as he attended the state banquet arranged by Panamanian President Mireya Moskoso. This Chen-Powell meeting was made possible thanks to the Panamanian government's meticulous arrangements. This is the most rewarding part of Chen's trip to Panama.

Although Taiwan and Panama have maintained relatively stable relations, rumors of discord have surfaced every now and again.

Taiwan is at a disadvantage competing with China in Panama. In terms of economic statistics, China enjoys a far closer relationship with Panama than does Taiwan. China-Panama bilateral trade in 2001 reached US$1.241 billion, while the trade volume between Taiwan and Panama that same year was US$120 million.

China is the third-biggest user of the Panama Canal. Hutchison Whampoa, which operates the ports of Cristobal and Balboa at each end of the Panama Canal, enjoys close ties with China. The business fees the company pays annually are very important for the Panamanian government. Under these circumstances, Taiwanese diplomats have been under great pressure, especially after 1996 when China and Panama set up trade representative offices.

There was a breakthrough in August, however, when Taiwan and Panama signed a free-trade agreement (FTA), an important indicator of bilateral relations.

Every country has political and economic considerations when signing FTAs. Taiwan gave a great preferential deal to Panama's agricultural produce and even promised to offer an annual duty-free import quota of 5,000 tonnes of sugar. Panama could even make Taiwan its springboard to enter the Asian market.

For the Taiwanese govern-ment, however, the import value from Panama only totals US$4.8 million, accounting for a small proportion in the nation's foreign trade. Therefore, after the FTA takes effect, its impact on the Taiwanese market will be limited.

But this FTA won't just benefit Panama. The Taiwanese government also benefits from expanding businesses into American countries. Moreover, Taiwanese businesspeople investing in Panama enjoy the same treatment extended to Panamanian nationals. Panama also promised to open up its finance, land transportation, tourism, logistics and value-added telecommunications service industries.

In general, the FTA covers three main areas: trade liberalization, expedition and economic cooperation. If these can be implemented step by step, Taiwan-Panama relations will gradually develop into a more refined network. Our efforts made Panama's first Vice President Arturo Vallarino call off a trip to Beijing on Aug. 30 at the last minute. This symbolizes the fruit we have harvested from the long-term cultivation of diplomatic relations with Panama.

Chen's transit stop in the US en route to Panama implies a possibility that we can make use of the US factor. Although the US has formally returned the Panama Canal to Panama, the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 stipulates that the US shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the canal when facing any armed attack or other actions that threaten the security of the canal or of ships passing through it. It suggests the intervention of the US anytime in the name of security. Apart from that, Panama's deep dependence on US trade and investment has forced the country to heed the US' stance.

In the future, Taiwan should closely integrate its diplomatic efforts in the US with those in Panama and other Central American countries so as to bring its overall strength into full play.

Teng Chung-chian is a visiting scholar at the Sigur Center for Asian Studies at George Washington University and a professor of diplomacy at National Chengchi University.

N Korea used nuclear loophole, CIA says

AP , WASHINGTON

The CIA has concluded that North Korea has been able to validate its nuclear weapons designs without a nuclear test, the agency disclosed to Congress.

The intelligence service believes that conventional explosives tests, conducted since the 1980s, have allowed the North Koreans to verify their nuclear designs would work.

The agency believes North Korea has one or two nuclear weapons similar to what the US dropped on Hiroshima during World War II; a minority of US analysts believe the communist country may already have made more.

CIA officials do not describe the precise mechanism by which the North Koreans could have verified their designs. The explanation to Congress provides the rationale behind the agency's conclusion that North Korea already has a nuclear weapon.

The relatively simple fission weapons that North Korea is believed to have produced would presumably detonate a precisely built shell of conventional high explosives around a plutonium core, and the tests may have involved the designs of that shell.

A CIA spokesman declined last week to expand on the agency's conclusions.

North Korea has suggested it may conduct a nuclear test to demonstrate it is a nuclear power. But US officials are not sure that the North Koreans would expend a nuclear weapon if they have only a few.

"A North Korean decision to conduct a nuclear test would entail risks for Pyongyang of precipitating an international backlash and further isolation," the CIA says. "Pyongyang at this point appears to view ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities as providing a tactical advantage."

The CIA's conclusion was reported in an unclassified letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee in August. That letter, along with similar communications from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI and State Department, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, a watchdog group that focuses on security and intelligence matters.

North Korea's nuclear program, which the US demands an end to, has been the focus of intense diplomatic activity in the region.

North Korea frequently issues threats but has also taken part in six-country talks regarding its programs. US officials believe North Korea, long in a dire economic state, regards nuclear weapons as a way to exact aid and concessions from the rest of the world.

US intelligence officials have acknowledged uncertainties about North Korea's weapons programs. The Defense Intelligence Agency, in its letter to the Senate committee, said a once-feared North Korean missile, the Taepo Dong 1, now appears to be only a research and development platform that is not intended for operational use.

North Korea remains ready, however, to test the Taepo Dong 2 -- a newer, long-range missile that may be capable of reaching the US, the DIA says.

The defense agency vaguely suggests that such a test could take place either from North Korean soil or "perhaps in another country" that the agency did not name, although Iran and North Korea are known to have cooperated on missile projects in the past.

In their political analyses, the American intelligence agencies said the government of Kim Jong-il appears unlikely to crumble from within, although they differed on who would succeed Kim if he died.

"We lack reliable insights into the internal dynamics of his regime, however successor[s] to Kim would most likely come from the military," the DIA said.

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research says that the successor would probably be one of Kim Jong-il's two sons -- Jong Nam, 32, or Jong Chol, 22.

"Because the two have different mothers, there are tensions between their families. To our knowledge, neither has moved through the grooming process far enough to dominate the other. We are unaware of any possible successor who is not a blood relative," the State Department says.

No rights without the rule of law

Just how long can we afford to let Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou rewrite the Constitution and the legal code whenever it suits him?

Last year we saw Ma, preparing for a re-election campaign of quite extraordinary dishonesty, postpone elections for borough wardens which should have taken place in June until January this year. The laughable reason Ma gave for this tampering was that Taipei City was redistricting its boroughs and had to postpone the election until the redistricting was complete.

As we pointed out at the time, this was a first class example of the mendacity that characterizes almost everything that Ma does. The reason for postponing the election was to make sure that it happened after the mayoral election last December and the reason for this bit of legerdemain was to ensure that Ma's trusty vote captains would be kept in place during the election campaign period.

Ma had no right to reset a nationally-fixed election date for his personal convenience and should have been impeached for it, as in fact a considerable number of borough wardens campaigned for. That he hasn't been impeached shows what shallow roots the rule of law still has in Taiwan.

And now we see that contempt for legal niceties shown once again, as Ma sends his goons out to confiscate copies of the Special Report VCD. The VCD has caused a furor over its merciless lampooning of a number of pan-blue figures, especially People First Party Chairman James Soong, the vice-presidential candidate who is also under investigation on charges of fraud. Ma wants this VCD suppressed and has invoked the Broadcasting and Television Law as the legal basis for doing so.

But Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chiu Tai-san mercilessly took apart this action on Saturday. Chiu pointed out that the VCD was not produced by a broadcast media organiza-tion, nor was it produced to be broadcast by one. As a result the Broadcasting and Television Law doesn't apply. The city government appears to have tried to apply rules made for videotapes intended for broadcast to a VCD meant for retail sale. The two cases are entirely dissimilar. Added to which Chiu pointed out that it is customary only to ban publications if they may be morally harmful or reveal classified national security information. Lampooning Soong hardly falls into either category.

What we are seeing here is the wrong law applied to the wrong object for the wrong reasons. Contemporary Monthly editor in chief Chin Heng-wei told our reporter on Saturday that the singling out of Special Report for seizure among the hundreds of VCD and DVD titles available in the marketplace smacked of the censorship of the martial law era. And so it does. It is, of course, no surprise that in the latter days of that sad time for Taiwan the censor in chief was none other than Soong. He seems to resent anybody having any more freedom of speech -- about him at least -- than they did when he could determine exactly how much they had.

Ma might say in his defense that the central government deemed the VCD illegal because its producers had not obtained a circulation license. Even if this was necessary, it is also true to say that the same applies to most of the VCDs on sale in any nightmarket in Taipei. But Ma's censors haven't been bothered about them. The fact is that the Taipei City Government, in an attempt to suppress something the only fault of which was to dent James Soong's conceit, has made a mockery of the law and shown utter contempt for the constitutional right of free speech. Ma rewrites the rule book for himself and his cronies again.

How long will we let this to go on?

Communicating makes a difference

By Nat Bellocchi

The first two speeches by Tai-wanese presidents in the US speak much for how different the US-Taiwan relationship has become in the eight years between them. In that time the US has come to accept that a democratic Taiwan exists and accepts that the relationship should be managed in a different way than in the past. It has become more complicated even now, though the offshoot of democracy -- the legitimacy of its government and leadership -- is still to be addressed.

In 1994 tensions between the US and Taiwan arose over a request for then-president Lee Teng-hui to transit the US en route to Central America. Much, but not all, has been written about that episode, but the results left both sides unhappy. This was followed the next year by a resurrection of a request from Cornell for a Lee visit. The State Department stonewalled the request while Taiwan gained overwhelming Congressional and media support, resulting in a Taiwanese victory and an unhappy State Department. There was much more to that, of course, but the point here was that the relationship was not at its best.

Most of Lee's speech at Cornell had to do with Taiwan's economic accomplishments, and its democratization. Two paragraphs mentioned a hope for good relations with China, and many more were about his past at Cornell and gratitude for America's support. The speech was immediately denounced by the State Department as "too political," apparently because of his frequent use of "The Republic of China on Taiwan."

That assessment was not shared by the rest of the executive branch. It may be improper for American diplomats to refer to that title for diplomatic reasons, but the president of that country?

From then to the year 2000, the relationship was choppy but at least manageable. The election of that year finally made it clear that Taiwan was indeed a democracy and further that this made it necessary to conduct the relationship with that in mind. These last few months have made it clear that dealing with a fellow democracy may be more satisfying, but also more complicated. Tensions exist that are of a different kind than in 1995.

Nonetheless, transit restrictions for Taiwan's president have considerably loosened. There may have been anxiety in some parts of the US government for the most recent trip, with Taiwanese politics and sensitive democratic reform in mind, but quiet diplomacy and common sense seems to have prevailed. President Chen Shui-bian  spent two days in New York City, made a speech and met with many people, and then went on to Panama. Ironically, this kind of arrangement was a possible compromise option that the US did not wish to purse in 1995 though it could also have considerably lessened China's embarrassment in failing to stop a "visit" rather than a "transit" by Lee.

Chen's speech itself was even less "political" than the speech in 1995 (there was no reference in the written speech to "The Republic of China," but there were countless references to "Taiwan"). There were no references to cross-strait relations, and only some mild adlibbing at the end of his speech on the Chinese demon-strations outside the hotel. It would be stretching it even more than in 1995 if anyone considered the speech "too political."

The results of the two-day visit to New York was a success for both sides and seems to have lessened the tensions that existed in the recent past. There is, however, four months before the election. The closeness of the race, and the many fragile issues that could at any time sprout crisis of one kind or another -- domestically, with a China that could interfere overtly or covertly, or even with the US with its many difficult regional issues to address, could quickly change this atmosphere.

And all this deals with the coming election only. The difficult internal struggle over national identity will be affected by the election, but to what degree and in what direction will depend on the result.

The continuing debate within Taiwan in any event will continue to be lively. China, as in the forthcoming election, will want to influence the direction the debate will go, and could well, as it does now despite its lack of success, press for support from the US. Tensions in cross-strait relations may yet again cause the kind of anxiety we witnessed recently before objectives became clearer and the likely results better understood.

And beyond this remains how best to address the legitimacy of the government and leaders elected openly and legally by the people of Taiwan. We have come to be comfortable in seeing these two issues -- Taiwan's national identity and its legitimacy -- as likely not to be ready for decision until well into the future. The acceptance of "status quo," despite the continuous changes that occur in reality, up to now has sufficed.

Perhaps that will continue as now for some time, as the issues will be as difficult to resolve as they have been for many years. But as the confidence in the democratic process grows, and the people's voice is heard on these more fundamental issues, the pressures on the three governments relevant to the cross-strait relationships will become greater.

The restrictions on communicating with Taiwan which Washington put on itself in the past are now counterproductive and do not allow discussions (and understanding) on differing interests that inevitably will develop, before tensions rise too high. The present channels of communications are not sufficient, at the level that matters, to deal with the delicate but very important issues relating to the future of Taiwan that still lie ahead.

Nat Bellocchi is the former chair-man 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.

Lien Chan stuck in the past

Chinese Nationalist Party Chair-man Lien Chan's recent remarks emphasize the stark differences between his mindset and that of President Chen Shui-bian. In England, he advocated a new "one China" policy under the Republic of China (ROC). He draws inspiration from a Tang dynasty poet who demanding personal loyalty of officials to the emperor. He eulogized Soong Mayling, Madame Chiang, in New York by praising her efforts to "battle against totalitarianism and oppression."

Lien's mindset seems stuck on mid-20th century China and not on present day Taiwan.

In contrast, Chen demonstrates a different perspective. His remarks during his recent trip to the Americas focused on human rights, democracy and a place for Taiwan in the international community. Taiwanese will have to decide next March whether they want a president who will lead them to a mythical nostalgic past or one who focuses on present-day, 21st century Taiwanese issues.

Kenneth Choy

Hong Kong

Vicious attack on free speech

I am a US citizen who has spent most of the past 20 years in Taiwan. I do not have the right to vote here, and do not support any local political party. How-ever, the events and images of the past few days have been so disturbing that I must speak out.

In the midst of the controversy over negative advertising and CD-ROMs featuring both pan-blue and pan-green political candidates (not to mention the excitement over Taiwan's baseball team), many people here seem to have missed a disturbing new trend: vicious and coordinated attacks on free speech, which have the potential to take Taiwan right back to 1979 and the Kaohsiung Incident.

When the pan-blue camp files a lawsuit against former president Lee Teng-hui, President Chen Shui-bian, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and even the actors involved in making a VCD attacking People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong and his colleagues, and when Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou threatens to sue to the DPP over a negative ad, these actions show a frightening lack of respect for free speech, however distasteful it may be.

Moreover, when a PFP legislator, accompanied by representatives of the Taipei City Gov-ernment, leads the police in a series of raids aimed at confiscating copies of said VCD, any-one who knows even a little bit about Taiwan's modern history will immediately begin to think that we have returned to the dark days of dictatorship.

Even if this VCD is in some way illegal, there are thousands of illegal and/or pirated CD-ROMs, DVDs, VCDs, etc floating around Taiwan's markets. Why confiscate just this one? The answer is obvious: because it offends the pan-blue leadership. In Taiwan, this is usually called "selectively prosecuting a case."

The fact Soong and Ma are among the leading actors in this drama is particularly ironic. Don't they remember what their enemies have so often accused them of having done during the 1970s, when Soong was in charge of the Government Information Office and any voices of opposition were being suppressed because they were in some way "illegal" or "seditious?"

In today's democratic socie-ties, political figures are frequently the targets of all manner of criticism.

When Ronald Reagan was US president, he was attacked unmercifully by left-leaning members of the entertainment industry. When former US president Bill Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal, everyone had a field day spoofing him. Did either of these leaders sue their antagonists or order records of these attacks to be confiscated? To the best of my knowledge, no.

Today, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are subject to incessant lampooning and lambasting. Have they tried to silence their attackers? To the best of my knowledge, no.

For a democracy to function properly, its political elites must display tolerance and patience. If one is criticized, one either ignores the attack or tries to improve; one does not muzzle the critic. The pan-blue camp seems incapable of true democratic behavior, and if the Lien-Soong ticket wins next year's presidential election, I think that we can all look forward to its leaders receiving 21-gun salutes on every tour of a township or county that they make, while any and all criticism of the new order will be ruthlessly suppressed.

In other words, we will be living in a new Orwellian age of terror, where all free speech is equal, but some free speech is more equal than others. The sacrifices of Huang Hsin-chieh, Lin Yi-hsiung and many others who fought for Taiwan's democratization will have been in vain.

In the end, however, there is very little we foreigners can do, and that is the way it should be. The decision about who will rule this beautiful island will soon be in the hands of the Taiwanese people. It will be interesting to see the results.

Paul Katz

Taipei