Bush is all for democracy, when it suits America's interests

AP , WASHINGTON

Thursday, Dec 18, 2003,Page 9

US President George W. Bush has put the spread of democracy at the core of his foreign policy. Unless it takes him where he does not want to go.

Taiwan, for instance.

On Dec. 9 Bush urged Taiwan to scratch a March referendum that China sees as a dangerous step toward independence. The president's critics saw that as a retreat from democracy-building for the island.

Russia offers another example. The administration raised only mild concerns over Russian parliamentary elections swept by allies of President Vladimir Putin, with whom Bush has cultivated close ties, particularly in the fight against terrorism. Human rights monitors from the West said the voting was skewed to benefit Putin's party.

In Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld congratulated a terrorism-fighting ally, Ilham Aliev, on his presidential victory in October -- even though hundreds were arrested in street riots after voting that international observers said was marred by fraud.

"The United States has a relationship with this country. We value it," Rumsfeld said, sidestepping a question on whether the vote met international standards for free and fair elections.

Bush has come up against a dilemma that all American presidents eventually face.

"I think it is important that you have a lodestar here of democracy. But you can't be a prisoner to it," said Sandy Berger, national security adviser in the Clinton White House. "Foreign policy is always a process of trading off, of striking the right balance among fundamental principles."

In a foreign policy speech Nov. 6, Bush declared a US commitment to the spread of democracy in the Middle East. The success of a democratic government in Iraq, he said, would "send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation."

Erecting democratic states in the midst of the Islamic world was not a Bush goal from the start. In fact, to some it smacked of the "nation-building" he railed against. The policy evolved with Afghanistan and gained momentum after the first rationale for invading Iraq -- the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- no longer could be argued.

Bush's commitment to sowing democracy has not stopped the administration from working closely with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf nations cited by the president as insufficiently democratic.

Administration defenders say there's good reason for those relationships.

Majority rule in Saudi Arabia -- should the House of Saud fall -- could result in a reactionary Islamic rule of the very sort favored by Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist network leader.

In Iraq, the problem of getting democracy in place -- ideally, for Bush, before next year's White House election -- is complicated by the likelihood that any national election would empower the majority Muslim Shiites. That raises concerns of the prospect of Iraq becoming an Iranian-style, clergy-ruled state.

But then, as Rumsfeld likes to say, "freedom's untidy."

Bush continues to reach out in the broader terrorism campaign to leaders of countries where democracy is questionable or at best fragile.

One of his strongest partners is Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup. While an elected civilian government now runs the country's daily affairs, Musharraf holds the real authority.

"What you see is a president who talks moral purity and ideology and does various things to appeal to his base. He's got strong belief systems. But he's also a highly pragmatic politician," said Fred Greenstein, a presidential scholar at Princeton University.

"His idealism is like a baked Alaska, warm on the outside and cold on the inside," Greenstein said.

Bush's warning last week to Taiwan leaders against any moves toward independence that would increase tensions with China put Bush in the rare position of having to argue against self-expression and side with Beijing's communist leaders.

But Bush, who early in his term said US military force was "certainly an option" if China invaded Taiwan, now finds himself needing China's help in resolving the North Korean nuclear-weapons standoff. The last thing he wants is a military confrontation in the region with US forces spread so thin due to Iraq.

Kurt Campbell of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said Bush created his own problem by raising Taiwan's expectations "with a lot of gung-ho rhetoric. Now he's hit them with a sledge hammer. That will actually harm the democratic process that we're seeking to support."

But Berger, the former Clinton national security adviser, said he thinks Bush did the right thing by signaling that US support for Taiwan was not unconditional.

"The first obligation here was to prevent a real crisis, which I believe was quite possible," Berger said.

What price is placed on an alliance of values?

By Liu Kuan-teh

Thursday, Dec 18, 2003,Page 8

In response to US President George W. Bush's statement last week that he opposes comments or actions by President Chen Shui-bian that may change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, Chen emphasized that the "alliance of values" between Washington and Taipei would prevail despite the US leader's remarks.

Chen revealed his feelings toward Bush when a CNN correspondent asked if he "felt hurt, frustrated or even infringed by what Bush said." Without challenging Bush as to why he echoed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's condemnation of Taiwan's attempts to "split with the mother land," Chen said he appreciated the Bush administration's earlier pledge to do "whatever it takes to defend Taiwan" and insisted that US-Taiwan relations were stable.

There is no doubt that the US and Taiwan share universal values of democracy, freedom and hu-man rights, but when it comes to the question of national interests, it is ironic that such an "alliance of values" can be distorted.

The notion that Chen's push for a "defensive referendum" to deter China's missile threat and military force constitutes an explicit action to change the status quo is nonsense.

What exactly is the status quo? Who is entitled to define the status quo? The status quo of the Strait is a world in which an authoritarian regime refuses to renounce the use of force against a democratic country. The status quo is a growing number of missiles deployed alongside China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Bei-jing's relentless efforts to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its own ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."

China's unilateral actions to intimidate Taiwan are clearly changing the status quo and therefore coincide with the situation contained in Article 17 of the Referendum Law ,which states that, "the president has the rights to hold a defensive referendum when the nation is faced with an external threat or a change to its sovereignty, through resolution by the Executive Yuan."

Washington may overlook the danger that Chen believes exists and portray Chen's concerns as nothing but election talk. Nevertheless, 23 million Taiwanese cannot wait until such a threat becomes a clear danger.

While the US employs double standards to brand Chen a provocative, reckless troublemaker, whom has been trying to rock the boat of Sino-US relations, it owes both a reason and an apology to Taiwan as to why its people are being deprived of the right to say no to China's saber rattling.

The "alliance of democratic values" between Taiwan and the US should be a respect of people's free will to make their own decisions. The "alliance of democratic values" should not kowtow to an authoritarian leader.

What Bush should really contemplate is the extent to which his administration can strike a balance between safeguarding the US' national interests and a fully fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in building a constructive, candid and cooperative relations with China.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration made the wrong choice when it appeased Beijing at the expense of sacrificing its long-term commitment to Taiwan -- a country that has been steadfastly supporting a US-led campaign on global terrorism and post-Iraq humanitarian aid -- and a country that has been counting on US defense assistance to main-tain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

If international realism is indeed the only rationale behind such immoral treatment of a democratically-elected leader, then please, Mr. Bush, stop talking about how you plan to spread so-called American democracy around the world.

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

Editorial: Ill-planned campaigning a failure

Politicians have once again underestimated the voters' wisdom. The pan-green camp tried to win support from the so-called "median voters" by means of a TV campaign ad featuring the national anthem. Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, the pan-blue camp's campaign chief, said during a recent interview that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) are not against Taiwan independence, and that they do not rule out independence as an option for Taiwan's future.

These actions and pronouncements violate the long-running political platforms of the respective parties' candidates. They will also cause their traditional supporters to abandon them.

The national anthem basically represents the KMT's soul at its inception as a revolutionary party by Sun Yat-sen before the KMT's exile to Taiwan in 1949. As president of the Republic of China (ROC), Chen Shui-bian has had to sing the anthem on certain occasions. This is understandable. But why use the anthem when Chen is making the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) historical missions -- constitutional reform and liberation from Chinese control -- his primary campaign platform. This not only raises question about the mercurial nature of Chen's style of governing, it makes it look as if he has fallen into an ideological trap created by years of pan-blue propaganda -- median voters who identify with the ROC and have no interest in Taiwan's independence or self-awareness.

Since the DPP came to power, the pan-blue camp has invariably put an "ideology" tag on all DPP policies. They view all government measures based on Taiwanese self-awareness as ideology-obsessed -- a neat trick, given their own Great China ideology. They take their pro-China stance for granted.

Over time, all views and government measures carried out in the name of "Taiwan" are labeled as "ideological." People naturally generate an illusion about "median voters" believing that they are a group of anti-Taiwan, pro-China people uninterested in political issues and concerned only about economic issues. Chen's national anthem ad fell into this trap and he didn't know about it.

On the other hand, the KMT has ganged up with its splinter group, the PFP, in a bid to regain power. Since its split with former president Lee Teng-hui, the KMT has returned to its old "China unification" path. However, in order to seek support from pro-Lee KMT members, the KMT-PFP alliance has not hesitated to bring out Wang, a quintessential Taiwan native, as a pawn. Wang's remarks that the blue camp does not rule out independence are aimed at creating an illusion that Lee's policies are making a comeback in the blue camp.

But illusions cannot deceive people. Baptized by a long period of vicious partisan wrangling, voters have gotten smarter. They will not be easily manipulated by partisan propaganda. Voters can see through Wang's old game -- moving between the blue and green camps to gain maximum political benefits for himself. It is becoming clearer that Wang has no core political beliefs himself -- except for his own personal power. Wang is merely jockeying for position, siding with the blue camp while also toadying to the green camp. He is no Lee. He is merely an opportunist politician.

Envoys get referendum briefing

COMPLICATED ISSUE: To allay the fears of other countries, the foreign ministry told Taipei-based diplomats that the referendum was unrelated to the independence issue

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

Thursday, Dec 18, 2003,Page 3

Secretary-General of the Presi-dential Office Chiou I-jen yesterday met with foreign ambassadors and diplomats to explain the govern-ment's plans to hold a referendum, saying that instituting referendums in Taiwan was the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "historical mission."

In a session held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, high-ranking officials from the Presidential Office and the National Security Council (NSC) endeavored to allay the 40 envoys' concerns about the referendum issue and dismiss the international perception that President Chen Shui-bian's brinkmanship was the driving force behind the "defensive referendum."

Firmly denying that Chen intended to use the referendum to pave the way for Taiwanese independence, Chiou said that the DPP was determined to deepen the people's democratic rights.

The media were not allowed into the closed-door session, but ministry spokesman Richard Shih said that Chiou told the envoys that "only when a referendum is held in Taiwan will the country have `full democracy.'"

In an interview with the Finan-cial Times published yesterday, Chen said the testing of missiles near Taiwan by China would be regarded as an attack. Chen also said he would abandon his "five noes" pledge, which includes a promise not to declare independence, if China used force against Taiwan.

Explaining Chen's intention to hold a referendum to ask China to dismantle its missiles aimed at Taiwan, Chiou said the president wanted people in Taiwan and other countries to be aware of how serious the missile threat was.

"People in Taiwan and other countries take the missile threat for granted. Chen wants people to strengthen their mental defense against the threat," Chiou said.

Chiou denied the referendum proposals were part of Chen's campaign strategy for next year's presidential election.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien said it was impossible to hold a referendum on independence.

"As far as I know, there are no preparations for such a vote," he said.

NSC Senior Advisor Lin Wen-cheng, accompanied by NSC Deputy Secretary-General Antonio Chiang, presented a paper on Taiwan's defensive referendums to the diplomats.

Shih quoted Lin as saying that choosing March 20 to conduct the referendum was a way of saving money.

Lin said that a gap still exists between the government's intentions to hold a referendum and the US perception of it. Nevertheless, Chien said, the government was still trying to communicate with the US about referendum issues.

An insider described the overall atmosphere at the hour-long session as calm and said the envoys raised few questions.

People First Party (PFP) Legislator Sun Ta-chien, who joined the session, said several of the diplomats told him they understood why the government invited them for such a session.

But Sun said Chiou's explanation did not entirely clear the envoys' concerns about Chen's plan to hold the referendum.

Su Ih-jen, director of the Center for Disease Control, also briefed the diplomats on the SARS case that was confirmed in Taiwan yesterday.

Dissidents strike back media

LIES, ALL LIES: Two Chinese dissidents were outraged this week by the publication of alleged lies about them and say they might go to court to clear their names

By Cody Yiu

STAFF REPORTER

Thursday, Dec 18, 2003,Page 2

Two Chinese dissidents, Wang Dan and Noble Laureate Gao Xin-jian, were outraged by the deteriorating ethics of Taiwan's media when recently published articles in two Taiwanese magazines allegedly cast them in a negative light.

Both Wang and Gao asked for apologies for the controversial articles in Next Magazine and TVBS Weekly Magazine.

"I was outraged by the wrongful accusation that appeared in TVBS Weekly Magazine. I will consider suing the magazine in order to protect my rights," Wang said.

On Dec. 3, an article appeared in TVBS Weekly Magazine stating that Wang's admission to Harvard University in 1998 was internally prearranged. It also made inferences regarding Wang's sexuality and that Wang claimed to have had a brain tumor in order to dodge potential prosecution.

In response, Wang wrote a letter to Liberty Times and also published the letter online in a bid to clear his name.

"In 1998, I applied to Harvard University through the standard admission procedures. There was no such thing as a `prearranged' acceptance in my case. TVBS Magazine could easily verify such a rumor by calling up Harvard University. However, the magazine didn't bother to do so. In this article, no source was quoted to substantiate this claim," Wang said.

"The article quoted the words of an anonymous individual to infer that I am homosexual. Whatever my marriage status or sexual orientation is, it is private and I have the right not to share my private life with the public," Wang said.

He also denied pretending having a brain tumor in order to dodge potential prosecutions.

"This misleading information is purely a piece of online gossip that has been doing the rounds. In 1998, I was able to go into exile to the US because I had a headache and asked for permission to be released from prison in order to be examined abroad. However, I never said I had a brain tumor," Wang said.

A well-known media watchdog body was also disappointed by the lack of fact verification in TVBS Weekly Magazine's article.

"In this article, the reporter passed on personal judgments based on information found on the Internet, where the sources were all anonymous. TVBS Weekly Magazine claimed Wang's personal affairs are a public topic of discussion, but I do not quite agree with the magazine's viewpoint," said Lu Shih-hsiang, chairman of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence.

In his letter, Wang also denounced the degenerating Taiwanese media.

"This kind of article can easily ruin my reputation. It is despicable that media ethics and conscience have become so rotten," Wang said.

In last week's issue of Next Magazine, an article stated that Gao was entertained by bar girls as a treat from former Fo Guang University president Kung Peng-cheng when he visited Ilan in October 2000.

"It is really sad that the Taiwanese media can get away with such false reporting without having to bear any legal responsibilities," Gao said on Tuesday.

He asked Next Magazine to make corrections and to publicly apologize to him, and is also considering taking legal action against the publication.

Connie Lin, CEO of the Broadcasting Development Fund, said such an unsubstantiated article brings shame upon all media professionals.

"When a claim can destroy someone's reputation, a reporter should practice his basic professional duty to verify the facts. Without doing so, the lack of media ethics and responsible journalism is a disgrace to all other reporters," Lin said.

Chinese missiles `heighten tension': State Department

RESPONSE: The US issued a rebuke to China but would not drawn on Annette Lu's labeling the missiles' deployment as a case of `state terrorism'

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

Thursday, Dec 18, 2003,Page 3

The US on Tuesday refused to endorse Vice President Annette Lu's characterization of China's missiles aimed at Taiwan as "state terrorism," issuing instead a mild rebuke to Beijing that said only that the missiles "heighten tension" in the Taiwan Strait.

In an interview on Tuesday, Lu slammed China's deployment of missiles targeting Taiwan as "state terrorism."

Asked about Lu's remarks, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher declined to comment, saying "I don't want to get into the political rhetoric that's in Taiwan or how various people phrase things."

"We've always made clear that we felt that China's ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan heighten tension," he said.

"We have felt that missile deployments are not conducive to a dialogue. We've also supported resolution of the issues on this region by dialogue." he said.

Lu has repeatedly slammed China's missile buildup opposite Taiwan, in connection with her support of President Chen Shui-bian's efforts to hold a referendum on whether China should dismantle the missiles.

US President George W. Bush last Tuesday slammed Chen and his proposed resolution in a press conference along side of visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, saying it was an attempt by Chen to change the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait, which the Bush administration opposes.

While Bush warned both sides against any efforts to alter the status quo, he did not directly criticize the Chinese missile buildup or demand that the missiles be reduced or withdrawn.

Boucher, during his regular daily press briefing, did repeat a long-standing US policy linking American arms sales to Taiwan with the level of Chinese mis-siles, which are now believed to total nearly 500 and increasing at a rate of 75 a year.

The missiles "have always been a factor in our thinking as we seek to make sure that we're living up to our obligation vis-a-vis Taiwan's legitimate defensive needs," Boucher said.

Those obligations are contained in the Taiwan Security Act of 1979, in which Washington pledged to sell Taiwan arms sufficient for it to meet its defensive needs, as part of the US' switch in diplomatic relations to Beijing.

Missile test would trigger sovereignty vote: Chen

CROSS-STRAIT TENSIONS: The president said a repeat of Beijing's missile tests could be seen as the kind of provocative act that would warrant a referendum on sovereignty

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER , WITH AGENCIES

Thursday, Dec 18, 2003,Page 1

"Chen simply replied that if China conducts missile tests near Taiwan as it did in 1996, the missile tests would certainly be a provocation, an attacking action, and therefore contradict the precondition of his `five-noes' pledge."

－James Huang, Presidential Office spokesman

President Chen Shui-bian has warned China not to test missiles near Taiwan, saying such a move would be considered ``an attack'' that might trigger a referendum on sovereignty, a British newspaper reported yesterday.

Chen's comments in the Financial Times marked an escalation in the heated rhetoric between the two sides across the Taiwan Strait -- and were criticized by the opposition as another example of Chen provoking Beijing.

China also vowed yesterday to "crush" any attempts by Taiwan to seek independence, calling Chen "selfish" and "immoral."

Chen has said that his plans to hold a March 20 referendum -- to demand that China stop pointing hundreds of missiles at Taiwan -- wouldn't touch on sensitive sovereignty issues.

But the Financial Times quoted Chen as saying that if China tests missiles near Taiwan again, the tests would be deemed a provocative act that could prompt him to expand the referendum issue.

provocation

``Yes. Of course it [a missile test] is a provocation. Of course it is an attack,'' Chen was quoted as saying.

China tested missiles near Taiwan in 1996 before the first direct presidential election

About the possibility of expanding the referendum after a missile test, Chen was quoted as saying, ``Of course, we don't want to see this happen. But if it does happen, we won't exclude any possibility.''

Chen also repeated that if China tried to attack, he would drop his ``five noes'' pledge made four years ago when he took office -- that as long as China doesn't use force to change the status quo, there would be no declaration of independence, no changing of Taiwan's name, no push for an independence vote, and no including former president Lee Teng-hui's "special state-to-state" model of cross-strait relations into the Constitution. Chen also promised he won't disband the National Unification Council or rip up guidelines already approved by the group.

In response to opposition criticism of Chen's comments, Presidential Office spokesman James Huang yesterday said that Chen was simply answering the questions put to him by the Financial Times reporter.

"President Chen gave his answers passively, in response to the reporter's question as to whether China's missile tests near Taiwan could be counted as a kind of provocation," Huang said.

"Under this circumstance, Chen simply replied that if China conducts missile tests near Taiwan as it did in 1996, the missile tests would certainly be a provocation, an attacking action, and therefore contradict the precondition of his `five noes' pledge."

an angry beijing

Meanwhile, a spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office lashed out at Chen at a press conference in Beijing.

"In the face of outrageous splittist activities, we must make necessary preparations to resolutely crush Taiwan independence plots," Li Weiyi, spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, said at a press conference in Beijing.

Li said Chen was putting at risk the interests of Taiwan's people to satisfy his own political ambitions.

"In a selfish bid to win re-election, Chen spares no effort to gamble with the immediate interests of the people of Taiwan," he said.

"This is very immoral and has triggered the strong indignation and common condemnation of 1.3 billion Chinese," he said.

The Taiwan Affairs Office also published a policy paper yesterday that calls for an early start to direct cross-strait links.

The minimal progress in direct links so far is mainly caused by obstruction of the Taiwan government, the paper said.

"[Chen] has broken his promise, gone back on his word, and done everything in his power to postpone the opening of the `direct links'" it said.