Editorial: Is Pan-blue ambiguity outdated?

The pan-blue camp has made efforts to explain its cross-strait policy over the past few days, but the ambiguities and contradictions in their position have not eased the public's suspicions. In the past such ambiguity has been used to maintain stability and the status quo, which appealed to moderate voters. However, considering the changing international scene and changing views of moderate voters, the question is: Has this strategy of ambiguity become outdated?

A quick survey of the top five pan-blue figures' public statements reveals at least five different views on cross-strait issues. On Wednesday, at a press conference held to give Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong an opportunity to showcase their flowery English, Lien reiterated and Soong echoed the traditional pan-blue view of maintaining the status quo -- no haste toward either independence or unification -- and that the Republic of China (ROC) is an independent country. Lien went a step further by elaborating that the only difference between this view and President Chen Shui-bian's "one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait]" policy is that the name of the country in the former case is "ROC," while in the latter it is "Taiwan."

With advanced degrees in political science, Lien of course knows that there is a fundamental problem with his view. Internationally -- just as the People's Republic of China is the name of the government representing China -- the ROC is supposed to be the name of a government. The only question is which country.

This was of course disappointing, since only a day earlier, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), the pan-blue campaign chief, had said that his camp neither denied the existence of "one country on each side" of the Strait nor opposed Taiwan's independence.

Neither Lien nor Soong explained how their latest statements on cross-strait policy fit in with Soong's prior statement that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are both under a "one China roof," and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's open acceptance of the so-called "1992 consensus," under which the two sides supposedly accept the "one China" principle but are free to make their own interpretations of the principle.

To worsen the confusion, Lien then said that if he is elected, Taiwan will immediately start a dialogue with China about direct links. How can that be done when China insists that such dialogues can only be conducted if Taiwan accepts the "one China" principle?

The pan-blues must realize that moderate voters -- the group to which they are obviously trying to appeal -- are not permanently stagnant. Their views are evolving with the emergence of new values and greater demands for rights and freedoms in Taiwanese society. A case in point is the referendum right, which only a few years ago was still just a proposal by radical independence advocates, but which has now become commonly accepted.

Finally, it is also imperative to realize that, in the past, when China was not nearly the economic and military power it is today, Taiwan might have been able to prosper in the international community with its ambiguous status. But as China gains more power against Taiwan, Taiwan has less room to breathe. Can we continue to delude ourselves that the status quo can be maintained by such an ambiguous cross-strait policy?

No rift exists in relations with US

By Paul Lin

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 8

US President George W. Bush's criticism of President Chen Shui-bian's statements and actions in the presence of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has been exaggerated by the media and some politicians.

Misunderstandings and differences exist between Taiwan and the US, but there are even more commonalities.

To say that Bush's words were a display of rage would be unfair to Bush, because a show of rage is an emotional expression. During a fit of rage it is easy to become irrational.

Bush, however, was very careful in his choice of words.

For example, he never said he opposed Taiwan's independence, and he did not neglect to warn China that if it took armed action, the US would have to take action. Rather than saying that he was in a rage, therefore, it would be more appropriate to say that his words were were chosen in the light of campaign considerations and diplomatic difficulties.

The US is facing an enormous trade deficit with China, and is trying to revive its economy. The US therefore placed great importance on Wen's visit. Bush, in order to gain Chinese economic concessions ahead of next year's presidential election, needed to satisfy some of Wen's requirements. To a certain extent, therefore, Bush's statements could be said to be a matter of campaign language.

Bush's war on terror is another reason he needed to satisfy some of Wen's demands. The US hasn't been able to pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq. North Korea still stirring things up, and China is the US' real support in this situation. This is the reason that Bush made concessions on the Taiwan issue and called China a diplomatic partner.

There are, however, differences between the term "diplomatic partner" and the "strategic partner" of the Clinton era. Given that China is the world's largest dictatorship, is it possible that the US would make it a true partner?

Some people say that Taiwan is shaking due to Bush's fit of rage. In what way is Taiwan shaking? The DPP chose a ticket of Chen and Vice President Annette Lu, as expected, and Chen has not withdrawn his plan to hold a defensive referendum.

Many expected that the pan-blue camp would launch a massive political attack.

The People First Party has made a little fuss, but Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan has remained calm. The reason for this is that the KMT not long ago said that Taiwan should not rely on the US or become the US' pawn. Attacking Chen now on the basis of Bush's statements would be shooting themselves in the foot.

The reason that there have been a few misunderstandings, or a little friction, in the Taiwan-US relationship is that next year is a presidential election year in both countries. Chen has been using the referendum idea to win votes, while Bush has been saying he will fix the economy to win votes. This has led to disagreements, as Taiwan opposes China while the US tries to win China over. This clash of campaigns is a small, short-term clash. The disagreements are outweighed by the commonalities between Taiwan and the US.

First, Taiwan and the US share the ideal of liberal democracy, and the US will not sell out Taiwan. During the authoritarian Chiang Ching-kuo era, the US passed the Taiwan Relations Act to protect the interests of the free world. How could it now sell out a democratic Taiwan?

Selling out Taiwan would be rewarding a dictatorship. It would shake the world and the biggest victim would be the US itself.

Second, Taiwan's strategic position in the free world must not be underestimated. China and Japan have been struggling fiercely to win over ASEAN countries. If Taiwan falls into China's hands, Japan's link with ASEAN will be broken. Not only will ASEAN fall within China's sphere of influence, but Japan will also move away from the US and move toward China. The US will therefore be forced to pull out of Asia altogether, resulting in a grave threat to US security.

In this situation, cooperation is in the fundamental interest of both Taiwan and the US. Divergence and misunderstandings between the two will not get too far out of hand because both countries have difficulties in the region that they must overcome.

Caution is still called for, however, because China is doing all it can to split Taiwan and the US.

There are some politicians in China and Taiwan who create problems where none exist, persisting in provocatively casting the defensive referendum as a referendum on Taiwanese independence in order to confuse the public.

And for a long time now, some US politicians have looked only to achieving immediate benefits, or maintained constant pro-China attitudes and advocated China-leaning policies. Lacking an understanding of China's bandit attitude of bullying the weak and fearing the strong, they always shrink back in the face of China's blackmail.

But in fact, Wen's trip shows us China's psychological weakness. Having no other means of dealing with Taiwan, they have to rely on the US.

When the people of Taiwan have ridden out this storm, they will continue their march toward the world with even more confidence and self-respect.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.

Japan waiting for US direction on its referendum stance

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 3

Japan will not comment on Tai-wan's defensive referendum plans before the US gives its official response, Taiwan's top representative in Japan said yesterday.

Japan's response to the referendum will largely be determined by the US' attitude towards the issue, said Lo Fu-chen, representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Japan.

Following US President George W. Bush's open reprimand of President Chen Shui-bian, the US expressed its opposition to the issues Chen was planning to address in the referendum, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

Chen has proposed a referendum asking China to remove its missiles targeting Taiwan and to renounce the use of force against Taiwan.

In his report on bilateral relations between Taiwan and Japan in a legislative session, Lo said the Chinese embassy in Japan had asked the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to openly oppose the defensive referendum.

Beijing officials have repeatedly condemned Chen's referendum proposals as a separatist plot and threatened to resort to force if Taiwan moves toward independence.

But the Japanese government did not agree to China's request because it regarded such a gesture as unnecessary. Japan does not want any conflicts in the Taiwan Strait and views China's missiles aimed at Taiwan as a threat, Lo said.

"Japan would not back any provocative behavior," said Lo. He did not explain whether Chen's referendum plans would be regarded as provocative.

Bush's rebuke of Chen during his meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Washington last week triggered waves of media speculation regarding the US' attitude towards Taiwan's referendum plans.

Lo said Japan's attitude on the issue would not be as strict as Bush's.

Japan will do its part to help defuse cross-strait crises but is unlikely to get involved in any war, according to Lo.

Japan is Taiwan's third largest export market, after Hong Kong and the US, and Taiwan's biggest importer.

Legislature urged to seek UN's help against China

By Fiona Lu

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 3

"The resolution passed by the Legislative Yuan a few days ago to demand that China dismantle the missiles of its own accord was like a dog barking at a train."

－Wang Sing-nan, DPP legislator

Two Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members yesterday initiated a petition among lawmakers asking for another legislative resolution to convince China to dismantle its ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan.

Legislators Trong Chai and Wang Sing-nan started the petition urging the Legislative Yuan to pass a resolution calling on the UN to demand that China, a permanent member of the Security Council, remove the 496 missiles that have been deployed along its southeastern coast.

The petition has been endorsed by more than 50 lawmakers of various parties. It will be screened by the legislature's Procedure Committee next week.

Chai and Wang said the two resolutions that had been passed by the legislature on Tuesday were of no use in forcing Beijing to give up its long-established tactic of military intimidation against Taiwan.

"The resolution passed by the Legislative Yuan a few days ago to demand that China dismantle the missiles of its own accord was like a dog barking at a train," Wang said.

These resolutions were no different from the ones that had been passed by the EU and the US House of Representatives, the DPP lawmaker said.

According to Wang, Beijing would ignore the legislature's resolutions just as it had those of the US and EU.

Instead, the Legislative Yuan should complain to the UN about China's brutal and arrogant behavior, Wang told a news conference.

The 223-seat legislature on Tuesday condemned China's missile threat by passing two resolutions demanding that China dismantle the missiles aimed at Taiwan.

The resolutions, proposed by the DPP and the pan-blue alliance respectively, differed on whether they should include a statement that the ROC was not subordinate to the PRC.

KMT whip Lee Chia-chin meanwhile said that the resolutions rule out the necessity of the "defensive referendum" proposed by President Chen Shui-bian.

Wang and Chai said they had initiated the petition because they believe that discussing the missile threat on the international stage is the ultimate way of forcing China to respond.

The petition reads: "The UN should demand that its member, the People's Republic of China, obey the Charter of the United Nations by dismantling the missiles targeted at Taiwan, and that no further deployment should be allowed."

The UN was formed to maintain global peace and safety, and that the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, was responsible for probing disputes that could trigger international conflict, Wang said.

As one of the parties in the dispute, China would have to avoid interfering if the Security Council decides to investigate the missile threat in the Taiwan Strait, he said.

"A UN investigation would mean that the issues surrounding Taiwan will become part of an international debate," Chai said.

The government would be able to file the petition through the help of allies in the UN after Taiwan's people have made their voice heard in a defensive referendum on March 20, he said.

KMT gives support for power plant referendum

PROTEST: KMT Chairman Lien Chan said his party would not oppose asking the public's opinion about the disputed nuclear plant, and would tackle legislative reform

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 3

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan yesterday promised former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin Yi-hsiung that the pan-blue camp will support national referendums on the topics of legislative reform and whether to continue with the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.

"We are advocating different stances on the nuclear power plant issue, yet we should not deprive people of their right to directly express their opinion," Lien told Lin, who led an anti-nuclear group in a protest in front of the KMT's headquarters.

"I assure you that if the DPP proposes holding a referendum on the construction of the power plant, the KMT will not oppose it," he said.

Lien also said that since his party signed a joint declaration in the 2001 legislative election to push for a legislative downsizing project, as well as some other legislative reforms, he would ask the party's legislative caucus to put their words into action, even if it has to support the DPP's proposal of reducing the number of seats in the Legislative Yuan by half.

The Nuke-4 Referendum Initiative Association held a peaceful protest last Friday by sitting in front of the KMT's headquarters. The association yesterday gathered for the second round in its protest drive.

Lin, a die-hard anti-nuclear activist and senior democratic movement leader, participated in both protests. Yesterday he represented the association in a dialogue with Lien, who welcomed Lin outside in a good-will gesture.

Lin responded positively to Lien's gesture, saying that he had seen the KMT's sincerity and that he approved of Lien's manner.

He said that the association had listed five problems in the new Referendum Law, which he said had been influenced by some selfish and power-grabbing politicians.

"Completely violating the real spirit of ensuring the exercise of direct civil rights by all citizens, some articles of the Referendum Law actually places obstacles in the way of implementing those rights," Lin said.

He said he hopes that the KMT will support the association's idea of amending the law, and more importantly, that it will realize its promise to accomplish legislative reforms.

Lien responded that he and his party are willing to review the law and to make it perfect.

Lin praised Lien for showing the character of a "responsible politician," but he also urged the KMT to carry out Lien's promises.

"We will monitor whether the party is stepping on the path its chairman has shown us, and we will send a representative to get the KMT's final answer next Tuesday," Lin told the media.

President Chen Shui-bian has declared that his administration will hold a referendum on the same day as the March presidential election. The referendum will cover several topics, one of which is asking the public's opinion about whether to abandon construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.

The Cabinet had pledged to launch an "advisory referendum" on the nuclear issue, but this was before the legislature passed the Referendum Law on Nov. 27. The new law regulates that the implementation of a national referendum must be decided by an ad hoc referendum supervisory committee, which is organized by legislators.

The DPP and anti-nuclear groups have said that because the pan-blue camp, which opposes the suspension of the plant's construction, has a majority in the legislature, the committee would definitely turn down any referendum proposal on the nuclear issue.

DPP propaganda to focus on KMT `lying, stealing'

MEDIA WARFARE: The party plans to challenge the KMT about assets it had allegedly acquired from the Japanese government, as well as its inconsistent campaign promises

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 3

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday decided to focus its campaign propaganda on the huge party assets the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) acquired while it was in power, as well as its recent shift on the issue of sovereignty.

Wu Nai-jen, the head of the DPP's campaign propaganda department, said yesterday that the party has started work on a TV commercial that would describe how the KMT stole people's property and its unwillingness to return these assets.

"The party has received instruction from the core campaign decision-making body to make the theme of our next TV commercial the KMT's party asset problem, including how it used to steal money from the government coffers and how it refuses to handle the return of the property now," Wu said.

The KMT has been lying about its party assets and dodging the responsibility of returning these assets, Taipei County Commissioner Su Tseng-chang, the DPP's chief campaign manager, said yesterday.

"The new TV commercial will show how inconsistent the KMT has been in its words and actions in dealing with the party assets, including those properties the KMT took over directly from the Japanese government," Su said.

The other main theme of the party's new propaganda drive will be challenging the KMT's position on the issue of national sovereignty following recent remarks by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, director general of the pan-blue camp's presidential campaign organization.

Su said Wang's remarks that the pan-blue alliance would not rule out independence as one of the options for Taiwan's future obviously contradict KMT presidential candidate Lien Chan's promise to push for direct cross-strait flights in two years if he is elected president next year.

"Wang and Lien's stances are in stark contrast. We are confused about whether Lien or Wang is running the presidential campaign," Su said.

Meanwhile, as the campaign picks up speed with the election 92 days away, the party will arrange special training camps for local campaigners to improve communication and the dissemination of propaganda.

The party will hold a two-day training course in Tainan City this weekend where party heavyweights will share experience and strategies with other party members.

The five key figures in the DPP's campaign team will also attend the training camps.

These five heavyweights are Premier Yu Shyi-kun, director-general of the campaign, Taipei County Commissioner Su Tseng-chang, campaign manager, Kaohsiung City Mayor Frank Hsieh, campaign chief in southern Taiwan, DPP Secretary General Chang Chun-hsiung, overall chief commander, and Secretary General of the Presidential Office Chiou I-jen, the campaign's executive director.

Former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung will also attend the training camps.

The former party leader will also present a series of lectures on the importance of referendums in Taiwan's democratization process.

Cabinet to examine political parties' assets

By Ko Shu-ling and Fiona Lu

STAFF REPORTERS

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 3

"It's an urgent and serious matter because the KMT has divested assets, including bonds and properties, worth more than NT$240 billion since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came into power."

－Lin Chia-lung, Cabinet spokesman

Saying that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is speeding up efforts to dispose of its party assets, the Cabinet is gearing up efforts to reclaim what they say are national assets acquired by the KMT during its 50-year rule.

Premier Yu Shyi-kun is scheduled to preside over a meeting of the Cabinet-level national asset committee next Wednesday, where a report on the issue will be presented.

"It's an urgent and serious matter because the KMT has divested assets, including bonds and properties, worth more than NT$240 billion since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was elected into power," Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung said yesterday.

Lin said that enacting a law to regulate party assets is the best remedy for the problem, but a draft bill of a statute regarding disposition of assets improperly obtained by political parties has made little progress in the legislature after 25 failed rounds of cross-party negotiations.

"Without a law, it's very difficult for us to prove that the KMT's assets actually belong to the state," Lin said.

One well-publicized issue involving state assets is the land dispute between the national radio station, Central Broadcasting System (CBS), and the KMT-owned Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC).

"It's just the tip of the iceberg and highlights the problem of the KMT mixing up state and party coffers during its 50-year reign," Lin said.

While the KMT initially said that it didn't possess any documents regarding the land deal, it later reversed itself and said that it did.

"God knows how many more clandestine deals they've been hiding from us," Lin said.

He added that, according to military intelligence, the KMT has transferred some of its business assets to China.

In addition to calling on the KMT to exercise "political ethics and conscience," Lin said that the government will conduct a thorough examination of national assets and help CBS file a lawsuit against BCC.

The CBS-BCC dispute has its roots in a 1952 real estate deal, when the transportation ministry bought two parcels of land in Minhsiung, Chiayi County, for NT$150,000.

An additional NT$2 million was spent to buy broadcasting equipment for CBS, originally a department of BCC, to carry out propaganda broadcasts to China.

The CBS branch station in Minhsiung has been using the land and the equipment ever since, but the land was registered in BCC's name.

CBS expanded in 1972, became the responsibility of the Ministry of National Defense in 1980 and later became a corporate body.

BCC, claiming ownership of the land, started requesting in January 1998 that CBS either return the land or pay rent on it, but CBS has refused these requests.

Last month the Chiayi District Court ruled in favor of BCC in a lawsuit it had filed against CBS in June last year.

A DPP lawmaker yesterday charged that the KMT has otherwise profited from selling off public property.

"The KMT took over 19 theaters nationwide from the Japanese government after World War II and raked in a lot of money by selling the properties," DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-jin said.

Citing the example of the New World Cinema in downtown Taipei, Yeh said that leasing certain floors of the building has brought the KMT an annual income of NT$60 million.

To provide evidence for her allegations, Yeh yesterday produced a document indicating that the KMT was not the legal owner of the facility and that the New World Cinema was incorporated into the KMT without any legal basis.

The KMT eventually transferred its ownership of the theater to the party-related Central Motion Picture Corp, which decided to rebuild the theater into a commercial building with an estimated market value of NT$1.5 billion.

"The KMT sold these national properties and gained money from the transactions," Yeh said.

Yeh urged the government to reveal the facts of the KMT's involvement with national assets "regardless of whether it is beyond the retroactive effect of laws."

AIT announces plan to take fingerprints of visa applicants

STAFF WRITER

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 1

Starting next October at the latest, people applying for US visas will be required to provide their fingerprints in compliance with the US government's increased anti-terrorist security measures, according to the American Institute in Taiwan.

The fingerprinting will be conducted using an inkless "biometric identifier" scanning technology.

Applicants will also have digital headshots taken.

The new measures are part of the Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology program (US-VISIT) planned by the Department of Homeland Security, an agency set up in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"We are moving rapidly to complete development and deploy the US-VISIT capability to meet the congressionally mandated deadline of Dec. 31, 2003," AIT quoted department official Asa Hutchinson as saying.

Automated entry/exit systems are expected to be up and running at US air and seaports by the end of this month, the 50 most highly trafficked land ports of entry by Dec. 31 next year and all ports of entry by Dec. 31, 2005.

Problem is Taiwanese shortage of confidence

By Ruan Ming

Friday, Dec 19, 2003,Page 8

To curry favor with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, US President George W. Bush recently reiterated at the White House that the US supports the "three communiques" and the Taiwan Relations Act, and opposes "any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo." He also added something extra by saying that "the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."

Wen responded on the spot -- as if he had received an invaluable treasure -- that he appreciated Bush's position. However, Bush was questioned in the US for kowtowing to communist China by sacrificing democratic Taiwan.

His remarks caused a greater uproar here, as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said that "President Chen Shui-bian's government has brought Taiwan into the worst international isolation in 50 years."

Self-interest has blinded the KMT.

First, the US has not changed its policy. It has only made it clearer. During a press briefing on Dec. 9, a White House official said that Washington does not want to continue the game of keeping an ambiguous policy anymore. Bush clearly told Wen that "we are going to be there" if Beijing attacks Taiwan by force. He especially pointed out that Bush's promise in April 2001 that he would do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself remains unchanged.

The US also told Taiwan that Washington will not abandon its support for democracy and freedom in Taiwan. But it does not welcome any action by Taiwan that might change the status quo -- because its ultimate goal is to maintain peace across the Taiwan Strait.

Next, China's goal of annexing Taiwan remains unchanged, although its methods have changed. Wen himself reiterated Beijing's policy of "peaceful unification" and the "one country, two systems" model. Unlike former Chinese President Jiang Zemin and former Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji's, who in the past issued ugly threats, Wen decided to launch a "smile attack" and asked Bush to play the bad cop.

Originally, Beijing had hoped that Bush could return to former US president Bill Clinton's "three noes" policy or announce opposition to Taiwanese independence. But Bush didn't do so, because that would be a real change in US policy. In fact, the country that really wants to change the status quo is China. Bush's comment against Chen was in fact empty talk.

Last, the problem in fact lies in Taiwan, which has neither knowledge of nor confidence in itself. Taiwan is already an independent democratic country, and does not have to change its status at all. It should continue its democratic development and should not be afraid of any external threats. Didn't Wen also say at the White House that Beijing respects the Taiwanese people's wish for democracy? Whether he was telling a lie or playing a trick, will he really dare to attack Taiwan by force?

Referendums are appeals to direct democracy to resolve significant domestic disagreements that the Legislative Yuan cannot resolve. Taiwan's political circles are trapped in a vicious battle over independence, and are very careless about the nation's democratic development.

Politicians should return to reason, and give up their vicious political struggles, so as to appropriately design both the referendum and constitutional systems in accordance with Taiwan's democratic development and the people's will.

Ruan Ming is a visiting professor at Tamkang University and a former special assistant to late general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Hu Yaobang.