Editorial: KMT is not sincere about reform

On Friday evening the Legislative Yuan conducted a vote on a Cabinet proposal to review the Referendum Law. Lobbying by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is a minority party in the legislature, failed. The proposal was shot down, with 118 votes against and 95 in favor.

The Referendum Law's passage on Nov. 27 symbolizes a milestone in Taiwan's democratization. However, the DPP, which for several decades has viewed referendums as one of its central political platforms, saw the passage of the law as a major defeat because the content of the law, except for the title, was based on a version drafted by the majority alliance formed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party(PFP).

On Dec. 10, the Cabinet insisted on proposing a review of some of the articles despite the ruling party's minority position in the legislature. Some of the main points of the proposal were that the law is ineffectual and exists in name only, that the articles in question restrict the people's right to exercise power, that these articles run counter to the spirit of the Constitution and that the Legislature had expanded its power improperly through those articles.

Legally, the Cabinet's reasons for the review proposal were very clear.

But the KMT rejected the Cabinet's proposal for a review of the entire Law because the opposition did not want to touch Article 17 -- the "defensive referendum" article -- a review of which might have freed the administration of President Chen Shui-bian from a dilemma about whether to hold a referendum or not.

There were two objectives of the Cabinet's review proposal: one was to abolish the legislature's power to initiate a referendum; the other was to abolish the referendum review committee that could restrict the people's right to initiate referendums.

The first issue involves concerns over expansion of the legislature's power -- though at least the law as written does not obstruct referendums.

The second issue, involving the review committee, concerns suspicions that representative democracy may be riding roughshod over direct democracy -- though the committee could follow a good precedent if it is formed after the model of the Central Election Commission and only handles administrative procedures, and reviews documentation as a formality.

In the history of the Republic of China's Constitution, this was the first review proposal from the Cabinet ever to be shot down by the legislature. However, the Constitution, due to the KMTs' past amendments, does not require the premier to step down as a result of the failure.

The KMT has sneered at the premier for not stepping down but it did not dare to risk a no-confidence vote, as the review proposal was in accordance with constitutional provisions.

If the KMT were sincere about political reform it would have used the opportunity to vote the premier out. The president would then have been able to dissolve the legislature and a legislative election would have been held along with the presidential election on March 20. That would have hastened reform of the legislature and accomplished two tasks in one stroke.

The noisy wrangling at the legislature is nothing more than empty gesturing, and will have no effect on public opinion or the president's plan to hold a defensive referendum. The Referendum Law will force both the pan-blue and pan-green camps to give up their dogmatism and move toward the middle ground. Behind the agitated language of politicians, the international community should be able to see the Taiwanese people's ability to oversee their country's politics. Referendums have nothing to do with independence. They are merely a starting point on the long road toward direct democracy.

Missile defenses are not enough

By Chang Pai-ta

Monday, Dec 22, 2003,Page 8

`China's missiles are primarily aimed at Taiwan's C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and air-supremacy capabilities. Other targets include military and crucial infrastructure facilities ... The threat will increase with the rising number of missiles and improved accuracy.'

President Chen Shui-bian said on Nov. 30 that intelligence data obtained by the government show that China has now deployed 496 M-class missiles along its southeastern coast, within 600km of Taiwan. One hundred ninety-two missiles are in Jiangxi Province, 208 in Fujian Province and 96 in Guangdong Province. Chen said that since the nation is facing an external threat, he will cite Article 17 of the Referendum Law and hold a referendum.

The threat posed by China's M-class missiles to Taiwan's security is beyond doubt. Assessments of the seriousness of the threat vary since these judgements involve a comprehensive assessment of China's political ambitions and military prowess.

If these missiles were fired, it would take only seven or eight minutes for them to hit targets in Taiwan. But the military would not have even this much time to react. Any reaction could only begin once incoming missiles were detected; then calculation of trajectories and interception points would have to be carried out before an interception mission could begin. The missiles' trajectories are low and therefore the time available to react to them is short, perhaps three or four minutes, or even less.

In terms of active defense, if the missiles were not intercepted at once, our military would not have the capability to fire an additional wave of defensive missiles.

According to reports from the US Department of Defense, China uses a global positioning system and inertia navigation equipment to reinforce the missiles' accuracy, and CEP (circular error probable) to equip them with precise attack capabilities. This poses a threat to Taiwan's command, control and communications systems, missile bases and airport facilities, which are vital to the military's air control capabilities.

If China attempts the sort of decapitation strike the US launched against Iraq and makes Taiwan's political and military leaders its primary targets, Taiwan will be plunged into a state of anarchy and therefore will be unable to undertake organized and effective defense and resistance.

In a symposium held by the Atlantic Council on Nov. 24 to discuss the impact that the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) reform and modernization efforts have had on Taiwan, retired US Rear-Admiral Eric McVadon said that there are two types of DF-21 Chinese medium-range missiles.

One type can carry nuclear warheads with a range of 1,800km and threaten US bases in Japan and Okinawa. The other type, he noted, is the new DF-21 missiles that carry conventional warheads intended to destroy missile defense systems, and thereby remove defenses against short-range missiles.

In other words, if Taiwan's anti-missile bases are destroyed by DF-21 missiles, we will have no active defense power against the nearly 500 M-class missiles.

China cannot rely solely on the 496 missiles to conquer Taiwan, but missile attacks might be the prelude to a large-scale Chinese invasion and have a decisive effect on a war in the Taiwan Strait. To make the first battle a decisive one and preclude US intervention, China's military build-up prioritizes the projection of power, the ability to move the battlefield and preparation of the battlefield along the southeastern coast.

Judging whether the threat is an imminent one must not be assessed only on the basis of previous types of war, the current political atmosphere, Beijing's intentions or the number of missiles. It must be evaluated on the basis of the overall development of the PLA's projection of power and its ability to shift from peacetime to wartime functions.

China's missiles are primarily aimed at Taiwan's C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and air-supremacy capabilities. Other targets include military and crucial infrastructure facilities. The 496 short-range ballistic missiles (excluding cruise missiles) have long targeted Taiwan's major military and political targets. The threat will increase with the rising number of missiles and improved accuracy.

If the Referendum Law had been passed two or three years ago, or before the number of missiles deployed had reached a certain threshold (150 or 200, for instance), perhaps it would have had greater strategic value.

China has steadily increased its missile deployments against Taiwan over the past years. Taiwanese people may therefore have gotten used to the threat and even become indifferent to it, like a frog in water with a steadily rising temperature.

This attitude is a serious weakness in the people's psychological defenses.

China has not waged war so far primarily because of its lack of political will and the insufficiency of its current military capabilities.

Its increasing missile deployments will boost China's probability of military success.

This is likely to prompt Beijing to use military force to resolve the cross-strait problem, and to restrain the forces in China that advocate a moderate path toward Taiwan. As soon as Beijing develops blind faith in military force and begins to ignore political dialogue, the situation will become less stable in the Taiwan Strait.

According to the report by the US Department of Defense, China will soon have deployed as many as 650 M-class missiles, all pointed at Taiwan.

Based on a 1:2 ratio between China's missiles and Taiwan's defensive missiles, Taiwan will need 1,300 air defense missiles in the Patriot class to defend itself. This will put serious pressure on Taiwan's treasury.

Therefore, in addition to establishing missile defense systems, other political or diplomatic tools should be used to redress the strategic imbalance that has been created by China's missile deployment.

The European Parliament has passed resolutions and produced policy documents over the years demanding that China remove its missiles that are deployed against Taiwan.

How can those being threatened -- the 23 million Taiwanese people -- choose to keep silent? The president should cite Article 17 of the Referendum Law to hold a defensive referendum, allowing Taiwanese people to use democratic and peaceful means to express their gentle but steadfast opposition to the military threat.

If defensive referendums that symbolize democracy and security are applied in a proper way, they will become an effective "political theater missile defense" (TMD) system for Taiwan. Compared to investing heavily in the construction of a military TMD whose effectiveness is yet to be evaluated, or developing any type of deterrence force in response to China's missile threats, the referendums can demonstrate civilized values.

Chang Pai-ta is acting deputy chief of the the Democratic Progressive Party's China Affairs Department.

Chen adds Mongolia to strait debate

CHANGING TACK: KMT Chairman Lien Chan earlier endorsed President Chen Shui-bian's cross-strait-countries theory, and then Mongolia entered the scene

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Monday, Dec 22, 2003,Page 1

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday said that there are "three countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait" following Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's endorsement of his view that there are independent countries on each side across the strait.

"There's no such problem as `one China with each side's individual interpretations' because cross-strait relations involve three countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait. They are Taiwan, China and Mongolia," Chen said.

Chen made the remarks yesterday morning while attending a members' conference of the Tainan County and City Association in Taishan, Taipei County. Chen is a native of Tainan County.

Chen said that the Republic of China (ROC) used to rule China when it was founded in 1911. Then it became the ROC on Taiwan when the Nationalists lost the civil war and relocated to Taiwan in 1949.

Three countries

"Now the Republic of China is Taiwan. Therefore, there's three countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait and they're the ROC, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Mongolia," he said.

The former KMT administration used to claim sovereignty over China, Tibet and Mongolia, a stance that caused tension between Taiwan and the three countries.

Many of the problems between Taiwan and Tibet were resolved in January this year when a new Taiwan-Tibet Exchange Foundation was established to take over the Cabinet-level Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission.

Ties between Taipei and Ulan Bator improved dramatically early last year after the Cabinet revised the laws governing Taiwan-China relations and removed claims that Mongolia was part of Chinese territory "to comply with international realities."

The two countries followed up on this diplomatic exchange by opening representative offices in each other's capitals late last year.

Moving away from the KMT's long-time policy of unification with China, Lien surprisingly announced on Saturday during a campaign rally in Taipei that "on each side [of the strait], there's a country."

Lien, however, asked whether Chen's "one country on each side" theory was actually advocating "three countries on either side." The "three countries" were the PRC , the ROC and the virtual "Republic of Taiwan," he said.

Changing strategy

While the pan-blue alliance used to embrace the "1992 consensus," or the notion of "one China, with each side making its own interpretation," it continued to change its cross-strait strategy over the years.

PFP Chairman James Soong once proposed "integration under a one-China roof."

KMT Chairman Lien Chan confederated Soong's dictum to the recent "two-Chinas status quo."

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, who heads the pan-blue alliance's presidential campaign headquarters, said last Tuesday that the pan-blue bloc will shift its strategy to maintain the status quo and pursue cross-strait stability, and that it will not rule out Taiwanese independence.

Commenting on the blue camp's policy flip-flop, Chen Chung-hsin (陳忠信), director of the DPP's Chinese Affairs Department, said that Lien owes the public an explanation regarding its China policy.

"When President Chen first introduced the `one country on each side' theory, Lien criticized it harshly. Now he turned around to endorse it, but still didn't have the guts to say that Taiwan is an independent sovereign country," he said.

"He should tell the electorate exactly what he means by `one country.' Is it the Republic of China or is it the People's Republic of China?" he said.

Defense sector warns of Chinese laser-cannon threat

By Brian Hsu

STAFF REPORTER

Monday, Dec 22, 2003,Page 2

China has successfully developed a laser cannon with a range of over 100km and might have already deployed it in Fujian Province facing Taiwan, defense sources said yesterday.

Intelligence shows that the laser cannon might be able to paralyze the command and control systems of the military which are concentrated in the western parts of the country.

In response, the military has requested a NT$1 billion fund for preparations against potential laser attacks from China in the future.

A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that there were two different stories about the development and deployment of the new Chinese weapon.

"One version goes that the weapon is still under development. Another is that the weapon has already been deployed across the Taiwan Strait and that there are around 20 units in service," the official said.

"We tend to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. We would rather believe that China has already developed such a weapon and that we should start making preparations as soon as possible," he said.

energy weapon

The laser cannon that China is believed to have successfully developed is a kind of high-energy weapon that only a few countries, such as the US and Israel, are developing.

Not much information is available from public channels as to the new Chinese weapon, but there have been quite some reports in the west about the development of laser cannons of similar or different sorts.

The US has plans to develop an airborne laser, carried on a Boeing 747 aircraft, for the purposes of shooting down ballistic missiles.

In 2000, the US and Israel successfully shot down two rockets with a jointly-developed laser cannon in tests held at a site in the US.

Chang Li-teh, a senior editor with Defense Technology Monthly magazine, said it is possible that China had successfully developed a laser cannon with Taiwan in its range.

"The US' airborne laser was designed to have a range of between 200 and 300km. If the system could strike that far from an aircraft, it should be able to reach much further launched from land," Chang said.

"Such laser weapons depend on power supply for effectiveness. A land-based laser cannon has a much greater power supply than airborne one," he said.

"I do not doubt China's ability to develop a laser cannon. We can also develop such a weapon. It is up to the government's support," he said.

"It might be too early to say that China's laser cannon is already a real threat to Taiwan. More observation is needed," he said.

China has recently upped its cross-strait rhetoric ahead of next March's presidential election.

Wrong side blamed for upsetting status quo

By Lin Tsung-kuang

Monday, Dec 22, 2003,Page 8

China has 496 missiles pointed at Taiwan. It has threatened an "abyss of war" if Taiwan refuses to acknowledge Chinese sovereignty. China's top military leaders have stated in no uncertain terms that force will be used if Taiwan declares independence -- even if doing so could mean the cancellation of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, cause a slowdown in China's economic development and lead to the deaths of many people.

Less publicized, but widely acknowledged by experts, is the information warfare that Beijing is waging against Taiwan.

China is known to have placed thousands of spies in all sectors of Taiwanese society. In its attempts to disrupt Taiwan's communication and transportation networks, to instill fear and to induce an economic breakdown, China has resorted to such measures as hacking computers, spreading rumors and dispensing erroneous economic information.

It has gone so far as to provide financial or moral support to politicians and political parties that are deemed acceptable to Beijing.

Surely, these are not initiatives designed to preserve the status quo and yet, in the recent summit between US President George W. Bush and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, the US leader publicly rebuked the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration for trying to upset the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan is famous for its "economic miracle." More remarkable has been its rapid transition toward full democracy in the past two dozen years.

Beijing has been doing everything in its power to thwart the development of democracy in Taiwan. It sided squarely with the Chiang regime at a time when the democracy movement in Taiwan was in full swing.

In 1996, when Taiwan was taking an unprecedented step toward full democracy by allowing its president to be popularly elected, China reacted by hurling missiles toward the island, which created an international diplomatic crisis. In the 2000 presidential election, Beijing openly warned the Taiwanese electorate that a victory for the DPP's Chen Shui-bian could cause a Chinese invasion, and it went on to provide aid to other candidates, most of them remnants of the old Chiang regime.

Recently the legislature, on the initiative of Chen, passed a resolution allowing the people of Taiwan to exercise their democratic right to voice their views on the missile build-up across the strait and the Chinese military threat in general.

This "defensive referendum," to take place next March, has since been labeled by Beijing as a provocation designed to upset the status quo in the region.

Similarly, any talk in Taiwan of moving democracy forward by adopting a new constitution is seen in China as treacherous.

There is no doubt that it is China that is instigating fundamental change across the Taiwan Strait, and that it is the Chinese dictatorship that is trying to strangle Taiwan's democracy movement.

In this context, Bush's statement during the summit at the White House is both ironic and unfortunate.

It is ironic because the US seems to object to the Taiwanese expressing their political views peacefully through a referendum at a time when the US is sending troops to distant lands to fight terror and promote democracy.

It is unfortunate because the US seems to have sided with a country that is bent on annexing a neighbor that is seeking only peaceful, dignified coexistence with all nations.

To rebuke Taiwan for upsetting the status quo is really barking up the wrong tree.

Lin Tsung-kuang is a professor of history at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.