|
|
|
The
importance on June 01, 2004 The
importance of open channels By
Ku Er-teh However, if China was truly in a rush to unify Taiwan, then, after saying
those cruel words, would it have humbly asked Taipei to admit that "there
is only one China in the world?" Or that what China strives for is merely
"the future prosperity of peaceful reunification of the motherland?" Neither Taipei's recognition of "one China" nor Beijing's pursuit
of future prosperity is an urgent enough matter to trigger a cross-strait war. I
have no intention of offending China's leaders over their beliefs and dedication
in pursuing reunification. The leaders who rule this major Asian power are not
so stupid that they cannot distinguish "tactics" from
"strategy." Beijing would have ignored Chen's speech if it had no hope
for him. So why did it issue the statement three days before the inauguration?
There were obviously tactics involved. A person once deeply involved in the triangular relationship of Taiwan,
China and the US privately revealed that "in light of its timing, Beijing's
statement was clearly made to Washington." After his re-election, Chen sent
then Presidential Office secretary-general Chiou I-jen and then Mainland Affairs
Council chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen to the US, where they explained the speech to
Washington. As one corner of the triangular relationship, Washington would have
informed Beijing of Taipei's attitude. This is exactly why officials from the
Presidential Office said that Beijing was aware of the speech's content in
advance. Beijing therefore issued the statement right after midnight of May 16 --
nine hours before a new working week began in Taiwan, 21 hours before it began
in Washington. This allowed Taiwan and the US to have sufficient time to
communicate before Taipei could deliver its message to Beijing through
Washington. Beijing was not unconcerned about Chen's remarks. It was dissatisfied with
the creation of a new constitution that Chen was about to discuss. The statement
was therefore issued to push Washington to "adjust" its content in the
remaining three days. From a tactical perspective, we should not exaggerate the sense of threat,
thinking that China might have fired its missiles if Chen did not mention
"one China." Our observations should focus on Chen's discussion of a
new constitution. Was Chen's discussion of this issue acceptable to Washington? -- that is,
was the wording good enough so that Washington could force Beijing to swallow
it? A tactical mistake may also have occured here. Previously, the three
countries had kept private communication channels open until then president Lee
Teng-hui proposed the "special state-to-state" model for cross-strait
relations in 1999. After Chen took office in 2000, Taipei's channels to Beijing and even
Washington closed. Since Taipei and Washington could no longer communicate with
each other over and under the table simultaneously, there may have been a gap
between official statements and subtle messages delivered to Beijing via
Washington. With the Taipei-Beijing channels both over and under the table
closed, it was even more difficult for the two sides to fully understand each
other. Tactically speaking, Taipei is at a disadvantage today, as it must rely on
Washington when negotiating the triangular relationship. Meanwhile, due to a
lack of private channels, Washington has been suspicious about the credibility
of the messages from Taipei, which requests that Washington deliver and endorse
its messages while not being cognizant of their meaning. Let us put aside the tactical issue. The fundamental problem lies in
"one China." Although Chinese President Hu Jintao's "seven
points" are not much of a departure from former president Jiang Zemin's
eight points, Beijing has clearly listed negotiable issues that the two sides
have argued over for a decade. These include "international living space of
the Taiwan region commensurate with its status," which allows Taiwan to
take part in Asia-Pacific organizations, and the sensitive issue of
"establishing a mechanism of mutual trust in the military field." All
this has been offered in exchange for acceptance of the "one China"
principle. Beijing was not so naive to think that Chen would directly say yes or no to
"one China" on May 20. But if Chen really views "one China"
as an option, he must make it a negotiable goal. Emphasizing the "Republic
of China" is a passive method. Instead, he has to build a "one
China" discourse that can influence China's thinking -- as was the case
with Lee's controversial "seven regions theory," the confederation
theory and the "one China, two seats" formula. But if Chen won't take
the initiative, he can only rely on Washington to define the status quo. Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer. Business
sense has no borders It is unfortunate that China is only intensifying efforts to damage
Taiwan's interests. A few weeks ago, Beijing blocked Taiwan's participation as
an observer in the World Health Assembly, an action that flies in the face of
the idea of "medicine without borders." Now it is returning to another
well-worn tactic: interfering with Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China. On numerous occasions China has used its media outlets to warn Taiwanese
businesspeople against supporting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) or face
the consequences. Last year, Chi Mei Group chairman Hsu Wen-lung , a firm supporter of
President Chen Shui-bian , announced he would consider resigning from his post
as a presidential advisor due to pressure from China. Then, three weeks ago, he
resigned as group chairman. In light of all this, it is risible that the Chinese government is wining
and dining Chen Yu-hao, a man wanted for economic crimes in Taiwan. Prior to the
presidential election, China used Chen Yu-hao to hurl accusations of corruption
in the direction of the Presidential Office and to suggest that the first lady,
Wu Shu-chen , had accepted bribes. China said he could provide concrete evidence
and was willing to return to Taiwan to take a polygraph test. But since the
defeat of the pan-blue alliance, Chen seems to have vanished. Nothing has been
heard of him. Beijing frequently uses Taiwanese businesspeople of disrepute as tools with
which to attack the government and the Taiwanese business community. Conversely,
it wants nothing to do with businesspeople of good standing in the marketplace.
Yet tactics of this nature are unlikely to win the hearts and minds of the
Taiwanese people. The "intelligence" Beijing has gathered from some of Taiwan's
"old guard" -- dejected politicians, some businesspeople, old soldiers
and retired intelligence agents -- amounts to little more than hyperbole. At
best, it has been used to concoct clumsily one-sided stories. Yet the Beijing authorities treasure this information and employ it in
their efforts to develop important policies. Not surprisingly, all sorts of
mistakes have resulted from this. When, as in this case, ham-fisted political decisions intrude upon good
economic management, it is little wonder that Beijing continues to force
Taiwanese public opinion toward independence. How could one blame Taiwanese
people for drawing a line in the sand and supporting "one country on each
side" of the Taiwan Strait, hoping that their children can live a life free
of totalitarian rule? Beijing's victimizing of pro-DPP businesspeople is, paradoxically, good
news for Taiwan. It brings into ever sharper relief the nature of China's
evolving communist system. Taiwan's economy will bleed less and unemployment
rates will drop as reputable enterprises are shut out of the Chinese market.
China's excessively political intervention in economic activity will also weaken
its currency. Reputable and competitive enterprises need not succumb to this behavior.
Instead, local enterprises can choose to set up factories outside China. There
may be no other option for self-respecting businesses wishing not to associate
with bankrupt opportunists of Chen Yu-hao's ilk and the people who employ him. China
attacks Chi Mei over `ideology' STRICTLY
BUSINESS?: The Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece vilified the company's
chairman for his avowed politics, despite the firm's US$30 million investment in
China
"The mainland very much welcomes the majority of Taiwanese business
people who love the motherland," the paper said, adding that their
businesses would get preferential treatment. But China doesn't want investment from Chi Mei Chairman Hsu Wen-long and
other Taiwanese businessmen who "use money made on the mainland to support
independence," the official mouthpiece People's Daily said in
overseas editions. "The mainland has said early on that we do not welcome
these sort of Taiwanese business people." `ANTI-CHINESE BIGOT' The front-page editorial attacked Hsu, founder of Chi Mei Corp, as a
"shameless" anti-Chinese bigot. The editorial implied that Hsu was using profits from his petrochemical and
optoelectronics businesses in China to fund pro-independence politicians --
including President Chen Shui-bian. Hsu, a known supporter of the Democratic Progressive Party, has frequently
criticized China's claims over Taiwan. Shares in Chi Mei, which is planning its first plant in China, plunged by
6.9 percent -- just below the stock exchange's daily limit -- to NT$67. Hsu, 76, the sixth-richest man in Taiwan according to Forbes
magazine, has been a policy adviser to President Chen Shui-bian . The People's Daily commentary didn't say what action China would
take toward businesspeople perceived to favor independence. "China is trying to send a message that it has many options: business
sanctions, international isolation and military force," said Andrew Yang ,
secretary-general of the Council of Advanced Policy in Taipei. "They are squeezing the Taiwan economy to increase the pressure on
Chen Shui-bian. Chen hasn't done anything to reassure them that he won't take
steps in favor of independence," he said. Chi Mei Optoelectronics last year approved plans to spend more than US$30
million on its first factory in China, finance manager Eddie Chen said in an
interview. The newspaper didn't say whether China was considering direct retaliation
against Chi Mei's businesses in China. It runs a massive petrochemical complex in the southern city of Zhenjiang. "We haven't received any official notice from China," Eddie Chen
said, referring to the newspaper's criticism. Hsu founded the Chi Mei Group in 1953 with a plastics factory and later
expanded into petrochemicals, electronics, frozen foods and healthcare. MAJOR INVESTMENTS The conglomerate employs more than 10,000 people and had sales of more than
US$3 billion in 2002, the year Chi Mei Optoelectronics became the first of the
group to go public. Three petrochemical plants and a shipping unit operate in China, the
company Web site said. The People's Daily editorial comes a week after a Chinese government
spokesman said businesses supporting Taiwan's independence would "not be
welcome to come make money in the mainland." That was China's most explicit indication so far that it's monitoring
Taiwanese investors' political views, and may use them to evaluate their fitness
for doing business in China. Despite a lack of official contact or direct transport links, Taiwanese
have invested about US$100 billion in China since 1987. The companies sent
US$55.7 billion from China back to Taiwan from 1993 to 2002. China has avoided overt threats in the past, partly due to a need for
Taiwanese investment, but also because Beijing believes Taiwan's growing
economic reliance will help speed unification. The People's Daily also accused Hsu of preferring to use Hoklo,
commonly referred to as Taiwanese, or Japanese over the Mandarin dialect widely
spoken in China. It also criticized his friendship with Taiwan's former president, Lee Teng-hui, whom China vilifies for supporting Taiwanese independence.
Unification
could herald a criminal China's rise By
Paul Lin Although President Chen
Shui-bian struck a conciliatory note in his inauguration speech, it seems China
will not accept this renewed show of goodwill. Most Chinese academics and
experts denounced the speech in strong language and China's Taiwan Affairs
Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have made their position clear, saying
Chen's refusal to accept the "one China" principle and his stubborn
insistence on independence remains essentially unchanged. China will not be
satisfied until Taiwan gives up and accepts the "one China" principle.
But by appearing weak, Taiwan could cause China to become increasingly
overbearing. Such is the nature of rogue states, something the US has to
recognize as it interacts with China. China has recently been threatening the people of Hong Kong, and thus,
indirectly, also the people of Taiwan, by saying it will write a unification law. The people of Hong Kong believe China is
trying to create this law as a substitute for the withdrawn anti-subversion
legislation based on Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law. Even experts close to
Beijing believe the unification law is tougher than the legislation that has
been withdrawn. On May 15, Zhu Yucheng, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Research
Institute at the State Council Development Research Center, said that some
people in Hong Kong were denouncing the central government's direction of local
political development. He said they were doing so in the name of democracy,
while they are in fact trying to turn Hong Kong into an independent or
semi-independent political entity. During his recent visit to Europe, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that
China may write a unification law. Co-opted academics and mouthpieces of
officialdom in China, as well as China-friendly overseas media, have used this
as an opportunity to threaten Taiwan. The creation of the law is apparently at the research stage, but
suggestions have been made that it apply to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan after
its promulgation. When a Hong Kong journalist asked whether the law would apply
to Hong Kong, the reply was that it would apply to "anyone." The same
official also said: "We have received suggestions from our citizens that we
should issue arrest warrants for separatists, and even more radical suggestions
are included in the bill. This will in the end naturally be given detailed
consideration by the legislative authorities." This shook the gathered journalists, because the official did not explain
what those suggestions entailed. However, we can guess at what these radical
methods might be if we look at the three Hong Kong radio hosts who have recently
broken their contracts because they or their families have received threats, and
then look at the criminal elements participating in the Chinese Nationalist
Party's (KMT) and the People First Party's (PFP) protests. These criminals have an alliance in Guangzhou aimed at opposing Taiwanese
independence and pursuing the "truth" in the March 19 shooting of Chen
and Vice President Annette Lu. It is now calling for the participation of Taiwanese gangsters in Taiwan and China. Its leader
was even involved in the KMT's assassination of Henry Liu in Daly City,
California, in 1984. With China issuing arrest warrants extending outside
China's borders, the lives and safety of overseas Chinese are also being
threatened. China's socialism has been called a "criminal socialism,"
referring to its glorification of violence and its innate hooliganism. Wouldn't
the employment of criminal gangs to achieve unification turn a unified China
into an all-out criminal society? Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
|
|
|
