a lonely one on July 09, 2004

Hong Kong struggle for democracy a lonely one

By Paul Lin
 

On the first of this month people the of Hong Kong hit the streets with a pro-democracy demonstration that attracted 500,000 people. While the rest of the world was impressed, it was of particular embarrassment to Beijing.

Last year's 500,000-strong demonstration could be blamed on the incompetence of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa . But after that, Zeng Qinghong , China's vice-chairman and member of the standing committee of the Politburo, would hear nothing of high-level autonomy for Hong Kong, insisting instead on being personally involved in its affairs. Hong Kong, however, had Western-style democracy for more than a century. Zeng is still finding it difficult to prevent its residents from striving for freedom and to break their desire for freedom and democracy.

Zeng's so-called united front policy in Hong Kong can be broken down into three main points. First, the united front of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) primarily seeks to differentiate friend from foe. Liu Yangdong , head of the united front, visited Hong Kong in May and took part in many events. These included activities put on for senior citizens but that totally excluded those who are part of the democratic movement. The excuse given for this was that there was no time. The reality is that the democratic movement had been earmarked as an enemy that has to be destroyed.

Second, with regard to their enemies, they are attempting a dual tactic of attack and division. On the one hand, they sought to isolate the figures of the traditional democracy movement, such as Martin Lee , Szeto Wah , Emily Lau and Margaret Ng, labelling them "ultra-stubborn." On the other hand, they sought to lure new pro-democracy figures into the fold after the 1997 handover, most notably lawyers like Audrey Eu, Ronny Tong and Edward Chan , and the Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen.

Third, Beijing is using permits to allow people to return to their hometowns in China, as well as promoting freedom of travel as part of their strategy of division. This is intended to stimulate economic activity in Hong Kong and to set Beijing up as a benefactor, driving a wedge between Hong Kongers and the pro-democracy faction. It is unclear how the investment and spending of Hong Kong residents in mainland China compares with that of Chinese residents with the freedom of travel. Regardless, if people from Hong Kong are to be given freedom of travel within China, mainland Chinese people should equally be given permission to travel in Hong Kong. Doesn't Beijing realize that Hong Kong residents are more than economic animals whose basic rights can be bought off?

Many residents of Hong Kong moved there from the mainland following the communist takeover in 1949, and have witnessed the many inhumane acts perpetrated by the government over the years. They cannot be taken in so easily. These immigrants had originally seen themselves as transients. Under British rule, however, they came to know the value of freedom. As such, they now stand up and want the territory's governance in the hands of the people -- to be their own masters.

During this massive protest, Beijing combined a hard and soft approach to Hong Kong's democracy movement. It is unlikely that they will be too strong-armed in the run-up to the September elections for fear of losing local votes. They will, nevertheless, continue to use these dual tactics.

The people of Hong Kong face a tough road to democracy if they are to maintain their spirited resistance to Beijing. Still, they must prepare for the worst. After all, the CCP is more like a criminal gang than a civilized government.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.

China's military threat no illusion

Anyone who thinks the Chinese military threat against Taiwan is merely in the minds of the Taiwanese people, or that the situation is no one else's concern, couldn't be more wrong.

In a defense white paper released by the Japanese government on July 6, a strong emphasis was placed on the need for Japan to upgrade its defense capability in the face of the rapid modernization of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.

The white paper pointed to concerns over China's increasing military budget -- as high as 11 percent of the country's annual budget by this year -- and the frequent movements by Chinese navy vessels in Japan's exclusive economic zones. For those in this country, namely the pan-blue camp, who continue to see no dire need for Taiwan to upgrade its defense capabilities, Japan's white paper should come as a wake-up call. The threat posed by China is so far reaching that it should be a concern for the communist giant's neighbors. China's military threat has become a regional problem that should be dealt with collectively by all countries in East and Southeast Asia. Cooperation is needed to counter the rise of China's military.

Unfortunately, while countries such as Japan are beginning to see China for what it is -- the source of threats to regional peace -- very few are willing to take action to help counter it. Chinese military threats continue to be perceived by many as a headache for the Taiwanese alone. In fact, most countries in the region have kept silent when the Chinese government makes threats against Taiwan either orally or through military exercises.

Most countries have also chosen to turn a blind eye to the hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan, failing to verbally condemn China for the deployment as they should.

China's neighbors in the region must be reminded that once a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, it will become a regional problem which will have serious economic, social and military consequences throughout Asia and, indeed, the world.

Thus far, China has made no effort to hide its ambition to become a regional and global military superpower. So after the PLA "deals with Taiwan," it is very likely that China will seek other countries to target next.

The Japanese defense white paper made comparisons between the military capabilities of China and Taiwan, and concluded that while the PLA has a much larger air force, navy and ground forces, Taiwan's military is more advanced and refined.

This delicate balance between the two sides of the strait may, however, tip in favor of China in the near future. These are facts that have been reiterated by people of vision in Taiwan. Yet, many if not most people in this country fail to take this threat seriously -- and the planned arms purchase by Taiwan from the US continues be held up while pan-blue lawmakers look for excuses to decline approval of the necessary budget.

Now that even Japan openly acknowledges China's military threat, perhaps the pan-blue camp will finally face reality. Knowing that the problem exists, however, is not enough. The question now is what we should do about it.

As pointed out by Japan's white paper, while Taiwan is no match for China in terms of size, the quality of Taiwan's military continues to lead. This is where Taiwan must continue to maintain its advantage -- to have small but sophisticated armed forces.

In order to accomplish this goal, in addition to personnel training, state-of-the-art arms systems must be acquired. Under the circumstances, one can only hope that the Legislative Yuan comes to its senses and approves the arms budget in a timely fashion.

The greatest danger we face today

By Chiou Chwei-liang

The NT$600 billion military purchase from the US has been badly handled and made to drag on for four years, causing much bickering and conflict. We see a situation in which the pan-blue alliance, which controls the legislature, resists President Chen Shui-bian at every opportunity, and the special budget for the purchase has not yet been passed.

When Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng led a delegation to the US recently to discuss the purchase with the Americans, it was given VIP treatment and received by the US deputy defense secretary who explained the importance of the deal.

The US is anxious to push the deal through, but in Taiwan, some people, especially pro-unification elements, are simply holding things up. In all the controversy that this issue has given rise to, what is the real problem?

With the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the legal basis for the concept of national sovereignty was established. No power existed above the nation-state, and the international community entered into a state of anarchy, so that nation-states were forced to increase their national strength, especially their military strength, to protect their own national interests. They used that military strength to grab resources and resolve international disputes.

For over 350 years, this realist expansion of power and warfare has constituted the mainstream in international political discourse, a discourse that holds that "war is not only inevitable, it is also necessary."

The world's strongest powers, the US, Russia, and China, of course believe in and implement the reality of power, relying on their military power to solve international disputes.

In today's world, small countries like Taiwan find themselves in a difficult situation. In addition, Taiwan's neighbor is totalitarian China, which sees Taiwan as a rebellious province and believes that annexation by military force is necessary because unification by peaceful means is unachievable. The Communist Chinese enemy is the biggest threat to Taiwan's democracy, and that is the reality of power we have to face up to.

There are people in Taiwan, especially pan-blue unificationists, who think differently. They do not see China as an enemy or a threat, and they even believe that Taiwan and China will one day be united. Nor do they see the US as an ally that truly wants to help Taiwan based on the universal values of liberal democracy and assist in the defense of Taiwan. These people believe that Taiwan, for security reasons, should keep both China (the enemy) and the US (an ally) at an equal distance.

This is the issue that lies at the center of Taiwan's national identity crisis. The attitude was reflected in a column in the June 27 edition of the New York Times, where an anonymous Taiwanese professor was reported as saying that "The US won't sacrifice one single soldier for the sake of Taiwan independence, but 90 percent of the Taiwanese people believe they will, and are therefore encouraging Chen and Taiwan independence advocates to push for Taiwan independence."

But looking at the US, there are many people, including many Bush administration officials, who firmly believe the China threat is real. There is also the Taiwan Relations Act, which clearly stipulates that the US shall assist in the defense of Taiwan, not only through the obligation to sell advanced arms, but also through the responsibility of sending troops to defend Taiwan. It is this difference in the understanding of the China threat that lies at the center of the arms purchase conflict.

China's national defense budget has increased sharply over the past 10 years. In the midst of China's astonishing economic growth (8 percent to 9 percent), the defense budget remains 4 percent to 5 percent (probably more) of China's GDP. Purchases of advanced submarines, warships, fighter planes and missiles from Russia have given China the world's third-largest military, in terms of capability, after the US and Russia. By contrast, Taiwan's national defense budget has fallen sharply over the past 10 years, and now only makes up about 2.5 percent of GDP.

International military strategists believe that if this trend continues, China will have sufficient military power to attack Taiwan in five to 10 years' time. US Department of Defense officials and strategic experts all agree on this, regardless of whether they are closer to China or Taiwan.

US Defense Department officials are of the opinion that this ongoing decline in Taiwan's military power relative to the growth in China's military power is a very serious situation. Not only has Taiwan's ability to defend itself declined, but it has also become much more difficult for the US to help defend Taiwan. The situation also helps China's threats and the possibility of a Chinese military attack on Taiwan, and it may force a military encounter between the US and China, making it more likely that US troops will die in the Taiwan Strait.

US officials, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, are convinced that these are realistic strategic considerations and calculations. They are therefore deeply worried and dissatisfied with the fact that Taiwan's NT$600 billion arms purchase keeps being postponed, and Wolfowitz has said that if Taiwan does not take its defense seriously, neither will the US.

When Chen recently met US Representative Scott McInnis, a Colorado Republican, Chen said that Taiwan requested the arms purchase after making a careful assessment; that he was grateful for US President George W. Bush approving the purchase; and that the purchase is the result of the US responding to forceful requests by the government and not the result of US pressure. Chen also pointed out that Bush, when deciding whether to approve the purchase in April 2001, requested that Taiwan submit its requirements and priority order.

After an assessment, the first item on the priority list submitted by the Ministry of Defense was diesel-electric submarines. The purchase of diesel-electric submarines, the Patriot PAC-III anti-missile system and Orion P-3C anti-submarine aircraft is aimed at fighting submarines and missiles, thereby strengthening Taiwan's defensive capabilities.

Chen also reiterated that the purchase is aimed at increasing Taiwan's ability to effectively resist and deter any rash moves on China's part, and that Taiwan will absolutely not provoke China or bring Taiwan to the brink of war. However, faced with a bellicose China that has never given up the option of attacking Taiwan, not being provocative does not mean we can let down our guard.

This is the realist's plea for rationality.

After Wang's delegation returned home, legislators requested that the price of the submarines be renegotiated and re-evaluated, because they felt the cost was too high and the delivery period was too long. Given the doubts regarding the submarines and the overly expensive arms purchase as a whole, a consensus seems to have formed among both government and opposition politicians that Taiwan must not be played for a fool and tricked into spending too much money on the special budget allocated for the arms purchase. This is, of course, only what a responsible legislature should do, and is both reasonable and legal.

But the Democratic Action Alliance, made up of scholars and social groups, immediately called a press conference to announce their strong opposition to the arms purchase, saying they will organize demonstrations if it is passed by the legislature. Attendees at the press conference included former National Assembly member Cheng Li-wen, the poet Chan Che, Hsieh Ta-ning, professor at Chung Cheng University, Chang Ya-chung, professor of political science at National Chengchi University, and others. They called for the abandonment of the arms purchase, saying it will not be able to bring true security to Taiwan. The alliance suggested that the arms purchase simply was a disguised payment of "protection money" to the US. They couldn't be more mistaken.

Wang said he could understand the alliance's vociferous opposition to the arms purchase, but that in the face of the Chinese threat, national security had to be the main concern and attention had to be given to the cross-strait arms balance. That statement makes sense, but does not highlight the crux of the matter.

These unification proponents are really underestimating the US. Given its status as the world's strongest nation, would a mere NT$600 billion be able to buy US protection? To say so is nonsense and only insults the US. Even if we were to pay a hundred times that amount, we would still not be able to buy ourselves US protection. NT$600 billion would pay for a mere two weeks of US warfare in Iraq, and is but petty cash in US defense spending.

In sum, the attitude of refusing to see China as our enemy and the US as our friend is not unique to the Democratic Action Alliance. It also exists among many of the Taiwanese opposing the green camp, Chen and the arms purchase. The question of whether we will be able to purchase submarines and other advanced arms is of course relevant to the future of a democratic Taiwan. This inability to differentiate between friend and foe, this lack of a crisis awareness, and this ignorance of the great increase in China's military power, allowing it to attack Taiwan whenever it so chooses, is unrealistic in a world ruled by realism.

The Americans see this, and they are trying to make us see the urgency. Taiwan, however, does not see it, and we do not feel the urgency. This is the greatest danger facing Taiwan today.

Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at Tamkang University.