|
|
|
2020
Taiwan would go to end on July 17, 2004 Jiang
promises to attack Taiwan by 2020 REUTERS
, BEIJING China has kicked off war
games simulating an invasion of Taiwan, witnesses and a Beijing-backed Hong Kong
newspaper said yesterday, as military chief Jiang Zemin vowed to attack the
democratic country by 2020. China believes President Chen Shui-bian will push for formal statehood
during his second term, and is preparing for a possible showdown with Taiwan. The week-long land, sea and air exercises started on Dongshan island off
China's southeastern coast in the first half the month after months of
preparation, the Ta Kung Pao newspaper said. About 18,000 troops were taking part in the exercises, which would aim for
the first time to demonstrate air superiority in the Taiwan Strait, the paper
said. But it was business as usual for Dongshan residents. "I can see ships and soldiers, but it's far away ... I have no time to
watch the exercises," a resident who would only give his surname, Chi, said
by telephone from Dongshan. "Why worry? There are exercises every year," he said. A hotel employee said: "It's a secret. We're not allowed to watch or
ask questions lest we're mistaken for spies." Dongshan, 280 km from Penghu, has been the site of eight drills since 1996,
when China attempted to interfere with the nation's first-ever presidential
elections by launching ballistic missiles into the Taiwan Strait, before backing
down after the US sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region. The period "before or after 2020 is the time to resolve the Taiwan
issue," military chief and ex-Communist Party chief Jiang told a recent
expanded meeting of the Central Military Commission, the decision-making body of
the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Hong Kong's Wen Wei Po newspaper
said. The meeting also approved military, political, logistics and armament
development plans over an unspecified period for the 2.5-million-strong PLA, the
newspaper said. It gave no details. Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-shan called for
negotiations and peace. "We need to sit down and discuss any problems concerning both sides.
We must try to resolve our problems on the basis of peace and stability,"
Chiu told a news conference. "The United States, Japan and the European Union have all said
cross-Strait issues should be resolved through peaceful means," he said.
"Communist China has pledged to focus on economic development. The report
clearly violates its policy." Taiwan is holding the annual Han Kuang, or "Han Glory" exercises
later this month to test combat readiness in the face of what Minister of
National Defense Lee Jye has said was a significantly higher likelihood that
China would use force to recover the island. In Washington, Pentagon officials said a crisis-simulation drill based on a
growing Chinese military threat to Taiwan was played out this week by US
decision makers. The exercise, called Dragon's Thunder, was held on Monday. Peace
must be the bottom line On Thursday, Hong Kong's
Wen Wei Po daily reported that Jiang Zemin , chairman of China's Central
Military Commission said during a commission meeting that China's biggest
security threat over the next 20 years will be the "Taiwan issue." Jiang said that the first 20 years of the 21st century would be a period of
strategic opportunity for China, but the Chinese government should not
indefinitely put off a resolution to the "Taiwan issue," adding that
Beijing will resolve the issue by force if "outside forces" support
Taiwan's independence. The former president's remarks have been interpreted as a
timetable for China's military offensive against this country. Will 2020 be
Taiwan's hour of doom? Beijing says that President Chen Shui-bian's planned constitutional
referendum in December 2006 highlights the need to find a resolution to this
issue in a timely fashion. Although the first 20 years of this century are
regarded as a period of development for China, Beijing does not exclude the
possibility of resolving the "Taiwan issue" during this critical
period. Jiang, who has tightly consolidated his power as military chief, was
speaking to the hawks in China's military establishment when speaking about the
"Taiwan issue." He was also speaking directly to Taiwan in an attempt
to frighten it into accepting the "one China" principle; and to the US
to test their limits. But Jiang's position is hardly sufficient enough grounds to justify a
military invasion of this country. It would convince neither the Chinese nor
Taiwanese people of the "one China" principle, not to mention that the
international community -- who would not sit back complacently and watch this
brutal action unfold. Despite tense cross-strait relations at the moment, the government has kept
a rein on itself in the face of internal calls for independence, and has not
crossed the line far enough to provoke China into military action. Chen even
changed his campaign promise from making a new constitution to "promoting
constitutional re-engineering and the re-establishment of the constitutional
order" in his inaugural speech on May 20. If China attacks Taiwan simply because it is unwilling to "be
united," the one that crosses the "red line" will be China. The bottom line for the US with regard to the cross-strait issue is clear:
to maintain the status quo. The US will not allow the status quo to be defined
unilaterally by either Beijing or Taipei. It will retain its own standard for
interpretation, which is to say that it wants a continuation of a situation in
where Taiwan does not declare independence and China does not use military force
to bring the nation under its control. Any change to this situation needs to be decided through cross-strait
dialogue. But the Communist regime not only refuses to acknowledge Taiwan's
offer to negotiate on technological or political issues, it also said it is
eager to force Taiwan into submission through military intimidation. Taiwan's
government finds this unacceptable and believes the US will also find this
unacceptable. As the US presidential campaign gets into full swing, China has used this
sensitive time to threaten Taiwan militarily and diplomatically, going so far as
to test long range ballistic missiles and conduct amphibious landing exercises,
in addition to its usual barrage of rhetoric. With such constant mid-level
alerts, neither Taiwan nor the international community can let down their guard.
This country needs to maintain the necessary military protection while the
US needs to be vigilant against China's two-pronged policy of readying for
attack on one hand and protesting Washington's weapons sale to Taiwan on the
other. Taipei and the international community should make it clear to Beijing
that the bottom line for the cross-strait issue is peace, and that any attempt
to use military force is totally unacceptable. Tung
can do nothing for democracy By
Emily Lau On July 7, at least 20
legislative councilors from Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement met Chief
Executive Tung Chee-hwa to urge him to support the introduction of direct
elections in 2007 and 2008. It was clear he should have asked the Chinese
government to reconsider the decision made in April to rule out direct elections
for chief executive in 2007 and all members of the Legislative Council (LegCo)
in 2008. As expected, we were rebuffed. Three days later, Tung met members of The
Frontier, a pro-democracy organization, for the first time. We made a similar
request and got the same negative response. We were told having direct elections
in 2007 and 2008 would not be in the territory's interest nor in China's
long-term interest. Refusing to give up, I pressed Tung again when he attended a LegCo
question-and-answer session last Tuesday. I said I failed to understand why a
government elected by universal and equal suffrage in the special administrative
region (SAR) could be detrimental to the country's national security, social
stability and prosperity. I again asked him to back the people's demand for
direct elections in 2007 and 2008. Tung said Hong Kong is part of China and we must not only look at things
from the SAR's point of view. He said LegCo members should understand the
international environment and Beijing's determination to defend the country's
territorial integrity. This is the clearest hint about the link between a
democratic Hong Kong and the question of secession. Such misguided views have
been expressed by Beijing before and Tung is merely toeing that line. These insensitive remarks show that Tung has little time for the wishes of
the people. On July 1, half a million people braved intense heat and humidity to
march for hours demanding direct elections in 2007 and 2008. The peaceful and
dignified demonstration exploded the myth that Hong Kong people do not care
about politics and democracy and that they are very pragmatic, meaning if a
decision has been taken, particularly by the central government, they will not
press the demands anymore. Many people were stunned by the overwhelming turnout because the march had
the single objective of fighting for direct elections, which Beijing has
categorically rejected. Tung not only has a duty to reflect the people's
concerns to the central government, but should persuade the leaders in Beijing
to heed the Hong Kong people's wishes and aspirations. To our dismay, Tung said he has checked with the central government and was
told he has no power to reopen the issue, so he cannot make further
representation to the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). This incident reinforces the widely held impression that he merely does
what he is told by Beijing. Tung's meetings with the pro-democracy camp are part of the government's
response to the tense political atmosphere. At the beginning of the year, the
pro-Beijing camp launched a savage attack on pro-democracy legislators for being
unpatriotic. The community became bitterly divided. In April, the NPCSC reinterpreted the Basic Law and ruled out democratic
elections in the SAR for 2007 and 2008. Such high-handedness caused an uproar in
the community and the atmosphere became even more explosive. Many of these
machinations were related to Beijing's twin worries -- a big turnout for the
march on July 1 and a pro-democracy majority in LegCo after the Sept. 12
election. In order to sway public opinion, the central government offered economic
sweeteners to the SAR, believing that most Hong Kong people only care about
making money. When that did not work, Beijing became more conciliatory, even
offering to allow banned pro-democracy politicians to visit the mainland. There is no doubt that Hong Kong people want harmony and do not seek
confrontation with Bei-jing. However they also want democracy -- and politicians
who will not abandon their ideals. Like the rest of the pro-democracy movement,
The Frontier is in favor of dialogue with Beijing. But there should be no
conditions. Apart from talking to Beijing, the pro-democracy camp would also like to
open dialogue with the business community. For many years, both the British
colonial government and the SAR government have adopted a hostile attitude
towards political parties. They claim political parties represent narrow
sectoral interests and that only the government can represent the public
interest. Taking their cue from the authorities, many business and professional
people opted to marginalize and even denigrate political parties. For society to reach a consensus and move forward with constitutional
reforms, all sectors must be engaged in dialogue, and Beijing should remain on
the sidelines, acting as a referee. Beijing's decision to ban pro-democracy politicians for 15 years was
intended as a signal to the community to reject these people. Many business and
professional people are afraid to associate with pro-democracy politicians,
fearing that any contact with them would antagonize Beijing. However, many Hong Kong voters continue to vote for pro-democracy
candidates, but the people also want these people to be able to talk to Beijing
and to the business community. Such a reaction is natural and legitimate and the
people are not trying to have it both ways. The ball is now in the central
government's court. The people wait with bated breath for Beijing's next move. Emily
Lau is a Hong Kong legislator and convenor of The Frontier. HK
democracy calls must continue By
Hsu Tung-ming Their status is still in question, but the people of that territory are
pushing for a clearer definition of who they are. Last July, demonstrators in
Hong Kong largely protested against Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa , but this
year, on the July 1 demonstration to mark the seventh anniversary of the
handover, demonstrators were calling for greater democratic freedoms. This
change in their demands expressed a desire for clarification of exactly where
the territory stands in relation to China. This year's large pro-democracy demonstration has probably bewildered
Beijing authorities. Last year's demonstration was basically believed by Beijing
to be the consequence of an economic downturn and the incompetence of Tung.
Since then, from an economic perspective, Beijing has implemented closer
economic partnership arrangements and has simplified Chinese tourists'
applications to travel in Hong Kong as a way to revive Hong Kong's tourist
industry. These measures have created a positive effect in Hong Kong's economy. In China's furious assault on Hong Kong's media, on the other hand, the
Democratic Party's (DP) quest for democracy was criticized as
"pro-independence" and "unpatriotic." Even the People's
Daily adopted the "patriotic" line on Beijing's clampdown of media
personalities. Driven by the trend of critical judgements by the Chinese media
on DP members, a few of Hong Kong's famous talk show hosts have been forced to
leave their posts. Beijing has been focusing on Hong Kong issues, and the primary reason is
that Beijing regards Hong Kong as a display piece for "one country, two
systems." If efficacious, the example could be applied to Taiwan and used
to influence international opinion. Nonetheless, the Communist regime's handling
of Hong Kong issues has in fact revealed some characteristics of existing
Chinese nationalism. First, since China began to reform, it has been clinging to
the core notion of "development above all else." China's perceptions
of Hong Kong and Taiwan issues are seen from the same perspective, and are based
on the belief that as long as China's economy continues to prosper, the Hong
Kong and Taiwan issues will spontaneously be solved. This kind of economy-first beliefs, in Chinese society, have precluded
discussions of social equality, ethics and other issues related to what it means
to have a good society. As to Hong Kong and Taiwan, despite intimate economic
relationships, Beijing's ideology has ignored the complexity of the issue of
national identity. Another trait of today's Chinese nationalism is the stance of self-centered
supremacy, prominently seen in the China-Hong Kong relationship. Many Chinese
people believe that Hong Kong is merely a rich society with no history or
culture -- only shallow popular arts. It is obvious that Hong Kong does not
possess the advantage of 5,000 years of cultural heritage, of which Mainlanders
are so proud, but during the colonial period, Hong Kongers, through their film
industry, which is the world's third-largest, constructed their own national
identity. The film industry expressed Hong Kongers' sense of identity even
during the period of collective anxiety that preceded the handover in 1997. Also, Oxford University Press has published a series of research studies by
Hong Kong academics on Hong Kongers' national identity -- but despite these
efforts, Chinese academics ignore the existence of that identity. To them, the
reversion of Hong Kong to China is only an issue of political sovereignty and
does not include the symbiotic issue of how two cultures must adapt in order to
coexist. Chinese nationalism and its self-centered pride can be compared to that of
Germany. West Germany's merging with East Germany in the early 1990s was
regarded as a glorious historical milestone. But Germans started to realize
after unification that almost 40 years of significant East-West cultural
differences were not to be solved solely by consolidating political sovereignty.
It is through this process that East and West Germans may discover their
similarities while overcoming their differences. In other words, respecting each
other's historical background is a key to creating a mutual history. Hong Kong before the mid-1970s had a stronger Chinese identity then it has
now. As the territory's economy and society changed, Hong Kongers gradually
acquired the awareness that they were Hong Kongers as well as Chinese, which is
how the majority of people in Hong Kong now regard themselves. But Beijing does not want to understand this, for Hong Kong has reverted to
China. Therefore, the only way to reassert a reasonable political status for
Hong Kong in the China-Hong Kong relationship is by means of voicing democratic
aspirations. Hsu
Tung-ming is a freelance writer based in Beijing.
|
|
|
