|
|
|
US
ties `increasing' under Bush on Aug 27, 2004 US
ties `increasing' under Bush By
Melody Chen
US relations have improved substantially under US President George W.
Bush's administration, in contrast to that of former president Bill Clinton,
said Chen Chien-jen, the nation's former representative to the US, yesterday. Chen said his office had found there was little that could be done to wear
away at restrictions imposed on the Taiwan-US relationship under the Clinton
administration, but when Bush came to office in 2000, he immediately sensed a
change of atmosphere. "People realized President Bush was sympathetic to us ... Many of his
top officials have either been to Taiwan or know well what's going on here. From
the very beginning, we could feel the atmosphere of friendliness," Chen
said during a speech at a luncheon hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce in
Taipei. In a speech entitled "Reflections on US-Taiwan Relations," the
former foreign minister recalled that Taiwan had been discouraged from
participating in the World Health Organization (WHO) during the Clinton years. "But now, in the Bush administration, we could see steps have been
made one by one. The US is now the strongest and staunchest supporter of our
efforts to join the WHO as an observer," Chen said. Under the Bush administration, the contact between the Taipei Economic and
Cultural Representative Office in Washington and its counterparts in different
agencies in the US government has "increased tremendously," he said. Chen said that his office's relationship with the US government was so
close that ambassadors from countries that maintain formal diplomatic ties with
the US had expressed envy. However, describing certain US government guidelines on Taiwan since 1979
as "unfair, unreasonable and anachronistic," Chen said that relaxing
the restrictions would improve the bilateral relationship. Chen, who returned from the US three weeks ago, said he had thought he
would retire as a diplomat at that time. He was subsequently appointed as the
nation's representative to the EU, replacing the original candidate for the
post, former foreign minister Eugene Chien. Commenting on the US presidential election in November, Chen said the US'
Taiwan policy is likely to remain more or less the same, no matter which party
takes power. "However, we have to watch very carefully in the long run, because
nothing is static in the international community," he said. "We are
now witnessing the growing strength of the PRC [People's Republic of China].
They have been applying their influence worldwide. How we are going to deal with
their increasing influence is a very important topic." Problems arose in Taiwan-US ties after President Chen Shui-bian introduced
plans for referendums and the adoption of a new constitution. Washington's
concerns had to be addressed through a lot of dialogue, Chen Chien-jen said. "The [inauguration] speech by President Chen really helped. It not
only dissipated some of the doubts or suspicions, but also set our country on
the right track," he said. However, the "polarization" of Taiwan's society, which worsened
during the course of the presidential campaign and following it, worried Chen
Chien-jen.
Ridiculous
titles prove ROC does not exist By
Cao Changqing From the "Republic of China" (ROC), which includes China and
Mongolia, the "ROC on Taiwan," and even the "ROC is Taiwan,"
to "Taiwan, ROC" -- officially used by Premier Yu Shyi-kun during his
recent three-country Central American tour -- there is no other country like
Taiwan, which has constantly proposed new national titles. These proposals of a national title show that Taiwan is at a historical
crossroads, with the nation facing the question of what name can truly represent
the country's people while demonstrating its sovereignty. At the opening of this
year's Olympic Games, Taiwan's team once again marched into the stadium under
the ridiculous name of "Chinese Taipei," proving that the ROC in fact
exists in name only.
Taiwan has translated "Chinese Taipei" as "Chunghua
[Chinese] Taipei" in Chinese. But on the online Olympic scoreboard of
China's People's Daily -- the Chinese Communist Party's official
newspaper -- the team of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is listed as
"China," and the TAiwan team is called "Chungguo (China)
Taipei". Thus, Beijing is pushing the concept of Taiwan as a province of
communist China. China, as well as the rest of the world, refuses to recognize the name
"ROC." Even Taiwan itself is unable to use this name sometimes,
although many people in Taiwan are still upholding this empty and useless
national title to this day. After the premier's diplomatic trip, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen
said that his ministry may consider using "Taiwan, ROC" in the future
if that would be acceptable to all sides. Recently, the Chinese Nationalist
Party (KMT) also affirmed that the ROC is Taiwan, and that the ROC and Taiwan
have already become one. The KMT's statement as least shows that neither the
pan-blue nor the pan-green camp is fantasizing about regaining and unifying with
China anymore. Since Taiwan's major political forces all want to stay here,
rather than fighting against China, what is the meaning of keeping and using the
current national title? It is a title that falls short of reality, and it is not
recognized by most countries, the majority of Taiwanese or China, which has
caused numerous problems over the name issue. Changing Taiwan's national title in order to get rid of the bizarre name of
the ROC is the correct approach, considering the reality of the situation and
the willingness of the majority of Taiwanese people. Not to mention that the
dominant force behind the change comes from Taiwan itself. The key to the issue
lies in whether Taiwan's leaders and its people have the courage and confidence
to righteously promote the nation in the rest of the world with the help of
public support under the name "Taiwan" -- which is already familiar in
the international arena, and has been linked to democracy as well as prosperity.
Cao
Changqing is a writer based in New York.
Return
of the White Terror Taiwan's climate is not cold enough to warrant the use of radiators, so the
319 investigation committee lacks the cheap investigatory resources -- tying
someone to an overheated radiator until they tell you what you want to hear --
of less torrid climes. Doubtless the pan-blues who dominate the committee will
be thrown back on the means they used in the "good old days, when people
had hope," as they call it, better known to others as the days of the White
Terror. The old hands from the Taiwan Garrison Command haven't forgotten how to
wire up someone's genitals to a hand generator, surely? God forbid that the old
and valued skills of extracting confessions under duress should have withered in
this democratic age. Why do we paint the investigation commission as resembling the Spanish
Inquisition? Because it has armed itself with pretty much the same set of powers
and, far more importantly, shown about the same delicacy regarding human and
constitutional rights -- ie, none at all. Let us be honest and admit that the
issue has been mishandled from the start. There is talk of the new committee
being unconstitutional. But the simple fact is that any committee at all would
probably be so. The Constitution explicitly says that the Judicial Yuan has
charge of civil, criminal and administrative cases. So any committee which
impinged on these powers would either be constitutionally dubious or toothless.
But given that the investigation of the election-eve shooting seemed to be going
nowhere, President Chen Shui-bian felt pressured into trying to set something
up, if only to prove that the investigation wasn't going nowhere on purpose, and
to dispel the bizarre fantasies of the "bulletgate" conspiracy
theorists. What was needed was a constitutional amendment to allow criminal
investigations, in restricted and exceptional circumstances, by other organs --
some sort of independent counsel's office, for example. This would have required
an intelligent appreciation of what was needed, cooperation in the legislature
toward passing the measure, and time, none of which the pan-blues were
interested in granting. What we actually got was the pan-blues passing their own bill, which aimed
not to find out the truth but to provide them with a political tool to embarrass
and harass the government and the pan-greens as much as possible without having
to take any responsibility for the consequences. They can accuse whomever of
whatever and leave it to seconded prosecutors to press the charges, however
vacuous and ill-prepared they might be. We could talk about the damage to the principle of separation of powers in
setting up this committee. The independence of a judiciary from those staples of
legislatures the world over, horse-trading, lobbying and the pork barrel, is a
basic principle. What the new committee setup gives us is the majority faction
in the legislature having the right to interfere in the affairs of the judiciary
in any way it pleases, without any check on its power whatsoever. No wonder the
committee has been called "a tool to rape justice." This might violate the basic principles of democratic government, but it is
not, however, the most outrageous thing about the new committee and its powers.
Nor even is the fact that the committee is to be composed of party political
hacks with no legal training. The real scandal, likely to do Taiwan's reputation
as a liberal democracy serious damage, is that it dispenses with basic
constitutional rights and protections. The statute creating the committee
explicitly exempts it from the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This means that "due process" simply doesn't have to be followed,
which in turn means safeguards against coercion do not apply. There is
apparently nothing like a good beating with a rubber hose at the behest of a
legislative appointee to find out who shot the president.
New
status quo needs new politics Nat
Bellocchi New policy decisions about cross-strait relations are not likely to surface
in the present circumstances. The US has presidential and congressional
elections a few weeks away and Taiwan has a legislative election a month later.
China can change, although it will take longer to discern what effect this will
have. Even if there is no change in administration after the US election, there
will be reviews on all sides to adjust to the different atmosphere. China's cross-strait policies have fundamentally not changed, but the very
deep change in its own environment has made those policies unsustainable. It has
greater influence, but it is also becoming much more dependent on the rest of
the world for its markets, capital, resources, information and know-how. It is
far less free to do what it pleases. In addition, both the "one China"
principle and the "one country, two systems" approach have become
unacceptable, not just to the leaders, but also to the people of Taiwan. Taiwan's transformation of its political system to a democracy is no less
spectacular than China's transformation to a market economy. Furthermore, one of
the most important pillars of the US-Taiwan relationship in the past was
Taiwan's acceptance of maintaining a low profile to refrain from agitating
China. This policy continued through the 1990s, when democratization began
blossoming. But trying to maintain a low profile in a democracy where political
leaders have to deal with voters' wishes was clearly becoming unsustainable.
Then president Lee Teng-hui at one point bluntly told the US that this policy
was no longer possible. In more recent times, there has been some improvement in this bilateral
relationship, but finding some way to effectively manage this unique system
under the present circumstances and in the long term is still a work in
progress. The need to expand exchanges between senior officials on both sides
has become especially important. An effort to address these outdated policies was made in 1994 in the Taiwan
Policy Review. The preface explaining the reasons for conducting the review
was very well done. It set forth cogently the profound changes that had taken
place in Taiwan since the policy had been established 15 years before. The final
results did not live up to the stated need, however. Trying to improve relations
with China without changing the US' Taiwan policy, a questionable objective,
prevailed. There was never a question of officiality, however, as the US was committed
to maintaining an unofficial relationship until such time as the two sides could
resolve the issue of Taiwan's political status. But the need to find ways to enhance high-level contacts in a relationship
that was becoming increasingly broad and sophisticated was not met, and neither
was the need to address the impact on Taiwan of the changing architecture of
security, or the need for Taiwan's participation in the international community.
But the momentum of its growing democracy continued nonetheless. The latter part
of the 1990s saw the beginning of direct elections at all levels, the missile
crisis in 1996 which awakened many to the changes and Lee's "special
state-to-state" proposal, all signs of a different Taiwan developing in a
different atmosphere. Then came 2000. The change of government to a very different political
party that had few resources and no experience of governing, and was faced with
a hostile legislature, made progress in all areas very difficult. But during the
four years that followed -- in which the Chinese government seriously erred in
refusing to deal with the new rulers -- the political profile of the people in
Taiwan changed dramatically. A consensus on Taiwan's identity has become closer
to unity than ever before, and it is a Taiwanese identity that has emerged. The
results of this year's presidential election demonstrated this. In my judgment, there are three imperatives that need to be addressed:
first a meaningful change in the US' rules of engagement. In 2000, the US
administration changed as well. In terms of the US' relationship with Taiwan, it
was more forthcoming than any US administration since the switch in recognition
to China in 1979. But with the changing political atmosphere in Taiwan, the US
"rules of engagement," which have in any event been overtaken, now
face an increasingly urgent challenge that must be addressed. If the US wants to support Taiwan's democratic system while working to
prevent catastrophe ensuing from its differences with China, it must find a new
set of rules for its "unofficial relationship." It must deal with
Taiwan without supporting either side's claim to sovereignty. It must treat the
Taiwanese government as legitimate and responsible to its people, and conduct
its relationship with the country's leaders accordingly. Second, in developing a more realistic relationship with Taiwan, democratic
countries should increase pressure on China to better understand a Taiwan that
is indeed different, and to develop more realistic proposals for resolving
China's differences with Taiwan. Third, an important domestic challenge for Taiwan, with its popular
democracy based on the will of the people, is to develop an understanding of the
dangers as well as the opportunities posed by deciding what Taiwan's future
should be. The US has clearly and often reiterated that under Taiwan's
democratic system, it will accept the consent of the people of Taiwan. The
people must understand the responsibility they have in making such decisions. Nat
Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a
special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article
are his own.
Singapore
tows China's line I am writing to express my outrage at the statements made by the new prime minister of Singapore and his decision to state that he does not support Taiwan's independence. His cozying up to the Chinese government tells us more about Singapore's leadership than about Taiwan. Every country has the right to be free and no country has the right to be patronizing about another nation's desire for freedom and sovereignty. Singapore has many things to learn from Taiwan, starting with democratic elections. Taiwan should not be afraid of being bullied by China, Australia or Singapore, and should be quick to remind the leaders of other countries that the future of Taiwan should only be decided by the people of Taiwan. Clive
Hazell Nagoya,
Japan
|
|
|
