Strait policy on Sep 12, 2004

Change course now on Strait policy

By the Liberty Times editorial

A paper on cross-strait policy was recently released by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) and sent to President Chen Shui-bian. The TSU bluntly stated that the so-called "active openness and effective management" of cross-strait policy during Chen's presidency of these past four years has in fact focused on the "active openness" part, while neglecting the "effective management" part.

The TSU also made several cross-strait policy proposals, such as compelling negotiations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait through a discriminatory policy toward Chinese goods, and to make Chinese investors and Chinese visitors to Taiwan sign statements acknowledging the nation's sovereignty. The TSU also opposes setting up additional schools for the children of Taiwanese businessmen in China.

The paper starts by pointing out that after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came into power, thanks to the "active openness, effective management" policy, Taiwanese businessmen have become even more active in investing in China. While the policy was implemented based on the conclusion of the Economic Development Advisory Conference, the government has turned a blind eye to the part about "effective management."

For example, with respect to opening up investment in 8-inch foundry fabs by Taiwanese businessmen in China, the government has failed to severely punish those who invest without obtaining the needed permission. As a result, other firms began to follow those bad examples and even pressure the government to further open up investment.

The TSU and DPP are "siblings" and are equally firm on their stance regarding the independent sovereignty of Taiwan. Logically speaking, the cross-strait policies of these two parties ought to have much in common. However, during the first four years of Chen's presidency, the TSU launched severe criticisms against the government's cross-strait policy. The magnitude of the attacks was no less than those coming from the pan-blue camp. The difference was that the basis of the TSU's criticisms was diametrically opposite to that of the pro-unification pan-blues.

Those who do not know better may choose to interpret the TSU's criticisms as campaign tactics, thinking that the TSU is trying to clearly distinguish itself from the DPP in the fierce legislative election at the end of the year. Perhaps there's some truth in such thinking. However, it cannot be denied that the paper on cross-strait policy reflects a genuine concern about the ruling party's departure, from the principle of "Taiwan first" in cross-strait policy.

There's an irony here. The Chen government refuses to budge on the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty, and in fact intends to turn Taiwan into a "normal country" through amending the constitution. But guided by the imperative to ensure safety and peace in the Taiwan Strait, it had to show goodwill toward China, so as to avoid giving China any excuse to invade Taiwan. Politically, these goodwill gestures ranged from the promise of "five noes," to the discourse about "integration" between the two sides of the Strait to the talks about exchanging visits between the leaders of the two governments.

Other gestures include the establishment of schools in China for children of Taiwanese businessmen there, the gradual loosening of restrictions on investing in China by Taiwan's high technology industries, the trial "small three links" between Xiamen and Kinmen, the plans to let Taiwanese firms in China become publicly-traded firms in Taiwan's stock exchange and the extension of loans to Chinese firms by offshore banking units of Taiwanese banks. These were all measures taken under pressure from Taiwanese businessmen and the pro-unification camp and further made possible due to the biased thinking of some government officials.

As a result, the trend of Taiwanese businesspeople "going West" has become even more prevalent under the DPP than under the past rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The investment of more than US$100 billion in China and the hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese businessmen who reside permanently in China have eroded the roots of Taiwan's industrial development and inflicted major damage on the nation's security.

No amount of goodwill shown by Taiwan can possibly change the Chinese ambition to take the country. During the early days of Chen's presidency, the thinking of "firm in one's stance, while flexible in one's tactics" was perhaps a necessary course of action in facing a bullying neighbor. However, as the country's leader shows goodwill toward the other side, he must also give consideration to the collective interests and security of Taiwan as a whole.

If goodwill is not only incapable of neutralizing the other side's ambition but actually empowers it, then should we continue to show goodwill and put ourselves in the deplorable situation of being subjected to the mercy of the enemy? That is a question the country's leader must think about. Cross-strait peace is of critical importance, but the country's opening-up policy in cross-strait relations has given rise to the erroneous idea that business can be separated from politics.

The biggest mistake of Taiwan in cross-strait policy is in skewing too much toward China on business and trade policies, and this will cause the country to gradually go into decline. By flocking to China and fantasizing about its huge market and cheap labor costs and rent, Taiwanese businessmen are courting their own demise. Further, their mass emigration is compromising the nation during a crucial time for transforming its industry and expanding its business, while simultaneously helping drive the growth of the Chinese economy.

Even more infuriating is that the fruits of China's economic growth, far from being distributed among the people are being used to increase China's military strength. This will lead to Chinese control over the whole region, and to the eventual overwhelming of Taiwan. It could be said that the fact that China is able to throw its military weight around and browbeat us is all Taiwan's own doing. The blame could be firmly placed on Taiwanese businessmen, but the government has done little to stem the westward flow. It is difficult to conclude anything except that the government's cross-strait policy is deeply flawed, with too much openness and insufficient management.

The DPP is no doubt aware of what the people want, and the Taiwanese need not doubt their fundamental stance in cross-strait relations. Nevertheless, if we look at what has happened over the last four years under Chen's government, we see an increase in localization and awareness of Taiwan and in support for rectifying the country's name, coupled with economic decline.

Taiwan is coming to resemble a sick man whose body is failing but whose mind remains clear. The TSU paper attributes these problems to the pernicious actions of China, but also paints a scary picture -- if the policy of openness continues -- of a sick man accepting a prescription from a devil. Now that Chen has secured his second term, he no longer needs to worry about votes, and he owes it to the people to carve out his place in history now.

The TSU paper has identified a potentially fatal wound caused by cross-strait policy. Chen's historical destiny is to lead the Taiwanese from under the shadow of China, and get the country out of its dire situation. That mission is also his political responsibility to the Taiwanese. The people of Taiwan will be waiting to see what happens over the next four years.

EU must not remove arms ban on China

By Wu Chih-chung

Former representative to the US Chen Chien-jen was officially sworn in as Taiwan's representative to the EU on Sept. 7. He will face a critical challenge: stopping the EU from lifting its arms embargo on China.

The EU actually vetoed the cancelation of the arms ban by a vote of 14 to 1 last December. However, backed by France, China is likely to win the gradual support of Germany, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands. This year, Beijing has decided to stage a comeback, and to aggressively strive for the support of EU member states.

We must keep an eye on the Dutch presidency of the Council of the EU in the second half of this year, and developments once Portugal's former prime minister Jose Manuel Barroso officially begins his five-year term as the president of the European Commission in November. In fact, the Dutch presidency already announced the inclusion in its priority agenda of new discussions on whether to withdraw the weapons ban on China.

In Europe, China has manipulated this issue for years and has won increased support. In Asia, Beijing also canceled its planned military exercises on Dongshan Island this month, adopting a tactic of expressing superficial goodwill to win greater European support. The withdrawal was certainly not an isolated incident in Asia. Rather, it was a part of China's global positioning as it continues to strengthen its military capacity.

But China's recent oppression of Taiwan shows Beijing's true colors. During this year's annual World Health Assembly meeting in Geneva from May 17 to 21, China continued to treat Taiwan as an enemy. It even strengthened efforts to block our participation in international affairs, and to prevent the Taiwanese people from obtaining the most basic right to health care.

Therefore, we should pay close attention to the other motives behind Beijing's cancelation of military drills -- especially its ultimate strategic goal of lobbying EU member states to lift the ban. If China is able to easily acquire advanced military technologies from Europe, peace and stability in east Asia will be severely damaged.

At present, China is the aggressor in the military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan is the one being threatened. Amid the continued domestic power struggles between the pan-blue and pan-green camps, we often forget that a powerful and authoritarian China is ready to annex Taiwan by force at any time. Taiwan called off the annual Han Kuang military exercise to lower regional tensions out of goodwill. But both President Chen Shui-bian and the Taiwanese people should be cautious of the political goals behind Beijing's cancelation of its military drills.

Moreover, we must remind our friends in the EU that the reason for the ban -- to protest Beijing's crackdown on democracy and human rights during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre -- has not disappeared. Not to mention that the Chinese government is notorious for oppressing the Falun Gong religion, restricting democracy and freedom in Hong Kong and cracking down on Chinese dissidents.

French President Jacques Chirac will visit China next month and the EU will begin its various working meetings this month. I hereby urge the Taiwanese government and people to pay close attention to these related issues, as well as to the possible damage to Taiwan. Above all, we must mobilize our European friends to oppose the removal of the EU's arms embargo on China.

Wu Chih-chung is the secretary-general of the European Union Study Association-Taiwan, and an assistant professor in the department of political science at Soochow University.

Hong Kong elections matter

By Lee Long-hwa

Today residents of Hong Kong will go to the polls to participate in what remains of its fragmented and suppressed democratic system. At best, democrats can achieve some form of stalemate, although in the final analysis Beijing calls the shots. That is the bottom line in Chinese politics. There are not"two systems" in the "one country, two systems" lie. It is merely window dressing.

Still, making the system work is important, because every single vote against Beijing is an embarrassment to the great dictators sitting in their communist aeries spinning their webs of deceit, oppression and tyranny. Unlike in Cuba, or Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Beijing cannot engineer a 99.9 percent vote for communist dictators under world scrutiny. The communists are damned if they do, and surely damned if they don't. Every vote in Hong Kong gives succor to the millions oppressed and silenced in Tibet, and brings hope to the 23 million Taiwanese, who wait with bated breath for the communist behemoth to falter.

It is true that in Hong Kong, Beijing can effect whatever policy it wants. Still, in Hong Kong the world is watching. In Tibet, Beijing has managed to cover up its policy of eugenics by sheer brutal force (not that the UN would do anything about it anyway). But in Hong Kong, the communists must dance to a democratic tune (even if it's a charade), and they simply don't know the steps.

For this reason, no matter how the election turns out, Beijing will look foolish. Communist dictatorship will look foolish. Brutal suppression of free speech and tyranny will look foolish. No matter how many radio and television hosts are threatened, how many democratic legislators are threatened, how many democrats are framed with phony charges or accused of "sedition," no matter how many old communist dirty tricks are unveiled and no matter how many phone calls threatening death or worse are made in the middle of the night by communist henchmen to squelch democracy, Beijing will look boorish, weak and foolish.

The election outcome will not alter the rule of law in Hong Kong. But even holding an election is a triumph if the residents of Hong Kong realize there is so much power in their participation, and so much hope if they send the right message to the world.

Beijing cannot stop that from getting out. Beijing cannot plug this hole in the wall that otherwise blocks contact with the outside world. It cannot neutralize the effect and it cannot hide the event. Beijing cannot arrest or kill everyone who mentions it, and cannot arrest all who vote against Beijing.

And so, in the ocean of despair created by a hopeless mid-term legislative election, a tiny ripple of hope could gain force, and one day turn into a mighty wave washing away the single most tyrannical regime in the history of the world -- a regime that has oppressed more people in 50 years than all of the previous dictatorships in the last 2,000 years combined.

A single vote for democracy in Hong Kong, like a feather buoyed by the winds of change, can help do that. How remarkable, to slay a rapacious beast with a feather.

Lee Long-hwa  United States