Face-saving agreement on Sep 18, 2004

Wu keeps accreditation

TEAM LEADER: The controversy over first lady Wu Shu-jen's status was resolved with a face-saving agreement

By Huang Tai-lin
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AGENCIES
 

First lady Wu Shu-jen was scheduled to attend the opening ceremony of the 2004 Athens Paralympic Games last night in her capacity as head of the Taiwanese delegation, using her National Paralympic Card (NPC) card.

Due to concern about Wu's health, the first lady and delegation members were to decide whether she would lead the team in the parade around the arena during the opening ceremony or simply take a seat in the VIP zone.

The controversy over Wu's status was resolved ahead of last night's ceremony, after both Team Taiwan and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) reached a consensus on Thursday.

The IPC agreed that Wu would retain her NPC card and her status as head of Taiwan's delegation. Both sides agreed that there would be no further talk about the issue.

The hoopla surrounding Wu's status erupted when the IPC, supposedly due to pressure from Beijing, announced on Tuesday that it had replaced Wu as head of the delegation with Linda Chen and had downgraded Wu's NPC card, the highest-level official pass for the event, to the less prestigious "transferable guest" card.

After a protest lodged by the delegation, the IPC's chief executive officer Xavier Gonzalez met with Taiwan team representatives Thursday morning and reached an understanding that Wu could attend all relevant activities in her capacity as head of the team -- a solution that saved face for everyone.

Delegation spokesman James Huang, deputy secretary-general of the Presidential Office, said the consensus was good for both sides as it would allow attention to focus on the athletes.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Thursday, Wu said that Taiwan will participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics as any ban would only embarrass China: "I can't think of any proper reason to restrict our participation."

"If China applies any kind of political pressure to obstruct our participation, I think their actions will be looked down upon by all of us and will be condemned strongly by the international sports community," she said.

Wu added that she hopes her visit in Greece will increase understanding abroad about the situation in Taiwan as well as raise awareness to help those in involved in sports for mentally- and physically-challenged people.

China uses Taiwan as political tool

By Chang Wu-ueh

The 16th session of the fourth plenum of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has started. The issue of whether or not Jiang Zemin will step down as chairman of the Central Military Commission and other matters related to high positions within the party are not items on the agenda, but the internal power struggles occurring behind closed doors in China are always of considerable interest to the outside world.

Recently, the media in Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as the New York Times, picked up on a July 12 article that appeared in the People's Daily. The article said reform in China had reached a critical stage in its development and a fundamental problem was emerging. Signs of differences between party figures and President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao started becoming apparent during a meeting in Beidaihe with Zeng Qinghong and other supporters of Jiang.

On Aug. 23, during the party's 100th anniversary celebrations for former leader Deng Xiaoping , Hu Jintao pointed out that Deng had abolished the system of life tenure in leading party and government posts some time ago.

There was also the case of the different versions of a photograph of Hu shaking hands with Deng, one showing Jiang Zemin standing between them, and the other with Jiang missing. The early conclusion of the military exercises on Dongshan Island also led to clashes between Jiang and Hu.

Policy on Taiwan is often influenced by power struggles and there is therefore a need to accurately analyze the internal affairs of China to avoid errors of judgement.

With single-party communist regimes such as China and the former Soviet Union, the handing over and succession of power is conducted in a completely different way to Western democracies, with those looking in from the outside often at a loss as to what is going on. For this reason the outside world generally has to rely on press reports supplied by the Communist Party.

In the past, we have had to rely on the Chinese media to act as the mouthpiece of the party, and from clues such as the importance accorded individuals in major ceremonies, meetings and events, the amount of exposure they receive, any words that make it into print and names and photos that are published. On occasions different factions will test the winds by using influential foreign newspapers, or ones that they have good relations with, to gauge what is happening in power struggles within the upper echelons.

The main items on this session's agenda are the economy and the party's hold on power. However, with the 78-year-old Jiang retaining power over the military, the radically different leadership styles of Hu and Jiang, and the belief that the CCP currently has two centers, there are naturally many questions regarding internal power struggles whenever there is a major conference or meeting.

In 1989, during the 13th session of the fourth plenum, Jiang moved up from Shanghai to take the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. Deng Xiaoping resigned from the Politburo in 1987, left his position of chairman of the military commission in November 1989, and the central military commission in the following year. Therefore Jiang, if he is to follow the precedent set by Deng, should step down from his position as chairman of the military commission either in this session of the fourth plenum, or at the beginning of next year.

It is true that the high levels of the CCP put a premium on political stability, but one could ask what Jiang's position as chairman of the military commission actually has to do with political stability. There are many different takes on this. Some believe that Jiang will hold the post in the short term to relieve the pressure of military affairs from Hu's shoulders, thereby facilitating political stability. Another way of looking at this, however, is to say that his retention of the position indicates a reluctance to completely hand over the reins of power for the moment. Reading between the lines, some people believe that Jiang is still unsure of Hu and may possibly choose another as his successor, just as Deng did when he held back from relinquishing the position of head of the military to Hu Yaobang or Zhao Ziyang, instead waiting until Jiang Zemin was ready.

In my view, Jiang is no Deng and will not be able to maintain control of power from the sidelines in the capacity of retired party elder. What's more, both he and those close to him will be concerned that, without the protection of a high position, their children and associates may fall foul of Hu's anti-corruption drive as soon as Jiang hands power over. Also, Hu Jintao is no Hu Yaobang, and has held his own for a decade in the politburo without slipping up. He is unlikely to be overly anxious about losing to Jiang after only having been in his position for less than two years. Time, after all, is on the side of Hu and Wen.

Therefore, if there really is a power struggle going on between Hu and Jiang, it is concerned with those affiliated with them vying for power rather than a fundamental difference between the two men.

The most important thing for the Taiwan side to take note of is the gradual democratization in China, concomitant with increasing numbers of people going online -- according to statistics, roughly 90 million people in China have access to the Internet -- and the increase in sensational media reports, especially by papers such as the Global Times.

In the event that there are serious internal problems in China in the future, the authorities may well take a harder line with Taiwan to deflect the attention of the media, both within China and abroad. This has been true since 1950: With every military foray abroad and every internal problem or change in power, the high echelons in China have always done the same.

Therefore, if we want to analyze what is happening on the other side of the Strait, and the power struggles that are occurring there, we have to avoid letting the Taiwan question become a way for China to let off steam over its internal struggles. It is far more important to handle cross-strait relations skillfully than to be affected by what is happening on the other side.

Chang Wu-ueh is director of the Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University.

KMT gains little by crying wolf

Since March 20, pan-blue groups have been bringing constant complaints about what they call "Bulletgate" to the international community. A pan-blue fringe organization recently sent an e-mail to all members of the US Congress comparing President Chen Shui-bian to Adolf Hitler. Green-camp legislators have hit back, saying that the blue camp is discrediting Taiwan. The Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence has said that another international complaint by a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) think tank, Press Freedom in Taiwan Endangered, also promotes falsehoods.

The internationalization of domestic issues in an attempt to get the international community to mediate is a common occurrence. The problem is not that complaints are brought to the international community, but rather that the statements are untrue. In the past, the KMT complained that the tangwai (outside the party) movement internationalized its complaints, and now the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) complains that the KMT is doing the same thing. Although such a change may be ironic, it is a political reality.

During decades of martial-law rule, the KMT kept a tight grip on the state apparatus. Trying to protect themselves and realize their ideals, could dissidents afford not to take their complaints abroad? If not for US intervention, wouldn't members of the tangwai movement such as Lei Chen, Bo Yang, Li Ao, Sun Li-jen and Peng Ming-min have been extinguished? And without international intervention, would Chinese dissidents such as Wang Dan and Wei Jingsheng still be alive today?

With increasing globalization, people from every country can air their grievances beyond their nation's borders, in some cases getting the UN to intervene to stop genocide and political repression. International pressure brought an end to racial apartheid in South Africa and stopped the massacres in former Yugoslavia. Without international concern, there would still be violence in East Timor, Iraq would still occupy Kuwait and Taiwan would have been swallowed up by China. Didn't Chen Shui-bian also appeal to the UN press corps to accuse China of suppressing Taiwan?

The method by which a complaint is brought to international attention may not be important, but it is extremely important to establish the facts. If too many of your complaints turn out to be unfounded, they will be very quickly revealed in this information age. And then, just like in the story where a boy cried wolf once too often, no one will believe you later on.

By comparing Chen to Adolf Hitler, the blue camp has violated the facts. Although Taiwan is purchasing arms from the US, these purchases are aimed at self-defense. No foreigner would believe that Chen is another Hitler. Such a negative campaign is a simply stupie, the same thing as shooting oneself in the foot or slapping one's own face.

The blue camp's Bulletgate booklet was not very smart either. How could one unearth the facts without an investigation? Besides, how can such an argument convince people when it contradicts the judgment of the pan-blues' chosen forensic expert, Henry Lee?

As for the question of whether press freedom in Taiwan has regressed, a conclusion can hardly be reached since different people have very different feelings about the matter. Nevertheless, the government has never cracked down on press freedom through any political means, and has only demanded that the KMT return its broadcasting licenses because of the KMT-owned monopoly created in the past, when there was no separation between party and state. Such a counterattack by vested interests lacks legitimacy and is immoral. What's more, Reporters Sans Frontieres praised the nation as a model of press freedom in its latest report published this year. What good will it do to wash one's dirty linen abroad anyway? It will only irritate others, and expose our own defects.