Historical revision on Oct 26, 2004

Historical revision

Colin Powell tells Beijing to accept Taiwan's offer

AGENCIES , BEIJING

US Secretary of State Colin Powell pressed Beijing to accept a Taiwanese offer of talks and urged China yesterday to exert its influence over North Korea to resume stalled talks on scrapping its nuclear weapons programs.

Powell, on the second leg of a trip to revive the six-way talks with Pyongyang, wants Beijing to push harder to secure a breakthrough and crown relations with Washington that he described as the best in 30 years.

"China has considerable influence with North Korea," Powell said at a news conference after meeting Chinese President Hu Jintao and other officials.

"I hope that as a result of our conversations, both of us will energize the other members of the the six-party framework to resolve the outstanding issues that keep us from setting a date for a meeting," he said.

Powell also raised sensitive bilateral issues.

On human rights, the two agreed to re-establish talks after what Powell called China's backsliding last year.

On Taiwan, Powell said he pushed China to keep an open mind and seize opportunities to hold talks to reduce tension.

"I particularly encouraged the Chinese leaders who I met with today to do everything they could to get into cross-strait dialogue in a more systematic and deliberate way," Powell said.

He sought to reduce tension between Taipei and Beijing by citing a speech by President Chen Sui-bian last month that he said he believed offered an opening for resuming dialogue.

Chinese officials said they were unmoved by the speech and voiced concerns about Chen.

"The response that I received from the Chinese leadership today was that they are still concerned about President Chen Shui-bian's actions."

China also complained about US missile defense and submarine sales to Taiwan.

Powell said he "reinforced our total commitment to the one-power, `one China' policy" -- the US doctrine that doesn't endorse Taiwan independence.

But he also stressed that US law requires Washington to supply the nation's democratically elected government with weapons needed to defend itself.

"We will continue to meet our responsibilities," Powell said. "We very carefully balance responsibilities that we have to China and responsibilities that we have to Taiwan under our own domestic law."

Hu called on Powell for Washington to help curb "Taiwan independence forces," the official Xinhua News Agency said.

Hu said "opposition to `Taiwan independence' and curbing risky activities of `Taiwan independence' forces are in the common interests of both China and the United States," the report said.

Powell also pressed China to free a New York Times researcher arrested for passing state secrets to foreigns, but received the pointed response that the detainee was a Chinese citizen.

Powell is under pressure to revive the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program because Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for failing to stop Pyongyang.

North Korea has threatened to double its deterrent and blocked a planned September round of the talks, that involve host China, North and South Korea, the US, Japan and Russia, after three earlier sessions made scant progress.

The US suspects North Korea is stalling in the hope Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry will win the Nov. 2 election and open bilateral talks that might lead to more US concessions.

Powell rejected North Korea's preconditions for a new round of talks, called it a "terrorist state" with "no respect whatsoever for human rights" and warned it not to get caught proliferating.

MOFA thanks Powell for efforts in China

CROSS-STRAIT TIES: The foreign ministry spokesman said it was regrettable that Beijing has rejected Powell's many suggestions for peace in the region

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER
 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday thanked US Secretary of State Colin Powell for trying to persuade China to resume talks with Taiwan during his visit to Beijing.

Powell, who met Chinese Pres-ident Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao and Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, told reporters at a news conference in Beijing that the Chinese leaders are still concerned about President Chen Shui-bian's actions.

Chen called for dialogue with Beijing in his Double Ten National Day address.

The Chinese leadership, however, "did not find his [Chen's] statement to be that forthcoming," Powell said, acknowledging that his efforts to bring China to negotiate with Taiwan have not been successful.

"We understand Mr. Powell's concerns about peace in the region. Both sides [Taiwan and China] share responsibility for peace in the region. We thank Mr. Powell for his efforts and good-will," said foreign ministry spokes-man Michel Lu.

"It is regrettable that China rejected Mr. Powell's suggestion. We hope China can adopt a practical attitude and new ways of thinking to respond to President Chen's call for talks," Lu said.

"The US sells us weapons for our defense according to the Taiwan Relations Act," Lu said.

Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san said the council was happy to see "any development that helps the smooth cross-strait relationship" but declined to comment on China's rejection of Powell's cross-strait dialogue proposal.

In an interview published in the latest issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review, which Powell gave before his Asian trip, he said he would not carry any assurances to China on Taiwan beyond the US' "one China" policy.

"Our `one China' policy has allowed us to build a good relationship with China. It has also allowed us to have a good relationship with Taiwan," he said.

Powell said from time to time, people to try to penetrate the "very useful ambiguity" that is built into the policy.

"But the ambiguity has served us all, and very, very well, and the policy is intact," Powell said, adding: "in response to certain churnings about independence we made it very, very clear that we do not support independence."

"Taiwan independence will not serve the interests of the region, Powell said.

"Any movement in that direction of a serious nature has the potential for creating a real crisis in the region, and nobody benefits from that," he said.

The US secretary of state also said he believed it is enough to keep a lid on the present cross-strait situation for the foreseeable future.

Powell noted the last thing anyone should want to see would be any action on either side that disrupts the situation and the equilibrium.

"And so we have tried to speak evenly to both sides not to take actions which would put this policy at risk or create a crisis in the region, either by excessive build-ups on the mainland or by excessive rhetoric or reaction on Tai-wan," he said.

China says masses will amass no more by 2040

FUTURE BURDEN: Officials are warning that the population of people aged 60 and over is about to rise dramatically, adding a new dimension to China's population woes

AP , SHANGHAI

China's population, now the world's largest at 1.3 billion, will peak at just under 1.5 billion in about 30 years, the country's head of population planning was quoted yesterday as saying.

"The nation's population will still increase by about 10 million annually and reach a peak of 1.46 billion in the mid-2030s," the state-run newspaper Shanghai Daily quoted Zhang Weiqing as saying.

The expanding working-age population will put massive pressure on the economy to create jobs, while the aging population is straining government resources such as healthcare, Zhang was quoted as saying.

Both the working and aged populations are expected to peak in about 20 years, he said, adding that "the peaks are the toughest challenges for China's sustainable development."

China imposed a policy of allowing one child per family about 30 years ago, following a post-World War II baby boom. Chinese experts say it has reduced overall population growth by about 300 million births over the past decade.

People aged 60 and over now make up 11 percent of the total population, and officials say the proportion is set to surge.

The government recently began allowing more families to have second children in the hope of easing the future burden of fewer workers supporting a growing number of retirees.

The Shanghai Daily said Zhang spoke at an international symposium on population issues over the weekend in Shanghai.

Staff at the Population Commission's press office said a copy of the text wasn't immediately available.

The newspaper said Shanghai will likely add up to 4 million to its current population of 20 million by around 2020. Though that will strain resources, the city could handle a population of up to 30 million, it cited researchers at Shanghai's Fudan University as saying.

Experts attending the population conference expressed concern over China's rising disparity between births of boys and girls.

Birth limits coupled with a traditional preference for male heirs has led families to use modern technology such as sonogram machines to determine the gender of babies before they are born.

Unwanted girls are frequently aborted.

Nationwide, 117 boys are born for every 100 girls. The ratio in some rural areas is as high as 130 boys to 100 girls.

Worldwide, fewer than 110 boys are born to every 100 girls.

If these trends continue, officials say China could have as many as 40 million men who can't find spouses by 2020.

India currently has the world's second largest population with just over 1 billion people, but is expected to overtake China by 2050, when India will have over 1.6 billion people.

The US is expected to have about 420 million people by that year, from about 300 million now.

Pan-blues show innate contrariness

Over a two-day period last week, the opposition abandoned their right to debate the budget in the legislature. As a result, the more than NT$200 billion (US$6 billion) national defense budget was passed within 10 minutes, as was the NT$16 billion Examination Yuan budget. Pan-blue legislators said that since they had been accused of being "barbaric" in the last elections, this time they would simply let things slide for now and settle accounts after the election. It is difficult to understand such a strategy.

In the last legislative election in December 2001, the pan-blue camp was criticized for its barbaric behavior. What they have learned from this is not how to turn the tables on the attackers, address political inquiries in a reasonable fashion, or to persuade the public that they are falsely accused; they have simply learned to renounce their responsibilities for events.

With the approach of the Dec. 11 elections, legislators are putting in the leg work to drum up votes. For those legislators who already have a seat, is there a better policy, as far as campaigning is concerned, than showing oneself to be conscientiously performing one's duty of monitoring the government? With many legislators absent from the budget review, if a single person had something of substance to say, that would have been sufficient to become an ardent defender of the budget.

Unfortunately, many opposition legislators have missed the point and, thinking themselves smart, have merely succeeded in betraying their responsibilities as legislators. They may well criticize the fact that a budget review for hundreds of billions of dollars was rushed through in a matter of minutes, but at least their pan-green counterparts turned up on time for the meeting and did their duty as legislators.

The budget review by the pan-blue camp was a mess because their position has been changeable and inconsistent. Below are some of the more important examples.

Foreign policy: When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in power, didn't it seek the US' support against China? So what is wrong with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) continuing this policy? Why do they feel they need to oppose it?

Defense policy: When in power, the KMT with great difficulty persuaded the US to sell weapons to Taiwan. Now the DPP has allocated a budget for arms procurement. Why does the pan-blue camp oppose it? And if the NT$610.8 billion seems astronomical, why can't they rationally discuss appropriate reductions? When in power, didn't the KMT also purchase Lafayette-class frigates, Mirage fighters and F-16s?

Foreign aid: More than a decade ago, when Lien Chan was foreign minister, didn't he allocate funds to aid allies? Why is it wrong to do so now?

Health insurance policy: When the health insurance law was drafted under the KMT government, it was stipulated that the premiums would be reviewed every five years, and appropriate adjustments would be made by the legislature. So why does the pan-blue camp now block any increase in premiums, to the detriment of the National Health Insurance Bureau's financial structure, and the people who make use of it?

Many of these policies being implemented by the DPP were formulated and implemented during KMT rule, and are merely being continued under the current government. Is the fact that the pan-blues are putting all their effort into opposing these policies an indication that they now realize that these policies are no longer appropriate? Or are they just opposing them for opposition's sake? If the pan-blues cannot even serve as an effective opposition, whose votes will they attract in the upcoming elections? And will they even have a future after the elections?

United Nations of hypocrisy

By Guan G. Lo

I am very surprised that you published the vicious criticism of US President George W. Bush by George Soros on Oct. 19 (Throw Bush out of the White House, for America's sake, Oct. 20, page 9). Bush and his administration have been conscientiously and bravely leading the US against unprecedented danger posed by terrorist groups who have promised to kill every American and destroy the country, the stronghold of democracy and freedom. It is the world that is drifting in the wrong direction, not Bush and his administration as Soros criticized.

Do not forget, Bush and his administration, under the most difficult circumstances, have supported the survival of Taiwan's democracy. After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush led the US and its allies to eliminate terrorist havens in Afghanistan, and a terrorism supporter, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq. He has not misled anybody in these struggles. He and his able associates utilized all intelligence available to them at that time. Their conclusion regarding the danger posed by Saddam was the same as that of the majority of UN members.

Yes, the US is now in the quagmire of the Iraq insurgency and terrorism. However, the chorus of anti-Bush sentiment worldwide, using the absence of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse, ignore the undeniable fact that Saddam brutally persecuted his own citizens, invaded neighboring countries and openly supported terrorists.

Despite Saddam's refusal to completely cooperate with UN weapons inspections and his continual defiance of the UN up until the very moment of invasion, the world has increasingly turned against Bush and the US. The sacrifice of many American lives and the spending of enormous amounts of American taxpayers' money for a better, civilized Iraq, are unjustly dismissed as US unilateral aggression and occupation. This very sinister anti-US movement has helped to sustain terrorism.

Sadly, not many nations have joined this important struggle to safeguard the democracy and freedom that we all cherish. France is the foremost example in the anti-US movement. Chirac and his government have waged a campaign against the US from the outset, because of their selfish financial interests in Iraq. They have conveniently ignored Saddam's international criminal records. Their current obsequious friendship with the Chinese regime, which does not conform to the UN Charter and has violated the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, exposes their persistent behavior of selfishness. In gaining access to the purportedly large Chinese market, Chirac and associates are happy to glorify the oppressive Chinese regime, and unjustifiably condemn democratic Taiwan for provoking instability across the Taiwan Strait. They even sent the French navy to China and recently held joint naval exercises just north of Taiwan. These two countries and Russia, who rarely support the free nations because of ideological differences, control the Permanent Security Council of the UN. Has China or Russia sent a single soldier to Bosnia, Kosovo or Kuwait in support of the UN? How much has France contributed to the UN's efforts in those countries?

Therefore, I believe the UN has now degenerated into a congregation of hypocritical nations, oblivious of tyranny and the blatant violation of human rights by China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and countless other nations. Small wonder the Secretary-General of the "United Nations of Hypocrisy," Kofi Annan, during his recent visit to China, declared that the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies was illegal.

For the survival of freedom and democracy, it is time for all US citizens to reject the confused members of this UN of Hypocrisy. Stay united behind Bush and reject Kerry and the Democrats, whose glib anti-Bush criticism cannot hide their petty partisan rhetoric, for the sake of future security in the US and the entire world. Bush has unfailingly supported Taiwan's freedom and democracy. Do not forget, the Democrats support China's oppressive regime, and their rationale is the same as that of France in this regard.

Finally a word of advice to George Soros: You have profited handsomely by adopting American capitalism, which Bush and his associates are fighting to conserve. Do not waste your fortune on Kerry and Edwards, a prominent trial lawyer, who is a primary culprit in the decline of American commerce and health care. The Democrats do not support free market capitalists like you. It is time for you to wake up and support Bush. Use the resources of your Open Society Foundation to advance the reconstruction of Iraq. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin now understands the danger of terrorism, and he supports Bush, despite his country's past alliance with Iraq.

Guan G. Lo
Scottsdale, Arizona

For talks, both sides need to bend

By Edward Chen 

During his meeting with chairwoman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Carly Fiorina on Oct. 15, President Chen Shui-bian expressed his wish that she relay to Beijing that facilitation of cross-strait chartered flights for passengers and cargo is good for both sides. He also hoped that she would seek support from the US. Unfortunately, Fiorina refused Chen by saying that she did not find it appropriate for her to play such a role. In a written statement she released later that day, she said that politics should be left to politicians, and HP, a private profit-driven enterprise, does not participate in discussions on the handling of political affairs.

Actually, Chen was just making general remarks when receiving foreign guests. It was enough that Fiorina made a refusal to Chen's face; there was no need to embarrass Taiwan and blow the issue out of proportion in a written statement. Her straightforward refusal, however, shows that other than Washington, which is still willing to intervene in cross-strait affairs for its own interests, Taiwan does not have many friends in the international community. It is impractical to seek help from others unless we can regain mutual trust in the cross-strait relationship, cultivate a climate favorable for cross-strait talks, and change our negotiation stance and strategies.

Responding to Chen's National Day address, Zhang Mingqing, spokesman of China's Taiwan Affairs Office, gave a tough talk at a press conference. This, together with Fiorina's refusal to act as a messenger between Taipei and Beijing, shows that there is no prospect of high-level political negotiations in sight. Beijing also gagged Chen's proposal for talks about such practical issues as direct links and chartered flights with the claim that they are a domestic issue.

From the perspective of negotiation strategies, however, both Taipei and Beijing are actually reserving room for the resumption of dialogue in the future. It just takes time, patience and a favorable atmosphere before it can materialize. Many people think that only Chen made a concession, when he suggested using the 1992 Hong Kong meeting as the basis for cross-strait talks. Yet didn't Zhang also offer a carrot, even though the stick predominated in his speech?

The stick in Zhang's speech was Beijing's dissatisfaction about Chen's ploy with the national title issue. His remarks were also harsh when he responded to Chen's statement that the Chinese military force is the cause of "shadows of terror" and "forces of darkness" across the Taiwan Strait. Over the past two years, Beijing has said many times that direct link talks should not involve the "one China" issue. But in a statement given on May 17, Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office said that "one China" should be the premise of direct link talks. In its response to Chen's Double Ten National Day address, however, the office said in a written statement that "if the Taiwan authorities acknowledge the `1992 Consensus,' cross-strait dialogue and talks could be resumed immediately." This showed that Beijing not only flip-flopped in its stance in the May 17 announcement that "one China" must be the premise of direct link talks, but has also made a written statement to this effect.

Chen proposed the use of the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong for negotiations. The most important basis used at that time was to put aside political conflicts and to talk about practical issues. On the surface, mentioning the individual interpretations of the "one China" principle by Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation and China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait in 1992, Zhang seemed to go against the Chen administration, as the latter has wanted to avoid the issue of "one China." Zhang, however, also mentioned that two sides should put aside political conflicts based on the "one China" principle in order to resume cross-strait talks and negotiations as soon as possible. Therefore, there is still plenty of room for negotiation, depending on how the US mediates and how Taipei and Beijing make concessions.

Since coming to power, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government has never been willing to accept Beijing's "one China" principle, not even the 1992 consensus that contains the principle, and tried hard to deny and demonize the 1992 consensus. After the presidential inauguration in May, the international climate prevented Taiwan from seeking independence and encouraged cross-strait talks, imposing an increasing pressure on Taipei. In order not to offend any party, Chen had no other choice but to express his goodwill by proposing to use the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong for negotiations on Double Ten National Day.

Either in the past or at present, either during the DPP or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, Taipei is unlikely to accept Beijing's "one China" principle. At the same time, Beijing is unlikely to accept the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong as the basis for re-starting cross-strait talks as Taipei has wished. Beijing's latest stance is that it wants to talk yet it is also ready to attack and not afraid of postponing the talks. Taipei is faced with pressure from Washington to renew talks. Under such circumstances, a new round of talks is possible only when both sides make concessions under the mediation of the US. Beijing has to go back to the 1992 consensus, but Taipei also must go back to the 1992 consensus, which it has tried to deny over the past four years.

Finally, before official talks are resumed, both sides need to take several steps. First, Beijing and Taipei need to rebuild trust in each other. Second, they need to cultivate an atmosphere good for resumption of talks. Third, leaders on both sides have to refrain themselves and their subsidiaries from making remarks that only make the relationship more tense.

Edward Chen is a professor of the Graduate Institute of American Studies at Tamkang University.