Taiwanese' constitution on Nov 09, 2004

TPA writes`Taiwanese' constitution

PRO-INDEPENDENCE: A group of academics unveiled their version of a draft constitution for the `Republic of Taiwan,' with some surprising clauses
By Jewel Huang   STAFF REPORTER
A pro-independence group, the Taiwan Professors Association (TPA), unveiled a draft "Constitution of the Republic of Taiwan" on Sunday which would create a presidential system and a three-branch government, and would allow the residents of Kinmen and Matsu the right of "self-determination" regarding the status of their islands.

The draft constitution also stipulates that the four major ethnic groups in Taiwan -- Aborigines, Hakka, Hoklo and Mainlanders -- should be referred to as the "people of Taiwan," and that the nation's territory should include Taiwan proper and Penghu.

As for the outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu, their future -- whether to opt for independence, come under the authority of Taiwan or return to China -- should be decided by the residents through referendum.

"The constitutional draft aims to offer a new vision of the nation for the people of Taiwan. And when people want to think about the constitution issue, we are happy to let them know that a constitutional text is already prepared for them," Chen I-Shen said yesterday.

Chen is a TPA member and one of the constitution's drafters. He is also the Northern Taiwan Society's deputy chairman and a research fellow at Academia Sinica.

"We hope both the ruling parties and the opposition parties will spend time thinking about this issue. But we will not try to force them to adopt our version," Chen said.

From a historical perspective, Chen said, Taiwan and Penghu, which were ceded to Japan in 1895 by the Qing Dynasty, were a community sharing a common destiny, while Kinmen and Matsu have been bound to Taiwan and Penghu as a result of the political power of the authoritarian regime of Chiang Kai-shek in 1949.

Besides, in light of strategic conditions, Chen added, Kinmen and Matsu could no longer have too much influence in guaranteeing Taiwan's security, which has also been suggested by former Democratic Progressive Party chairman Shih Ming-teh  and the World United Formosans for independence.

On the contrary, the two islands might become crucial points that could be used to force Taiwan to surrender to China should a war break out, Chen said.

Chang Cheng-shuh, also one of the constitution's drafters, stressed that the "self-determination" clause is not meant to exclude the people who live on Kinmen and Matsu, but to offer them a "civil and open" choice.

Noticeably, one constitutional clause was dubbed the "Ma Ying-jeou clause" in the draft. The clause endows the legislature with the power to deprive a local government of its autonomy if its actions conflict with the decisions made by the central government.

Chang said bluntly that this clause was included as a result of Taipei Mayor Ma, who intentionally turned a blind eye to the pan-blue camp's illegal protests in front of the Presidential Office after the March 20 presidential election, and his attempts to defy the decisions made by the central government.

Survey backs sovereign and independent Taiwan

POST-ELECTION POLL: In the wake of US President Bush's re-election, respondents were asked about US-Taiwan relations, US-China ties and cross-strait links
By Joy Su  STAFF REPORTER
 Over 70 percent of respondents in a recent opinion poll conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank say Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.

The survey results, released yesterday, indicate 14.5 percent of those polled believe Taiwan is not a sovereign independent nation, while 2.9 percent felt it was hard to say, and another 10 percent did not know.

"The opinions of the people of Taiwan play an important role in the US-Taiwan-China triangular relationship ? The question now is how to handle a new Taiwan, a Taiwan with new problems and new opinions," said Lai I-chung , director of foreign policy studies at the think tank.

The survey focused on reaction to US President George W. Bush's re-election, its impact on cross-strait relations and expectations for the next four years. The poll surveyed 1,076 people over the age of 20 nationwide in telephone interviews last Thursday and Friday.

According to the think tank, the poll's results are within a 95 percent confidence index with a standard deviation of 3.04.

The think tank is generally believed to sympathize with the pan-green camp.

According Lin Cheng-yi, director of the Institute of International Relations at National Chengchi University, if Taiwanese people had been able to vote in the US elections, they would have backed Bush.

"54.3 percent believe that Bush's re-election will be helpful for cross-strait relations, while about 21 percent felt it would not be helpful. From this we see that between [US Senator John] Kerry and Bush, most wanted Bush re-elected," Lin said.

Nevertheless, most respondents would like to see the US reconsider its "one China" policy, given Tai-wan's unfair status under the policy. According to the poll, a total of 67.8 percent of respondents support a rethink of the "one China" policy, 6.5 percent did not and 16.2 percent said they did not know.

There was also overwhelming support for the normalization of ties with the US. Over 88 percent were in favor of normalizing ties and just 2 percent were opposed.

Citing US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent remarks on cross-strait relations, generally seen as a setback for Taiwan, Lin pointed out that the survey results indicated that a good portion of those polled felt that there was a chance the US would forgo ties with Taiwan in order to pursue better relations with China.

"This is different from the traditional stance that is generally seen as overly dependent on the US. It probably has something to do with Powell's remarks," Lin said.

Twelve percent felt the US would definitely "sacrifice" Taiwan in order to pursue cooperation with China, 30 percent thought it was possible, while 29 percent said it would not happen and 10 percent said it definitely would not happen.

As for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) proclamation that "The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China" during his Double Ten National Day speech, 24 percent expressed enthusiastic support and 37.6 percent supported the statement. However, 12.5 percent totally disagreed with the statement and another 8.2 disagreed with it. Nineteen percent of respondents felt the statement was intended as a push for Taiwanese independence while 57.2 said the statement was a description of the status quo.

Asked which political party would be best equipped to protect Taiwan's sovereignty, 27.9 percent said the Democratic Progressive Party, 13.3 percent said the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), 1.7 percent said the Taiwan Solidarity Union and 0.9 percent said the People First Party. However, 44 percent said they had no opinion.

Asked if political leaders here should learn from the US presidential candidates and accept election results for the sake of social stability, 80.4 percent said yes, while 2.5 percent disagreed.

Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明), a researcher at the Institute of Social Sciences at Academia Sinica said similar opinion polls should be conducted periodically because of the impact current events have on such surveys.

HK torn over democracy poll

`IMPRACTICAL EFFORTS': The territory's Catholic Church said it supports a non-binding referendum on democracy in Hong Kong, but Beijing isn't likely to listen
AFP , HONG KONG
 

Hong Kong's government has sought to check growing calls for a referendum on democracy in the Chinese territory as a report yesterday said the Catholic Church had backed a territory-wide poll.

A government spokesman labelled as impractical efforts by pro-democracy lawmakers to hold a non-binding referendum to gauge opinion on whether or not rulers in Beijing should allow the city to elect its political leader.

China has already ruled out such a vote, but if the government did not approve, proponents have said, they would organize their own unofficial poll.

The government said "the idea of a referendum is not practical" and not in accordance with the Basic Law, the city's mini-constitution.

"It would amount to a waste of time and energy, and a needless distraction for the community," a government statement said.

It stressed that it was taking seriously calls for electoral reform and that a process of gradual change had been put in motion.

Proponents hope a yes-vote would send a clear signal to China, which has ruled Hong Kong since 1997, that citizens want full democracy by 2007 when the incumbent, Beijing-appointed Tung Chee-hwa, must stand down.

In calling for a referendum, democrats hope China would reverse a ruling in April against a swift transition to universal suffrage.

Their hopes for a big yes-vote were buoyed by pro-democracy candidates' share of the vote in September legislative elections.

Democrats won 60 percent of the vote, although that only translated into 25 of the 60 legislative seats.

Lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan turned up the heat on Sunday in a radio broadcast when he accused Tung of betraying Hong Kong by opposing a referendum.

And the Catholic Church has thrown its weight behind the effort, offering the use of its offices and schools as polling stations, the South China Morning Post newspaper said yesterday.

The outspoken head of the 250,000-worshipper strong diocese, Bishop Joseph Zen, told the newspaper the church's more than 300 schools and offices could be used if the government did not back the referendum call.

Editorial: China totters on the brink of chaos

The mass protests that have been occurring in China of late not only pose a serious challenge to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but have seen an escalation in both their scale and frequency. Accor-ding to the CCP magazine Outlook, there were more than 58,000 mass protests throughout China last year, an average of 160 a day. Police reports also indicate that these protests are becoming ever more serious, and that the frequency of attacks on government officials is also increasing. Events in the past month have been cause for concern.

Almost 10,000 people took to the streets of Bangfo city, Anhui Province, gathering on the city's main thoroughfares as part of a demonstration that brought traffic in the city to a standstill. They were protesting the fact that pensions were rising below the rate of the increase in the cost of living, making it more and more difficult to get by. In Zhongmou county, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, conflict between the Han Chinese and Hui Muslim minority broke out at the end of last month, when thousands of Chinese farmers surrounded a Hui village and began a bloody attack that was only stopped when officials declared martial law in the area. This had all originated in an accident in which a Hui driver had hit and killed a Chinese.

In Wanzhou in Chongqing, a government official tried to extricate himself from an altercation with a porter by paying his way out, arousing public indignation. As far as the people were concerned, this was a case of an official abusing his rights in order to mistreat a commoner. Tens of thousands of residents took to the streets, surrounding government buildings and torching police cars and fire engines. In the end over a thousand armed riot police had to be mobilized in order to quell the unrest. Around 100,000 farmers in Hanyuan County, Sichuan Province, gathered to demand compensation for the construction of a dam, originally earmarked for them, that failed to appear. The ensuing clashes with the police created chaos that only ended after three days.

The causes of these disturbances have included misdeeds by officials, as well as conflicts between the Han and minority groups. This has led to a response from those who feel most oppressed. Agricultural workers, whose incomes lag behind those of the rest of the country, are already unsatisfied by the huge discrepancy in income. When their land is taken from them without adequate compensation (or disappears into the pockets of officials), they are pushed to the brink and it takes only a spark to set off a conflagration.

China's leaders are aware of the challenges and threats posed by these mass protests to the rule of the Communist Party, and have repeatedly called on officials to serve the fundamental interests of the people. But China's society is now seriously unbalanced, and development on the political and social fronts has not been able to keep pace with China's rapid economic growth. In addition, the gulf between the prosperous coastal regions and the poorer inland areas has been exacerbated by poor communications, differences in political and economic situations have caused an increase in incidents of friction between various ethnic groups and a backward and conservative administration is unable to keep up with the pace of social change. All these factors have made China into a pressure cooker which might explode at any moment.

Nuclear strike by terrorists a matter of time: ElBaradei

AP , SYDNEY
 

The world is in a "race against time" to prevent nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists, the chief of the UN's nuclear watchdog said yesterday.

Mohamed ElBaradei said the world was not ready to deal with a nuclear or radiological attack by terrorists and must hurry to strengthen international nonproliferation measures to prevent such as possibility.

"We are in a race against time because it is something we were not prepared for," said ElBaradei, the director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. "We have to cross our fingers that nothing will happen."

Speaking on the sidelines of an international conference on nuclear security, ElBaradei welcomed a tentative deal struck at the weekend between three European powers and Iran aimed at suspending the country's nuclear enrichment and reprocessing programs.

He called the preliminary agreement brokered in Paris between Iran and France, Germany and Britain "a step in the right direction."

The US and European powers fear Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons -- although Tehran denies such claims, saying its nuclear program is for energy production.

Washington and Europe want Iran to halt all uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce fuel or weapons, and have warned they would seek UN Security Council sanctions if Tehran does not comply.

Months of intense diplomacy appeared close to bearing fruit with the announcement of the tentative agreement. The deal could be finalized in the next few days, chief Iranian negotiator Hossein Mousavian told Iranian television from Paris, where talks wrapped up Saturday.

"I would hope that this would lead to the desired outcome, which is Iran to suspend both its enrichment and reprocessing-related activities and open the way for normalization of Iran's relations with the international community starting with Europe," ElBaradei said.

In the agreement, Britain, Germany and France offered Tehran a trade deal and peaceful nuclear technology -- including a light-water research reactor -- if Iran pledges to indefinitely suspend uranium enrichment and all related activities, such as reprocessing uranium and building centrifuges used to enrich it.

Tehran suspended uranium enrichment last year but has refused to stop the related activities, saying its program is solely to produce fuel for nuclear power generation.

Powell's wake-up call

By Rao Kok-sia

US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statements upset Taiwan, for not recognizing it as a sovereign nation, a reaction more to the point than that from Singapore. At least three factors were not expressed publicly in official comments, or at least were not seen in overseas news.

First, Taiwan has not enjoyed human rights, nor freedom of speech, on the international stage for the past 60 years. These are what Taiwan has to insist on. Neither the KMT nor the DPP administrations have openly challenged China, the US and the whole world on these rights of Taiwan's people. These fundamental rights to seek her own happiness, freedom of speech and movement as a world citizen, which includes the right to referendum, self-determination for eventual independence (or joining other nations) and sovereignty. No nation of the civilized world can deny Taiwan that right.

Second, Taiwan did not realize that the US was acting according to its interests, mainly to make North Korea agree to come to the negotiating table. China is probably the only superpower that can do that. Although the Democrats' presidential candidate [Senator John Kerry] suggested there was no need for six-nation negotiations -- which probably originated from Powell -- this direction may be a dead end. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice traveled to China a few months ago and did not kowtow to Beijing. Powell probably was trying to salvage his credibility by taking this direction. China is playing the Taiwan card as well. As a result, Powell kowtowed to China with his statement on Oct. 28.

Third, Powell's statement was probably directed at China. This is what I think his message to China would have been, in parentheses: Taiwan is not independent (now -- he used the present tense), Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, (this is the opportunity China should grab and talk to Taiwan now, when there are strong pro-China factions in Taiwan, because there may be a chance for the reunification which you are looking for). What Powell did not say was that (you, China) may not have any hopes of reunification when Taiwan becomes independent and enjoys sovereignty as a nation.

Moreover, I believe pro-independence factions in Taiwan should thank Powell for bringing this wake-up call to Taiwan. It is not too late for Taiwan to act according to its own interests, with something of a two-handed diplomacy: One plays white-face and the other black-face.

Lastly, Taiwan should always be able to object to any Taiwan-bashing, even from a friend, by insisting on its human rights when facing China's pressure in any meeting.

Powell is right

By Alfred Tsai

US Secretary of State Colin Powell is correct when he states that "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation." Let me review the historical facts, state the issues, analyze and conclude.

After Japan surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945, General MacArthur, in his capacity as Supreme Commander Allied Powers, issued Directive No. 1, where he required the Japanese commanders in Formosa to surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek . Ever since September 1945, according to the US Federal Court case Cheng v. Rogers (177 F. Supp. 281), "the United States and the other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the island."

In the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Allied Powers, which came into force in 1952, of which neither the Republic of China (ROC) nor the People's Republic of China (PRC) is a party, Japan gives up all claims to Taiwan. But it did not cede Taiwan because among legal experts, there is a consensus that cession requires the stipulation of both donor and recipient. The court case says "neither this agreement nor any other agreement thereafter has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to China."

The same case goes on to say that "The situation is, then, one where the Allied Powers still have to come to some agreement or treaty with respect to the status of Formosa."

In diplomacy, there is a long-standing tradition that occupation does not transfer sovereignty. If a renter occupies a house for many years, he still does not get title. The house still belongs to the owner. Transfers of title or sovereignty must be done through written paper or treaty. Therefore, we must determine the status of the ROC and determine whether it has sovereignty.

The ROC acted under the orders of Supreme Commander Allied Powers and were acting on behalf of the Allied Powers when it came to Taiwan to effect the surrender of Japanese forces. In the Taiwan Relations Act, the ROC ceased to exist, the US began to call Taiwan Taiwan and began using the term "governing authority on Taiwan." The ROC came to Taiwan as an occupation force, and remains an occupational force today, regardless of whether it is called the ROC or the governing authority on Taiwan. To those who say that there has been a regime change in Taiwan, I urge them to read the ROC Constitution, and take a walk to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial and look at the flag that flies over it.

Even though the ROC might have come to Taiwan to claim it for itself, this fact is not recognized in the international arena and, to this day, there is no document granting sovereignty to the ROC. It has been said that sovereignty rests in the people of Taiwan. However, I feel that the people of Taiwan are comparable to renters who occupy a house, and sovereignty was never granted to them by Japan or the Allied Powers.

I am confident that Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty. But maybe it is not so bad. Taking into account that US courts consider foreign countries to be territory completely within the sovereignty of another state, maybe they will rule that for the purposes of import duties, Taiwan is not a foreign country and thus, imports to the US from Taiwan can enter duty free.

China is looking for a quid pro quo

By Sushil Seth

Taiwan is understandably upset by US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statement that it is not a sovereign country. He reportedly said in a TV interview, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." He has also said that, "We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome," urging them to work toward "peaceful reunification."

It might look as though Powell was simply elaborating America's "one China" policy. But in laying down its eventual outcome of "reunification," his statement is a bit over the top. There has reportedly been some clarification that his use of the terminology "peaceful reunification" should have been "peaceful resolution". But the damage is done, because it will encourage China's intransigence and bellicosity.

Ever since the US recognized communist China, Beijing's Taiwan policy has been two-fold. First, to keep up the pressure on the US to ditch Taiwan. Second, to threaten Taiwan militarily. Neither has worked so far.

Beijing had hoped that the then-developing "strategic partnership" between the US and China against a shared Soviet threat would give it important leverage to influence Washing-ton's Taiwan policy. But that didn't work. In any case, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the underlying rationale of the so-called strategic partnership disappeared. And the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 further complicated Sino-US relationship.

Even today, China's basic Taiwan strategy remains the same: To bring about Taiwan's unification with China, with the US as a facilitator of sorts; and, simultaneously, to keep up military pressure on Taiwan.

Of late China believes it has acquired some leverage in the matter by its cooperation with the US on global terrorism, and by being not difficult on Iraq. More importantly, Washington needs China's active help to put a lid on North Korea's nuclear program.

The US is not going anywhere much with North Korea on the nuclear question. China is believed to be the key to any kind of progress on the subject.

But what is in it for China? It obviously wants a quid pro quo. And that quid pro quo is Taiwan. Beijing is not happy that its help on a range of US strategic objectives is not appreciated and rewarded. It has let known its displeasure, even hinting that this is not a blank check.

Therefore, Washington has been under considerable pressure to "rein in" President Chen Shui-bian who, Beijing fears, is pushing ahead with his agenda of an independent Taiwan. If that were to happen, Beijing has threatened a military invasion of the country.

Overstretched as the US is in Iraq and on global terrorism, and worrying about the unpredictable North Koreans with their atomic toys, it is keen to avoid being sucked into another conflict. As a result, Taipei is required not to anger and provoke Beijing.

Powell's statement, therefore, is intended to assure Beijing, as he was making a quick visit through Japan, China and South Korea, that the US doesn't subscribe to the idea of an independent and sovereign Taiwan. However, it still favors its resolution through a peaceful dialogue. And it will continue to sell arms to Taiwan to defend itself against Chinese military build-up (attack) across the Taiwan Strait.

The problem with such half-baked initiatives is that they haven't mollified China, but left Taiwan in a state of confusion and unease. Since Washington seems to be the conduit for Taiwan, why bother responding to Taipei's peaceful initiatives? The need for the US is to build up Taiwan as an equal negotiating partner with Beijing, and not to undermine its position.

Beijing seems to believe that as the US gets deeper into the Iraqi quagmire, and North Korea continues to be difficult and unpredictable, its leverage with Washington will only increase. That may not be true. Considering that the US is determined not to allow any rival power to challenge its supremacy, it is unlikely to allow China to gobble up Taiwan.

As for Taiwan: Even though the US is a valued ally and protector, Taipei would need to develop its military self-reliance to make it difficult and costly for China to undertake any armed adventure. At home, its political and business elites would need to develop an agreed national strategy to face the threat from across the Strait.

At the level of the elected government, though, there is no ambiguity about Taiwan's sovereign status. Chen has reiterated that "the existence of [the] Republic of China is a fact and Taiwan is definitely an independent and sovereign country."