20041120

By Huang Tai-lin
STAFF REPORTER
President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday that Taiwan had alerted Japan about China's submarine intrusion into Japanese waters last week.

"We are very honored that Taiwan could, in advance, provide related information to Japan and the United States, to later further confirm," he said as he received Reijiro Hattori, the director of Japan's Interchange Association, at the Presidential Office.

The submarine briefly entered Japanese territorial waters last Wednesday off Okinawa without identifying itself.

Tokyo deployed reconnaissance aircraft and naval destroyers to shadow the submarine, which had spent about two hours inside Japanese waters before heading north.

Beijing initially refused to accept a protest or make an apology. On Tuesday, China apologized for the intrusion, citing technical mistakes.

"We believe Japan can feel the sense of threat from China just as Taiwan does," Chen said. "This shows Japan, the US and Taiwan share same interests in safeguarding the security of the Asia-Pacific region."

Chen told Hattori that he was delighted the the Japanese government was planning to relax its visa regulations on Taiwanese visitors for the 2005 World Exposition in Aichi, which begins March 25.

He said he hoped Japan would continue its less-restrictive visa policy even after the exposition ends. At present Japan only provides three-day landing visas to Taiwanese visitors.

Chen also received Kiwanis International president Case Van Kleef, who is in town to inspect the preparations for the Kiwanis International's 2006 Asia-Pacific conference to be held here.

Chen congratulated the Tai-wan chapter of Kiwanis International, which has changed its official title. The chapter was originally named the "Republic of China District of Kiwanis International." Last year it applied to change its title to "Taiwan District of Kiwanis International" and the Kiwanis International headquarters in the US gave its approval.

Chen told Kleef that the government will give all necessary assistance to the Taiwan Kiwanis chapter to help it organize the 2006 conference and added that he will attend the event as well.

This year is the 15th anniversary of the Czech people's overthrow of 41 years of communist rule. Taiwan has invited the internationally respected fighter for democracy and former president of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel for a six-day stay, which began yesterday. We are glad to welcome Havel, whose outstanding contributions to democracy have set an example. We would also like to ask what lessons the country can learn by looking at Havel's experiences.

All his life, Havel has opposed communism. He was sent to prison three times because he would not compromise with the dictators, with sentences ranging from one year to four-and-a-half years. During his time as president, he refused to issue visas to Alexandr Lukashenko, president of Belarus and Leonid Kuchma, president of Ukraine, to attend a NATO meeting in Prague to discuss the 9/11 terror attacks, saying that he did not welcome dictators who violated human rights. His uncompromising and consistent moral courage made him the only incumbent leader of an Eastern European country who, after the region's peaceful revolution, did not visit China. Ignoring Chinese intimidation and pressure, he courageously met with the Dalai Lama, former Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui and former vice president Lien Chan when they visited the Czech Republic.

On Nov. 17, the anniversary of the Czech Republic's "Velvet Revolution," the poet and writer Havel expressed his thoughts in a solemn and sincere article: "If democracy is emptied of values and reduced to a competition of political parties that have `guaranteed' solutions to everything, it can be quite undemocratic." He stressed that, "politics is not just a technology of power, but needs to have a moral dimension." He also called for us all to "ponder the meaning of moral behavior and free action."

There is no hiding the fact that although Taiwan has undergone three democratic presidential elections, party politics has still failed to stay completely on track. The main reason for this is that our political leaders do not have high principles or moral character. Havel's speech can serve as an example to us all. We must remind Taiwan's political parties, both large and small, that morality is the soul of a political party. We must not let lust for power make us stop at nothing to win, for then we lose our political principles. Neither should we speak or act carelessly, for otherwise we undermine our responsibility and harm the welfare of the people.

Ever since the March 20 election, the behavior of the opposition party has been disappointing. Since that time, how many opposition politicians have stood on Ketagalan Boulevard and made irresponsible and sensational statements to the media and the public?

Some have even sought to persuade the military to launch a "soft coup d'etat." After the elections most people in Taiwan actually hoped that the pan-blue camp could fulfill the role of a loyal opposition, and not simply oppose everything the government proposes -- thereby creating more conflict and confrontation in the legislature. But instead they have forgotten the moral responsibility that political parties and politicians owe to the people, the nation and society.

The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) also has room for improvement. It should have a more humble attitude in the face of criticism from the opposition. The DPP represents Taiwan's indigenous political forces, and its rule is supported by huge public expectations and sacrifice. It has a responsibility to protect Taiwan's current democratic achievements, and internal corruption or any malign tendency to compromise with China will therefore be unforgivable.

Havel's experience can serve as an example for both ruling party and opposition politicians to emulate. His example shows us that politicians must not set aside morality and responsibility, and this is a lesson that Taiwan's politicians, at this stage of the country's democratic development, sorely need to learn.

In a meeting of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Central Standing Committee, President Chen Shui-bian said that with regard to Taiwan's democratic system, people already rule their own house. But with regard to the deeper meaning and quality of democracy, Taiwan still has much to learn before it can set its house in order. He added that Taiwan still has to establish a society in which power and duty are complimentary, and in which freedom and responsibility coexist.

Chen's statements were a response to a discussion about the crisis of social trust in the government and how it is changing. He emphasized that the ethnic problems and social tensions that exist today are largely the result of past rule by an authoritarian government, and he correctly stated that we should adopt an open-minded and liberal mentality to heal these wounds.

After more than 40 years of political repression, it is true that Taiwanese society lacks an organic system of self-rule through which the community can communicate and resolve conflicts. This is why some intellectuals have in recent years sought to promote community building, social education through community colleges and the discussion of social issues in citizens' conferences.

After March 20, Taiwan was on the verge of splitting apart. Looked at in terms of the presidential election, this means that almost half of the nation's voters lack confidence in the incumbent government. Some probably have no faith in it whatsoever. There are many complex reasons for this lack of trust.

Some are dissatisfied with the political achievements of the DPP and some are dissatisfied with having been pushed from power. But it must be recognized that a large part of this distrust is due to ethnic issues, which take the form of a categorical rejection of the government. As this response is the product of both rational and emotional factors, it will be necessary for Taiwanese society to develop into a more healthy state before we can expect their resolution.

So, as Chen has said, Taiwanese have much to learn if they are to set their house with regard to the deeper meaning and quality of their democracy. Put another way, civic awareness has yet to be fully developed in Taiwan.

At this stage, the government will play an important role in determining whether a civil society can be established, especially given the large segment of the population that has little faith in its rule.

In dealing with people who oppose it for irrational reasons, today's government should not adopt the high standards of a fully developed society in which power and duty are complimentary, and in which freedom and responsibility coexist. By using the judiciary to deal with these opponents -- as it has done on more than one occasion recently -- it is doing just that.

In a fully developed democratic society with the rule of law, the judiciary should be the least controversial channel through which to deal with various conflicts in society. But in a society full of distrust, the law often serves only to intimidate, rather than being a means of finding a resolution.

Some members of the government today continue to use rumors and other tactics beyond the scope of the law to attack opponents. So do members of the opposition parties. These tactics go back to the days of the tangwai (outside the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT]) movement and the early days when the DPP was in opposition.

The response to such measures by the authoritarian government in those days was far more violent than it is today. But we must remember that ever since the Kaohsiung Incident, the country has been developing into a democracy and it regards authoritarianism with an increasing degree of antipathy.

During the authoritarian era, people put their faith in the radicals to right the injustices of the past -- the 228 Incident, the White Terror, the party-state -- and achieve everything the KMT was unable to achieve by creating a free and equal society with no distinctions of class or ethnicity. At that time, the radicals offended many powerful people, but they won the hearts of the common people. There are many who today stand with the opposition who, back in those days, were supporters and participants in the tangwai movement.

The situation is no longer the same, and many people no longer trust the leaders whom they trusted in the past.

If the government now uses the law to oppress its opponents, although it will be able to consolidate its support, it will also consolidate the forces of its opponents. This clear division of friend and enemy will have no benefit to society.

In this chaotic world, people must learn to be masters of their own house. That doesn't mean simply adopting the standards of normal societies, but it does mean leading the Taiwanese people toward achieving such a standard.

If the government wastes its energy engaging in lunchbox-throwing and making a big deal over the insignificant phraseology or actions of individuals, it will simply allow these emotions to keep on bubbling over.

Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.

By Wu Chan-liang吳展良
The nation's new history teaching materials outline draft is ready. As expected, it has led to yet another intense dispute. Amid these raging debates, we cannot help but wonder who has the right to decide how history will be written. The process behind this decision has been opaque, and the new outline was only made public just before it was about to be implemented. Mock "public hearings" will be held across the country before the decision is implemented by the end of the year. This is the typical behavior of an administration that decides everything -- a governing style that can rightly be called "neo-authoritarianism."

The authoritarian era is over. Political forces shouldn't force uniformity, but rather promote the free expression of differing opinions. The reason the new history outline has caused a huge controversy -- besides its questionable content -- is that the decision process was devoid of procedural justice.

History and geography teaching materials differ from teaching materials in the natural sciences because they directly involve the country's fundamental status as well as the understanding of major historical events. Taiwan's current situation is both difficult and complex, and it is only natural that different opinions should co-exist. If the government were to use political force to pass an outline coinciding with its version of history, a long and violent reaction is sure to follow.

Transitions of power are the norm in a democratic society. If today's opposition becomes tomorrow's government, wouldn't they also be able to draft teaching material favorable to their own preferences? Having teaching materials change as governments change would be disastrous for the next generation and the country as a whole.

The minister of education is a political appointee, and the members of the different editorial committees for teaching materials are all appointed by the Ministry of Education, which casts doubt on their impartiality. The way to resolve this is to return education to academia and educational experts. This would increase professionalism and reduce political intervention. One solution worth considering would be to set up a national educational commission for the humanities and the social sciences.

The nation's academic and educational organizations should elect people with outstanding professional achievements, and they should jointly define the material use in elementary, junior and senior-high schools. They would also handle various issues relating to the teaching and examination of the humanities and the social sciences. Questions of how the commission should be organized, how to make elections representative, and how it should operate are complex issues that should be cautiously regulated.

Many may wonder if an elected education commission would continue to cause social polarization and conflict, pushing the population further away from building consensus. But in a democratic society, we must learn to face polarization and conflict and build consensus through mutual understanding and tolerance.

If it is impossible to reach a consensus at this time, there is nothing to keep us from proposing different outlines and allowing teachers to choose which they want to teach and students which they want to study. National level examinations would have to accommodate these different versions in tolerance of society's fundamental diversity.

This may be a long and arduous process, but it is the only way to avoid coming under the thumb of authoritarianism and ideology, to realize democratic ideals and to mirror the complex and diverse history and social realities of our nation.

While reports filter out of North Korea that portraits of the country's leader, Kim Jong-il, have been removed from their honored spots, the official radio and news agency are dropping the honorific "Dear Leader" from their reports on Kim, according to Radiopress, a Japanese news agency that monitors North Korea's radio.

Analysts are debating whether Kim is losing his grip on power, or, more likely, quietly orchestrating the downsizing of his own personality cult. As the nation's propaganda chief in the 1970s, Kim paved his way to power by raising his father, Kim Il-sung, to demigod status as founder of the Communist state.

It took Western diplomats and aid workers in Pyongyang three months to realize that portraits removed for "restoration" at some state institutions were not being replaced.

On Wednesday, analysts pored over a dispatch of the official Korean Central News Agency, which began: "Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army Kim Jong-il, general secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and chairman of the DPRK National Defense Commission, inspected KPA unit 754."

"The North Korean leader is reportedly concerned his personality receives too much praise."

In an otherwise routine report on Kim's visit to an army unit, the absence of "Dear Leader" from the list of titles has raised eyebrows.

"The North Korean leader is reportedly concerned his personality receives too much praise," the Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported from Pyongyang.

Portraits have been taken down in homes and offices in three cities near the border with China, according to Douglas Shin, a Korean-American pastor who maintains an informal information network inside the North.

"Three weeks ago, officials received an order, `Do not exalt me too much, therefore take the picture down,'" Shin said Wednesday. "He is trying to lower his profile and play humble guy. There will be a barrage of human rights accusations, and with him being a human idol, a demigod, he wants to cover himself."

One month ago, President George W. Bush signed into law the North Korean Human Rights Act, which provides funding for refugees and for increased Korean-language radio broadcasting into North Korea.

Norbert Vollertsen, a German human rights advocate, read by telephone from Seoul Wednesday an e-mail from a foreign aid worker in Pyongang: "Since the beginning of August, there is removal of official portraits of Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang and all over the countryside in public places, but not everywhere."

In Washington, North Korea watchers said they believed that Kim's hold on power is secure.

"There are no indications of political problems within the regime that might be linked to this development," said Kenneth Quinones, a retired US diplomat who met Saturday with North Korea's envoy to the UN. "My guess is that Kim Jong-il may be setting the stage to name a successor. He does not want people to feel obligated to hang yet a third picture near his and his dad's."

After winning re-election, US President George W. Bush has started reshuffling his administration. Earlier this week, he nominated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to replace Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is held in high regard internationally but has proved incompatible with other team members due to his mild style. It is generally believed that, under Rice's leadership, the new decision-making team will reshuffle the State Department to eliminate opposition and carry out Bush's hawkish policies.

At the moment, Rice should review the State Department's China policy and handle multilateral relations in East Asia with caution. Moreover, she should adjust the methods employed by Powell, who has made excessive concessions to China over the past six months, and resume the global strategic arrangement adopted at the beginning of Bush's first term.

When Bush came to power in 2000, China was defined as a strategic competitor. Washington was aware that Beijing was developing its global military arrangements to control more important energy resources, seriously threatening the US' advantage in dominating the world's energy security. China also repeatedly tested the US' bottom line with its military actions. As a result, the Bush administration made cooperation with Japan the core of its East Asia policy, expanding the US-Japan Security Treaty to the protection of neighboring countries. This led to an improvement in Taiwan's position. In its early stages, this policy effectively maintained the balance in the East Asian region, so that Washington would not favor either side in the China-US-Japan and Taiwan-China-US relationships.

But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed the Bush administration's global strategic thinking. For the sake of US homeland security and in order to carry out a global terrorist hunt, the US worked hard to gain Beijing's support. This caused the US' East Asia strategy to gradually lose its footing, and Beijing's new leadership took advantage of the change to marginalize Taiwan's position in US policy.

While the Bush team was occupied with putting together a winning campaign this year, the State Department seemed to go its own way, frequently offering goodwill gestures to China and North Korea and even expressing opinions concerning the China-Taiwan relationship that went beyond the administration's bottom line by calling for peaceful cross-strait "unification" and saying that Taiwan was not a sovereign state.

Increased opposition to the arms procurement budget, the louder voices of pro-Beijing unification figures in Taiwan and the recent appearance of a Chinese submarine off the coast of Japan are disruptive to the regional stability which Bush sought to create when he first took office. Taiwan, Japan and other countries in the region have become concerned about the deteriorating state of stability.

An important goal for Bush in reshuffling his administration would be to resolve the long-standing battle between the State Department, White House and Pentagon. More importantly, Bush needs to redirect the US' policy in Asia, where it seems to have lost its direction to such an extent that it was hurting its allies in order to make goodwill gestures to its strategic competitor.

The main forum for the US to re-establish order in East Asia will be on the sidelines of the APEC summit, where Bush will have the opportunity of speaking individually with many Asian leaders. We hope that Bush will make the best use of this opportunity to warn its competitor while re-emphasizing its commitments to allies like Japan and Taiwan.

UNDIPLOMATIC POSE: Representatives of both Beijing and Taipei took part in Wednesday's meeting, but they didn't interact with one another
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER IN SANTIAGO , CHILE

Beijing snubbed Taiwan during Wednesday's APEC ministerial meeting in Santiago.

"Taiwan cannot be called a country. It's an economy," China's Assistant Foreign Minister Shen Guofang told reporters after the first day of the two-day APEC ministerial meeting.

"It may be possible that both economies sit down and talk about issues not concerning sovereignty, but so far there isn't any arrangement for such bilateral talks about anything," he said.

Shen and Deputy Commerce Minister Yi Xiaozhun, are Beijing's representatives to the ministerial meeting, in the absence of Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Commerce Minister Bo Xilai, who were supposed to attend.

Li and Bo were expected to arrive in Santiago yesterday along with with other senior economic officials.

Both Beijing and Taipei's delegates attended Wednesday's meeting, but they didn't interact with one another.

This was the second year in a row without any bilateral talks during the APEC ministerial meeting.

Beijing turned down Taiwan's invitation last year to talk under the APEC framework following President Chen Shui-bian's announcement to push for a new constitution.

During the 2002 ministerial meeting, China's Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Shi Guangsheng met with his counterpart, Minister of Economic Affairs Lin Yi-fu . Shi even invited Taiwan to sit down and talk on a variety of subjects, including direct transportation links.

Commenting on Shen's remarks, Huang Chih-peng , director-general of the Bureau of Foreign Trade and a delegation member, said that he believed every APEC member economy, including China, upholds the group's principles to work toward the common goal of trade facilitation and liberation, outlined in the Bogor Goals of 1994.

"We're more than happy to talk with member economies, formally or informally," he said.

"Our philosophy is simple. We'd like to make more friends and build more effective economy and trade relationships under the APEC framework," Huang said.

"Developing better economy and trade relations means making more friends," he said.

Huang said Taiwan doesn't refuse or exclude any opportunity to make friends with member economies, including China.

"As of today we have had bilateral talks with this year's host country, Chile, and next year's host, South Korea. We'd be very happy to talk with other interested economies," he said.

About eight countries have expressed interest in conducting bilateral talks, including Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and New Zealand.

When asked by reporters why he did not mention bilateral talks with Canada, Huang said that he had not asked for permission from his Canadian counterpart to make those discussions public.

"Like a meeting between two friends, it's impolite to tell a third person if you don't have consent from other person," he said.

Asked about speculation that China had played a role in surpressing news of the Taiwan-Canada talks, Huang refused to comment.