20041223

CNA , Taipei
It was rude and unfair for Grenadian Prime Minister Keith Mitchell to accuse Taiwan of not taking its diplomatic relations with the Caribbean nation seriously, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official said yesterday.

Ministry spokesman Michel Lu made the statement in response to reports that Mitchell had hinted Grenada would switch its recognition from Taipei to Beijing following his trip to China last week.

Mitchell reportedly said relations between Taiwan and Grenada have worsened since President Chen Shui-bian took office in 2000 and that "it is clear that Grenada is no longer important to Taiwan."

Mitchell also disclosed that Beijing had promised to provide a large amount of funding to finance a number of development projects in Grenada.

Dismissing Mitchell's remarks, Lu said bilateral cooperation projects between Taiwan and Grenada have never ceased since the two countries established diplomatic ties 15 years ago.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen even visited Grenada in September to show Taiwan's concern for the damage done by Hurricane Ivan, and Taiwan has offered US$4 million as relief aid for Grenada in the aftermath of the disaster, Lu pointed out.

Lu said Mitchell may think he is being clever trying to play Taiwan and China off against each other, but Lu stressed that Taiwan will never engage in "dollar diplomacy" games with China. Lu said Taiwan is prepared for the worst-as far as its diplomatic relations with Grenada are concerned.

GAS BOMBER: After a request by prosecutors, the accused man will be summoned to a new hearing, where judges will review an earlier decision to release him on bail
By Jimmy Chuang STAFF REPORTER
Judges will reconsider whether they should grant a prosecutors' request to detain accused gas bomber Kao Pao-chung on Dec. 30, the Taipei District Court announced yesterday.

"The re-hearing will be held at 9am on Dec. 30. Kao will be summoned as well," said Huang Jiunn-ming , spokesman for the Taipei District Court.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure , if Kao fails to show up for the hearing three times, the court will approve an arrest warrant. If attempts to arrest him fail another three times, Kao will then by designated as "wanted."

"Kao was banned from traveling outside the country and his whereabouts have been under police control ever since he was released on bail," Huang said.

The Taipei District Court was asked to hear the prosecutors' request to detain Kao on Tuesday night after the high court granted a prosecutors' appeal of the district court's bail order on Dec. 18.

Members of the Taiwan Independence Party yesterday place gas cans outside the Judicial Yuan during a protest against a decision to release the accused gas bomber on bail. They said that the decision could pose a substantial threat to public safety and also advocated a direct election of the president of the Judicial Yuan. PHOTO: LIU SHIN-DER, TAIPEI TIMESN

"We decided to grant the prosecutors' appeal and ask the district court to reconsider the detention request because Kao's behavior had jeopardized public safety and he did destroy pieces of crucial evidence of the case, such as the hat, clothes and surgical mask that he wore during the crime," said Wen Yau-yuan , spokesman for the Taiwan High Court.

Although the high court and district court have decided to reconsider the prosecutors' detention request, Democratic Progressive Party Lawmakers Lin Chung-mo , Tsai Chi-fang and Hou Shui-sheng meanwhile visited Judicial Yuan Secretary-General Fan Kuang-chun to protest the earlier bail order.

Lin, Tsai and Hou had a closed-door meeting with Fan, while Lin, before he went into the meeting, again told reporters that he was very disappointed over the district court's decision to release Kao on bail.

"From Hsueh Chiu to Kao, judges always release these guys on bail again and again before they've given it serious thought. This is dangerous and I hope that it will not happen again," Lin said.

Kao, the 46-year-old unemployed defendant, was identified and arrested on Dec. 17 and is accused of being involved in a gas explosion that was set off in a minivan at an outdoor parking lot next to Taipei Railway Station on Dec. 9.

The minivan had been loaded with 11 20kg gas tanks and exploded around noon on Dec. 9. The explosion did not injure anyone, but it destroyed two vehicles parked next to it.

Video footage of Kao was captured on a local security surveillance system and he was soon identified by police through a fingerprint match. He immediately admitted to the crime after being arrested at his Taichung residence on Dec. 17.

The case involving Hsueh, a notorious kidnapper, also sparked disputes between prosecutors and judges. He was arrested by Miaoli police on March 21, 2000, but Miaoli District Court released him on NT$200,000 bail on the same day.

On behalf of the country's prosecutors, Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan has more than once complained about the judges' bail decision over this issue.

DIPLOMACY: DPP officials said there was no need to `overinterpret' recent remarks by the US official, while KMT members saw a more serious message
CNA , TAIPEI
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was yesterday seeking clarification of remarks made by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that Taiwan was "probably the biggest landmine" in US-China relations.

DPP Legislator Lee Chun-yi said that Armitage's remarks related to both Taiwan and China, but that the DPP was attempting to seek further information on the comments.

Saying there was no need for "overinterpretation" of the remarks, Lee said that Armitage was merely pointing to the sensitive nature of relations between the US, China and Taiwan, and that he was opposed to either side of the Taiwan Strait changing the status quo.

DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang said that Armitage's remarks would not affect the good relations between the US and Taiwan.

Tsai also urged the pan-blue camp not to boycott a NT$610.8 billion (US$18.2 million) special budget submitted by the Executive Yuan so that Taiwan could display its determination to defend itself.

The purchase from the US includes eight diesel-electric submarines, a squadron of 12 P-3C anti-submarine aircraft and six Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile batteries.

Meanwhile, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng yesterday said that the government should squarely address remarks made by Armitage and adjust its cross-strait policy.

Wang said that Armitage is well-informed and a major policymaker in the US. He said the government had to address his remarks seriously and adjust exchanges with China to move cross-strait relations along a more peaceful and stable course.

Wang also said the US is obliged under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to provide Taiwan with weapons sufficient for its defense to deter military action, but that there was a difference between "deter" and "defend."

He urged the government to review its understanding of the TRA and adjust cross-strait and defense policy based on the review.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Huang Teh-fu described Armitage's remarks as "serious."

Huang said that President Chen Shui-bian's recent campaign to change of the names of the nation's overseas missions and state-owned enterprises and hold a referendum on a new constitution was considered by the US to be "crossing the line."

Huang urged Chen not to pursue personal interests that would push the nation to the brink of war.

According to KMT Legislator John Chang , Armitage's remarks sent a strong warning to Taiwan.

Chang said that Armitage's words came in the wake of Chen's promotion of the name changes and a new constitution.

He said that the US had earlier adopted an ambiguous attitude toward cross-strait relations, but was now being compelled to clearly state its policy, which he said was not in Taiwan's favor.

The US' stance on cross-strait relations has not changed, the foreign ministry reiterated yesterday following recent reports on remarks that outgoing US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage made during a television interview.

According to a transcript of a Public Broadcasting Service interview, Armitage said that the US was not bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. He also responded to an interview question that asked him where the "landmines" in China's rise were by indicating that Taiwan was "probably the biggest."

The interview had actually aired on Dec 10, but local media did not pick up on it until Tuesday, when the Central News Agency filed a story on Armitage's remarks.

Dismissing speculation that the remarks indicated strained ties with the US, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen said yesterday that Armitage had simply pointed out the basic idea underlying the Taiwan Relations Act.

After confirming it with the US, the ministry had been assured that the remarks did not indicate any shift in the US stance on ties with Taiwan, he said.

Chen further responded to Armitage's remarks that a decision on whether the US would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack was a "question that actually reside[d] with the US Congress, who has to declare an act of war."

"This policy is not new? Even when the president initiates the introduction of troops first, the decision must clear congress within 90 days," Chen said.

Calling Taiwan a "landmine" in China's rise was not wording that Armitage had initiated, Chen added, pointing out that the remark had been in response to a question.

Asked whether Armitage's remarks could be interpreted as an indication that the legislature should pass the arms procurement budget in a timely manner, Chen said that he did not know, but added that the US had assured the ministry there was no change in its stance.

US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in an interview on Tuesday that a declaration of war in defense of Taiwan is a decision that can only be made by Congress. All Armitage's remarks imply is that the US is a country in which the rule of law is practiced -- really nothing new. His remark about Taiwan being a landmine was more controversial. What he likely meant is that the Taiwan issue is so thorny that it might lead to friction between the US and China, and could become explosive if not carefully handled. This is hardly new either. If this is not what he meant, hopefully he can clarify his meaning more fully to prevent a misunderstanding.

The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) immediate reaction to Armitage's remarks was to speak for the US by interpreting them as a warning that the US would be unlikely to commit forces in the event of war. The KMT's behavior is incomprehensible; on the one hand it says the US will not defend Taiwan, yet on the other, it blocked the military procurement budget that Taiwan needs to defend itself. Such behavior indicates the KMT is deliberately retarding Taiwan's military strength.

Ever since the KMT lost the 2000 presidential election, the party has spoken for other countries as if it were a political prophet. It spoke for China and claimed that Beijing was likely to attack, and spoke for the US, saying that Washington was unlikely to send its troops to assist Taiwan in the event of war. Of course, we understand that the KMT has no cards to play anymore.

On the other hand, Taiwan has maintained its national competitiveness since the DPP came to power, and since the beginning of the year, the economy has also made a comeback. Ironically, the only problem domestically is that the legislature may continue to stagnate after the blue camp won a majority in the legislative elections.

While hampering the government, the KMT is also acting as Beijing's mouthpiece, manipulating the public by fostering fears of war. How can the people of Taiwan tolerate this party which has degenerated from a powerful authoritarian organization into a group of craven weasels, who can do no more than hamper the work of government?

Unless the KMT becomes a normal political party, Taiwan will find it impossible to become a normal country under the combined assaults from it and China, and the US hope that Taiwan will increase its self-defense capability will not be realized.

The worst-case scenario is that the KMT will succeed in unilaterally disarming Taiwan, so that when the massive Chinese military makes its move, the US will face a dilemma as to how to respond militarily. If it mobilizes its forces, the cost is likely to be high; but if it doesn't, it will witness Taiwan being swallowed up by a totalitarian beast. Is this what the US really wants?

If it isn't, then the US, in formulating its policy to aid the defense of Taiwan, must also consider the KMT's "China complex," and avoid allowing it to become a weak link in the defense of the Taiwan Strait.

It is encouraging that military officers will now be posted at the American Institute in Taiwan, and that a security mechanism for the Taiwan Strait has been activated. The US Congress should also amend the Taiwan Relations Act to make it more consistent with the spirit and condition of the times, and block any rash actions by China to annex Taiwan.

The activities of some hometown friends of the alleged rice bomber Yang Ju-men and a number of social activist groups over the past few days have caused concern.

The local community university is setting Yang up as a hero fighting for farmers' rights, adding him to the curriculum and calling for thousands to take to the streets in his support.

But it does not matter how exulted the motivations behind Yang's alleged actions are, nor how good a person he is. Endangering people's lives by planting bombs is a crime.

His character and his actions should not be confused. Yang's friends have even glamorized the bombs by describing them as harmless devices intended to send a message about farmers' rights to the government.

If we accept motivation as a means of justifying criminal acts, then a time bomb set to destroy Taiwan's public safety has already started ticking.

If we agree that seeking to overturn the government is acceptable, then the peace and security that Taiwan currently enjoys will be utterly destroyed.

If we take motivation as the starting point of our argument, then, looked at dispassionately, how different is Yang from Osama bin Laden? Yang allegedly made bombs and placed them in crowded public places as a means of expressing his dissatisfaction with the government's agricultural policy, and to force the policymakers' hand.

Bin Laden claims that his use of terrorism is motivated by a fight for the rights of his compatriots, and that he is willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent people because it is the only way of directly threatening a superpower like the US.

Both deny that they act in their own interest, but there is no denying that the nature of their terrorist acts is criminal.

Yang has an American precursor in his use of bombs as a means of expressing his dissatisfaction: Timothy McVeigh, whose Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, was said to have been an act of vengeance for those killed in the 51-day standoff between US law enforcement agencies and members of the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993.

If the tireless efforts of the police had not brought the alleged terrorist activities of Yang to an end, can we be sure that these efforts would have stopped at harmless explosions doing nothing more than sending a message to the government?

Although the "rice bomber" attacks did not harm anyone, the burden they placed on law enforcement agencies for more than a year has indirectly contributed to the suffering of victims from other crimes.

It is difficult for people outside the law enforcement field to understand the enormous resources that were devoted to investigating the rice bomber's 17 attacks.

As most of the bombs were placed in locations with considerable human traffic, such as railway stations and parks, the police were required to increase patrols to look for explosive devices.

For example, when the Democratic Progressive Party organized a huge rally in Taipei's Da-an Forest Park in the run-up to the legislative elections, hundreds of police officers had to be deployed the day before the event to inspect the area for explosive devices, including the thousands of cars parked in the parking lot.

On the day of the rally, police were stationed all around the grounds -- and all because Yang was still at large.

The manpower required for all this was taken off the streets of Taipei, where there were fewer patrols and fewer people working on criminal investigations. The people of Taipei had to pay the price.

Although Yang will not be planting any more bombs, media coverage of the event is likely to lead to copycat crimes, so the real bomb threat has only just begun.

In a democratic Taiwan, we have the right to hold different opinions, and the right to express these opinions should be protected.

But when the expression of these opinions violates public safety, we cannot stand by as people are misled by muddled thinking on this issue.

Sandy Yeh is the director of Continuing Education and Training Center at Central Police University.