Who care of North Korean on Dec25, 2004

Japan irate over North Korean lies

`STRONG PROTEST': The Japanese public is getting increasingly angry over the dictatorship's faking the remains of Japanese hostages it kidnapped
AFP , TOKYO
Japan will make a "strong protest" to North Korea after the communist state fabricated all its evidence about the fate of Japanese whom it kidnapped during the Cold War, victims' relatives said yesterday.

Government officials met family members of the Japanese kidnapped by North Korean agents amid growing public anger and calls for economic sanctions against Kim Jong-il's regime.

The officials said a government examination, initial findings of which were announced earlier this month, concluded that human remains which North Korea gave a visiting Japanese mission last month did not match the abduction victims.

"All the evidence was complete fabrication," one of the government officials said at the closed meeting, according to a relative.

"We cannot accept that," the official was quoted as saying. "The re-examination ordered by Secretary-General Kim lacked sincerity. We will make a strong protest."

The official said that Japan would deliver the results of its final study of the remains to the North Korean embassy in Beijing.

The evidence offered by North Korea included ashes said to be those of Megumi Yokota, who was 13 when she was whisked away in 1977 by North Korean agents who kidnapped Japanese people to train spies.

Japanese forensic experts have already said DNA tests proved the ashes are not those of Yokota, whose case has attracted great public sympathy.

North Korea has insisted the remains are genuine. Its official media said Thursday that Yokota's North Korean husband is requesting the return of the ashes in their original state.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda, the Japanese government spokesman, on yesterday rejected any thought of returning the remains.

"We are not thinking about [that]," he told reporters.

The controversy has led lawmakers to demand economic sanctions against cash-strapped but heavily armed North Korea.

But Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has said such measures would be a last resort against the unpredictable neighbor, which fired a missile over Japan in 1998.

In 2002, Kim for the first time admitted that North Korea had kidnapped Japanese people and allowed five of them to come home, a move which led to aid from Japan and cleared the way for talks on normalizing relations.

But Japan believes at least 10 more abduction victims are alive and being kept under wraps, possibly because they know secrets about the isolated Stalinist state.

North Korea says eight of them are dead and the two others never entered its territory.

The kidnapping issue has dogged relations between North Korea and Japan as they take part in six-nation talks on curbing Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

The US, South Korea and China have all expressed caution about imposing sanctions against North Korea, fearing such a move would deal a blow to the nuclear talks.

Official advises gradual constitutional reforms

SLOW BUT STEADY: Reviewing the nation's options for reforming the Constitution, a Cabinet official said re-engineering in stages was preferable 

The nation's top official in charge of research and evaluation said yesterday that Taiwan should rethink the logic of interaction between the administration system and the legislative power hierarchy and overhaul important basic national policies while re-engineering the Constitution.

Yeh Jiunn-rong, chairman of the Cabinet-level Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, said that human rights protection and basic national policies on the country's economic future, as well as social and cultural development, should also be included when the nation is talking about constitutional re-engineering.

Yeh, an academic-turned-official, made the call during a speech to the regular Sun Yat-sen monthly meeting held at the Presidential Office.

Yeh said the notion of Taiwan's constitutional re-engineering is by no means an isolated case in the world. Instead, he said, the nation's constitutional reform is an important section in the development of what he described as "global constitutionalism."

Yeh said that changes in the constitutions of various countries have been diverse but can be roughly divided into four modes -- a total rewriting of the Constitution, a large-scale revision, gradual re-engineering implemented in different stages and step-by-step rewriting.

In Taiwan's case, the third mode would be the best option, according to Yeh.

He claimed that it is "old-fashioned" to think that a country should hold a nationwide referendum only when it is writing a new constitution, Yeh said, adding that the new global trend toward constitutional reform has had many breakthroughs. For example, he said, some countries have held referendums even for simple constitutional reforms. Some countries, such as Hungary, have changed their national designation via constitutional reform, he added.

It is "pitiful" that Taiwan has ignored some aspects of the constitutional reform trend when it conducted constitutional reforms during the 1990s, aspects that include procedures, participation by the people, human rights protection and constitutional governance, Yeh argued.

He said that President Chen Shui-bian has planned to see the rebirth of a new constitution by 2006, paving the way for its implementation in 2008, the year his term concludes.

Yeh, who was vice president of the National Taiwan University Institute of Law before being appointed a Cabinet official, said that Taiwan's forthcoming "new constitutional movement" should at least have three "new" characteristics -- a new timeframe, a new procedure and a new arena.

Taking the "new procedure" as an example, Yeh said it should be a procedure during which moves to strengthen democracy are adopted, including large-scale public debates, civic meetings and education for the general public. The government can also set up an exclusive constitutional reform Web site to gauge public opinion.

He said Taiwan needs a constitution that is conducive to deepening democracy, fostering efficiency and consolidating its national identity.

Mark Chen says US opposes China bill

THREAT TO STABILITY: The foreign minister said the US was opposed to Beijing's draft law, which aims to stop Taiwan from declaring independence
By Melody Chen  STAFF REPORTER
The US considers China's proposed anti-secession law to be a threat to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen said yesterday.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will start a four-day discussion of the law today, Chen told reporters at a tea party. He added that the last thing the US wanted to see now was a conflict between Taiwan and China.

If China insisted on enacting the law, "the people of Taiwan will definitely react to it and tensions will rise," Chen said.

After recent communication with Washington concerning the anti-secession law, Chen said he could say with "firm assurance" that the US sees the law as "a move to change the status quo."

"The US doesn't welcome the law. If Washington continues with its current stance over the law, it will apply pressure on China," he said.

Chen said that China chose this time to introduce the anti-secession bill because it knew the US needed its help in Iraq and North Korea.

"Beijing could have issued the proposal much earlier, but it kept delaying announcement of this until now. It is very careful in handling the issue," Chen said.

"The US doesn't want problems in the Taiwan Strait, but China deliberately brought up the bill now to force Washington to pay attention to the Taiwan problem," he said.

Chen said the US and China "use each other" to solve problems that concern them most.

Playing down recent comments by US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that Taiwan is one of the biggest landmines in China-US relations, Chen said that based on information received from US officials he was sure that the Washington's Taiwan policy had not changed.

Chen said that what he desired most for Taiwan-US relations were the direct communication channels which senior Chinese and US officials enjoy.

The nation has suffered a lot because it cannot explain many issues to Washington directly, Chen said.

"Some visiting US academics once asked me what I want most in our relations with the US. I told them I want a `hotline' between the two sides," Chen said.

Poll shows Taiwanese are unhappy about bill: MAC

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER 

Taiwanese overwhelmingly oppose China's proposed anti-secession law, a draft of which will be reviewed by China's highest legislative organ today, according to a new poll conducted by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC).

"These figures indicate beyond a doubt that the majority of people in Taiwan support maintaining the status quo," MAC Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) said yesterday.

The survey showed 73 percent of respondents opposed the anti-secession bill as a means of bringing about unification, while 83 percent found the bill unacceptable because it "provided a legal basis for a military attack on Taiwan."

Chiu said that after the idea of anti-secession legislation was introduced, there had been a significant increase in the percentage of people who found that Beijing did not harbor good will toward Taiwan. The latest survey found 79.4 percent of respondents did not think that China's overtures towards Taiwan could be interpreted as friendly, up 9 percent from just five months ago.

Chinese authorities revealed on Friday last week that the bill would be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) for deliberation today. If the bill clears the committee, it is possible that the law will be enacted as early as March when the NPC convenes.

Chiu said the progress of the bill represented a departure from common legislative practice, saying it had been proposed not by the executive branch of the Chinese government but by the NPC.

He said that the different legislative route made it more difficult for the MAC to obtain details on the bill, but he declined to elaborate on why the bill had been initiated by the legislative branch.

Chiu also spoke on the legal complexities which the proposed law posed in jurisdictional terms.

"What is clear right now is that China does not exercise actual jurisdiction over Taiwan," Chiu said, adding that the law assumed the unification of Taiwan with China.

"If the law is to be imposed on the geographic region of Taiwan, then an American in Taiwan who supports [an independent] Republic of China could be indicted based on this bill ... After all, Americans who commit crimes in Taiwan can be tried," Chiu said.

"There is no doubt that the bill will change cross-strait relations if enacted," Chiu said yesterday, without elaborating on how the government planned to respond.

Chiu said the government was unwilling to introduce countermeasures until such time as the exact wording of the bill was made available.

The telephone poll was conducted from last Monday.

Taiwan's national identity is split in two

By Chen Yi-shen

None of the political parties won more than half of the seats in the recent legislative elections. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), led by President Chen Shui-bian, will remain the largest party, it may well dominate the formation of the new cabinet. This is not only constitutional but also frequently seen in foreign countries.

For the sake of policy implementation and political stability, since the DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) do not enjoy a majority, it is a rational option for the two parties to form a cabinet with either the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the People First Party (PFP).

In most multi-party countries, a "minimal winning coalition" government is usually considered reasonable. Such a coalition only needs partners to give it the smallest margin, keeping its obligations to a minimum. However, for a country that faces a crisis, a coalition government formed by all major parties is often adopted to resolve the crisis together.

Although Taiwan's situation is abnormal, it does not face any immediate crisis at the moment. The problem is that Taiwan has a split national identity and a serious lack of trust between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. Consequently, many people are pessimistic about the possibility of a coalition government formed by the two camps.

The DPP proposed "a great reconciliation era, a grand coalition government" in an attempt to win the legislative speakership by cooperating with other opposition legislators during the so-called "February political reform" in early 1996.

The problem was that the campaign for Taiwan's first direct presidential election was taking place at the time, and the support ratings for the DPP's Peng Ming-min and his running mate Frank Hsieh were far behind those for the former president Lee Teng-hui  and then vice president Lien Chan . By calling for cooperation and reconciliation at the crucial moment, won't the DPP be misunderstood as begging the KMT for government posts? Wouldn't this interfere with the campaign focus of the Peng-Hsieh ticket?

The DPP cooperated with the New Party at that time simply to help former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh  win the speakership. Such cooperation would have trampled the meaning of a reconciliation. Therefore, other campaign staff and I opposed the DPP headquarters' strategy of giving up the presidential election for the legislative speakership. We were even labeled as "Hoklo chauvinists" who opposed the reconciliation later. What a misunderstanding!

Today, no party enjoys an overwhelming majority. Since the DPP came to power, it's more rational for the party to call for reconciliation compared to its move in 1996. Now, PFP Chairman James Soong's worry that the DPP will push for immediate independence and a new constitution doesn't exist at all.

Either a minimal winning or a grand coalition government is a possible direction that deserves consideration. During the decision-making process, the DPP should discuss this with the TSU in order to draw their bottom line for certain personnel appointments and policies. Finally, if the pan-blue camp really ignores reality and names its price recklessly, the DPP will win the public's support even if it forms a cabinet by itself.

The ideal situation would have been for the pan-green camp to win the majority of seats this time, and accomplish the construction of the public's "Taiwan consciousness" step by step. But since the Taiwanese people are not ready for this, we should let the DPP have a greater space to maneuver while saving our judgment for later.

Who lost Taiwan?

By Ming-Chung Chen

Years from now, we will be pondering the question, "Who lost Taiwan?" Why, in 2004, didn't the Taiwanese vote for the pan-greens, and why did Taiwan not want to beef up its defense, but instead sit and wait for Communist China to deteriorate?

Why did Taiwan not give itself a chance to stand up to Communist China, but allow it to hunt down Taiwan in the international arena and cross the Strait with psychological deception and military warfare?

Why did it not build strong defenses and watch China take the road to self-destruction as a result of the clash of ideologies between old imperialism and modern human freedom; a clash of justice and technological, cultural and humanitarian differences between bankrupt Chinese-style communism and democracy?

We will ask why Taiwan did not build itself up militarily and psychologically, and educate young people about their inalienable rights to self-determination, self-protection and an identity of their own choosing, backed up by modern military technology to see it through.

But, by then, it will all be too late.

The People's Republic of China, fueled by its desire to annex Taiwan, will have been able to put off discontent at home, riding on the euphoria of nationalism after the Olympic Games and with a new status as the menace of the East, holding South Korea and Japan by their throats [through manipulation] of their trade lifeline.

With their "friends" and strategic partners like North Korea, as well as hard-line Islamists, could Europe and America be far behind?

The answer to the question "Who lost Taiwan?" would be quite simple. Because the Taiwanese had the freedom to choose, despite all the deception and intimidation, it will have been the Taiwanese who lost Taiwan. And the free world who helped them.

With foresight like this, what should Taiwanese do differently, if they were given a second chance?

Beware of the Chinese bearing gifts

By Lin Cho-shui

China's inability to achieve unification with Taiwan is a problem of practical politics, but whether it invades Taiwan or not will be decided by the international situation, its strength and its determination. It certainly is not a legal problem.

For this reason, I have often derided Beijing's flimflam over the "unification law," because people in Taiwan simply do not need to get tangled up in all of this nonsense.

It was something of a surprise to see Beijing giving its "unification law" a makeover and turning it into an "anti-secession law," which they want to pass before the end of the month, so that they can give the people of Taiwan a great, big Christmas present.

The fact that people in both the government and the opposition have reacted in such a hysterical way has been very frustrating for me.

The anti-session law gives rise to a host of practical and jurisprudential problems, and is really no different from the "unification law."

The first problem arises with the stated purpose of the law. The definition of "secession" is a thorny problem, for if the current situation is one of secession, then China would have to declare war as soon as the law is passed, but if a state of secession does not exist, then the idea of unification is meaningless.

`An "anti-secession law" is more probably a threatening tactic, seeing that talk of such laws has proved so effective in generating a hysterical response in Taiwan's government and opposition parties.'

So, is Beijing prepared to ignore the whole issue of de facto independence and deal only with de jure independence (which China eccentricly defines in terms of constitutional re-engineering, or any change to the national title or national flag)? Is it now willing to take a more balanced view over its claims that Taiwan is a secessionist state, while accepting current political reality?

This is the only way that makes sense of the law -- but it doesn't seem that Beijing is capable of such a sharp turnaround at this time.

And, if Taiwan is not regarded as a secessionist territory, then how will Beijing be able to deal with demands for independence by Xinjiang and Tibet?

By making this law, China is only making difficulties for itself. In fact, Beijing has not shown much interest in the "unification law" for some time, but this sudden move to create an "anti-secession law," while thought by some to be a move against hawks in Taiwan's government, is more probably a threatening tactic, seeing that talk of such laws has proved so effective in generating a hysterical response in Taiwan's government and opposition parties.

Taiwan has proved remarkably cooperative in letting China use this method to exert pressure, and by sensationalizing the reports, it simply adds weight to China's words.

The US gladly passed on the news that China was in the process of drafting an "anti-secession law." It also stated that it was an excellent opportunity to scold China for being a "naughty child" for upsetting the status quo -- and we all know how much the US hates any change to the status quo -- and they made a great deal of the matter.

But by letting the issue play out in this way, Taipei has fallen completely into Beijing's trap. First, the reason that China told the US was to exert pressure on it, and the reason the US passed this information on to Taiwan was also to exert pressure. It beggars belief that Taiwan still actually believes that the US is working for Taiwan's benefit.

Second, even if the US believes that China is being naughty for proposing an anti-secession law, the US will also put the blame on the cause of the naughty child's temper tantrum, namely Taiwan.

Finally, though Taiwan's intention is that the US can take care of China for it, the US will use both the carrot and the stick, and it is certain that it is Taiwan and not the US that pays for the carrot. The more serious the problem, the higher the price that Taiwan will pay.

Taiwan believes that opposing the "anti-secession law" is a legal battle, and that China aims to find legal grounds for an invasion of Taiwan. But the root of this legal battle has nothing to do with finding an excuse for invasion. What China aims to do through the use of legislation and government policy is to "de-nationalize" Taiwan. An example of this process is its regulations forbidding the use of the words "Made in ROC" on exports from Taiwan.

China is only feigning this "legal grounds for war" to hide its real goal -- to undermine Taiwan's existence as a nation.

The "anti-secession law" aims to destroy Taiwan's de jure independence, and this is something we should be very concerned about, for in the instance of the ban on the words "Made in ROC," we can see that Beijing's ambitions are not limited to forbidding constitutional re-engineering and changes to the national title and territories.

Because the political establishment in Taiwan does not understand the real situation and are also adept at tripping themselves up with their own "clever" maneuvering, Beijing is able to win substantial advances by playing up illusory issues, and Taiwan loses ground time after time.

The "anti-secession law" has been talked into reality and now Taiwan does not have much choice but to oppose it. But what they oppose should not be the illusory "legal grounds for invasion," but the real danger of Taiwan losing its status as a nation. Taiwan should oppose the strategies giving rise to obstacles in future negotiations and cause it to be blamed whatever it does in relation to cross-straits tensions with a spirit of goodwill and an insistence on human rights.

But to speak frankly, it seems clear that Taiwan in its response has completely fallen into China's trap of engaging in a legal battle, and it is still more of a pity that this trap was largely dug by the efforts of our own government and members of the opposition. It is absurd that Taiwan should come up with "strategies" that only serve to frighten itself.

Editorial: Give the gift of a new constitution

Today is Constitution Day, which celebrates the promulgation of the ROC Constitution . The Constitution is full of fine-sounding rhetoric, but what ensued was a civil war with the communists and relocation to Taiwan in 1949. The Constitution was set aside and replaced by the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion . This Constitution was enacted in China, and catered to a land with a massive population and vast territory -- unsuitable for the areas and people under the jurisdiction of Taiwan. It has been amended six times since 1990.

President Chen Shui-bian has pledged not to declare independence, change the national flag or title, constitutionalize the special state-to-state policy or hold a referendum on unification or independence to change the status quo. He will not change the symbols of the nation; instead he will only change the government system into a presidential or semi-presidential one, and a five-branch government into a three-branch system, and include the modern human rights spirit in the constitution. The question of de jure independence does not arise, and the status quo will not be changed. This will not overstep the US' red line and China should have nothing to say either.

Outsiders may find it difficult to distinguish between the "constitutional amendment" advocated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the "rectification of the name of Taiwan and a new constitution" proposed by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

In fact, the DPP seeks to amend the constitution whilst retaining the name of the country, whereas the TSU wants a new constitution for the country, with Taiwan as its new official name. President Chen and former president Lee Teng-hui  made clear their relative positions on these issues during the election campaign. The ideas advocated by the ruling DPP and the non-governing TSU parties have very clear differences between them.

At the very same time, the Chinese are discussing the creation of an anti-secession law , and earmarking the year 2020 for the unification of China and Taiwan, with the possibility of military force being used to this end. The biggest landmine in the Taiwan Strait is making a law which could provide the basis for military action in the future.

Hardline pro-Taiwan groups could advocate an "anti-annexation law" as a countermeasure, and cross-strait relations would go from bad to worse, tensions could escalate to a point of no return, and there may then be no question of maintaining the status quo. According to a poll conducted by Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), over 80 percent of Taiwan's people oppose the idea of an "anti-secession law." China wants to prevent Taiwan's secession by making a new law, but this may be counter-productive and generate another wave of pro-independence feeling in Taiwan.