Chen calls for cross-strait talks based on democracy

Chen also assured the Marshallese people that Taiwan will always be its friend and keep helping the country develop.

Chen addressed the Marshallese Senate around 10am yesterday morning. He said that both Taiwan and the Marshall Islands are maritime countries and thus share a kinship. Chen added Taiwan and the Marshall Islands love peace, and the two country's people will work hand in hand and help each other.

About 30 of the 33 Marshall Islands senators were present at Chen's address. Jally Morris, a 69-year-old local pastor who joined yesterday's event, said that Chen's visit to the Marshallese Senate is a milestone for the country.

"Chen is the first foreign leader to address the senate. It is the first time we have had so many reporters in the house to cover congressional news," Morris said.

To welcome Chen, the senate's official choir sang before and after his speech. The senators joined in the singing and assumed different roles. Some sang as tenors, while others sounded off as baritones and basses.

"Most Marshallese people are natural singers because we sing a lot during church services," Morris said.

After the speech, Chen joined an outdoor parade in front of the government building to celebrate the Marshall Islands' Constitution Day (Independence Day). Occasional rain interrupted the event, but the festivities were not cancelled.

In the afternoon, Chen reiterated his plan to help the Marshall Islands in its economic development.

"We will help the country build dry docks so the Marshall Islands can become a center of ship maintenance and repair industry in the region," Chen said.

Dry docks are maritime repair houses where a ship can be lifted out of the water and repaired.

The president also said that Taiwan will help the country develop its tourism industry.

Giff Johnson, editor-in-chief of the country's weekly newspaper, the Marshall Islands Journal, asked Chen whether the occasional rain upset him during the parade. Chen said that fortune tellers told him that he "needs water in his life" since part of his first name means "water" in Chinese. Thus, it is natural for him to be in the rain, he said.

"A rainbow or sunshine always shows up after the rain. That means things always get better after we go through difficulties," Chen said.

Chen must stand up to the quislings

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan will return to Taipei tonight after a controversial eight-day visit to China. On Thursday, People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong will begin his tour of China. It is to be expected that Chinese President Hu Jintao will roll out the red carpet for Soong and hold talks with him on a party-to-party basis, just as he did with Lien.

At such a crucial time for the future of the country, it is worth reminding the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that there has been a dangerous polarization of public opinion over these visits. The government must clearly state its stance on these trips in order to resolve the suspicions between rival camps and defuse potential confrontations.

Regrettably, President Chen Shui-bian, the only person who has the final say in cross-strait affairs, is not only out of the country on a diplomatic trip, his comments on the China visits and Lien's recent statements are totally at odds with other DPP heavyweights. This has created chaos in the interaction between the government and the DPP's legislative caucus. A responsible government should inform its people of its intentions when there is a change of policy rather than engaging in political games that keep everyone in the dark.

A succession of opposition officials have visited China, meeting with a government that claims Taiwan is a part of its territory and that Taiwan's democratically elected government is nothing more than a regional government similar to those in Hong Kong and Macao. Faced with this situation, why is this nation's government doing nothing more than watching from the sidelines? Have the nation's leaders nothing to say and no policy to put forward as opposition officials engage in a dangerous farce with the other side of the Strait?

When a serious split occurs in domestic politics, the people have the right to demand the government engage with them and explain what measures it is taking and in what direction it is leading them. The efficacy of closed-door methods of resolving political crises is a myth. Successive US presidents have understood this and have engaged the public in "fireside talks" during which they reveal their thinking and help the people understand where the government is taking the country. Chen should consider a similar method.

Trying to deal with a political crisis by keeping the ruling party and its legislative caucus in the dark over party policy is absurd. Only by communicating with the people can the government reduce misunderstanding and friction between the public and the government. Only in this way can a situation in which a small number of politicians instigate violence between rival political camps be avoided. Chen should bear this in mind as the first anniversary of his second term in office approaches.

What worries the people of this country is that China could get involved in domestic politics through the KMT and the PFP. The opposition has long sought to impede the president, which would serve Beijing's political interests.

The pan-blue camp has long been making preparations for a bid to recall Chen, and there are even suggestions that members of the pan-green camp would not shrink from this course of action. Therefore, Chen must not hesitate to demonstrate his leadership and tell the people what he intends to do, instead of what he cannot do. Chen should not be afraid to rely on public opinion since the majority is strongly opposed to Beijing's efforts to ally itself with the opposition. Only in this way will the people fully accept Chen as their leader.

Lien's sellout must not be tolerated

By the Liberty Times editorial

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and his gang started the journey to China as if they were a group of homesick travelers returning to the embrace of the motherland. The closer they got to Beijing and to Chinese President Hu Jintao, the more excited they got. At Peking University, a thrilled Lien declared: "I am very happy that at this moment of changing history, I got onto this bus." Lien said his trip to China was propelled by the backing of strong popular will. Actually, not only do most people in Taiwan not only not identify with Lien's behavior, they also believe it was shameful the way he is selling out Taiwan.

Many people see Lien as someone who has been rejected in the last two presidential elections and as someone who was hoping to stage a political comeback with his trip.

In Taiwan, Lien loudly proclaims the need to defend the "Republic of China" (ROC) and stand by the so-called "1992 consensus," under which each side of the Taiwan Strait was supposedly free to have its own interpretation of "one China." If he was speaking from his heart, then he should have been consistent in his language. But in China, he never spoke one word about the ROC's sovereignty. He did say that the "Republic of China was the first democratic republic in Asia," but making it sound like something from the past, not the present.

Does the "Republic of China" exist any longer? Lien didn't dare say so under the roof of the motherland. Instead, he reiterated the supposed dying words of Sun Yat-sen: "save China through peaceful endeavors." What rambling nonsense by a politician with confused national identity.

It was laughable that in his speech at Peking University, Lien called that school and National Taiwan University the fortresses and front guards of liberalism. Lien only dared to criticize the government run by China's northern warlords during the early years of the ROC, saying "China did not offer an environment for liberalism, and so [it spread] only on school campuses at the time." He probably did not know that when the KMT ruled China, liberalism had even less breathing space. Several academics who supported liberalism were assassinated, so liberalism could not even exist on school campuses.

After the People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded, all intellectuals, not just advocates of liberalism, were oppressed. Some died in the endless waves of political struggle campaigns and some were politically "reformed." The oppression of liberalism was a common tactic of the governments run by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), highlighting their "brotherhood" and "common heart."

But why did Lien praise Peking University's campus liberalism, yet fail to mention the liberalism permeating every street corner in Taiwan? He didn't just conveniently forget to mention Taiwan's liberties and freedoms -- he criticized its democracy, or rather what he said was the lack of democracy in this country.

Lien praised the Chinese government for a grassroots election system, despite the fact that the system has been tried on an extremely limited basis and then sporadically. Yet he complained that populism had replaced democracy in Taiwan. Perhaps he thinks village chief elections in China are better than presidential elections in Taiwan. Lien's know-ledge and insight into political science is very impressive; of course he does have a doctorate in it.

On the other hand, he boasted that the KMT won last year's legislative election. Is this what he meant by the victory of populism? Have all the elections in which he suffered defeat, including the last two presidential elections, exemplified sinful populism? Did only those elections in which the KMT enjoyed victories demonstrate true democracy? Thank goodness he did not win the presidency.

Lien reiterated the so-called "1992 consensus," which is by itself not a surprise since this has been his consistent stance. The strange thing is that while he repeatedly talked about "one China, with each side free to make its own interpretation," he never bothered to state what the KMT's interpretation of "one China" was. The KMT has long held that "one China" is the "sovereign state of the Republic of China." However, in front of Hu, Lien was as meek as a lamb and just could not say the words. He who vowed to defend the ROC's sovereignty suddenly decided that sovereignty had vanished from the face of the earth as soon as he arrived in China.

He even stressed that to "take the right path" is to "identify with this country." Isn't this a declaration of the end of the civil war between the CCP and the KMT and the end of the ROC? The basis of the consensus between Hu and Lien was essentially to accept "one China" and betray Taiwan. No wonder they lamented they had not met earlier.

Let's review what Lien managed to win for Taiwan on his trip. The first point of the communique between Lien and Hu is Beijing's long-standing precondition for any cross-strait negotiations -- the so-called "1992 consensus." So what Lien managed to score for Taiwan was an acceptance of "one China" and an opportunity for Taiwan to surrender to Beijing.

Point two was that after Taiwan accepts the so-called "1992 consensus" under which it is a mere Chinese province, then the state of war between the two sides can end and a peace treaty may be signed.

Point three was that so long as Taiwan surrenders this way, there may be direct links, reinforcement of cross-strait economic exchanges and room for negotiations over cross-strait common market, so that Taiwanese capital and technology may flow into China at an even faster pace. So basically that means handing over the blood of Taiwan's economic survival on a silver platter.

Point four was that after the two sides resume negotiations, Beijing may "allow" Taiwan to participate in some international organizations or events under the "1992 consensus."

The fifth point, to establish a platform for periodic communication between the CCP and the KMT, simply confirms the KMT is joining forces with Beijing to sell out Taiwan.

This is Lien's idea of "save China through peaceful endeavors." From the 10-point consensus between Beijing and KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤) to the Hu-Lien agreement, everything is in China's favor. These pacts only damage Taiwan's sovereignty, would drain Taiwan's economy and worsen the unemployment and crime problems in this country.

Lien went to China on what he called a "journey of peace," saying he would help Taiwan counter the negative implications of Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law. Yet China responded with the same old pro-unification tune. Lien worked so hard, yet still played Hu's fool. There was really no need for Lien to go through all that trouble when any other person could have gotten the same results.

It was too much to hope that Lien would stand up for this country's interests. However, it was still a little shocking the way that he tried to sell out the ROC along with Taiwan. The biggest presents that Lien wanted to give his "motherland" was not anything tangible but an acknowledgement of the end of the ROC and a denial of Taiwan's sovereignty, no matter what the cost to the people of Taiwan.

Of course, these were exactly the gifts Hu was hoping to receive. No wonder Lien received such imperial reception. It was truly pathetic to see Lien attempt to sell out the people of Taiwan in this way. However, in a democracy, the people have the right to decide their own fate. The people should very clearly demonstrate to Lien just what they think of him. If he is allowed to get away with this, then this generation will be a laughingstock for the generations to come.