But the idea of a beefed-up Japanese military doesn't resonate well through the region.

As the two-week refueling exercise was being carried out late last month, relations between Japan and neighboring China were plunging to their lowest point in years, largely over Japanese wartime aggression that left millions of Chinese dead, and over Tokyo's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

There is no consensus in Japan, either.

Negotiations on a broad reworking of the military alliance with Washington are reportedly bogging down because the government is divided over just how far Japan should follow Washington's call.

The bigger question is whether Japan should even be a military power.

The US-led occupation forces disbanded Japan's military after World War II and helped write a constitution that barred Japan from using "the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes."

Washington soon realized it needed to build an ally to counter communism in Asia, and Japan passed a law in 1954 that paved the way for establishing its Self-Defense Forces. Though the decision was denounced by many who saw it as unconstitutional, the government argued that the military force is legal because it is strictly defense-oriented.

That argument is becoming hard to sustain.

Japan has more than 240,000 active-duty troops and an annual defense budget bigger than the UK's. Its air force has more than 160 F-15s and its spy satellites keep watch on North Korea.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who advocates a constitutional change to free up the military, has pushed the envelope even further, sending hundreds of soldiers to southern Iraq for humanitarian activities and more to Southeast Asia to provide tsunami relief.

"Japan is America's only reliable partner in Asia, and Washington wants Japan to make a big contribution in its efforts in the region," said Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international relations at Tokyo's Waseda University.

Yamamoto said Tokyo, for its part, wants to bolster its troops largely because of the perceived threat from China and regional wild card North Korea, which is developing nuclear weapons and has missiles that can deliver them to Japan.

This week the Japanese Defense Agency said its fighter jets scrambled 13 times last year in response to Chinese military aircraft approaching their airspace, up from only twice in 2003. And on Sunday North Korea apparently test-fired another missile into the Sea of Japan. However, Japanese and South Korean officials said it was a small missile unrelated to anything nuclear.

Yamamoto said the political constraints on Japan's military posture have eased.

"Collective security used to be seen as unconstitutional. But it seems the Japanese government believes it need only reinterpret -- not change -- the constitution to justify its policy shifts."

Two areas have long been taboo -- the development of nuclear weapons and the acquisition of aircraft carriers or other means of projecting power overseas.

The nuclear ban, driven by memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, remains firm.

But the Defense Agency announced plans in 2001 to buy a 13,000-tonne destroyer with a flight deck for anti-submarine helicopter operations. Opponents called it a mini-aircraft carrier.

The day when Japan refuels US F-15s, meanwhile, may not be far away. In two years, Japan's first tanker, a Boeing 767, will be delivered to a military airfield in the central Japanese city of Nagoya.

Keep pandas away from politics

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan completed his "Betray Taiwan Tour" on Tuesday. As expected, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) and its supporters were at the CKS International Airport waiting to pelt him with eggs, but because police maintained strict order, the protests came to nothing. But make no mistake about it: Many Taiwanese are describing Lien's trip to China as a "Betray Taiwan Tour."

News of Lien's visit has filled almost every TV news show and most newspapers. Public opinion polls associated with these reports show Lien enjoying a huge surge in his prestige. It would seem that Lien has been able, in one trip, to resolve the half-century long stand-off across the Taiwan Strait and that peace and unification with China are now just around the corner.

This is a big joke and is no more than an illusion perpetrated by the media. To interpret this situation, we must first understand Taiwan's media environment. Apart from a few public TV stations, almost all TV stations in Taiwan are controlled by forces close to the pan-blue camp. That the two major newspapers established by KMT Central Standing Committee members favor the pan-blue camp goes without saying. When has an opinion poll by a Taiwanese media outlet ever been accurate? Which poll has not had its results predetermined by political concerns? Are the polls concerning Lien's visit to China any more credible?

Of all the Chinese-language media, only the Liberty Times and the Taiwan Daily continue to put Taiwan first, and Lien is using every media outlet at his disposal to drown them out. How can the outside world perceive the truth of Taiwan's politics when the media keeps a muzzle on dissenting opinion? OK, so pan-green voters may not have their own media outlets, but there is still the vast realm of the Internet. The only way to get an understanding of the Taiwanese people's thoughts regarding Lien's visit to China is to log on to the Internet and see first-hand Taiwanese people's derision.

On Tuesday, China gave Lien a gift of three ways to buy votes. They offered to lift travel restrictions for tourists visiting Taiwan, remove tariffs on the import of Taiwanese fruits such as mangos and wax apples and give Taiwan two pandas -- its most cherished endangered species. Note that mangos and wax apples are predominantly farmed in the south, the electoral base of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

It is ironic that when President Chen Shui-bian invited Hu Jintao to visit Taiwan, he was met with a cool response, with Wang Zaixi, deputy director of China's Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO), saying that acceptance of any such offer would be conditional on the DPP first abandoning its independence platform.

This goes to show that Lien has failed to resolve the discrimination and political gridlock across the Strait, and has only taken China's attempts to help the pan-blue camp buy votes one step further. There is no need to point out that it is pan-blue politicians, who have a deep understanding of Taiwan's political system, who are visiting China to offer tactical advice, teaching the government in Beijing ways to manipulate Taiwan's democratic system and make use of its vote-buying culture to help get the pan-blue camp back into power.

Although Lien has returned, there remains the issue of the pandas. Those who want them and those who don't are already up in arms. Putting aside conservation issues, we believe that as the most fundamental aspects of the cross-strait issue have yet to be resolved, and the "Anti-Secession" Law that authorizes war as a means to settle the cross-strait conflict has not been struck down, it is best if the pandas stay at home.

Otherwise, the growing tensions of the unresolved cross-strait political conflict will be blamed on these two innocent and unsuspecting creatures. There is no reason why they should bear this burden.

Republic of Taiwan needed

By Jim Hale

China apparently believes in "panda diplomacy" -- the giving of bribes to influence the other side. Taiwan should use the same tactic.

The Chen government should now arrange to give back to China all the art and artifacts stolen from China in 1949 by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). They should also offer KMT Chairman Lien Chan a one-way ticket to Beijing. The offer should be expanded to apply to every member of the KMT.

Then all who follow this tottering traitor could get their fondest wish -- immediate unification of the two competing "Republics of China." Since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) now loves the KMT, everything should go well for Mainlanders in their old home.

Then Taiwan's vast native majority could get on with being their own nation -- without further dilution from those who naively trust the "democratic" nature of the CCP. (Taiwan should keep the gold bullion the KMT stole from China as reparations for the deaths of thousands of Taiwanese at the hands of KMT Mainlanders in 1947 -- as well as for decades of one-party, martial law rule thereafter.)

A Republic of Taiwan might not be the first Chinese democracy, but it would be the only one. In a way, by sending their leaders to China at this time, the KMT and People First Party (PFP) have done the DPP a huge political favor. Now Taiwanese can never elect a president from either of those sellout parties -- without signaling thereby that they are ready for immediate subjugation by China.

The minute China can convince the world (and US voters) that a majority of Taiwanese favor a leader who advocates eventual unification, all hope of democracy on either side of the Taiwan Strait will be lost for generations. In that day, China will not need their many missiles to subdue "their" beautiful island.

A handful of People's Liberation Army commandos in a speedboat would be sufficient. Americans would feel justified in looking away.

Jim Hale

Eugene, Oregon

KMT unlearns old lessons

By Mark Caltonhill

In a radical move to outflank the government of Taiwan, CCP leaders sounded out the possibility of inviting figures from outside Taiwan's governing party for discussions on the unification of China and Taiwan. April 2005?

Try April 1985, during the declining years of the Chiang dynasty's one-party state. Apparently, the suggestion came from the widow of People's Republic of China premier Chou En-lai in her capacity as chairperson of the People's Political Consultative Committee. (It also shows what a poor understanding the Beijing authorities had of Taiwan's politics.)

Naturally, such a move was dismissed by the KMT as a "New Trick, Same Game." In its editorial of April 14, 1985, the Free China Journal described Mrs. Chou as "seeking to tempt non-party people into the discussions. A new ploy in the Communist's united front tricks."

The government newspaper (which, interestingly, until six months earlier had been published by one James Soong in his role as director-general of the Government Information Office) then continued, "The government of the Republic of China and the KMT have refused to negotiate because the Communists' record of keeping promises made in negotiations is a disaster. For the Taiwanese, there is nothing to gain, but everything to lose. Tibet is one very good example and Hong Kong is on the same path."

Incidentally, how significant a phrase: "For the people now living in Taiwan" in terms of the people that the KMT felt it represented. And what a good choice of examples: while the rest of the world has been saddened and shocked by subsequent developments in Tibet and Hong Kong, it would seem that Soong and his on-again-off-again buddy, KMT Chairman Lien Chan, feel that the PRC has changed its spots in the last two decades and is now ready to keep its word.

What promises Lien and Soong are making in Beijing, the people of Taiwan can only wonder and worry.

Mark Caltonhill

Taipei County

China's annexation bid won't work

By Chen Ching-chih

Taiwan has never been a part of China, either historically or legally, since 1895 when the Manchu-led Qing empire ceded Taiwan to Japan. Imperial Japan ruled Taiwan as a colony until 1945 when the US-led alliance defeated Japan.

By virtue of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced "all right, title and claim" over Taiwan.

No recipient of the renounced sovereignty was designated. Cession of Taiwan without a recipient is neither unusual nor unique. In the 1898 Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish American War, Spain renounced "sovereignty over and title to" Cuba, but did not designate a recipient country.

Likewise, Libya, Eritrea and Somaliland were relinquished by Italy without recipient, according to the 1947 Treaty of Peace with Italy. In such cases, the renounced sovereignty naturally fell to the people of the relinquished territory.

Taiwan has therefore been a sovereign state for more half a century. But the government of the People's Republic of China, however, has claimed the island nation as part of China since its founding in 1949, and has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan.

To demonstrate China's determination to Taiwan as well as to the Chinese themselves, China's National People's Congress unanimously passed its "Anti-Secession" Law on March 14.

The law authorizes the Chinese government to resort to the use of force, if necessary, to "reunify" Taiwan. What the Chinese euphemistically call "reunification" is, of course, annexation.

In its attempt to annex Taiwan by force or any other means, the leaders of China should learn from history. Since the early 20th century it has been proven again and again that annexation of another country or territory without the consent of the people will not last. As a matter of fact, nearly all such annexations sooner or later have been reversed. Let's examine some of these cases.

Claiming that Korea and Japan had deep historical and cultural ties, Imperial Japan annexed Korea by virtue of a 1910 treaty. Through intimidation and deception, the Japanese induced the Korean royal court to sign the Annexation Treaty. The Korean people, however, did not approve of the Japanese annexation; they continued to resist Japanese rule by various means.

Korean resistance culminated in a large-scale, anti-Japanese demonstration on March 1, 1919. Japan's brutal suppression resulted in the deaths of thousands of protesters. Koreans continued to suffer under the harsh Japanese colonial rule. Fortunately for the Koreans, the US and its allies defeated Japan in 1945. Korea was subsequently declared an independent state once more.

In the case of Nazi Germany's annexation of Austria, Adolf Hitler believed that German-speaking Austria ought to become part of Germany, and he did not want to allow the Austrians to decide the question themselves. Hitler's army invaded and annexed Austria in 1938, one day before the Austrian government had scheduled a referendum on the issue of unifying with Germany.

At first the Austrians thought that they would retain a considerable degree of separateness and be only gradually absorbed by Nazi Germany. They were wrong. In any case, the Allies defeated Nazi Germany and liberated Austria as well as other German-occupied courtiers in1945. German annexation of Austria lasted for only seven years.

The people of East Timor, however, were not as lucky as the people of Kuwait. Their suffering under Indonesian rule was ignored for nearly a quarter century after Indonesian troops invaded and occupied independent East Timor in 1975. The Indonesian leaders deemed that it was their right to bring the East Timorese people under their rule.

It wasn't until the late 1990s that the international community decided it could longer ignore the Indonesian atrocities toward the East Timor resistance, and the UN became involved. In August 1999, the UN supervised a popular referendum in which the overwhelming majority of the people of East Timor voted for independence from Indonesia. Less than three years later, in May 2002, East Timor became internationally recognized as an independent state.

The cases discussed above demonstrate that in post-World War II world, annexation of another country will not stand. In the age of freedom and human rights, the world should not and would not tolerate the subjugation of unwilling people. One former colony after another became independent after the World War II. The dissolution of both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in 1991 further attested to the truth that a country that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hold together a country that was created by means of intimidation and war. China, nevertheless, has managed to hang on to Tibet, which it invaded and annexed in 1950. Against all odds, Tibetans have continued to aspire to independence.

The Chinese military brutally crushed a Tibetan uprising in 1958 and compelled the Dalai Lama and more than 100,000 of his followers to flee to India. To this day, Beijing has had to station a large police force and troops in Tibet to maintain firm control over its unwilling Tibetan subjects. Continuing harsh rule over Tibet as well as Sinkiang, formerly known as Eastern Turkestan, has undoubtedly contributed to China's image as one of the world's worst human rights violators. Annexation without the consent of the people is uncivilized. China, however, still desires to annex yet another piece of land inhabited by freedom-loving, democratic people.

Taiwan has developed separately from China for more than a century, to the extent that today Taiwan's people enjoy higher living standards and far more freedom and human rights than their counterparts in China. It is crystal clear that the great majority of the Taiwanese are strongly opposed to Taiwan's becoming part of a repressive China.

Taiwan is a democracy, and unification with China could never become a reality without the endorsement of the people through a referendum. It is also certain that if there is to be real peace and stability in East Asia in general -- and in the Taiwan Strait in particular -- China must learn to respect human rights, international norms and the wishes of the people of Taiwan.

Chen Ching-chih is professor emeritus of history, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville and a researcher with the Los Angeles-based Institute for Taiwanese Studies