The legislature is still deadlocked over the bill, mainly on the ratification thresholds of constitutional amendments, territorial changes and impeachment of the president and vice president.

TSU caucus whip Lo Chih-ming said that he and his caucus were mystified by Chen's "inconsistent" remarks, and that it would be better for them to refrain from participating in future cross-party talks.

"President Chen's recent words and actions have split his own party, irritated the People First Party [PFP] and severed ties with Lee," he said. "To express our discontent, we will now temporarily withdraw from the cross-party talks presided over by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng."

Lo said that Lee has been considering whether to attend TV talk shows to rebut Chen's remarks about him.

"However, I am afraid that he might not be able to do so because most of the slots on the talk shows have been taken up by senior DPP figures such as President Chen, Premier Frank Hsieh and DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang," he said.

Describing the DPP's intensive TV exposure as a "monopoly," Lo said that Chen's recent criticism of independence hardliner Lee had pleased Beijing and seriously divided the nation.

"A Chinese herbalist should prescribe a dose of tranquilizers for President Chen," Lo said.

Another TSU caucus whip, Ho Min-hao, questioned Chen's motive for attacking Lee, his political mentor.

"I highly suspect he is doing it in exchange for a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao," Ho said. "What he says on TV sounds as though he was the only person who is right, and the rest of the people are wrong and deserve condemnation."

The PFP legislative caucus yesterday, however, threatened to file a slander lawsuit against Chen if he fails to apologize or produce any evidence to prove his claim that Soong had promised to support the special arms-procurement plan after returning from his China trip.

PFP caucus whip Lee Yung-ping said that her caucus opposes the proposal to convene a provisionary legislative session for reviewing the special arms plan. Nor did it support the idea of earmarking the budget as special or purchasing the three items it includes at one time, she said.

Chen lambastes Lee in television interview

STAFF WRITER , WITH AGENCIES

"There can only be one president in a country, not two."－ by President Chen Shui-bian

President Chen Shui-bian on Monday bitterly lashed out at former president Lee Teng-hui, who has criticized him for not moving faster on Taiwan's independence.

He said that Lee was asking him to do something that Lee himself couldn't pull off during 12 years as president.

"There can only be one president in a country, not two," Chen said, suggesting that Lee was trying to undercut his position.

Chen made the remark during a live TV interview broadcast on Monday night.

During the interview, Chen said Lee put forward the famous "special state-to-state relationship" proposal to describe Taiwan-China ties on July 9, 1997, but withdrew that statement within five days.

Chen also said that he had personally asked Lee why he did not deny the existence of the so-called "1992 consensus" in 2000 when Lee handed over power to Chen.

If Lee had done that, Chen said, things would not have turned out the way they are today.

In an apparent move to appease pro-independence supporters, Chen said that his government has been pressing ahead with efforts to promote Taiwan's self-identity.

"I never delayed the [national] `title rectification' campaign, and in fact, in [one of] my overseas visits, I changed the title of our agricultural consultation corps in our diplomatic ally from the `Republic of China' to `Taiwan,'" he said, without naming the country.

In his interview, Chen said he chose to cooperate with People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong because his party failed to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan.

To enable the lawmaking body to pass bills, he had to bow to reality and cooperate with the opposition leader.

He said that despite the alliance, he had never delayed the government's efforts to enhance Taiwanese identity.

Chen said that, in addition to gradually taking out the "Republic of China," Taiwan's official title, from Taiwanese overseas missions, the government was "in a quiet way" also changing the titles of state firms bearing the name "China."

He said the government was also adding the name "Taiwan" to ID cards for its nationals to supplement the official title.

"But there is no need to play up the act," he said, because of a possible backlash from Beijing.

Chen also revealed that Soong had promised in person that the PFP would help the controversial special arms-procurement bill clear the legislative floor after he returns from China.

"This is also part of the 10-point consensus between Soong and me, but without a written form," Chen said.

According to Chen, he had asked many times for Soong's help to push through the arms bill when they met or talked on the phone, and Soong had promised many times that he would help the bill get passed.

The president said Soong had told him that he needed some time to address differences within the PFP.

In addition, since Soong was about to visit China at that time, Chen said that he was reluctant to push too hard in relation to the legislation.

"Since we have been waiting so long for the passage of the bill, why not believe him one more time?" he said.

Norh Korea blames US for furor over nuclear test

AP , SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA

North Korea criticized the US yesterday for warning that the dictatorship might be getting ready to test a nuclear bomb, but did not deny such preparations were underway.

Pyongyang also maintained it would stay away from international disarmament talks.

"The United States is making a fuss saying that it was notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency, Japan and other related countries of its own opinion that our republic may conduct an underground nuclear test in June," the North's main state-run Rodong Sinmun daily wrote in a commentary, according to the country's official Korean Central News Agency.

However, the North didn't confirm or deny it was planning such a test.

The newspaper said Washington was branding North Korea as a "nuclear criminal" in order to stifle the country. It also said the administration of US President George W. Bush wasn't behaving normally and that the North "cannot deal with" Washington.

US officials said last week that spy satellites show possible preparations for North Korea's first-ever nuclear weapons test, including the digging and refilling of a large hole at a suspected test site in northeastern Kilju along with the apparent construction of a reviewing stand being erected some distance away.

North Korea claimed in February to have nuclear weapons, and international experts believe it has enough plutonium to build about six bombs. The North also recently shut down a nuclear reactor, a move that could allow it to harvest yet more plutonium.

Pyongyang has refused to return to six-nation disarmament talks since last June, after three rounds ended without any breakthroughs. US officials have said the deadlock can't go on forever and that other moves might be required -- believed to include seeking sanctions in the UN Security Council.

Yesterday, the North claimed Washington was to blame for the stalemate in the talks, which also include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

"Our country did everything [that] we could do to solve the problems with the highest flexibility and tolerance through the previous six-party talks," Rodong Sinmun wrote.

Over the weekend, the North appeared to soften its position on returning to talks by saying it wasn't demanding direct meetings with Washington outside the six-nation negotiations.

In Washington on Monday, State Department spokesman Tom Casey noted the US had previously spoken directly with North Korean officials within the context of the six-party talks and said "we would certainly continue that practice" if Pyongyang returns to the table.

Meanwhile, China yesterday rejected the use of sanctions to prod North Korea to return to six-nation talks, saying Beijing's political and trade relations with its neighbor should be kept separate.

The Washington Post reported last week that China had turned down a US request to pressure North Korea to return to nuclear disarmament talks by cutting off oil supplies.

Chinese officials said such a cutoff would damage the oil pipeline that links China's northeast with North Korea because of the high paraffin content in the oil, which can clog pipelines, the Post reported.

China is the North's last major ally and is believed to supply the isolated Stalinist regime with up to one-third of its food and one-quarter of its energy.

Chen's isolation is his own doing

President Chen Shui-bian has recently misjudged pan-green opinion, and has followed this by a number of misstatements when criticizing former President Lee Teng-hui and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) in the media. He has made enemies across the political spectrum as a result, and precipitated a political crisis for his administration.

Pan-green supporters have urged voters to cast a punitive ballot in Saturday's National Assembly elections to teach Chen a lesson. Under pressure from declining support for his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chen faced two and a half hours of interviews on Sunday and Monday nights for the same political TV program. During the interviews he said that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan had only called him prior to his trip to China because of US pressure, and that People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong met with Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Chen Yunlin when he visited the US earlier this year. This was a rarely seen display of damage control directed at both domestic and international audiences.

A punitive vote would probably mean a vote for the TSU in Saturday's poll, putting the DPP into second or third place. This message of dissatisfaction would serve to embarrass Chen. The purpose of the vote is to elect representatives for a National Assembly which will amend the Constitution in accordance with a package of revisions passed by the legislature last August. These include the inclusion of referendums into the Constitution as a means for ratifying future amendments, halving the number of legislators from 225 to 113 and adopting the "single-district, two-ballot" legislative electoral system. The assembly will not address changes to the national title, flag and anthem.

Recently, pan-green media and supporters have lambasted Chen for his willingness to shake hands with the Chinese leadership in the wake of Lien and Soong's visits. He described their visits as "tossing a stone to test the water" and "praiseworthy," adding that Lien's remarks during his visit complied with his role as an opposition leader. What's more, Chen even said these visits were just a prelude to the main attraction. Chen's remarks, which sought to create an atmosphere of cross-party and cross-strait reconciliation, have seriously upset many pan-green supporters, some of whom believe that Chen has deviated from the "one country on each side of the Strait" formula.

Any change in cross-strait relations touches on the fundamental security of the people of Taiwan. Without prior broad-based discussion on any such change, Chen seems to be in a great hurry to meet with China's President Hu Jintao. It is no surprise that such a casual approach to this prospective meeting has unnerved many people in the pan-green camp. Some people have even suggested that Chen has ambitions to emulate Kim Dae-jung in winning a Nobel Peace Prize, and will use any means possible to secure this goal. As a result, there are now demands among grassroots green camp supporters that Chen be recalled.

As a national leader, Chen should not only have long-term goals and a comprehensive strategy for achieving them, he should also consult with the nation in the decision-making process. But he seems to think he can see more clearly than others and can afford to ignore the people. We do not object to Chen seeking to improve ties with China, but he cannot be allowed to play fast and loose with Taiwan's security, or endanger Taiwan's sovereignty and the power of the people.

The crisis that the present administration faces has been precipitated by Chen's increasingly domineering manner. He has now attacked former president Lee and the TSU simply to bolster his own policies -- seemingly betraying those who have supported him and risking a split within the pan-green camp. Chen has brought most of these problems on himself. He should take the advice of former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung and take a good hard look at himself.

China puts Chen on the defensive

By Sushil Seth

Were it not so serious, the current shenanigans of Taiwan's political landscape might be laughed off as a farce. We have the spectacle of the country's opposition trying to act as its government in negotiating Taiwan's future with China's communist leadership. In doing so, it is circumventing the democratic process of an elected presidency which returned President Chen Shui-bian to power, and blurring the important distinction between China's communist dictatorship and Taiwan's democracy. Taiwan's distinct identity is largely shaped by its democratic system.

Which, in effect, means that no single political party has an entitlement to govern indefinitely. The entitlement comes from the popular choice of the people. If this choice were to appear irregular or rigged, there are appeal channels to contest this. And once these are exhausted, the finality of the decision is accepted and respected by all sides of the political spectrum. The country then gets behind the government of the day. Unfortunately, this is not happening in Taiwan at the present time.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's China visit has created an anomaly of sorts. It suggests a historical continuity between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, marred only by the political feud of a bygone era between the communists and the KMT. The visit had the appearance of the return of the prodigal son, with an implied message of happy days to come. The television images of Lien's visit, and his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, indicated some act of great reconciliation, though it is hard to pinpoint what it was.

Beijing got enough mileage out of it though. The passage of its "Anti-Secession" Law had dented its image, costing it the lifting of the EU arms embargo. But Lien's visit and the ensuing bonhomie seemingly made Taiwan's elected government ineffective.

It's clear that Chen is worried by the turn of events, with Beijing trying to manipulate Taiwan's politics to its advantage. Having failed to dissuade the opposition leaders from their ill-advised China trips, Chen is now trying to co-opt this new development as part of Taiwan's political process. For instance, he said Lien had not "overstepped the boundary" during his talks with communist leaders.

In any case, according to Chen, "No matter which Taiwanese party or individuals China chooses to talk to, it ultimately has to approach the leader elected by the Taiwanese people and the government of Taiwan." He seems keen to use People First Party Chairman James Soong to establish some sort of contact with the Beijing leadership.

He wants to establish his government's relevance and efficacy in cross-strait affairs, and to avoid letting the opposition call the shots. The opposition, in any case, is not talking of handing over Taiwan to China in the near future. What they seem to be doing is to accept the principle of "one China," with Taiwan's eventual unification relegated to a longer time frame. In other words: to freeze the status quo over the medium or long term.

As Lien said in Beijing, "The two sides of the Strait must maintain the status quo." But this shouldn't be "static" or "passive," with both sides trying to "seek things in common from our differences and to accumulate goodwill." His vague formulation basically means that unification will happen eventually as China and Taiwan widen their common ground.

The question is: Will this be acceptable to the people of Taiwan? Judging by Chen's nervous and shifting response to the opposition leaders' China visits, he seems to think that they might win political mileage at home by appearing to be make some headway with Beijing. He is, therefore, trying not to appear completely negative about the visits, and is equally keen to start a dialogue by even co-opting the opposition into the process.

Chen is, of course, right to point out that ultimately Beijing has to "approach the leader elected by the Taiwanese people and the government of Taiwan" for any worthwhile progress in cross-strait relations to occur.

The point, therefore, is: How serious is China about entertaining the opposition's idea of eventual unification in a time frame of, say, 50 years?

Having waited for over 50 years to take over Taiwan, China's communist leadership seems rather in a hurry to finish the job. Indeed, their internal political compulsions of creating a legitimacy of sorts as champions of China's nationalism do not brook much delay. The Anti-Secession Law is an example of this.

What that means is that Beijing is playing politics with Taiwan's future, with the witting or unwitting cooperation of the country's opposition forces. They are trying to create the impression that only the opposition, with its newfound capacity to deal with China, can deliver and win popular appeal.

As a result of Lien's visit, Beijing is willing to accommodate the economic interests of special constituencies like farmers. In this way, it will seek to erode some of the ruling party's political support base. It would hope that this will increasingly make Chen's government ineffective and directionless, and forced to be reactive.

It would appear that Chen is already acting reactively by purportedly sending a message through Soong for Hu. He has also separately called for the setting up of a "cross-strait military and security mutual trust mechanism as soon as possible." Chen has also invited Hu to visit Taiwan.

The problem is that Beijing isn't listening because it seems to have put Chen on the defensive by playing politics with Taiwan. And he is unlikely to win this political game of competitive China wooing, because Beijing distrusts him. They find the opposition in Taiwan more responsive. He may, therefore, be well-advised to maintain and reinforce his political line of promoting Taiwan's own identity. It may be painful in the short run, but in the medium and long term it will better serve Taiwan's interests.

In any case, the opposition might find, when they sit down to discuss Taiwan's future, that Beijing is unlikely to wait much longer for the island's incorporation into China.

Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.

Bush's call to Hu will have many implications

By Li Hua-chiu

On May 5, US President George W. Bush called Chinese President Hu Jintao.

That Bush chose to call Hu to discuss cross-strait affairs on the first day of People First Party Chairman James Soong's visit to China is especially significant.

It emphasizes US concern, as well as the US' right to make pronouncements, on the cross-strait issue.

In telling Hu that Beijing should engage in dialogue with President Chen Shui-bian, Bush was also underlining that the best route between Beijing and Taipei is via Washington, and that if either side crossed the "red line," it will incur US displeasure.

All this goes to show that while the phone call was used to show mutual concern, it is also a prop for political posturing between leaders on both sides.

The crux of Hu's chat with Bush was that an appropriate resolution to the cross-strait issue was critical to the healthy development of Sino-US relations. Hu emphasized that Taiwan was an important link in the development of China-US relations, and that the basis of these relations was creating a situation in which neither side benefited exclusively from Taiwan.

This wording strongly suggests that if the US seeks to win the initiative and control in the Taiwan Strait, it would also have to contend with China, for China is certainly not prepared to take a passive role in the region.

China believes that only by retaining the initiative will it be in a position to interpret and initiate action. If it cannot do so, then it will be forced into a passive stance. For this reason, now that the disturbance over the "Anti-Secession" Law has died down, and both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chanand Soong have visited, China is clearly pushing aside the US and boldly setting itself up as its own master.

Hu went on to say that he hoped that the US would support the improvement in cross-strait relations with a constructive attitude, and support efforts to achieve peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. When Hu talks about a "constructive attitude," he seems to be hinting that the US should act with true concern for the international situation and not simply out of national interest.

The subtext of Hu's remarks seems to be that while China welcomes US concern about Taiwan, it does not welcome hypocritical interference.

In speaking with Hu, Bush expressed the hope that Hu would "reach out" to Chen. The desire is to broaden the spectrum over which Hu can connect with Taiwan, reaching out a hand toward Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party in an effort to truly resolve the cross-strait issue.

The efforts by the opposition to "build bridges" has been characterized by Chen was "seeking a way toward resolution," in the hope that these visits might present new opportunities. If the trips by Lien and Soong do indeed pave the way for dialogue between Chen and Hu, then they may have had some effect. If they don't, they will have had little significance.

When Bush spoke of Chen as Taiwan's "duly elected" president, he was clearly providing him with support and reducing his isolation amid his troubles. The real question regarding the Bush-Hu conversation is how Chen will be able to make use of the support offered to him by Bush, whether Hu will accept the goodwill offered by Bush, and whether they can work together to resolve cross-strait difficulties.

Li Hua-chiu is a part-time researcher with the National Policy Foundation.

Translated by Ian Bartholomew