Soong makes pact with Hu in Beijing

SIX-POINT COMMUNIQUE: Among other issues, the People First Party chairman and the Chinese leader agreed that Taiwan's independence must be thwarted

By Caroline Hong

STAFF REPORTER

"Only if there is no possibility that Taiwan is heading toward independence, can there be ... avoidance of military conflict in the Taiwan Strait."－ by a PFP statement

Chinese President Hu Jintao and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong agreed to a six-point communique yesterday, in which they reiterated their belief in the so-called "1992 consensus" and opposition to Taiwan's independence, while hammering out the details of various proposals for cross-strait economic cooperation.

In the second meeting this month between a Taiwanese opposition leader and Hu in his capacity as Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman, Soong and Hu met for an hour yesterday in Beijing.

Speaking at a press conference held directly after the talks, the PFP announced the six points of the communique forged in the meeting.

In the first point, the two parties agreed on the importance of resuming cross-strait negotiations on the basis of the "1992 consensus," and specifically detailed the supposed origin and content of the consensus, as formed in the 1992 talks between the Chinese Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) and the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) of Taiwan.

The "1992 consensus" refers to an alleged agreement between negotiators from ARATS and SEF to hold talks under the mutual agreement of the "one China" principle, but with different interpretations of what that meant.

While the pan-blue camp has claimed that the consensus should serve as the basis for talks between Taiwan and China, the current administration has consistently said that it does not recognize the "1992 consensus," since it was never formally stated or agreed upon.

The communique added a new term in parentheses -- "two sides of the strait, one China" -- next to the words "1992 consensus," which the statement said highlighted the specific oral descriptions by the SEF and ARATS in their agreement, which it said was later dubbed the "1992 consensus."

"Equal, cross-strait negotiations should be swiftly resumed on the `one China' principle with individual interpretations described above [referring to the oral descriptions attributed to SEF and ARATS] to pragmatically solve important issues of common concern for both sides of the strait through mutual respect and co-existence," PFP policy research center director Chang Hsien-yao read yesterday at the press conference.

Second, the parties agreed on their common opposition to Taiwan's independence and common plan to pursue peaceful stabilization in the Taiwan Strait. While saying that Taiwan's independence movement is damaging to the stability and safety of the Taiwan Strait and the Asian region, the two parties then called on "Taiwan's current leader" -- presumably a reference to President Chen Shui-bian -- to fulfill his promises, reiterated during a meeting between Chen and Soong, including the "four noes," and to promise not to amend the Constitution.

"Only if there is no possibility that Taiwan is heading toward independence, can there be the effective avoidance of military conflict in the Taiwan Strait," the statement said.

Third, the parties agreed to end the standoff between the two sides of the Strait, and to facilitate the establishment of cross-strait peace mechanisms, including establishing a peace agreement and a mechanism to address military affairs between the countries on either side of the Strait.

Fourth, the statement called for the strengthening of business exchanges between China and Taiwan and the establishment of a system to facilitate economic cooperation. Such economic cooperation, the PFP said, should include facilitating the establishment of cross-strait flights by next year and the establishment of a free trade area for Taiwan and China.

Additional economic proposals in the communique included creating equal tuition standards for Taiwanese students studying in China, the establishment of Chinese scholarships for such students, the facilitation of entry and exit into China by Taiwanese citizens and the simplification of visa regulations, and various proposals to simplify agricultural co-operation.

Fifth, the PFP and the CCP agreed to seek a resolution of the problems facing Taiwanese participation in international organizations, specifically in regards to Taiwan's entry into the World Health Organization (WHO).

Sixth, the two agreed to facilitate the establishment of a forum for experts and leaders of both sides of the Strait.

In order to facilitate all of the communique's points, Soong said at the PFP's press conference, the CCP and the PFP further plan to establish a communication platform between the parties to continue discussing the realization of their common goals.

Given previous rumors that Soong would seek to redefine the controversial "1992 consensus" in his meeting with Hu, and that he would bring Hu a message from Chen, the first and second points of the communique were the focus of media attention yesterday.

"This is the first time that China has said clearly in a communique that it supports the `one China' principle with different interpretations," Soong said, further emphasizing the use of the newly-coined term "two sides of the Strait, one China" in the communique.

The interdependence of Taiwan and China is greater than most imagine, Soong said, stressing the importance of resuming talks under the intended meaning of the "1992 consensus."

The PFP has always hoped to solve problems and helped to stabilize the Taiwan Strait through sincere communication, mutual respect and a common desire for mutual benefit, Soong said.

EU ups stakes in lifting of China arms embargo

HUMAN RIGHTS: In a move seen as a major embarrassment for Beijing, a visiting EU delegation said China should release its Tiananmen prisoners

THE GUARDIAN , BEIJING

China should release those of its citizens imprisoned since the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown if it wants the EU to end its arms ban, a senior EU delegation told their hosts in Beijing on Wednesday.

The request for an amnesty, one of four areas in which the EU is seeking better human rights, raises the bar for lifting the 16-year embargo, making a change unlikely this year.

The linkage is embarrassing for Beijing's communist leaders, who see removal of the "discriminatory" ban as a central goal of its improved relations with Europe. It is also a setback for the French president, Jacques Chirac, and the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, who have pushed hard for a June date for the 25-state union to lift its ban, imposed after the 1989 bloody suppression of demonstrations for democracy.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU commissioner for external relations, maintained that the June target was still reachable if both sides made concessions, but put the onus on China.

"Lifting the embargo will of course be easier if the climate is right," she said. "Above all, we need to help persuade our public opinion China is making concrete steps to improve human rights."

According to a European diplomat taking part in the negotiations, the EU has urged Beijing to ratify the UN convention on political and civil rights; release Tiananmen prisoners; reform China's re-education-through-labor penal system; and ease media censorship.

Although not described as preconditions, the very public linkage creates a stumbling block. Accepting the four proposals would cost Beijing a huge loss of face. The foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, said it was "unreasonable and unhelpful" to link the embargo to China's rights record.

"Any attempt to impose one's own values on another country is an embodiment of disrespect to the human rights of the other country," he told a joint news conference with his EU counterpart.

Chinese officials argue that the ban is a Cold War relic, and fails to take account of dramatic changes since 1989.

But Beijing has made no effort to address what caused the ban -- the breaking up of the demonstrations on June 4, 1989 by troops and tanks of the People's Liberation Army who killed hundreds, possibly thousands, of protesters. There has been no inquiry or punishment of those responsible.

Although human rights was the reason for the ban in the first place, the question is only belatedly becoming part of the discussion about lifting it.

Beijing not interested in semantics, academic says

RESPONSE: Beijing's primary motivation in inviting the two pan-blue leaders was to advance its opposition to Taiwan's independence, a professor of China studies said

By Joy Su

STAFF REPORTER

Semantic quibbles on the "1992 consensus" are not Beijing's primary design in meeting with opposition leaders, an expert on cross-strait affairs said yesterday.

"Beijing is not overly concerned about [these] communiques [with opposition leaders], because ultimately it has to be acceptable to the government," said Chang Wu-ueh, professor of China Studies at Tamkang University, suggesting that Beijing was more interested in using the opportunity to clarify its political stance on Taiwan.

Chang was responding to People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's introduction yesterday of the notion of "two sides on each side of the Strait, one China" to replace the so-called "1992 consensus." Soong put forth the notion in a communique issued after a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Beijing's other primary motivation in extending invitations to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and Soong was to advance its opposition to Taiwanese independence through the two main opposition parties, Chang said.

He expressed doubt over whether Soong's semantic contribution to the debate on the existence or not of a "1992 consensus" could make much headway in resolving the cross-strait stalemate.

"This might seem like a step in the wrong direction for the pan-green political camp," Chang said.

According to the pan-blue camp, the "1992 consensus" refers to an agreement on the "one China" principle, with each side having its own interpretation. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) does not acknowledge the consensus, saying the notion was fabricated in 2000 by then Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) head Su Chi.

Beijing insists that negotiations are possible only if both sides recognize the "1992 consensus" and the "one China" principle.

The notion refers to oral statements that negotiators of the semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation and its Chinese counterpart, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, had issued regarding the "one China" formula at the conclusion of a meeting in Hong Kong in 1992. The DPP has denied that a consensus was reached, but suggested last October that the 1992 meeting could serve as the basis for future negotiation, indicating that the meeting was a mark of both parties' willingness to put aside political differences.

Chang said that, despite the focus that has been placed on Soong's promise to redefine the "1992 consensus," Beijing has its eye on wooing the Taiwanese audiences tuning in to live coverage of Hu and Soong's meeting.

"Beijing is using this meeting to publicize its stance on Taipei," Chang said, indicating that Beijing had put its best foot forward, giving opposition leaders high-profile receptions and repeating claims that it is committed to peace.

Chang said that Beijing has been successful in this tactic and warned that the government had to wake up to the new strategies being employed by its opponent.

Soong-Hu meeting an anti-climax

The supposed climax of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's trip to China took place yesterday, when he finally met with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Although many observers had assigned slightly more significance to Soong's meeting with Hu than the prior meeting between Hu and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan as a result of the 10-point consensus Soong had reached with President Chen Shui-bian, it is hard to find any substantive and innovative surprises in the Soong-Hu talks.

So far, it is hard to see any constructive difference between Soong's and Lien's trips. In fact, judging from the reception they received and their travel itineraries, it is obvious that Beijing made painstaking efforts to offer them "non-discriminatory" and "equal" treatment. Soong's trip is almost an exactly replica of the one Lien undertook before him.

As for conducting substantive talks with Chinese officials, nothing they said had not been uttered before. At the core of all their speeches is still the "one China" principle and the so-called "1992 consensus," under which this principle is supposedly recognized. In other words, the fundamental roadblock preventing any progress in the cross-strait relationship remains.

As for Soong's performance, he was under severe public pressure to advocate the interests and speak the mind of the Taiwanese people, and eager to outdo Lien (which wouldn't be hard at all), Soong did make some effort to touch on the sentiments of the people of Taiwan, although he made no mention of the "Anti-Secession" Law or Taiwan's democratic accomplishments. Moreover, each time he gets warmed up, he backs down and reiterates the same old slogans about "one China" and the "1992 consensus."

So, at the end, the only thing the general public remembers about the meeting is the supposed "1992 consensus." This is truly a sad thing, since the Presidential Office on Wednesday reiterated that the Taiwanese government does not acknowledge that a consensus had ever been reached. By officially contradicting the government on such an important issue, Soong effectively stripped off any tactful political significance his meeting with Hu might have had.

On the other hand, not only is there no mention of the "1992 consensus" in Chen and Soong's 10-point communique, Soong's statement that "Taiwan independence is not an option" also directly conflicts with the 10-point consensus. As pointed out by the Presidential Office, the sixth point of the Chen-Soong consensus specifically states that "any change to the status quo of the Taiwan Strait will require the consent of the 23 million Taiwanese people, made on the basis of good faith across the Strait; no model of development between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait can be ruled out." In other words, Soong had himself acknowledged that Taiwan independence is an option.

In the fundamental spirit of democracy, the people of Taiwan have every right to decide their own future -- independence definitely being among their options. It is a right which no politician can take away. One cannot help but wonder how politicians such as Soong and Lien can do something so contradictory to the fundamental principle of democracy, and then come back to bask in the benefits of Taiwan's democratic accomplishments.

Ironically, in repudiating Taiwan independence as an option, Soong went on to say that independence would only bring disaster and war. The problem is that these disasters and war could be averted if only China could learn to respect Taiwan's democracy and its right to self-determination. So, at the end of day, Taiwan independence is not an option to some people only because Beijing had made it so.

Democracy is Taiwan's best defense

By Chen Chi-mai

From Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's trip to China, to the criticism members of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) expressed against President Chen Shui-bian after Lien's return, the nation is filled with a sense of crisis, as if Taiwan's sovereignty is endangered. Some people have even began to question whether Chen and the DPP are capable of safeguarding the status quo of the nation's independent sovereignty.

However, from an international perspective, such doubts seem unrelated to recent cross-strait developments. There is a tendency to not only ignore favorable international developments, but also to exaggerate the influence some politicians have on international relations. More importantly, Taiwan's commitment to democracy and the results of its efforts are often ignored. In fact, recent events prove that greater democracy is the only path to secure the nation's independent sovereignty.

China's "Anti-Secession" Law has increased the tension between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the international pressure on China. Through US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Washington repeatedly stressed that its policy of maintaining the status quo in the Strait has remained unchanged, to remind Beijing not to cross the line while reaffirming the necessary US role in cross-strait relations. The EU also halted moves to lift its arms embargo on China at the last moment. With the German parliament's rejection of lifting the ban, Beijing's incessant lobbying of the EU failed in the face of its threat to cross-strait peace.

Meanwhile Japan is attempting to extend its international influence, and has actively lobbied the international community on its bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council and to amend Article 9 of its Constitution to build up its military. This has worsened relations between China and Japan.

The current international atmosphere and the growing visibility of cross-strait issues allow Taiwan greater leverage on the international stage and more room to maneuver.

With political pressure mounting on Beijing in Taiwan's favor, China has decided to employ "soft power" tactics in a bid to reap the greatest benefit at the least cost to themselves, by holding talks with Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong in an attempt to divide Taiwan's internal unity and create the illusion of the existence of "one China."

Lien's and Soong's trips cannot be considered political victories for the KMT and PFP, as their actions have pushed their parties further toward extremism and is reducing their stature. Local support for the KMT and PFP is being reduced to a narrow band of extreme opinion, leaving more moderate voters out in the cold. The KMT and PFP are tending more and more to favor speedy unification, further narrowing their support base.

Given Taiwan's de facto independence, the Beijing authorities know more clearly than anyone that they should be talking with Taiwan's ruling party, the DPP. Its meetings with opposition leaders are hardly likely to result in any changes to Taiwan's sovereignty. Inviting KMT or PFP members to visit is just part of a show, and has nothing to do with cross-strait negotiations. At most, it will just confuse public opinion.

As far as Taiwan as a whole is concerned, there are two crucial points to consider: First, how is Taiwan to strengthen its democracy? If Taiwanese society and DPP supporters are thrown off balance by Beijing's showmanship to deny the democracy that we have been seeking over the past half a century, then Beijing will be handed an unexpected victory.

Party heads should show their leadership, displaying the real spirit of democracy to the people, rather than being caught up in self-destructive ideological confrontation. Otherwise we risk retarding the development of our democracy.

Second, can Taiwan use its advantages in the international community to break through the deadlock of cross-strait talks while maintaining dignity and equality? We can take advantage of the US and Japan's recent joint announcement urging a solution to the Taiwan question through peaceful negotiations, and demand the opening up of formal peace talks across the Strait.

It might even be appropriate to ask the US and Japan to mediate in such talks, or even to ask other international non-governmental organizations (especially human rights or peace organizations) to play an observing or supervisory role during the negotiations.

During last year's presidential elections, Taiwan was on the receiving end of international pressure about the question of the legality of holding the referendums simultaneously with the elections. Now, with the drive to amend the Constitution, this is to become a fundamental right of the people, guaranteed by the law.

These changes all go to show that democracy and its procedures are the greatest guarantees we have of assuring our sovereignty and independence. While Beijing is trying to distort political realities with the introduction of the Anti-Secession Law, Taiwan should be putting current political realities into law, legally ensconcing democracy, strengthening the democratic process within the country and providing a visible legal basis for it.

Any advantage we might have in a future confrontation with China will be in terms of democracy and human rights, and not in terms of military clout.

Chen Chi-mai is the acting mayor of Kaohsiung.