Feinstein said she envisioned a sort of "long-term detente."

This would provide "the most realistic and viable opportunity to prevent a cross-strait conflict and allow for a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue," Feinstein said.

"At this stage, I believe the most constructive approach to insuring cross-strait peace may be for the United States to assist in brokering a long-term peace agreement between the mainland and Taiwan that would codify a mutually agreed upon status quo," she said.

She made her comments in a speech at a breakfast meeting of the Asia Society in Washington.

After the speech, she told reporters that she was not aware of any efforts underway to bring about such negotiations.

Feinstein revealed that in April of 2002 she tried to bring both sides together, but the efforts were unsuccessful when China balked at the idea.

She said she made the offer to then-Mainland Affairs Council director Tsai Ying-wen and then-deputy director of the Taiwan Office of China's State Council, Zhou Mingwei. At the time, both officials were in Washington on visits.

Taiwan agreed to the initiative, but China decided to "demur," Feinstein said.

She said that cross-strait talks could take place if Chen agreed to the discussion "based on the principle of the 1992 consensus framework" established in 1992 Hong Kong discussions and on the recent 10-point agreement Chen signed with PFP Chairman James Soong.

However, Feinstein raised questions about whether Hu would be able to agree to such negotiations, considering the current state of internal politics in Beijing.

While she called the recently enacted "Anti-Secession" Law a mistake, she noted it did not refer to the "one country, two systems" formula and urged Taiwan not to "ignore" the law's more conciliatory sections.

Calling Hu "enigmatic," especially in his Taiwan policy, the senator noted that his policies have vacillated between holding a hard line and flexibility.

She guessed that his position may not be enough for him to venture into cross-strait talks.

"I do not know whether he is secure or not," she said.

In a telling incident, Feinstein travelled to Beijing last August but was rebuffed in her attempts to meet with Hu. She said that might have been because Hu had not yet assumed the chairmanship of the Communist Party's powerful Military Affairs Council, which was still held by Jiang.

She did meet at the time with Jiang, whom Feinstein has known for 20 years, first through a sister city relationship between Shanghai and San Francisco when she was mayor and he was party chief, and then through her husband's substantial business dealings in Shanghai under Jiang.

Feinstein conceded that she does not know Hu, and thus cannot accurately assess his personality or policies.

In her speech, Feinstein also urged the Bush administration to resurrect an offer Jiang made to Bush during a 2002 visit to Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch to start dismantling China's missiles aimed at Taiwan in exchange for a US pledge to stop selling Taiwan new weapons systems. The US rejected the offer.

Chen `must' call meeting

NATIONAL POLICY: A group of activists called on the president to initiate a forum for cross-strait policymaking, in an effort to build a consensus By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Following opposition party leaders' recent trips to China, it is necessary for President Chen Shui-bian to immediately call a national policy meeting to discuss the thorny issue of cross-strait relations with political leaders and the people, a civic peace group urged yesterday.

"While cross-strait issues should have been reasonably debated, they have unfortunately been manipulated by political parties, especially during election periods," said Chien Hsi-chieh, executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan. "Only the voice of the people can help bring to a halt political feuds and confrontations, which have been used by Beijing to disintegrate the people of Taiwan and the country."

In a bid to integrate political power and reach public consensus over cross-strait issues, Chien called on Chen to call a national policy conference to discuss the matter as soon as possible.

"It is very important for the president to listen to the different voices of the people on the topic," he said. "The voice of the people should become the basic foundation of the president's long-term cross-strait policy and the policy should be made on the basis of the welfare of the people of Taiwan, rather than on the interest of the president himself or of his party."

Chien made the remarks on behalf of the Alliance of Independent Organizations to Promote Cross-Strait Peace.

The alliance was founded in 2002 by late presidential adviser Liu Hsia (劉俠).

As most people in Taiwan prefer peace to war, Chien said that Chen should listen to the voice of the people as to what kind of peace model Taiwanese people want, not what any individual politician or political party wants.

"Our ideal may sound a little far-fetched to some, but we'd like to see the situation across the Taiwan Strait improve to such a state that is better than the status quo," he said. "It, of course, requires public discussion and brainstorming as to what the best model should be."

Son Yu-lian, secretary-general of the Taiwan Labour Front, said that he would like the voice of labor unions to be heard during the national policy meeting.

He also called on opposition parties to let Chen talk with his Chinese counterpart about cross-strait issues, because only a popularly elected president can represent the people of Taiwan.

Huang Tsai-fa, a standing board director of the Taiwan Confederation of Trade Unions, expressed the same opinion.

"We saw the 10-point consensus signed by President Chen and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong. We also saw the six-point communique reached between Soong and Chinese President Hu Jintao, and the five-point agreement made between Hu and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan," he said. "However, we have never heard them ask what the people of Taiwan want."

Echoing Huang's viewpoint, Wu Tung-jye, secretary-general of the Green Formosa Front, said that cross-strait issues are not the "individual property" of any politician or party, and cannot be controlled by them.

In addition to requesting that Chen hold a national policy meeting, Chien said that the ruling and opposition parties should also make an effort to reconcile with each other and create a consensus about cross-strait policies.

Although Chien said that they recognize the recent efforts opposition parties have made to improve cross-strait relations, they are very curious to know why opposition parties can sit down and talk with the Chinese authorities, but refuse to reconcile with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government.

Japan threatens sanctions if N Korea has atomic test

GREATEST THREAT: The Japanese secretary-general said that Pyongyang poses a risk to Japan's security now that it has enough plutonium for several nuclear bombs

AP , TOKYO

Japan will call for UN economic sanctions against North Korea if it conducts an atomic test, a top Japanese ruling party official said yesterday, after the communist nation claimed it was taking steps to produce more plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Shinzo Abe, secretary-general of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said that Japan faces the greatest threat of any nation if North Korea is armed with nuclear weapons.

"If North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons becomes definite and [the North] conducts nuclear testing, for instance, Japan will naturally bring the issue to the UN and call for sanctions against North Korea," he told Asahi TV.

"It is unthinkable not to impose any sanctions in case of a nuclear testing," he said.

US officials said last week that spy satellites looking at the North's northeastern Kilju saw tunnel digging and the construction of a reviewing stand -- possible indications of an upcoming test.

North Korea also raised the stakes in the dispute last week by claiming that it was taking steps that would enable it to harvest more plutonium for nuclear weapons and would bolster its arsenal.

A ministry spokesman said the country had removed 8,000 fuel rods from the reactor at its main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, 80km north of Pyongyang. If reprocessed, the rods could, after several months, yield enough plutonium for a couple of nuclear bombs, South Korean media reported. The North claimed in February to have nuclear weapons, and the head of the UN nuclear watchdog said recently that the country previously had enough plutonium for up to six nuclear bombs.

Pyongyang has withdrawn from six-nation talks that also involved South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the US. Japan and other participants have been frustrated in efforts to bring back North Korean to the negotiating table, and Tokyo recently proposed a possible five-way talks if the North keeps boycotting the talks.

Abe said he believed North Korea's recent indication about its nuclear arms capability is largely an attempt to gain a reward in exchange for its return to negotiations.

"We cannot ignore the threats so we try to bring North Korea back to the dialogue, and when they return to the table we might even have to consider a reward," Abe said.

North Korea calls Rice `a brazen liar'

AFP , SEOUL

North Korea has expressed distrust over overtures by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seeking to bring the communist state back into six-way nuclear talks.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said late Saturday Rice's recent comments calling Pyongyang a sovereign state -- which was seen by Seoul as a conciliatory gesture by Washington -- were just a "ruse."

Citing a "hostile" US policy among others, the North has boycotted the six-way nuclear talks -- which also include the US, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan -- for 11 months.

The spokesman told the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) that Rice appeared on CNN on Thursday to accuse Pyongyang of violating a 1994 nuclear safeguard deal and call it a "terrible regime."

"Rice's reckless remarks self-exposed that her loudmouthed recognition of the `sovereign state' and the like were nothing but a ruse to conceal the US attempt at `bringing down the regime' of the DPRK [North Korea] and mislead the public opinion," the spokesman said.

He called Rice a "brazen-faced liar" while repeating the call by Pyongyang that the 1994 deal collapsed due to Washington "inventing the rumor about the nonexistent `enriched uranium program' of the DPRK."

Since her Asian tour in March, Rice has publicly acknowledged the North's status as a sovereign country while urging Pyongyang to return to the talks.

Chen must bring peace

By Weiming Julian Wang

Recent visits to China by two opposition leaders have put heavy pressure on Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian to ease cross-strait tensions. One can debate the politics of the unfortunate animosity between Taiwan and China all they want, but the fact remains that Taiwan cannot live forever indebted to the US and would never be a real winner once war breaks out.

For China, democracy should be developed as a home-grown development. It cannot be imported from Taiwan. One does not expect changes to happen overnight. The opposition leaders did their best to pave the way for peace and democracy. But Chen's recent TV interview, in which he furiously criticized everybody from his colleagues to political rivals, only revealed that he's too confused to be up to the task.

In his campaign speeches, Chen repeatedly said:"Vote for me because I love Taiwan." He urged voters to give him a majority so that he would have less chance of obstruction from the opposition. The best way to show his love for Taiwan is to bring peace and prosperity to the region. If he is not able to do this, people will not hesitate to change things at the ballot box.

Weiming Julian Wang

Chiayi

Taiwan's legal standing

By Richard W. Hartzell

For over fifty years large numbers of people have complained about the inadequacy of "international law" to clearly define the international legal status of Taiwan. Here on our beautiful island, this has had the unfortunate effect of discouraging people to study "international law," because it is felt to be useless. At present, this mindset is quite widespread among the Taiwanese populace, and in fact even among foreigners. For example, in "Letters to the Editor," or in online discussion forums, blogs, etc we often see remarks such as "all those laws, agreements, communiques, etc don't mean anything anymore," or "those old treaties no longer have any validity," and "all those legal details are nonsense," and so forth.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Most importantly, the continuous stream of pronouncements to the effect that "Taiwan is already independent" are not going to win wide acceptance in the world community simply because the legal record shows otherwise. In a nutshell, the "sovereignty" of the former Formosa and the Pescadores was not transferred to the Republic of China in the post-World War II treaty.

Additionally, since the correct legal interpretation of Oct. 25, 1945 is merely the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, and "occupation does not transfer sovereignty," the "Republic of China" (ROC) is on very shaky legal ground when it claims to have its own "territory" (as one of the components necessary for statehood). To the casual observer it may appear that the ROC has its own territory, but in fact there has never been an internationally recognized "transfer of title," and without that the ROC (or "Taiwan" for that matter) will never be able to gain wide international recognition.

From the end of the Napoleonic era to the present, all valid territorial cessions have had a clear and unambiguous transfer of title. Taiwan is a territorial cession, and without such a definitive transfer of title, the ROC government cannot legally claim to have ownership (ie, sovereignty) over Formosa and the Pescadores.

Such arguments as "twenty years of democratic development have already made Taiwan into a fully sovereign democratic nation" are of no value, because there is no existing precedent of that nature.

However, as stated above, there is much existing legal precedent to say that a territorial cession, in order to be considered valid, must have a clear and unambiguous transfer of title. I mentioned this crucial fact in a previous letter entitled "A question of sovereignty" (Letters, page 8, Nov. 8, 2004) but unfortunately this was ignored because most readers prefer to think that "all those legal details are nonsense."

But, if the results of the lobbying, parading, speech-making and so on of the past thirty or more years are any indication, I believe that the only possible way out of Taiwan's current "identity crisis" is to find a workable solution under international law.

Such a legal solution will undoubtedly not be full "Taiwan independence," but it may be something very close, such as a self-governing territorial status. If such a self-governing territorial status could be firmly established, then the prospect of full "Taiwan independence" might be attainable thirty years or more down the road.

What options are available? If the people of Taiwan are uncomfortable in joining up with the People's Republic of China, and afraid of having their hard-won freedom and democracy snuffed out, why not join the US? As I pointed out in my Harvard Asia Quarterly article (Fall 2004), it is necessary to read the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) with a "military mindset" in order to fully understand it. After considering such fundamental aspects as military government, occupation, flag, allegiance, territorial cession and others, it is easy to make a case under both international law and US constitutional law that the US' administrative authority over Taiwan is still active.

Who liberated Iwo Jima? What flag went up there? I think the readers of this newspaper know the answer. Who liberated Taiwan in the 1941 to 1945 period? It was the US. Why didn't the US flag go up on Oct. 25, 1945? When General Douglas MacArthur directed the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek to come to Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese troops, is that equivalent to authorizing the transfer of sovereignty? Certainly not. Under existing military law and military precedent, the correct procedure would have been to have the US flag flying highest, and the ROC flag flying a bit lower, thus clearly distinguishing their different statuses. One represents the "principal occupying power" and the other the "subordinate occupying power."

In Article 2b of the post-war SFPT, Japan renounced the sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores, but no receiving country was specified.

That clause has puzzled civilian legal researchers for over fifty years but it is easily explained if you have a military mindset. By examining the handling of territorial cessions in the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War we quickly see that "The military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty."

So what flag should have been flying over Taiwan on April 28, 1952 when the SFPT came into force? It is the US flag. Why didn't it happen? That would be a good question to ask at the regular US State Department press briefings in Washington.

When the Shanghai Communique was drafted in 1972, and it was decided that Taiwan should be recognized as a part of China, were the Taiwanese people consulted? Today, concerned individuals could make a very strong case in the US Federal Court system that over the last thirty or more years the State Department and the Oval Office have conspired to systematically deny the Taiwanese people their "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution.

In summary, in order for Taiwan to have a brighter tomorrow, what is needed is solid legal arguments and swift legal action.

Richard W. Hartzell

Taipei

Did Lien outsmart himself?

By Huang Jei-hsuan

China's enactment of its "Anti-Secession" Law continues to reverberate.

In a May 5 phone call to Chinese President Hu Jintao, US President George W. Bush reportedly reminded Hu to talk to President Chen Shui-bian in addition to the opposition party leaders. For Taiwan, the significance attached to this phone call can't be overstated.

It's apparent that the US government has realized the inherent danger of China's "law" and, as a response, has been trying to push China to the conference table.

Beijing's first reaction was to stick with its disingenuous nature by inviting for a visit to Beijing the two pro-China opposition party chairmen -- namely, Lien Chan of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and James Soong of the People's First Party (PFP).

We are, therefore, witnessing one of the backlashes of China's promulgation of its "law," as the US is now justifiably pushing China to reach out to Taiwan. This makes easier Chen's insistence on Taiwan's sovereignty and an equal footing for talks based on the principle of peace. That, in turn however, would render any talks between Taiwan and China almost dead on arrival, because of China's inability to accept Taiwan's sovereignty and its insistence on peace as preconditions.

Sooner of later, the US would attempt and succeed in convincing China -- or, they might mutually become convinced -- that the only viable alternative for resolving the cross-strait issue peacefully would be multi-nation talks. That, incidentally, was the only format endorsed by former president Lee Tung-hui and hence illustrates the converging nature of the causes of various pan-green groups.

In the meantime, Chen and his Cabinet have to be fully engaged in every stage of the transaction leading up to, or even including, the resolution.

In order to have all parties -- which could potentially be involved in a future multi-nation talk -- convinced of its absolute necessity, the possibility of direct talks between China and Taiwan must first be exhausted and its futility demonstrated.

Therefore, the process at times might even entail a change of direction or a detour to bypass obstacles. But the realistic goals of Chen's government differ little from those of the Taiwan Solidarity Union or the rest of the Democratic Progressive Party. That's why the current quarrels among pan-green supporters seem so sadly confounding.

Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that personal egos should always take a back seat to the interests of the people of Taiwan -- the very survival of which can ill afford a fractured pan-green camp during regular times, let alone now.

While in Beijing, Lien made a wholesale promise to uproot Taiwan's democracy by collaborating with Beijing. This should be quite offensive to Washington. Now that he is back in Taiwan, the greatest fear is that many pan-blue politicians will follow his lead and try to destabilize Chen's government.

Bush, in his phone call to Hu, specifically referred to Chen as the Taiwanese president and a duly elected leader, in an apparent attempt to buttress Chen's position. This ought to make other pan-blue leaders think twice before signing on to everything Lien advocated during his China visit.

Furthermore, any KMT member that aspires to be a candidate in the 2008 presidential election might have to denounce Lien somewhere down the line.

That, in turn, could split KMT in the end.

It would then be a real irony, should Lien's attempt at selling out Taiwan to China end up flushing the KMT down the drain instead.

Huang Jei-hsuan

California