US House opposes China's CNOOC bid

RE-THINK URGED: The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to block the Bush administration from approving the offer for Unocal on security grounds

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK

Congressional members opposed to a Chinese bid to take over the California-based energy company Unocal built broader support on Thursday for their campaign to block the deal on grounds that it could threaten national and energy security in the US.

But China is not the first foreign country to seek energy assets owned by Americans. Indeed, oil industry analysts say that the effort by the China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) to outbid Chevron for Unocal appears to pose probably even less risk of generating domestic shortages or other energy-security headaches than other foreign acquisitions that have been approved by the government in the past.

For more than two decades the US has not blocked foreign acquisitions of energy properties by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, France, Norway and Brazil, among others. Some of those deals, particularly Venezuela's purchase of Citgo, involve access to oil supplies vulnerable to disruption because they feed refineries and thousands of US gasoline stations.

By contrast, Unocal has few strategic oil assets in the US. The company, based in El Segundo, California, does not have refineries or gasoline stations, having sold them eight years ago.

"The assets involved in the Unocal transaction are not of the scale or geographic location to make them of critical importance to US energy security," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston, Texas.

Still, the bid has prompted strong debate in Washington. On Thursday, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Democrat, won House passage of her amendment to the annual appropriations bill prohibiting the Treasury Department from recommending the sale of Unocal to CNOOC.

And Thursday night, the House approved, by a vote of 398-15, a resolution stating that Chinese ownership of Unocal would "threaten to impair the national security of the United States" and that approval by Unocal's board of the bid should result in a "thorough review" by President George W. Bush.

The resolution was presented by Representative Richard Pombo, a Republican, whose district includes Unocal's headquarters. In his resolution, Pombo cited concerns about oil exploration technologies that have "dual use" in commercial and military applications.

But Representative Jim Moran, a Republican, said that blocking the Chinese bid was a dangerous move.

"They are holding a financial guillotine over the neck of our economy, and they will drop that if we do things like this that are not well considered," Moran said on the House floor.

"If we don't let them invest in Western firms, what are they going to do? They are going to invest in Iran or Sudan and make those governments much stronger than they are today," he said.

US House acts on China arms sales

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

Expressing concern that more European arms sales to China could heighten the risk of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, the US House International Relations Committee on Thursday unanimously passed a bill to impose a wide array of sanctions against the countries and firms that sell arms to Beijing.

The bill would empower the president to impose penalties for two years or longer, including banning weapons sales, withholding military assistance, ending participation in joint weapon and technology research programs and tightening export controls.

The measure would carry out threats that congressional leaders made when the EU announced plans last December to lift its embargo on arms sales to China by this summer.

Under strong US pressure and in the wake of Beijing's passage of the "Anti-Secession" law that authorizes a military attack on Taiwan under certain conditions, the European Parliament in April voted against lifting the embargo, while the European Commission has also decided to maintain the embargo.

However, the bill complains, none of the European countries that have sold arms to China has moved to end or temporarily suspend sales.

The East Asia Security Act of 2005 was unanimously adopted by the International Relations Committee and now goes to the full House.

If the House passes it, the bill or parallel legislation would have to be approved by the Senate before final congressional passage. There is currently no such bill before the Senate.

The bill expresses the hope that a US-EU strategic dialogue begun in the spring will convince the Europeans of the danger to Taiwan of further arms sales to China.

The dialogue also should "clarify for United States friends and allies in Europe how their `non-lethal' arms transfers improve the force projection of the People's Republic of China, are far from benign and enhance the prospects for the threat or use of force in resolving the status of Taiwan," the bill said.

It called the arms sales and the Chinese threat "a troubling prospect made more ominous" by the Anti-Secession Law.

While sanctions on those selling weapons to China would be discretionary to begin with, they would be mandatory for repeat offenders.

The bill would require new and tougher export licensing requirements for access to sensitive US weapons technology for those selling arms to China, and could tighten export controls on their purchase of dual-use items, which have both military and industrial applications.

The president would be permitted to waive the sanctions if needed in the national security interest.

The president would also be required to submit periodic reports to Congress on countries and firms selling arms to China, and would give Congress a role in determining which sanctions to impose.

In a statement before the committee vote on the measure, committee chairman Henry Hyde welcomed the apparent EU decision not to lift the community's embargo on China arms sales, but warned that individual countries had not pledged to end their arms sales, which have grown substantially in recent years.

Those countries' silence "implies that EU member states who have been aiding China's threatened military buildup may continue to do so," which is "very disappointing and troubling," Hyde said.

He said that European weapons sales to China skyrocketed between 2001 and 2003, increasing eight-fold to US$540 million.

Hyde said the sales included items that increase the range, reliability and deadliness of China's attack aircraft and submarines. Both of those would be vital to any Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Such sales were troubling for the security of US forces in East Asia, "for the defense of friends and allies in the region, and for regional stability more broadly," he said.

US, Taiwan are good friends, AIT Director Paal says

CNA , Taipei

As the nation continues on its path of democracy and freedom, it will always have a friend in the American people, the US' top envoy to Taiwan claimed yesterday.

Douglas Paal, director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), made his remarks at a reception celebrating the US' July 4 Independence Day.

Paal told the guests, including Vice Premier Wu Rong-i, that his host country of Taiwan shares with his home country such democratic values as liberty and equality espoused by the US' founding fathers 229 years ago.

"In Taiwan, these democratic values have been the foundation for a strong and enduring relationship that grows with every day," he said.

Recalling the story of the US national holiday, Paal said the Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 men who dedicated "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" to the independence of the US colonies and to the principles of liberty and equality.

"On this day, we are reminded of the importance of our democratic friends and allies around the world, history and culture we share," he said.

China's journalists fight uphill battle

CENSORSHIP: Beijing's iron grip on news is under attack, but the lists from propaganda departments of stories that cannot be reported is still in full effect

THE GUARDIAN , Guangzhou

It could have been the scoop of the year: the deputy governor of Henan Province had reportedly conspired with a local mayor to have his wife killed and chopped up. If proven, the murder would rank as one of the worst crimes by a senior official for decades.

But the story was a minefield. Knowing how many papers have been closed down, and how many journalists arrested, for covering such sensitive topics, most editors gave Henan a wide berth.

The exception was the Nanfang Daily Press Group, whose papers are increasingly earning national respect, and official condemnation, for their coverage of China's social ills.

When reports of the killing emerged last month, reporters from two of the group's flagship titles, the Southern Metropolitan Daily and Southern Weekend, flew to the provincial capital, Zhengzhou, and talked to the victim's family, colleagues, and detectives.

Off the record sources confirmed the murder and arrest, but a request for an official comment effectively killed the story. Henan's propaganda department ordered a news blackout.

It was nothing new. That week, three other Southern Weekend stories were spiked by the authorities. Nothing was published on police negligence in floods that killed 100 school children, nor on six villagers murdered in battles with gangs recruited by power companies to kick them off their land, nor poor safety planning that led to a fire in which 31 died.

Even after their stories were buried, the journalists used other means to get the news out, via private diaries and field notes posted on the Internet or circulated by e-mail. Some revealed they had to travel in near secrecy to avoid local authorities. Others said they used public phones to avoid being traced, and filed from net cafes and through friends.

"As a journalist, my job should be focused on writing a good report. But half of my effort is spent on considering how to get a story past the censors and the likelihood of punishment," said Liu Jianqiang, whose Henan story was spiked. "By writing out these notes, hopefully I can emerge from this gloomy mood. To act otherwise, by keeping my head low and docile in the face of mistreatment, and by pretending I'm a `good citizen,' my heart would feel bitter," Liu said.

The risks are great. Last year, three editors from the Nanfang group -- Yu Huafeng, Li Minying and Cheng Yizhong -- were imprisoned on fraud charges, an act of revenge by the local public security bureau when the authorities closed down the 21st Century Herald and the New Herald.

"It's very traumatic. I don't want to have to go through that again," one veteran said. "Now, every time a sensitive story comes in, I'm nervous. To be a good journalist in China, you can't just be an idealist; you must be a realist too."

SOUTHERN VANGUARD

But the system that nurtured so many good journalists is still in place. Guangdong was one of the first provinces to open to the outside world. Reflecting its modern business environment, the Southern Weekend blazed a trail in 1992 when its parent company, a party-controlled propaganda organ, transformed what had been a four-page celebrity gossip sheet into a hard-hitting news weekly.

The aim was to attract readers and advertising by being first to the news. Out went stodgy layout, in came smart design.

To encourage hard-hitting journalism, reporters were rewarded for the quantity and quality of their work. It was a huge success. The Nanfang Weekend now has a 1.3 million circulation nationwide. By breaking stories before officialdom had a chance to censor them, it and sister papers such as the Southern Metropolitan Daily and the Beijing News, have had more influence than others in shaping public debate on the dramatic social changes now taking place.

As well as scoops about SARS and the Three Gorges dam, the Nanfang Weekly made the biggest splash of 2003 by investigating the case of Sun Zhigang, who died in police custody. Its coverage forced a change of national policy on detentions, and humiliated local police chiefs.

"This was our Watergate scandal. It transformed attitudes," said Wang Xiaoshan, a former Southern Metropolitan employee. "Until then, journalists had put the priority on self-survival. After, everyone wanted to break important news. More and more young reporters now want to be heroes."

BLACKOUT LISTS

The Chinese Communist Party's propaganda department lists stories which must not be published. Several journalists confirmed such lists exist, but warned that providing copies could be considered a breach of state security.

In quiet weeks, lists contain few subjects: typically, Taiwan, Tibet or religious freedom. At other times, they stretch to 25 or more items: riots, strikes and alleged affairs of senior leaders. No editor would disobey such orders, but the role of newspapers has become more adversarial.

"Nanfang group has started a nationwide movement," a former employee said. "I think most journalists don't stand on the side of the party, they stand on the side of society. There has been a big change in the attitude of the media."

The authorities appear rattled. Propaganda officials now convey orders by phone. A more direct control is to replace editors with propaganda officials, such as Xiang Xi, latest chief of Southern Weekend. There are more sinister means: in the past two years, at least five Chinese and two foreign journalists have been arrested. According to the rights group, Reporters Without Borders, China has jailed 30 reporters and 62 cyber dissidents -- more than any other country.

Unite in opposition to Beijing's `one China'

By Chen I-shen陳儀深

A three-day international academic symposium titled, "Rethinking the History of Modern China," was held from Tuesday to yesterday.

No one at this time publicly advocates Beijing standpoint, which is: "There is only one China in the world, Taiwan is a part of China and The People's Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing China."

Instead, the issue of Taiwan's international status, discussed at the symposium, is approached from the perspective of either the ROC or Taiwan independence. The controversy between these two standpoints has been discussed for many years.

From the ROC perspective, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration must be mentioned first. In those documents, three World War II allies -- the US, the UK and Chiang Kai-shek's ROC -- declared their intent to strip Japan of all islands and territories which it had seized from the Chinese, including Taiwan, and hand them over to the ROC after the war.

Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty stipulates that "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," but left unsettled the question of who would assume sovereignty over those territories.

The ROC perspective also emphasizes the importance of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, signed between the ROC and Japan in 1952, which reiterated Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty but also did not elaborate on who assumed Taiwan's sovereignty.

Because only Japan and China have the right to determine to whom Taiwan belongs, the ROC argument goes, the US position as stated in the San Francisco Peace Treaty was not legally binding. Although the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty did not explicitly settle Taiwan's sovereignty, the signatory act and other relevant provisions effectively handed it over to the ROC.

The Taiwan independence perspective, on the other hand, emphasizes that the Cairo and Potsdam declarations were not treaties and therefore not legally binding. The reasons why the San Francisco treaty intentionally left open the question of Taiwan's sovereignty were complex, and were related to the Korean War and the Beijing and Taipei's struggle to win recognition as the only legitimate government of all of China and Taiwan.

But there was another reason for the ambiguity: it was a respond to the strong and clear voice from the Taiwanese public, particularly after the 228 Incident, which demanded that Taiwan be placed under a UN trusteeship, with a referendum to be held at a later date to determine Taiwan's future. That demand was put in a petition to the US consulate.

Furthermore, say those who take a Taiwanese independence perspective, the US was a victor in World War II, the key power in the Far East and the big power enforcing the military occupation of Taiwan. How could one claim, then, that the US has no say on the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty?

Academic disputes are one thing, but the reality of political development is another. The reality is that today's ROC is not the same as the ROC in the day of Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo. Moreover, this ROC is not recognized as a sovereign nation by most of the international community. As a result, those holding both an ROC perspective and a Taiwan independence perspective are united in their opposition to Beijing's "one China" principle.

If you agree that Taiwan's future should be determined by its people, it becomes clear which disputes will lead to a productive outcome and which will only result in meaningless domestic bickering and exhaustion.

Chen I-shen is an associate researcher in the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica and deputy chairman of the Northern Taiwan Society.