20050704

TT: Is your personal attitude linked to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) ideas on diplomatic strategy?

Shieh: The diplomatic strategies adopted by the Taiwanese government -- and by extension the DPP -- are not based on the notion that conservatism is best. It's not about merely defending Taiwan's right to participate in the international community. Since we are discontent with the unfair treatment we receive in the global arena -- the result of China's unreasonable and hostile attitude -- we have to fight for justice.

For example, Taiwan's old-fashioned, conservative diplomatic policy sought to avoid the appearance of the name "Taiwan" in public. The name of Taiwan's office here in Berlin is the "Taipei Representative Office in Germany." Some German politicians said to me, "we don't forbid you calling yourself Taiwan." This shows that even though everyone can call us "Taiwan," we cannot call ourselves Taiwan. Taiwanese people's feelings about being wrongly treated must be brought to light. Their opposition to the so-called "one China policy" must be made known in the international community.

TT: In addition to China's refusal that the name "Taiwan" be used in the global political arena, can you give other examples of how Taiwan has been unfairly treated?

Shieh: Yes. Germany has unfairly treated Taiwan's top political leaders -- the president, vice president, premier, foreign affairs minister and minister of national defense are forbidden from entering Germany. Why are they on a "no admittance" blacklist? Are they criminals?

Of course we cannot expect other countries to focus on certain issues as intensely as Taiwan does. However, if you ask me why I challenge certain unreasonable policies toward Taiwan, which are basically products of a specific nation's adherence to the "one China" principle, it's because Taiwan really has nothing to lose and everything to gain. We have been victimized by unjust policies for decades. So our requests for justice now are not unreasonable or made out of the blue.

Don't forget that German history is rife with periods of discontent among a widespread portion of the society. Martin Luther once said, "Here I stand. I have no alternative. God helps me. Amen." I'm sort of in a similar situation, in that I have to fight for justice on Taiwan's behalf and say what I believe.

TT: So what are your highest priorities an the moment?

Shieh: My first priority here is to let German people know that Taiwan has changed a lot. We've fought for democracy for a long time. If we don't take actions in diplomatic fields, how can we expect the rest of the world to understand that Taiwan is being mistreated? If the Dalai Lama remained silent about how the Tibetans have been treated by China's tyrannical regime, would so many people now fight with them against injustice?

Of course, I clearly understand that Germany is like many other countries, in that they are crazy about getting access to China expanding market. However, I'm sure the German people would never abandon their core values, particularly human rights. While watching the diversity of opinions from a number of political parties campaigning for the German parliamentary elections this September, I'd say Taiwan supports those parties that stand firmly for justice.

TT: Are you confident that you can deliver the correct about Taiwan to the German government?

Shieh: Yes. I'm not like certain Taiwanese political figures who embrace China in order to confuse the international community and compromise Taiwan's democratic achievements. Could the German people imagine that in the era prior to unification in 1989, some leading political figures from West Germany shaking hands with their counterparts in the East? Probably not.

So how could one accept the notion that Taiwan's democratic system could work with that of communist China's? Before Martial Law was lifted in 1987, the real voice of the Taiwanese was rarely heard. Now the old leaders of the ROC regime want to work with China in order to damage Taiwan's democracy. We have to make this point clear in the international society.

Don't forget the words of German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "I prefer a harmful truth to a useful error. A harmful truth can only be harmful for the moment and will lead to other truths that will, of necessity, become more and more useful."

To sum up, the country's future should be decided by the Taiwanese people's will, and not by certain political figures who have betrayed the nation.

TT: Do you have practical ways to further promote the relations between Taiwan and Germany?

Shieh: Bilateral exchanges will take place on a diverse range of issues, including politics, the economy, culture, and science and technology. For example, we are establishing the Taiwan-Germany Cultural Awards for contributions to not only bilateral cultural exchanges but also long-term devotion to Taiwan studies.

In addition, we will advance exchanges on technology pertaining to renewable energy. Germany's scrapping a second nuclear power plant in May was based on existing policies. We will keep observing the nation's energy policy to see if they will change after the parliamentary elections are held in September.

Sovereignty a tough question

By Richard Hartzell

I read Dennis Hickey's letter (Letters, June 29, page 8) with much interest. Hickey has provided a very lucid analysis of some of the key international legal perspectives which have a great bearing on the Taiwan sovereignty issue.

From the content and tone of Hickey's letter, it is clear that he hopes that the Taiwanese people can have a bright future under a democratic government, and that peace, stability and prosperity in the Western Pacific can be maintained. I am sure that the readers of this newspaper, myself included, also share in these hopes.

Nevertheless, I must point out the arguments advanced in his letter are not persuasive. I have no doubt that Hickey is sincere. The problem does not rest with the thoroughness of his analysis, rather it rests with the underlying legal assumptions.

Specifically, Hickey and many other contributors to the Taipei Times editorial page before him have consistently made reference to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Perhaps it will come as a surprise to them that anyone could state that the formulation in this Montevideo Convention is "incomplete."

However, it clearly is. I believe that everyone who is interested in a democratic future for Taiwan should consider this aspect in some detail. An example is easily given as follows. Let us suppose that there was a war in Southeast Asia, and the military forces of Holland were fighting Indonesia. Further let us suppose that in the battle for Sumatra, Holland had been allied with Malaysia. Military forces from Holland and Malaysia were fighting together in the archipelago, and after several months of heavy aerial and naval bombardments by Holland, the Indonesian commanders on Sumatra agreed to surrender.

At this point we can imagine that Holland's military forces still had additional operations to take care of in nearby geographic areas. Hence, the Dutch general would direct that senior Indonesian commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within Sumatra surrender to Malaysia's military forces, and that Malaysia should take charge of the administration of the island.

Moreover, let us imagine that five years later (before the post-war peace treaty is written) there is a coup d'etat in Malaysia, and a number of high-ranking government officials and military personnel all flee to Sumatra. At this point it might be expected that the old Malaysian government which has established itself in Sumatra still has full diplomatic relations with thirty or more countries. An important question is: Can we consider "Malaysia in Sumatra" to be an independent and sovereign nation?

Consider the entire situation from the point of view of the local Sumatrans. What would they say about the legitimacy of the Malaysian government which has established itself in Sumatra? But with reference to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (which entered into force on December 26, 1934), "Malaysia in Sumatra" does indeed meet the four criteria of having (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) a government and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

A closer examination of the facts, however, shows that "Malaysia in Sumatra" is only a subordinate occupying power and a government in exile. It has effective territorial control over Sumatra, but does not have sovereignty. Indeed, the local Sumatrans would probably be glad for the Malaysians to move to Paris, Rome, London, or some other city and establish their government in exile there. However, it is unlikely the Malaysians would leave.

Hence, I would maintain that the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention are clearly incomplete. For complex situations which involve (1) military occupation, (2) governments in exile, or (3) territorial cessions with no clear transfer of legal title, the Montevideo Convention gives a "false reading."

This is exactly the problem with Taiwan. Under the customary laws of warfare of the post-Napoleonic period, it is clear that Oct. 25, 1945, can only be regarded as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. In late 1949, the remnants of the ROC government fled from China and came to Taiwan, thus becoming a government in exile. In the postwar San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores," but no receiving country was specified. Some researchers still maintain that that the ROC has been an independent sovereign state since its establishment in 1912, but conveniently fail to consider that the ROC did not include Taiwan in that era. China had already ceded Taiwan to Japan in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki.

I believe that the above brief overview clearly illustrates the reasoning behind then US secretary of state Colin Powell's statement on Oct. 25, last year, that "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation." Powell's statement was correct. Those scholars or government officials who would claim otherwise are only considering "half" of the entire body of international law, ie, the portions concerned with peacetime matters and which primarily deal with civilian issues. They are failing to consider the customary laws of warfare, which include the Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, related international court decisions, the law of nations in regard to military issues, and so on.

Richard Hartzell

Taipei

70 years dedicated to peace, love and his homeland

The Dalai Lama, who turns 70 on Wednesday, travels far and wide spreading his message but hopes to someday be able to return home to Tibet

DPA , New Delhi

When His Holiness the Dalai Lama gives public teachings in India, attendees would be well advised to bring a cushion, an FM radio, a cup and a sunhat and given the security checks that take place, as little else as possible.

He turns 70 on Wednesday, July 6, and he has spent the last 46 years in exile based in India, but traveling far and wide with his messages of peace, compassion and love. The demand for justice for the Tibetan people that started with freedom has now been toned down to greater autonomy under Chinese jurisdiction.

Born to a humble farming family in 1935 in a tiny Tibetan village, the life of Lhamo Dhondrup, as he was known then, took an extraordinary turn when he turned 2 years old.

A group of Buddhist monks recognized him as the 14th incarnation of the Dalai Lama, traditionally the spiritual and political leader of Tibet. At the age of 6, he was in a monastery being educated in the tenets of Buddhism.

He lived in his beloved Tibet for only 24 years. The larger part of his life has been spent in Dharamshala which translates as "abode of religion," a small northern Indian hill town, from where he runs his Tibetan government-in-exile.

China invaded Tibet in 1949, and when the Tibetan government broke down in 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India disguised as a soldier while Chinese troops cracked down on a Tibetan uprising against the occupation of their homeland.

More than 80,000 Tibetan refugees followed the Dalai Lama. But in the years that followed his departure, about 1 million Tibetans died in prisons and labor camps in Tibet, according to the Tibetan government in exile.

Human rights organizations say Tibet's unique culture and its people have been systematically persecuted by China, which established a Tibet Autonomous Region 40 years ago.

In the early years of his exile, the Dalai Lama took the cause of the Tibetan people to the United Nations. The UN General Assembly called on China to respect the human rights of Tibetans and their desire for self determination.

The Dalai Lama over the years has toned down the demand for a free Tibet. In a statement issued earlier this year on the occasion of the 46th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese occupation, he said he was committed to not seeking independence for Tibet from China.

"I am convinced in the long run such an approach is of benefit to the Tibetan people for material progress," he said. But he also laments the lack of "true ethnic harmony based on trust" in Tibet.

"The absence of genuine stability in Tibet clearly shows that things are not well."

The Dalai Lama has renewed contacts with the Chinese leadership and says the interactions have been improving. His attempts at peaceful negotiations with China for autonomy for Tibet won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

Until the long-standing dispute is resolved to the mutual benefit of China and the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama will continue to travel far and wide to garner support for the Tibetan cause.

He has visited 55 countries -- some of them several times. He has just returned from a visit to Sweden and Norway. Soon after his 70th birthday on Wednesday, he will travel to Switzerland and then onto the United States where he will criss-cross the country for about two months.

India is home not only to the Dalai Lama, but also to about 100,000 Tibetan refugees who live in 35 settlements and numerous smaller communities striving to keep their cultural identity alive while adapting to a foreign land.

Many of them may still dream of a free Tibet in variance with the Dalai Lama's current vision, but they all agree that it is their leader's charismatic personality that has kept the issue of Tibet alive in the international arena.

A columnist for Time magazine wrote, in response to a rhetorical question on what made the simple Buddhist monk heading an unrecognized government-in-exile of an unrecognized nation of 6 million Tibetans so interesting: "Perhaps because he is also a diplomat, a Nobel laureate, an apostle of nonviolence, an advocate of universal responsibility and a living icon of what he calls `our common religion of kindness.'"

As their leader turns 70, Tibetans may pause to think, what comes after? In a recent interview with the Hindustan Times newspaper, the Dalai Lama said, "If we cease to be a refugee community and can live in democratic Tibet, then I don't think there should be a successor to me after I die."

But, he added, "If I was to die in the next few months or before we are able to return to Tibet, there will be a new Dalai Lama."

He does not know yet where the next leader will be found. But when the time comes for him to die, he will know, he said.

Until then, the smiling monk will continue to inspire through his teachings and will not let the world forget the plight of the Tibetans.