20050710

High explosives used in London blasts

HELL UNDERGROUND: Many dismembered bodies are awaiting search teams in difficult conditions; meanwhile, above ground, the search for terrorists continues slowly

AP AND AFP , LONDON

The three bombs that exploded on the London underground railway were made of high explosives, not homemade material -- and blew up within seconds of each other in a near-simultaneous attack, police said yesterday.

Forensic evidence was still being examined, but the type of explosives suggested a degree of sophistication. The material could have been military or commercial.

"It is high explosive," Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said at a Metropolitan Police briefing yesterday. "That would tend to suggest that it is not homemade explosive, but whether it is military explosive, whether it's commercial explosive, whether it's plastic explosive, we don't want to say at this stage."

He said early analysis suggested that each bomb consisted of a "device in a bag, rather than something that was strapped to the individual."

But Paddick said a suicide bombing was still a "possibility. We are not ruling anything out. We are not ruling anything in."

Police said new analysis of the timing of Thursday's subway explosions suggested they may have been detonated by synchronized timers rather than by suicide bombers. But authorities said the possibility of suicide bombings had not been ruled out.

"A slightly different picture is emerging around the timing of these bomb incidents," Paddick said. "All three bombs on the London Underground system actually exploded within seconds of each other, at 8:50 in the morning."

Officials originally thought that the explosions had occurred in a 26-minute span.

The first bomb exploded at the Aldgate station in east London. Two more went off within 50 seconds, police said.

Forty-nine bodies have been recovered from the bombings on three subways and a double-decker bus that was blown apart near Russell Square in central London.

BODIES

All the bodies have been retrieved from the bus, but bodies were still trapped in the tunnels at Russell Square in central London. Heat, dust and other difficult conditions were preventing crews from recovering them from the debris, police said.

Authorities had not identified a single body because the remains were so mangled and difficult to retrieve, police said.

"It is a very harrowing task," Detective Superintendent Jim Dickie told reporters. "Most of the victims have suffered intensive trauma, and by that I mean there are body parts as well as torsos."

Dickie said the process was to get under way yesterday afternoon, and that forensics experts would use fingerprints, dental records and DNA analysis to help put names to the bodies.

"No bodies have been identified as yet because as of yesterday we only started to receive bodies into the temporary mortuary," he said. "Autopsies will be starting today. Until that's done, we won't have gathered the necessary information to make the identification process."

NO ARRESTS

Police have made no arrests so far over the attacks, Paddick said.

"We have not arrested anyone in connection with the incident," he said.

Paddick also said police were not focusing on specific suspects.

"We are not looking at any specific individuals at this stage," he told reporters. "We have all our options open we are pursuing but we are not confirming that we are looking for any particular named individuals."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday that links to al-Qaeda were likely, but it was not yet clear who was behind the devastating blasts.

In a BBC radio interview, Blair said investigators did not yet know who was behind the attacks but hoped to have more information soon.

He said he was aware of a claim of responsibility posted on the Internet by a group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe."

He said that it was "reasonably obvious that it comes from that type of quarter" but not yet clear exactly which organization was responsible.

A second claim appeared on a Web site yesterday, this one signed Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades. The group, whose name evokes the alias of Mohammed Atef, Osama bin Laden's top deputy who was killed in a US airstrike in Afghanistan in November 2001. But experts say the group has no proven track record of attacks, and that it has claimed responsibility for events in which it was unlikely to have played a role.

At King's Cross station, near the site of the deadliest of the three subway bombings, the rail service was partially restored yesterday. Flowers and sympathy cares piled up outside honoring the dead.

`Taiwan Republic' is the nation's real name, pro-independence group says

OFFICIAL TITLE: A group is promoting changing the national title to `Taiwan Republic' and setting the goal of having a new constitution for the nation signed into law by 2008

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Taiwan has been an independent state for 54 years and its title should be the Taiwan Republic, a pro-independence organization said yesterday.

"We are calling on the opposition parties not to embrace the thighs of [fawn over] China, and for the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government not to espouse the `Republic of China,'" said Peter Wang, convener of the 908 Taiwan Republic Campaign.

Wang announced that his group would hold a flag-raising ceremony for the Taiwan Republic at 9am on Sept. 8 on Ketagelan Boulevard to celebrate the 54th anniversary of the inking of the San Francisco Peace Treaty to raise public awareness of the nation's identity.

"Taiwan became independent on Sept. 8, 1951, when 49 UN members signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which the Japanese empire renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan after its defeat in World War II," Wang said. "The name of the country should be the Taiwan Republic and nothing else."

A candlelight gathering is planned for 7pm on the same day at Manka Park across from Lungshan Temple in Taipei City's Wanhua District. Organizers hope to see a turnout of about 1,000 people at the flag-raising ceremony and 2,000 people at the evening event.

The group's short and long-term goals, Wang said, are to hold an inspection of the armed forces of the Taiwan Republic on Ketagelan Boulevard on the 55th anniversary of the peace accord next year and to see the president of the Taiwan Republic sign into law the Taiwan Republic Constitution on the day of his or her inauguration on May 20, 2008.

Among those supporting the group's goals are Presidential Office national policy adviser and lawyer Chuang Po-lin, DPP Legislator Wang To-far and campaign co-organizer Wang Li-tsu.

Chuang said that China's "one-China" rhetoric has seriously jeopardized Taiwan's national interest and social security.

"Without extradition codes, we cannot bring back culprits committing hideous crimes here who elude the law by escaping overseas," he said. "With the `one-China' policy in place, China has been telling other countries to deal with them, not us, because they claim sovereignty over us."

Although Taiwan is already an independent, sovereign state, Wang To-far said that its biggest problem lies in the lack of a national identity.

CROSS-STRAIT TIES: The trips across the Strait are unhelpful given China's efforts to block Taiwan in the international arena, Su Tseng-chang insisted

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Su Tseng-chang said Friday in New York that the visits to China by two opposition leaders did not benefit Taiwan as Beijing is continuing its relentless campaign to marginalize Taiwan in the international community.

Su made the remarks to Chinese-language media after winding up a nine-day visit to the US.

Su noted that after China enacted its "Anti-Secession" Law on March 14 that authorizes the use of force against Taiwan should it move toward formal independence, an estimated 1 million people on Taiwan took to the streets to vent their displeasure with the law.

Then, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong visited China in April and May, respectively, at the invitation of Chinese President Hu Jintao.

China was actually trying to deflect the tremendous pressure that was coming to bear after the enactment of the legislation, Su said, adding that it wanted to prove to the international community that cross-strait exchanges were continuing and that the people of Taiwan were not opposed to the law.

Beijing is adopting a two-pronged approach toward Taiwan, he said. It is acting as if it embraces contact with Taiwan, while cutting it off from international participation, such as not allowing Taiwan to attend the post-tsunami conference and blocking its observership in the World Health Organization's (WHO) Assembly -- the same behavior as prior to the two opposition politicians' visits to China, he said.

He advised China's authorities to heed US President George W. Bush's June 5 advice when he urged Beijing to talk directly with the duly elected leader in Taiwan, and not just communicate with opposition leaders.

On the upcoming KMT chairmanship election on July 16, Su said he hoped that the new leader of the nearly 110-year-old party could be elected under a democratic system, that the KMT would serve as a loyal opposition party and that its exchanges with the DPP would be rational and based on mutual respect.

Su, who took over the helm of the DPP in February, first visited San Francisco, where he addressed a meeting of an ethnic Taiwanese medical doctors' association. Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh, a co-winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry, also attended the meeting.

Su then traveled to Washington where he talked about Taiwan's democratic experience in a seminar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank.

He also met with US congressional leaders and other political figures, but wouldn't divulge details, saying only that Taiwan has to work harder so that it will be able to stand firm internationally.

Su also visited Boston and New York to meet with think tank academics and Taiwanese community leaders, as well as taking care of some private affairs, including his eldest daughter's enrollment in a graduate school in Boston.

During his stay in New York, Su watched a New York Yankees game in which Taiwan-born pitcher Wang Chien-min was starting.

REAL DANGER: Taiwan should worry less about Beijing's military threats and intimidation and more about an economic hollowing out as China rises, an academic said

A rising China poses a greater threat to Taiwan economically than militarily, Lin Bih-jaw, vice president of National Chengchi University said on Friday.

Lin issued the warning when giving a speech on cross-strait relations to Taiwanese expatriates living in the city state.

According to Lin, China's economic pull based on its business clout has affected Taiwan more on the economic front than militarily, evidenced by Taiwan's industrial hollowing-out and capital and talent flights.

Claiming that Taiwan has not responded swiftly enough to the changes brought about by China's economic opening since the 1970s, Lin said that Taiwan should wise up and turn China's challenges into something meaningful to galvanize its upgrading and transformation.

Taiwan should interpret China's rise as a world power from an angle beneficial to its own interests, instead of echoing the views of Western countries, he said. Apart from being a power in the Asia-Pacific region, China also has increased leverage in international affairs, he noted, adding that China's ascent has come with a bigger role on the world stage, a development that is hard for Taiwan to keep pace with.

Facing such a situation, Taiwan should do its best to engage with other countries by fulfilling its role as a democratic and constructive member in international society, he said. As to the question of whether China will be a risk to other nations in the process of becoming a superpower, he said that it is premature to talk about the issue now as many variables remain.

For the time being, China has devoted all its energy to developing its economy in a peaceful manner and it will avoid having conflicts with countries such as the US and Japan, he said.

It is worth noting that in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China always supports countries in Southeast Asia to hold talks with Russia, India and Central Asian countries, while the US has been trying to better its ties with Australia, Canada, Japan and Taiwan, he said.

While China backs Southeast Asian countries to organize various forms of regional cooperation meetings that are within "East Asia," the US favors the idea of organizing regional cooperation organizations under the name of "Asia-Pacific," Lin said.

Competition between the two blocks has not yet surfaced, but to the US, an ascending China is set to challenge its presence in the Asia-Pacific region sooner or later, and this is something that must be contained, he said.

The SCO is an inter-governmental body set up in 2002 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to boost mutual beneficial cooperation and good ties among the six countries in the areas of politics, security, diplomacy and trade.

DISADVANTAGE: Taiwanese fruit would not do well on the Chinese market because their high production and labor costs make them less competitive, market watchers say

It is doubtful that China's market offers greater business opportunities for Taiwan's fruit farmers, and those that are keen on holding talks with China on the issue are self-interested and unconcerned with helping farmers overcome barriers to that market, agricultural analysts say.

An announcement made on May 3 by Chen Yunlin, the head of China's Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) that it would expand access from 12 types to 18 types of Taiwanese fruit -- 15 of which that would not be subject to tariffs -- has yet to be put into action.

Premier Frank Hsieh announced the idea of "one principle, three arrangements" in mid-June as Taiwan's official position on the Chinese proposal. The principle seeks to promote fruit exports globally, with exports to China as only one part of its marketing strategy. The Cabinet also appointed the Taiwan External Trade and Development Council (TAITRA) to conduct negotiations on details with China and suggested the opening of cross-strait talks on direct cargo charter flights to ensure the freshness of Taiwanese fruit.

But it remains doubtful whether there is a possibility of proceeding with the cross-strait negotiations on fruit exports, with Joseph Wu, chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, telling the international press last week that, "China's `cold shoulder' frustrates us very much, even if it hasn't said no to TAITRA in public."

Despite its refusal to meet with TAITRA officials, China keeps repeating its offers while receiving Taiwanese opposition politicians, including legislators from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People First Party (PFP) and the New Party.

This phenomenon has prompted concern in Taiwanese society, with the pan-green camp considering China's offers to be part of its "united front" strategy, while the pan-blue camp condemns the government's reluctance to accept China's offers.

Agricultural experts said that this issue should be considered as international trade between two countries, and not as political maneuvering on the part of China. A balance between political and economic considerations is the surest way to advance the interest of Taiwanese farmers.

"How competitive is Taiwanese fruit? This question needs to be answered before any expansion into the Chinese market," said Wu Hui-lin, an economist at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.

It is doubtful that Taiwanese fruit has a competitive advantage because "the land cost is 20 times higher and labor costs are 10 times higher in Taiwan than in Southeast Asian countries," said Lee Joe-san, vice director of the international affairs division of the Council of Agriculture (COA).

Lee echoed Wu's position, saying "the COA has gathered information from China recently, which shows that no more than five types of fruit out of the 15 the at may be granted tariff-free status are competitive in its market."

But some have said that Taiwanese fruit would be competitive in the Chinese market if it accounted for a higher percentage of all fruit exported to China. Taiwanese fruit accounts for only 1.47 percent of China's total imported fruit.

Chao Yung-chuan, secretary-general of TAITRA, however, disagrees with this notion.

Chao cited his longtime experience in promoting Taiwan's fruits in China and said, "It's hard for us to beat fruit imported from the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and the US, especially in supermarkets where fruit is sold at mid-range or low prices."

"I doubt there are many benefits for our farmers from merely giving tariff-free status. On the one hand, the extent to which high production costs can be offset by tariff-exempt status is quite limited. On the other hand, Taiwanese fruit is not exempted from commodity tax," said Chao, adding that "what we can do to help in China is to create markets that are capable of selling fruit at high prices and then to establish the outlets for these markets."

"For example, our fruits have great potential in capturing China's gift market," he said.

In light of the comparative disadvantage brought about by Taiwan's high production costs, "the unilateral preferential treatment China offered to Taiwan is also a problem," noted Roger Wu, professor of Agriculture Economics at National Taiwan University.

Since Taiwan and China is both members of the WTO, preferential treatment between two members are only allowed in bilateral agreements and should be negotiated under the umbrella of the WTO, Roger Wu said.

"The unilateral policy violates WTO's regulations and might be called off at any time, leaving its trading partner no place to complain and ask for compensation," he said.

"If the mechanism for bilateral negotiation can't be established, I am afraid that Taiwan will be unable to resist China's unilateral offers of preferential treatment," said the COA's Lee.

"The price of rice imported from China is only one-sixth the price of rice grown in South Korea, posing a threat to the livelihood of Taiwanese farmers," Lee said.

"The situation is the same for growing garlic, scallion and peppers. To avoid the situation, bilateral negotiations between the two governments is required," Lee added.

"Negotiation between two trading partners should not be decided by only one party," said Huang Wei-cher, a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator whose Tainan County constituency is comprised mainly of farmers.

Regarding Bonnie Glaser's article ("Is a Chen-Hu Summit Desirable?" June 16, page 8), it is for the most part an uninspired rehash of the aspirations of business leaders on all sides to see an increase in commerce between Taiwan and China as so-called "initial steps" to "build trust" as a prelude to some resolution of the cross-strait situation.

Glaser suggests promoting economic ties as a means of defusing tensions. Of course, from a unificationist's standpoint, that is a good strategy. In fact, it is the preferred method of ensuring unification, as further entangling economic ties will make independence down the road that much more difficult, if not impossible.

The trouble with Glaser's approach, and the approach of a myriad other dreamers who hope earnestly for Taiwan to simply disappear into communist China's bosom, ending cross-strait tensions, and opening the way for exploitation without limit of China's vast untapped markets, is that the approach assumes the final solution will be unification.

That, of course, is dead wrong. No negotiation can ever take place in good faith if one party says "I won't talk to you unless you agree to my position in advance." That is, and has been communist China's position regarding talking to President Chen Shui-bian, and that typical communist blackmail won't succeed.

Communist dictatorships don't take chances on negotiations (or elections, or much else). Hong Kong is a good example. Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang remarkably netted 710 out of 800 endorsements, 10 more than enough to ensure there would be no election for the job.

To ensure victory in Tibet, China kidnapped the Panchen Lama, and replaced him with a communist puppet. To assure itself of support in countering Taiwan independence (including decidedly anti-democratic proclamations from French President Jacques Chirac), China has used economic blackmail against just about every country on earth, including the US. This being the case, Hu will never sit down with Chen in an unscripted discussion or negotiation. Only when the cards are in its favor, and China is assured of Taiwan's capture, will that happen.

As for Glaser's concluding comments, they are a despicable example of the lengths to which CSIS will go to promote China, despite it being a communist dictatorship. In her conclusion, Glaser suggests the US would love to see Taiwan unify with China, and that Washington "would welcome the elimination of the danger of a war in which it is likely to be involved, and in which US interests would almost certainly be adversely affected." This suggestion is wishful and abhorrent thinking, and is decidedly not Washington's current (or historical) thinking.

Glaser blithely expresses her high hopes for the demise of freedom for 23 million Taiwanese (there is no other possible outcome from "unification," to wit Hong Kong's farcical attempt at so-called "democracy"), as if she were describing ordering a salad.

I suggest that she should live as a communist for a while before suggesting that an entire nation, its history, culture, language, economy, democracy and children surrender to the single most brutal communist dictatorship in human history. Her views, and the views of CSIS, do not represent the majority view in the US, in particular the views of this writer.

I deplore the notion that my country would be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for a good night's sleep. That Glaser casually suggests this is true, and moreover, desirable, is morally reprehensible and indefensible.

Over the past week, a number of politicians have visited China for various reasons -- all seemingly selfless, noble and justified. In reality, these people are all seeking to advance the interests of a small segment of the people, themselves being a part of this segment.

They have volunteered to be loyal servants of the Chinese government. Their conduct will necessarily damage the collective interests of Taiwanese society and the nation. President Chen Shui-bian said on Thursday that he hoped these people would not become tools of unificationist propaganda. We believe that in addition to moral persuasion, if any illegal activities are involved in their visits to China, they should be severely punished. The public must also condemn and criticize the behavior of these people.

This flaring up of "China fever" referred to by Chen include not only the agricultural delegation made up of several lawmakers, but also a New Party delegation and about a hundred members of local level governments who attended a forum on local governance.

This is not to mention the delegation headed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Chiang Ping-kun which attended a cross-strait forum on the telecommunication industry, and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker Gao Jyh-peng and People First Party (PFP) lawmaker Liu Yi-ju who are planning on attending three financial and economic forums in China.

This is not a new wave of "China fever," but the continuation of a wave started after the KMT Chairman Lien Chan and PFP Chairman James Soong returned from their trips to China earlier this year. While Lien and Soong have justified their trips as a way to break the cross-strait impasse and as a means to foster peace, they have actually deepened Taiwan's domestic divisions and opened the door to visits by Chinese leaders.

KMT spokesman Chang Jung-kung conceded that "the KMT actively seeks to be friendly with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in order to win back power in the presidential election in 2008." With greedy and selfish parties such as these within Taiwan, how can the Chinese government, bent on taking the nation at all costs, not make good use of them?

Despite the fact that China's oppression of Taiwan in the international community continues -- and it has been uncooperative about official cross-strait negotiations over cargo flight links and agricultural exports -- it has begun its unificationist propaganda campaign by using Taiwan's opposition parties. Generally speaking, the Chinese goal to engulf Taiwan remains unchanged. As for isolating the Taiwanese government, warming up to opposition parties and business interests, and dividing the pan-green and pan-blue camps, these are common tactics to bring about unification.

Facing Chinese unification campaigns, some politicians, such as Lien and Chiang, willingly tango with the Chinese government. Then there are those who embrace Chinese nationalism above universally-accepted democratic values, such as the New Party. Then there are those who either intentionally or unintentionally ignore the differences on either side of the Taiwan Strait and actively participate in cross-strait exchanges. In the end, they all fall prey to the unificationist campaign.

Take for example the Taiwanese participants of the forum on local government from the two sides of Taiwan Strait. They are all elected representatives of the people of Taiwan. Their job is to represent their constituents and monitor the government, not make friends with communists or phony lawmakers. Actually, those participating in the forum with these Taiwanese lawmakers are either CCP members or people appointed by the CCP. As President Chen noted, what is the point of "getting in touch" or "coming to an understanding" with these people?

These people do not represent the popular will of the Chinese people. They wine and dine with the Taiwanese because it is their job to do so. There are also some politicians and businesspeople who say that their contacts in China are not political in nature and have nothing to do with sovereignty issues. These people often call for the separation of political and business issues in dealing with China. They do these things as a way to justify their cooperation with Chinese and their unificationist propaganda.

China's unificationist tactics, while primarily based on military intimidation, also employ subtle political maneuvers. Take the telecommunications forum attended by Chiang as an example. The two sides have reached a consensus on 3G standards. This was accomplished as a result of an instruction issued by Beijing that constructive results must be attained from the forum. Because Beijing obviously used the forum as part of its unificationist campaign, questions from the US have been raised.

In light of the level of military and technological exchanges between Taiwan and US, the cross-strait agreement on 3G standards will necessarily trigger resentment and reaction from the US government. However, while the US is already anxious about China's military expansion, and while Japan and the US have listed Taiwan as a "common strategic objective," the pan-blue camp doesn't seem to care about international developments. Instead, it continues to boycott the arms procurement budget.

Politicians who are especially enthusiastic about visiting China have not only deceive themselves by giving non-political justifications for their visits, they also fail to stand up for Taiwan in an effort scuttle the sovereignty of the nation. Due to their compliant and meek attitude toward China, they view Chinese oppression of Taiwan as a necessary step. Then they come back to Taiwan and criticize the government for been "excessively political," and for willingly isolating itself.

The "China fever" has infected the blue camp to such an extent that they have become blind to the Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan. That blue camp politicians would try their reconcile their differences with the governing camp is inconceivable. Instead, they choose to reconcile with the enemy and to escalate internal divisions.

Politicians act in such a manner obviously because somebody is backing them up at home. Media independence from politics here simply does not exist. Public opinions in favor of China and against the US have been shaped deliberately. Not only are the hidden crises of Chinese economy deliberately concealed by some media outlets, but talk about China's "peaceful rise" and the "peaceful fall" of the US have began to surface.

The Japanese media have raised the possibility of a surprise attack on Taiwan by China followed by the establishment of a pro-China regime here. In view of the recent "China fever," pro-China political parties and media are already in place. When politicians can't be trusted to do what is best for the nation, it is up to the people of Taiwan to see China for what it is and prevent unification from materializing.