In their nine-point request, the fishermen ask the government to set aside the dispute over the Diaoyutais' sovereignty and instead focus on fishing rights, increase the annual budget of the Coast Guard Administration to enhance its equipment, strengthen the Coast Guard Administration's legal duty to protect fishermen, establish a relief fund exclusively dedicated to fishermen in times of need, allow fishermen to attend the upcoming fishing negotiations and request the Japanese government to provide assistance to the nation's fishing boats which lose power and drift into Japan's economic waters, instead of detaining them.

They also requested that the Japanese government re-examine the demarcation of its exclusive economic zone and that if it insists on demarcating a middle line, it should be drawn between Taipei and Tokyo.

In response, Director-General of the Fisheries Agency under the Council of Agriculture Hsieh Dah-wen promised to take the nine-point demand into consideration while conducting the negotiations with Japan.

Hsieh also agreed to subsidize the proposed relief fund, which the group hopes to establish.

The subdued crowd of fishermen then began clamoring when Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chen Chin-de questioned the true identity of a fisherman who was venting his anger in front of Chen for failing to bring high-ranking Cabinet officials to meet the group.

The two then argued, while another man picked up his chair and threw it on the floor.

The group had originally expected to see Cabinet Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan or Cabinet Deputy Secretary-General Liu Yu-shan.

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, who was busy campaigning for his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairmanship bid, asked KMT lawmaker Tseng Yung-chuan, as well as his wife Chen Tsai-lien and daughter Wang Hsin-min, to go in his place and convey his concern to the fishermen.

Some members started to leave the room, planning to proceed to the Taipei Office of Japan's Interchange Association to protest.

Liu showed up at around noon, apologizing for his delay and saying that he had been stuck in a meeting, while Lee had other engagements. He endorsed the group's requests and called on the legislature to approve more funding for the Coast Guard Administration.

He also said that the government will respect the legislature's decision about whether to set up a maritime ministry and that it recognized the group's call for the establishment of such a new government organ.

The fishermen later sent six representatives to the Taipei Office of Japan's Interchange Association to present a petition letter and the nine-point request.

Police relieved as anti-Japan protest draws only a few

CNA , TAIPEI AND OUAGADOUGOU, BURKINA FASO

Over 100 policemen were mobilized to guard the Taipei office of Japan's Interchange Association yesterday for fear that several hundred fishermen from eastern Taiwan would swamp the de facto Japanese embassy to protest a fishing dispute over territorial waters between the two countries.

To the police and Japanese liaison officials' relief, the fishermen did not show up, except for about a dozen activists led by Hsiao Wen-yi, chairman of the Taiwan Fishermen's Human Rights Association.

Many journalists, including reporters and cameramen from Japan, seemed to be disappointed with the absence of protesters, who were found later to have gone to the Legislative Yuan to lodge their protest.

Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Mark Chen on Sunday appealed to the Taiwanese public for restraint in the run-up to the Taiwan-Japan fishery talks, saying that any negative or undesirable actions by the public could spoil the atmosphere of the talks.

A preparatory meeting is scheduled to be held in Tokyo today to pave the way for the 15th round of Taiwan-Japan fishery talks slated for July 29, also in Tokyo.

Fisheries Administration officials said that the government will continue to exchange views with the fishermen, adding that any Taiwan-Japan fishing disputes should be tackled diplomatically.

Chen, who is currently on a visit in the West African country of Burkina Faso to cement diplomatic ties, said that he does not think the fishing rights issue would be a bone of contention between Taiwan and Japan.

For international talks, Chen said, "you have to `give and take' to secure the best possible results, and radical words or moves aren't helpful either before or after."

Chen was referring to the latest news reports from Taiwan that a Coast Guard Administration patrol boat, in an action to protect Taiwan fishing boats, confronted two Japanese patrol boats for eight hours on Saturday in waters near the Diaoyutais, which are claimed by both Taiwan and Japan.

Chen called for a consensus to be reached within the country before the Taiwan-Japan fishery talks.

Former US diplomat meets nation's leaders

FRIEND OF TAIWAN: Randall Schriver, who enjoys a reputation as a strong supporter of Taiwan, began meeting with political leaders, with the US arms bill a key concern

By Mac William Bishop

STAFF REPORTER

Former US deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs Randall Schriver met with senior Taiwanese politicians yesterday, with the stymied special arms procurement budget at the top of his agenda.

Schriver went to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) headquarters yesterday and met with party Chairman Lien Chan, according to today's edition of the Chinese-language Liberty Times.

The Liberty Times is the sister newspaper of the Taipei Times.

Schriver also met with Premier Frank Hsieh and People First Party Chairman James Soong, the daily said.

Schriver's key focus in his discussions was the NT$410.8 billion (US$12.8 billion) arms budget to procure eight diesel-electric submarines, 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and three PAC-3 Patriot anti-missile batteries, according to the reports.

The budget has been consistently blocked in the legislature by the pan-blue camp, which has argued that the arms package is unnecessary and too expensive.

The pan-green camp has argued that the weapons systems are necessary to bolster the nation's defenses, in light of the rapid modernization of the Chinese military and Beijing's bellicose attitude toward Taiwan.

Although he has left government service and now works for Armitage Associates -- a consulting firm run by former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage -- Schriver will be meeting with virtually all of the nation's top officials during his three-day visit. He is expected to hold meetings with President Chen Shui-bian, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou and officials from the Cabinet, including the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In addition to his tenure at the Department of State, Schriver also served in the Pentagon as the senior director for China, Taiwan, Mongolia and Hong Kong during the Clinton administration.

During his postings in both Democratic and Republican administrations, Schriver made a name for himself as an outspoken advocate of democracy and strong supporter of Taiwan.

"Randy [Schriver] had a widespread reputation for being one of the strongest supporters of Taiwan's democracy in the Bush administration," a US government insider told the Taipei Times yesterday.

Although Schriver understands the importance of US-China relations, "he would never support anything to give up Taiwan or its democratic achievements" in order to placate Beijing, the source said.

Because of his views on the importance of democratic development in East Asia, the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy invited Schriver to deliver a speech yesterday evening on "Taiwan and global democratization."

The speech was delivered at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' training center on Taipei's Dunhua South Road.

In a meeting yesterday with Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu, Schriver said that China's rise has caused increasing concern in the US and threatens the stability of the Asia-Pacific region, the MAC said in a statement.

"The rise of China has caused negative feelings in political circles in the US," Schriver told Wu, according to the MAC.

"What China has done recently, including increasing its deployment of missiles aimed at Taiwan and enacting the `Anti-Secession' Law, has decreased the degree of mutual confidence in the cross-strait relationship," Schriver told Wu.

Schriver and Wu agreed that the best way to deal with China's rise is to facilitate its peaceful democratization, the MAC said.

Schriver is scheduled to meet with the president today, and is expected to be awarded one of the national orders, such as the Order of the Propitious Clouds, the Presidential Office said in a statement released yesterday. additional reporting by Shih hsiu-chuan

Marketing ability is key

By Tony Goodwin

Tsai Zheng-jia's article ("Branding success hinges on support," July 5, page 8) adequately covers one of the requirements for successful branding: the availability of adequate finance. I do believe, however, there are more fundamental requirements that also need to be addressed before Taiwanese companies are able to develop successful brand images.

First, there is the Taiwanese psyche. In my experience, many Taiwanese companies have looked to original equipment manufacturing (OEM) as a soft option for developing their companies. It is a minimalist approach which ensures minimum profits and often a loss of control of the company's direction as its total operation is often governed by the customer, who may in fact have input most of the research and development -- and certainly all the marketing effort. I believe one of the major reasons for this is the perceived temporary nature of Taiwan and the political instability caused by the relationship with China.

Second, is the perception of "marketing" in Taiwan. A majority of Taiwanese associate the word "marketing" with the word "cheating" This is a result of some confusion between the meaning of the words "marketing" and "sales" To my mind, selling is the direct act of convincing a potential customer to buy certain goods or services, whilst marketing is the matching of the manufacture's abilities to produce with the requirements of the market. The marketing department effectively controls the company.

Because of often-dubious selling practices in the past in many sectors, and the confusion between "sales"and "marketing," marketing is considered a dubious profession by many Taiwanese and is therefore not a profession of choice, often not attracting the quality people it requires. This will be a severe obstacle to any branding ambitions of many companies.

Third, there is the inability of company presidents to delegate. In many Taiwanese companies, with the notable exception of some multinationals, the chief executive officer is totally incapable of delegating responsibility. This would also be a major stumbling block.

Fourth, there is the lack of local talent. There are few experienced marketers. Another way the government could assist is in encouraging individuals to enter the profession by way of grants and other inducements. In the short term it may be appropriate to look overseas for the necessary experience.

Tony Goodwin

Banciao

Missing the point

By Benjamin Adams

The recent letters by Richard Hartzell on international law and how it relates to the question of Taiwan's sovereignty have been informative (Letters, July 4 and March 19, page 8). Nonetheless, they leave this writer with a sense of puzzlement. How relevant, I ask, is international law to the topic? The presumption seems to be, and quite reasonably for a lawyer, that it is at the root of the issue. Here, I will argue otherwise.

First, international law's effectiveness rests upon the willingness of nation-states to abide by its strictures. Because there is no arbitrary third party, or court system with the backing of an enforcement agency, laws may be broken with impunity. The sole consequence is the opprobrium of the international community.

In addition, in many countries, perhaps most, international law must first be ratified by domestic law and large countries in particular reserve the right to override international law when convenient. In the US for example, the Taiwan Relations Act and other domestic laws provide the impetus for US actions related to Taiwan. You can rest assured that the State Department and the US administration do not spend their time pouring over old international accords. China on the other hand, seems to be quite happy to use "law" as a tool to achieve it's own ends. China's "Anti-Secession" Law, both reinforces the supremacy of domestic law and the tendency of the powerless to invoke international law.

A similar issue is the origins of any international "law." By it's very limitations, international law emerges through a consensus of dominant powers at the time. As a result, some are more commonly obeyed that others. The so-called Law of the Sea is a good example of this, as it is in every nation's interests for their trading vessels to move through the seas without hinderance. However, other agreements, such as the Treaty of Versailles, were imposed on one minority (Germany, and Austria-Hungary mainly) by another minority, in this case the victors. In other words, while international laws rests upon international agreements, they may not reflect the consensus of nation-states at the time, they maybe irrelevant today, or worse, may be simply ignored.

Next, in the field of political science at least, the notion of national sovereignty is generally independent of international law. One commonly used definition is Hans Morgenthau's. He states that the main measure is a monopoly of organized violence throughout an uncontested, clearly defined, geographical region. Taiwan meets this criteria. As Hartzell mentioned, it has all the aspects of a state. What he does not mention is that there are numerous examples of states that do not meet these criteria that are still considered sovereign: Colombia, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and numerous African "states."

Finally, it is likely that most countries, aside from China, would happily recognize Taiwan as a normal country, complete with the trappings of sovereignty, if there was no pressure from China, which raises and interesting point: If the international community would treat Taiwan as a sovereign nation, it is in fact a sovereign nation. Ipso facto.

To sum up, Taiwan is, to all intents and purposes, sovereign. Waffling on about various issues of international law merely muddies the waters and detracts from the main issue: China is the only obstacle between Taiwan and statehood.

Benjamin Adams

Taipei

Rewriters of history ignore truth

By Ming Chu-cheng and Flora Chang

Media reports about Anti-Japanese War commemorations have revealed a new line of argument from China regarding the roles played by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the party directing the war effort and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- as failing to respond to the Japanese threat and fleeing. The new line allows for a joint CCP-KMT effort against the Japanese. This is supposed to be a sign of goodwill, a confirmation of the KMT's historical contributions and an attempt to lay the foundations for another round of cooperation between the two parties.

But the CCP's acknowledgement of joint resistance does not mean that China is restoring historical truth, nor is it a true sign of goodwill. This talk of joint resistance is nothing but humbug. The notion that China is looking for another round of cooperation with the KMT is a distortion of the truth surrounding CCP-KMT cooperation and a beautiful euphemism for an attempt to wipe out the KMT.

To this day, Chinese schoolbooks still maintain that the CCP was the main actor in the resistance. But the following facts show that it is possible to clarify the fact that the CCP did not direct the war effort against Japan, and even that talk of a "joint" resistance is a joke.

War histories from both Japan and the Republic of China clearly indicate the scale of the CCP's "participation." From 1937 to 1945, there were 23 battles where both sides employed at least a regiment each. The CCP was not a main force in any of these. The only time it participated, it sent a mere 1,000 to 1,500 men, and then only as a security detachment on one of the flanks.

There were 1,117 significant engagements on a scale smaller than a regular battle, but the CCP fought in only one. Of the approximately 40,000 skirmishes, just 200 were fought by the CCP, or 0.5 percent.

Not even the CCP can provide any data on its number of casualties in the war, and there are no memorials to CCP heroes in the war to be found in China. This makes one wonder what China really did contribute.

And what does KMT-CCP cooperation really mean? The KMT fought a horrifying war of resistance against Japan, by first fighting a direct war against Japan and then having to fight the CCP's 8th Army. Many KMT soldiers died without understanding why. If they were not able to match Japanese troops on the battlefield, they would raise the KMT flag and move toward the CCP's troops, only to be met by sweeping machine-gun fire. They had enemies front and back. These are facts that have been recorded by the CCP itself.

Peter Vladimirov from the Third International, or the Comintern, who was sent by Moscow to Yanan as a liaison between the Chinese and Soviet communist parties, kept a detailed record from 1942 to 1945. The CCP refused his requests to visit the frontline. He later found that the CCP and the Japanese never engaged each other in fighting. So what were the CCP doing? "They were planting opium in Shaanxi!" he said. They used the huge profits from the sale of opium to buy arms to strengthen their position and wipe out KMT troops.

The CCP's own party history says that from 30,000 troops at the outset of the war, the ranks expanded to 1.2 million regular troops and approximately 2.6 million to 3 million militia by the end of the war, giving it a total of between 3.8 million and 4.2 million troops. Following the Japanese surrender, the CCP launched a civil war which resulted in the KMT army being routed and fleeing to Taiwan.

Any talk of joint resistance is thus a shameless lie, and the history of "KMT-CCP cooperation" is the history of the annihilation of the KMT's troops in China. Some of the veterans that fought the bloody war of resistance are still alive and so are the spirits in the Martyrs' Shrine. Some of the local media, however, ignore the facts and even dance to the tune of the CCP's "united front" propaganda. This is a great wrong committed against the 60 million soldiers who died in the Anti-Japanese War.

Many changes have taken place in China, but what is needed to promote cross-strait peace is not KMT-CCP cooperation, ice-breaking trips or expansion of agricultural contacts. These matters may very well be nothing but sinister plans in the guise of an illusory united front.

The only hope lies in having government and opposition join hands to demand that China develop democracy and the rule of law and abandon totalitarianism. Otherwise, Beijing's rulers will not stop distorting facts, trampling on the law and human rights, suppressing the media and rewriting history, all to save their own despotic rule. Such a government is not only a threat to other countries, it is a government in crisis.

Ming Chu-cheng is a professor of political science at National Taiwan University. Flora Chang is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Journalism at the same university.

China, US need to avoid conflict as global resources dwindle

Amid warnings that the world could be just 10 years away from a first-order resources crisis, too few in Washington or Beijing realize how easily wars can break out

By Will Hutton

THE GUARDIAN , LONDON

Occasionally, there are tipping-point moments and we are witnessing one at the moment. Seismic change is afoot. As oil prices breach US$60 a barrel and pessimists warn that the world could be as little as 10 years away from a first-order resources crisis, China's largest oil company, China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC), has launched a US$18.5 billion bid for one of the US's juiciest medium-sized oil companies, Unocal.

The world's two biggest continental economies are suddenly head to head over who controls increasingly scarce oil. The stuff of pulp novels at airport bookstalls is a reality.

The reaction in the US has been immediate, aggressive and hypocritical. Much Congressional sound and fury has been vented on Russia for not opening up more to US oil companies which want to buy strategic reserves. Now that the boot is on the other foot -- China buying an American oil company and its reserves -- US congressmen and senators are deploying Russian President Vladimir Putin's arguments as their own. US oil, jobs and national security are at issue, they blaze, and an investigation is already under way to see whether China's bid should be blocked on national security grounds. It is rigged to take months.

The Chinese, for their part, implausibly plead innocence. Assuming the improbable rhetoric of a Wall Street investment banker, the chairman of CNOOC, 71 percent owned by the People's Republic of China, says that the bid will be good for shareholders on both sides of the Pacific.

It certainly offers Unocal shareholders more cash than rival US oil company Chevron was offering, but only because the Chinese government has lent CNOOC a US$2.5 billion interest-free loan to support the loan and subsidized billions more. This is hardly fair play but Unocal shareholders aren't complaining.

Nor will CNOOC sack any Unocal workers in the US as Chevron plans, it says, and promises not to export any oil and gas from the US to China. It portrays itself as a benevolent, wronged and misunderstood good fairy.

What it wants, and is paying well over the odds for, is Unocal's oil reserves.

It plainly calculates that today's US$60 a barrel oil price is just the beginning of a sustained rise in oil prices that will make Unocal, even at US$18.5 billion, a snip. China's interest is obvious. After the US, it is now the world's largest oil importer and acquiring some strategic reserves is vital.

CNOOC's full name is telling; the China National Offshore Oil Company -- an organization committed to offshore exploration. China is the world leader in developing robotic underwater exploration submersibles; in 1994, it built a robot capable of working at depths of 305m. Now, according to the People's Daily, it has one that can work at up to 6,096m. The Chinese want oil very badly.

And they want it to be imported into China by oil pipeline and not by tankers from the Middle East under the watchful eye of the US navy. The US controls the sea lanes and thus the viability of China's economy, as it regularly lets the Chinese know by shadowing Chinese oil tankers.

The US has pre-empted China's attempts to build oil pipelines from the Caspian into China. Unocal's attraction is that its oil reserves are all in central and south east Asia, and once owned by China can be moved into China overland.

This is a new great geopolitical game and neither the Chinese nor US military are impressed by arguments that the market must rule and that great powers in today's globalized world no longer need strategic oil reserves. The US keeps six nuclear battle fleets permanently at sea supported by an unparalleled network of global bases not because of irrational chauvinism or the needs of the military-industrial complex, but because of the pressure they place on upstart countries like China.

Japan's decision this year to abandon its effort to build its own oil company and attempted strategic reserve was an overt acceptance of its dependent position. China is not ready to make the same admission of defeat.

No country has offered such a comparable challenge to the world order since Germany's rise at the end of the 19th century. Like China today, it wanted markets and raw materials; like China today, it confronted a world ordered around the needs of the existing powers; like China today, its gigantic size and explosive growth could not be ignored. Germany built fleets and scrambled for colonies in Africa.

Today, China builds fleets and scrambles for oil reserves. The open question is whether it will end in another 1914.

The optimistic reply is that China is being much cleverer than the Kaiser's Germany. It has expanded by opening up to the world, so giving its great power rivals a stake in its growth; 400 of the US's top 500 companies manufacture in China. Wal-Mart, the US's largest retailer, is founded on cheap Chinese imports. China may have built up immense foreign currency reserves, but it judiciously lends them to the US, so financing the US' trade deficit.

Although oil prices are troublingly high, some experts like Erasmus University's Peter Odell believe that, far from oil reserves running out, the earliest world production might peak is well after 2050, and that takes no account of more efficient energy use. Today's upward oil price spike won't last long. There is more than enough oil for China.

The pessimistic reply is that's not how it feels or how the game is currently being played. Even if there is enough oil, it is in parts of the world that are endemically volatile. As Paul Roberts points out in The End of Oil, the geological formations that create oil have already been identified and the easily exploitable reserves are rapidly depleting.

There is a Panglossian tendency to overstate oil reserves by oil-producing countries and oil companies alike, as we have learned from Shell. Oil production is set to peak much earlier.

In any case, what matters is less reality than perceptions of reality; the European powers didn't need colonies in Africa to ensure their prosperity, they just believed they did, as China believes it needs oil reserves in Asia today. And there are the third, fifth and seventh US fleets as a constant reinforcer of its instincts.

Nobody knows how this drama will play out. The optimists could be right. But judge the vitriolic tone of the letter from 40 congressmen to US President George W. Bush complaining about CNOOC's bid; look at the disposition of US naval power; recognize the force of China's conviction that it must never again be humiliated as it was in the 19th century and its will to catch up with the West; and plot the growth of China's oil demand as its economy doubles again.

The best way of avoiding war is not to dismiss its possibility as outlandish; it is to recognize how easily it could happen and vigilantly guard against the risk. Too few in Washington or Beijing are currently doing that.