20050720

Bush embraces India's nuclear power program

PLAYING FAVORITES: The reversal in policy reflects the increasing importance Washington has begun to place on its relationship with India

AGENCIES , WASHINGTON

US President George W. Bush, in a dramatic policy shift, on Monday promised India full cooperation in developing its civilian nuclear-power program without demanding that it sign a major nuclear arms control treaty.

A statement released after talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that underscored Washington's recognition of India as a rising power said that Bush would ask Congress to change US law and work with allies to adjust international rules to allow nuclear trade with India.

Washington had barred providing atomic technology to India because of New Delhi's status as a nuclear power that had refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which was designed to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

But the joint statement said: "As a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other states."

Bush would "seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and policies, and the US will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India," it said.

India, which tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, agreed to identify and separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, continue a moratorium on nuclear testing and place civilian nuclear facilities under the UN nuclear watchdog.

But these are all voluntary, not legal, commitments and India remains outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty.

Proliferation experts were quick to protest. Many are concerned about the expanding US cooperation with India, saying it sets a bad example for Iran, a Non-proliferation Treaty member, and North Korea.

Some members of Congress said they would block the change.

"We cannot play favorites, breaking the rules of the non-proliferation treaty, to favor one nation at the risk of undermining critical international treaties on nuclear weapons," said Democratic Representative Ed Markey.

"The president just gave India everything it wanted. He's rewarding India despite that country's remaining outside the global NPT regime," said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "This is the triumph of great power politics over non-proliferation policy."

Washington is eager to improve ties with the world's largest democracy, attracted by India's technology expertise, growing commercial market and strategic importance as a counterweight to China.

The joint statement was the product of months of discussion, culminating in round-the-clock negotiations that ended at noon on Monday.

The deal nearly fell apart when Washington refused India's demand for formal recognition as a nuclear-weapons state, which would have put India on a par with the five declared nuclear states -- the US, France, China, Britain and Russia, US officials and other sources said.

DPP says KMT efforts on flood bill `lackluster'

NO MORE EXCUSES: The DPP caucus called on the KMT to back a special review of the government's proposed NT$80 billion flood-control project

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

"We hope KMT chairman-elect Ma Ying-jeou realizes the public's desire for national stability, and instructs the KMT caucus to agree to an extraordinary session to screen priority bills."－ Chen Chin-jun, DPP caucus whip

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus yesterday refused to apologize for what the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus said was the government's "lackluster" flood-fighting efforts over the past years, and called on opposition parties to support a special legislative session to review the eight-year, NT$80 billion (US$2.51 billion) flood-control bill.

"I hope opposition parties stop their senseless accusations and focus on solving the problem," said DPP caucus whip Chen Chin-jun. "We hope KMT chairman-elect Ma Ying-jeou realizes the public's desire for national stability, and instructs the KMT caucus to agree to an extraordinary session to screen priority bills."

Chen made the remark yesterday morning in response to three preconditions set by KMT whip Chen Chieh for holding a special legislative session.

Chen Chieh said that his caucus would not consider agreeing to hold a special session unless the government offers a public apology for its unfruitful flood-control efforts over the past five years.

Nor will his caucus consider endorsing the session if the flood-control package cannot guarantee success in solving the nation's long-standing flooding problems.

Except for the flood-fighting bill, Chen Chieh said that his caucus did not want to discuss any "unrelated" bills during the special session, if there were any.

The DPP legislative caucus has filed a request to hold an extra session during its current summer recess to screen six critical bills. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng has arranged a cross-party meeting to discuss the proposition next Thursday.

Jumping to the defense of its ally, Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) caucus whip David Huang said that it did not make any sense for the KMT to ask for an apology from the DPP.

"The flooding problem is a long-standing one caused over the years," he said. "If the DPP government is responsible for it, the previous KMT administration cannot shirk any responsibility either."

Huang said the KMT caucus should stop looking for excuses to reject the special session. He also said the Executive Yuan should provide a detailed plan to help the legislature better understand the proposed flood project.

Huang also supported the DPP's proposal to tackle the arms-procurement package and confirmation of Control Yuan nominations during the session.

People First Party (PFP) caucus whip Hsu Yao-chang said that his caucus strongly opposed the DPP's proposition, because it was "not necessary."

"Wang has already said that the government has sufficient funds at its disposal to deal with the flooding problem, so I don't think it is necessary to hold a special legislative session to take care of the problem," he said.

He also questioned if Chen Chieh, a Ma supporter, was trying to embarrass Wang by agreeing to consider the possibility.

"Is he out of his mind or deliberately giving Wang a hard time?" Hsu asked.

As media attention focuses on whether the DPP will again propose a bill to require the KMT to return its stolen assets during the next legislative session, PFP policy research center director Chang Hsien-s said that his party's stance on the issue remained unchanged, but that now was not the time for them to talk about it because it is such a sensitive issue.

Japanese court denies latest suit over warfare unit

AFP , TOKYO

A Tokyo court yesterday rejected a compensation suit from Chinese victims of Japan's notorious World War II germ-warfare unit.

The High Court decision is the latest in a long line of similar rulings but comes amid a row between the two nations over their wartime history.

The judge acknowledged that the Japanese imperial military had engaged in germ warfare, said a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jun Ogino.

In 2002 the Tokyo District Court had rejected their claim on the grounds that compensation is agreed between states and not individuals.

However the presiding judge had also recognized in that case that the Japanese military had engaged in germ warfare.

The ruling came as no surprise. In April, the same court rejected a separate compensation lawsuit filed by victims of Unit 731 together with survivors of the 1937 massacre in the city of Nanjing.

The latest lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Japan and China in recent months over memories of Japan's bloody 1931-1945 occupation.

China, which has refused compensation from Japan for the occupation, accuses Japan of whitewashing its past. Tokyo in April approved a textbook that makes little mention of atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre.

Unit 731 was set up in Manchuria after Japan formed a puppet state in northeastern China in 1931.

The secret military medical unit, disguised as a water purification bureau, engaged in biological warfare through human experiments, "bombing" Chinese cities with bubonic plague and other diseases.

The Japanese government denied the existence of Unit 731 until 1998, when the Supreme Court indirectly acknowledged it by ruling that there was an academic consensus that Unit 731 existed.

However, the government says it knows nothing about the unit's specific wrongdoing and has rejected related damages claims.

In Amy Chen's comments about Richard Hartzell (Letters, July 8, page 8) she offers a few opinions without supporting them with facts and spends most of the letter casting aspersions on Hartzell's supposed lack of scholarship. She obviously doesn't know him, yet uses weak arguments and groundless attacks on his reputation as a substitute for solid facts.

Hartzell has lived in Taiwan for 30 years -- that's longer than most Taiwanese have lived here. He speaks fluent Mandarin and reads it very well. His areas of expertise include the differences between Chinese and Western cultural norms, the US-Taiwan-China relationship, the customary laws of warfare, international treaty law, Chinese and international law, territorial cession law, US insular law, US Constitutional law and US Supreme Court cases.

His type of intellectualism is often hard for people to grasp. He seems to assume that his readers understand more about a situation than he should expect. When he describes a hypothetical situation as an analogy for Taiwan's actual situation, I wonder how many of his readers become lost. Apparently, at least one of them did.

Having carefully studied Hartzell's in-depth article, "Understanding the San Francisco Peace Treaty's Disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores" (Harvard Asia Quarterly, Fall 2004, page 23-24), I believe that his interpretation of Taiwan's legal situation should not be rejected merely because it is revisionist.

I believe he is right in saying that legal experts have often been guilty of looking solely to civil law for a reading on Taiwan's legal status. He probably has gone too far in the other direction by seeming to disregard civil law -- not just legislated law, but precedent law and common law. Hartzell deserves a hearing; his research is too valuable to ignore.

It's really a joke when someone on another continent tells Hartzell to go looking for a "real expert" on Taiwan's legal situation. When the experts are completely stumped, they go looking for people such as him.

Having been bothered by A.M. Cambronne's groundless accusations against me, I forwarded my essay ("Taiwan's belongs to the Taiwanese," July 7, page 8) and Cambronne's response to the "anonymous American professor" I referred to in my piece.

The person wrote back, "I do not know what language Cambronne speaks, but it must not be English since he clearly misinterprets your comments on the `anonymous American professor.' Incidentally, I guess I had better remain anonymous."

Clearly, I did not denounce my colleague in my original writing. What must be crystal clear to readers is that I did denounce the Chinese Communist government for brainwashing its people. Unfortunately, Cambronne chose to ignore that part. Why?

Like me, Cambronne has the right to interpret the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. I'll not comment any further. Readers can also read the opinion piece jointly-written by Roger Lin and Richard Hartzell ("Recover Taiwan's post-war position," July 15, page 8). Lin and Hartzell argued for US sovereignty over Taiwan, Readers can decide for themselves which version of the three interpretations they prefer.

Finally, I question Cambronne's sincerity when he wrote, "While I would highly espouse Taiwanese autonomy, you cannot point to documents such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Treaty of Peace with Japan nor Article 77 B of the UN Charter for a resolution of the matter. When you misinterpret a legal document, you set a dangerous precedent for further abuse and misinterpretation of Taiwan's legal documents."

Are the Taiwanese supposed to thank him for that offer? Under China's system, there are a small number of autonomous regions, including Tibet and Xinjiang. In addition, Hong Kong and Macau are defined as Special Administrative Regions.

Informed readers know well that Tibetans and Xinjiang Uighurs are not happy under the Chinese rule, while the people of Hong Kong and Macau are not better off today under Beijing's rule than when they were under British or Portuguese rule.

In any case, the overwhelming majority of the people of Taiwan have rejected Beijing's "one country, two systems" principle under which Hong Kong and Macau are governed. The reality is Taiwan has acted like a sovereign nation and all its representatives, including the president, are directly elected by the voters. Cambronne surely knows that "autonomy" is far from "independence."

What then makes Cambronne think that the freedom-loving Taiwanese people would be appreciative of his meaningless gesture of support?

China is very uncomfortable that the US is seeking to dominate the world. It is therefore scouring the globe to create a united front of sorts against the US -- an old ploy the Chinese Communist Party used at home to win the Chinese Civil War in 1949.

Russia seems an obvious ally, with President Vladimir Putin increasingly unhappy with the US. Among other things, he fears that Washington might try to destabilize his regime on the lines of democratic change in Ukraine. As it is, the US is seen to be encroaching into Russia's security zone.

China has similar fears and more. During President Hu Jintao's recent visit to Russia, the two presidents jointly denounced "the aspiration for monopoly and domination in international affairs," and called for an end to "attempts to divide nations into leaders and those being led." Although the US was not specifically named as imposing world domination, the "Declaration on World Order in the 21st Century" was unmistakably directed at Washington.

Amplifying on their summit, Hu said that the two sides had discussed cooperation on Taiwan and Chechnya, promotion of stability in Central Asia, UN reform and "the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula." Russia supports China on Taiwan, and Beijing is behind Moscow in its war against separatism in Chechnya.

"Any actions aimed at splitting sovereign states and kindling ethnic discord are inadmissible," according to the two leaders.

Putin has described the new relationship between Russia and China as a "partnership" designed for the good of "our own peoples and for the entire world." In other words, China and Russia are striving to create a new global power center to counter the US.

Russian partnership is important to China because of its nuclear arsenal, which gives it a global status. It is also important because of its energy and other natural resources which China will increasingly need for its development. And it is a source of sophisticated military weapons and technology for China.

Fearful of US designs on the former Soviet Central Asian republics, China and Russia are also building up an alternative political and security structure in this region. Since 1996, at China's initiative, they have created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which also includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is designed to create multiple linkages of these Central Asian countries with China and Russia, to ward off or counter US incursions on China's periphery.

These countries are also seen as rich in energy resources, potentially rivalling the Middle East oil fields. In today's world of high oil prices and looming energy shortages, China is very much part of the scramble for these resources anywhere and everywhere in the world.

China is also busy creating its own political and economic zone in the Asia-Pacific region -- ? something like the wartime Japanese version of a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," but without Japan's overkill. It is doing this through a series of bilateral and multilateral political and economic initiatives. The idea is to create a benign image of China.

It is worth recalling that only a few years ago China was having problems with its neighbors over the ownership of islands in the South China Sea. It had a serious image problem, and was seen as a threat to regional security and stability. But, in the last few years, it has managed to soften, if not reverse, this image.

An important change in the last few years has been the advocacy of multilateral initiatives. Not long ago, Beijing was primarily interested in bilateral dialogues for fear of being isolated or pinned down in multilateral forums. Now it has built up enough political and economic capital to turn things in its favor. Its "charm diplomacy" is fostering an image of China as Asia's economic powerhouse with opportunities for all regional countries, if only they would hop on the Chinese bandwagon.

And it seems to be working, even though there is a big gap between the hype and reality. The reality is that exports to the US still drive Asian economies, including that of China. And this regional perception of China as the emerging, if not emergent, superpower is starting to worry the US.

Washington is worried about China's increasing defense budget, its missile buildup against Taiwan, its failure to discipline North Korea on the nuclear issue, its rapidly mounting trade surplus, its failure to revalue the yuan and a host of other matters. China appears to be building itself up as a strategic rival to the US.

Beijing's immediate interest is in Asia, and it would like to see the US eased out to establish China's primacy. A senior US official reportedly told a closed-door gathering of strategic analysts in New Delhi recently that, "The worst outcome for the US is an Asia from which we are excluded."

He added, "If I were China, I'd be working on kicking the US out of Asia ... Right now, we have a lot of alliances but there is no architecture embedding us in Asia. This worries us."

Which brings us to the "New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship," forged in Washington on June 28. This looks like part of a new US security architecture in Asia, with India and Japan as two nodal points.

There has lately been some improvement in India-China relations, but it is still marked by an element of mutual distrust. The border issue remains unresolved, though it is not being allowed to impede the overall relationship between the two countries. It is hoped that the momentum thus generated will create its own dynamics for an eventual resolution of the border dispute. But there is a question mark.

The growing US-India strategic equation is important to both countries. India straddles East and West Asia, and an alliance could enable the US to "embed" itself in Asia. For India, access to US arms sales and technology is an important consideration. A wide-ranging strategic partnership with the US could also mean a technological leap for India.