20050802

Two prime ministers in the 1960s called for Japan to have nuclear arms, despite the activism of the world's only atomic-bombed nation to abolish the weapons, a newspaper said yesterday.

The Asahi Shimbun, citing unclassified US government documents, said then prime minister Eisaku Sato expressed support for nuclear weapons after neighboring China conducted its first nuclear test in October 1964.

Speaking in December that year with US ambassador Edwin Reischauer, Sato said that he agreed with British prime minister Harold Wilson that it was common sense to have nuclear weapons if other nations did, the report said.

A photograph of the Hiroshima A-bomb Dome taken by the US military following the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, killing over 140,000 people on August 6, 1945. The building, originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, was just 160m northwest of the hypocenter. The skeletal structure of the dome standing above the ruins was a conspicuous landmark, and became known officially as the ``A-bomb Dome.''

The newspaper said it was the second time a Japanese premier was documented in the unclassified papers as supporting nuclear weapons.

In 1961, then prime minister Hayato Ikeda told the US secretary of state Dean Rusk that some in his Cabinet supported nuclear weapons, the Asahi said.

Japan is set this week to begin marking the 60th anniversary of the world's only nuclear bombings, which killed more than 210,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

After Rusk gathered that Japan was considering going nuclear, US president Lyndon Johnson assured Sato at a January 1965 summit that Japan would be secure under the US nuclear umbrella, the report said.

But the assurance was hidden from the public as Sato was worried about opposition, it said.

Nearly three years later in December 1967, Sato expressed Japan's so-called non-nuclear principles -- that is, it will not produce, possess or allow the entry of nuclear weapons into the nation.

The principles remain in force and are widely supported, although some analysts believe the debate on whether to go nuclear could be revived if North Korea develops a nuclear arsenal.

Australia gives Chinese ex-cop a protection visa

AFP , SYDNEY

Australia has granted a protection visa to a former Chinese policeman who claims to have information on the torture and abuse of dissidents in China, his lawyer said yesterday.

Hao Fengjun, 32, received the visa last week, a day after testifying at a Senate inquiry into the government's handling of another high-profile Chinese defector, lawyer Bernard Collaery said.

Hao claims to have worked for a Chinese security department known as the 610 Office, where his job was to handle reports from overseas informants spying on pro-democracy activists and followers of the Falun Gong meditation movement. He arrived in Australia in February as a tourist and subsequently sought asylum, saying he had brought secret documents detailing the torture and abuse by Chinese authorities of Falun Gong practitioners. His case became public after a first secretary at China's consulate in Sydney, Chen Yonglin, quit his post and demanded political asylum in May, asserting that China had up to 1,000 spies operating in Australia.

After initially refusing the request, the government granted Chen, 37, a protection visa early last month. Both Hao and Chen testified last week to a Senate committee looking into the government's handling of Chen's initial asylum request. Collaery told the same inquiry that immigration officials ignored Hao for months and only interviewed the former policeman early last month after he went public with his claims about abuse of Falun Gong members.

Yesterday, Collaery suggested his client finally received a protection visa allowing him to remain in Australia only because of the publicity surrounding last week's Senate hearings.

"It took that kind of pressure ... to get protection in our country," he was quoted as saying by the Australian Associated Press.

Collaery spoke as Hao attended a protest by about 80 Falun Gong followers near a Canberra court that was hearing a complaint by the movement against Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

Their suit claims Downer's department unfairly curbs freedom of expression by imposing restrictions on protest demonstrations outside the Chinese embassy in Canberra.

Li Ying, right, and husband Grant Lu practice Falun Gong in Sydney last month. Li, a Chinese resident, claims the Chinese government was spying on her because of her involvement with Falun Gong, a claim backed by Hao Fengjun, a Chinese policeman who is attempting to defect to Australia.

The Government Information Office (GIO) sunday announced its decision to revoke the licenses of seven cable-TV channels. This move by the GIO is directed at keeping the chaotic situation in media circles in check. Although the GIO's decision is not going to engender instant results, it has at least responded positively to calls for "containing the chaotic and disorganized circumstances of the media."

The Legislative Yuan and the media have long been considered the two major culprits responsible for the nation's increasing social maladies. The GIO's rejection of the cable-TV license renewal applications is just the first step toward reforming the media. There is still much to be done by the government, the public and media proprietors alike.

Taiwan, which covers an area of a mere 36,000km2 with a population of 23 million people, currently has more than 100 cable-TV channels to choose from. Such a high number is definitely a global miracle, symbolizing the freedom and diversity of the media in Taiwan, but also representing the vicious competition resulting from media saturation.

The growing number of TV channels only results in shrinking revenues. Besides, with limited production expenditures, the quality of TV programs cannot help but deteriorate as most of the producers can only make do with whatever is available. What's worse, most of the TV networks only seek to follow media crazes and plagiarize the ideas behind more successful or popular programs on other networks.

Although there are numerous news channels, most of them only follow or reproduce the contents of the print media, rather than creating something unique or distinctive. This has a lot to do with unprofessional journalists and inadequate training. In addition, the use of Satellite News Gathering (SNG) broadcast services has also been abused, leading to news coverage being sensationalized and the public mood becoming easily agitated. Although there are a lot of programs featuring talk shows with political topics, they are mostly ideology-driven, with the host and the guests often engaging in political bickering and unable to come to any agreement.

Undaunted, the GIO has finally decided who retains the right to run TV networks and whose licenses have to be revoked. Media outlets with unrenewed licenses are very likely to accuse the government of trampling press freedom. However, it is the existing law that empowers the GIO to exercise this right. Over the years, media outlets in Taiwan have been reluctant to practice self-discipline and stick with journalistic principles.

Media management is an important social project. In a country that enjoys press freedom, the government's responsibility is to build a healthy and organized media environment. But after the over-excessive opening up of the nation's media, it will take a lot of effort for media outlets to adjust themselves and conform to established rules or practices. The priority for the government should be establishing a mechanism for approving and/or renewing licenses to run a media outlet. This is an unavoidable responsibility of the GIO or the National Communications Commission.

Both the government agencies governing TV channels and radio stations as well as media-monitoring groups should create a database for a long-standing supervision program. All the data collected could act as a reference for administrative management for either rewards or punishments, or the withdrawal of licenses.

The seven cable TV channels that failed to retain or renew their licenses signaled a warning from the government to Taiwan's media circles. Through this decision by the government, we genuinely hope that media proprietors or managers can adopt criteria for dealing with news coverage or programs in a professional and self-disciplined manner to win the support of the general public.

With China fever spreading, it is not very surprising to see the opposition's negative stance toward the arms procurement bill. The thinking behind these attitudes, that war must be stopped by peaceful means, could endanger Taiwan's position.

The opposition's ultimate goal behind this thinking is to stop China from launching a military attack on Taiwan. That goal is based on three suppositions. First, that foreign forces centered around the US will intervene in a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, and that this will prevent China from taking action. Second, it is assumed that China lacks the motivation to launch an attack because it is directing all its strength toward economic development. Third, it is argued that as long as Taiwan keeps the US and China at an equal distance, China will not invade Taiwan.

All three suppositions, however, are now being challenged. The greatest challenge to the first supposition of US support is twofold. On the one hand, the war on terror has caused the US to divide its forces, making it impossible for the US to deal with military conflict in other regions. According to the latest report from the Rand Organization in the US, the permanent US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan has overstretched US forces, which means that very few troops are ready to respond to crises in other regions. In short, it is questionable whether the US has the power to stop a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

The other side of this challenge is a result of the US' strategic miscalculation of the Iraqi invasion, which has led to its neglect of China's growth. This means that the cost of military intervention may erode the US' determination to undertake such action. This is similar to the British strategic miscalculation during the Boer War at the turn of the previous century which led to the rise of Germany.

The challenge to the second supposition that China is preoccupied with its own economic growth is a result of faulty reasoning. Ever since the days of Deng Xiaoping, China has focused all its strength on economic development, but even if we leave out Deng's war on Vietnam in the 1970s, China's economic development needs have not caused it to tone down its military threat, and those needs may indeed cause a war.

Perhaps the most likely catalyst is China's energy needs. According to the US' recent report on China's military power, China relies on imports for 40 percent of its oil needs, and that figure will increase to 80 percent by 2025. This means that continued economic development requires that China guarantee its energy supply.

The oil field issue in the East China Sea is the reason China is now playing tough with Japan. The Taiwan Strait is surrounded by areas involved in sovereignty disputes, including the South China Seas, the East China Sea and the Diaoyutai islands, which are all potentially rich in oil and natural gas. With China playing it tough with Japan, what are the chances that it will be softer on Taiwan?

The third supposition forms the central idea in blue-camp thinking, although history is full of examples disproving this reasoning. During the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece, Athens requested the help of Milos in its resistance against Sparta. Milos refused the request and was annihilated by Athens.

During World War II, Hitler devised an operation is which he would station 50 divisions along the eastern border of Switzerland in an attempt to annex it. In the end, Switzerland's complex topography, its militia and solid engineering works put an end to the German army's ambitions.

These two examples show us the impact of major states on small nations trying to maintain a neutral foreign policy, and that it is not at all certain that they will succeed.

The weakness of these three suppositions refutes the foundation of the position that war should be averted through peaceful means, but it does not mean that we should stop striving for peace in the Taiwan Strait.

What is important is that we have sufficient military strength to ward off China even if outside powers are unable to intervene and that we are able to deter China from invading. This is the only way to guarantee peace in the Taiwan Strait. The Swiss strategy is a worthy model.

Eugene Yen is a doctoral candidate in the department of political science at National Chengchi University.

An important indication that the US is worried about China's incursions into the Asia-Pacific region is the inroads it has made into Australia. Australia is probably the US' most trusted ally and has been for a long time. During his recent US visit, Australian Prime Minister John Howard sought to reaffirm the two countries' close relationship. The US appears satisfied.

But of late Canberra has been seeking to recover some political flexibility in its relations with China. Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, for instance, said in Beijing a while ago that its security alliance with the US (the ANZUS Treaty) didn't apply to Taiwan. In other words, Canberra wouldn't necessarily follow the US in any military conflict with China.

Howard has been more diplomatic, though. When asked, he dismisses as hypothetical the prospect of a conflict over Taiwan and hence not worthy of a response. He reportedly said in Washington that he didn't feel "the least bit squeezed" between the US and China over their rising military and economic rivalry. Indeed, he is optimistic on Sino-US relations.

He was, however, duly critical of Major General Zhu Chenghu's comments about raining nuclear weapons on US cities if Washington got involved in any military conflict over Taiwan. But Howard also said (and it would be appreciated in Beijing) that, "... I am sure they don't represent the views of the Chinese government."

It doesn't mean Howard had some privileged information from Beijing in this regard. As might be recalled, Zhu had said, when making his nuclear threat, that it was his personal opinion. He was thus leaving the door open for his government to dissociate itself from his "personal" remarks.

Which they did when China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said that his country would not be the first to use nuclear weapons "at any time and under any condition." But it took them a while to do that and that too after widespread international criticism. The point, though, is that nobody, much less a serving army general, has the luxury of a personal opinion for public consumption in a country like China. Apparently, he cleared it with the top authorities before airing his "personal" opinion in front of the media.

Was he testing the waters for US reaction? Did he think that that this would further frighten the world into putting pressure on the US to stay out of the Taiwan situation? It could even send an apocalyptic message to Taiwan to surrender before it was too late. My guess is it is a little bit of all of the above and possibly more. But the most worrying thing is that the nuclear threat is being openly canvassed as a possible choice.

Returning to Australia as a barometer of US concern, the subtle differences between the two countries in their approaches on China are all too apparent. Howard, for instance, was confident that China would remain a benign power and cautioned against being "obsessed" with its strategic threat. He said, "I have a more optimistic view about the relationship between China and the US and I know that the leadership of both countries understand the importance of common sense in relation to Taiwan."

US President George W. Bush, on the other hand, has described the relationship with China as "complicated," with problems looming over a range of issues. Australia would rather focus on expanding trade with China, without bothering about human rights and political freedom.

Bush urged Australia to "work together [with the US] to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal -- the value of minority rights, the value of freedom for people to speak, the value of freedom of religion, the same values we share."

This is not to suggest that Australia is veering away from its close political and security relationship with the US. The suggestion, though, is that if a close ally like Australia can start exercising political flexibility on issues like human rights, democracy and the defense of Taiwan, it is no wonder that other Asia-Pacific countries are also making a beeline to China's side.

Another important barometer of US concern over China is the emerging East Asian community, which seeks to exclude the US from its membership. In the 1990s when the then Malaysian prime minister Mohammed Mahathir mooted the idea of an East Asia caucus (without the US), it failed to take on.

Malaysia has again taken the initiative (with China's blessing and encouragement) to form an East Asian community. The timing seems right, with China now increasingly seen as the rising power in the region. The US won't be invited to the Kuala Lumpur summit of its intended members scheduled for mid-December.

The proposed East Asian community will comprise ASEAN members (the core group) plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia, now that it has agreed to sign the ASEAN non-aggression pact -- the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation. The only consolation for the US is that the proposed East Asian community will have among its mem-bers allies like Japan and Australia to counterbalance China.

Washington is not sitting by idly, though. It has floated a forum of its key allies to deliberate on China's rise and the potential threat it might pose. The Halibut Group, as it is called, reportedly includes the US, Japan, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. Australia had initially refused to join for fear of offending China. But, apparently under pressure from Washington during Prime Minister Howard's US visit, it might also join the line-up.

The exact nature of the new, as yet informal group, is not yet known. But it springs from the US' concern about China's increasing power.

US worry on this account is reflected clearly in the Pentagon's annual report. Washington is concerned that China's growing military power is now both a threat to US security interests and the Asia-Pacific region. As the report says, "Some of China's military planners are surveying the strategic landscape beyond Taiwan."

In other words, they are not just targeting Taiwan but their ambitions are regional, even global.