Give up the nuclear games

On Saturday morning, 55,000 people from 32 countries gathered at Hiroshima Peace Park to commemorate the 60th anniversary of a tragic day in the history of the world -- the detonation of a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima -- and to call for an end to nuclear weapons. The people of Taiwan, who daily face the threat posed by China's 700 missiles, feel deeply the significance of this day.

Sixty years ago, the use of nuclear bombs brought forward the end of World War II and stopped Japan from engaging in a desperate defense of their homeland. But the terrible price paid on that day did not stop the further development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, during the Cold War, the US and the USSR engaged in a nuclear face-off. This led to the building of enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet hundreds of times over. Now China, India and Pakistan have also joined the nuclear club, putting the whole world under the shadow of nuclear destruction. That we have not destroyed ourselves is not because of our belief in peace. Instead, over the last decade or so, it has been the fear of mutually assured destruction and nuclear armageddon.

The "balance of terror" assumes that all participants are rational, and that they would not risk the lives and property of their people by a rash push toward nuclear war. But is the Chinese government really so rational? Mao Zedong once said he'd rather the people went without trousers than that China had no nuclear weapons and that China could, with its huge population, afford to lose millions of people to nuclear war. Quite clearly, the lives and property of the people are not an important consideration for the Chinese leadership. And then there is the recent comment by Major General Zhu Chenghu, suggesting that China would destroy hundreds of American cities if the US intervened in a cross-strait conflict. Clearly China's military establishment has different standards and attitudes regarding the use of nuclear weapons to those of civilized nations.

China lacks respect for peace, human rights and democratic values. This is the main obstacle to unification and also the reason China's rise has caused such anxiety among neighboring countries. Both the US and Japan question the need for China's military buildup when it faces no external threats. It has 700 missiles targeting Taiwan, and its medium and long-range missiles can reach targets in Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia, Australia and even the US. In addition to creating anxiety, this rapid military buildup is driving an arms race in the region.

If China wishes to become a civilized country and let people believe that its "rising" is indeed peaceful, its first act should be to declare the Taiwan Strait a non-nuclear and demilitarized zone. If the two sides of the Strait could sign a peace treaty, this would be a manifestation of the ideal that Chinese do not fight other Chinese. If China could relinquish the 700 missiles targeting Taiwan, it would help immeasurably in reducing the distance between the two sides of the Strait.

Even the pro-China chairman-elect of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Ma Ying-jeou, has said there is no basis for unification unless China apologizes for the Tiananmen Massacre. If China did use nuclear weapons against Taiwan, the loss of life would be massive.

Nuclear weapons are of no use in cross-strait affairs and serve as a barrier to interaction. From late president Chiang Ching-kuo to President Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan's leaders have always insisted that Taiwan will not develop nuclear weapons, nor use them. It is time for China to make a similar announcement.

If S Korea can , why can't Taiwan?

By Chen Ching-chih

Based on a survey by Interbrand Corp, Businessweek produced a list of the world's top 100 brands in its Aug. 1 issue (pp 90-94). US firms dominate the top 10 and make up slightly more than half of those listed. In addition, only 10 of the 100 best brands come from outside of the US and Europe; seven out of the 10 are Japanese (including Toyota, Honda and Sony), while the remaining three are South Korean (Samsung, Hyundai and LG). Why can Japan and South Korea make the grade, but not Taiwan?

The size of a country does not matter, given that five of the top companies ranked were from Switzerland. The Netherlands had three, while Finland and Sweden each had one. All these European nations are smaller than Taiwan. So why did Taiwan not make the list?

To answer the question, we have to take a look at the development of companies in Taiwan as well as those in South Korea.

Like Taiwan, Korea was a Japanese colony until 1945. Economists, such as Samuel Ho and Frank Hsiao, have proven that Japanese rule made significant contributions toward laying a sound foundation for economic development in Taiwan and Korea.

In terms of infrastructure, such as education and public transportation, Taiwan and Korea were far ahead of China (excluding Manchuria, where the Japanese had also laid an industrial foundation) by the early 1930s.

By the late 1980s, South Korea, like Taiwan, was known as one of East Asia's four Little Dragons (or newly industrialized economies). To eventually achieve the status of a newly industrialized country, South Korea, again not unlike Taiwan, has learned, borrowed and imitated from the success of Japan's post-World War II economic development.

Among many things the South Koreans have emulated, the institution of the Japanese zaibatsu conglomerates is probably one of the most important. Consequently, South Korea has developed a number of chaebol, or conglomerates of businesses that are usually owned by a single family. The three chaebol that have been ranked among the world's top 100 are: Samsung, Hyundai and LG.

Not unlike the pre-war Japanese zaibatsu, virtually all chaebol are family-owned and controlled. Many of them got their start by obtaining assets from Japanese firms after Japan's surrender in 1945. The South Korean government then gave them special treatment. Government-chaebol cooperation evidently has been essential to the economic growth of South Korea.

The rise of Samsung is particularly impressive. In the late 1990s, Samsung was still seen as a low-quality brand in a tough industry. Its rise has been spectacular.

Taiwan's largest electronics company, Acer, claimed it was Europe's largest and the Asia-Pacific's third-biggest vendor of notebook computers in the first quarter of this year. Acer's products are of high quality. However, Acer is not among the world's top 100 brand names. Neither is Wang Yung-ching's Formosa Plastics Group. Why can't Taiwan have one firm ranked in the top 100?

After Japan's surrender, Japanese assets in Taiwan were taken over by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government. No Taiwanese families benefited in the way a small number of South Korean families did. In addition, no Taiwanese businesspeople or families were favored by the KMT government the way chaebol have been favored by the South Korean government.

As a matter of fact, in its early years of exile on Taiwan the KMT government worked to prevent the expansion of Taiwanese-owned firms. Take a look at the way the KMT government treated Tangjung and Tatung, Taiwan's two largest ironworks in the 1950s. In 1954, the KMT navy brought a lawsuit against Tatung charging it with "theft of naval property."

No Taiwanese expected Tatung to escape unscathed, and indeed it was nearly crippled by the inevitable guilty verdict. Tangjung fared even worse when it was eventually taken over in 1962 by the KMT government on the pretext it had heavy debts.

The KMT authorities clearly did not want to allow defense-related heavy industry to be in the hands of the Taiwanese.

From the early 1960s on, Taiwan's economic growth has depended greatly on thousands of small and medium-sized businesses and a much smaller number of large companies. Under less favorable conditions than companies in South Korea, Taiwanese businesses weren't able to grow to the size and worldwide fame of their South Korean counterparts.

What's worse, the KMT government seized Japanese assets not for the good of Taiwan and its people, but rather for its own benefit and survival. It is no wonder that the KMT is the richest political party in the world.

Shouldn't the DPP-led government now develop a policy to help some quality Taiwanese brands become world famous? After all, if and when there is a Taiwanese company ranked among the world's top brands, Taiwan's international visibility will be considerably enhanced.

In the final analysis, it is up to the people of Taiwan to strive to build on and improve the nation's brands to the highest level possible.

National pride is the key. South Koreans have demonstrated to the world that they are as good as the Japanese. If and when the Taiwanese are proud of being Taiwanese the way South Koreans are proud of being South Korean, then Taiwan's brands should soon be among the top-ranked in the world.

Chen Ching-chih is a researcher with the Los Angeles-based Institute for Taiwanese Studies.

US right to block CNOOC offer

By Paul Lin

The bid by China's state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) for the American oil company Unocal fell through, upsetting both the Chinese and China-friendly forces outside the country. One headline said: "Failure of CNOOC bid blasted by US and Chinese media." The New York Times accused members of the US Congress of harming public interests by acting out of self interest, while the China Daily blamed the US for violating free-trade principles.

What does it mean to harm public interests out of self interest? It means selling at the highest price without giving any thought to national interests. The Times has mixed up the concepts of public and private. Another of the paper's points was that blocking the deal will only force China to buy oil from states that the US disapproves of, such as Iran, Myanmar and Sudan, thereby helping consolidate the totalitarian governments in those countries and having a negative impact on US interests. This only goes to show that the Times doesn't understand the expansionist ambitions and innate character of China's imperialism.

The US doesn't have to block the Unocal deal for China to become best buddies with Iran, Myanmar or Sudan. In the 1980s, the US had to keep a close tally on Chinese missile sales to Iran. China has also been close to Myanmar since the 1950s, giving it a part of Chinese territory in the 1960s, and it was already investing in oil in both Iran and Sudan prior to the Unocal deal. Is there any dictatorship that hasn't had dealings with China?

The US blocked this deal based on national interests. Had China taken over Unocal, there were fears that its business would be affected by political considerations, in the same way that Beijing is targeting pro-independence Taiwanese businesspeople based in China. The thinking in Washington is that Beijing, which has said it wouldn't shrink from firing nuclear missiles at US cities, would not sell oil to the Americans, thereby endangering US national security.

China's English-language mouthpiece, the China Daily, self-righteously said that the controversy over the CNOOC bid allowed the world to see the US' true colors -- that while the US calls itself a free economy, the truth is different. If a free economy means that the highest bidder wins, then the US has never been a free economy. At the very least, it hasn't been a free economy since it adopted trade sanctions against China after the Tiananmen Massacre on July 4, 1989, since the sanctions mean that there are some products the US will not sell to China, no matter how much Beijing is willing to pay.

So is China a free economy just because it is willing to make a high bid? CNOOC is a state-owned enterprise and a monopoly. China's Constitution says that the basis of the economic system is socialist public ownership, and that "The state ensures the consolidation and growth of the state-owned economy." Does this sound like freedom?

"Guaranteed" by the Chinese government, CNOOC offered a high price in violation of free market principles for Unocal. That was equal to the Chinese state trying to deal with the US state. Of course the US had to make its own counter-move.

It is in fact quite stupid to have the China Daily promote the virtues of a free economy. Hong Kong's media has already followed Beijing's lead and criticized the US for violating free-market principles. Meanwhile, Guangdong and Beijing have prohibited imports of pork from Sichuan as a result of the swine flu in that province. But the Hong Kong government is afraid to do so, in fear of violating free-trade principles. It seems there is no end to the uses for these principles.

China joined the WTO in the capacity of a developing country, but five years later, foreign investors still can't own more than 49 percent of shares of communications and finance firms. And even local private companies have problems developing because they are not allowed to own a controlling stake in communications, financial, energy or transportation companies. What kind of freedom is this?

The media business, meanwhile, is hemmed in by strict regulations. China recently issued new regulations regarding radio and television broadcasters for dealings with foreign nationals and organizations. These prohibit broadcasters from joint investment or cooperation with foreign organizations for live broadcasts. The regulations also require local broadcasters to gain approval from provincial level broadcasting authorities for any activities involving foreigners.

In the past, people's understanding of the communist lie was that "your things belong to me, and my things also belong to me." The relationship China now demands of Western democracies is one where Beijing can oppose the West because it is a dictatorship, but the West cannot oppose China because the West is democratic. The crooks and thieves in Beijing who have wreaked havoc for almost a century now want to cooperate with politicians and media from Taiwan and other countries, asking them to beautify China and help increase its prestige. Agreeing to do so is the same as trying to buy the skin off a tiger without fearing for one's safety.

Paul Lin is a freelance writer based in New York.