Otherwise, no one would be willing to help Taiwan if it was faced with an imminent Chinese invasion, Su said.

Shu agreed with Su, saying that national defense is the basis for a nation, and that there could be no such thing as sovereignty for a nation if its national security is endangered.

Both leaders called on supporters to participate in the march, promising that they would help the march to succeed.

Australia in negotiations to supply China with uranium

AP , CANBERRA

Australia and China are negotiating an agreement to allow Australia to export uranium to China for peaceful purposes, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday.

Preliminary talks are already underway to secure a Chinese commitment that the uranium would be used only for electricity generation, Downer said.

Australia prohibits the sale of uranium for nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered warships or other military uses.

Australia also insists that uranium customers abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and prevent radioactive products from being passed to a third country.

"The agreement will establish safeguards arrangements to ensure Australian uranium supplied to China is used exclusively for peaceful purposes," he said in a statement.

Downer said China is the world's second-largest energy consumer and plans to meet its growing demands with a fourfold increase in nuclear-energy production by 2020.

Downer said he did not expect any objection from the US, a close ally, over a uranium trade deal.

"As long as China meets the safeguard requirements that we lay down and are consistent with international protocols, I think other countries in the region and the United States will be perfectly happy with this," Downer told Sky television.

But independent US intelligence think tank Stratfor predicts Australia will have difficulty convincing other nations and environmentalists of the benefits of such a deal.

"Australia is headed for a heated debate pitting an unlikely alliance of anti-nuclear greens and Chinaphobic nationalists against the government's desire to assert itself in Asia and to boost its revenue stream in the process," Stratfor said.

Ghosts of history haunt East Asia

By Antonio Chiang

This year marks the centenary of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and on Aug. 15 many countries will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in the Pacific. Of course, Japan's military dominance in East Asia -- which began with the Russo-Japanese War and led to World War II -- is no more. But the ghosts of this history still hang over East Asia, with each country struggling to find ways to deal with the past.

China is a benchmark. Over the centuries, Japan and China have taken turns dominating East Asia and both now seek to assert regional hegemony. Historically, the Korean Peninsula was the playground for this rivalry, but, with North and South Korea appearing to make peace with each other, South Korea is also staking a claim to regional influence.

Resentment over past wrongs buttresses all of these rival claims for influence.

During his visit to the US in June, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun told US President George W. Bush that China had invaded Korea more than 100 times. His remarks shocked China, which views itself as the victim of invasions (most humiliatingly, by the Japanese) and has forgotten its own history of bullying its neighbors.

Roh also openly criticizes Japan for its cowardice in not facing up to its war crimes, saying that it does not deserve a seat on the UN Security Council. Japan long colonized Korea, and during World War II, Koreans were forced to join the Japanese Imperial Army -- a situation similar to that of Taiwan. But whereas the struggle between China and Japan for dominance over Korea was the focal point of the East Asian drama, Taiwan was but a sideshow, a mere outpost of the imperial Qing Dynasty, while Korea was a vassal paying tribute to China.

After defeating both the Qing Dynasty and Russia, Japan not only gained control over the Korean Peninsula, but also extended its reach deep into Northeast China. As East Asia's "Big Brother," Japan's Kwantung Army founded Manchukuo in northeast China in 1932. Japan wanted Manchukuo to become what India was to Britain or what Algeria was to France -- a crown jewel of the empire -- and sent a million immigrants (800,000 of whom died after postwar Manchukuo was taken over by Russia) while investing huge sums to develop heavy industry.

Japan's government in Nanking under Wang Jingwei was like Germany's Vichy government in France under Henri-Philippe Petain. Both were treated as traitors after the war ended. By contrast, as a result of long colonization, Taiwan and Korea had developed both resistance toward and reliance on their rulers. With only a few exceptions, the local elite was assimilated into the colonial system.

But the outcome was similar throughout the region following Japan's defeat. Civil war broke out in China, the Korean Peninsula was divided and the other Southeast Asian colonies, with the sole exception of Thailand, resorted to military force to achieve independence.

China has still failed to face up to the history of Manchukuo and its civil war, not to mention opening the secret files concerning Mao Zedong's decision to send almost 1 million soldiers into the Korean War. South Korea initiated talks with the Japanese government only recently on retrieving the remains of Korean slave workers. More than 20,000 Taiwanese and about the same number of Korean soldiers who died for Japan are worshipped at Japan's Yasukuni shrine.

Taiwan's delayed re-awakening reflects the early reliance of its Nationalist government on protection from the US and assistance from Japan. Former president Chiang Kai-shek had no choice but to return good for evil by abjuring compensation claims against Japan, as well as by secretly arranging for the Kwantung Army's ex-chief of staff to join Taiwan's efforts in confronting the communists. Japan has never apologized for its colonization of Taiwan, and Taiwanese had no opportunity for historical reflection during 30 years of martial law.

This spring, anti-Japanese demonstrations broke out almost simultaneously in China and South Korea, with both countries seeking to place the memory of Japanese dominance in the service of building a new national identity and strategic position. So, we can expect that, like the events in May marking 60 years since the end of World War II in Europe, Asia's commemoration on Aug. 15 of the end of the war in the Pacific will expose lingering -- and still raw -- historical sensitivities. Unlike in Europe, however, historical memory in Asia continues to be wedded to current strategic ambition.

One hundred years ago, the rise of Japanese military power changed the fate of Asia. Sixty years ago, the demise of Japanese power changed Asia's fate again. Today, as China rises in wealth and power to rival Japan, Asia holds its breath, waiting for the ghosts of history to disappear.

Antonio Chiang is a former deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council.

Identity issue raises its head again

By Nat Bellocchi

While much of the media in Taiwan is already focusing on likely candidates for president three years hence, the two main parties have yet to establish their platforms for the forthcoming campaign.

The two countries most important to Taiwan, China and the US, may want to involve themselves in the next presidential election -- both in terms of developing platforms and the choice of candidates -- much earlier than they have done in the past. They should write their plans in pencil, not ink. The complexities and uncertainties found in Taiwan today are likely to continue right up to election day.

Voters complain that the government has not provided reforms in the everyday issues that most concern them. The opposition meanwhile, by virtue of their control of the legislature, are deliberately blocking bills for political purposes. Faced with this, the electorate is tired and disappointed in politics. With national identity likely to be the major issue in the 2008 election, that attitude could bring disaster to the democracy they take for granted.

At this point, the two political parties face opposite problems. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a more certain candidate, but an incomplete platform. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is less sure of who it will nominate, but has a platform that will likely need only a few changes. Additionally, both parties face two other elections before the presidential poll -- local elections this year and legislative elections in 2007. The issues in these polls will focus more on domestic concerns and the candidates themselves, unlike the presidential campaign, which will focus more on national concerns, security and cross-strait matters.

The DPP is now in its sixth year in government, and despite it's minority in the legislature, it has had some successes. The participation of different ethnicities in the body politic has clearly improved. So has government transparency. And there is far more recognition of national identity, both at home and abroad.

There have been some improvements in transforming the bureaucracy into national, not party, institutions and reducing corruption in business and government generally. There has been an effort to establish ceilings on the wealth of political parties and to improve the government's public relations.

At the same time, however, the DPP has had little success in two important areas -- with grassroots voters in local elections and attaining a majority in the legislative elections.

In this, the KMT has been successful, retaining the "ward boss" system that has often given it a majority in local elections -- and the "localized" legislators in the party, despite their more liberal ideology. The party doubtless also believes it has been successful in retaining support for its ideological position, but it has done so by forming its own relationship with China, and using its majority in the legislature to block governance almost completely.

The present belief is that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou is almost certain to be the KMT's candidate for the presidential election in 2008. It is still unclear, however, to what degree he will be able to establish his own policies and objectives. In the last presidential election, the party's policies became flexible, and moved very close to those of the DPP. But statements made by the party's leaders during their visits to China this year indicate that its objective is to reinstate the "one China" policy of the past. Ma apparently accepts this, putting it in the phrase "no independence."

Measures to strengthen economic and cultural relations with China in a way that would assure an eventual unification are already part of KMT policy. This will probably tilt the upcoming presidential election to being another debate on Taiwan's identity.

Taiwan's political parties are already setting their sights on the 2007 legislative elections and the 2008 presidential poll. If observers in Washington and Beijing are looking, they will see an electorate that is tired of political wrangling, including many who are willing to risk economic dependence on China. But mostly, they will see voters who are not interested, and therefore not informed, about the politics that could fundamentally change their lifestyles and their children's futures.

In play between the two major political parties are many of the normal issues debated between parties in any democracy: social welfare, construction projects, limits on political funding, pensions, personnel and budgets. The continuous jostling for advantage on these issues is normal.

Unfortunately, Taiwan has one priority issue that overshadows all the others -- the lack of consensus on national identity.

There are three years before the next president is chosen. That is a long time in politics. Perhaps, during the debates that will go on leading up to the local and legislative elections, the government, the media, universities and schools, and even the politicians, can speak to the voters about the choices for Taiwan's statehood.

That is an enormous task, but a critical necessity. Voters see "status quo" as the answer -- thinking that staying neutral can last as long as they like. My last article tried to explain why this is illusory. The result would not be a choice, but eventual unification. Ambiguity dominates the language between Taiwan, the US and China. In addition, election campaigns tend to be dominated by unreliable rhetoric. With the lack of interest among so many voters, addressing this problem should be today's top priority.

Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Wrestling meaning from the title `ROC'

By Shen Chieh

`The ROC only remains as the government's name and its organization. It no longer has the original sense of "state."'

After adding the word "Taiwan" to the Presidential Office's Web site last week, President Chen Shui-bian proposed a four-stage theory of the Republic of China's (ROC) development that stressed that today's ROC is Taiwan.

Because the name ROC includes the word "republic," it is easily mistaken to mean that the ROC is a state.

However, the name ROC initially symbolized a government or a dynasty, and it was also the official name for China.

After the People's Republic of China (PRC) replaced the ROC as the ruler of China, the only remaining meaning was "government," with the other meanings being supplanted by the PRC. This now means that the PRC is China and China is the PRC.

The ROC only remains as the government's name and its organization. It no longer has the original sense of "state."

Chen is being polite when he describes the second stage of his theory as the ROC "moving" to Taiwan, when it in fact was exiled here and proceeded to -- without passing through any democratic or legal procedures -- begin to occupy Taiwan and Penghu after Japan gave up its claims in a treaty.

In 1971, the UN decided to expel the delegate representing president Chiang Kai-shek's regime and proclaimed that the PRC was the legitimate representative of China. Afterward, Chiang's son Chiang Ching-kuo began implementing limited localization and promotion of Taiwanese. Taiwan was thus used to fill the empty ROC shell, and the ROC began its transformation toward becoming Taiwan.

Former president Lee Teng-hui's "ROC on Taiwan" and "ROC Taiwan" still contained the word "republic" and the confusion remained.

In 1999, Lee proposed his "special state to state" model for cross-strait relations, clearly defining the ROC as a "state" rather than a "government." Since both the PRC and the ROC are states, with neither having any jurisdiction over the other, this is clearly a matter of two different countries.

A majority in the international community do not recognize the ROC because they do not view it as a state, but rather as the name of a government that has been replaced by the PRC. If the national title remains unchanged and if we want to maintain that Taiwan or the ROC is a sovereign state, there are only two approaches to altering the definition of the ROC.

First, that Taiwan is a sovereign state whose national title is the ROC. Second, that the ROC is a sovereign state whose territory is limited to the Taiwan region and the sovereignty belongs to the 23 million Taiwanese.

Chen's four-stage theory defines the ROC as a state, but in using territory and population to define the scope of this state, he makes the ROC Taiwan. This is in response to the fact that while the national title "ROC" cannot be altered at this stage, most people believe that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Since any sudden change is impossible, this is a necessary and natural development.

Shen Chieh is a political commentator based in Washington.