20050812

Beijing not playing Taiwan card over N Korea, US says

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

The US' top North Korea negotiator has denied that China is making its cooperation in defusing the Korean Peninsula's nuclear crisis conditional on US efforts to press Taipei into accepting Beijing's demands on Taiwan.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Christopher Hill, the top US negotiator to the six-party talks in Beijing, made his comment at a press briefing in Washington for the international media.

He was in Washington to report to the government after a recess in the fourth round of talks. A stalemate was reached over the weekend following Pyongyang's demands regarding its nuclear-power program.

Asked about speculation that China has linked the Korea and Taiwan issues, Hill issued a categorical denial.

"I've heard this issue about these, you know, tradeoffs with Taiwan, but I've only heard it in the media," he said in response to a reporter's question. "I have never ever -- and I've had numerous discussions with the Chinese about DPRK [North Korea] and the nuclear problem, and we have never mixed up the Taiwan issue," he said.

"Although, obviously, we've talked about the Taiwan issue many times, but never in connection with the DPRK's nuclear problem. So I can put that to rest right now," he said.

While there has been speculation for years about Beijing tying North Korea negotiations to the Taiwan issue, Beijing has not made any link explicit.

US officials have denied it, as have other specialists and sources in Washington over the years.

However, Hill's denial is the most authoritative and definitive to come from the administration.

In his position in the current six-party talks, and in his previous position as ambassador to South Korea, Hill has probably had more experience on the matter than anybody in Washington, and has probably talked with the Chinese leadership about the issue more than any other US official.

The latest round of talks broke down on Sunday when North Korea unexpectedly made a late demand for the right to operate light-water nuclear reactors, which US officials fear Pyongyang could use to develop nuclear weapons.

As a result, the talks are in a three-week recess after progressing for nearly two weeks. The talks could resume as soon as next month.

China and the US have regularly criticized each other for their actions -- or lack of action -- in bringing the nuclear issue to a resolution, but in the latest round of talks the atmosphere between the two nations was reported to be much more congenial.

Nevertheless, despite past criticism from Beijing, Washington sees Chinese cooperation as vital to any efforts to solve the North Korean nuclear issue. As a result, there has been persistent speculation that China has leaned on US officials for concessions on Taiwan as the price for cooperation on Korea.

Such speculation peaked during the end of 2003 and early last year, when US President George W. Bush and his administration adopted a decidedly unfriendly stance toward President Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party.

US military delegation holds talks

By Mac William Bishop

STAFF REPORTER

A delegation of US military officials is in Taipei and has held joint talks with senior Taiwanese military officials, the Taipei Times has learned. The talks are part of a series of high-level security discussions that Taiwan regularly has with the US regarding strategic and operational military matters.

The talks are being chaired on the US side by officials from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and officials from the US Pacific Command are also present.

The director of the Ministry of National Defense's strategic planning department, Vice Admiral Liang Kung-kai, is heading the Taiwanese delegation.

A Taiwanese insider confirmed that the talks, which lasted about half of a day, had taken place earlier in the week. He said that the talks were strictly about existing military-cooperation programs, and that "political issues are avoided."

However, a defense source said that such military cooperation between the US and Taiwan, which occurs regularly, is an indication of the seriousness with which Washington views China's repeated threats to invade Taiwan.

Meanwhile, a former US military official said that the rationale for holding such talks was to "create a cross-flow of information" between the Taiwanese and US militaries.

Such discussions are held on three different levels, the former official said. The highest level talks are often referred to as the "Monterey talks" -- because they are generally held in Monterey, California -- and are conducted to address overall strategic issues facing Taiwan.

The Monterey talks are usually headed by a senior official from the Pentagon, such as an assistant secretary of defense or a deputy assistant secretary. To date, there have been about one dozen such meetings between high-level US and Taiwanese defense officials.

The Taiwanese source said that the timing of the discussions had little to do with the controversy surrounding the special arms procurement budget that the Cabinet has proposed.

President Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party are pushing the legislature to hold an extraordinary session, and want to submit the NT$480 billion (US$15 billion) budget bill for the 27th time.

However, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its allies have said they will only agree to a special session to discuss a proposed flood-control bill.

The Taiwanese source said that the fact that the talks occurred this week, when the debate over the special session comes to a head, was merely coincidental.

The talks, he said, "had been scheduled many months before."

Chen's travel and arms deal are not linked: US official

CNA , WASHINGTON

The US government would never link the issue of which cities Taiwan's president can transit through in the US to movement on the island's planned arms procurement from the US, a State Department official said Wednesday.

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli made the remarks at a press briefing on updated US foreign policy.

In response to a question on whether the US might tie the issue of where President Chen Shui-bian can make transit stops in the US to progress on the nation's planned arms purchase, Ereli told the reporter that "you're mixing apples and oranges" by linking the two issues.

The spokesman noted that the US government has consistently addressed such transit applications in terms of safety, comfort and convenience of the traveler.

"There shouldn't be anything political read into" such arrangements, he said, adding that "it's a technical criteria that we follow."

Chen is scheduled to make stopovers in the US en route to and from Central America and the Caribbean for a diplomatic tour next month. Relevant Taiwanese and US authorities are discussing the transit arrangements.

Meanwhile, as China and Russia are set to stage their biggest-ever joint military exercises later this month, Ereli was asked whether the Bush administration is concerned about the event's implications for Taiwan's security.

Ereli responded by saying that the Chinese-Russian military exercises are matters between China and Russia.

"You know our actions and policies are guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and the Three Communiques," he added.

Lifting of ban on overflights of China signals progress

By Shih Hsiu-chuan

STAFF REPORTER

The government's move to allow Taiwanese aircraft to fly through Chinese airspace might be a signal of future progress on a highly controversial issue -- the opening-up of direct transportation links across the Taiwan Strait, political analysts said yesterday.

The Cabinet last week lifted the five-decades-old ban, with the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) explaining that there was no need for bilateral negotiations on this matter. Also, legal procedures for airline companies to file applications were drafted within three business days after the announcement was made.

While the Chinese government has not made an official response to this issue so far, it seems that the Taiwanese government has been actively pushing the matter along.

However, this was not the case four years ago, when the legislature passed a resolution asking the government to divert Europe-bound flights away from the Middle East by flying through Chinese airspace during theUS-led Iraq war, but the government seemed loath to follow up on the proposal.

The government's reaction to the resolution was that it would consider such requests case by case, and would be willing to provide help to airline companies if they take the initiative to make an application. But no company made such a request, which many regarded as an indication that they were discouraged by the government.

Such allegations were supported by a report China Airlines and EVA Airways made to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications after the passage of the resolution, in which the two companies said that the economic benefits of having to get single flights approved weren't great.

As the two companies had sought access to Chinese airspace to save time and money for some time, the conclusion raised a lot of eyebrows at the time.

In addition, the government insisted on bilateral negotiations over the matter, with Tsai Ing-wen, former MAC chairwoman, saying in the legislature in January 2002 that the negotiations between the two governments would be necessary as Taiwan and China hadn't signed a civil air transport agreement with each other.

Delving into the possible reasons why the government has changed its position on this matter, officials and analysts said that the government decided to take a pro-active approach to cross-strait relations, noting that the sharp rise of the international crude oil prices was a timely excuse for the government to adjust its cross-strait policy.

Legislator Lin Cho-shui from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said that while the government hadn't said "no" to airline companies' requests to flying through Chinese airspace, the government's reluctant attitude to lift the ban was seen in the two companies' written report.

"It happens all the time that the airline companies echo the government's opinions," he said.

Another reason for the government to keep the ban in place is that the Chinese government might want a reciprocal arrangement with Taiwan, Lin said.

"Since China's animosity towards Taiwan and the possibility of demanding reciprocal rights to flyover Taiwanese airspace remains the same as the situation in 2001, I can only say that the government's cross-strait policy changed," Lin said.

A high-level official of the MAC told the Taipei Times on condition of anonymity that lifting the ban on flying over Chinese airspace is part of the government's effort to facilitate direct transportation links across the Strait.

"There is no reason for the government to express its willingness to negotiate with the Chinese side to set up direct non-stop passenger, cargo and special-purpose charter flights between the Strait on the one hand and then keep the ban on flying over Chinese airspace on the other," he said, noting that "the ban would turn out to be meaningless and irrational if the direct transportation links has been set up one day."

Andy Chang, an associate professor of Graduate Institute of China Studies of Tamkang University, also considers lifting the ban as a "warm-up" run for the opening up of direct transportation links across the Strait.

"To save on costs for airline companies is a secondary reason, as it is not so important for the nation's economy. The true meaning is that it would mark a big step forward in advancing cross-strait direct transportation links," Chang said.

Lo Chih-cheng, the executive director of the Institute for National Policy Research and an associate professor at Soochow University, considers it necessary for the government to take a pro-active approach toward the Chinese government's employment of a "soft strategy" after it passed the "Anti-Secession" Law.

The soft strategy includes tactics such as the opening of Chinese market to Taiwanese fruit and Beijing inviting senior opposition leaders to visit China, and seems to have "put Taiwan's ruling government on the defensive," Lo said, noting that "lifting the ban on flights through Chinese airspace would be a counter-move that could turn the table."

According to Lo, since Chinese President Hu Jintao adopted unification-driven tactics to deal with Taiwan, Taiwan should also take the initiative in bringing up issues that favor Taiwan as a means of appeal to the international community.

"If the Chinese side accepts this proposal, the result is good for spurring Taiwan's economic development. If it turns down the proposal, it proves to the international community that Taiwan should not to be blamed for being unwilling to act in a pragmatic way to interact with China," Lo said.

The new DPU has noble aims

On Sunday, an international NGO called the Democratic Progressive Union (DPU) will be formally established in Taipei, an organization boasting more than 20 member countries, including a number of Taiwan's Latin American allies as well as representatives from the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

The organization is the brainchild of Vice President Annette Lu, and aims to serve as a platform for personnel and resource exchanges around the Pacific Rim, and a platform to promote democracy, ensure peace in the region and spread prosperity.

To what extent it can work substantively to actualize its vision remains to be seen. But the fact that an organization will exist in which Taiwan plays an active role will provide the country with leverage in Asia's fast-paced process of regional integration.

Last Friday, five Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, agreed to establish a single tourist visa in hopes of boosting tourism in the region. While further details of the join visa venture will be soon discussed, the idea, modeled somewhat after the EU, suggests a realignment of the region. Needless to say, the grouping of "ASEAN plus one," including China, will be extended to "ASEAN plus three," including China, Japan and Korea. It is uncertain whether it will indeed come to incorporate Australia and New Zealand, as China has suggested, to become a mammoth "East Asian Free Trade Area."

In view of the growing economic integration taking place in Asia, what role will Taiwan play? Given Taiwan's limited diplomatic allies and the threat it faces from an abominable neighbor, Taiwan meets a lot of obstacles when it tries to take part in international organizations, let alone being one that initiates them.

Without membership in major economic or political international organizations, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Asian Monetary Fund or even in the case of non-political bodies such as the World Health Organization, playing host and taking part in an international NGO organization could be one path which Taiwan could pursue, and thrive.

Although some wonder about the prospects for the DPU's longevity and how it will operate, it does, however, provide Taiwan with more international visibility. The trend of Taiwan's being edged off the map and marginalized in Asia's integration process could be ended. By participating in more regional organizations, Taiwan could take advantage of more venues and opportunities for dialogue, cooperation and mutual trust. It could help create confidence-building measures and enhance conflict prevention initiatives. More conferences and multilateral forums should invite Taiwan -- a democracy that has shared prosperous economic relations with countries in Southeast Asia -- ? as a dialogue partner. They, too, would also benefit from such an arrangement. Cooperation of this kind would not only allow for economic collaboration but also serve as a venue where all parties could work together on non-conventional security issues, such as human trafficking, HIV/AIDS and international terrorism.

In the face of obstruction from China, Taiwan should not be intimidated and thus confined. Rather, it should continue to seek a breakthrough by cooperating with non-governmental organizations that allow for transnational cooperation.

The initiative to establish the DPU should therefore be acknowledged and applauded.

US pushes at China's edges

Washington is shoring up diplomatic connections along China's borders as Beijing moves to expand its influence in the region

By Simon Tisdall

THE GUARDIAN , LONDON

`Alarmed by China's rapid rise ... the US is pushing back. Results range from a sudden warming of relations with Vietnam to plans for "strategic partnership" with India.'

"China has become one of the largest traders and investors with many Asian countries," Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Christopher Hill told the Senate in June.

But he noted that while US investment in Southeast Asian countries totaled over US$85 billion, China's amounted to only US$2 billion.

While Beijing wielded influence in places such as North Korea, Burma and Cambodia, Hill pointed to America's "strong and enduring alliances with Japan, Australia, South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines." In terms of global power politics, he suggested, it was no contest.

The corollary to stepped-up US efforts to contain and integrate China is steady US pressure on Russia via Moscow's former Soviet satellites.

Even as US forces were ordered out of Uzbekistan, which has reached energy deals with Moscow and Beijing, leases on US military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were renewed last month.

And despite Russian President Vladimir Putin's warnings to foreign-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) not to dabble in politics in the former Soviet republics, Washington shows no sign of backing off.

Further to the west, the US and its favored ally, Poland, seem to be preparing another pro-democracy front in Belarus, where President Alexander Lukashenko's authoritarian regime faces elections next year.

And in Georgia and Ukraine, scene of the original Western-backed "color revolutions" that the Kremlin fears could be emulated at home, the US is being urged to do more.

Georgia's pro-West leader, President Mikhail Saakashvili, claimed recently that Washington had pledged to resolve Russian-fueled separatist problems in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

"We have a political understanding that something should be done and there can be some kind of US role," he told the Wall Street Journal Europe.

The US undoubtedly faces a long-term battle for influence in the Asia-Pacific area. But, says Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution in Washington, there are present-day limits to what even Beijing and Moscow combined can do in response to the US' "soft power" offensives.

"China has got a lot of internal problems such as unrest in the rural areas, and energy is its Achilles heel," Hill said.

To keep growing, China needed to keep vital export markets open, principally in the US. For this and other reasons, for example, experts say direct confrontation over Taiwan is unlikely.

"Russia gets infuriated with the US but at the same time it is incredibly worried about China. Some [Russian] military analysts say, `China could turn against us but we are selling them all these arms. Is this sensible?'" Hill said.

The upshot, according to a UK Defense Academy study by Mark Smith, is that while pursuing closer ties, "neither side has any interest in creating a formal anti-American alliance."

While China may ultimately go it alone, "fear of being marginalized has played a large part in driving the Putin leadership towards strategic partnership with the US and the EU," Smith said.

In this sense, closer China-Russia collaboration reflects current weakness, not strength. As the US spins its web, expect more Mongolian-style mutton diplomacy.

Bombings in London and Turkey have brought to the fore the old ideas that authoritarian regimes are better equipped than democracies to combat terrorism, and that such attacks are the price we pay for liberty. For some, that is a price worth paying; for others, the costs seem too high.

But a look at the record shows that democracies possess more effective weapons to fight terror than do authoritarian regimes. Indeed, it is when democracies abandon their ethics and fail to resist the authoritarian temptation that they become weaker.

Of course, the logic behind calls to restrict our freedoms has a simplistic appeal: extremists use our freedoms to commit their crimes, so preventing the abuse of freedom requires curtailing freedom's scope. The mistake, however, is to assume that open societies are more permissive and vulnerable to terrorism than those who live under authoritarian regimes. One need only look at today's Russia, or recall Algeria in the 1990s.

True, democracy and the rule of law provide no foolproof security guarantee. But such a guarantee is a mirage anyway, whereas respect for basic freedoms and due process when repressing terrorism is a powerful instrument to isolate extremists and diminish their legitimacy in the eyes of those that might identify with their cause. It is because Britain is a democracy that respects the rule of law that it has been able to mobilize vast sectors of its Muslim community.

By contrast, authoritarian regimes' repression of civilians, and their non-differentiation between civilians and killers, provides extremists with fertile recruiting conditions by discrediting the government in the eyes of a significant part of its population. An undifferentiated approach towards political Islamism that fails to distinguish between those who reject violence and those who resort to terror only facilitates the extremists' work, for they emerge as champions of causes that do not reflect their true goals.

Russia provides conclusive evidence of the impotence of authoritarian violence and disregard for the rule of law. Russian President Vladimir Putin undertook a scorched-earth policy in Chechnya, driving many Chechen nationalists straight into the extremists' arms. Terrorist attacks on Russia did not cease or decline. Indeed, recall the terrorism in Beslan in September 2004, in which a single attack on a school killed over 330 people.

Iraq also is demonstrating the limits of illegitimate violence when combating terrorism. The Bush administration now seems to realize this. It would be a mistake to believe that the deaths of thousands of civilians, along with arbitrary imprisonment and torture, do not contribute to the spread of terror in Iraq. After all, torture victims are the best possible advertisement for terrorist recruitment.

When it comes to fighting terrorism, moreover, democracies are more effective both politically and operationally, particularly in terms of their intelligence services. Intelligence forces in authoritarian states are either highly centralized or tend to become autonomous power centers. In either case, they are subject to no public scrutiny and accountability. As a result, they lose their ability over time to evaluate critically their own actions and errors.

Intelligence services in democratic contexts usually have oversight mechanisms that serve to limit abuses of power, and to guarantee effective action by punishing top officials that fail to do their jobs properly. In the US, a powerful bi-partisan Senate committee directly monitors the intelligence services. Its report on the inability of the intelligence services, notably the CIA and the FBI, to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks also contained a series of recommendations for restructuring these services to render them more effective.

Europe's response to terror requires, first and foremost, strengthening its intelligence services so that they can detect and dismantle terrorist cells while respecting basic rights and due process. It also requires greater coordination among all the European Union's member states and their allies and partners.

At the same time, the rule-of-law approach to fighting terrorism must be a pillar of European cooperation with third countries, namely with those of the Mediterranean, or with Pakistan, thereby contributing to a security culture that is conducive to democratization. Deepening democracy in turn means allowing full civic participation, including non-violent Islamic groups. The right to public speech and peaceful assembly must be defended for those who feel marginalized and indignant at what they -- and most Europeans -- view as injustices committed against the Palestinians, the Chechens, and the Iraqis.

Last, but not least, combating identity-based extremism calls for a greater capacity to integrate all those who live within the EU. The response to terrorism should be to reaffirm the value of the rule of law over arbitrary repression, and of the diversity that is the hallmark of Europe's cities, particularly London and Paris, but increasingly many others across the union.

We cannot -- indeed, must not -- cede to terror by building walls around and within our societies. The best response to intolerant extremism is to cultivate an open and pluralistic society that treats all those who live within its borders as full citizens. Europe turned diversity into one of its constitutional traits, and this is why it has had such an impact on the world. Protecting that essence is the best way to honor the memory of the victims of terror, be they from London, Sharm el-Sheik, Madrid, Casablanca, or New York.

Álvaro de Vasconcelos is director of the Portuguese Institute for Strategic and International Studies.