Lee denies change in US arms stance

CONCERN: Some in the US worry that China will eventually gain access to high-tech weapons if the arms procurement deal goes through, the minister of national defense said

BY RICH CHANG

STAFF REPORTER

With the arms procurement bill still in limbo and the possibility of cross-strait unification at some point in the future, some Americans may be concerned that advanced military technology would fall into China's hands if Taiwan were to procure high-tech weapons from the US, Minister of National Defense Lee Jye said yesterday.

Lee made the remarks in response to a query from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi in the legislature about an opinion piece by Hawaii-based writer Richard Halloran, which said that the US Pacific Command has "quietly encouraged Taiwan to strengthen its defenses ... [and] forego high-tech weapons that could be employed in offensive operations."

Su was referring to an editorial piece by Halloran in the Japan Times on Sept. 27.

The same piece appeared in the Taipei Times on Sept. 25. Halloran quoted anonymous US military officers as saying that the new commander of US forces in Asia and the Pacific, Admiral William Fallon, has urged Taiwan to acquire more strictly defensive weapons while seeking "to deter Beijing by reminding Chinese leaders that the US had the capability and resolve to help defend Taiwan."

Su said the article was credible and may indicate an adjustment in the US' attitude toward Taiwan.

"I do not have any such information form the Pacific Command, but because of a long-time boycott of the special arms bill, Americans have started feeling the pressure from the gradually increasing military imbalance in the Strait," Lee said.

"The information from the article may reflect some Americans' concern that selling high-tech arms to Taiwan might result in technology falling into the hands of the Chinese if the two countries reunify in the future," the minister added.

Lee, a former chief of the navy who has been promoting improvements to the country's submarine force, also said that Fallon may have a different view on Taiwan's defense requirements.

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Wen-chung told the Taipei Times that he does not agree with the opinion piece's thinking about Taiwan's defense situation, because pure defense of the homeland is a bad strategy.

"Those defensive weapons mentioned in the article are mainly to prevent an amphibious invasion by China, but Taiwan has transformed its military strategy to fight its enemy outside its borders, and that is why Taiwan needs to procure the advanced weapons systems," Lee Wen-chung said.

In light of the strategies favored by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Taiwan should pay more attention to the possibility of an attack from China that would paralyze Taiwan's command and control systems while minimizing bloodshed and economic damage, rather than a regular amphibious invasion, the DPP legislator said.

Lee Jye's remarks reflected concern among Taiwanese military experts about the possible withdrawal of the US' security commitments to Taiwan if the arms bill fails to be approved.

Chang Kuo-cheng, former director of the DPP's department of Chinese affairs, said if the US concluded that unification with China was possible, the country would gradually withdraw its security commitments to Taiwan and stop selling it advanced weaponry, because Washington would be concerned that the technology might fall into the hands of the PLA.

Is the DPP the new KMT?

Over the weekend, a group of young Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers launched a soul-searching campaign, urging the DPP to engage in introspection and to shift more of its attention to disadvantaged groups in line with the party's founding goal of pursuing social fairness and justice.

One of the initiators of the campaign, the DPP's candidate for the Taipei County commissionership, Luo Wen-jia, said the aim of the "New DPP Movement" is to demonstrate to the nation that the DPP is embracing its old values and ideals -- freedom, democracy, equality and justice.

Luo, a protege of President Chen Shui-bian, said that many of the grassroots supporters he met on the campaign trail were wondering whether the DPP has abandoned its ideals and principles. While the "New DPP Movement" has been met with suspicion and assertions that it is no more than a part of Luo's election campaign, there is no doubt that the DPP needs to re-examine its heart before it is too late.

After almost six years in power, the performance of the DPP administration has disappointed a number of pan-green diehards, with some gloomily wondering whether the DPP is losing its ideals and ability to improve itself. It has also alienated a large segment of the party's grassroots supporters, the very people who had helped to elect the then 14-year-old DPP in 2000.

Some supporters are beginning to wonder whether the DPP has turned into the equivalent of the old Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime it used to fight against -- a corrupt party leading a corrupt government. This kind of sentiment was especially prominent in the wake of the recent spate of scandals plaguing the DPP administration -- one of them being Kaohsiung's problematic MRT project. An Aug. 21 riot, ignited by Thai laborers protesting against their poor living conditions, unexpectedly brought to light a complex influence-peddling scheme in which ranking government officials apparently exploited Thai workers while pocketing money from the project's construction funds.

In the early days after the formation of the DPP, its members frequently attacked the KMT government with biting criticism for granting privileges to certain groups. They spoke of their hopes for reform with honesty and uprightness.

Back then, whenever they touched upon issues of national or civic unfairness, such as the special pension system for teachers, civil servants and military personnel, the DPP was full of fire, trumpeting social fairness and justice.

It has been almost six years since the DPP took power, but how many of the unfair regulations it criticized so severely back then have changed? What happened to the DPP's reform promises and its image of being honorable and free of corruption? Is there any difference between the DPP's current behavior and that of the late-era KMT regime? While it remains to be seen whether the "New DPP Movement" will be a boon or a liability for the DPP, it is clear that only by returning to its founding spirit and original goals will the party be able to represent the hopes of its supporters.

If the DPP remains the way it is now, it will no longer be fulfilling the purpose of its existence, and will have trouble getting the support of the voters it needs to hold power.

No shift in US policy

By Daniel Mojahedi

Over the past few days people have been expressing their discontent over recent comments by the US State Department and Congress regarding the US' commitment to defend Taiwan if China were ever to attack. While these letters did contain insightful thoughts on Taiwan's political arena and how the US' comments might adversely affect the stalled arms-purchase bill, there is still one more key point that needs to be discussed further: US domestic politics. While it is certain that many comments coming out of Washington were in fact directed at pressuring Taiwan's legislature, others were just statements of fact.

Obviously, just like in most democratic countries, US policy is determined, at least in part, by political will. As long as the public supports it, a government can pretty much do anything it likes. The years since Sept. 11 have proven this, with the military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and the sweeping changes in domestic law created by the Patriot Act. Despite the fact that many people, both in the US and abroad, question the validity and costs of such measures, the public has generally supported the Bush administration, giving it the power to continue with its policies.

While it is true that many US companies will benefit greatly from the sale of arms to Taiwan, that is not what concerns the public most. What concerns Americans most is the safety and well-being of their nation's people. If the US ever had to defend Taiwan in a military conflict, the government would have to be able to explain its decision to the American public.

To see proof of this, all you have to do is look at any US newspaper. Despite the fact the Iraq conflict started a year and a half ago, the deaths of US servicemen killed there still often makes front page news.

So if once again the US were called on to send its sons and daughters into combat, the government would have to be able to explain why. The answer would be that Taiwan is an imperfect though thriving democracy being attacked by a country known for stifling freedom and regularly violating the most basic of human rights.

However, those in Washington speaking out for Taiwan would be hard pressed to explain why Taiwan was not better prepared militarily, especially when China has openly expressed its hostile intent for well over 50 years.

There is a fair chance that, as Taiwan became front-page news, Americans would see that Taiwan was given the chance to defend itself, yet passed it up for several years. Even more compelling would be the fact that the legislative coalition opposing the arms procurement was still chosen by over half of Taiwan's voting public in elections held right in the middle of the impasse. Although the president could quickly commit troops to defend Taiwan, he would risk his political future if he could not convince the American people that such intervention was wanted by the majority of the people in Taiwan. In other words, the US would simply not have the political will to risk the lives of its people for a nation that has refused to defend itself.

The comments made by the US government have come from both a bipartisan Congress and from administration officials, who tend to not develop their policy in concert. Therefore it should not be assumed that US congress members and administration officials were presenting a collective shift in US policy toward Taiwan. They were simply stating a fact that the people of Taiwan should be aware of, while covering their own political careers in case a conflict ever did break out.

While, just like any sovereign nation, Taiwan has the right to negate foreign influence on its domestic affairs, it should respect Washington's desire for Taiwan to be prepared for conflict before it sends its own sons and daughters into the Taiwan Strait.

Daniel Mojahedi

United States

Australia is China's new spokesman

Sushil Seth

"[China's] economic liberalization and integration into the world system has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty." － John Howard, Australian prime minister

Of late, Australia has been seeking to create some political space for its diplomacy between the US and China. Australia is one of the US' closest political and military allies. Not long ago, Australian Prime Minister John Howard prided himself and Australia on being the US' deputy sheriff, as reported in the Australian press at the time.

It is now part of the "coalition of the willing" in the US-led military operations in Iraq. It has steadfastly supported the US in its political and military missions across the globe, including vis-a-vis China. For instance, during the Taiwan crisis of 1996 at the time of its presidential elections, Australia was united with the US to deter China from any use of military force.

Lately, though, there has been some change of emphasis. Without question, Australia's alliance with the US is still the cornerstone of its foreign and security policy. But its perception of China as an inevitable security threat has undergone important changes. For instance, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer reportedly said, while in Beijing a while ago, that Australia and New Zealand's ANZUS security treaty with the US didn't necessarily mean Australia would become involved in a military conflict over Taiwan.

Howard, though, has been more diplomatic by brushing aside such questions as hypothetical. He even refused to buy into US President George W. Bush's invitation, during a July visit to the US, to "work together to reinforce the need for China to accept certain values as universal -- the value of minority rights, the value of freedom of people to speak..."

Howard had earlier spelled out the rationale of his government's new China policy during a speech in Beijing in April. He said at the time, "If you want to build an enduring association with a nation, you should do it within a realistic framework. You should not allow it to be dominated by differences and dominated by history." He went on, "Rather, it should be dominated by those areas of agreement and positive endeavor ... that can take the two countries forward. And that has been the reason why, at a political level, our relationship has been productive."

In other words, Australia prefers to concentrate on a growing economic relationship between the two countries. China has contracted to buy billions of dollars worth of gas from Australia over two decades or more. Australia is also supplying other raw materials for China's surging economy. Indeed the current slack from a slowing housing sector is being made up by growing demand from China for Australia's mining and other resource materials. And it is getting much higher prices for its commodities because of the robust global demand.

China is also keen to invest in Australia's resources sector, and the two countries are working on a free trade agreement. One can, therefore, see how important China is becoming to Australia's economic prosperity. China is also very important in terms of Australia's engagement with Asia. With Beijing's imprimatur, Australia's Asian credentials will become more credible.

But Beijing feels uncomfortable about Canberra's US connection. Australia's alliance with the US has been seen as directed to contain China, at least until very recently.

That would make dependence on Australia for essential resources for China's economic growth a dicey thing. As its ambassador told an Australian journalist, "Depending on Australia for key materials means becoming dependent on you to some extent."

In other words, Beijing needs to tread warily and make sure that Australia is not tied up with the US against it.

Australia has been doing its bit to reassure China in this regard. It is still an enthusiastic US ally, but is seeking to extract political autonomy in its relations with China.

Indeed, in some ways, it is even becoming a spokesman of sorts for China in the US. Speaking at a recent Asia Society function in New York, Howard conceded that China's rise would inevitably place stress on the international system.

"But to see China's rise in zero-sum terms is overly pessimistic, intellectually misguided and potentially dangerous," he added.

He went on to make a strong case on China's behalf.

"Its economic liberalization and integration into the world system has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Its growth in recent years has helped to sustain the expansion of the global economy and of world trade," he said.

However, Howard knows that Taiwan is a serious obstacle between China and the US, and fervently hopes that the cross-strait dilemma will be resolved peacefully. But if this were to develop into a military conflict, Australia might have to excuse itself from entering the fray.

Howard is not apologetic about Australia's newly-found passionate advocacy of China's growing role in the Asia-Pacific, regarding it as natural and positive. He believes that "Australia's strong relationship with China is not just based on economic opportunity."

According to him, "We seek to build on shared goals and not become obsessed with those things that make us different."

Did Howard mean that the US was obsessed about China? He obviously didn't. And he heaped praise on the US' role as global leader, and as a Pacific power. To quote Howard: "America is a great Pacific power and, as has often been the case, it fulfils its regional role most powerfully when it provides global leadership."

He added, "America's alliance relationships, including with Australia, will be the anchors for that US presence."

Only time will tell how Australia will reconcile its US alliance with China's rising power in the Asia-Pacific.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.

PFP `peace' bill betrays the nation's sovereignty

With all the attention focused on the proposed national communications commission (NCC) bill, the other bill that the People First Party (PFP) is trying to sneak through the legislature bundled with it has been virtually ignored. This is the so-called cross-strait peace advancement draft law, a pernicious bill that seeks to undermine the Constitution and betray Taiwan's interests.

If this bill is passed into law, it will allow for the creation of a cross-strait peace committee, which could directly infringe on the legislature's authority, presidential prerogatives and even extend its reach into the judiciary, forcing government agencies and public servants to conform to decisions it makes.

This monstrous creation combines legislative, administrative and judicial powers that flagrantly disregard the constitutional separation of powers.

The destructive impact that it would exert is no less than that of the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee. Its passage would be a disaster for Taiwan's constitutional development.

From a political perspective, the bill takes as a premise the "five noes" and the so-called "1992 consensus." The problem is that to accept these premises is to throw away any claims Taiwan has to sovereignty and accept that it is simply an appendage of China.

The fact that the "1992 consensus" has no legal existence just goes to highlight that this PFP bill is being driven by ideological considerations, at the expense of the law.

In addition, the committee would promote the arrangement that "in non-political organizations, each side of the Strait could hold a seat."

This proposal rejects all of Taiwan's efforts to assert itself over the past 10 years, and accepts that Taiwan should be forever debarred from full membership of the international community.

The proposed law is full of political language, lacks legal professionalism and is a slipshod piece of work.

The pan-blue camp is also clearly ignoring the will of the people. In last year's referendum, the question as to whether Taiwan should hold talks with Beijing to establish a peaceful and stable framework for cross-strait interaction failed to achieve the minimum number of required responses. This made it invalid. But isn't the pan-blue camp now seeking to do just that, despite the results of the referendum? The cross-strait peace advancement bill is not only unconstitutional and anti-democratic, it also rejects Taiwan's sovereignty.

And if we take into account the PFP's "pilgrimage" to Beijing last month and its suggestion that doctors from Taiwan be allowed to develop their practices in China, it clearly aims to dilute support and funding for the ruling party.

For a long time, the PFP has not concerned itself with Taiwan's security, leading to its irrational blocking of the arms procurement bill.

Looked at in this context, the cross-strait bill clearly is nothing more than a declaration of Taiwan's subordination to China, which harmonizes perfectly with China's "Anti-Secession" Law.

I hope that those few perceptive members of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) localization faction who have Taiwan's best interests at heart will not be blackmailed by the PFP in its attempt to go against the will of the Taiwanese people.

They should prevent the passage of a bill that sells out Taiwan and help to maintain the democratic system and sovereignty that we have built up with such difficulty.

Tseng Wei-chen is a postgraduate student at the National Taiwan Normal University.