20051008

No rush on cross-strait talks: Chen

INTERVIEW: The president said there is no need to declare independence because the reality is that Taiwan is already a country

REUTERS. TAIPEI

President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday that he would not be rushed into talks with China, saying it was vital to preserve the nation's sovereign status.

Whereas China's leaders have said they were striving for talks to start even if they had delays during the negotiations, "I want to revise that statement," Chen said in an interview. "I want to strive for delays while not fearing talks."

He said his go-slow policy would benefit Taiwan's 23 million people more than accepting as a precondition for talks Beijing's vision of one country that includes both Taiwan and China.

"This is not reconciliation, this is not dialogue, this is surrender," he said.

H added he would not allow Taiwan to follow the Hong Kong model, whereby the former British colony became a Special Administrative Region of China in 1997. China has promised Taiwan more autonomy than Hong Kong if it accepted Beijing's authority.

Chen denied that his stance was inflammatory however, saying he believed in "reconciliation without flinching." He said he wanted "to hold a firm stance without becoming confrontational."

Chen said he hoped talks on closer economic links, including direct passenger and cargo air links, and allowing Chinese .tourists to dish Taiwan, could continue and be successful despite the tough rhetoric around the sovereignty issue.

He said there was no need to declare independence because the already proved that Taiwan was a country.

"It’s a reality. It's the status quo. If we do not ourselves acknowledge that we are a sovereign, independent country, if even we don't have confidence in Taiwan being a sovereign, independent country, how can we seek support from the world?" he said.

Chen accused opposition leaders, too, of succumbing to "China fever" by visiting Beijing and speaking with Chinese leaders and said their actions were tantamount to surrender.

"They were forced to accept Beijing's preconditions. They were forced to accept the `one China' principle," he said.

"If we accept the preconditions then in this context it will be the same as accepting the pre-set results," he said.

Chen lambasted what he called "the pervasive misconception in the international community that everything China does is correct."

The fact that China threatens Taiwan and has more than 700 missiles pointed at the country showed a lack of goodwill, he said.

Chen, who must leave office in 2008, said part of his legacy would be to make the world see the situation between Beijing and Taipei in a different way.

"We hope to let the international community come to a better understanding of how Taiwan differs from China and that Taiwan is not a part of China," he said.

"The Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China on the mainland are not the same. They are under divided rule and do not exercise jurisdiction on each other," he said.

Speaking on arm procurement issues, Chen said approval by the legislature of an US$11 billion special arms package is unlikely before the end of the year because the opposition has held it hostage to elections.

He said opposition parties were trying to do China a favor by blocking the deal .and had "hijacked" the issue in their campaign for the De c. 3 elections.

"In light of the year end elections ... it will be very difficult to have and discussion on the military procurement budget in the meantime," Chen said.

He said he still hoped a compromise could be reached with the opposition that would allow the deal t ° go through once the elections gyre over.

Government to try to block `peace' bill

CONTROVERSIAL MOVE: The People First Party wants to push through its cross-strait peace advancement bill, but the government will do almost anything to stop it

BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN

STAFF REPORTER , WITH CNA

The government will seek a constitutional interpretation and other measures to annul the cross-strait peace advancement bill should it be passed into law, Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Vice Chairman You Ying-lung said yesterday.

You made the remarks at the council's regular press conference yesterday.

If the peace bill is passed into law, it will allow for the creation of a cross-strait "peace committee," which will be in charge of the country's cross-strait policy making.

The so-called "1992 consensus," which recognizes the "one China" policy, will also be incorporated into the bill.

"Instead, it will cause a huge dispute in this country and divide the Taiwanese people, as the so-called `1992-consensus' has never been the consensus in this country," he said.

As for the establishment of the cross-strait "peace committee" to enact cross-strait policy, You said it will paralyze the operation of the government.

"As the bill doesn't comply with the Constitution, the government will seek possible solutions to annul it," You said.

In the face of the government's opposition, PFP caucus whip Hwang Yih-jiau urged the government to respect the legislature's decision.

"If the bill is passed on Tuesday's meeting in the Legislative Yuan, the government has to implement the law because it is a result of democracy," Huang.

Meanwhile, a group of 50 lawmakers from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rallied yesterday in front of the Legislative Yuan to show their determination to block the bill.

Legislator William Lai, a DPP legislative caucus whip, said the so-called cross-strait peace advancement bill is "seeking a false peace, while in fact surrendering to China."

He said that while Taiwan should unite to face up to China's threat, especially in the face of Beijing's enactment earlier this year of its so-called "Anti-Secession" Law giving Beijing the "legal" option of taking Taiwan by force, the PFP and its political ally the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have in fact been trying to supplicate China by coming up with the peace-promotion bill.

Lai led his caucus members in chanting "false peace, actual surrender," saying that his party will fight tooth and nail to thwart it, despite being a minority party in the legislature.

Coming under increasing fire for promising to Swiss authorities that fugitive arms dealer Andrew Wang would not face the death penalty, Premier Frank Hsieh yesterday defended his actions, saying that they do not interfere with justice.

"I was actually cooperating with prosecutors over this issue. How can it be called interfering with justice?" the premier said, speaking on the legislature's floor yesterday after being questioned by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Wang Shih-hsun.

Hsieh told Wang Shih-hsun that for further investigation purposes, the Supreme Court Prosecutors' Office suggested that he grant the Swiss authorities' request in return for more access to the investigation.

"So I gave them [Swiss authorities] my word over this issue while our prosecutors believed that it is OK," Hsieh said.

"In addition, our prosecutors also believe that Andrew Wang's alleged crimes should not incur the potential death penalty," the premier added.

"However, once he is indicted, we cannot guarantee that judges will not sentence him to death because judges work neutrally," he said.

The premier told lawmakers that according to his understanding, his promise to Swiss authorities also led them to reject Andrew Wang's appeals in the case.

The premier also complained about recent criticism that his promise was a disgrace for Taiwan's justice system, because it is a sign that politicians can influence the judiciary.

Some criticized that the premier's promise also allowed Swiss authorities to interfere with Taiwan's judicial system.

"Having him [Andrew Wang] back for trial is what we are hoping for. But, blaming it on me or complaining about what I did will not make that happen at all," Hsieh said.

"I would urge everybody to look at the issue from a different point of view. Look at it from Taiwan's point of view, instead of Andrew Wang's point of view," he said.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Yuan yesterday said although the prosecutors promised that Wang would not face the death penalty, such a promise had no effect on a judge's decision in a future Andrew Wang trail.

"While prosecutors have some executive authority and can be easily affected by the executive branch, the judiciary is fully independent," said Liu Ling-chi, director of the Criminal Department of the Judicial Yuan at a press conference yesterday.

Liu added that prosecutors could suggest not recommending a death sentence for Andrew Wang in their indictment and that judges would value their recommendation, but such a recommendation had no legal bearing on a judge's decision.

One cannot imagine US legislators or other politicians hobnobbing with Osama bin Laden, much less striking an "agreement of cooperation" with him to destroy the US government or one of its political parties.

First, no one would accept it; and secondly, no one in his or her right mind would want to be associated with it. Finally, it would be treasonous under US law, and perpetrators would be tossed into solitary forever.

Things in Taiwan appear somewhat different now. Today, brazen treason has replaced phony political platforms, and the pan-blue camp boldly pronounces it has joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) "to defeat Taiwanese independence."

But let's understand clearly what the pan-blue leadership is all about. It is not about benefiting Taiwan, it is not about benefiting Taiwanese citizens and it is not even about purported "unification."

It is simply about power -- raw, unbridled, dictatorial power. For the past six years, bemoaning its loss of presidential power, unable to conceive of its decline, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has taken every single treasonous step it could to seize power back.

Witness its laughingstock "Truth Commission" -- an obvious attempt to annul the election through a phony investigation of the assassination attempt against President Chen Shui-bian by a KMT sympathizer -- or the procession of party officials tramping off to Beijing to kneel before Chinese President Hu Jintao, kiss his ring and receive the promise of eternal power over Taiwan.

It is truly what the now-diminished -- and increasingly irrelevant -- pan-blues have decided they must do in order to survive; it is the only course the old dictatorship-driven leadership can imagine, blinded by power and greed, unable to grasp the magnitude of their betrayal or the enormous power wielded by a true democracy.

One must even wonder whether KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou, who once studied law at Harvard, himself truly understands systems of justice and democracy, and how they could be applied to Taiwan.

Eight years ago, if anyone proclaimed alignment with the CCP, the KMT would have excoriated them, crying "traitor, traitor." Today, the KMT has embraced the world's most vicious tyrant as its ally. It is our turn to cry out "traitor, traitor." Because the KMT has no hope of achieving the popularity sufficient to win a presidential election -- not even "Teflon Ma Ying-jeou." No, the KMT will have to arrange to sabotage Taiwan -- or the election -- before then.

This has already begun: another "Truth Commission," another attempt to rewrite history, ignore the facts and find a way to impeach the president. Then there's the cross-strait "peace" commission -- an outright illegal attempt to rewrite the Constitution, bestowing foreign policy powers upon a legislative commission made up of pan-blue appointed commissioners with the power to enter into treaties and agreements with China.

There is no depth to which the pan-blues will not sink to defeat democracy and freedom in Taiwan.

If you doubt this is the case, you can start with the pan-blues' refusal to consider buying weapons to defend Taiwan against China. This single action should alone be a sufficient wake-up call to the people of Taiwan to understand the true purpose of the pan-blues in Taiwan's politics today.

That purpose, as per an agreement with the CCP, is to emasculate Taiwan and to bring it to its knees so that the pan-blues can take over.

With that, democracy as we know it would quickly disappear, and the country would rapidly be plunged once again into a period of "White Terror." We would see "purges" of "splittists," the passage of laws eroding political and personal freedoms and perhaps even martial law.

The pan-blues would never want to hand the reins of power back to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The way to do that would be to outlaw the DPP. As incapable as the DPP has been in dealing with the KMT's ruthless treason, that is how ruthless the KMT will be when it arrests the leadership of the DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

You doubt this? The KMT has brazenly identified itself as the servant of the CCP in Taiwan. The CCP has conducted purges during its history that have eradicated all freedoms for all people, except for cronies and high officials.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the KMT and CCP would behave any differently towards Taiwan.

They are both parties of tyrants, parties of dictators and parties of oppression and terror. Just listen to their rhetoric.

Knowing all this, how could any Taiwanese vote for a party that is against Taiwan? How could anyone trust a party that has sandbagged Taiwan's best interests at every opportunity in the past six years -- including sabotaging applications to the World Health Organization, and, once again, the UN?

For anyone who has doubts about whether this dark view of the future under the pan-blues is credible, just consider this. Do you think the KMT would allow anyone in Taiwan to march in protest over its policies? To gather outside the Presidential Office or the mighty KMT headquarters? Or do you think they would be the first to march soldiers into the streets to quell any dissent and even shoot protesters?

Do you think the KMT would allow anyone who vehemently disagrees with the party to write about it in the newspapers? Or is it more likely that the KMT, with a history of absolute rule, would squash dissent, much like Beijing has since 1949?

If former KMT chairman Lien Chan were president, do you think he would tolerate a free and outspoken Lee Teng-hui or Chen Shui-bian, or do you think he would find a way to put them in jail? It was done before by the KMT, wasn't it?

If the KMT has proclaimed itself the ally of the CCP, a party that seeks to annex Taiwan -- an annexation that would effectively end democracy in Taiwan -- why would anyone believe the KMT would do anything to preserve the people's rights and freedoms? Beijing does not protect the rights and freedoms of China's citizens. Why would its ally, the KMT, protect Taiwan's citizens?

Why would anyone trust the party to protect them, when it has announced it wants to unify with the world's worst dictatorship? Why would anyone trust such a party to protect their rights?

I truly hope the people of Taiwan will wake up to this before 2007. Lack of vigilance on this matter will destroy the country.

Either the KMT must re-invent itself as a party for Taiwan, or it must be soundly defeated, again and again, at every turn.

To those who earnestly believe they are better off financially under the KMT, I warn you. Today, you may drive your nice car, and live nicely, watch the TV programs you like, use the Internet, speak to your neighbor or your colleague at work about anything you like, worship freely, vote freely. But tomorrow, when you wake up under a Beijing-backed pan-blue regime, those freedoms will be gone, because Taiwan will become part of Communist China.

Should you believe that somehow those freedoms would survive "unification," understand this. Hong Kong rejoined China because it had no choice. Even so, there has been erosion of freedom there, and certainly suppression of democracy.

Taiwan is different. With democracy rooted so strongly in Taiwan, and half the population yearning for independence, Beijing's only choice upon "unification" would be to crush the opposition. That would mean clamping down tightly on freedom and democracy, and erasing local identity.

If you doubt this, just look at Tibet. Since 1959, China has done everything in its power to erase Tibetan culture. The same would happen in Taiwan. Taiwanese culture and language would disappear from the face of the Earth.

Perhaps to some, such as former KMT chairman Lien Chan, who yearned to return "home" to China, this would not be such a great tragedy.

Thankfully, they do not speak for the rest of the people, and not even two cute panda bears -- Pan Pan and Tu Tu -- can hide the malice.

Actions speak louder than words. Any party that would be willing to completely sacrifice its nation's defenses by blocking the weapons it originally proposed to buy cannot possibly have the nation's interests at heart.

The KMT has done everything short of inviting Beijing to march into Taipei and take over -- and it remains to be seen if that, too, was a topic of discussion in Beijing when the "Pan-Tu" procession took place this summer.

Your editorial "Diplomacy must transcend parties" (Oct. 4, page 8) made a good point. President Chen Shui-bian's diplomatic tour -- dubbed the "Jung Pang" project -- proved to be successful. You advised that opposition parties should "monitor government aid policy to ensure that funds are not misspent or pilfered, hurting diplomatic relations that have been so built up through painstaking effort."

The special arms-purchase package has failed to make it onto the agenda in the legislature 31 times. Now, Political Warfare Bureau General Hu Zhenfu is sincerely calling on our countrymen to support the weapons purchase.

Describing the diplomatic situation, President Chen Shui-bian said: "Taiwan must find its oasis in the desert."

We must also find a way out for our national defense. Taiwan cannot live without national security. Without it, this nation would be undefendable. Without the support of our allies, especially the US, no one would come to Taiwan's aid if China invaded on the pretext of putting an end to a civil war.

National security considerations should be a continuous and non-partisan process.

I'd be glad to see every political party in Taiwan working together for the country.

On Aug. 23, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld voiced his displeasure with Taiwan's delays in approving the arms procurement budget, blurting out that, "countries -- sovereign nations have to do what they decide to do. It's up to them to do it."

That remark intrigued reporters so much that on Sept. 30 the US State Department came forward to reiterate that the US view that Taiwan is self-governed was unchanged, that the US' "one China" policy also remains unchanged and that it does not support Taiwan's independence.

The military budget is always a large part of a national budget. The only goal of spending such staggering amounts of money on expensive military equipment is to protect national sovereignty. If we agree with this goal, then it is rather odd that the US does not want to acknowledge that Taiwan is a sovereign state, while at the same time it asks Taiwan to purchase extremely expensive weapons. In fact, the US stance on this matter has seriously jeopardized Taiwan's national security.

The logic is that it only pays to spend so much money on weapons if they can be used to protect our sovereignty. But if the nation is deprived of its sovereignty, what would be the point of spending so much? Those who firmly believe that Taiwan is a sovereign state will of course feel that Taiwan has to be well-equipped militarily. However, as the US does not acknowledge our sovereignty, it is hardly surprising to see that many are giving up on the US and are opposing the arms procurement bill.

Only those with a clear awareness of the nation's sovereignty will feel a strong need for the arms procurement. Those with a clear awareness of the nation's sovereignty are also the only ones who will put the arms purchased -- the nation's tangible military capability -- to full use. Militarily speaking, tangible and intangible military capabilities are seen as being equally important. Intangible military capabilities refer to the public's willpower, and the core of that willpower is the awareness of sovereignty.

The US offers sharp and apprehensive reviews of Taiwan's ability to resist Chinese pressure in its annual Pentagon reports on the military power of the People's Republic of China. In one report, the US repeatedly stressed that the most decisive factor determining whether or not China will invade Taiwan is Beijing's perception of Taiwan's determination to defend itself. China's confidence in its military capabilities are secondary. The report stresses that the basis for Taiwan's determination to defend itself is whether or not the Taiwanese leadership and people identify themselves with their own nation strongly enough to want to defend it against China.

The question is, if Taiwan is not a sovereign state, how can the Taiwanese identify themselves with the country?

Adopting a "one China" policy and refusing to acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state has been the US' policy for over three decades. Based on its military expertise, the Pentagon believes Taiwanese have a strong civic awareness, while its slowly changing political policies cause the State Department to oppose that civic awareness.

In this case, we are undoubtedly witnessing a deep contradiction in the US' Taiwan policy. Unless it is resolved, Taiwan will not be able to purchase the weapons it needs.

And not only that, warns Steve Chabot, chairman of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, the US' unwillingness to support full sovereignty is tantamount to agreeing that China owns it. This encourages Beijing to pursue unification by force, and imperils regional security. The US should take a hard look at these contradictions and deal with them.