20051010

Frontline sentiment

Frogmen give the thumbs-up as they participate in a ``jogging for health'' activity yesterday in Kinmen, and show the Kinmen Defense Unit's support for the US arms procurement package.

`Peace' bill would worsen divisions: experts

CONTROVERSIAL: The bill would write into law the so-called `1992 consensus' and let the legislature set cross-strait policy, creating more divisions among political parties

BY SHIH HSIU-CHUAN

STAFF REPORTER

If the first step toward breaking the deadlock in cross-strait relations is to lay aside differences between both sides of the Taiwan Strait and those between the pan-blue and pan-green camps, the politicians putting forward the so-called "cross-strait peace advancement bill" are doing exactly the opposite.

Given that China views Taiwan as its territory, while most Taiwanese believe in their right to decide the country's future, China's insistence on its "one China" policy has blocked the development of normal cross-strait exchanges.

The cross-strait peace advancement bill drafted by the opposition People First Party (PFP) is an attempt to end such a stalemate by accepting the so-called "1992 consensus," which some say recognizes Beijing's "one China" policy, as the premise for cross-strait talks.

In addition to that, a cross-strait peace committee -- formed outside the structure of the government -- would be set up as an institution in charge of cross-strait talks if the bill is passed into law. The committee would have the authority to sign 11 kinds of agreements with China.

While the PFP says the bill will promote cross-strait peace, some political experts said it will create more domestic political disputes and put Taiwan at a disadvantage in cross-strait negotiations.

In the face of China's strategies, it is imperative for Taiwan to develop a consensus among parties rather then enlarge the differences between them, said Lin Cheng-yi, a researcher in the Institute of European and American Studies at the Academia Sinica.

"As the `1992 consensus' is a very controversial issue, the acknowledgement of it in the bill is a serious move to enlarge the differences between the parties," Lin said.

Within Taiwan, the parties hold quite different views on the outcome of the cross-strait talks that were held in Hong Kong 1992 to resolve the question of "one China."

The pan-blue camp believes that both sides of the Strait agreed to the "one China" principle, with each side having its own interpretation of what that meant.

The Democratic Progressive Party government, however, says that "one China with each side having its own interpretation," was a way of describing the negotiating process, but that neither a conclusion nor a consensus on the "one China" principle was reached.

Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) Legislator David Huang said that putting the "1992 consensus" into law would surely provoke fierce conflicts in society.

The TSU rejects the idea that a "1992 consensus" exists.

"I don't see any party with the capability of managing the conflicts incurred by touching on the country's most sensitive nerve -- independence vs. reunification," he said.

Disagreement about the "1992 consensus" exists not only among the political parties but also among the public, with Hsu Yung-ming, a research fellow at the Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences at Academia Sinica, saying that a "survey showed that less then 40 percent of the public support it."

Aside from the "1992 consensus," the bill would also include President Chen Shui-bian's "five noes," pledged in his 2000 inauguration speech.

The five noes include pledges not to declare independence or change the national title, among others.

Hsu said that these restrictive articles would be detrimental to Taiwan in any cross-strait talks, as they clearly disclose Taiwan's bottom line.

"The loser in the game of negotiation is always the one who shows his hand first," Hsu said.

Huang said the articles would deprive people of their right to determine the country's future, and mark a setback for democracy.

Another article that would further divide the parties involves the cross-strait peace committee, which the bill says would be comprised of members recommended by each party in proportion to the number of seats each party holds in the legislature.

According to the PFP, the committee would be empowered to negotiate issues such as cross-strait direct transportation, a cross-strait demilitarized zone, a cross-strait free-trade zone, the import of Taiwanese agricultural products into China, the opening of Taiwan to Chinese tourists and a cross-strait peace agreement with China, among others.

Lin said he would like to see the establishment of a committee from across party lines as a platform to foster a public consensus on cross-strait issues. A committee set up to replace the government in making cross-strait policy would only enhance enmity between the government and the opposition camp, he said.

Lai I-chung, director of Taiwan Thinktank's international affairs department, said the government will have no choice but to file a request for a constitutional interpretation should the law be passed, which would again lead to political confrontation.

Passing a bill that conflicts with the Constitution and the structure of the government would give the international community the impression that Taiwan has lost the ability to settle its political fights, said Hsu Zu-chien, an assistant research fellow at the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica.

Once they have this impression, Taiwan might be regarded as an unstable factor in cross-strait relations, and as a result lose the support of the international community, he said.

Legislature set for vicious battle over pan-blue bills

BY KO SHU-LING

STAFF REPORTER

The stage is set for a battle royale at the Legislative Yuan tomorrow, as the pan-green camp gears up to slug it out with the pan-blues over two controversial bills.

Even by recent standards, the organic bill of the proposed national communications commission (NCC) and the cross-strait peace advancement bill are proving to be highly divisive issues.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus and its ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), are worried that tomorrow's confrontation will turn ferocious because the People First Party (PFP) caucus has vowed to team up with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to push the peace advancement bill -- dubbed the "capitulation bill" by some critics -- through "regardless of the cost" -- including possibly violent disruptions to legislative proceedings.

In response, the TSU caucus has vowed to fight tooth and nail to "safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty," while the DPP caucus also said that it would not rule out the possibility of mobilizing supporters to stage a protest outside the legislative compound.

Taking into consideration the pan-blue camp's numerical advantage, however, it is widely believed that opposition parties may eventually succeed in steamrolling the bill through the legislature.

Pan-greens

"We firmly oppose the NCC bill proposed by the pan-blue alliance, and hope they will rein in their horses before it is too late," he said.

Lai said that the party's opposition to the pan-blue camp's bill was based on the belief that it is bound to politicize the media watchdog, and that the bill was also part of the pan-blues' efforts to protect the KMT's stolen assets.

While both camps agree that it is necessary to set up the NCC, they disagree on the composition of the body.

The pan-blue alliance of the KMT and PFP, which holds a slim majority in the legislature, has proposed that the NCC be comprised of members in proportion to the number of seats each party holds in the legislature.

The DPP and TSU insist that political parties should not be directly involved in the commission, and that independent experts and academics should serve in the commission.

The pan-green alliance also criticized article two of the pan-blue camp's proposal as serving the interests of China Television Co (CTV), and described article 19 as the "BCC [Broadcasting Corp of China] clause," because it would allow a media institution to file for a review after the proposed NCC is established if it thinks its rights have been violated.

BCC was recently unable to renew its license after the Government Information Office said that it did not meet the requirements necessary for a new license.

The KMT owns a 96.95 percent stake in BCC and a 65 percent stake in CTV through Hua Hsia Investment Holding Co.

DPP caucus whip Jao Yung-ching said that his caucus will ask the Executive Yuan send the NCC bill back to the legislature if the pan-blue camp's version eventually passes.

His caucus would also request a constitutional interpretation from the Council of Grand Justices if the executive branch is unable to stop the legislation.

Regarding the peace advancement bill, Lai said that such a piece of legislation will not bring peace to the Taiwan Strait, but will instead bring more trouble and create more disputes.

"We strongly oppose the bill and will do our best to block it [tomorrow]," he said. "But if things get out of hand, we will not be the cause of it."

Jao condemned the pan-blue camp for using its numerical advantage in the legislature trying to force the passage of the bill, which he criticized as a "bylaw of China's `Anti-Secession' Law."

The pan-blue alliance has also issued mobilization orders to ask caucus members to attend tomorrow's legislative sitting.

The KMT caucus is scheduled to hold a meeting before tomorrow's interparty talks to iron out differences over the two bills.

KMT Legislator Tseng Yung-chuan, who also serves as the executive director of the party's Central Policy Committee, yesterday called on the pan-green camp to abandon what he called its "irrational" boycott of the NCC bill and give the media a "clean" space.

While pan-blue lawmakers have signed up for the first 20 slots to speak on the NCC bill during tomorrow's session, Tseng said that they can, in accordance with legislative procedure, file a request to put the bill to a vote immediately after their speeches.

"But, I don't think we are going to do that, for the sake of ensuring legislative harmony," he said.

Tseng estimated that it might take about seven or eight hours to tackle the NCC bill altogether, leaving little time for the peace advancement bill.

Although it is the PFP who is more keen on passing the peace advancement bill, Tseng said that as a stout ally, his caucus will side with the PFP on the matter.

Defending his caucus' aggressive stance on the peace advancement bill, PFP caucus whip Hwang Yih-jiau yesterday said that his caucus will continue down the road of "gentility" and "rationality" and will not engage in any violent disruptions on Tuesday, but nor will it flinch in the face of violence.

"We are well prepared," he said. "All caucus members are asked to dress lightly on Tuesday so we can swiftly take action if any disturbance breaks out."

Google or any other business should not be entangled into taking sides on undefined political disputes, and political party members should keep their own political ambitions out of international business.

Google has correctly listed Taiwan as a province of China because Google is a US corporation, and the status of Taiwan to the US government is that Taiwan is a part of China, as defined by the Shanghai Communique and the Taiwan Relations Act, the second which was agreed to and signed by the US Congress.

Contrary to the Taiwan Solidarity Union's (TSU) own reality, this is the reality in the US for Taiwan. David Huang of the TSU said, "Taiwan has never been ruled by China, nor has the Chinese government deployed any government functionaries or armed forces here," but he is incorrect. I believe Huang needs to study world history, and look into the Ming and Qing dynasties, as well as the Treaty of Versailles signed at the end of World War II.

Perhaps, to learn all of this history, he can do a quick history search on google.com.

As a US citizen, with no ties to China or Taiwan, I thank you for your timely article referencing Google's recent mislisting of Taiwan as a province of China rather than what it really is, a free and independent democratic state. Taiwan is no more a province of China, than Canada is a province of the US.

I am ashamed that such an influential company such as Google, the premier search engine of the Web, created and grown in the "Land of the Free," should succumb to pressure from the Chinese communist government, all for the pursuit of wealth and power. So much for Google's reputation for providing truthful and accurate information.

I strongly suggest we all use a different search engine from now on. If Google loves the Chinese Communists so much, let Google rely on them to pay their bills. But let's not give them one penny of our money to support such blatant and false political maneuvering.

By denying Taiwan a seat in the UN, Chiang Kai-Shek, proved that he was never a part of Taiwan, and Taiwan never a part of him. And it's one more proof the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has always been a foreign regime in Taiwan. (Diplomacy must transcend parties, Oct. 4, page 8.)

To this date, the KMT and its splinter Chinese politicians, deny the Taiwanese the right to be "independent." The question is, did you ever heard of anybody denying his or her own country the right to be "independent?" Can the KMT administration be anything else but a foreign regime? Can the KMT -- now that they have lost power -- be anything else but foreign agents?

To deny the Taiwanese the right of independence, while claiming to be Taiwanese, is as absurd as a normal American 18-year-old denying his or her own right to own a driver's license. Or a normal 21-year-old denying himself or herself the legal right to drink beer.

For the December local elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) had better pick up its LP (Ed. note: LP is short for lam pa, or colloquial Taiwanese for testicles). Tell your constituents to throw out all of these foreign agents, out of every township and every jurisdiction. It is precisely these foreign agents -- that are occupying your legislature, bureaucrats, media, education and controlling your purse -- where all the chaos lies in Taiwan.

If the DPP continues to avoid this issue of national identity, particularly in local elections, including the "neo-DPP" advocates, it may never have the chance or the need again, if the KMT wins the 2007 legislative election or the 2008 presidential election.

`The government doesn't seem very enthusiastic about establishing an across-the-board platform for international academic exchanges.'

China is sparing no effort in oppressing Taiwan on the diplomatic front. But even worse, Taiwan's right to interpret history is now being usurped by Chinese academics.

Anyone who dabbles in international academic programs should be aware that the latest developments in academic research are usually initiated by top-notch European or US institutions. Unlike professors in Taiwan, professors in Western nations can determine a student's future through allotments of scholarship money, in addition to grading their assignments and thesis. Therefore, whoever is at the helm of these renowned institutions can lead the whole world on the academic front.

Current East Asian studies have had a negative impact on the nation. First, Western academic institutions tend to believe that East Asia is only composed of China, Japan and South Korea, whereas Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are all regarded as vassal states of China. Drawing such a distinction has only placed the nation, which aims to pursue Taiwanese awareness, in a unfavorable position.

Second, since China is strengthening itself in every respect and the number of Chinese students studying overseas is also rising, the chances for Taiwanese students to be admitted and receive scholarships are being reduced, thereby excluding Taiwan's voice from academic circles in the US and Europe.

Finally, most Chinese students choose to stay in the country where they have completed their studies to pursue teaching careers. With such an enormous number of students living and working overseas and a strong network of connections, Chinese people have dominated East Asian studies. These people are generally unsympathetic toward Taiwan.

Faced with such disadvantages, Taiwan cannot simply await its doom. Regrettably, there are only two streams of government scholarships for overseas study: an elite program and overseas study at government expense. The former focuses on nurturing scientists, engineers and designers, while the latter pays more attention to cultivating experts in the humanities. However, there is still a lack of talent in East Asian studies, particularly in the study of Chinese political and economic affairs.

To make matters worse, the government doesn't seem very enthusiastic about establishing an across-the-board platform for international academic exchanges. This has prevented Taiwanese students studying overseas from consolidating their resources to challenge China's academic hegemony. By contrast, China has sought to take Chinese students studying overseas under its wing through a strong network and the allotment of research funds.

I hope that the government will consider the issue from a different perspective, to prevent the nation from holding on to a policy that will only lead Western nations to lean toward China.