Lee is scheduled to speak at the club next Thursday morning at the end of a four-day visit to Washington, one of four cities he will visit during his two-week trip to the US.

He will address a so-called Morning Newsmaker program and answer questions from the media.

Lee will be the guest of the press club, although the lobbying organization, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, has been handling the arrangements.

The topic of Lee's speech will be, "From Taiwan to Washington: A Journey for Democracy and Mutual Understanding."

Hickman described Zheng as "nice and polite" during the phone conversation, in which he said the diplomat "bent my ear" against Lee's club appearance.

"He said the press club `should not be involved in this and neither should you. I hope it's not and you're not.' I said, `well it is and I am,'" Hickman said.

Zheng did not respond when Hickman told him the club believes in "freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of information," Hickman said.

The envoy also remained silent when Hickman told him the club would welcome somebody from the embassy or Beijing to address a later newsmaker breakfast.

The embassy has regularly protested when the club has invited officials from Taiwan to speak, and has regularly objected to the presence of Taiwan's national flag in the main lobby of the National Press Club building when Chinese officials are scheduled to appear at the club.

Hickman has regularly rejected those demands.

During his stay in Washington, Lee will also be the guest of members of Congress at a special reception on Capitol Hill. He will also speak to a number of think tanks and will attend a dinner hosted by the Taiwanese-American community in the Washington area.

It is not known whether he will meet with Bush administration officials, although administration spokesmen have said only that there will be "no meetings."

Whether that phrase would include casual or unofficial sessions with senior officials is not clear.

The US State Department has said that the administration considers the former Taiwanese leader a "private person" on a private trip, and has kept its hands largely off the trip.

China must reform to be a global player: AIT chief

CONFERENCE ADDRESS: Douglas Paal said Beijing should open government processes to the people as economic growth fuels pressure for political changes

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

China needs to reform its closed political system to allow for more democratic participation and civil liberties in order to be held accountable to its people as well as a responsible major global player, the director of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) said yesterday.

"Closed politics cannot be a permanent feature of Chinese society. It is simply not sustainable -- as economic growth continues, better off Chinese will want a greater say in their future, and pressure builds for political reform," Douglas Paal told an academic conference in Taipei.

Paal made the remarks in a speech to the annual Asia-Pacific Security Forum hosted by the Institute for National Policy Research, the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum CSIS and the Institute for Strategic and Developments Studies.

To accompany its rising economic power, "China needs a peaceful transition to make its government responsible and accountable to its people ? It should open government processes to the involvement of civil society and stop harassing journalists who point out problems," he said.

"China should also expand religious freedom and make real the guarantees of rights that exist on paper -- but not in practice," he said.

Paal's address to the conference marked his first public appearance in Taipei since he was allegedly harshly criticized in an internal US State Department document which highlighted serious shortcomings in Paal's leadership of AIT's Taipei office.

Paal said the US now is trying to look beyond the opening doors of China to encourage China to be a more responsible stakeholder in the international system which has helped its economic growth.

Pointing out problems ranging from rural poverty issues, rampant piracy and counterfeiting to the currency manipulation that has resulted in a US$162 billion trade deficit between China and the EU or Japan, Paal said China can't take its access to the global market for granted.

He said it is time for China to look at how it could be a responsible major global power.

"China needs to recognize how its actions are perceived by others. Uncertainties about how China will use its power will lead the US -- and others as well -- to hedge relations with China. Many countries hope China will pursue a `peaceful rise,' but none will bet their future on it," he said.

Paal encouraged the cooperation between China and the US to go from the "shallow roots" of cooperation based on the coincidence of interests to a "deep and lasting" relationship that is based on shared values and shared interests of democracy.

Commenting on Paal's remarks, Shelley Rigger, a US academic specializing in China-US relations yesterday said the speech reflected the revival of China critics in the US society nowadays.

Rigger said that criticism of China in the US has transformed from the offensive discourse in the beginning of US President Geroge W. Bush's first term -- in which the US used its leverage to "fix" China into something more congenial to US interests and values -- to one that is more defensive in order to prevent China from gaining the capacity to threaten the US.

She said such criticism took a break after the Sept. 11 attacks as politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, stopped criticizing the administration's foreign policy. However, the internal dynamics of the US society have shifted, due to Bush's declining popularity.

"Bush's popularity has waned in the face of policy disasters both foreign and domestic, to the point where many Republicans are openly critical," Rigger said.

"A majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq is not worth fighting and has not increased the security of the US. At home, the Bush administration is blamed for mishandling the response to hurricane Katrina," she said.

Age will not weary Lee Teng-hui

By Paul Lin

Former president Lee Teng-hui set out on his two-week US visit on Tuesday, bringing to mind his visit in 1995 when he gave a speech at Cornell University. In the 10 years between these visits, Taiwan has changed significantly, as have cross-strait relations and the international situation as a whole. Even though Lee has been out of the Presidential Office for quite some time, his influence cannot be underestimated. It is no wonder he is constantly attacked by Beijing.

In a 2003 symposium entitled "Hong Kong under `one country, two systems,'" organized by Taiwan Advocates, an organization founded by Lee, I was interviewed by a reporter from a Hong Kong-based cable news channel. She asked me how far-reaching Lee's influence was, and what I thought about Lee's pro-Japan attitude.

I said Lee's role as a political figure was not as influential as when he was still president. Given that some who followed Lee did not do so out of idealism but out of personal interest, many turned against him after he stepped down.

Although Lee's followers have diminished in number, those remaining quite fervently pursue his political ideals. And even though Lee is the founder of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), it is not appropriate to use results of opinion polls on support for the TSU to indicate the level of Lee's support, since many in the Democratic Progressive Party also support his ideas.

As to the second question, it is hardly surprising that Lee, who was born under Japanese rule, is pro-Japanese. Many Taiwanese who experienced the 228 Incident and other similar incidents of persecution involving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, felt that the KMT compared poorly with the Japanese government. These experiences are very different from those of Chinese who suffered the effects of the war with Japan.

I have encountered people who like to chastise Lee for having been a communist in his youth. This, in fact, is nothing to be ashamed of. At the time, a lot of passionate young people joined, or were sympathetic to the Communist Party because it was seen as idealistic.

Great changes have occurred in Taiwan in the 10 years since Lee's previous visit to the US, including the introduction of direct presidential elections and the transfer of government power. These developments are important to democracy in Taiwan and a first for the Chinese world. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) reacted to Lee's visit 10 years ago with verbal attacks and military threats, it showed its true militarist and expansionist face. This military threat only served to strengthen Taiwanese self-awareness.

When Lee mentioned the existence of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan in his speech at Cornell University, he provoked China's irrational fury.

Today, the term ROC is not enough to satisfy Taiwanese who have developed a national identification with Taiwan and strive for the establishment of one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait. This wish is now gaining more and more currency with the US and the world at large.

Lee is a great contemporary Taiwanese politician. Through his vision, he has made a permanent contribution to Taiwan's democracy and its development in becoming a normal country. At a crucial juncture in Taiwan's political development, his rich political and economic experience has allowed him to fulfill the responsibilities of a loyal opposition by proposing principled goals and flexible strategies.

His ability to take a comprehensive view of the whole situation is one of the reasons why he has been so successful throughout his many decades in politics and also why he retains strong influence. If he has been guilty of any mistakes, it was that he believed in a few cheats who only wanted fame and wealth, and that he helped them gain high office.

Lee is a valuable asset for Taiwan and the whole Chinese world. This is demonstrated by the fact that the CCP has labeled him its enemy No. 1. The fact that Lee, having passed 80, still wants to serve the country also highlights the difficult situation that Taiwan finds itself in as a result of indiscriminate pressure placed on it by the Chinese.

During this visit to the US, I hope that he will make Taiwan's voice heard and that he will make suggestions that can bring Taiwan closer to the US and the world.

Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.

'Peace' bill is a recipe for disaster

By Joseph Wu

`[The cross-strait peace advancement bill] would amount to a declaration of war by the legislature against the executive, and by no means is this a situation that Taiwanese want to see.'

Although the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has put a lot of effort into negotiating with the pan-blue camp to solve the controversy over the cross-strait peace advancement bill, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) are proceeding with it. If this bill is eventually approved, it will have a serious impact on Taiwan.

As this is a matter of great importance, and also because I believe that most people are not even aware of the contents and the potential impact of the bill, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), the government agency in charge of supervising cross-strait policy, would like to take this opportunity to explain the matter in detail.

First, the bill will serve to legalize the "one China" principle. The major bone of contention between Taipei and Beijing is just this principle, for Beijing believes that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, which most Taiwanese find unacceptable.

Furthermore, Article 1 of the bill stipulates acknowledgement of (that is, to bring into force) the "1992 consensus." This is unfortunately tantamount to helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) force the nation to accept the "one China" principle and enacting a subsidiary law to Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law. In short, the legislation would put the nation at risk. In addition, ideological commitment in regard to this issue is so uncompromising that use of any legislation to restrain discussion will only lead to severe political unrest. We should seek to avoid such a thorny situation when dealing with China.

Second, the bill is obviously unconstitutional. The "cross-strait peace committee" that would be established under the bill would push ahead with major cross-strait affairs and take the initiative in negotiating with Beijing. That is, the bill would enable the legislature to empower another organ to handle cross-strait issues, a job already being performed by the MAC, and usurp the rights of the executive. This is a clear violation of the checks and balances between the executive and the legislature.

Third, the bill violates a bylaw of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, which was ratified by the legislature when KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou was serving as vice chairman of the MAC. Three years ago, the bylaw was even amended by the governing and opposition parties to lay out regulations relating to cross-strait affairs, and it is now regarded as the most important guiding principle on the cross-strait issue.

However, the bill and the legislative drive to lead cross-strait affairs directly contradict the aforementioned act as well as the guiding principles relating to cross-strait policy.

Fourth, the bill is a violation of democratic principles. The main thrust of the bill, as it claims, is to prevent the government from slipping up when formulating policy and to form a committee within the legislature to represent "the Taiwanese" in negotiations with Beijing. However, Taiwan is a nation that already holds democratic elections and periodically elects a president.

Legislators, chosen by the electorate, are there to supervise the operations of the government. Enacting such a bill will mandate the Legislative Yuan to dictate cross-strait policy, a flagrant violation of democratic principles. Furthermore, Article 7 of the bill stipulates that government agencies throughout the nation and the general public must comply with the resolutions proposed by a cross-strait peace committee.

Whoever refuses to enforce the resolutions will be subject to investigation by the judiciary and the supervisory arms of the government. Such a committee could simultaneously wield executive, legislative and judicial powers, creating a monster depriving people of the right to choose. This would clearly damage Taiwan's democratic achievements.

Fifth, divisions between the pan-blue and pan-green camps will cause even further deterioration. If the legislature is able to set up a cross-strait peace committee and wrest the right to formulate cross-strait policy from the executive, it could also adopt a similar approach or pass a similar law and usurp the roles of other government agencies, turning the legislature into an autocratic organ. This would amount to a declaration of war by the legislature against the executive, and by no means is this a situation that Taiwanese want to see.

Faced with such an unstable political climate, the Taiwanese people must put aside their ideological differences and jointly ensure the well-being of the nation, rather than engage in an independence-unification dispute that could trigger more political unrest.

However, as the legislature is eventually going to take a vote on the cross-strait peace advancement bill, I feel responsible for bringing this issue to the public's attention and explaining the consequences we will have to face if it is passed by the legislature.

I also would like to urge people to understand that this bill is unlikely to bring about peace, and will only cause more political disputes and unrest.

Joseph Wu is chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council.

New wealth sets scene for China's implosion

By Chin Heng-wei

China's rise and collapse are quite different propositions, but curiously enough they can be approached as two sides of the same coin. This is neither unusual nor unique to our times.

After Mao Zedong took power in 1949, closing China behind the iron curtain, blood flowed in rivers and the Chinese were put through hell. Nevertheless, he has found an audience and acclaim in the free world.

Belgian author Pierre Ryckmans made a trip through China in 1972, and when he returned he wrote a series of books about his experiences. He assumed the pen name of Simon Leys, as he feared the authorities would not let him back into the country after they were published. The book titles alone, The Chairman's New Clothes, Chinese Shadows and Broken Images, suggest his critical attitude. But despite the truths he revealed, he failed to stem the tide of adherents to Maoist thought in the West.

Even today, we are seeing a repeat of Mao's era under former and current presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao -- with their lies issued by officialdom and truth wrapped up in fabrication. There is, however, a difference, and this lies in the fact that Mao prevented what was happening in China from getting out, and stopped the outside world from influencing what was happening internally.

Nowadays, the communists are walking the capitalist road, using cheap labor as their bargaining chip, their huge market as bait, and practicing a Leninist strategy of allowing the capitalists to sell them the rope with which they will hang them. Under the auspices of "revolution" and "liberation," the systematic hypocrisies being spouted in China today don't hold water as well as they did back in Mao's time.

China's strength derives from her economic miracle, and so most appraisals of her potential rise or collapse are based on economics. However, if we widen our scope a little, the economy may merely be the fuse behind overall collapse, with political, social and cultural implosion as the more important issue.

In Alexis de Tocqueville's The Old Regime and the Revolution, one sees similarities between pre-revolutionary France and China today. Some of the following ideas from this book should suffice to demonstrate this.

First, revolutions don't necessarily break out under worsening situations. As laws are relaxed, the people who are formerly oppressed rise up.

Second, the most dangerous time for despotic governments is periods of political reform.

Third, when the people are suppressed, they can see no way out. All it takes is for someone to stand up and make his or her voice heard, and the people will no longer accept their situation.

Fourth, when certain injustices are removed, people become aware of other injustices that are still prevalent, and this will rile them. Their awareness will become all the more keen the better their conditions are.

Fifth, prosperity stirs up the desire for accumulation of more property and wealth in the minds of the populace.

Sixth, people want to invest and amass wealth, and to run their own businesses. With increased access to the media, they are no longer prepared to accept the hardships they would have borne 30 years ago.

Seventh, 20 years ago people felt no hope for the future: Nowadays they are no longer intimidated by the future.

Finally, on the one hand people are becoming more prosperous and hungrier for wealth, while on the other their efforts are being both encouraged and interfered with. This will lead to self-destruction.

So China's collapse does not appear so groundless. The problem Taiwan faces is how to deal with the aftermath.

Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly.