Being receiving by President Chen Shui-bran on Thursday, Ackerman said that he was quite impressed by what Chen said about constitutional reform.

"I met quite a few presidents around the world and very few, actually, express this kind of constitutional seriousness that I heard from him. He was actually serious about what would create a legitimate process for a serious constitutional conversation among the people of Taiwan," he said, Knowing clearly that Chen wants to complete a two-phase constitutional reform by 2008 but faced challenges regarding unreached consensuses on issues, such as national sovereignty and the subject of unification versus independence, Ackerman said three difference basic questions had to be dressed by Taiwan.

"One is a modem charter of fundamental rights. It's perfectly possible and important to have a constitutional process that defines humam right in a fundamental and legally enforceable way second is creating a governmental structure that really works and can avoid the deadlock in the past five years. The third is the question of nation identity and Inter- strait relation. It seems to me that the third is premature," he said.

However, Ackerman stressed that there is no inconsistency between having aworkable government in a short term and making an ultimate decision regarding national identity.

"There’s no reason to think that either the question of human right or the question of governmental structure should be postponed because of an unsettled question of national identity. That’s a task for next generation not for the next two years. Whatever the task resolves, say, federation, independence, or joining the mainland, will it only be improved, if you have a solid notion of modern human right protected clearly by a decision of the people of Taiwan," he said.

Being asked if it would be extraordinarily difficult for Taiwan to set up a governmental structure that is workable, Ackerman stressed that everything is difficult, but such things have been done before in many places.

"The typical periods of serious constitutional energy are one year or twoyears, not 10 or 20. So it's a reasonable timetable (for Taiwan) to go from 2005 to 2008 and come up with a serious set of proposals and decisions. It isn't a surprise that the present system, created in 1947 and was ft6zen for 40 years, doesn't work well. It was' not designed for the contemporary situation," he said.

Ackerman said that he knew certain efforts have been put to modify the present system in Taiwan and it is a good direction. But still, he said, Taiwan needs another serious effort to design a system dealing with basic questions regarding parliamentary system or presidential system.

Ackerman said that a good government based on fundamental human right is a good thing and over the next 20 years, Taiwanese people would 'decide in a complicated international process what the future of Taiwan will be.

At the conference, Ackerman will carry out a presentation, titled "The Deliberative Referendum and the Future of Chinese Constitutionalism." He argues that it is time to rethink existing approach to national referenda, which have been one shot affairs   the people going to the polls to say Yes or No without taking preliminary steps to deliberate together on the choices facing the nation. His paper wrote, "If an issue is important enough towarrant decision by the people as a whole, it is important enough to require a more deliberate approach to decision-making." Ackerman told the, Taipei Times that political scientists .had done experiments of Deliberative Polling, a new form of public consultation, in many countries, including China. And it works.

Seeing the emerging promotion of deliberative democracy in the society of Taiwan, which remains not fully informed, Ackerman expresses his optimistic expectation.

"It's better informed than the society of People's Republic (of China)," he said.

Diplomacy isn't just about numbers

On Tuesday, as Beijing celebrated Taiwan's Retrocession Day with great pomp, China's Foreign Ministry abruptly announced that it had re-established diplomatic relations with Senegal, one of Taiwan's African allies. Beijing may believe that resuming diplomatic ties with Dakar is a major step toward "regaining possession of its long lost territory -- Taiwan," but the announcement in fact only serves to embarrass pan-blue politicians who were participating in the event and further anger many Taiwanese.

China has used its financial, military and diplomatic muscle, and even its UN Security Council veto, as both a carrot and a stick against Taiwan's allies in its efforts to isolate Taiwan on the diplomatic front. Now, Taiwan is left with just 25 diplomatic partners, including the less-than-enthusiastic Vatican.

Taiwan's aid to its allies has fueled controversy and dollar diplomacy has come in for criticism. Countries compete to see how much they can get out of Taiwan and China, and Taipei has also faced accusations of meddling in the domestic affairs of recipient countries, only to see the financial aid sent there siphoned off into the pockets of local politicians.

Senegalese President Abodoulaye Wade hit the nail on the head when he told President Chen Shui-bian that, "There are no friendships in the pursuit of national interests," in a candid demonstration of how cementing relations with some countries is close to impossible. In material terms, while Taiwan can offer much, China can always offer more.

Senegal's severing of diplomatic relations is a timely warning, for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Security Bureau are suggesting that there is a growing risk that many of the nation's remaining allies will follow suit. But this incident can also be seen as an opportunity to fundamentally reassess the viability of the nation's current foreign policy.

The number of allies at any one time has reasonable symbolic importance, and the ongoing relationship with them should be cherished and nurtured. But this should not extend to excessive use of resources on maintaining relationships that are clearly untenable. As long as Taiwan can retain an international presence, a shift in even 10 or more of the nation's allies will not have a significant impact.

A reduction in the number of allies will necessarily weaken calls for Taiwan's entry into the UN or the World Health Organization, but the key players here are the US, Japan, Australia, Canada and Europe. For this reason, a new route should be sought.

Taiwan must rid itself of the need to stress the number of its allies and instead undertake a practical assessment of its foreign policy.

After all, many countries are growing uneasy over China's conduct and beginning to more openly recognize Taiwan's economic and strategic value. They would be unwilling to see Taiwan swallowed up by China. Even though these countries do not have diplomatic ties with Taiwan, strategic links and common beliefs could prove stronger than those interests based on the offering and acceptance of aid.

But before this can happen, Taiwan must prove its strategic value and its determination to defend itself. If it does not, and even if the US and Japan are unwilling to see Taiwan absorbed by China, the self-destructive behavior manifested in the legislature's repeated rejection of the arms-procurement bill will not inspire confidence or friendship in this nation's supporters.

The path of Taiwan's democracy

`From a geopolitical point of view, the strengthening of Taiwan's democracy is an important link in the democratic front line of defense in the Asia-Pacific region. Once this line is broken, it will be devastating for global democracy and peace.'

By Lee Teng-Hui

Editor's note: This is an edited version of a speech delivered to the National Press Club in Washington on Oct. 21.

Ladies and gentlemen: I am delighted to have the opportunity to come to the United States of America, a country built upon the spirit of democracy and freedom. Several hundred years ago, your forefathers braved dangers to reach a new land. In 1776, they adopted the Declaration of Independence, which provides that all men have certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are formed to secure these rights upon the consent of the governed.

When our ancestors came to Taiwan, they may not have had a Mayflower Compact, but they possessed the same intention of pursuing freedom and happiness. This ideal of the Taiwanese people was gradually realized, step by step, in 1989, the beginning of Taiwan's democratic era.

As with its economic miracle, Taiwan's democratic reforms have been a success story that has won the attention of the world. During the democratization process, I led a KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] government that listened carefully to the people's demands, to respect the will of mainstream popular opinion and to become the main force for promoting reform. At that time, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) also advocated reform, and therefore both parties, though competitors, worked together shoulder to shoulder on political reform. Through tenacious efforts, authoritarian rule gradually gave way to the boulevard of democracy. The ethnic tensions that materialized in the 1940s also dissolved under the harmony of democracy.

In the year 2000, Chen Shui-bian, the DPP candidate, won the presidential election. However, the victorious DPP government faced the predicament of a legislature controlled by opposition parties and the consequent boycotts of its policies. Furthermore, this inexperienced administration was not tolerant enough, leading to major clashes between political parties and re-igniting ethnic tensions. What is regrettable is that the present ethnic tensions in the new political environment, combined with China's divisive efforts, have worsened into a conflict on national identity. Therefore, I have put forward the idea of the "new-era Taiwanese," which promotes the use of the spirit of democracy to overcome internal disparity.

During the last decade of the 20th century, the tidal "third wave of democratization" that began in the early 1970s swept over Taiwan. We accepted our baptism into this third wave of democratization through a "quiet revolution" without bloodshed, though there were inevitable social tensions and conflicts. Taiwan's democratic experience earned the attention of Professor Samuel P. Huntington, the renowned political scientist.

Yet, as Professor Huntington has noted, some of the countries that were part of the "third wave of democratization" face obstacles, and thus, may not become full democracies.

Where do the threats to Taiwan's democracy come from? There are certain political parties in Taiwan that are anti-democratic. These remnants of the authoritarian era, which are unwilling to give up their vested interests or face the fact that authoritarian rule has crumbled, attempt to baffle the people using ideology in an attempt to usurp the choice of the people. In Taiwan, this anti-democratic force is quite rampant and supported by the Chinese totalitarian regime.

China, across the Taiwan Strait, has never wavered from its ambitions to annex Taiwan, although its tactics may have changed. For example, in the past they launched missiles to threaten Taiwan, but the Taiwanese people stood tall.

Now they adopt softer tactics such as economic profits to attract Taiwanese, however the substance is still the same. As long as Taiwan is not subsumed into China, Chinese tyranny will never cease offering incentives and applying coercions. The anti-democratic forces, with their ideological wrappings inside Taiwan, quickly became good friends with the authoritarian Chinese. With the support of the Chinese, their anti-democratic actions become less restrained and less hampered. The interplay of these internal and external factors has led to complexity and confusion in Taiwan's national identity. This is the most significant threat to Taiwan's democracy.

Some Asian leaders advocate so-called "Asian values." Asian traditions are not irreplaceable, yet the political process of some countries shows that "Asian values" ultimately are used as an excuse to deprive the people of human rights, and so become a major stumbling block in their path to full democracy. Fortunately for Taiwan, the influence of Confucian traditions is not entrenched enough to create this problem.

Currently, the major issue for Taiwan to resolve in its path toward full democracy is the confusion in its national identity. Various surveys show that more and more Taiwanese people see themselves as being Taiwanese or do not deny that they are Taiwanese. This is proof of the assimilation of different ethnic groups in Taiwanese society under democracy.

Regrettably, those political groups that have been rejected by the voters use political maneuvers to fracture social harmony and stir dissent over national identity. They want to adopt the "Greater China" ideology -- used in the authoritarian period to amass power -- to subvert modern, democratic Taiwan. Today, their support comes not from domestic voters, but from the hegemonic arguments, military threats and economic tactics of China across the Taiwan Strait.

Undeniably, Chinese national power is growing, and "bringing Qing soldiers through the gate," or using a Trojan horse, which refers to those political groups' cooperation with the communists in order to control Taiwan, worsens the nation's predicament.

For Taiwanese people to overcome these challenges, they must first strengthen national identity. If we look closely at Taiwan, we find that the Taiwanese people of over 50 years ago and the Taiwanese people of 50 years hence have undergone a qualitative change.

In the past, after being brainwashed by outside regimes, Taiwanese had no choice but to deem themselves Chinese. Today, more and more people have come to realize that this was both a fabrication of fact and history.

In reality, during the process of democratic reform in the last decade of the 20th century, we frequently asked ourselves, "Who am I? Who are we?"

Professor Huntington also mentions in his new book, Who are We?, that many countries face various national identity issues, albeit in varying form and substance, adding that in Taiwan, the national identity of the people is in the midst of dissolution and reconstruction.

The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said: "... man, being condemned to be free, carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and himself as a way of being."

Speaking of which, I cannot help but think of the philosophy established by Immanuel Kant's three major critiques. My inspiration from his philosophy is this. Humans must understand their own limitations in order to manage self-reliance and motivation so that life is elevated to a higher purpose and becomes more worthwhile. If we take his analysis to a higher level, we find that what Kant said, "Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," to be very significant. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1966 undoubtedly represent modem interpretations of this proposition. It is the obligation of the Taiwanese people to themselves and the world to strive for the realization of international human-rights standards delineated in these covenants.

"New-era Taiwanese" ought to engage in such philosophical analysis and take action to practice it, starting from invigorating their minds to realize Friedrich Nietzsche's "revaluation of all values" (Umwertung aller Werte) so that they can shape an all-encompassing spiritual transcendence and cultural renewal.

It would not be difficult for such enlightened Taiwanese to break the shackles of historical fabrications and develop a firm and resolute national identity for a democratic Taiwan.

Only upon this new foundation can democracy eradicate lingering ethnic conflict, prevent anti-democratic political forces from stirring up unrest out of self-interest, and stop the political warfare arising from the hegemonic "Greater China" ideology from gaining the advantage.

A national identification based on democracy is the best guarantee for Taiwan's democracy. Like some of the other countries involved in the third wave of democratization, Taiwan has also lapsed into a worrisome democratic cadence in recent years. This is a situation that cannot be ignored by friends who are concerned about Taiwan's democratic development.

In the future, whether the democratic achievements that Taiwan has made in "the third wave of democratization" will be further consolidated or instead take an unfortunate step backward will affect the expansion or contraction of global democratic values. In other words, how democratic countries can support each other deserves everyone's close attention.

From a geopolitical point of view, the strengthening of Taiwan's democracy is an important link in the democratic front line of defense in the Asia-Pacific region. Once this line is broken, it will be devastating for global democracy and peace.

Yet I would like to make an optimistic prediction that the threats to Taiwan's democracy will not be fatal as long as we do not lose confidence in democratic values, as long as our democratic functions do not head off track, as long as our legal institutions improve and as long as the 23 million people of Taiwan eventually deem their national identification with Taiwan to be natural and proper.

At some point in the future, Taiwan will march with even firmer steps toward the goal of becoming a full democracy.

Lee Teng-hui is the former president of Taiwan.

Lee can still pull a crowd among the expatriates

By Cao Changqing

A few days ago, former president Lee Teng-hui returned to Taiwan from his trip to the US. During his two-week trip, Lee, called "Mr Democracy" by some, was given a warm welcome not only by Taiwanese living in the US, but also by the US media.

I watched the receptions he received in New York and Los Angeles. The banquets put on for him in those cities demonstrated the affection and respect the Taiwanese still have for their former leader.

The New York dinner was held in a plush hotel in Manhatten, and commanded US$250 per head. The event ran up a bill of US$250,000, all paid for by local Taiwanese.

A declaration of affection for Lee, it was a very touching occasion.

In Los Angeles he was treated to a dinner called the "Banquet of the Century," attended by more than 300 people.

The reception given to Lee as he entered the room was something akin to the fervor one would expect at a political rally prior to a presidential election.

Not even Kim Dae-jung or Kim Young-sam in South Korea, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines or the four former living US presidents could expect a welcome like this.

This enthusiasm was not limited to Taiwanese people. It also came from the the US media, with reports appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, with the Post publishing a special interview.

The Wall Street Journal called on Americans to give Taiwan's Mr Democracy a hero's welcome. Lee was also called a hero by the Los Angeles Times, which quoted a US senator as saying that Taiwan should take down all the statues of former president Chiang Kai-shek, and replace them with those of Lee.

The US is visited by political figures week in and week out, sometimes presidents and prime ministers, but these visits, let alone those by former leaders, do not necessarily reach the papers, as was the case with a recent visit by the prime minister of Bulgaria.

This time, it was the former leader of a country that doesn't even have a UN seat.

Lee's speech at the National Press Club (NPC) in Washington was also an unprecedented occasion, with over 200 journalists in attendance. According to the NPC chairman, there had never been so many reporters there.

In the US Congress, more than 20 senators took to the podium with speeches of welcome for Lee, all praising the former president for his promotion of democracy.

A Cuban-born woman senator wished that her country would one day become like Taiwan.

A chairman of the US Congressional Taiwan Caucus welcomed the fact that Lee has been termed a "troublemaker," saying that name was also leveled at former presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Lee was presented with a US flag that had flown on Capitol Hill in recognition of his promotion of democracy in Taiwan, and the praise Lee had had for US democracy during the course of his trip.

For Taiwan, Lee is a hero struggling to protect Taiwan from China.

For US senators, he is a hero who is fighting for the cause of democracy.

One could say that he is a hero for anyone who believes in democracy and freedom.

His trip across the US has been a victorious call for democracy, a hero's voyage in which Taiwan has been allowed to shine.

Cao Changqing is a writer based in New York.