The former diplomat and long-time supporter of Taiwan is now the director of the Tokyo-based Okazaki Institute, an independent strategic think tank specializing in security matters.

He was in Taipei late last month for a private trilateral strategic meeting with officials from the US and Japan. The meeting was a follow-up to dialogue in February on beefing up the US-Japan security alliance.

"The rejection of the [US arms] bill indicates that Taiwan doesn't have the will to defend itself."

Hisahiko Okazaki

Okazaki said failure to pass the special defense budget will make it difficult for the US and Japan to support Taiwan.

"The rejection of the [US arms] bill indicates that Taiwan doesn't have the will to defend itself," Okazaki said. "If that's the case, it would be very hard for a third party to support it."

He said Taiwan-Japan relations have improved significantly in recent years as the influence of leftist forces in Japan, which were more pro-China, has waned.

"The atmosphere [of Japan-Taiwan relations] has definitely changed. There are many reasons for this development. The Japanese post-war leftist movement is now receding. Also, people have become more aware of the threat from China," he said.

"A decade ago, the pro-Chinese group was supposed to be more liberal and more peace-loving and the pro-Taiwan group was supposed to be more right wing and militaristic. But now nobody thinks so. The pro-China [elements'] political strength was quite strong only a few years ago, but now they've lost influence, particularly in the last election," he said.

Okazaki said the stepping up of the US-Japan security alliance brought to the fore the long-forgotten importance of Taiwan to Japan's security. US and Japanese defense officials made a declaration in Washington this February, the so-called "two-plus-two" declaration which explicitly spelled out peace in the Taiwan Strait as a "common strategic objective" for the US and Japan.

The two-plus-two declaration was a reminder that in 1969 the Sato-Nixon Communique -- signed between Japanese prime minister Eisaku Sato and US President Richard Nixon -- explicitly mentioned that "Taiwan itself" was an important element of Japan's security, Okazaki said.

"The Taiwan question is a very delicate issue. People were afraid of mentioning the importance of Taiwan for a long time," he said. "Nowadays, we say we're interested in the [security] of the Taiwan Strait, but actually in the communique, it didn't even say `Taiwan Strait.' It said `Taiwan itself.'"

Okazaki said the threat to the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait is the lack of transparency in China's military buildup and the possibility of a surprise Chinese attack on Taiwan, which became more likely with the passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law by China in March.

"I am afraid that it practically prevents the possibility of any early warning system from functioning," he said, as it is up to China to decide whether Taiwanese public opinion has leaned too far toward formal independence.

"That means we have to be always prepared for a surprise attack, which from the Chinese perspective, is a legitimate attack required by the law. In diplomatic and military terms, Taiwan is in a state [of constant] ultimatum, totally dependent upon the unilateral Chinese interpretation," Okazaki said.

Regarding the proposal of a Japanese version of the US' Taiwan Relations Act by some Japanese academics, Okazaki said there was a push for this kind of legislation two years ago, but the movement petered out.

However, with the formation of the new cabinet this month, Okazaki said, a new political movement conducive to such legislation may be at hand.

DPP appears to have lost its way

Things are not looking good for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) these days in the run-up to next month's local government elections. In the past, the party was known for its ability to generate debate topics and formulate and execute well-planned campaign strategies. However, in the campaign for mayoral and county commissioner seats, the DPP seems to be completely on the defensive. Even its offense seems weak and missing the point. With less than a month left until election day, DPP has little time to turn things around.

The two biggest indicators of the DPP's predicament are perhaps the races for the Taipei County commissioner and Ilan County commissioner. Both counties currently have DPP commissioners, which ought to be advantageous to the party's candidates for these posts. Both DPP candidates, Luo Wen-jia in Taipei County and Chen Ding-nan in Ilan, are considered political heavyweights and were once favored to win. Luo is a rising political star, seen as a prodigy personally schooled by President Chen Shui-bian. Chen Ding-nan repeatedly received top scores in the public's ratings of Cabinet members when he was minister of justice. He has also served as Ilan County commissioner before.

Theoretically both men should have been able to win their races with their eyes closed. However, in recent opinion polls, Luo is in a virtual tie with his main opponent, while Chen is trailing closely behind his biggest rival.

All would agree that the alleged corruption scandal involving former deputy secretary-general of the Presidential Office, Chen Che-nan, who was once a close confidant of President Chen, is taking its toll on the DPP. After all, the DPP came into power on an anti-corruption, prof-reform platform.

Another problem is that the debate topics pitched by the DPP so far in this campaign have been largely non-starters. For example, while almost all voters would agree that the ill-gotten assets of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are a major problem that has to be addressed, the DPP has failed to offer a practical solution to the problem, given the KMT's intransigence and thick skin.

In contrast, the scandal involving Chen Che-nan had been manipulated in a sensational manner that is almost soap-operatic, with new "findings" produced almost every day. Perhaps months from now, evidence will show that many of the allegations were unsupportable or that individuals named were innocent. But in the meantime the general public remains wrapped up in the saga.

On the other hand, from a legal standpoint, the scrutiny over TVBS' ownership is justified in every sense. If the station has violated media-ownership laws, then it should be dealt with in accordance with the law, with no questions asked. But the timing of the scrutiny -- coming after the station released several stories detailing Chen Che-nan's alleged misconduct -- may hurt the government more than the station. It gives TVBS a chance to claim that the government is threatening the freedom of the press at a highly sensitive point in the election campaign.

Last week, when Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh said that the beauty of political democracy is in that if a party does not perform well and another party does a better job, then the people can elect the latter.

The sad thing in Taiwan is that while the DPP may not have performed up to expectation, the KMT and the People's First Party (PFP) are even worse. On the other hand, if that is all the DPP is counting on to win the party, then no wonder many people are becoming disillusioned by politics.

Cut media ties to China

By Chang Jiho

I've been following the news about TVBS news and Taiwan's recent media situation. Although some opinions are highly questionable, given the nature of Taiwan's (and perhaps most liberal democracies) poor journalistic performance in terms of indiscriminate reporting and oversimplified analyses, I wish to bring attention to several points.

First, as is true with any other jurisdiction, Taiwan has a unique socio-political background. Unlike the US, where corporate dominance over media outlets controls the main thrust of discussion on media reform, Taiwan is liberal and open in terms of private ownership of the media. In fact, most of the population receives their news via privately owned media.

While the public in the US has begun to realize and take action against how private media manipulates or even "manufactures consent," the Taiwanese public is not as aware of such practices as their US counterparts, and even welcomes the freedom of press in its most extreme form, despite the corporate bias of most news sources.

Furthermore, Taiwanese politics is not divided into conservative and progressive camps. According to the article "What Taiwan wants" in last year's March issue of Asia Times magazine, the big question for Taiwan is the nationalistic sentiment towards Taiwan and/or China. The media present themes that can alter or mobilize certain nationalistic sentiments.

Given the fact that China is still hostile and aggressive towards the Taiwanese desire for self-determination, this situation cannot -- and should not -- be simplified as a simple domestic political standoff, or a "witch hunt" of the dissidents.

The historical and political background needs to be thoroughly investigated before any viable observations can be made. It is academically dangerous to decontextualize any issues in Taiwan, because in many cases they are as complicated as they are sensitive.

Second, according to the reports, one argument has been that if the government does shut down TVBS, Taiwan would be no different from China in terms of the freedom of press.

I would argue that it is already difficult for a nascent democracy like Taiwan to maintain its sovereignty and preserve a pluralistic public opinion over the destiny of the country's future in the face of the pro-unification, militant voice of the People's Republic of China (PRC).

The issue at hand is not whether the freedom of press in Taiwan should be carefully nurtured and protected -- ? it should. The issue is this: what must be done to ensure an independent press, when there is an authoritarian and aggressive regime (the PRC) that threatens press freedom in Taiwan to achieve its own end? It is obvious that Beijing has launched a propaganda as well as an economic war machine to threaten Taiwan's democracy on all fronts.

Third, the issue is strictly a legal matter. Anyone can tell that the Democratic Progressive Party has taken an unwise political step at the wrong time. It brought up the issue of foreign shareholding in private media (TVBS) right after being grilled on political scandals by that very same media group.

However, despite the poor political tactics, it is true that the citizenship of the majority of TVBS' shareholders is, to put it delicately, questionable.

Article 10, Chapter 1 of the Satellite Broadcasting Law explicitly states: "The total shares of a satellite broadcasting business directly held by foreign shareholders shall be less than 50 percent of the total shares issued by the said business."

Therefore, this issue ought to be reviewed and discussed, as we are believers of liberal democracy and freedom of speech.

It is a crucial fact that the shareholding body of TVBS is possibly subject to the control of Beijing, which has been a verbal, political, economic and military aggressor toward Taiwan. Would the US public, let alone the Bush administration, allow the subjects of its chief military antagonist to control the means of information inside the US?

Lastly, although President Chen Shui-bian has vowed not to shut down any media outlet during his tenure, it does not detract from the fact that Taiwan has often been the victim of over-simplification by international observers, who examine Taiwan's current state of affairs divorced from its socio-historical context.

Taiwan faces multifaceted threats to freedom and democracy from a bullying neighbor, and the means to information should not be controlled or manipulated by foreigners, especially those with ties to the antagonist state.

Chang Jiho

Taipei

Security needed to repel Beijing

By the Liberty Times editorial

`Wholesale investment in China has caused the Taiwanese people to lose sight of what their country is, and now they are no longer able to distinguish friend from foe.'

National security is the highest responsibility demanded of a government by the people of a country. It is not a matter that can be trifled with. National security comprises security on many levels, involving the economy, national defense, politics and society. The actions of the government in recent years, regardless of which of these security levels are looked at, has been extremely disappointing. Even Taiwan's foreign friends are becoming anxious and beginning to question the nation's commitment to its own security.

The current government has failed most spectacularly in the area of the economy. A few days ago, there was an international seminar on Japan's Taiwan Studies held at the National Library. The Japanese found it difficult to understand the policy of investment in China, detrimental as it is to Taiwan's national security. It was their opinion that this phenomenon would not be found in any normal country.

They were very critical of Taiwan's over-reliance on China, and its inability to break away from dependence on cheap labor and the processing and assembly business model.

Japanese academics are not the first to have pointed out the fact that Taiwanese businessmen are retarding the advancement of Taiwan's industry through their investment in China. The renowned expert on competition, Mike Potter, warned against Taiwan's over-reliance on China and its neglect of upgrading its technological capability as early as 1997. But the government has not altered course, and the ever- growing reliance on China has become the gravest national security concern.

This year, 41 percent of Taiwan's export orders have been manufactured in China. This has affected the political environment, giving rise to questions of military and political security. In total disregard of US concerns for Taiwan, the Legislative Yuan's Procedure Committee has blocked the special arms-procurement budget for the 35th time, trampling over the issue of national security.

Do they consider this to be a game? Should the decision depend entirely on the advantage held by one political party? And how can the government and the president stand by as the country is being sold out in this manner? Why do they not appeal to public opinion?

The reason is that wholesale investment in China has caused the Taiwanese people to lose sight of what their country is, and now they are no longer able to distinguish friend from foe.

We are already caught up in the maze of economic integration through which China is advancing its unification agenda, and Taiwanese have become numb to China's legitimization of its bellicose intentions.

The public did not even respond when former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong joined hands with China to belittle Taiwan.

In other words, Taiwan's economic security, as it affects our budgetary allocations and public opinion, has already begun to affect military security.

Recently, the government and opposition parties have been seeking ways of using tourism from China to make up for the outflow of Taiwan's industry and invigorate domestic spending. This is simply a case of grasping at straws, and they are clearly blind to the danger that tourism from China could represent to society.

When the number of Chinese visitors who overstay their visa reaches a certain number, it will become increasingly difficult for the police to maintain social order. If the government opens the gates to tourism from China before mechanisms for effective management have been put in place, then the flood of Chinese tourists may well frighten away visitors from Japan and the US.

The government should not sacrifice social order simply to please members of the tourism industry, but this is probably as a result of the crisis in our economic security.

Chinese capital within the nation's media organizations is also a threat to the nation's political security. As a result of China's policy of "unlimited war," Taiwan's economic and cultural discourse is now being manipulated by a pro-China media, to the detriment of Taiwan-centric academic, economic and cultural discourse.

The "Greater China" consciousness has even begun to affect the upper levels of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leadership. They have begun to question the reasoning behind changing the national title, of localization and of the support Taiwan movement. The ideals and aspirations to establish a nation of Taiwan on which the party was founded are gradually being dismantled. This is a fact which is being proved by the difficulties being faced by the DPP in next month's county and city elections. Clearly, this is a warning that the nation's political security is in jeopardy.

The government must remember that national security is not a game. It is necessary to realize that capital from Hong Kong, since the handover in 1997, should now be considered as Chinese money.

Moreover, China should not be seen an an economic savior. The umbilical cord that nurtures Taiwan's pro-Beijing media must be cut and mechanisms for the effective management of Taiwanese investment in China must be established.

The government's first priority is to ensure national security, and only by doing these things will the nation be able to maintain its independence and sovereignty, and preserve its future.