China compares Japanese leaders to Nazi-worshippers

 

FANNING THE FLAMES: Beijing's foreign minister likened Yasukuni shrine visits by Tokyo's leaders to worship of Hitler, in inflammatory remarks

 

AP , BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA

 

Japan should learn from Germany's post-war rejection of Hitler and end the "worship" of those who inflicted harm during World War II, China's foreign minister said yesterday, in comments likely to inflame tensions over the Japanese leader's visits to a war shrine.

 

"After the end of World War II there wasn't anyone in Germany who worshipped Hitler," Li Zhaoxing told reporters on the sidelines of a conference of Pacific Rim economies. "As a Japanese, as a person, everyone should know this.

 

"One should not worship those type of people who inflict harm on so many others," Li said. "There's been no one among the German leadership after the war who worshipped Hitler."

 

Controversial visit

Tokyo-Beijing tensions flared last month after Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi paid his fifth visit to the contentious Yasukuni war shrine, triggering a protest by China and other critics who consider the visits a glorification of Japanese militarism. Beijing also canceled a planned visit by Japan's foreign minister.

 

The shrine honors Japan's 2.5 million war dead, including several executed war criminals from World War II. Japan invaded China in the 1930s and is accused of many atrocities on Chinese soil.

 

Li met with his South Korean counterpart, Ban Ki-moon, yesterday on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meetings in Busan, South Korea, and the Japanese war shrine issue was among those discussed, officials said.

 

Koizumi, Chinese President Hu Jintao and South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun will be among APEC leaders due to hold their annual summit on Friday and Saturday.

 

After the meeting, Li acknowledged China-Japan relations were "having difficulties, but the responsibility lies squarely with the Japanese leadership."

 

Koizumi "ought not do anything again that is hurtful to the Chinese people or the people of the Asia Pacific region," Li said.

 

Making an effort

Speaking before Li made his remarks about Hitler, Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Yoshinori Katori said Japan would try to narrow its differences on the issue with China and South Korea.

 

"The bilateral relations with Korea, as well as China, these are one of the most important bilateral relations for Japan," Katori told reporters. "We are going to continue our efforts to explain Japan's position and also to continue our dialogue with other countries."

 

Koizumi recently expressed hopes that he would meet with Hu on the sidelines of APEC's annual summit in to be held later this week, but officials said this was unlikely to occur.

 

Li would not comment directly on whether Hu would agree to meet with Koizumi, saying only "the Chinese people want a real friendship with Japan but Japanese leaders ought not do any more things that cause pain to the other Asian countries."

 

 

Ma admits he accepted `red' money

 

CLAIM OF IGNORANCE: The Taipei mayor said he did not know that a man who bought a T-shirt at a Ma campaign rally was a Shanghai City official

 

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

 

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou yesterday admitted to having taken money from a Chinese official while running in the KMT chairmanship election.

 

Ma, however, denied that he knew anything about the official position of Zhou Yiqing, who is a standing member of Shanghai City's Political Affairs Committee.

 

Ma said that he became acquainted with Zhou about four or five years ago in Hong Kong, but did not know his official title. But Ma admitted that Zhou, a member of his Hong Kong and Macao support group, purchased a NT$20,000 (US$645) T-shirt during a campaign rally in the run-up to the KMT's chairmanship poll.

 

"Do you think he is obliged to tell me everything, including his job title, when we meet?" he asked reporters who doubted that he didn't know Zhou's identity.

 

He then criticized the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for enjoying giving him a "red hat," or linking him with China's Communist Party.

 

Later last night, Ma denied that any money from Zhou went to his chairmanship campaign. Ma said that the money went to his support group in Hong Kong and Macao and "not a single penny of the money has been diverted to or used in Taiwan."

 

Ma also took the opportunity to defend the TV station TVBS, whose shareholder structure is questioned by the Government Information Office (GIO).

 

Ma said that the crux of the problem is simple and clear. According to the Satellite Broadcasting Law, Ma said that direct foreign investment in a satellite TV station cannot exceed 50 percent and that "TVBS' foreign capital is less than 50 percent. It's that simple," he said.

 

If the government wants all of the station's owners to be Taiwanese, they should amend the law, Ma said.

 

Ma made the remarks in response to criticism from the DPP earlier yesterday morning. The caucus alleged that Zhou doubles as a board member of the Hong Kong-based television station TVB, an affiliate of Taiwan's TVBS.

 

DPP Legislator Hsu Kuo-yung also criticized Ma for violating the Civic Society Law and Political Contribution Act, and said his election was therefore illegal.

 

"I'd like to know what kind of T-shirt is worth NT$20,000," he said.

 

The Civic Society Law stipulates that political parties cannot accept any donation from a foreign group, individual or organization whose important members are foreigners. Violators are subject to a two-year jail term or a fine of up to NT$60,000.

 

DPP caucus whip William Lai asked Ma to tell the public exactly how much money he has received from Chinese sources, how many Chinese officials are involved and through what channels the funds were distributed.

 

Lai also requested prosecutors to step in immediately and conduct a thorough probe into the matter.

 

Meanwhile, the DPP caucus yesterday demanded that Taichung Mayor Jason Huapologize for "lying" about his public service and called on him to withdraw from the Taichung City mayoral election.

 

Lai said that Hu lied on his pension application when he said he had worked for the KMT between 1975 and 1985, when actually he was studying in the UK.

 

While the executive order allowing party members to count the years they worked for the KMT toward their employment in the civil service was abolished in 1988, Lai said that Hu still counted the years he served at a KMT-affiliated organization toward his civil service time.

 

 

Lu tells guests that China is `threat to rest of the world'

 

By Chiu Yu-Tzu

STAFF REPORTER

 

Vice President Annette Lu said yesterday that although China faces many serious internal problems, it still remains a hostile threat to Taiwan and the rest of the world.

 

Lu made the remarks when receiving representatives of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of Los Angeles along with the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission (OCAC) Chairwoman Chang Fu-mei. Lu encouraged them to learn more about the development of Taiwan during their visit and how it differs from China.

 

Lu said that China experiences unbalanced development in both its rural and urban areas, in contrast to Taiwan, where each of the 319 townships have different characteristics that make them attractive to overseas visitors.

 

"We have people of different ethnicities that live peacefully together. We now also have 250,000 immigrants from other countries, who also help to enrich Taiwanese society," Lu said.

 

Taking the population issue as an example, Lu said that Taiwan now faces a crisis regarding future shortages of manpower while China is busy tackling its looming demographic, or imbalance of the sexes crisis -- a result of the "one-child policy."

 

Lu reminded her guests that China remains militarily hostile to not just Taiwan but also the rest of the world, despite the fact it has so many unresolved internal problems. Citing information from the Pentagon, Lu said that Taiwan continues to live under the shadow of more than 700 Chinese missiles.

 

"Next year, the number of missiles deployed by China will exceed 1,000. China's middle-range and ballistic missiles are capable of reaching Japan, the US and even Europe. Although China claims that it is rising peacefully, its worldwide military ambition is there for all to see," she said

 

Lu said that Taiwan's existence defends the values of freedom, democracy and human rights, all values that are ignored by China -- a country which pursues only economic development.

 

 

KMT betrays Taiwan's democracy

 

By Jerome Keating

 

What price would one put on democracy? What would one trade democracy for? What would it take to sell out someone else's right to self-determination?

 

A pair of pandas? Better trade relations? A chance to make more money? Or even the alleged glory of being the mythical white-horse prince who could stake a claim that he brought Taiwan and China together? Democracy is the real issue in the Taiwan-China debate and the questions on democracy are the real questions? The rest is all smokescreen and obfuscation.

 

In a global age where national boundaries begin to blur and the world begins heading toward corporate identification and influence, the rights of the individual granted by democracy and the rule of law remain and cry out for recognition. These are the same rights the People's Republic of China (PRC) avoids discussing.

 

In the same vein, as Lien Chan, James Soong and so many other pan-blue leaders fawningly run to Beijing, they appear embarrassed to even bring up the `D' word. If it is brought up, it is done in almost apologetic terms.

 

The distinct role that democracy must play in negotiations concerning Taiwan and China's future is crucial. Behind democracy are the paradigms and priorities that people hold for themselves and these two countries. On one side is Taiwan's experience of a long, hard struggle over a one-party state that has still not come clean on its past murders and theft. On the other side is another one-party clique steeped in suppression that justifies its control with the claim to be defender of the myth of one, indivisible China.

 

As a result, the Taiwan-China debate continues to be smoked over by words and phrases like "independence, inalienable, inseparable, internal problem" and even "a shared common culture."

 

Independence. In this debate, China has made no bones about its demand to forbid this word in discussions of the future. There can be no talk of Taiwan independence. Such a demand by the PRC is tantamount to saying both sides must agree to come to the PRC's conclusion before they begin to debate.

 

Still, statements of non-negotiables are a part of bargaining. Taiwan's pan-green leadership has stated its own non-negotiable by saying that both sides must come to the table as equals and have the freedom of choice of equals.

What is most surprising, however, is the complete lack of non-negotiables from the pan-blue leadership. In the old days of Chiang Ching-kuo, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at least had fire in its belly when dealing with the PRC. At that time they were bold enough to state their own three no's, "no contacts, no negotiations, no compromise."

 

Now in sharp contrast, KMT leaders trip and fall over each other as they run to bow and scrape to accommodate the PRC. Such kow-towing makes any rational person ask: Where has the fire gone? What has changed?

 

The answer lies in seeing the KMT's true past paradigms and priorities and how these were affected by democracy. The KMT that was brave enough to issue its three no's was one which gave lip service to democracy. It did this because it operated with the secure power and privilege of a one-party state similar to that of the PRC.

 

Hidden behind its three no's was its own basic sine qua non that saw unification only in terms of the KMT maintaining power over all. Democracy ruined that for the KMT; it broke their paradigm of privilege and destroyed their sense of entitlement to power.

 

Democracy is the antithesis of any one-party state paradigm. Choice and absolute control cannot coexist. Democracy allows the people to vote a government out; understanding this, the KMT knows full well why it is anathema to bring the word up with the PRC and so it bows in submission.

 

One cannot say the pan-blues have totally avoided mentioning democracy. To his credit, James Soong hinted at it by once saying that perhaps it might be best to put off any discussion of unification for another thirty to fifty years and just expand trade links.

 

Ma Ying-jeou, in his usual way of trying to keep his feet in both boats, also hinted at the issue. In an interview he stated that he suspected that the PRC is still far away from democracy. Nowhere, however, has there been anything close to making democracy a non-negotiable part of discussions.

 

Why not? Why are there no non-negotiables for discussions from the pan-blue side? The scenario is strangely reminiscent of seventeenth century China, when the Qing was defeating the Ming. The loyalty of several Ming generals and leaders was bought off by the Qing. By 1679, the Qing even created the Xiu Lai ("cordial relations") compound where opposing generals and leaders could surrender and retire in comfort.

 

This was certainly part of the enticement they offered to followers of Zheng Zhi-long, the father of Zheng Cheng-gong (Koxinga). Zhi-long had been bought off but of course he then faced reciprocal obligations.

 

When Zheng Zhi-long came over to the Qing, he was expected to bring with him his son Zheng Cheng-gong and all of his troops. When they didn't come, Zhi-long's wife Tagawa committed suicide and Zhi-long didn't get a chance to enjoy his retirement. Bought loyalty, particularly between past enemies, must still deliver.

 

Zhi-long had promised to deliver his son; have the pan-blues promised to deliver Taiwan? Is this the real reason why they continually block bills to procure defensive weapons in the legislature?

 

As the PRC wines and dines the pan-blue leaders and legislators it would seem the same machinations are at work. The pan-blue leadership remains surprisingly quiet on any mention of democracy as a condition for discussions on future relations between Taiwan and China. Instead they talk of harmonious interests; how close the talk seems to Xiu Lai.

 

At stake here are conflicting paradigms about Taiwan. Where are each party's priorities and how does democracy fit in? Operating from a paradigm of hard won democracy, the pan-green camp maintains its right to self-determination. Since democracy by its nature allows many points of view and free choice, it has to be open to voting on unification or not. The flip side is that it is also open to vote that could reject it. The pan-blue camp refuses to allow that.

 

The pan-blue camp is still mired in its one-party state paradigm, the same paradigm held by the PRC. The priority of this paradigm is that the one-party state must first control all. The unification of Taiwan and China must always take precedence over democracy. Lip service can be given to democracy but control must dominate over free choice; as in Hong Kong.

 

Thus the KMT would rather see a Taiwan that is stripped of its democracy and a part of China than one with choice. Are the benefits and future privileges of such a metaphorical Xiu Lai really worth that?

 

Democracy denies privilege to any one party and places it in the hands of the people. The people can bestow the privilege of leadership on those whom they feel worthy; they can also take it away in the next election.

 

The issue of independence is a smokescreen. For over a half a century, Taiwan is and has been independent whether as a one-party state under the KMT or a democracy since 1996.

 

The real issue is the role of democracy in Taiwan's future as it relates to China. Since 1996 when the people first directly elected their president, Taiwan has utilized that freedom of choice twice. In the elections of 2000 a peaceful transfer of power took place. Last year it was confirmed. Taiwan's democracy -- won at the cost of blood, sweat and suffering -- should not be sacrificed for "cordial relations."

 

The KMT fought the PRC only as long as they were masters in Taiwan. Once the people exercised their democratic right to vote and voted them out of office, the blue camp lost interest in democracy. Like lost dogs seeking to lick the hand of the bully that drove them out of China, they return. An appropriate proverb might be, "Better to be someone else's live dog than a dead lion." Perhaps they will get a bone.

 

This paradigm also reveals the true feelings of those waishengren (外生人) that have never found a home in Taiwan. Comfortable in Taiwan only if they could be superior colonial masters, they seek other advantage once that privilege is lost.

 

Slogans once expressed the KMT's dedication. Who cannot recall, "Gentlemen will not stand with thieves," which expressed the KMT distaste of co-existing in the UN with the PRC. As Lien Chan and others wine and dine with Chinese Communist Party leaders and vow that as brothers they will fight Taiwan's "independence" (read: democratic choice) one wonders what the new slogan will be?

 

Carved on Kinmen's highest mountain are the words "Remember our days at Chu." And elsewhere is found another demand. "Give me back my land." How times have changed. It now appears that the pan-blue slogan could be "Forget Chu and go for the money." Westerners had a saying, "Better dead than Red." For the pan-blues, now it's "Better Red than lose power and privilege."

 

As China and Taiwan approach discussions, Taiwanese voters have a right to know what paradigms and priorities each party holds. There has never been transparent accountability on the state assets taken by the KMT, nor has there been true accountability for all involved with the suppression and deaths during the White Terror period.

 

Will the KMT's position on democracy be added to this list?

 

Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.

 

 

 

 

Society has a key role to play in reforms

 

By Lin Lih-yun

 

The opposition between the pan-green and pan-blue camps has diverted the focus away from the important broadcasting issues involved in the TVBS dispute.

 

For example, to what extent does the state control the media market? What is the basis of the government's legitimacy for such control? How is such control restricted? What is the intent behind the restrictions on foreign ownership of the media? What does press freedom entail, and what are the media's responsibilities?

 

These questions are not straightforward matters. They have to be decided through rational public discussion to build mutual understanding and achieve consensus.

 

Both camps are incapable of self-examination and are unaware of -- or deliberately ignoring -- the limitations to their own discourse. Worse, politicians are making sensational statements in the media only to further their own narrow agendas. They seek to hog the limelight with harsh words emphasizing the zero-sum logic of "I'm right, he's wrong." Do such politicians' unswerving supporters understand their ulterior motives? In this seesaw battle, the gap between the two camps is growing ever wider.

 

Fortunately, we can see a ray of hope shining, and feel a faint gust of fresh air. A social force is moving at the grassroots level, progressing quietly and steadily. Although this force is not very influential and lacks political support, it is advancing steadily. Some social groups are beginning to explore broadcasting ethics and their implementation.

 

In August, civil groups organized the Citizens' Coalition for Media Reform to demand that the media engage in dialogue with the general public, and to get the two political camps to together set rules to be used as a reference when reviewing broadcast license applications. Some civil groups will hold public work meetings to discuss media reports and human rights issues. These groups are trying to resolve the social deadlock and build a foundation for an ethical media.

 

Of course, obstacles remain. One could question whether civic groups will be able to overcome the green-blue divide. And one could be skeptical of how much political clout these organizations will really have. Manipulation by political parties has resulted in the membership of the soon-to-be-established National Communications Commission (NCC) being decided based on the parties' proportional representation in the legislature. This may well restrict the power of civic organizations even further.

 

But there is hope. Civic organizations can still use strategic means to break through these restrictions. First, civic groups are able to see beyond factional disputes. Once civic organizations have reached a consensus, they should jointly demand that the consensus be implemented by the media, political parties and the government.

 

Second, civic organizations can increase their strength by widening their base of social support. Furthermore, civic organizations can also demand that avenues for participation in policymaking be put in place. They could demand that the NCC answer to the public, that it be subject to investigation, that its operations be transparent and that it organize regular public hearings. Through these channels, civic organizations would get access to information, be able to fully participate in debate and submit proposals.

 

The public is the master of society. Hopefully, this fresh and positive force will continue to progress, despite the smoke-screens thrown up by politicians of all stripes. In that way they will help build better communication and lead the direction of reform.

 

Lin Lih-yun is an assistant professor in the department of journalism and communications at Fu Jen Catholic University.

 

 

`Big China' aims for wider diplomatic role

 

While Beijing may downplay its growing economic strength, its expanding trade and military might is cause for concern for other nations in the region

 

DPA , BEIJING

 

`Many diplomats in neighboring countries feel they must actively court a China that will only become more powerful in the immediate future.'

 

"Little Japan" has become a buzzword in China in recent years, as growing nationalism rekindles old rivalries with its East Asian neighbor. Emboldened by the new economic and military power of "big China," the nationalists look down on the country whose troops briefly but brutally controlled most of lowland China before the end of World War II.

 

Just how big China will get is a concern for many nations, especially its neighbors.

 

On diplomatic visits, Chinese leaders discuss their country's "peaceful rise." They play down the nation's economic strength and regularly promise to increase imports from Southeast Asian countries, trying to sell a "win-win" picture of China's rapid inroads into global trade.