No change to US policy on Taiwan, insists Wu

By Shih Hsiu-chuan

STAFF REPORTER

"Now that Bush has complimented Taiwan on its democracy, the US government should respect Taiwanese people's right to exercise sovereignty."－David Huang, DPP legislator

Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu said that US policy on cross-strait relations hasn't changed after US President George W. Bush's recent meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, which can set Taiwan's mind at ease.

Wu made the remarks while reporting on recent US-Taiwan-China relations in the Legislature's Home and Nations Committee yesterday.

Wu said that the government had been kept informed about the discussion on the Taiwan issue before and after talks between Bush and Hu.

"There are benefits for the US and China if they cooperate with each other, but it's also difficult for them to reconcile contradictory issues in such a short time," Wu said.

He added that their disagreements include trade frictions, the Taiwan issue, China's human rights situation and political reform.

"On the one hand, the US government seeks to cooperate with China against terrorism and North Korea's nuclear weapons. On the other, the US also seeks to contain the negative influences of China's military expansion," Wu said.

Wu said that the increasing threat China's military posed to the Taiwan Strait region had especially raised US concerns.

Facing a rising China and the growing cross-strait military imbalance, the US government has actively enhanced its cooperation with allies in the region, Wu said.

"In this transitional period, it is also important for the government to play a more active role in the regional cooperation to maintain peace and stability in this area," he said.

During the committee meeting, Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) Legislator David Huang asked Wu to tell the US government not to deprive the Taiwanese people of the right to enact a new constitution and change the country's name from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan," because blocking such efforts would contradict Bush's praise for the nation's democratic development.

"Now that Bush has complimented Taiwan on its democracy, the US government should respect Taiwanese people's right to exercise sovereignty," Huang said.

Taiwan has options with the UN

By Manesh SV

The discussion and debate that ensued after Taiwan's recent failed "dual strategy" bid to enter the UN did not put forth new strategies to achieve the dream of UN representation. This bid was Taiwan's 13th consecutive effort to accomplish that aim.

This failure is particularly poignant since many world leaders voiced their concern about the plight of Taiwan in their short addresses at the UN General Assembly in New York.

But their efforts had no effect upon the problem of representation. Whatever considerations may have been behind the UN General Committee's decision not to put the item on the General Assembly's 60th session agenda, it undoubtedly continues the grave injustice perpetuated upon the 23 million people of Taiwan.

The immediate cause behind the committee's decision the People's Republic of China's (PRC) fierce opposition.

Questions such as "Who owns the title to Taiwan in international law" need to be decided on merit since the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is a de facto state that has been independently carrying out all the usual government functions -- including foreign relations -- for more than half a century.

The international legal doctrine of effective occupation will surely fortify Taiwan's claim, since this doctrine is held in high esteem and given weighty consideration by international courts and tribunals.

The question can also be solved by negotiations between Taiwan and the PRC, with or without mediators. That would be in the best interest of both parties.

But before that, the UN, a globally respected organization, cannot arbitrarily be sidelined by the PRC. That would clearly run counter to international law. That is totally unbecoming of an international society based upon the rule of law.

To every impartial observer, there is a crisis in the Taiwan Strait which has the potential of erupting into a major war with catastrophic consequences, affecting not only the region but the entire world.

Such a situation surely engages the UN Security Council to fulfill its primary responsibility under Article 24(1) of the UN Charter: to maintain international peace and security.

Even non-member states have certain obligations when the council steps in to maintain the peace. The presence of a party involved in the dispute (PRC) at the Security Council cannot and shall not be valid grounds to shirk the critical responsibility entrusted in the organization by its charter.

The council shoulders the primary responsibility of maintaining global peace and security, as mandated by the UN Charter, although the word "primary" does not mean "sole," as expounded by the International Court of Justice in the celebrated "Nicaragua Case." Naturally, that means other agencies and regional mechanisms can play a legitimate role in this situation.

Unfortunately, this has not happened so far with the Taiwan issue, so the Security Council is bound to deal with this issue.

Taiwan can also bring this matter to the attention of the council under Article 35(2) of the Charter which says, "a State which is not a Member of the UN may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."

Taiwan can request that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the UN Charter, investigate the Taiwan question, the merits of the complaint and recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

The Hawaiian Kingdom filed a similar complaint against the US with the council in 2001[7] concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Taiwan, of course, has a right to be heard before the council under Article 32.

Though it's possible the complaint may be rejected by Beijing's veto, such a strategy will bring many advantages to Taiwan.

The cause of Taiwan will be highlighted and the appeal to the international community will be more powerful than its past 13 failed attempts to enter the UN through the General Assembly.

Such a maneuver would bring the Taiwan issue and the dilemma of its 23 million people to the attention of the world.

The international community needs to swear that no one state will be allowed to decide questions of right by might.

Manesh SV is a legal researcher in India.

Attack politics injures the people

By the Liberty Times editorial

`The pan-blues are deliberately misleading the public, trying to make them believe that no good can come from a democratic system, as if they were longing for the days of authoritarian rule.'

The campaign for the Dec. 3 local government elections have degenerated into a non-stop stream of rumor-mongering and unsubstantiated gossip. The competitive focus of local leadership elections should be on individual administrative abilities, moral strength and vision for local development. They should not be an ideological stand-off between top national leaders on the question of unification or independence. These elections should focus on producing wise and able candidates, not on furthering narrow party interests.

A glance at recent polls, however, shows that the Dec. 3 elections aren't likely to transcend the bitter divide between the pan-green and pan-blue camps, or between unification and independence proponents. Voter perception of candidates seems to be unrelated to their character, abilities and vision, but rather result from the public's black or white perception of a candidate and voters' own knee-jerk partisan reactions. Now, little effort is spent debating local reform, and the campaign has deteriorated into a vicious war of words.

In democratic countries, the general public holds diverse political opinions and belongs to different parties. But all are united by a belief in core democratic values and a loyalty to their country. But in Taiwan, public opinion has splintered into two camps that lack common ground, with each half having its own national identification and only occasional respect for the rules of the democratic game.

Even worse, the pan-blue camp is particularly adept at berating Taiwan's democratic system. They rail against the nation's diversity and the way negotiations and communication are handled, seeing shadowy connections between business and government everywhere, and lamenting the chaos of democracy.

The pan-blues are deliberately misleading the public, trying to make them believe that no good can come from a democratic system, as if they were longing for the days of authoritarian rule.

The election campaign has again exposed the deep divisions in Taiwanese society. In such a society, there is a lack of mutual trust, suspicion is rampant and the parties are unable to deal with disagreement through negotiation. The result is that election campaigns neglect positive, constructive platforms while instead exposing endless scandals or misconduct involving one's opponent. Such a strategy aims to elevate oneself by dragging one's opponent as far down as possible.

In such a negative contest, there is little need for candidates to offer a blueprint of their political ideas, since all they need do is go on the attack. This turns candidates, campaign workers and their political parties into little squid that are only good at squirting their ink to blacken their opponent's name.

It is also worrying that biased reporting from some media outlets has diverted the public's attention away from serious election issues. The Kaohsiung MRT scandal, which looms large over the campaign, is still being investigated -- so we still do not know the extent of the corruption involved. But the pan-blue media is jumping to conclusions, recklessly smearing the names of innocent people and accusing the government of corruption with little basis.

Such distorted reporting makes it seem as if these elections, which should be about who is fit to govern locally, is instead being spun as a follow-on from the Kaohsiung MRT scandal and a vote of confidence in the former secretary-general of the Presidential Office.

The public pays attention to corruption scandals, and if the controversy leads to government reform, then the whole saga could have a positive outcome. However, local government elections should be about the candidates' moral stature and ability to govern. They must not be bogged down in the war of words surrounding the Kaohsiung MRT scandal, at the expense of much-needed local development.

Worse, placing party interests before local needs has meant that some long-delayed reforms -- such as getting rid of the 18 percent preferential interest rate for soldiers, public servants and teachers -- have been dismissed by the pan-blue camp as political ploys. This gives the pan-blue camp a convenient excuse for blocking such reforms and avoiding real debate.

Government reform should not be about advancing the interests of certain parties. It should aim to make the system fairer and more reasonable. Both government and opposition should put aside their ideological differences and do all they can to implement reform. The ballot box is the public's way to monitor government, and it is also a catalyst for reform.

We therefore call on all political parties and candidates to live up to the public's hope for reform and put a quick end to the war of words and smear tactics.

They should let the judiciary handle corruption scandals, and busy themselves with presenting concrete platforms, offering blueprints for development, holding public debates and giving the public a chance to make an informed choice.

In short, the parties must cease their endless stream of attacks and allegations, and return to a rational debate about policy. They should find ways to benefit the Taiwanese people, rather than dragging everyone down into the mud.