Organizers said on about 250,000 people, with many clad in black, took part in the march -- much higher than analysts' estimate of between 50,000 to 100,000. But police said they counted only 40,000 people when the march began in Hong Kong's Victoria Park.

The protesters, urged to dress in black for the event, chanted slogans as they left the park, brandishing banners denouncing an unpopular government bill to change the city's electoral system.

At the head of the procession marchers carried a huge black banner emblazoned with the protest's birdcage emblem, a symbol of the political constraints activists feel the city endures.

Tsang's proposals would double the size of the 800-strong committee of Beijing-backed elites that chooses the city's chief executive, and would also enlarge the 60-seat legislature.

But democrats say the proposals do not go far enough, and would amount to a step backward for the full democracy spelled out under the Hong Kong constitution, known as the Basic Law.

The provision gives no timeline for when it might be achieved. Democrats in the parliament, known as the Legislative Council, say they will veto the legislation unless Tsang offers a timetable for democratic reform.

"This is make-or-break time," said the pro-democracy movement's veteran leader Martin Lee. "The more people that come on the march, the more the government will have to do something about this."

"The governments [of Hong Kong and China] in the past week have done everything they can to keep the numbers down," Lee said.

A massive turnout could weaken Tsang's political base and rattle Communist Party leaders in China, who fear reform here might weaken the city's economy and spark calls from change on the mainland.

More than half a million people flooded the streets of Hong Kong in July 2003, forcing the withdrawal of an unpopular anti-subversion law proposal and contributing to the resignation of former leader Tung Chee-hwa this past March.

Among the marchers yesterday was political heavyweight Anson Chan, the former deputy leader who even in retirement remains hugely popular.

"I feel there's a need to fight for democracy," Chan said, sharing her political thoughts with reporters for the first time.

"Everyone has a right to protest," she added, denying her decision to go public was a precursor to launching a new career in politics.

Before yesterday's march kicked off, local Catholic leader Bishop Joseph Zen led a prayer service during which he called on Hong Kong to heed the call for democracy.

US policy shift a chance for Taiwan

By Lai I-chung

US foreign policy in Asia is changing. This has to do with China's rise, Japan's normalization, the change in South Korea's strategic direction, India's rise and the inability of the US to maintain a unilateral policy. The US' overall Asia-Pacific policy has changed from "containment" or "engagement" with China toward an adaptive policy focused on adjusting its role in the region. The extent of this shift can be compared to the adjustments to the US' Cold War strategy contained in the Nixon Doctrine in 1969.

First, the US' China policy has already strayed from the past bipolar "containment/engagement" approach. The speech given by the US deputy secretary of state at an Asia Society meeting in late September shows that the US hopes China will become a stakeholder in regional security and prosperity, sharing common interests with the US.

The US now realizes that China is already quite strong and that the two countries are interdependent. Containment that is primarily focused on preventing China's rise and exchanges aimed at changing China are therefore not feasible. This is also why the US is trying to persuade Beijing that certain developments are compatible with the two countries' joint interests, and that it has no specific intention of "peacefully transforming" China.

At the same time, the US also wants to realign its cooperative relationships in Asia to hedge against a possible future war between the US and China, and to reassert its dominance in Asia.

That's why US President George W. Bush praises democracy in his speeches and encourages China to move toward democracy, while at the same time the US strengthens its security cooperation with its major Asian allies and countries on China's periphery.

In the second half of this year, the US actively strengthened its ties with India, Vietnam and Mongolia. The US president met with the leaders of these three countries and made substantive suggestions in the areas of trade and security cooperation. In October and last month, the US held meetings with Japan and Australia, thereby transforming its bilateral defense alliances with these two nations into a regional mechanism for strategic cooperation. In addition, to improve its relations with Southeast Asia and its image in that region, Washington in late October sent Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes to visit Indonesia and Malaysia.

Commentators have called the US change in its China policy an adaptation, suggesting that it is currently changing its position in response to China's rise. But according to Bush's comments during his Asian tour, the reasons the US is adapting are not due to China alone, but also include other areas in the Asia-Pacific region.

This explains why Bush during his visit to South Korea agreed to deal with the issue of negotiations with North Korea, despite the fact that the US knows that as soon as they agree to talks, the US-South Korean alliance could fall apart.

The US' apparent abandonment of the alliance between it and South Korea is directly related to the ongoing changes in Seoul's strategic direction. Maybe the South Korean president to be elected in 2007 will return to a pro-US line, but the change in the South's strategy seems to depend on generational factors that will not be deeply affected by a change in ruling party.

The adjustment to Soviet strategy announced in the Nixon Doctrine meant that the US and the Soviet Union handled the Cold War by recognizing the extent of their mutual power and its restrictions, which led to the 1970s detente. Later, disagreements over such issues as Portugal's colonies, the Iranian revolution, the Soviet Union's deployment of its mid-range missiles and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan spelled the end of that detente.

A precondition for the success of the current strategic adaptation by the US and China is that China accepts the sphere of influence claimed by the US and that the two countries reach consensus on joint management of disputed areas.

From this point of view, unless Beijing mounts a forceful challenge to US power in relation to cross-strait relations, there will be no such thing as joint US-Chinese management of Taiwan. If, however, there is a political split inside Taiwan along pro-Chinese, pro-US or other lines, the requirements of US and Chinese strategic adaptation will make joint management all but unavoidable.

If Taiwan can take advantage of the diplomatic autonomy that follows in the wake of democratization and if there is a fundamental consensus on a definition of national interest, a situation may appear where the US and China must adjust their positions as a result of Taiwan's democracy.

In other words, Taiwan would not have to worry about being managed, and would be able to force other states to adapt in response to its actions. From this perspective, the change in the US' Asia-Pacific policy has offered Taiwan a new strategic platform.

Lai I-chung is the director of foreign policy studies at Taiwan Thinktank.

DPP spurned for betraying values

By the Liberty Times editorial

The local government elections are over. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won 14 constituencies to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) six. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-tsang is resigning to accept responsibility. The DPP's drubbing is the result of problems with mobilization, nominations and campaign strategies, as well as the public's loss of faith in the DPP government. It should be a wake-up call for the DPP.

The seeds of this defeat were planted long ago, when the party, still in opposition, promised reform, localization and a clean government -- promises it did not deliver after gaining power in 2000. Now that the promises are fading, so is public support for the party.

Before the elections, many DPP supporters said the party had deviated from its founding ideals after it gained power. They add that slogans calling for "reform" and "localization" are only dusted off during elections, while its "active deregulation" policy has seriously damaged Taiwan's economy and prompted a rise in pro-China sentiment. These supporters have now taught the DPP a lesson by not campaigning for candidates, and even abstaining from voting. The party's political future is clearly at risk.

It is true that the DPP's reform effort has suffered from its minority position in the legislature. However, issues that do not need to go through the legislature -- such as the 18 percent preferential interest rate -- were only rushed onto the agenda just prior to the elections, which raises questions about resolve. And for all the talk of reform, the government has focused on deregulating investment in China, pushing a position similar to that held by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP).

The policy has strengthened the opposition's position among undecided voters by making the KMT's and the PFP's idea that Taiwan's hopes lie in China's booming economy appear both natural and unavoidable.

Under the DPP, localization is politically incorrect while active deregulation is politically correct. Top leaders have questioned calls to change Taiwan's national title and write a new constitution, while confirming the active deregulation policy.

The message is that the DPP government is implementing the political and economic policies of the KMT and PFP.

Active deregulation and other policies have meant continued high unemployment and other social problems. Officials concentrate on serving Taiwanese businesspeople in China, reducing local residents to second-rate citizens. What should the public think when the DPP, which used to claim to protect the disadvantaged, now helps create unemployment? It has also opened itself up for criticism from the PFP for both insufficient deregulation and creating poverty.

In recent elections, top DPP leaders have tried to mobilize traditional supporters with calls to change the nation's title and write a new constitution, recitations of "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" and giving priority to investing in Taiwan. As soon as the elections are over and the party has its votes, however, promises regarding localization and reform are forgotten and active deregulation rules the day. This is tantamount to asking voters who want the DPP to pursue localization to get on the party's China train. Apart from die-hard DPP supporters, who else do they think they are fooling?

The same thing happened during last year's legislative elections. Afterwards, party leaders changed their tune. They told supporters that "It simply can't be done." The premier has said that the push for a new national title and constitution will be put on the back burner, and the focus will be on reconciliation and "one China under the Constitution."

Do they think they will be able to go on cheating voters by ignoring their own promises and treating voters as if they were disposable? Are they completely unaware that voters no longer want to be held hostage by the DPP?

Before the elections, the government announced a second Economic Development Advisory Conference (EDAC). There are signs, however, that the second EDAC will simply be a show to confirm the active deregulation policy. If this is true, the DPP's future looks even darker.

We implore the government to stop its slide toward China, lest its performance in future elections become even worse.

In the past, the government's focus on active deregulation and effective management resulted in unmanaged deregulation. It claimed to prioritize investment in Taiwan, but did not ask how to resuscitate local industry. And although top leaders said they would prefer to halt deregulation in the absence of effective management, management remains ineffective and deregulation continues to expand.

These matters touch on the government's credibility and involve Taiwan's economic future, which is looking bleaker and bleaker.

However, the straw that broke the camel's back was the Kaohsiung MRT scandal, which dealt a heavy blow to the party's clean image. The combination of the DPP's inability to stay true to localization and reform, as well as corruption among some officials, alienated voters.

The loss shows that Taiwan's voters will not back a government that doesn't support localization. If the DPP cannot implement reform and localization, or offer a clean government, the praise it earned in the past will turn into scorn.

The public has cast a vote of no-confidence in the DPP government. We now must wait to see whether the party is capable of soul-searching and regaining the trust of mainstream voters who hope for a progressive DPP that can help develop Taiwan.