Bush defends the right to eavesdrop on US citizens

NECESSARY MEASURE: The US president said that his government's secret monitoring without court approval was needed in order to save US lives

AP , WASHINGTON

Facing angry criticism and challenges to his authority in Congress, US President George W. Bush on Saturday unapologetically defended his administration's right to conduct secret post-Sept. 11 spying in the US as "critical to saving American lives."

One Democrat said Bush was acting more like a king than a democratically elected leader.

Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge some of the government's most classified activities was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House.

Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA) has monitored, without court-approved warrants, the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the US.

News of the program comes at a particularly damaging and delicate time. Already, the Bush administration is under fire for allegedly operating secret prisons in Eastern Europe and shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for harsh interrogations.

The NSA program's existence surfaced as the administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save the expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the domestic anti-terrorism law enacted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In a stinging failure to Bush, Democrats and a few Republicans who say this law gives so much latitude to law enforcement officials that it threatens US constitutional liberties succeeded Friday in stalling its renewal.

So Bush scrapped the version of his weekly radio address that he had already taped -- on the recent elections in Iraq -- and delivered a live speech from the White House's Roosevelt Room on the Patriot Act and the NSA program.

The gravity with which the White House regarded the situation was evident by the presence in the West Wing on a normally quiet Saturday of many of Bush's closest aides.

Often appearing angry in his eight-minute address, the president lashed out at the senators who blocked the Patriot Act's renewal, branding them as irresponsible.

He also made clear that he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the NSA's monitoring activities and said the public disclosure of the spy operation endangered Americans.

Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said that he has personally signed off on reauthorizations more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said. "And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."

EAS belittled by actions of ASEAN

By Chen Hurng-yu

`When the news that there would be an EAS spread throughout the region ... it resulted in some commotion and it was said that it would be a grand occasion for East Asia.'

The historically significant East Asian Summit (EAS) has finally been held in Kuala Lumpur. Sixteen heads of state attended the summit. In addition to stating the goal of forming an East Asian Community, the joint declaration issued after the summit contained another interesting item: the EAS will be directed by ASEAN, and the annual EAS summit will be held simultaneously with, and in the same location as, the ASEAN summit.

This conclusion was quite unexpected and it immediately detracts from the importance of the EAS, because it basically means that the 10 member states of "ASEAN plus three" -- China, Japan and South Korea -- has simply been expanded by the addition of India, Australia and New Zealand.

When the news that there would be an EAS spread throughout the region a year ago, it resulted in some commotion and it was said that it would be a grand occasion for East Asia. All the relevant countries said they would participate, and research institutions and academics wrote articles predicting the character and direction of the summit. All the major economic powers competed to make their stance known. China, for example, relied on the prestige bestowed upon it by its economic development to lend enthusiastic support to the summit and said that it would host the second summit.

Even Japan, which had in the past always refused to participate in this kind of regional economic organization, was persuaded to participate. The Japanese made careful preparations and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said before the summit that Japan is planning to use the EAS to establish an assistance framework for regional development. On Dec. 9, he said in an interview with Bernama, the Malasian national news agency, that the framework would be realized through research in three main areas, namely: regional opening; respecting the common values of democracy, human rights and the WTO's global regulations; and promoting practical cooperation in socio-economic affairs and non-traditional security areas. Japan will not be afraid of paying the price of abandoning the US to participate in the EAS.

Australia had originally not planned on signing the EAS' Treaty on Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), but they did not want to miss the opportunity offered by the first EAS, and were eager to participate. ASEAN then set conditions for Australian participation, saying that only by signing the TAC would Australia be allowed to participate. The Australians had no choice but to comply.

Once the major economic powers had met ASEAN's conditions and gained admittance to the EAS, they happily traveled to Kuala Lumpur, thinking that they would in future be able to throw their weight about and play the role of an East Asian leader. Nor did these economic powers forget to jockey for position in an attempt to gain a preeminent position.

Unexpectedly, the East Asian states, always planning and scheming, declared that EAS will be led by ASEAN, and that future summits will be held in ASEAN states. This was a sly gamble and ASEAN defeated the major economic powers that had been so eager to try their luck. The future direction and progress of the EAS will now be determined by ASEAN, something that surely vexes China, Japan and Australia.

The chairman's statement after the EAS stressed that the summit was an open and outward-looking organization. After the summit, some ASEAN leaders also stressed that the EAS is not an anti-US group, nor is it a racist organization, as shown by the admittance of Australia and New Zealand. If these statements were true, then there would be no reason to exclude the US or other nations such as Taiwan, North Korea, Mongolia, Pakistan, East Timor, Sri Lanka or Papua New Guinea from the outset. In other words, from the beginning, the summit has made careful deliberations when it comes to the issue of membership. The main reason for admitting India, Australia and New Zealand was to counterbalance China, South Korea and Japan.

Judging from the structure of ASEAN-related meetings, the EAS is nothing more than ASEAN plus six more states. There is a serious overlap with ASEAN plus three and to differentiate the two, Singapore Prime Minister Li Hsien Loong (李顯龍) explained that the two will be separated by issues. In other words, ASEAN plus three will discuss the development of information technology and human resources, while ASEAN plus six will discuss anti-terrorism, naval security and international crime.

This explanation is tantamount to revealing ASEAN's difficult situation as a powerful regional organization that is nevertheless restricted in terms of the issues it can discuss. ASEAN's self-centered handling of the EAS has actually landed the organization in unexpected trouble.

It could be said that these developments are belittling the EAS. If ASEAN had from the outset intended to really open up the EAS, it should have let it become a true East Asian organization, with nations from throughout the region enjoying equal membership and rotating hosting rights. That is the only way of giving the organization historic significance and value.

Chen Hurng-yu is a professor of political history at National Chengchi University.

Taiwan deserves a seat at the EAS table

By Darson Chiu and Alex Hsu

If free trade is all about playing the game of comparative advantage, then regional integration is all about playing the power game, while wearing the mask of trade liberalization.

The first East Asian Summit (EAS) was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, last week. As predicted, Taiwan -- one of the Asian Tigers -- was not invited. The EAS included ASEAN, joined by China, Japan, South Korea and other countries. The ultimate goal of the EAS is regional integration. However, the integration process is a long way from being all-inclusive. How can the summit's goal be achieved without involving key players such as Taiwan?

The idea of East Asian integration is not a new concept. It actually arose out of the increased self-awareness of East Asians some 40 years ago, when the most developed country in the region, Japan, started to interact with developing countries in the region. Japan imported raw materials and exported manufactured goods, and initiated low-end technological cooperation. Afraid of being sidelined due to its World War II aggression, interested in East Asian markets and suffering from a lack of natural resources, Japan gave East Asian self-consciousness a wake-up call by economic means.

The "interactions" between Japan and East Asian developing countries generated an interdependent relationship. Through the fundamental rules of supply and demand, existing East Asian frameworks have been serving as the foundation supporting the global value chain. When it comes to the global economic system, regional phenomena can easily trigger a chain reaction. In order to prevent events like the 1997-1998 East Asian financial crisis from happening again, countries in this region have realized the significance of economic and financial cooperation.

The concept of East Asian integration should advance economic and political stability in the region. In addition, the concept should promote the competitiveness of regional enterprises through the development of efficient production networks and financial markets.

It is true that the concept is fragile without sufficient economic incentives. In response to the trends of globalization and regionalism, East Asian integration is anticipated. According to a report from the World Bank, "ASEAN plus three [including China, Japan and South Korea]" will be able to give a boost to the real GDP growth of all contracting parties. Given the fact that strong economic ties exist between Taiwan and other East Asian countries, the benefits could be further optimized if Taiwan was included in the arrangement.

From a trade and economic standpoint, there is no reason to exclude Taiwan. However, lacking common roots, the idea of East Asian integration can only emerge if East Asians come to share a common vision of the future and are happy with their roles in such a vision. But the current reality is that East Asia is still far from fulfilling that vision.

Political conflicts can be alleviated through economic incentives. No matter what style of regional integration is currently taking place, we cannot ignore its potential benefits for contracting parties and the likely impact on non-members. In the spirit of fair trade, no one should be left out of integration initiatives, especially when these initiatives serve the function of community-building to optimize the benefits of globalization. Given that its total trade with other Asian countries amounts to more than US$203 billion, Taiwan deserves to participate.

If opportunities for participation don't exist, Taiwan should create them. By taking advantage of its location, Taiwan could serve as the hub between northeast Asian and southeast Asian business networks.

Darson Chiu and Alex Hsu are assistant research fellows at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.