Japan, China scramble to contain dumpling scare

AFP, TOKYO
Friday, Feb 01, 2008, Page 1

China and Japan scrambled to ease public alarm yesterday as hundreds of Japanese reported feeling ill after eating Chinese-made dumplings, triggering an emergency Cabinet session in Tokyo.

The Cabinet met to discuss a response as TV networks broadcast the stories of people who said they vomited, passed out and felt near death after eating the frozen meat dumplings.

China said pre-export tests had found no pesticides in the product, but still ordered the companies that made them to halt production and recall similar items from Japan.

"Relevant authorities have immediately suspended the export and production at the concerned enterprises and producers have been ordered to contact their Japanese import partners and recall all concerned dumplings," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao (劉建超) said.

South Korea's food and drug administration ordered checks on all dumplings from China, although officials said none of the brands at the center of the Japan scare appeared to have been imported to that country.

Whatever the origin, the health scare is another public relations blow for China.

Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura raised the issue during talks with China's Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei (何亞非), who was visiting to arrange a visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).

The Chinese minister "said that this was regrettable," Komura told reporters after the talks.

"This is a grave concern for China as well," Komura added. "This is about food safety, the most important interest for people ... But it will not hurt relations between Japan and China."

Public broadcaster NHK said 207 people across the country had told officials they had felt ill after eating Chinese dumplings.

A health ministry official said the government had confirmed only that 13 people fell ill, including a five-year-old girl in serious condition.

TV Asahi broadcast interviews with a family in the western town of Takasago who said they spent up to three weeks in hospital after eating the dumplings.

"They tasted bitter. I felt dizzy some 30 seconds after I had them, and I collapsed," said an 18-year-old boy who asked not to be identified.

Then, five minutes later, his 51-year-old father's body started twitching.

"With so much nausea and diarrhoea, I thought for two days that I was dying," the father said.

The 47-year-old mother said she could not walk or talk.

"My whole body was paralyzed and my eyes kept watering," she said. "I don't want to buy frozen food any more."

TAIWAN

The Bureau of Food Sanitation issued a press release yesterday assuring the public that no tainted dumplings have been imported into Taiwan. Meat and meat products from China are not approved to be imported for disease control reasons, the bureau said.

Hsieh claims Ma contacted US over green card
　

By Shih Hsiu-chuan and Mo Yan-chih
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, Feb 01, 2008, Page 3

　

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank (謝長廷) said yesterday that his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently contacted a US official to sort out whether he has a valid US green card.

Hsieh said that Ma was now seeking help from the US to vindicate the "lies" he told on the green card issue.

"I know for sure Ma reached a US official. Now Ma needs the US to do him a favor. I hope he will not make any promises unfavorable to Taiwan," Hsieh said.

For the fourth day in a row, Hsieh yesterday continued to question Ma's credibility over the green card issue.

As he promised two days ago, Hsieh disclosed the number of Ma's green card at a press conference. He said the information was provided to him by a supporter, and that Ma was granted a card numbered "A XXX30786" on Aug. 26, 1977, in New York.

Hsieh said he had omitted the first three digits of the number to protect the source.

Responding to Ma's statement that both he and his wife's green cards were automatically invalidated a long time ago when they applied for non-immigrant visas when traveling to the US, Hsieh said that was a lie.

"Ma made it up to patch over another lie he had told previously," Hsieh said.

Hsieh was referring to Ma's previous statement that none of his family members held a green card.

STILL VALID

"As far as I know, Ma and his wife's green cards are still valid. They haven't lost permanent resident status in the US. To lose that status requires a very simple formality to be performed, which they never completed," Hsieh said.

Hsieh said there was a US regulation that meant a green card would be taken away -- if a green card holder stays outside of the US for more than 365 days without having obtained a re-entry permit before leaving the country -- as Ma had said.

"But Ma has traveled to the US every year since he returned to Taiwan in 1981 to maintain the validity of his green card," Hsieh said.

Hsieh, however, did not provide any evidence to back that claim. He instead urged Ma to make public his entry and exit record.

When Ma served as former president Chiang Ching-kuo's (蔣經國) secretary in the early 1980s, Ma took official leave every year to either attend conferences or make overseas inspections, taking the opportunity to enter the US to meet the regulations, he said.

In response, Ma's camp yesterday presented copies of Ma's US visas and certificates of entry and exit as confirmation of Ma's claim that he had long ago given up his green card.

Ma spokesmen Luo Chih-chiang (羅智強) and Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) showed copies of visas from a passport issued to Ma 18 years ago to prove that the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) had issued non-immigrant visas to Ma on June 29, 1990, and also on four other other occasions before 2006.

Another copy of Ma's entry and exit certificate obtained from the National Immigration Agency showed that Ma did not leave the country between Nov. 27, 1992 and Feb. 8, 1994.

SOLID PROOF

In accordance with US immigration laws, the records, Luo said, provided solid proof that Ma's green card had been invalid for at least 18 years.

"We can confirm that at this very moment, Ma Ying-jeou's green card is invalid. That is a fact," Luo told a press conference at Ma's campaign headquarters yesterday.

Wang further cited the Code of Federal Regulations to rebut Hsieh's allegation that Ma was still a green card holder because he had failed to complete Form I-407 (Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) Status), which is required in order to surrender the card.

ABANDONED RESIDENCY

The regulations state that if an LPR remains out of the US continuously for more than one year, the Department of Homeland Security takes the view that the residency has been abandoned.

In the eyes of the court, a person may lose LPR status even if they do not renounce their residency by signing an I-407 or have a formal removal hearing to determine abandonment, the regulations state.

Faced with continuous accusations from Hsieh, Ma acknowledged on Monday that he had obtained a green card in 1977 when he was living in the US, but added that the green card was automatically invalidated around 1985 when he applied for a visa at the AIT to travel to the US.

OLD PASSPORTS

When asked why the campaign team had failed to provide copies of Ma's non-immigrant visas before 1990, Luo said the passport was the oldest one they could find, but it did not mean that Ma had not obtained a non-immigrant visa from the US before 1990.

Wang said they were attempting to find Ma's older passports as proof and were also applying to the US for the records of Ma's US visits before 1990.

"We are unable to find information earlier than 1990 right now, but we can prove that Ma's green card has been invalid since 1990," he said.

The camp also provided copies of a non-immigrant visa issued to Ma's wife Chow Mei-chin (周美青) in 1996 to prove that she had also given up her green card.

Luo urged Hsieh to provide solid proof before making further accusations against Ma.

Ma declined to respond to questions on the issue yesterday.

Shen Fa-hui (沈發惠), a Hsieh camp spokesman, called a press conference later yesterday to rebut Ma's claims.

Shen said that the DPP had documents showing that Ma went to Belgium in 1993 that counter the Ma camp's claim that he did not go abroad between 1992 and 1994.

INSINCERE

Responding to the claim that Ma never went to the US using his green card, Shen said "that showed that Ma didn't reveal the fact that he was a US green card holder when he applied for US visas. Clearly, Ma has a problem with sincerity."

Leaving the US for more than a year did not mean that a card would be revoked and the holder would lose his permanent resident status, Shen said.

The US government does not deprive a green card holder of his or her permanent resident status unless a hearing is held, where the green card holder can present proof of why he or she did not enter the country during that period, Shen said.

The growing danger in the Strait
　

By Song Yann-huei 宋燕輝
Friday, Feb 01, 2008, Page 8

THE CROSSING OF the US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk battle group through the Taiwan Strait last year, after being denied a port call in Hong Kong, drew intense attention to the region.

Although the US denied that there had been any military standoff between China and the US during the Kitty Hawk battle group's passage through the Strait, there is no doubt that military intelligence on both sides of the Strait were wholly informed as to when the aircraft carrier entered and exited, as well as whether it had undertaken any military operations.

Why then have both the Chinese and Taiwanese militaries remained silent over the US' denial? There must be political and military considerations that have been concealed.

The US has always claimed freedom of passage through the Taiwan Strait on the grounds that it is international waters. According to the International Law of the Sea, the Taiwan Strait is a non-territorial water-strait and has a passageway of at least 46 nautical miles in width at the narrowest part of the Strait, which is considered to be high seas in terms of navigation. Therefore the US' claims are not illfounded under international law. However, if China considered the whole Taiwan Strait as "internal sea," and limited or prohibited other countries' rights to pass through or fly over the Strait, then it would constitute a violation of international law.

In the coming year, there are five major possibilities out of which a conflict between China and the US may arise over the right to pass through or fly over the Taiwan Strait.

First, the US insists that its warships have the right to "innocent passage" through foreign territorial waters, including Chinese waters on the western side of the Taiwan Strait. However, Chinese law stipulates that foreign naval vessels must obtain authorization prior to passage.

Second, the US insists that military vessels or aircraft have the right to intelligence collection, aircraft landing or lift-off, and military operations while passing or flying through foreign Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZs). Hence, the US has the right to conduct activities of a military nature whilst passing through Chinese waters or Taiwan's EEZs. China denies this right, and thus a US spy plane and Chinese fighter jet collided over the South China Sea in April 2001.

Third, the US senate passed a resolution regarding the ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in December last year, in which it is stipulated that US submarines need not surface while passing through foreign territorial waters; furthermore, it defines the Taiwan Strait as one of the "straits used for international navigation," allowing "transit passage" rights, as outlined in Part III of UNCLOS.

If the US ratified UNCLOS, this could cause conflict with China due to Beijing's interpretation of the rights of vessel passage and aircraft fly-overs in the Taiwan Strait according to international law.

Fourth, China has decided to construct a new commercial aviation route along the western side of the centerline (or "Davis Line") through the Taiwan Strait, and redefine the Taipei Flight Information Region (FIR) as the ninth in China's 11 FIRs. This change would significantly influence the national security, aviation routes, and military deployment of Taiwan, Japan and the US.

The US' definition of, as well as its insistence on, right to transit or free passage for military aircraft over the Taiwan Strait could result in conflict once China enhances its air security and control over the centerline of the Strait.

Lastly, whether China's application to the International Civil Aviation Organization for the new route was successful has not yet been revealed.

If approved, why has it not been announced?

Is it because of opposition from Japan and the US?

Or is it lying in wait for crises that may arise before or after the presidential election in March?

Once Chinese military aircraft take advantage of the aviation route to regulate or disrupt air traffic, or even launch military attacks, countries such as Japan and the US will become involved.

On the whole, the Taiwan Strait is a potential point of military conflict between China and the US this year, and deserves our close attention.

Song Yann-huei is a research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica.