Listen to the voice

DOH eases regulations on melamine
　

MELAMINE MESS: A two-year old girl from Taichung County, who had been living in China, was found to have calcification in a kidney after having consumed contaminated milk powder
　

By Shelley Huang And Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Sep 25, 2008, Page 1

　

The Department of Health (DOH) said last night that the highest permissible concentration of melamine in raw materials and processed foods is to be 2.5 parts per million (ppm), rather than zero ppm as it had announced on Tuesday.

Because of this easing of standards malt extract and creamer manufactured by Union Chemical Industrial Co, Ltd and creamer manufactured by Festsun Enterprise Co Ltd, originally declared unsafe by the DOH on Tuesday, are now considered fit for consumption because their concentration is lower than 2.5ppm.

The new standard was the result of a meeting between the DOH, Bureau of Food and Drug Analysis and Food Industry Research and Development Institute. The use of 2.5ppm as a standard mirrors that used in Hong Kong.

However, for products meant to for consumption by infants, such as baby formula, the standard is set at 1ppm.

At an earlier press conference, the DOH contradicted itself about whether vegetable-based protein products would be among the products pulled from shelves until they could be tested for melamine.

Following an emergency meeting headed by Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), the health department announced on Tuesday night that all foodstuffs containing Chinese-made dairy or vegetable-based proteins should be pulled from store shelves within 24 hours for batch-by-batch examination.

However, Deputy Health Minister Sung Yen-jen (宋晏仁) told a 5:30pm press conference yesterday that Chinese-made instant coffee, milk tea and creamer in liquid and powder form were to be removed unless their manufacturers or importers had obtained certificates proving the products were safe.

His announcement, however, made no mention of “plant proteins,” only “creamer.”

When reporters asked about the change, Sung simply read the official press release again.

When reporters pressed for details of which products were to be pulled, Sung would only say, “The companies are all very clear on this.”

He then left the press conference without providing any further comment.

Sung was later “persuaded” to come back and hold a second press conference late last night. However, this was done without giving notice to reporters who had already left the premises.

During the second press conference, Sung told remaining reporters to ignore the previous standards he mentioned in the first press conference yesterday.

“The press release then was incorrect,” he said.

Meanwhile, Dr Liu Feng-ching (劉芳青) at Jenai Hospital in Dali Township (大里), Taichung County, said yesterday that a two-year-old baby girl whose family has been living in China has been given melamine-contaminated milk powder for more than a year.

The toddler’s father took her to the hospital on Monday for a checkup and doctors found she had calcification in her left kidney and blood in her urine, Liu said.

Liu said that the father told her that the baby had not consumed Sanlu brand baby formula, but another brand that had been listed by China as one of 21 brands found to have been contaminated with melamine.

Local health authorities reported the case to the DOH yesterday.

Meanwhile, Hung Jui-bin (洪瑞彬), director-general of the Council for Economic Planning and Development’s Economic Research Department, said yesterday that the melamine-contamination scandal has had a limited impact on local businesses.

Chinese milk power imports account for about 10 percent to 15 percent of total imports.

Banning Chinese-made milk powder and plant proteins increases the cost for producers seeking alternative sources, but that should not push up prices for consumers given the downward trend in commodity prices over the past two months, Hung told reporters after a meeting of the Cabinet task force on commodity price stabilization.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs briefed the task force yesterday on the domestic impact of the suspension of imports of milk powder, dairy products and plant protein products such as corn protein, soy protein and non-dairy creamer rom China.

The government banned such imports on Sunday.

Statistics show 4,869 tonnes of milk power was imported from China last year, accounting for 10.11 percent of total imports, and 8,622 tonnes of plant proteins were imported, accounting for 16 percent of total imports.

Chinese milk powder was cheaper than milk powder imported from Australia and New Zealand by NT$6 to NT$10 per kilogram on average.

Chinese plant proteins were cheaper than those from Indonesia and the US by an average of NT$5 to NT$9, the ministry said, based on prices recorded in June.

Listen to the voice

The Hong Kong model is not for us

Thursday, Sep 25, 2008, Page 8

Following the revelation that some Taiwanese food manufacturers have unwittingly been using contaminated raw materials from China, the public should question the wisdom of signing a Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) with China. There should be no doubt after the past year’s chain of scandals that toxic products are a chronic problem in China. The public wants guarantees that what Chinese-language media have labeled “black-hearted” foods will not enter the country.

The CEPA would be a free-trade pact to enhance trade exchanges with China. Earlier this month, Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) cited the CEPA between China and Hong Kong as a model that could be used as a starting point in negotiations. The goal, Chiang said, would be to promote and protect Taiwanese businesses in China.

Hong Kong signed a CEPA with China in June 2003, the goal of which was to boost trade and introduce measures such as allowing Hong Kong companies to sell products tariff-free in China. On Jan. 1 the following year, Macau signed a CEPA with China to receive similar trade benefits.

What Chiang failed to mention, however, is that the pact is modeled not as an agreement between two countries, but as a deal between a country and its territories.

Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Jiang Zengwei (姜增偉) recently suggested that Taiwan and China ink a partnership based on the CEPA model “to allow Taiwanese compatriots to enjoy more preferential treatment and opportunities.”

It is hardly surprising that Beijing is eager to sign a CEPA with Taiwan. But by doing so, Taiwan would bolster China’s scheme to link Taiwan with Hong Kong and Macau as part of a Greater China economic zone, with ultimately political intentions.

Signing a CEPA with Beijing is, in other words, no light matter. It is not simply an issue of helping Taiwanese companies, because the arrangement could deal a blow to national sovereignty and bolster Beijing’s claim that Taiwan is little more than a local economic entity. Sadly, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is not interested in a public debate on the matter.

The KMT administration seems so focused on reaping the benefits of China’s growing economy that it is blind to the fact that Beijing would use the CEPA to further its political goals. For China, there’s no such thing as “non-political.”

China made its agenda perfectly clear when Vice Minister of Commerce Liao Xiaoqi (廖曉淇) said: “The CEPA is a successful implementation of ‘one country, two systems.’”

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has long proclaimed that his goal is “ultimate unification” with China. In an interview with the Mexican daily El Sol de Mexico, he clearly stated that relations between Taiwan and China were not state-to-state. Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), meanwhile, is well-known for his “cross-strait common market” proposal, something that fits all too well with Beijing’s hopes for a CEPA with Taiwan.

Regardless of all the fantasies of Chinese riches, the sobering reality is that a CEPA based on Hong Kong and Macau’s trade with China could have an impact on Taiwan that all would come to regret.

Listen to the voice

A strong EU is preferable for China
　

By Shen Dingli 沈丁立
Thursday, Sep 25, 2008, Page 8

The last rival superpower to the US, the Soviet Union, collapsed in 1991. But, apart from its military strength, the USSR was never really powerful enough to counterbalance US influence. In the late 1980s, Japan seemed capable of challenging the US’ industrial leadership, but by the 1990s, it had lost its competitive edge. China might itself wish to be a major force in a multipolar world, but it has been plagued by its lack of overall strength.

Given these realities, China sees the expanding EU as a likely counterweight to unchecked US power.

In terms of economic output, today’s EU is on a par with the US. But it has yet to build a strong defense system that can respond effectively either to regional contingencies or to global needs. What would be the strength of such a system if and when it is developed, and how would it compare with that of the US?

In assessing the US’ strength, China follows US debates on the merits of a unipolar or a multipolar world with keen interest. Some Americans favor a unipolar system, in which the US dominates. Such a Pax Americana would cost the country less to sustain, but the world would worry if the US adopted a wrong policy, as has been the case in Iraq.

The US certainly has a right to curb terrorists like those who staged the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. But the “war on terror” did not warrant the decision to attack a sovereign state and topple its government on the flawed presumption that it housed weapons of mass destruction and was linked to the 2001 attacks.

The US went to war despite strong opposition from France, Germany, Russia, China and a number of UN Security Council members. France and Germany have since sought to restore good relations with the US, but continue to disapprove of the war. The Middle East, always a region of concern for Europe, has become even less stable as a result of the war. US leadership has been one of the war’s casualties.

In China, the concept of an independent European defense — embodied in the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), as well as the EU’s Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) and various police missions — is thus generally seen as necessary and effective in a multipolar world system. China observes that on most security matters, the ESDP will, for now, mimic US security interests, because the EU and the US share fundamental values of human rights and democracy. Moreover, many EU members have simultaneously pledged their defense capabilities to NATO, which has been led by the US since its creation.

But the ESDP, once fully developed, will not necessarily follow the US’ lead unconditionally, especially if US policy continues to deviate from the norm of international law, as in Iraq. As a result of acquiring a pan-European defense capacity, the Europeans are likely to play a more independent role than at present in managing intra-European security relations and carrying out global missions.

China welcomes this expanded security role for the EU. Although it remains wary of international intervention by the EU, the substance and pattern of ESDP operations are likely to win China’s respect for several reasons. First, China’s leaders note that the ESDP gives priority to the legitimacy of its missions. So far, all ESDP missions have respected international law and governmental arrangements among disputing parties. Most of its military or police missions have been based on UN Security Council resolutions and ESDP missions outside Europe have been at the invitation of local authorities.

Of course, ESDP security missions, even those in accordance with Security Council resolutions, may not operate within the UN system — the EU prefers its own independent leadership. The ESDP does not necessarily require Security Council authorization as a condition for its missions and it retains an independent role in executing them. However, when compared with the US, the ESDP — in Chinese eyes — cares far more about international legitimacy, backed by the authority of the UN.

Second, the ESDP is concerned with good governance and institution building. The EU is keen to restore or establish human rights, stability and prosperity. Outside Europe, the ESDP acts to enhance governance rather than promote regime change and the EU has often assisted governments’ efforts to improve security conditions.

Third, the ESDP is open to international cooperation. The EU works with either non-EU states, such as NATO members like Canada, Norway and Turkey, or applicants for EU membership. The ESDP cooperates with the UN and other regional organizations, such as the African Union and ASEAN. When the EU reaches out, it tends to play a leading role in these collaborations.

There are good reasons to expect that China will continue to accept an independent European security mechanism. There is little, if any, concern about the ESDP intervening in internal Chinese affairs, such as Taiwan. Indeed, China wants a strong and independent Europe, and from that vantage point it is not too early for China to envisage a truly multipolar global system.

Shen Dingli is executive dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai and director of Fudan’s Center for American Studies.

Listen to the voice

A chapter in history we should not let fade
　

By Lu Shih-Hsiang 盧世祥
Thursday, Sep 25, 2008, Page 8

A seminar on the international rights movement and the nation’s democratic development at the Taiwan Human Rights park in Jingmei (景美), Taipei, on Saturday finally cleared up a long-standing mystery, while illustrating the noble side of human nature.

In the early 1970s, democracy pioneer Peng Ming-min (彭明敏), who was put under house arrest for expressing dissent during the Martial Law era, escaped and made his way to Sweden, where he sought political asylum.

For more than 40 years, this legendary story has been recounted in a variety of versions. Peng made an appearance at the seminar and gave a detailed account of his escape, showing the tools of his daring flight, including a wig, glasses, a backpack, falsified tickets and photographs of himself in disguise. The story of how a democracy activist fooled special agents and slipped through the hands of a malevolent autocratic regime with the assistance of friends abroad was heartening.

The selfless aid offered by kind-hearted people overseas inspires respect and admiration. US missionary Milo Thornberry was expelled from the country by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and accused of terrorism because he helped Peng escape. Denied a passport by the US government for 19 years after that, Thornberry was only issued a passport after intervention by former US Democratic senator Sam Nunn.

Likewise, Takayuki Munakata of Japan — a member of the World United Formosans for Independence central standing committee — did not hesitate to help Peng, which he did by providing a counterfeit passport. Munakata spent nine months learning to make the embossed seal on a passport photograph.

Kenichi Abe, a close friend of Munakata’s, traveled to Taiwan to carry out the mission of freeing Peng, whom he had never met before. Abe was composed and calm in the face of danger and the rescue was successful. After Peng reached Sweden, he was aided by a group of warm-hearted Amnesty International activists and it is safe to say the story had a happy ending.

The chain of individuals from different countries who volunteered their assistance to help Peng is an inspiring example of the potential of international cooperation to help prisoners of conscience. It is the kind of occurrence that was an undeniable factor on the road from autocracy to democracy in Taiwan.

It took extraordinary courage and exceptional wisdom for these people to reach out to those in need and encourage the movement to end an unjust regime. Yet once Peng had been freed and was safe in Sweden, those who helped him did not boast or seek recognition for their efforts. Thornberry even paid a price in the US, where his pro-democracy efforts were long spurned. The benevolence and courage of these people demonstrates the admirable side of humanity. Above all, they showed they had faith in Taiwan.

To this day, the some of the goals listed in the “Declaration of Formosan Self-Salvation,” cowritten by Peng and two of his students, Hsieh Tsung-min (謝聰敏) and Wei Ting-chao (魏廷朝), have yet to be realized.

As Thornberry said, however: “One generation plants trees; the next enjoys the shade.”

Munakata, meanwhile, envisions a second transformation in Taiwan’s progress, while Abe said he wanted to see more concrete action to move forward.

Since Taiwan has yet to be recognized as independent by most of the international community, a book or movie telling Peng’s story would help tell the story of Taiwan and remind us to strive for justice and fairness.

Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times and chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence.