Wu Shu-jen pleads guilty to forgery
　

CORRUPTION DENIED: Wu said the money she wired overseas had been family money, not public funds, and her husband was unaware of her money management
　

By Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTER, WITH AGENCIES
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009, Page 1
　

Former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) pleaded guilty to forgery yesterday and not guilty to the other charges against her.

She admitted using fake receipts to gain reimbursements from the presidential “state affairs” fund, but denied embezzling money from the fund and other charges of taking bribes in connection with a land deal and government construction project.

Wu was first indicted along with three of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) former aides on Nov. 3, 2006, for siphoning off NT$14.8 million (US$439,000) from the fund.

The prosecutors brought additional charges of corruption and money laundering against her, her husband, their son Chen Chih-chung (陳致中), his wife Huang Jui-ching (黃睿靚), three aides and seven others on Dec. 12.

Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) had scheduled the hearing to clarify witness statements and evidence and to schedule trial dates with the defendants and prosecutors in the alleged money-laundering case, which also includes charges related to the state affairs fund, a 2003 land deal in Lungtan (龍潭), Taoyuan County, and the Nangang Exhibition Center construction project.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 2:30pm. Wu and her son arrived at the court at 2:20pm.

National Taiwan University Hospital sent two doctors, two nurses and an ambulance to the Taipei District Court as a precaution. Wu’s appearance yesterday was her first at the court since proceedings against her began in December 2006. She fainted during that session and was rushed to hospital.

The judge spent approximately 20 minutes reviewing Wu’s health and making sure that she would be able to handle the planned three-hour hearing.

When asked about the Lungtan case, Wu denied corruption, but admitted receiving NT$200 million from Taiwan Cement Corp (台泥) chairman Leslie Koo (辜成允), which she called a “political donation.”

She said she had no idea why Koo would say that he had wired NT$400 million to her and call it “commission” connected to the land deal, as prosecutors said he did during a questioning session on Nov. 24 last year.

Wu asked the judges to help her locate the missing money, referring to the difference between what she admitted receiving and the amount Koo claimed to have wired.

The former first lady admitted receiving US$2.2 million from Nangang Exhibition Center contractor Kuo Chuan-ching (郭銓慶), not US$2.73 million as stated in the indictment.

She did not say whether the US$2.2 million was a bribe as prosecutors allege or a political donation as she has previously suggested.

Kuo told prosecutors that he collected US$2.73 million to bribe the former first family after winning the tender to build the Nangang Exhibition Center.

Wu told the judges that the money she wired overseas came from private family funds, not public funds, and her husband had no knowledge of how she managed the family’s money.

The hearing lasted about two hours and Tsai granted Wu’s request to postpone tomorrow’s scheduled hearing to March 3 and March 5 because her physical condition would not allow her to appear in court two days in a row.

After the hearing, Wu read a statement to reporters outside the court building.

She apologized for implicating “so many innocent people” in the case and causing turmoil.

“I will face the trial and investigation openly and will appear before the court or prosecutors whenever I am summoned, as long as my physical condition allows,” Wu said.

Several of those indicted, including Chen Chih-chung and his wife, have pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges.

Of the 14 defendants, only Chen Shui-bian is still in custody. He is next due in court for a three-day session beginning on Feb. 24.

When asked for comment, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy caucus deputy secretary-general Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) urged Wu to face the charges honestly.

Fellow caucus deputy secretary-general Yang Chiung-ying (楊瓊瓔) said Wu and other members of the former first family owed the public an apology for the money-laundering case.

Taiwan wins inclusion in UK’s visa-waiver program
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009, Page 1

“Lifting the visa requirement for stays of less than six months will help to build on that to the benefit of both British and Taiwanese people.”— David Campbell, British Trade and Cultural Office director

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday welcomed Taiwan’s inclusion in the UK’s six-month visa-waiver program and said the government was considering reciprocating the offer.

The UK is the 31st county to grant Taiwanese visa-free privilege. Other countries include some of Taiwan’s allies and a few non-allies such as South Korea, Singapore and Japan.

The British Trade and Cultural Office (BTCO) said yesterday that starting on March 3, Republic of China (ROC) passport holders who wish to visit the UK for less than six months for business or tourism purposes, family visits or as students and who won’t be working there will no longer require a visa.

“Britain enjoys strong commercial and cultural ties with Taiwan,” BTCO’s new director David Campbell said. “Lifting the visa requirement for stays of less than six months will help to build on that to the benefit of both British and Taiwanese people.”

“We believe Taiwan’s inclusion in the visa-waiver program will encourage more Taiwanese tourists to visit Britain and help promote more exchanges among the two peoples,” Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lin (林永樂) said.

The UK made the decision after it concluded that Taiwan had satisfied all the criteria required by the UK Border Agency based on a worldwide review of regime carried out in 2007 and last year.

In his farewell press conference last month, former BTCO director Michael Reilly said London’s “only real area of concern” on admitting Taiwan to the visa-waiver program was the massive migration of Chinese illegal aliens into the UK, saying such privilege could encourage the Chinese use to use ROC passports to smuggle people into the UK.

“The problem of fraudulent documentation or false documentation is a problem around the world. How we address that is to have very close links with migration authorities around the world and that certainly includes Taiwan,” Campbell said, adding that the UK enjoys close and regular contacts with Taiwanese authorities and that those ties would be further cemented in the future.

Asked if London is worried that ROC passports might become an attractive tool for smuggling rings, Campbell said: “I am aware that in recent months, Taiwan has undertaken a number of developments and it is certainly a shared interest around the world to try and combat misuse of documentation.”

“We are confident that with those expert contacts we have that risks such as that can be managed,” he said.

Bureau of Consular Affairs Chief Lo Yu-chung (羅由中) said the announcement showed that London appreciated Taiwan’s issuance of electronic passports. Lu urged other countries to follow the UK’s lead.

BTCO said Taiwanese visiting the UK under the visa-waiver program still had to satisfy authorities at their port of entry that they meet the UK’s admission requirements and must have with them supporting documents such as return flight tickets, evidence of funding, letters from sponsors or the businesses they are visiting, or the school they plan to study at.

The BTCO received more than 28,000 visa applications last year.

Australian bushfire toll likely to top 200
　

CHARITY APPEALS: More than US$20 million has been raised by the Red Cross and other groups for fire victims, while thousands of people have offered to donate blood

AGENCIES, SYDNEY
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009, Page 1
　

Australian police combed through a blackened landscape searching for clues in the hunt for possible arsonists yesterday as the death toll from the nation’s worst bushfires looked likely to top 200.

Victoria state Police Commissioner Christine Nixon launched the nation’s biggest arson investigation, vowing to catch anyone who started a blaze.

The bushfires, which swept through Victoria on Saturday night, were “suspicious” because there were no natural events such as lightning that would have sparked the blazes, police said. Authorities said anyone found guilty could face manslaughter or murder charges.

“The laws of the state provide that they can be put away and put away for life,” Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said. “My own personal view is they should be allowed to rot in jail. This is unspeakable murder on a mass scale.”

The disaster area, more than twice the size of London and encompassing more than 20 towns north of Melbourne, has been declared a crime zone by officials. Police tape flutters around charred houses where bodies have been found.

At least 181 people have been confirmed killed in the fires, but officials said the toll would rise.

“There are still a large number of people, in excess of 50 ... who the coroner believes are already deceased, but are not yet identified,” Victorian Premier John Brumby told reporters. “This is going to be a significant number, it will exceed 200 deaths.”

About 25 fires were still burning in Victoria yesterday, with a dozen towns placed on alert as strong winds flared.

Victoria has ordered a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe all aspects of the bushfires, including safety guidelines. The bushfire tragedy is the worst natural disaster in Australia in 110 years. The previous worst bushfire was the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983, which killed 75 people.

Australians have responded to the plight of wildfire victims with unprecedented generosity, charities said yesterday, pledging more than A$30 million (US$20 million) to relief appeals.

The Red Cross said its public appeal for the disaster had topped A$28 million yesterday. The Red Cross Web site struggled to cope with the numbers wanting to donate money, forcing it to post a message asking donors to be patient.

Corporate Australia contributed to the appeal, with Victorian-based gaming company Tabcorp donating A$2 million and each of the country’s four major banks chipping in A$1 million. Its appeal was set to be boosted by collections at the Australia-New Zealand one-day cricket match yesterday, while the Australian Olympic Committee donated A$800,000.

The Red Cross reported more than 20,000 people had contacted it wanting to donate blood.

Meanwhile, kangaroos, koalas and other wildlife have been “devastated” by the bushfires, wildlife experts said yesterday.

“We’re not seeing a lot of injured animals yet because the fires were so hot the animals were just killed on the spot,” Wildlife Protection Association of Australia president Pat O’Brien said.

China’s state TV blamed for Beijing high-rise blaze
　

‘BIG LOSS’: An official said staffers had defied warnings not to set off fireworks at the station’s new headquarters. CCTV did not mention the blaze in its noon newscast

AGENCIES, BEIJING
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009, Page 5

Investigators yesterday blamed China’s state TV station CCTV for a huge blaze at its new headquarters that engulfed a hotel, saying fireworks it illegally set off to celebrate the Lunar New Year caused the fire.

One firefighter died after inhaling toxic fumes while battling the fire at the Mandarin Oriental’s nearly finished flagship hotel inside the CCTV complex that began on Monday night and raged for more than five hours, officials said.

Seven people were injured, but the Mandarin Oriental said no one was in the hotel when the fire started, indicating the death toll was unlikely to climb sharply.

The 159m tall hotel was just 200m from the futuristic CCTV tower that has quickly won fame as one of Beijing’s most stunning buildings and a striking symbol of China’s new-found global power.

Both buildings were designed by renowned Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas’ Office of Metropolitan Architecture and were due to open this year.

City government officials said the exterior of the hotel had been severely damaged, while the external walls of the 234m CCTV tower were burnt but its structure was not harmed.

In a public relations disaster for CCTV, authorities said the station defied police warnings and set off powerful fireworks in the complex.

“The owner caused the fire because it violated regulations and set off fireworks at the construction site,” said Zhu Xu, a spokesman for the Beijing government.

CCTV staff recorded the fireworks show, which involved pyrotechnics far stronger than the public is allowed to use, Xinhua news agency quoted Beijing Fire Control Bureau Luo Yuan as saying.

“Owners of the property ignored policemen’s warnings that such fireworks were not allowed,” Xinhua quoted Luo as saying.

He said the people who set off the fireworks were being detained for questioning.

CCTV apologized for the fire on its official Web site.

“We feel very hurt that the fire caused a big loss of national wealth,” it said. “We apologize to the nearby people for the traffic jams and inconvenience caused by the fire.”

However, CCTV did not show footage of the fire or mention it during its noon broadcast yesterday.

“It is clear only that the cause was firing fireworks against regulations. The detailed cause is still under investigation,” an official in CCTV’s foreign affairs department of CCTV, told The Associated Press yesterday.

The person refused to give her name because she did not have permission to speak to the media.

The CCTV complex, built at a cost of 5 billion yuan (US$710 million), was among many amazing developments to rise ahead of last year’s Beijing Olympics.

Keep the ‘separatist’ issue separate

Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009, Page 8

On Thursday, the administration of US President Barack Obama set the tone for its foreign policy when it confirmed that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first trip abroad would be to East Asia.

State Department Spokesman Robert Wood said the trip, which will take Clinton to Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and finally China, would send a “tremendous signal” to the region. More important, perhaps, is where Clinton will not go on this symbolic first tour.

As with the economy, the new US administration faces a slew of seemingly impossible foreign policy tasks. In Israel, peace seems as distant as ever after the ground invasion of Gaza last month escalated tensions in the region; Iraq is tottering on fragile democratic gains; and instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan remains one of Washington’s top security concerns, complicated by the impending closure of a US base in Kyrgyzstan under apparent pressure from the Kremlin.

But Clinton’s first visits in her new role will not be to any of these countries.

Over the last year, economic concerns have pushed their way to the fore of an American psyche that had focused on security concerns since the Sept. 11 attacks. There can be no doubt that Clinton’s meetings in China, the US’ single largest creditor, will be the highlight of the tour. They will certainly be the most watched and will be pivotal to US interests at home and in the region.

By sending the secretary of state so soon to China, the Obama administration is emphasizing that ties with Beijing will continue to be among the US’ most strategic — and carefully navigated — relationships.

Speculation already abounds about what will be said in Beijing. A recent Washington Post report was cause for concern among friends of Taiwan waiting to see what stance Obama will take on cross-strait matters. The paper said that some experts foresaw a risk that China “may demand a freer hand on Taiwan and Tibet in exchange for working with the United States on reducing emissions.”

Sources at the State Department were quick to rebuff those concerns when contacted by the Taipei Times, insisting the US would not “sell Taiwan down the river.” But compromise is the stuff of diplomacy: That China would seek to further its interests in Taiwan in this manner is a scary but hardly unlikely scenario.

When the US negotiated with Beijing in 2005 to secure the release of former Chinese congresswoman Rebiya Kadeer, Washington agreed to scrap plans to criticize China’s human rights record at the UN.

China has, in the past, used human rights issues as a bargaining chip. No doubt the best known example is the promises it made to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to improve media freedom if allowed to host the 2008 Olympics.

But Beijing often regrets these deals. This was the case both with Kadeer — whose work China has since targeted with accusations of “terrorism” — and with the pledges made to the IOC.

Despite the daunting scale of environmental problems in China, Beijing might find it a more appealing bargaining chip with the US than promising political and social freedoms. And while the Chinese Communist Party does not see respecting human rights as key to staying in power, it seems aware that environmental issues will have to be faced at some point.

Let’s just hope Taiwan does not become a mere bargaining chip.

Determining Taiwan’s status

The rationale behind the case of Roger Lin (林志昇) et al v the US (“Taiwanese in US flock to sovereignty trial,” Feb. 7, page 3) has been discussed in your letters column over the past several years, always resulting in a vigorous round of rebuttals and denials from readers.

Many readers have argued that Taiwan was never invaded by the US and that Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who was a representative of the Allies. They also said the specification of a “principal occupying Power” in Article 23(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) has nothing to do with Taiwan.

The concept of “invasion” is not limited to ground troops — bombardment by airplanes and ships also qualifies.

The US’ status as the “principal occupying Power” over Taiwan is expected since all attacks against (Japanese) Taiwan during World War II were conducted by US forces.

Rights and obligations for the occupied territory fall to “the (principal) occupying Power” — the “conqueror.”

By contrast, neither The Hague nor the Geneva Conventions accord any status to the “troops that accept the surrender.”

Four facts are key: One, none of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to China at the time of the Oct. 25, 1945, Japanese surrender ceremonies.

Two, the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese people as Republic of China (ROC) nationals/citizens in January 1946, during a period of belligerent occupation, is illegal under international law.

Three, the 1952 post-war peace treaties did not award the sovereignty of Taiwan to China. As a result, native Taiwanese people are today without an internationally recognized nationality.

Four, military government is “the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.”

SFPT Article 4(b) asserts the validity of the US Military Government (USMG) directives pertaining to Article 2 and Article 3 territories — including Taiwan. Such a specification confirms that USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is active.

My lawsuit seeks declarations that native Taiwanese people have “rights under the US Constitution” resulting from the treaty specifications.

In Saturday’s story it was suggested that some Taiwanese groups feel this lawsuit conflicts with the goal of Taiwanese independence. I don’t believe this is a valid criticism.

The nation’s various “pro-independence groups” have never produced a unanimous statement on Taiwan’s current international legal status.

As a result, their efforts mainly consist of trying to enable Taiwan to become “independent” from China (the ROC or the People’s Republic of China). However, such efforts are doomed to failure. My lawsuit clarifies the facts for all the world to see — Taiwan is an overseas territory under the jurisdiction of the USMG.

As an occupied territory, Taiwan has not yet reached a “final political status” — it is “undetermined.” The logic is straightforward.

Native Taiwanese people are entitled to hold passports of the SFPT’s principal occupying Power — the US. The Taiwanese public’s desire for self-government can only be achieved by first recognizing their current situation.

ROGER LIN
Taipei

The shift in China’s Taiwan policy
　

By Yu Tsung-chi 余宗基
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009, Page 8

ON JAN. 20, China released its defense white paper for 2008, the sixth such policy report from the rising military power. Its previous five defense papers, released every even year since 1998, have given an overview of the country’s military buildup — ranging from its security situation and defense policy to the development of the People’s Liberation Army, military spending, international collaboration and arms control.

If one reads between the lines, last month’s 105-page white paper shed some light on subtle changes in the security function of interaction among the US, China and Taiwan, which deserves consideration by those who are concerned about Taiwan.

Beijing used to urge Washington to pressure Taipei and treat it as a troublemaker, but the defense paper shows that China seems to be shifting in a new direction, attempting to push out US influence to domesticate the Taiwan issue.

Beijing seems determined to win a tug-of-war between Sino-US and Taiwan-US relations. Although it may never openly admit it, one of Beijing’s ulterior motives is to gradually weaken US influence on the Taiwan issue through China’s rising economic, diplomatic and military clout.

On the one hand, China’s white paper denounced US arms sales to Taiwan, which it said had seriously hurt Sino-US relations and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

The paper also said: “Since 1996, a particular country [the US] has provided data on its arms sales to Taiwan to the [UN] Register [of Conventional Arms], which contradicts the spirit of the relevant Resolutions of the UN General Assembly as well as the objectives and principles of the Register. China was impelled to suspend its submission of data to the Register. Since the country concerned has stopped the above-mentioned act, China has resumed, since 2007, submitting data annually to the Register.”

On the other hand, referring to the cross-strait thaw, the paper said Taiwan’s attempts to seek “de jure independence” had been thwarted and the situation across the Taiwan Strait had taken a positive turn. The two sides have made progress in consultations on the common political basis of the “1992 consensus,” it said.

The paper not only played down China’s military buildup opposite Taiwan, but also declared “China will never engage in military expansion now or in the future, no matter how developed it becomes,” although it still treated Taiwanese independence as a potential threat.

These messages aim to create the impression that China’s rise is peaceful, that the two sides of the Strait have resolved their sovereignty dispute and that US arms sales to Taiwan not only violate international law but also constitute interference in China’s domestic affairs and an attempt at sabotaging cross-strait peace.

The white paper also said “China wants to develop cooperative military relations with other countries in various forms of military exchanges and cooperation in an effort to create a military security environment and enhance mutual trust.”

Although it did not say it wanted to establish a confidence-building mechanism (CBM) with Taiwan, it did accentuate that such a move would enhance security and mutual trust. That is to say, Taiwan’s security can be guaranteed through a CBM with China rather than relying on US arms sales.

This seems to echo Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) six proposals for cross-strait relations made on Dec. 31, when he said: “China will pursue a policy of peaceful development and the two sides can pick the right time to engage in exchanges on military issues and explore setting up a military and security mechanism to build mutual trust, which would help improve the situation in the Taiwan Strait and lessen military and security concerns.”

On Feb. 3, Wang Weixing (王衛星), deputy director of China’s Military Science Academy, suggested that Taiwan and China draw up a CBM roadmap to set up military hotlines, notify each other of key military exercises and hold exchanges with retired generals to eventually end hostilities across the Strait.

Good reasons exist for analyzing China’s new strategy. Direct military coercion has been replaced by an indirect three-in-one approach that draws on psychology, the media and law.

The Pentagon’s report on China last year said that as far as China was concerned, “war is not only a military struggle, but also a comprehensive contest on fronts of politics, economy, diplomacy and law.”

In other words, China’s three-pronged strategy aims to weaken morale and obfuscate the designation of the “enemy” by influencing public opinion and seeking support from domestic and international audiences for its military actions.

Beijing’s gentle tone has largely moderated the bellicose attitude of Taiwanese toward China and fueled a rise in pacific sentiment in Taiwan.

This may be because Taiwanese see China’s seemingly good intentions through the “three-links,” the concept of a diplomatic truce, panda diplomacy and social and economic exchanges. But the motives behind China’s strategic thinking elude them.

China is furthermore reportedly mapping out a multi-pronged strategy to publicizing the “China model” abroad.

Beijing will spend around 45 billion yuan (US$6.58 billion) on boosting “overseas propaganda,” improving China’s international image and combating concern that China’s rise poses a threat.

This propaganda agenda could also be seen in the white paper. China set up a military spokesman last May to make key military information public.

China has also incorporated international humanitarian law into its military and sent its navy to the Gulf of Aden to protect its ships — and Taiwan’s — from pirates.

Taiwan as a democracy is poorly organized and unready for China’s three-pronged strategy, because no international organization or court of justice, nor the US, can protect Taiwan from a psychological campaign that is protean and cannot be legally adjudicated.

Taiwan cannot defend itself through hard power alone. Its soft power, such as its democracy and freedom, will be key.

Faced with China’s overwhelming military, economic and ideological threats, Taiwan can only survive if its democratic values are secure, its citizens loyal and its soft power effective enough to achieve objectives beyond its hard power.

The revolution in information technology has empowered a democratic Taiwan relative to an authoritarian China that successfully exploits modern technology to generate international and domestic support.

China’s state media, no matter how well-funded, could hardly win a global following, let alone help Beijing develop soft power commensurate to that of democratic Taiwan.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is right to highlight freedom and democracy as the nation’s soft power.

As Ma said: “Politically we need to deepen Taiwan’s democracy and manifest Taiwan’s freedom — the two values vital to Taiwan’s existence and development.”

Yu Tsung-chi is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States.