N Korea steps up war rhetoric ahead of Clinton's trip

AP, SEOUL
Friday, Feb 20, 2009, Page 1

North Korea stepped up its war rhetoric yesterday, saying its troops were “fully ready for an all-out confrontation” with South Korea ahead of a visit to Seoul by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

North Korea’s military accused South Korean President Lee Myung-bak of using “nonexistent nuclear and missile threats” from the North as a pretext for an invasion, amid reports North Korea is preparing to test-fire a long-range missile.

The strident statement came as Clinton was to arrive yesterday in Seoul for talks expected to focus on North Korea.

Tensions between the two Koreas have risen to the highest level in a decade since the pro-US Lee took office a year ago with a harder line toward the North than his liberal predecessors.

Analysts say North Korea has been using threats against the South — as well as missile test preparations — to draw the attention of US President Barack Obama’s administration amid a deadlock in nuclear negotiations.

Pyongyang said on Monday it “has no need to draw anyone’s attention.”

Yesterday’s statement, carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), called Lee’s administration a “group of traitors” and warned it “should never forget that the [North] Korean People’s Army is fully ready for an all-out confrontation.”

KCNA also claimed that the US and South Korea were preparing for an attack by planning joint military exercises and warned they would pay “a high price” for their moves.

The US and South Korea insist such joint exercises are purely defensive.

New study predicts Strait instability
　

NEAR FUTURE: A visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution says that China has not reciprocated the goodwill shown by President Ma Ying-jeou, instead putting more missiles in place

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Friday, Feb 20, 2009, Page 4

A commentary published by the Washington-based Brookings Institution warns US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there is the potential for instability in the Taiwan Strait “in the near future.”

Significantly, the article written by Liu Shih-chung (劉世忠), visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, comes on the eve of Clinton’s visit to Beijing.

She arrives in the Chinese capital today for talks with senior political leaders and will return to Washington on Sunday.

“From Taiwan’s perspective, given the recent temporary stabilization of cross-strait relations since the Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九] government took power, the issue of Taiwan will probably not become a contentious topic between Washington and Beijing, as it was in the past,” Liu said.

A counselor to former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) from 2000 to 2006 and vice chairman of the Research and Planning Committee at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2006 to last year, he said that Clinton’s meetings would demonstrate whether the administration of US President Barack Obama would introduce a new approach to China.

“The fact that the current cross-strait detente initiated by Taiwan’s government has not received a sufficient good-will response from Beijing — especially when it comes to Taiwan’s international space and China’s reduction of military threats to the island — suggest potential instability in the near future,” Liu said.

“The opposition party in Taiwan requests more caution and prudence from President Ma in dealing with China. The US defense community also expressed worry over a potential asymmetric game between Taipei and Beijing in favor of the latter. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said recently that Washington will continue to supply necessary and defensive-oriented arms sales to Taiwan, in line with the Taiwan Relations Act, to balance Beijing’s continuing military build-up,” he said.

Liu said there was still uncertainty on the extent to which a healthy and peaceful cross-strait relationship could be achieved in the absence of a strong US commitment to and support for Taiwan’s democracy and security.

“Therefore, in addition to constructing a multi-dimensional and cooperative partnership with Beijing and encouraging cross-strait dialogue, Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration in Washington should also make efforts to prevent cross-strait relations from becoming an asymmetric game that might jeopardize the Taiwanese people’s free and democratic choice for any future options,” he said.

The paper comes on top of a letter written to Clinton by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, asking her to re-emphasize the Obama administration’s commitment to “the importance of assuring that the aspirations of the people of Taiwan are fully considered.”

“The 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre is approaching in June. The deplorable state of human rights and religious freedom in China must, therefore, remain a priority during any discussions in Beijing,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Voice of America has reported that talks would be held later this month between the US and the Chinese military — the first since China ended all military exchanges and discussions to protest US arms sales to Taiwan last October.

US Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sedney will lead the US delegation to the talks that will focus on potential areas for expanding cooperation between the two militaries.

The US Defense Department’s annual report on China’s military, required by Congress, is due to be released on March 1 — the day after Sedney’s talks end.

“Analysts say the report will not likely please China, which, in the past, has accused the Pentagon of overstating the threat posed by its expanding military capabilities,” Voice of America reported.

In another potentially important military development, Admiral Timothy Keating, head of US Pacific Command, has offered to host face-to-face talks between Chinese and Taiwanese military officials at his headquarters in Hawaii.

He said in Hong Kong that an easing of tensions between the two sides was a US priority and noted that the risk of military discord was “not insignificant to those of us in the region.”

Coming just before Clinton’s visit to Beijing, analysts in Washington said that Keating’s offer should be seen as a “trial balloon” and that it was now up to the Chinese to take up the idea or ignore it.

Balancing reporting and privacy
　

By Hung Chen-ling 洪貞玲
Friday, Feb 20, 2009, Page 8

TV AUDIENCES WERE recently treated to the spectacle of reporters from various news media competing to report on the movements of Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤), daughter of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), as they followed her around New York, where she went to take a dentistry exam. The incident gave rise to an unusual situation in which two satellite TV stations took each other to task.

Meanwhile, the National Communications Commission (NCC) made public a set of proposed amendments to the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法), exposing disagreements among NCC members in the process. While internal strife in the former first family and the NCC may have a certain entertainment value, let us not overlook the significance of the two incidents as pointers for achieving more orderly standards in the media.

The rights of every individual to privacy and to uphold his or her good reputation are protected by the Constitution. When these rights are violated, people can take legal action to set things right. As the daughter of a political figure, Chen Hsing-yu finds it hard to live in peace. Her privacy has been invaded again and again, and her words and actions are discussed in public. Considering the storm raging over corruption charges against her father, the media were only doing their job of informing the public by reporting on her activities overseas.

Chen Hsing-yu will have to put up with such intrusions, annoying as they may be. At the same time, however, the media should try to strike a balance between freedom of reporting and the rights of individuals. When gathering news, they should know where to draw the line between what is reasonable and what is not. For example, they can hardly be faulted for filming public figures on the street, but it would be both unacceptable and illegal for them to sneak into their homes under false pretenses or disturb their privacy in the middle of the night.

Of course, the law cannot be expected to cover each and every possible infringement the media may make on people’s rights, or to set punishments for every such action. Common standards for what is and is not acceptable in newsgathering must therefore be decided through ongoing introspection on the part of the media. In TVBS and CTITV’s recent bout of criticisms of each other’s reporters, it is hard to say precisely who is right and who is wrong. Such exercises in mutual criticism are, however, to be encouraged, and we hope to see more of them. If news media can apply high standards in assessing their rivals, and then apply the same high standards to themselves, it can only be good for a democratic society.

If, on the other hand, our media fail to examine their own conduct, what can the rest of us do about it? With so many channels competing for business, Taiwan’s news media seem to be going from bad to worse. Widespread discontent with this trend is the main reason why the NCC is now proposing revisions to the Satellite Broadcasting Act. The draft proposals include imposing fines when news media make false reports after failing to check facts, and banning product placement in news and children’s programs. The NCC declared that “in reviewing policy, the second NCC committee’s purpose will, as before, be to overcome bias in the market. In doing so, it will give considerable weight to the criteria of social and cultural values.”

In plain language, the NCC’s policy will reflect trends in public opinion.

If one were to ask members of the public or news media workers whether reporting should be truthful and free of hidden commercial messages, probably everyone would say yes. Let us then ask this basic question: Why would anyone object to supervisory bodies imposing penalties on news media that fail to meet these standards? For most people, the answer would be concern about government control versus freedom of reporting. Another question: The Enforcement Rules of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法施行細則) stipulate that “the contents of news and other programs shall be objective, fair, factual, comprehensive and not of an advertising nature.”

Surely there is not to be such a high standard for reporting by terrestrial broadcasting stations but a lower one for those that broadcast via satellite?

A third question: Are supervisory bodies actually capable of ensuring truth in reporting, as they are supposed to? Should they just control the content, or should they delve into the structure? Would it be more effective to combine media self-regulation with oversight by civic groups? When these questions are taken into consideration, the idea that government control is tantamount to restriction of news reporting may be seen to be an oversimplification. Various interests and social realities need to be taken into account. Exactly what kinds of control are needed is a matter that will require further discussion and debate.

From the controversy between TVBS and CTITV over Chen Hsing-yu’s treatment in New York to the clash of opinions within the NCC over how far it should go in controlling the media, we have been presented with an opportunity to take a fresh look at the questions of freedom of reporting and the responsibilities of the media. How is freedom to gather and report on the news to be protected along with the rights of individuals featured in news reports? Should it be through strict self-regulation by the media, or through an appropriate level of supervision by government bodies and civic groups? These questions remain open to continued debate, and are not an exclusive choice of either the one thing or the other.

Hung Chen-ling is an assistant professor at the National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of Journalism.

Eliminate conflicts of interest in China talks
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Friday, Feb 20, 2009, Page 8

LAST MONTH, TAIWAN’S exports dropped by 44.1 percent compared with the same period last year. This included a 58.6 percent decrease in exports to China and Hong Kong, twice the drop in exports to the US. This is the result of being overly reliant on China economically and vindicates former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) “no haste, be patient” policy.

I wonder if President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) visit to Lee over the Lunar New Year was just for show or if he wanted advice. If he saw Lee to gain advice on how to best change his policies, Ma should start by trying to boost exports.

After the export figures were released, Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) said that “relying on China is not a bad thing,” and that “China needs Taiwan.” In the past, China did need Taiwan — its money, expertise, technology and management experience. However, as China’s economy developed, things changed. It no longer needs Taiwan. Chinese officials and academics often say Taiwan now depends on China in the same way a diabetic depends on insulin.

Is it really not a bad thing to rely on China? As an independent, sovereign nation, it is not necessarily good for Taiwan to rely on the US. However, relying on China is undoubtedly a bad thing. China is hostile toward Taiwan and hell-bent on assimilating it, which would destroy freedom and democracy here. However, if someone is willing to shamelessly beg to China, it might not be such a bad thing, because they stand to gain something from it. Chiang has a son doing business in China, so it is hard not to wonder if Chiang made his statement because of vested interests.

Relying on China on a personal or family level is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it is extremely unsuitable to use such a mindset when determining national policy. Just how many people are there in Taiwan who can open businesses in China and then take a part in the formulation of national policy?

The Ma administration has been fussing about a “conflict of interest” in alleged money-laundering by the previous first family. Yet the Ma administration allows people like Chiang to make decisions on national policy. The Ministry of Justice did not prosecute Ma and his sister Ma Yi-nan (馬以南) for a conflict of interest when she was deputy manager of China Chemical and Pharmaceutical Co and was selling drugs to Taipei City Municipal Hospital during Ma’s time as Taipei mayor. The president’s other sister is currently establishing an international school in Beijing. Shouldn’t extra precautions therefore be taken when Ma is planning national policy? Extreme caution is needed if we do not want a repeat of the scandal surrounding the former first family.

The Control Yuan should investigate whether any conflicts of interest are present when the Ma administration prepares to sign a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with China. All agreements must be reviewed by the legislature to avoid conflicts of interest.

The Ma administration has said that a CECA would be beneficial for Taiwan. Apart from the negative effects such an agreement would have on Taiwanese sovereignty, we should look at Hong Kong to get a clear example of the possible effects. Having signed a CECA with China every year since 2003, the agreement not only has failed to revive Hong Kong’s economy, but has also made it more reliant on China and has resulted in the territory losing its vitality and missing many opportunities for change. If the Ma government keeps insisting on doing what it thinks is best without consulting voters, opposition and conflict within Taiwan will become other problems that the administration must deal with.

Paul Lin is a political commentator.