US resolution would reaffirm commitment to TRA
　

HISTORIC JUNCTURE: The introduction of the resolution to defend Taiwan’s liberty coincided with the death of one of Taiwan’s champions in the US, Harvey Feldman

By William Lowther AND Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTERS IN WASHINGTON AND TAIPEI
Thursday, Feb 26, 2009, Page 1

In a move reflecting enormous goodwill, 17 members of US Congress have introduced a resolution offering uncompromising support for the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to mark the upcoming 30th anniversary of its enactment.

The resolution reaffirms “unwavering commitment” to the TRA and “supports the strong and deepening relationship between the US and Taiwan.”

It was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and insiders said it was “almost certain” to pass well before the April 10 anniversary.

“By introducing this resolution at this historic juncture, members of Congress have voiced their firm commitment and strong support for Taiwan,” a spokesman for the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington (TECRO) said.

“This is of profound significance to US-ROC [Republic of China] relations,” he said.

The resolution was sponsored by representatives Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, the co-chairs of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus.

The cosponsors included Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican and ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, nine Democrats and five other Republicans.

Congressional analysts said the resolution was important in that it would act as a reminder to Congress of its significant commitments to Taiwan, while reaffirming them at the same time.

The resolution also leads the way in inviting the administration of US President Barack Obama to offer similar support.

The TRA was passed in 1979 and affirmed that the US decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China was based on the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be determined by peaceful means.

The new resolution specifically draws attention to how the TRA commits the US to providing “defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.”

It also recalls that the TRA makes it the policy of the US to maintain Taiwan’s capacity to resist force or other forms of coercion that would “jeopardize the security or the social or economic system of the people of Taiwan.”

DEATH OF FELDMAN

In related news, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) yesterday lamented the sudden passing of Harvey Feldman, a US career diplomat who was one of the original drafters of the TRA and the key man behind the Six Assurances, two landmark documents that defined Taiwan-US relations after the two countries broke ties in 1979.

Feldman was 78 when he died of an aortic dissection at Washington Hospital Center.

Senior TECRO officials are expected to pay condolences to Feldman’s family at a memorial service today.

Describing Feldman as a “longtime supporter and dear friend to Taiwan,” Harry Tseng (曾厚仁), director-general of the ministry’s Department of North American Affairs, said his passing was a shock to those who knew him well.

“Just last week he attended a forum in Washington. He has also accepted invitations to speak at forums held by various think tanks on the topic of the 30th anniversary of the ratification of TRA,” he said.

Feldman served as a Distinguished Fellow in China Policy at The Heritage Foundation prior to his death and was a frequent speaker at various forums on Taiwan and cross-strait issues.

In recent years, he traveled to Taiwan to observe various elections, including the presidential and legislative races last year.

Having served in the US Foreign Service for more than three decades and on four continents, Feldman is fondly remembered in Taiwan as the man who helped stabilize relations across the Taiwan Strait and US-Taiwan ties after Washington recognized Beijing in 1979, Tseng said.

Tseng said that Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊) and his deputies would send a letter of condolence to Feldman’s family.

Dalai Lama repeats desire to travel to Taiwan in interview

AFP, TAIPEI
Thursday, Feb 26, 2009, Page 3

Exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama has reiterated his wish to visit Taiwan in an interview with a Taiwanese cable news channel broadcast yesterday.

“I am very eager since my first and second visit,” he said in an interview in India with FTV, referring to his first trip to Taiwan in March 1997 and again in 2001.

The Dalai Lama had voiced his desire to visit Taiwan in an interview last year with a local newspaper in Dharamshala, the town in northern India where his exiled government has been based since a failed uprising in 1959.

But President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said the timing was not right. Ma’s response drew an outcry in Taiwan.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has accused Ma of kowtowing to Beijing, while some members of his Chinese Nationalist Pary (KMT) have also urged him to reconsider the issue.

When asked about Ma’s remarks, the Dalai Lama replied: “I am eager but [the visa] is not finalized ... I do not want to create unnecessary inconvenience.”

He said he thought the Chinese government was “very sensitive” about any potential visit by him to Taiwan.

In the interview, the 73-year-old also shrugged off concerns about his health after he underwent surgery to remove gallstones last year, saying that his doctors told him he had the health of someone 10 years younger.

The Dalai Lama is reviled by the Chinese government, which has branded him a “monster” and has accused him of trying to split the nation.

In December last year, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative caucus boycotted a motion proposed by the DPP caucus welcoming a visit by the Dalai Lama.

The motion failed to pass the legislative session after the KMT asked that it be referred to cross-party negotiation, meaning the proposal could be held up for at least one month.

Chen’s lawyers rebut witness testimonies
　

DURESS: The former president’s lawyers say there are missing sections in the taped testimonies and that witnesses had made their comments under fear of incarceration
　

By Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Feb 26, 2009, Page 3

Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) lawyers yesterday rebutted Chen’s testimony as well as the testimonies of all 17 witnesses during the second day of a three-day hearing on money laundering and corruption charges.

Chen’s lawyers, Cheng Wen-lung (鄭文龍) and Shih Yi-ling (石宜琳), began their defense by questioning the accuracy of witness testimonies gathered since the beginning of the investigation.

In addition to refuting witness testimonies, Cheng also rejected the foreign bank statements used as evidence to prove alleged money laundering by the former first family.

“These testimonies are unreliable because of missing sections on the recordings, and they were made under duress by witnesses who feared the threat of detention. In addition, the confessions are based on ‘rumors’ with no substantiating evidence so they should not be admissible as evidence,” Cheng said. “As for the bank statements, to qualify and be admissible as evidence, they should be in Chinese, not English.”

The hearing began at 9:30am.

Cheng and Shih spent the entire morning’s procedures going through witness testimonies word by word.

By noon, the lawyers had only finished 63 pages. In addition to announcing a recess, Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) announced an additional hearing on March 4.

When the afternoon session resumed at 2:30pm, Chen rebutted his own testimony.

“My own testimony cannot be used against me because it is not a confession and I did not admit to any crimes,” he said.

The former president is charged with pocketing NT$1.5 billion (US$44 million), including a bribe of US$9 million in a land deal and money from his presidential “state affairs fund.” He is also charged with money laundering, forgery and influence peddling.

Chen has repeatedly denied all charges, alleging the whole process is political persecution.

The hearing was continuing atpress time.

Meanwhile, prosecutors said yesterday they were investigating former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) over allegations that he had accepted funds from China.

“We are looking into the allegations against President Lee,” said prosecutor Chu Chao-liang (朱朝亮), declining to disclose the amount of money allegedly involved or the source of the allegation.

On Tuesday, Chen said that Lee and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) “received NT$200 million to NT$300 million from the Chinese Communist Party” despite the TSU’s pro-independence policies.

Lee has yet to comment on this, while the TSU has dismissed the allegations.

Taiwan may be left out in the cold
　

By Tung Chen-yuan 童振源
Thursday, Feb 26, 2009, Page 8

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN the government and the opposition over the signing of a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement (CECA) with China may soon reach a point when it is necessary to lay all cards on the table. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has not offered a complete policy evaluation and plan for the CECA since proposing it during the presidential campaign. The lack of a consensus between the government and the opposition has allowed some government officials to explain the concept as they see fit, which has both clouded the debate and increased its emotional intensity.

A CECA, a free-trade agreement (FTA), or a closer economic partnership arrangement (CEPA) such as the one between Hong Kong and China are all economic integration agreements within the WTO framework. ASEAN has already signed a CECA with China and South Korea that includes far-reaching bilateral economic integration. Within that CECA framework, ASEAN and China have signed agreements on an FTA, service and trade liberalization, a conflict resolution mechanism and opening up areas for investment. Although it has been seen as a “one country, two systems” framework, China registered the CEPA with the WTO on Dec. 27, 2003, in accordance with Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article 5 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services.

Quantitative analysis of many computable general equilibrium (CGE) models shows that if Taiwan is not allowed into the ASEAN Plus One (China) free-trade area, this would have a negative impact of less than 0.2 percent on Taiwan’s GDP. Not being allowed into the ASEAN Plus Three — Japan, South Korea and China — free-trade area would have a greater impact, but it would still be less than 2 percent. And even if Taiwan were not allowed into the proposed ASEAN Plus Six free-trade area — adding Australia, New Zealand and India to the above three — a grouping that is still in the discussion stage, the negative impact on GDP would only be 2.23 percent.

Relying on these figures when trying to prove that Taiwan already has been marginalized would probably be pushing the issue a bit too far.

However, the greatest impact on Taiwan from East Asian economic integration would not be on international trade, but rather international investment.

Much of Taiwan’s foreign trade is a result of investment in other countries, which means that changes in foreign investment will affect foreign trade and create a compound effect.

In theory, economic integration agreements will give companies advantages in the economically integrated region such as effects of scale, growth opportunities and resource consolidation. It will also encourage local and foreign firms to boost investments in the area of economic integration. At the same time, discriminatory treatment and competitive pressures in the economically integrated region could lead to local and foreign businesses reducing investments in countries outside that region.

A survey I conducted of 1,019 Taiwanese and foreign businesses shows that if Taiwan were kept out of the East Asian economic integration process, 26 percent to 35 percent of Taiwanese and foreign businesses would reduce their investments in Taiwan. If Taiwan were allowed to join, 23 percent to 37 percent would increase their investments in Taiwan. If a cross-strait economic integration agreement were signed, 29 percent to 42 percent would increase their investments. These are stunning figures. This is also why the petroleum industry constantly warns that if Taiwan fails to accept East Asian economic integration, it will move its investments elsewhere.

Although a cross-strait economic integration agreement would be beneficial to Taiwan’s overall economy, there are other things to consider, such as the cost of economic structural adjustments, political implications and overall economic integration strategies.

When the government said it would not accept a CEPA, its decision was based on political considerations. Even if the government hopes to avoid denigrating Taiwan’s sovereignty by signing a CECA, this does not mean that Beijing won’t try to belittle Taiwan within the CECA framework. After all, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) said late last year that China would only sign such an agreement with Taiwan based on the “one China” principle. This is why the Ma administration must not ignore the opposition’s concerns that an agreement would denigrate Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Finally, Taiwan is having problems joining East Asian economic integration, not a problem with the two sides of the Taiwan Strait being unable to sign an economic integration agreement. A cross-strait CECA would not mean that China would agree to Taiwan signing economic integration agreements with the US, Japan or ASEAN.

Even if a cross-strait CECA meant that China would be less averse to Taiwan signing economic integration agreements with other countries, Ma cannot rely on Beijing’s goodwill and must come up with a more substantive and complete comprehensive economic integration strategy. If it doesn’t, Beijing will gain control of any bargaining chips that Taiwan might be able to play in CECA negotiations, as well as over the progress of Taiwan’s participation in East Asian economic integration.

Tung Chen-yuan is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi University.

　

A letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton
　

By Cheng Chung-mo 城仲模
Thursday, Feb 26, 2009, Page 8

On Feb. 5, I attended the oral arguments in the case of Roger C. S. Lin v. United States of America, in the US Court of Appeals, Washington. Later that afternoon I held a press conference at the National Press Club, where I declared “Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese people” and “Taiwanese people need truth and honesty.”

The present court action is an indication that the Taiwanese are anxious to obtain liberty, democracy, human rights and rule-by-law, and to take charge of their own affairs. Here in 2009, 64 years after the end of fighting in World War II, the Taiwanese have finally been able to bring their grievances to the US Court of Appeals, and to allow the American people and the world community to understand the inequalities they have suffered, including the status of being “stateless” (as specified in the ruling of the District Court on March 18 last year).

Japan was defeated in 1945, and the US allowed the troops from the Republic of China (ROC) — which later deteriorated into a government-in-exile — to undertake the military occupation of Taiwan. The newest research on Taiwan’s legal status has found that today Taiwan is still under the jurisdiction of the US Military Government, and hence that the US still has administrative control over Taiwan. The Taiwanese must recognize these facts and then step forward and speak up.

It is my belief that all Taiwanese are willing to accept the following premises:

One, Taiwan’s sovereignty should belong to the Taiwanese body politic.

Two, after World War II, the document that determined the disposition of Taiwan was the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of 1952.

Three, the SFPT contains the complete specifications for the disposition of Taiwan.

Four, all military attacks against Taiwan in the World War II period were conducted by US military forces, hence the US is the “conqueror,” and in the specifications of the treaty “the principal occupying power.”

Five, according to the directions of General Douglas MacArthur’s General Order No. 1 of Sept. 2, 1945, the military troops of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) came to Taiwan to undertake the military occupation as agent for the US, and later went into exile on Taiwan in December 1949.

Six, the ROC was exterminated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 and lost its legal status of representing the Chinese people. Moreover, the PRC did not participate in the Pacific War against Japan, and was ineligible to sign the SFPT.

Seven, according to the provisions of the ROC Constitution, Taiwan is not included in the national territory of the ROC.

Eight, the Taiwanese should fully support the US’ “one China” policy, three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.

Nine, with consideration of all relevant US court decisions and other relevant precedents in dealing with conquered territory, it can be completely ascertained that the jurisdiction of the US Military Government over Taiwan has not yet ended.

Ten, the Taiwanese hope that the current lawsuit can rescue them from their status as stateless orphans.

With your graceful manner, open heart, careful thought and lengthy experience in legal matters, I believe that you have the skill to weigh all necessary considerations, and to arrive at a solution to the Taiwan question that will bring a lasting peace to the western Pacific. In this way, the 21st century will certainly mark a new era in fulfilling the aspirations of the Taiwanese people, and see the US again take leadership in promoting human rights and liberty. This indeed will be a wonderful legacy for your term of office as US secretary of state.

Cheng Chung-mo is a former Supreme Court justice and minister of justice.