DPP skeptical about WHA invitation
　

CLEAR EXPLANATION DEMANDED: The pan-green camp yesterday said Ma Ying-jeou was eroding Taiwan’s sovereignty in exchange for concessions from China

By Jenny W. Hsu, Ko Shu-ling and Fan Cheng-hsiang
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, May 01, 2009, Page 1

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday questioned the manner in which Taiwan was invited to participate in this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA), urging the government to give a clear explanation of Taiwan’s status in the world health body.

On Wednesday, Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川) said he received a fax from WHO Director-­General ­Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) on Tuesday night inviting Taiwan to attend the annual assembly this month under the name “Chinese Taipei.” It would be Taiwan’s first attendance at a meeting held by a UN specialized agency since the Republic of China forfeited its UN membership in 1971.

The pan-green camp has argued that the invitation should be issued by WHO member states and not the director-general, and has accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of eroding Taiwan’s sovereignty in exchange for concessions from China.

“In all honesty, [Taiwan’s invitation to the WHA] is a step forward, but the government must not be too content, because it has always been Taiwan’s right to be part of the WHO. Therefore it is most definitely not a goodwill gesture from Beijing,” DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) said at a meeting of the legislature’s Foreign and National Defense Committee yesterday.

“China has Taiwan firmly by the throat. From now on, every move we make will be dictated by Beijing’s whims,” he said, adding that unless the issue of Taiwan’s WHA admittance was put to a vote in the assembly, Taiwan’s participation would have to be approved by Beijing on an annual basis.

The arrangement of Taiwan’s participation in the WHA does not follow any of the three options listed in the procedures of the assembly, which meant that Ma must have made deals outside the official protocol by selling out Taiwan’s sovereignty, DPP Legislator William Lai (賴清德) said, urging the Ma administration to “stop lying to the public.”

In response, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrew Hsia (夏立言) said no secret deals had been made and that the ministry expected Taiwan’s participation would continue on a yearly basis.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), a former foreign minister, also expressed doubts at the Foreign and National Defense Committee meeting, saying the government should not be too pleased with itself.

For example, he said, since the WHO uses several languages for official purposes, there was concern that the international community may misinterpret the reference to Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei” (中華台北) in the English invitation as meaning “Taipei, China” (中國台北).

A solution would be to request the WHO secretariat to issue a ­Chinese-­language invitation as well, “to clarify what our title is in Chinese,” he said.

Chiang also said the recipient’s address on the invitation letter was questionable.

“What is the recipient’s country, Taiwan or Republic of China?” he asked, adding there might be hidden conditions because the WHO had omitted the recipient’s country on the envelope.

“I would not force you to answer on this,” Chiang said to Hsia during the session. “But the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must have discussed this, and Taiwan can only accept that now in order to attend the assembly.”

Chiang said that referring to Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei” in the letter of invitation meant that “the invitation did not violate Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) insistence on its ‘one China’ principle.’”

Chiang said that as a former diplomat he sincerely congratulated the government on the breakthrough, but added that the possibility of a hidden agenda should not be ignored.

DPP Legislator Twu Shiing-jer (涂醒哲) meanwhile lashed out at Ma for attributing the invitation to the “goodwill of the mainland authorities” before mentioning support from the international community.

This was not only indicative of the government’s eagerness to curry favor with China, but also a slight to Taiwanese sovereignty and dignity, Twu said.

On Wednesday, Ma said the government’s efforts had finally yielded results, saying three key factors had led to the invitation: the efforts of the public and all political parties, the goodwill of China and strong support from the international community, including the US, Japan, the EU, Southeast Asian countries, New Zealand and Australia.

Chinese Health Ministry Spokesman Mao Qunan (毛群安) said on Wednesday that the arrangement was a sign of growing cross-strait rapprochement and an indication of China’s “goodwill.”

Twu said it was ridiculous for Ma, in his capacity as president, to praise China for making a goodwill gesture by allowing the nation to participate in the WHA when obstruction from China that Taiwan had been behind Taiwan’s inability to participate in the WHA in the past.

“Why should we thank a hooligan that used to bully us every day just because he has not bullied us as harshly as before or because we changed our name?” Twu said.

Ma, however, said yesterday that Taiwan’s participation in the WHA under the name “Chinese Taipei” would not diminish Taiwan’s status, as the outcome outweighed details such as the national title used in the assembly.

At a press conference at the Presidential Office yesterday, Ma said the name Taiwan would use, Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北), was the same as its designation at the WTO and APEC.

Zhonghua Taibei is the Chinese translation for “Chinese Taipei.”

“It is not Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北), which literally means ‘China, Taipei,’” Ma said. “More importantly, we participate with dignity, flexibility, practicality and autonomy.”

While some have criticized the annual application for WHA observer status, Ma said all partcipants in the WHA received annual invitations, whether they are considered countries, groups, WHO members or observers.

At a separate setting yesterday, DPP Caucus Whip Lee Chun-yi (李俊毅) said the latest development was not the “major breakthrough” the government claimed, because it came at the expense of Taiwan’s agreement to Beijing’s “one China” framework and acceptance of the arrangement in the memorandum of understanding signed between China and the WHO in 2005 to treat Taiwan as under China’s jurisdiction.

Mixed reaction to WHA observer status
　

WASHINGTON'S VIEWPOINT: While the 'Washington Post' and former congressman Thomas Tancredo saw it as a positive step, FAPA said it was a 'step backward' for Taiwan
　

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Friday, May 01, 2009, Page 3

The news that Taiwan will finally participate at the WHO, albeit only as an “observer,” received a mixed reaction in the US, with praise from the Obama administration and condemnation from the Washington-based Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA).

A State Department spokesman said the US “welcomed” the development and looked forward to Taiwan’s participation and the “benefits Taiwan’s public health expertise will bring to the international community.”

The Washington Post said it was important because “it means that big war between China and the US that so many people have worried about for so long is looking less and less likely.”

The Post’s foreign affairs writers were delighted at what they saw as China’s positive reaction to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policies.

Former congressman Thomas Tancredo — a longtime friend of Taiwan — was not quite so sure.

“We should all celebrate,” he said, but added: “Tragically, Taiwan continues to be treated as a global pariah by much of the world, thanks in no small part to a relentless and decades-long international campaign of intimidation by the People’s Republic of China — a campaign that essentially remains in high-gear, notwithstanding this week’s incremental progress.”

The strongest reaction came from FAPA.

FAPA president Bob Yang (楊英育) said: “Taiwan’s international status has taken another step backward. We have been working for Taiwan’s membership in the World Health Organization for more than a decade. It is the right of Taiwan as a free and democratic country to have truly meaningful participation in this important international health organization. That can only be done if Taiwan is a full and equal member.”

“Just attending the WHA [World Health Assembly] — and under the subservient moniker ‘Chinese Taipei’ — doesn’t protect the health of the people of Taiwan,” Yang said. “For that, doctors need to have unfettered access to specialist meetings and information exchange.”

Yang added that the conditions under which Ma’s government had accepted observer status were demeaning to Taiwanese and undermined the nation’s sovereignty.

He said he was concerned about any “under-the-table deals made by the Ma administration with China on the matter.”

He urged the legislature and the public to demand full transparency.

“Only then will we be able to say that Taiwanese sovereignty and interests have not been sold out,” Yang said.

Academics slam Ma's treaty claim
　

By Peng Hsien-chun and Hsieh Wen-hua
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, May 01, 2009, Page 3

A number of pro-independence figures criticized President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) after he said on Tuesday that the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Taipei, affirmed the transfer of Taiwan’s sovereignty from Japan to the Republic of China (ROC).

Former Examination Yuan president Yao Chia-wen (姚嘉文) accused Ma of distorting the contents of the treaty.

Yao, who has written extensively on the status of Taiwan, said it was “inappropriate” to call the pact the “Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty,” and that it should be referred to as the “Treaty of Taipei” in accordance with the place where it was signed, in line with international practice.

Yao said the treaty reaffirmed the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Japan renounced its claim to the territories in question (Taiwan, Penghu and the Paracel and Spratly islands), but did not name any country as the territories’ new sovereign power.

Yao said that, since at the time there was a controversy over who had the right to represent China — the ROC government in Taipei or the People’s Republic of China government in Beijing — Japan specified that it was signing the pact with the “government in Taiwan” rather than “the government of China.”

Yao said Japan later clarified that all mentions of the ROC in the treaty referred to the authorities governing those territories under ROC control — Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu — and not to the government with which Japan had previously been at war.

Japan has also said on several occasions that, since it had already renounced all claim to these territories through the Treaty of San Francisco, it no longer had any say in who should have sovereignty over them.

“That being the case, how could Japan cede the territories to the ROC in the 1952 treaty?” Yao asked.

Yao also assailed the assertion made in 2002 by Academia Historica President Lin Man-houng (林滿紅) that Japan transferred sovereignty over Taiwan to the ROC through the Treaty of Taipei, saying Ma had based his own position on Lin’s earlier statement.

Cheng Chung-mo (城仲模), President of the European Union Studies Association Taiwan, questioned what authority the ROC government, which fled from China to Taiwan in 1949, had to sign the treaty in 1952, and said that Japan abrogated the treaty in 1972.

Cheng asked why, when the Chinese have for decades relied on the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation to back up their claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, Ma should suddenly turn to the 1952 treaty.

Cheng said that former foreign affairs minister Yeh Kung-chao (葉公超), who signed the treaty on behalf of the ROC, told the legislature that the Treaty of San Francisco did not return “these islands [Taiwan and Penghu] to the [Republic of] China.”

Yao and Cheng’s criticisms were supported by Alliance of Referendum for Taiwan convener Tsai Ting-kuei (蔡丁貴) and by Roger Lin (林志昇), the plaintiff in legal proceedings against the US government asserting that Taiwan’s sovereign status is yet to be determined.

Tsai said that, according to the UN Charter, sovereignty can only be decided on through a referendum by the people residing in that territory.

DPP urges police to respect rights
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, May 01, 2009, Page 3
　

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday urged the police to respect the public’s freedom of assembly and refrain from provoking protesters at a demonstration the party will hold on May 17.

“The role of the police is to safeguard the public’s right to assemble. Most of the time, when a parade turns violent it is usually because the law enforcers have abused their authority,” DPP spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said.

Cheng said the rally would be held to allow the public to voice its growing discontent toward the government for its failure to improve the job market and protect Taiwan’s sovereignty in talks with Beijing.

“We want to let President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) know that people are angry and wary of him selling out Taiwan. We want to let him know that a common market with China is detrimental to Taiwan,” he said.

The parade will have four routes, Cheng said. Protesters will gather at 2pm in front of National Taiwan University, the Wellcome market on Zhongxiao E Road, the Wanhua Train Station and the Zhongshan Soccer Stadium. All four routes will meet up in front of the Presidential Office, he said.

Cheng said the DPP had no plan to cancel the demonstration because of the H1N1 virus. However, if swine flu breaks out in Taiwan by the time of the parade, it would be the government’s responsibility to curtail all large-scale public assemblies from taking place, he said.

WHA’s invitation is sweet poison

Friday, May 01, 2009, Page 8

One short faxed letter from WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) inviting “Chinese Taipei” to participate in this month’s World Health Assembly (WHA) brought an end to 13 years of disappointment on Tuesday when Taiwan finally achieved its goal of representation at the WHO.

The government predictably patted itself on the back, attributing the watershed to its “modus vivendi” policy of not provoking China, and sought to demonstrate that it had not compromised Taiwan’s sovereignty to gain this achievement.

But at what cost was this “breakthrough” achieved?

The very fact that Taiwan had to be invited and was not admitted in the usual manner is the first cause for concern. The invitation came after secret negotiations last month between representatives from Taipei and Beijing. And while many in Taiwan will be pleased with the result, it is imperative that the government stick to its March 13 promise that it will release information at an appropriate time about how this was achieved.

Unlike China, Taiwan is a democracy, in which transparency is essential for accountability. The public needs to know if the government is — as it says — acting in their best interests and that this was not the result of more secretive meetings between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party.

People should not be content with reassurances that this is just the latest example of Beijing’s “goodwill” if such goodwill is conditional on the Taiwanese government considering itself part of China.

While “Chinese Taipei” may be an acceptable name to the government, to the rest of the world it implies that Taiwan is under Beijing’s heel.

The so-called increase in Taiwan’s international breathing space is nothing of the sort.

By becoming a non-state observer — China will not allow any other form of membership — and not a full member of the WHO, Taiwan puts itself in the same company as the Palestinian territories and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

It is far short of the stated goal of most Taiwanese: admission to the WHO as a member state. Is this how most of them view their country, and what they envisioned when they said they wanted meaningful participation?

Another problem is that the invitation only applies to this year. Fears that the invitation will need renewing on an annual basis seem to have been confirmed. This is a worrying development as it means Beijing will now have the ability to hold Taiwanese and their health concerns to a form of ransom. How long will it be before we start seeing election slogans such as “Vote KMT, stay in the WHA?”

While many people may be happy about what they see as the fruits of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait labor, they may not be so ecstatic when they realize this government has pushed them another step toward unification.

Minimized threats and maximized confidence
　

By Richard Halloran
Friday, May 01, 2009, Page 8

Upon taking office last May, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) set two priorities in foreign policy: improve relations with China, Taiwan’s main threat, and repair the damage to Taiwan’s standing with the US, its primary foreign protector.

For the last 10 months, Ma has sought to ease tensions with China with small moves such as arranging for more passenger flights from Taipei to China and inviting more Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan. In recent days, Ma has turned to concentrate on rebuilding trust from the US, especially from US President Barack Obama and his administration.

Ma addressed an influential audience in Washington through a videoconference call last Wednesday in which he promised “surprise-free and low-key” dealings with the US and an effort to be a “responsible peacemaker” in the international arena. He said “pragmatism” would be the mark of his foreign policy.

In contrast, Ma’s predecessor, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), antagonized Chinese leaders with his relentless pursuit of independence for Taiwan. Chen antagonized US leaders, including former US president George W. Bush, who was basically pro-Taiwan, by failing to consult with Washington and by taking what Bush officials considered to be reckless positions toward China.

Even as Ma spoke, the Chinese reminded the people of Taiwan, and indeed the world, that they were continuing to acquire the military power to deter Taiwanese independence and possibly to conquer the island. The People’s Liberation Army marked the 60th anniversary of its navy with a review at sea that included warships from 14 other navies, including the US.

The US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead led the US delegation to Beijing and the port of Qingdao. The admiral, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conferred with political and military leaders as he sought to have Sino-US military exchanges revived. China broke them off in October after the US announced it would sell US$6.5 billion in arms to Taiwan.

Those exchanges are intended to dissuade Chinese leaders from miscalculating US capabilities and intentions. The US seeks to discern the reasons behind China’s military buildup, including its plans to acquire a blue-water navy as opposed to its present largely coastal navy.

The government of Taiwan has organized its current efforts to influence the US around the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which was enacted in Congress after former US president Jimmy Carter switched US diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. The TRA governs US unofficial dealings with Taiwan, including arms sales.

To reinforce the TRA, Taiwan’s representatives in the US have sponsored a dozen panel discussions across the country in which scholars, specialists and diplomats have discussed the TRA and relations between the US and Taiwan. Journalists have been invited to Taiwan to interview leaders and to witness political and economic developments.

Ma’s address last Wednesday to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the prominent think tank in Washington, was a featured event in this effort. He emphasized Taiwan’s commitment to its own defense, which had been questioned by some in the US.

“I want to reassure America that Taiwan will not free-ride on the United States for its own security,” he said. “I urge the United States not to hesitate to provide Taiwan with the necessary defensive arms as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act.”

In addition, he said Taiwan would like to get a waiver on visas so that more Taiwanese tourists could visit the US, as well as negotiate a free trade agreement that would expand commerce.

Richard Halloran is a freelance writer based in Hawaii.