PRC slams Japan’s envoy to Taiwan over ‘status’
　

FROM ALL SIDES: After being criticized by Taipei for saying that Taiwan’s status remains ‘unresolved,’ Saito Masaki was the object of scorn from China yesterday
　

By Ben Blanchard and Ko Shu-ling
REUTERS AND STAFF REPORTER, BEIJING
Wednesday, May 06, 2009, Page 1
　

Activists chant slogans during a protest in front of the Japan Interchange Association, Japan’s de facto embassy, in Taipei on Monday. PHOTO: PICHI CHUANG, REUTERS

China has complained to Japan about comments by a top Japanese diplomat that Taiwan’s political status was up in the air, the Chinese foreign ministry said yesterday, testing ties still scarred by World War II.

Taiwanese activists protested at the de facto Japanese embassy in Taipei on Monday, three days after top Japanese envoy Saito Masaki told a university forum that Taiwan’s status had “not been determined,” angering the Taiwanese government.

“We express our strong dissatisfaction [with the comments],” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu (馬朝旭) said in a statement on its Web site. “The Chinese government has already made solemn representations with the Japanese side.”

Japan recognizes China over Taiwan and thus cannot have an official embassy in Taiwan.

Saito said he was stating only personal views and the de facto embassy said it took no official position on Taiwan’s “legal status.”

Chinese spokesman Ma repeated Beijing’s official position that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China.

“Any scheme to try to create discussion on Taiwan’s status is a provocation of China’s core interests and cannot be accepted by the Chinese government or its people,” he said.

Ties between China and Japan are often testy because of Beijing’s insistence that Tokyo has never properly atoned for its brutal occupation of large parts of China during World War II.

Meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday restated his position that the Treaty of Taipei of 1952 affirmed the transfer of Taiwan’s sovereignty to the Republic of China (ROC).

With Saito absent, Ma told Japanese parliamentarian Mitsuhide Iwaki that his visit came at an appropriate time because his administration had just celebrated the 57th anniversary of the signing of the treaty.

Japan and the ROC signed the accord at the Taipei Guest House on April 28, 1952. The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, better known as the Treaty of Taipei, affirms the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and states that the Japanese government renounces any claim to Taiwan, Penghu, the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.

It did not, however, specify the legal successor government of the territories.

During the unveiling ceremony in Taipei last week of a sculpture depicting Japanese and ROC representatives signing the treaty, Ma said that the treaty affirmed the transfer of Taiwan’s sovereignty from Japan to the ROC.

On Friday, Saito told a meeting at National Chung Cheng University that Taiwan’s status remained “unresolved.”

Saito later apologized for his remarks after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodged a protest and demanded an explanation.

KMT lawmakers also wanted to make Saito persona non grata and have him replaced. Pro-unification groups condemned him, demanding he leave the country and that Tokyo apologize.

Ma said the 1952 pact was significant because it asserted the ROC’s claim over Taiwan, which was returned to the ROC in 1945.

Tokyo and Taipei have a sound relationship, Ma said. Although Japan and the ROC severed ties 20 years after the treaty was signed, Ma said he designated this year as “the year of advancing the special partnership between Taiwan and Japan” with the hope of furthering bilateral ties.

Among many achievements, Ma said Japan had given the green light for a Taiwanese representative office in Sapporo to offer assistance to Taiwanese visitors.

China military buildup is US-focused: Mullen

REUTERS, WASHINGTON AND BEIJING
Wednesday, May 06, 2009, Page 1

“On the one hand, it shows that China’s developing military strength has indeed attracted Australia’s concern ... On the other hand, it shows that Australia is constantly seeking to strengthen its ties with the United States.”— Meng Xiangqing, researcher at National Defense University in Beijing

China’s buildup of sea and air military power funded by a strong economy appears aimed at the US, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Monday.

Admiral Michael Mullen said China had the right to meet its security needs, but the build-up would require the US to work with its Pacific allies to respond to increasing Chinese military capabilities.

“They are developing capabilities that are very maritime focused, maritime and air focused, and in many ways, very much focused on us,” he told a conference of the Navy League, a nonprofit seamen’s support group, in Washington.

“They seem very focused on the US Navy and our bases that are in that part of the world,” he said.

China in March unveiled its official military budget of US$70.24 billion for this year, the latest in nearly two decades of double-digit rises in declared defense spending.

Mullen acknowledged that “every country in the world has got a right to develop their military as they see fit to provide for their own security.”

But he said the build-up propelled by fast economic growth required the US and allies or partners like South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand to work together to “figure out a way to work with [China]” to avoid miscalculations.

Mullen’s comments followed remarks by US President Barack Obama’s top adviser on Asia on Friday calling for high-level talks with the Chinese military to reduce mistrust.

Meanwhile, Beijing yesterday sought to rebuff Australian concerns about its military buildup, saying it was committed to peaceful development.

Canberra’s Defense White Paper said China must be more open about its military expansion or risk alarming neighbors, warning security jitters caused by a more capable China would extend far beyond Taiwan.

Australia’s plans include the purchase of 12 advanced new submarines that experts said could alarm China and accelerate an arms race in the Western Pacific.

But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu (馬朝旭) said China was only interested in peace, repeating the government’s standard line when other nations tell of their concern about the growing Chinese defense budget.

“China is going along the path of peaceful development. We pursue a defensive defense policy. China is a positive force for maintaining regional stability and world peace,” Ma said.

“China’s military modernization will not threaten any country. I think related countries ought to look at this more objectively and without prejudice,” he told a news briefing.

But a report this week in the Global Times, a popular Chinese tabloid that often takes a hawkish slant on foreign policy issues, slammed the white paper for exaggerating the “China threat.”

It quoted Meng Xiangqing (孟祥青), a researcher at the National Defense University in Beijing, where People’s Liberation Army officers receive advanced training, as saying the Australian policy document was “typical of a Western Cold War mentality.”

“On the one hand, it shows that China’s developing military strength has indeed attracted Australia’s concern,” Meng said. “On the other hand, it shows that Australia is constantly seeking to strengthen its ties with the United States.”

Transfer of sovereignty

I am glad that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally, on behalf of all Chinese, admitted implicitly that the 1943 Cairo Declaration had no legal binding effect on the status of Taiwan and Penghu (“Treaty confirmed sovereignty: Ma,” April 29, page 3.) He now has to resort to twisting and bending the words in the 1951 San Francisco Treaty and the 1952 Treaty of Taipei (or the Peace Treaty between Japan and the Republic of China (ROC) government-in-exile) to justify his denial of Taiwanese’s right to their own land.

Everyone, including the Chinese, now agrees that the Cairo Declaration is meaningless and that the only legal document that can affect the international legal status of Taiwan and Penghu is the San Francisco Treaty.

I’d like to note that those whose fate is decided by the land they live in are slaves, and that those who get to decide the fate of the land they live in are free men.

The question regarding the status of Taiwan and Penghu ultimately rests with whether Taiwanese are slaves of the land they live in or whether they are free men who own the land.

We will see how real are the claims by self-proclaimed liberal and enlightened societies that say they are committed to liberty, progress and humanity.

My question is: Does the “progressive” administration of US President Barack Obama see Taiwanese as slaves of the land, who should be transferred between parties? (“US may launch Taiwan Policy Review,” April 24, page 1.)

SING YOUNG
Taoyuan

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) reportedly claims that the 1952 Treaty of Taipei asserted “de jure transfer of Taiwan’s sovereignty to the ROC.” But that is not true.

Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei states: “It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.”

The article means that as of Sept. 8, 1951, Taiwan’s sovereignty was not Japan’s to transfer.

Therefore, the Treaty of Taipei, which was signed on April 28, 1952, could not, did not, cannot and does not transfer Taiwan’s sovereignty.

ROBERT PENNINGTON
Ilan County
　

Stuck with ‘Chinese Taipei’

The pace of using “Chinese Taipei” for Taiwan has accelerated since Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) became president.

First, Ma expressed his appreciation for Chinese permission to allow Taiwan to participate in the Beijing Olympics as “Chinese Taipei.”

Recently, somebody moved Yushan (玉山) from Taiwan to “Chinese Taipei” in the competition for the world’s seven new wonders.

Now the WHO has invited “Chinese Taipei” to the World Heath Assembly (WHA) as an observer — subject to an annual renewal.

Ma has stated that the name “Chinese Taipei” does not belittle Taiwan or damage national dignity. Is this statement true or false?

Taiwan is an island nation — not a city nation. What if city states like Singapore or the Vatican were called “Malaysian Singapore” or “Italian Vatican”? The use of “Taipei” for Taiwan marginalizes the rest of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. This is unacceptable at home.

The adjective “Chinese” indicates that Taipei is under China’s control. If “Chinese Taipei” wants to join the WHA, the WHO, the UN or any other world organizations, it will have to be first approved by China. The rest of the world cannot say anything. A name like “Chinese Taipei” makes Taiwan even worse than Hong Kong and Macau. This is unacceptable internationally.

If this trend of using “Chinese Taipei” continues, the name “Taiwan” might disappear from the Earth. The Taiwan Relations Act with the US might become the “Chinese Taipei Relations Act.” Ma would cease to be the “president of the ROC.” And when he dies, he would simply be the “ashes of a Chinese Taipei resident” instead of the “ashes of a Taiwanese” as he claimed during the presidential election.
　

CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio

China expanding power base in HK
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Wednesday, May 06, 2009, Page 8

The Constitution and Mainland Affairs Bureau (CMAB, 政制及內地事務局) of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council held a meeting on April 18 in which pan-democratic legislators demanded that Stephen Lam (林瑞麟), Hong Kong’s secretary for constitutional affairs, explain Beijing’s plan to establish a “second power base” in the territory. Lam has long been known for his loyalty to Beijing.

The second power base became a hot topic because of a report in the Hong Kong-based Chinese-language newspaper Wen Wei Po, a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The article stated that the Special Administrative Region (SAR) government had reached a 10-point agreement with the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong to allow representatives of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Hong Kong to take part in the SAR’s political affairs.

This information was announced in Beijing during the annual meeting of the CPPCC and the plenary sessions of the National People’s Congress by Li Guikang (黎桂康), deputy director of China’s Hong Kong liaison office.

During these meetings, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平), who is also a member of the CCP Politburo and in charge of Hong Kong and Macau affairs, requested that Hong Kong members of the National People’s Congress and the CPPCC draw up policies to assist the Special Administrative Region government in policy execution.

Article 22 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law states: “No department of the Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.”

Nor are there any regulations in the CPPCC Constitution allowing the CPPCC to interfere in the SAR’s political matters. As CPPCC members are hand-picked by the Chinese Communist Party, the announcement is viewed as a major policy change toward Hong Kong, with pan-democratic lawmakers suspecting Beijing is planning to establish a second power base in Hong Kong.

Why does Beijing want to establish a second power center at this time? This is closely tied to recent changes in cross-strait relations. Hong Kong residents are only concerned about the economic effects of the increased number of flights between China and Taiwan and the rise in the number of tourists to Taiwan. They overlook the fact that Hong Kong no longer has to serve as the model for “one country, two systems” for Taiwan as a result of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) fawning on Beijing.

Ma has not voiced support for China’s “one country, two systems,” but he is busily following Beijing’s orders to realize this policy. No one in Hong Kong wants to see a local version of Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in the territory, but Ma has expressed his wish that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will produce a figure like Hu.

Given these circumstances, Hong Kong has lost its political value as a model for China’s “one country, two systems” formula. Instead, Hong Kong’s independent judiciary — the power of final adjudication and freedom of speech — is causing problems for Beijing, and this has made it necessary for China to speed up the pace of “Sinicization” in Hong Kong.

The Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong’s civil servant system will remain fundamentally unchanged, but in 2002, then Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) instituted changes by enacting the Principal Officials Accountability System (高官問責制). However, Beijing feels these changes are insufficient and is therefore planning to get the National People’s Congress and the CPPCC directly involved in Hong Kong’s political matters.

Just as pan-democratic legislators were looking into this issue, they found in March an article by Cao Erbao (曹二寶), head of the research department at China’s liaison office in Hong Kong, which was published in the Study Times (學習時報), a publication of the CCP’s Central Party School, in which he discussed Hong Kong’s ruling teams.

Cao said he believed that after Hong Kong’s handover, the governing power was divided between two ruling teams. Cao said one team was made up of the “SAR establishment” and enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, while the other team was made up of central government and mainland cadres in charge of Hong Kong-related affairs.

Cao also said that under the “one country, two systems” formula, the team of cadres from the central government and the mainland represent a form of governing power and that the legal, open operation of such a team is a practical necessity for China as a unitary state in its handling of relations between the central government and Hong Kong. In other words, this second governing power must be legalized and allowed to operate openly to change the illegal and closed manner it has been working in.

Is Cao implying that in addition to the CPPCC and the National People’s Congress, the Chinese Communist Party, which has currently also been operating underground in Hong Kong, needs to be made legal and allowed to openly direct affairs in the SAR? Is Cao’s emphasis on China being a unitary state aimed at undermining the “one country, two systems” model?

The Hong Kong government claims that Cao’s article was published as a “theoretical exploration” during his time as a cadet at the Central Party School. Xi happens to be the principal of that school and as Taiwan becomes increasingly Sinicized, “exploration” seems to be synonymous with “implementation.”

Paul Lin is a political commentator.
　

Freedom of the press takes a step backward
　

By Lu Shih-hsiang 盧世祥
Wednesday, May 06, 2009, Page 8

On the eve of World Press Freedom Day, US-based Freedom House released its annual report on media freedom. Taiwan’s ranking in the 2009 Freedom of the Press survey slipped 11 spots to 43rd place from last year’s 32nd. And after three consecutive years of being ranked as Asia’s freest press, Taiwan conceded that honor to Japan.

Taiwan’s performance over the past year can only be described as disgraceful. It is true that Freedom House still ranks Taiwan as “free,” but over the past year media freedom has regressed conspicuously.

In its international news release, Freedom House noted that “declines in Israel, Italy and Taiwan illustrate that established democracies with traditionally open media are not immune to restricting media freedom.”

The report clearly indicated that the reason Taiwan’s ranking declined is because “media in Taiwan faced assault and growing government pressure.”

A case in point was the visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) six months ago.

The report also included the decline in Taiwan’s press freedom in its key regional findings.

Taiwan’s ranking once made impressive progress in the Freedom House survey. In 2004, the nation’s press freedom ranked 50th worldwide, gradually advancing to 44th in 2005, 35th in 2006, 33rd in 2007 and 32nd last year, replacing Japan as the freest press in Asia.

Now this hard-earned achievement has been sullied by the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), causing media freedom in Taiwan to slip drastically. It is a problem that should be of concern not only to media workers but also the public in general.

Founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, Freedom House aims to be a voice for “democracy and freedom around the world.”

When the survey was conducted earlier this year, the organization dispatched experts to Taiwan for an on-site inspection.

The observation and findings of the in-depth investigation indeed provided penetrating criticism of the current situation.

It is also noteworthy that not only has global press freedom declined for a seventh straight year, but press freedom in Chinese-speaking countries generally fell behind.

China — notorious for having the least free media — failed to uphold its promise to ensure press freedom during the Olympics, and instead “chose to remain the world’s largest repressor of media freedom.”

Singapore, which is ruled by an authoritarian regime, has continued to lag behind in the rankings.

Hong Kong, surprisingly, has been downgraded to “partly free” status, as Beijing exerts obvious influence over media.

On May 4, 1919, the anti-imperialist student movement known as the “May Fourth Movement” launched in China with an eye to establishing democracy.

Now that Chinese-speaking countries have fallen behind in global press freedom, it is clear that there is room for improvement of democracy, human rights and freedom in Chinese cultures.

Since returning to power, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has leaned toward China and, in only one year, the nation’s press freedom has taken a big step backward.

The old saying is indeed true: A leopard never changes its spots.

Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.