Thousands ‘disappeared’ in China unrest: Kadeer
　

10,000 MISSING:: World Uighur Congress leader Rebiya Kadeer accused Chinese police of randomly shooting people after dark during the unrest early this month

AFP , TOKYO
Thursday, Jul 30, 2009, Page 5
　

Exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer said yesterday that nearly 10,000 people “disappeared in one night” during ethnic unrest in the Chinese city of Urumqi early this month.

“Close to 10,000 people in Urumqi disappeared in one night. Where did those people go?” she said in Japan, speaking in her native language through a translator. “If they died, where did they go?”

Kadeer, the 62-year-old US-based head of the World Uighur Congress, charged that “the Chinese government is trying to destroy the Uighur people. I want to tell the international community about our situation.”

Citing local sources she had been in contact with, Kadeer said during the unrest from July 5, Chinese police randomly shot people after dark when the electricity went out, and that the next morning people awoke to find many Uighur men had disappeared.

Beijing accuses the mother of 11 and grandmother of being a “criminal” who instigated the unrest pitting Uighurs against Han Chinese in Xinjiang, which the government says left 197 people dead.

“I was not involved in the incident,” she told the press conference. “If China says I did it, I want them to show evidence. If the international community judges it as evidence, I would acknowledge that.”

Kadeer instead charged that “the responsibility lies with the authorities who changed what was a peaceful demonstration into a violent riot.”

“For Uighurs, taking part in demonstrations is like committing suicide,” she said.

The Chinese foreign ministry on Monday expressed its “strong dissatisfaction” with Japan for allowing entry to Kadeer, who spent around six years in a Chinese prison before being released under US pressure in 2005.

Japan’s top government spokesman, Takeo Kawamura, said on Tuesday that Kadeer’s visit “was organized by civil groups, not an event by the government.”

“We don’t consider that her visit to Japan itself will negatively impact the Japan-China relationship,” Kawamura told a regular press briefing.

Beijing has also campaigned for other countries to deny Kadeer a platform.

In Washington, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Guangya (王光亞) said on Tuesday that Beijing had asked Washington to “restrain and prevent” anyone from using its soil to conduct “separatist activities against China.”

Kadeer said she was “perplexed and disappointed” by the US response to ethnic unrest in China this month.

“The response of the United States has been somewhat cold,” she said. “I am perplexed and disappointed.”

She added, however, that “I do not believe the United States will remain quiet. I believe it will respond in an appropriate way.”

Myanmar warns against predicting Suu Kyi verdict

AP, YANGON, MYANMAR
Thursday, Jul 30, 2009, Page 5

A day after democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi murmured in court that the verdict in her trial was already “painfully obvious,” Myanmar’s state-run media warned yesterday that any predictions of the outcome would amount to contempt of court.

On Tuesday, lawyers gave their closing arguments in the high-profile proceedings against Suu Kyi, who is accused of violating the terms of her house arrest by harboring an American who swam uninvited to her lakeside home and stayed for two days. The 64-year-old Nobel Peace laureate faces a jail term of five years.

She is widely expected to be convicted, although there has been speculation she may serve her sentence under house arrest rather than in jail.

Also being tried on the same charges are American John William Yettaw, 53, of Falcon, Missouri, and two female members of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party who were her sole companions under house arrest.

The New Light of Myanmar, a mouthpiece of the military regime, said “biased writings about the trial in progress, writings about which side will win or lose in that trial, or predicting possibility of the defendants’ convictions amount to contempt of court.”

“Everyone who breaches the law shall face a lawsuit and obey the court decision,” the report said.

Suu Kyi, in turn, has complained through her lawyer that articles in the state-run press — which have stressed that the trial did not involve politics but simply a breach of the law — amounted to influencing the court’s decision.

The trial, which began in May, has drawn international condemnation from rights activists, world leaders and celebrities who have called for her immediate release. On Tuesday, President Barack Obama renewed sanctions against the junta, including a ban on imports of jade and other gems from Myanmar.

But neither outside pressure nor the possibility of closer ties with the West has deterred the ruling junta, which appeared determined to find her guilty and keep her behind bars through elections planned for next year.

The Thai government said yesterday that Myanmar had asked Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to postpone a trip scheduled tomorrow. Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said the planned trip coincided with the court verdict but did not elaborate.

Judge Thaung Nyunt said on Tuesday that the court would make a ruling today, according to defense attorney Nyan Win. The lawyer said he preferred not to speculate on the outcome, but that he had “never seen any defendant in a political case [in Myanmar] being set free.”

He did not directly say Suu Kyi’s trial was politically motivated.

Suu Kyi — who has been in detention for 14 of the past 20 years — told diplomats attending the court session that she was not optimistic.

“I’m afraid the verdict will be painfully obvious,” Suu Kyi said, according to several diplomats who heard her comments in court.

Toadying without a title

Thursday, Jul 30, 2009, Page 8

On Monday, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), in his capacity as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), sent a message to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) congratulating him on his election as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman.

In the message, Hu addressed Ma as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT’s Central Standing Committee” and expressed the hope that both parties would work for cross-strait peace, political mutual trust and “begin the glorious revival of the Zhonghua minzu [中華民族, Chinese nation].”

In line with common courtesy, Ma responded with a message in which he expressed the hope that “the two sides comply with the will of the people,” consolidate cross-strait peace and advance cross-strait development and prosperity. Ma then suggested this four-pronged principle: “look at the reality, build mutual trust, put aside disputes and create a win-win situation.”

The KMT government was quick to hail the exchanges as the first time in 60 years that the leaders on both sides of the Strait had publicly corresponded with one another.

But a closer look at Ma’s message is enough to make more sober observers bury their heads in their hands with embarrassment and disbelief — and wonder how Ma, custodian of the sovereignty of the Republic of China (ROC), can bow to the Chinese authorities to the point of self-humiliation.

First, the obvious objectionable material: While Hu referred to himself as CCP general secretary, Ma made no mention of his party status, or any other status. In line with China’s calendar, Hu signed off his message with the year 2009, whereas Ma sidestepped the general Taiwanese practice of placing the country’s name, Chunghua Minkuo (中華民國), before the year of the republic, the month and day. Instead, he simply wrote “98 (2009) July 27.”

KMT spokesman Lee Chien-jung (李建榮) said Ma didn’t include a title because he would not become KMT chairman until September. As for the matter of the date, Lee cited the Presidential Office as saying that this manner of notation had been common practice for Ma since he took office in May last year, before adding that the number “98” obviously referred to the ROC calendar.

With such condescending, disingenuous language, Ma and the KMT are treating the public like fools. Granted, out of “consideration,” Ma did not address himself as “president of the Republic of China” because Hu did not call himself “president of the People’s Republic of China.” But this does not mean that Ma could not have referred to himself as “KMT chairman-elect.” Instead, in his dealings with his spiritual superiors, Ma has become titleless — neither president nor party chairman.

As to the date, the deletions were deliberate and all the more demeaning for it. Not only did the more formal use of Chunghua minkuo disappear, Ma could not even bring himself to use the common abbreviation minkuo.

These are the symbolic manifestations of Ma’s rhetoric. The public can now begin to better understand what “looking at the reality” and “diplomatic non-denial” amount to in practical terms.

The exchange in correspondence between Ma and Hu may well mark the first public exchange of messages between the leaders of Taiwan and China in decades. Disappointingly, however, Ma has failed again to uphold the nation’s dignity, and this time he has supplemented his enthusiasm for unilateral compromise with an air of toadying that can only delight Beijing.

China’s key role in climate reforms
　

By Ban Ki-moon
Thursday, Jul 30, 2009, Page 8

A light bulb may not be the first thing that springs to mind when thinking about revolutionary technology. Yet science and smart policy have the potential in today’s world to transform an ordinary household object into a revolutionary innovation.

Recently, I visited an ambitious project to promote energy-saving lighting in China. By phasing out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs and introducing a new generation of lighting, China expects to cut national energy consumption by 8 percent.

This can have a profound global impact. Consider this: Lighting accounts for 19 percent of world energy consumption. Scientists say we can reduce that by a third or more merely by changing light bulbs.

A breakthrough like this highlights one of the many ways in which ordinary people and businesses can reduce energy use and cut greenhouse gases. It underscores the role that governments can — and must — play in promoting the green economy. And it highlights the special responsibility of the government of China to lead in the global fight against climate change.

China is one of the world’s fast-growing economies. Last year it also became the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. It is clearly important for the world that China pursues sustainable economic and energy policies — those that reduce both emissions and poverty.

The key is giving a priority to clean energy, which can create new jobs, spur innovation and usher in a new era of global prosperity.

Those who embark on this path early will reap rewards. They will be winners in the global marketplace. And assuming that prosperity is shared equitably, they will also strengthen stability at home.

There can be no argument that China is a global power. And with global power comes global responsibilities. Without China, there can be no success this year on a new global climate framework. But with China, there is enormous potential for the world to seal a deal in Copenhagen.

On Sept. 22, I will convene a summit of world leaders to look at the challenges — and the opportunities — we face in the run-up to Copenhagen.

At the G8 summit in Italy, it was agreed to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. I applauded this. But I also said it was not enough. To be credible, we need to match ambitious long-term goals with ambitious mid-term targets with clear baselines. I will repeat this call in September.

I will also emphasize that major developing economies have a critical role in the negotiations: Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa and, perhaps most important of all, China.

Already China has devoted a sizable portion of its national stimulus spending to renewable energy and green economic growth. It has become a world leader in wind and solar technology. China’s dynamic renewable energy sector is worth nearly US$17 billion and employs close to 1 million workers.

This is impressive, but it is just a beginning. China, for example, has enough wind resources to generate more electricity than it currently uses.

Imagine the potential. Imagine if, thanks to wind and solar, China could wean itself from coal, which accounts for 85 percent of its carbon emissions. And if China were to do it, so could much of the rest of the world. In so doing, China can serve as a model not only for developing nations but for the whole world.

We must also adapt to those climate impacts that are already wreaking havoc on communities, particularly in the least developed countries. Adaptation programs help strengthen climate resilience. Going forward, they should be part of how we do development differently. Mitigation and adaptation are equal partners: One without the other makes no sense. They must be priorities for every government.

If we have learned anything from the crises of the past year, it is that our fates are interrelated. As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said earlier this year: “Issues such as climate change bear on the very survival of mankind. No country can be insulated from these challenges or meet them on its own. The international community should intensify cooperation and respond together.”

As we move toward Copenhagen, I urge China to exercise still further the global responsibilities that come with global power. I ask China to act in the global public interest as well as its national interest.

For at the end of the day, as Premier Wen aptly put it, they are one and the same.

By changing a light bulb, and changing our mindset, we can change the world.

Ban Ki-moon is the secretary-general of the United Nations.
　

Praising Chiang and poisoning the nation
　

By Cao Changqing 曹長青
Thursday, Jul 30, 2009, Page 8

Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) may have been rivals, but they shared fundamental values. Even in death, both men occupy prime real estate in their capitals, where they continue to overlook and poison the nations they ruled from a splendid memorial hall.

In 2007, the name of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall was changed to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall — a symbol of democracy and rejection of dictatorship.

Since his election last year, however, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has ignored public opinion and — true to style — reinstalled the plaque with the memorial’s original name.

Ma said Chiang’s contributions and mistakes should be defined by historians, but by restoring the plaque he is contradicting himself: This decision was made by a government dominated by Ma and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), not historians.

If Ma respects history and historians, he might look at how a Western historian outside the pan-blue/pan-green divide describes Chiang’s status.

Rudolph Rummel, a 77-year-old professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is an expert in this field. He has published 24 books about dictators and mass death and created the term “democide,” which refers to murder by government. In his book Death by Government, he listed the 10 worst dictators of the 20th century — and Chiang was among them.

Rummel’s studies are highly respected and he has received many awards, including a lifetime achievement award six years ago from the American Political Science Association. According to The Associated Press, he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize several times.

This man’s research and his definition of Chiang can therefore serve as an authoritative judgment.

Even if we view Chiang from a layman’s perspective, we see that in the 50 years from obtaining power as commander-in-chief of the Northern Expeditionary Army in 1926 to his death in 1975, his government held no democratic elections and his word was law. What is this, if not a dictatorship?

Putting aside Chiang’s responsibility for the 228 Incident, he and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) oversaw 38 years of martial law in Taiwan. According to a report by the Ministry of Justice when Ma was minister, “military courts handled 29,007 political cases with approximately 140,000 victims” under the two Chiangs. In 1960 alone, the government listed 126,875 people as “missing” and withdrew their household registration, showing just how many people were executed publicly or in secret. If Chiang, who ruled the nation through violence and political prisons, was not a dictator, then who is?

Just like any other dictator, Chiang loved erecting statues of himself. According to media reports, there were at least 45,000 such statues around Taiwan, making it the country with the highest density of statues of a national leader in the world. In addition, his dozens of villas and items that he used are now treated as historical monuments and relics — even one of his handkerchiefs is on exhibit at the memorial hall.

When the government proposed that the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall be restored, the Washington Post, The Associated Press and other media outlets called Chiang a “dictator” and pointed out the cruelty of his rule. By reinstalling the plaque, the government is publicly challenging democratic values while boosting the name of a tyrant.

Ma was elected KMT chairman on Sunday. With both party and government in his hands, he is leaning toward totalitarian China while praising Chiang and his son. This is a bad omen for Taiwan.

Cao Changqing is a freelance journalist based in the US.