DPP unhappy with Obama comments
　

‘IN HU’S FACE’: In a joint statement with Chinese President Hu Jintao, US President Barack Obama did mention the TRA, but the written document did not
　

By Ko Shu-ling and Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009, Page 1

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) yesterday expressed regret over US President Barack Obama’s remarks that “the US respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China.”

“[The remarks] did not clarify the fact that Taiwan does not belong to China and disregarded the fact that the 23 million Taiwanese are under threat from the 1,400-odd missiles [deployed] by China. The result is regrettable,” Tsai said in a statement.

Tsai’s remarks came after the US and China issued a joint statement in which Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) underscored the importance of the Taiwan issue in US-China relations.

Beijing emphasized that the Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It said it hoped the US would honor its commitments and appreciate and support the Chinese side’s position on the matter.

The US said that it follows a “one China” policy and abides by the principles of the three US-China joint communiques. The US said it welcomes the peaceful development of relations across the Taiwan Strait and looks forward to efforts by both sides to increase dialogue and interactions in economic, political and other fields, as well as develop more positive and stable cross-strait relations.

The two countries reiterated that the fundamental principle of respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity were at the core of the three US-China communiques that guide US-China relations. Neither side supports any attempts by any force to undermine this principle. The two sides also agreed that respecting each other’s core interests was important to ensure steady progress in US-China relations.

While the statement did not mention the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), Obama mentioned it in his statement to a press conference.

Saying that Obama’s mention of the TRA would help improve cross-strait relations and stability in the region, Tsai called on the US government to continue to provide Taiwan with the defensive weapons it needs to ensure its national security in accordance with the spirit of the TRA.

“Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. This is an undeniable fact,” Tsai said.

Tsai said the DPP was happy to see the US and China establish healthy and cooperative relations and make efforts to ensure prosperity and stability in the region, especially in terms of the economy and trade, climate change, energy, human rights and religious freedom.

“[The DPP] hopes that China’s human rights record and position on religious freedom will improve and that China will renounce the use of force against Taiwan to bring real peace and stability in the region,” she said.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday downplayed the omission of the TRA in the written statement and praised Obama for mentioning it during his conference with Hu.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Lee Chien-jung (李建榮) said that although the TRA was not mentioned in the joint statement, Obama brought it up “right in Hu’s face.”

“This was the first time a US president mentioned the TRA over the past six years,” Lee quoted Ma as saying. “As the US and Chinese mainland develop their relationship, we don’t want to be a stumbling block, nor do we worry the US will sell us out because the triangle relationship between the mainland, Taiwan and the US is at its optimum stage in the past 60 years.”

In fact, mutual trust between senior officials in Taipei and Washington has been “fully restored,” Lee quoted Ma as saying.

Ma made the remarks during the KMT’s weekly meeting, which he chairs as KMT chairman.

Lee said that Ma hinted during the meeting that the administration had “kept abreast of the US position” before the joint statement was made public.

Last night, the DPP said it would have to double check to determine whether a US president had mentioned the TRA since 2003, adding that Ma had nevertheless missed the point.

Ma should worry about the omission of the TRA in the joint statement rather than being satisfied with Obama’s verbal reference at the press conference.

The DPP urged the government to ask the US to clarify the omission because the US always mentions the three communiques and the TRA when it speaks about the Taiwan issue.

Meanwhile, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) said yesterday that despite the absence of references to the TRA in the joint statement, he did not think Washington would harm cross-strait interests simply over a single visit by Obama to China.

Obama is in Beijing for a four-day state visit to China that started in Shanghai on Sunday night.

He did not mention the TRA during talks with Chinese youth in Shanghai on Monday, but mentioned it at his conference with Hu.

Saying the relationship between the US and China would become closer, Lien yesterday added that Washington had on many occasions emphasized that its “Republic of China [ROC] policy” would not change.

“Such a framework began in 1979 and is clearly stated in the TRA and the three communiques signed with Beijing,” he said.

Lien made the remarks at Taipei Guest House yesterday morning after returning from the APEC forum in Singapore, where he served as Ma’s representative.

His comment came in response to a question by the Taipei Times on whether Taiwan’s interests would be compromised as Washington and Beijing develop a closer relationship.

Lien said that as US-China relations are complex and unique, many analysts suggested that Washington’s best strategy was to “weigh [things] interest by interest.”

“They have common interests, but also have different ones,” he said. “The question is how to make the selection.”

Lien said the Ma administration must make it clear that “the diplomatic interests of the ROC” are best served not as a troublemaker, but rather as a promoter of common interests that will no longer make recourse to “belligerent diplomacy” or “irresponsible and provocative acts.”

“What I say is not targeted at any particular party,” he said. “It is the national interest we are talking about.”

Since Ma took office in May last year, Lien said, Taiwan and China have inked nine agreements and reached one consensus, with the fourth round of high-level cross-strait talks scheduled to take place in Taichung next month.

“It would be wrong to continue seeing Taiwan as a troublemaker,” he said. “We all have peaceful development at heart and nothing will change that.”

On a cross-strait peace agreement, Lien said it would be a positive development to “establish a framework to protect peace” in the Taiwan Strait.

However, he conceded that the goal could not be attained overnight.

“It would be better if it materialized in decades,” he said.

While the administration has insisted on tackling economic issues before moving to political ones, Lien said that some matters are not purely economics, such as the country’s participation in the World Health Assembly as an observer this year and accession to the Government Procurement Agreement.

On the possibility of a meeting between Ma and Hu, Lien said the timing was not ripe.

At the Presidential Office yesterday, Ma praised Lien for his “excellent intelligence-gathering” before the APEC summit and expressed his surprise at Lien’s relationship with Obama.

Lien and Obama’s great uncle, Charles Payne, attended the University of Chicago together and have been good friends since.

Obama’s first words to Lien when they met at the summit were: “I know you.”

The exchange lasted for 10 minutes, in which Lien said both hoped to keep in touch.

Legislators unveil animal rights plan

DOG’S BEST FRIEND: The proposal includes creating a bureau to consolidate the efforts of various government agencies and help prevent abuse of strays in shelters
　

By Vincent Y. Chao
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009, Page 3
　

“We must work together to immediately stop this kind of atrocious behavior.”— Lee Ching-Hua, KMT legislator

Legislators and activists yesterday unveiled a proposal to create an Animal Protection Bureau under the Council of Agriculture (COA).

The drafters of the proposal — which has been signed by 20 legislators — said the bureau would consolidate the efforts of different government agencies and address concerns expressed by animal rights activists about temporary animal shelters.

Speaking to dozens of activists led by Chen Yu-min (陳玉敏) of the Environment & Animal Society of Taiwan (EAST) outside the Executive Yuan, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lee Ching-Hua (李慶華) said: “We must work together to immediately stop this kind of atrocious behavior.”

Lee was referring to allegations of abuse of stray animals at animal shelters.

Chen said Lee agreed to draft the proposal after being shown a documentary filmed by her group last month.

The documentary showed cats and dogs being denied water, food and basic healthcare at animal shelters.

The group said temporary shelters that are not subject to regulation by local authorities and fall into a gray area not clearly defined under the Animal Protection Law (動物保護法) are becoming more common as permanent shelters become overfull.

They called for authorities to close all temporary animal shelters and expand and improve permanent ones.

The group said its conclusions were based on evidence gathered during a three-year nationwide investigation of such facilities.

Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (田秋堇) likened the shelters to “concentration camps.”

In reference to the 17 local governments that use cleaning teams to catch stray animals, she said “it is wrong to treat our beloved pets as waste.”

EAST estimates that 900,000 stray pets have been picked up by local authorities in the past 10 years. Around 133,000 were picked up last year alone, of which 96,400 were killed.

The proposal said that by consolidating efforts and raising their status, Taiwan can ensure that its animal welfare does not lag behind other industrialized countries.

The duties of the proposed bureau would include managing the pet and pet food industries and implementing animal protection policies.

The legislators did not comment on when the proposal could become law.

Minister without Portfolio Liang Chi-yuan (梁啟源) said that in the meantime “the government will work fast to make changes to the system.”

He said the government would prioritize the matter and work with local animal control authorities to improve permanent shelters and close temporary ones.

He said the central government would sit down with city mayors and county commissioners after next month’s local elections to discuss tackling the problem.

US beef debate highlights nation’s sovereignty woes
　

By Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009, Page 3

The controversy over whether revising regulations to prohibit “risky” beef imports could override a recently signed protocol with the US illustrates the delicate matter of Taiwan’s sovereignty, analysts said.

Taiwan recently signed a protocol with the US to expand market access from boneless beef of cattle younger than 30 months to include bone-in beef and other beef products that have not been contaminated with “specific risk materials.”

Responding to a public outcry over the lifting of the ban on bovine offal and ground beef amid fears of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad-cow disease, the government said it would change import inspection procedures to effectively block the products.

Dissatisfied with the remedial measures and mainly citing legality concerns, lawmakers across party lines vowed to amend the Act Governing Food Sanitation (食品衛生管理法) by yesterday to address what they considered flaws in the protocol.

But legislators have yet to reach a consensus on the details after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) urged the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus not to make changes that would violate the protocol.

The debate has raised questions of whether treaties, agreements, protocols or accords with other countries are subject to legislative approval and whether international deals carry higher authority than domestic legislation where they conflict.

The Taiwan-US beef protocol is just the latest in a string of deals that have highlighted this dispute, following nine cross-strait pacts signed with China under the current administration.

In the case of US beef, National Security Council (NSC) Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) said the protocol should override the law.

“That is the way I think, and those who hold different opinions should feel free to seek a constitutional interpretation” from the Council of Grand Justices, Su said.

Hsu Chih-hsiung (許志雄), a specialist on constitutional law, said Su’s conclusion revealed his poor understanding of jurisprudence.

“If an international deal is above domestic law, could it be that it is also above the Constitution?” he asked.

A treaty requires legislative approval to make it valid with the same authority as law, Hsu said, adding that “the protocol is neither a treaty nor has it been approved by the legislature.”

From the perspective of constitutional law, the handling of the protocol should not have bypassed the legislature.

Because it did so, “there is no way that the protocol can take precedence over domestic legislation,” he said.

The grand justices made their views clear on related issues in Interpretation No. 329, said Chang Wen-chen (張文貞), an associate law professor at National Taiwan University.

The 1993 interpretation explained the meaning of “treaty” in the Constitution and what kind of agreement should be sent to the legislature for deliberation.

In the interpretation, the justices expanded the meaning of “treaty” to include “administrative agreements” whose contents involve matters that are important to the nation and the rights and duties of the people. The justices said these agreements, unless authorized by law or determined by the legislature in advance, should be sent to the legislature for deliberation, Chang said.

The status of treaties and administrative agreements — a matter the Constitution does not explicitly address — is also clarified in the interpretation. They “hold the same status as the law” when they are either approved by the legislature in advance or ratified by it afterwards, Chang said.

Chang said the reason the justices regarded administrative agreements — which in most countries are handled differently from treaties and do not need legislative approval — as being the same as treaties was because of Taiwan’s international situation.

“As Taiwan is not a normal country in terms of its international status not being universally recognized, it is hardly possible for it to join international treaties. Given this, on many occasions, international agreements that were essentially treaties took the form of administrative agreements,” Chang said.

If the Taiwan-US protocol, part of an administrative agreement, is defined as one that involves matters important to the nation and the rights and duties of the people, it is subject to approval by the legislature and can be overridden by an amendment to the food sanitation law, she said.

If the protocol is not defined as a matter important to the nation and the rights and duties of the people, the protocol is by nature an administrative order and any effect inconsistent with domestic law will be abrogated, she said.

Wong Ming-hsien (翁明賢), chair of the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Tamkang University, also said domestic legislation takes precedence over international agreements. This is an internationally accepted legal principle based on respect for the exercise of a nation’s sovereignty, he said.

“For example, the US views its Taiwan Relations Act as being above the three Sino-US joint communiques, since it has continued to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons over the years rather than following the 817 Communique of 1982 on limiting arms sales to Taiwan. Another example is the Lisbon Treaty, which requires ratification by each member of the EU,” Wong said.

However, Wong said that if the legislature amends the food sanitation law to override the protocol, the US might not view the problem from a legal perspective but rather see it as “a matter of trust.”

Because of the lack of diplomatic relations, the US could say that it signed the protocol on the basis of its trust in Taiwan and not its sovereignty as a country, he said.

“In view of this, if there’s a breach of trust, the theory that domestic legislation takes precedence over international agreements might seem unacceptable to the US as it recognizes neither Taiwan’s nationhood nor the legality of its domestic legislation,” Wong said.

Wong said that one potential consequence worth consideration was that the US could seek to get even with Taiwan on other fronts.

Tsai Horng-ming (蔡宏明), a former advisor to the NSC and an associate professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Global Strategy, was not pessimistic about the option of amending the food sanitation law.

Tsai cited the example of Thailand losing a lawsuit to the US in the 1980s, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the WTO’s predecessor) struck down Bangkok’s ban on US tobacco. The government should be prepared to go to the WTO court if it undermines the beef protocol through other measures, he said.

“Thailand lost the tobacco case, but the remarks made by its minister were inspiring,” Tsai said. “He said: ‘We accepted the ruling — meaning we did not succumb to US pressure in bilateral talks.”

The best way for Taiwan to avoid US pressure is to turn to dispute settlement under the WTO if the US is unhappy with the government’s administrative means or our domestic legislation,” Tsai said.

District judges mull corruption charges for Lee
　

PRISON POTENTIAL: An additional trial date has been set to decide whether to try the former legislator on more serious charges than fraud and forgery
　

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009, Page 3
　

Taipei District Court judges presiding over former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Diane Lee’s (李慶安) dual citizenship case yesterday said they may consider trying her for corruption — which carries more serious consequences than the fraud and forgery charges she was indicted for.

During her trial, Lee told the court she did nothing wrong during her terms as legislator. She admitted to being a US citizen during her service, but said she had mistakenly believed that public officials automatically lose their US citizenship status when they are sworn in.

The judges remained skeptical, however, saying that if Lee was misinformed on related legislation, she would not have called on former Taipei deputy mayor Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) to step down in 1994 when she questioned him regarding his US citizenship.

The judges have scheduled an additional trial date to decide whether to try Lee for violating the Punishment of Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例).

If convicted of corruption, Lee could face more than seven years in prison.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Lee said: “We respect the court’s decision.”

Her attorney, Chuang Hsiu-ming (莊秀銘), said they were confident about the case.

Lee’s dual citizenship scandal first emerged in March last year, when the Chinese-language Next Magazine reported that she still possessed a US passport.

The Nationality Act (國籍法) prohibits government officials from holding dual citizenship and requires that those who are dual citizens give up their foreign citizenship before assuming office.

In January, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office received official confirmation from the US State Department that Lee’s US citizenship remained valid.

Prosecutors allege that in the personnel forms she filled out as a Taipei City councilor in 1994 and during her three terms as a lawmaker starting in 1998, Lee deliberately left blank the field asking whether she held citizenship from any country other than the Republic of China.

Prosecutors say that the more than NT$100 million (US$3 million) in income Lee earned during her terms as councilor and lawmaker were therefore gained illegally because Lee held the positions illegally.

The money includes NT$22.68 million in income and public funds from her term as city councilor and NT$80.09 million from three terms as legislator.

Lee resigned from the KMT last December and gave up her position early this year.

Slow but steady road to abolition

Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009, Page 8

Monday’s forum on the death penalty was eclipsed by a series of cross-strait forums and meetings, an unexpected memorandum of understanding and the continued warnings of mad-cow fearmongers. Unlike cross-strait relations, the economy and even US beef, the debate over capital punishment offers scant political currency for either political camp.

That is both a curse and a blessing for the anti-death penalty movement.

Topics with potential to galvanize voters are most likely to motivate political parties and their lawmakers, spark mainstream debate and receive continual coverage from Taiwan’s highly politicized media. At the same time, the greater a subject’s political currency, the less chance there is of rational discussion.

Thus, even an ostensibly non-political matter like US beef imports has spurred legislators, local government heads and civic groups into action, with boycotts, referendum proposals, promises of legislation and countless op-eds. Anti-death penalty activists can hardly expect such an outpouring over their concerns.

Yet neither of the two matters at hand in the beef furor — public health and whether the Cabinet had a responsibility to seek legislative or public consensus before signing the protocol — has been addressed. Politicos are too busy feeding, and feeding off of, the public’s fears.

In other words, becoming a pet cause is not necessarily conducive to good legislation or policymaking.

Compared with such impassioned and politicized debates, the death penalty discussion is slow and low-profile — and perhaps that is why it has been so successful. Working to spare convicted murderers from the gallows, the position of death penalty opponents is not a popular one, but their progress is measurable. They are, in fact, halfway to their goal.

Taiwan has not carried out an execution in almost four years and has removed all mandatory death sentences from the law books and reduced the number of laws punishable by death. Abolition is near, yet far.

The greatest challenge facing the anti-death penalty movement today is how to engage the public and lawmakers in a question that is low on their list of concerns and that, for the latter group, promises few if any political benefits. It is an uphill battle, but may be inescapable. Although most countries that have abolished the death penalty have done so without public support — in the name of upholding human rights — Taiwan’s government continues to balk at this option.

NGOs working to stop the death penalty have had success communicating with the former and current administrations, but the government — both under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his predecessor — has made no moves to introduce a formal moratorium on executions, to commute death sentences or to propose abolishing capital punishment. Its consistent defense has been the lack of public support.

But is public support necessary? As British criminologist Roger Hood, who spoke at Monday’s forum, wrote in this paper the same day, experience shows that support for the death penalty wanes once it has been abolished.

“In the generations thereafter, it comes to be regarded as an unacceptable, uncivilized cruelty of the past,” he wrote.

In the process of granting women suffrage in the US or ending racial segregation in the US south, what was once condoned — state-enforced discrimination against women and blacks — is today regarded as “unacceptable” and “uncivilized.”

In Taiwan, it seems the death penalty will survive on the books until public opinion has shifted. Proponents of abolition have their work cut out for them in the face of apathetic lawmakers and a public debate dominated by political and economic concerns.

Although change may seem distant, the progress thus far seems to indicate that abolitionists will eventually succeed.

A backward approach to an ECFA has merit
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009, Page 8

There are still many public disagreements about the government’s plan to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, while many know little about what such an agreement would entail. Despite this, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) sees it as a panacea, saying that not only is an ECFA necessary, but also that the sooner it is signed the better.

Bureau of Foreign Trade Director-General Huang Chih-peng (黃志鵬), who went to Beijing for a fourth round of informal trade talks with China last week, said there probably would not be a fifth round of informal talks. Does that mean the government is ready to sign an economic pact with China?

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), although fully occupied with preparations for the year-end elections, should not ignore this issue. An ECFA with China could be signed during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) next month. That would be a bitter pill for Taiwanese to swallow.

The People’s Sovereignty Movement has touched some Taiwanese, but that will not change Ma’s decision to sign an economic pact with China. Nor will Ma endorse a proposal on an ECFA referendum as he represents the interests of “superior Mainlanders,” certain corporations and even the Chinese Communist Party. If Ma continues to act willfully, Taiwan may soon see violent confrontation.

To avoid this result, I propose that the government sign an ECFA with China “backwards.” By that I mean that the government should first sign concrete agreements before moving onto signing the framework agreement. Doing so would first give the public an understanding of the concrete contents of the agreement and its pros and cons before deciding whether or not they can accept the framework agreement.

Here are my reasons for making this proposal.

First, the Hong Kong government signed a closer economic partnership arrangement (CEPA) with Beijing in 2003 and since then, has signed supplementary agreements every year.

Second, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on financial supervision, which Taiwan recently signed with China, is included in the ECFA “early harvest” list. In other words, the MOU was signed before the ECFA. Because an MOU can be signed in advance, what would be the harm in signing other agreements beforehand? For instance, the tariff issue that Taiwanese businesspeople care the most about could also be solved as an “early harvest” item. In so doing, the government would know which industries will benefit from or be harmed by tariff-free treatment.

Third, the Ma administration said that an ECFA with China would help Taiwan sign free-trade agreements (FTA) with ASEAN countries. Neither China nor other countries are willing to take the initiative in proving this. If Taiwan could first sign concrete agreements with China, it would serve as a test of whether other countries will sign FTAs, or similar agreements, with Taiwan without opposition from China.

Fourth, Taiwan has long been isolated in the international community, so it does not have many experienced negotiators. Even negotiations with the US on a protocol for US beef imports were a huge mess, not to mention talks with a country that has long tried to annex Taiwan.

Since signing a CEPA with Beijing, the economic development of Hong Kong has been dependent on China, causing it to lose its past vitality.

Thus, Taiwan should sign agreements with concrete contents with China to gain more experience before signing an ECFA. After all, how could we have a framework without concrete contents?

Paul Lin is a political commentator.