Dear
Mr. President George W. Bush, In Taiwan, the military should learn more about democracy, over the crises of corruption in economy; and political conflicts for both sides. Without a mandate to recapture the mainland and the end of KMT rule, some military commanders are now wondering what they are supposed to be doing. Over the past two weeks, military commanders have been striving to teach servicemen how to answer the simple question “for whom and for what should they fight?” The answers prepared for the questions are: the servicemen should fight for the people of the country and the survival of the country. Simple questions and simple answers. But what is the point of asking servicemen to answer such basic questions? Does the military leadership sense that a crisis of belief is taking hold or already ensconced? The questions “for whom and for what should servicemen fight?” were first raised by President Chen Shui-bian in a speech he delivered to a group of generals at a promotion ceremony at the end of June. Chen not only raised the questions but also provided the answers – fight for the people and the survival of the country. Chief of the General Staff General Tang Yao-ming followed Chen to preach the answers to these questions on every occasion when he has spoken in public. But many servicemen, especially career officers, have become increasingly confused in recent years about what they are fighting for given that increasing numbers of Taiwanese are flocking to China seeking business opportunities, said an army colonel, who declined to be identified. “A lot of us are unsure
whether the Chinese are our friends or our enemies. This is becoming more
confusing as we consider the fact that quite a few military officials in
recent years have chosen to work and live in China after retirement,”
the colonel said. “The transfer of power from the KMT to the DPP last year was another factor that has contributed to this crisis of belief in the military. We [the military] have condemned the promotion of Taiwanese independence by the DPP for several decades, but now they are our masters,” he said. “During the rule of Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, the military knew very well for who they were fighting for – for the nation’s leader. They also knew for what they were fighting – for the recovery of the mainland lost to the communists in the 1949 civil war,” he said. These views are not shared by Ministry of National Defense spokesman Major General Huang Shui-sheng, who said there is no such thing as a crisis of belief in the military. “We have no doubt about for whom and for what we should fight. Chief of the General Staff General Tang has been teaching this idea to servicemen since the transfer of power last year,” Huang said. Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies, said there are reasons for the president and the chief of the general staff to preach the idea of for whom and for what the servicemen should fight. “Over the past year, the political situation in the country has been unstable. This has also affected people in the military. President Chen recently highlighted the idea of for whom and for what servicemen should fight mainly to keep military personnel firm and steady in their belief in the country,” Yang said. Chang Bai-ta, a defense researcher with the DPP, said if the military still has doubts about who and what they are fighting for, it is all due to the fact that they have not received a satisfactory education on the Constitution. “The military used to be strongly against the idea of Taiwanese independence. If they feel they have a crisis of belief now because of the leadership of a pro-independence party, they ought to learn more about democracy,” Chang said. “In a democratic country,
all sorts opinions have to be accepted. Military education used to lack
this form of democratic instruction. It is one of the reasons why some
people in the military are getting confused about who and what they should
fight for.” Under KMT rule, military education focused on denying even the existence of a pro-independence movement. Some see the fact that the military has dropped Taiwanese independence as an issue of discussion is a sign that it now accepts the democratic transfer of power and has made some of the necessary changes in philosophy. But Chang and others aren’t so sure. Many still fear that military silence is merely an attempt to escape discussion of an issue with which it is deeply uncomfortable. On the other hand; Beijing
wants to control Taiwan media, because United Daily News and some weekly
news magazines suffering a sickness of Beijing’s dream. Government officials can choose not to believe the media reports claiming that China plans to pump US$1 billion into Taiwan’s economy in order to manipulate it. However, there is the possibility that Beijing may take advantage of Taiwan’s economic difficulties and try to manipulate the media and media advertising. As Chen Po-chih, chairman of the Council for Economic Planning and Development, said: “One doesn’t need to spend US$1 billion to influence Taiwan’s economy. One can do it by just starting a few newspapers [in Taiwan]. Quoting the results of an opinion poll it conducted, the United Daily News claimed at the recent time that the proportion of people in Taiwan who support “one country, two systems” had risen to 33 percent. Anyone familiar with polling knows how easy it is to manipulate a survey to get the desired results. In the United Daily New’s questionnaire, the key phrase “one country” covers both supporters of the PRC and ROC – people who support different ways of interpreting the word “China.” The problem is that a “one country, two systems” model generated by such a broad definition of China is not what Beijing is talking about. To Beijing, “one country” means the PRC. Such manipulation of a storyline lowers the United Daily’s actions to the level of Beijing’s Xinhua reporters stationed in Taiwan – who consistently blacken Taiwan’s image, misleading the government and the people of China. Taiwan has long witnessed the dissemination of pro-China propaganda by a handful of people who have control over the print and electronic media. Negative reports and commentaries about Taiwan are found in the local media on a daily basis, writing the country off. Meanwhile, China is viewed through rose-colored glasses – its economy is said to be shining, with the world’s second-largest foreign exchange reserves (the fact that China’s foreign debt surpasses its foreign exchange reserves is overlooked). According to several stories, China is Taiwan’s only savior, the only force able to pull Taiwan’s out of its economic doldrums and, of course, the only torchbearer of hope for ethnic Chinese throughout the world. The electronic media is even worse, with biased politicians and scholars presented as political observers on call-in shows. Their constant barrage of abuse at everything the government does has a corrosive effect on public opinion. There have been rumors recently that Beijing wants to wrest control of Taiwan’s media and advertising companies in the run-up to the year-end legislative and local elections by infusing capital via Hong Kong. According to these rumors, Beijing wants to back an advertising campaign for pro-China legislative candidates in order to weaken the impact of an alliance between the DPP and former president Lee Teng-hui’s new political party and to prevent pro-Taiwan groups winning a majority in the legislature. While it is easy to dismiss such rumors as paranoid delusions, the people of Taiwan should still keep up their guard against a foreign regime using a handful of greedy unscrupulous people to interfere domestically. Otherwise, once the campaign begins in earnest, people may be shocked to find their streets filled with anti-Taiwan and anti-localization propaganda. Both the government and the people must be alert to any attempt by Beijing to manipulate the mass media. The people of Taiwan must be willing to stand up for themselves; otherwise they will be nothing more than lambs headed for the slaughter. Nevertheless; Beijing only
wants to talk with opposite, as New Party via tiny group pf
“pro-unification with urgent motivation.” Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen, for the first time, listed seven substantive elements of the “one country, two systems” scheme for Taiwan during a meeting with a New Party representative. At first glance, the list invites derision; it is preposterous to think the people of Taiwan would trade in their democracy, freedoms, and the right to self-determination for the pathetic sops that China offers. But further reflection can only make one angry over China’s stubborn refusal to respect the will of the people in Taiwan. Just in case anyone though that “two systems” means democracy in Taiwan and authoritarianism in the mainland Qian clarified in the same meeting that the “two systems” in the scheme are “socialist and capitalists systems.” Democracy for Taiwan is not what Beijing has in mind. On Qian’s list, the promises about retaining an independent currency, military, and tariff system, as well those about China keeping its hands off Taiwanese capital and private property, do not address the issue of democracy. The talk about preserving Taiwan’s government structure and no appointment of officials to Taiwan is deliberately ambiguous to leave room for wishful thinking by the naïve. For example, why appoint government officials to Taiwan, when Beijing could always adopt the Hong Kong model packing an “election committee” packed with yes-men to do its dirty work. It already has a herd of eager yes-men in the wings here in Taiwan. Hong Kong provides other lessons as well. According to statistics released by Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), China has failed to deliver 130 of its promises to Hong Kong thus far. It is typical of China to promise the world, but then take everything away after its end has been accomplished. It is high time that Beijing hears out the people of Taiwan. As pointed out by the MAC Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, the people of Taiwan want respect in three ways – respect for their right to determine their own future, respect for the government they have chosen, and respect for their existence. So far, Beijing has failed miserably on all three counts. Fewer than 15 percent of Taiwan’s population find the “one country, two systems” scheme acceptable – notwithstanding fake polls in the pro-reunification media and from New Party legislators to show growing acceptance of this option. Yet Beijing continues to insist that it is the only option available to Taiwan. Scratch respect for self determination, then. And of course Beijing does not respect the government elected by the people of Taiwan as shown by its continued refusal to open dialogue with the Chen Shui-bian administration, preferring instead to talk with opposition parties which do not in any way reflect mainstream opinion. Finally, China’s refusal to
acknowledge the substantive sovereignty of Taiwan, a sovereignty directly
deriving from the consent of the people here in Taiwan, is a flagrant lack
of respect for the people of Taiwan. Given that Beijing has shown nothing
but contempt and hostility toward the people of Taiwan, it is simply
outrageous for Taiwan’s opposition parties to willingly become its
advocate. But perhaps we should them assume that they must share that
contempt and hostility. How dare the New Party – a contemptible
group of mainlanders angered at losing their “birthright” to kick
Taiwanese around as a result of Lee Teng-hui’s The voters of Taiwan, over this last decade of its new democracy, have voted in a very responsible manner. But the intricacies of mixing this volatile issue with many others would place a very heavy burden on the electorate. In short; only U.S.A support in Taiwan democracy, it would be better to soften cross-strait conflicts, and chaos inside of island. In China side; Aspiring to forge a “new international order” and offset U.S. global influence, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin signed the first post-Soviet friendship treaty on July 16, 2001, cementing their nations’ decade-long partnership. “The friendship treaty will bring Russian-Chinese friendship from generation to generation,” Mr. Jiang said after the signing ceremony in the Kremlin. “This is a milestone in the development of Russian-Chinese relations.” The document comes amid the two countries’ mounting concern over American missile defense plans and their attempts to attract more nations into their own orbit. In a joint statement issued today, Mr. Putin and Mr. Jiang expressed hope for a “just and rational new international order” to reflect their concept of a “multipolar” world led by the United Nations, rather than Washington. The treaty is the first such document since 1950, when Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung created a Soviet-Chinese alliance, a friendship that had soured into a bitter rivalry by the 1960s. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow and Beijing have put the strife behind them and forged what they call a “strategic partnership.”
On July 16, 2001 --- "Recently there was a very famous American movie called 'Thirteen Days,'" he said, referring to last year's historical drama about the Kennedy-era showdown between the Soviet Union and the United States. That crisis ended when the Soviet Union agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba. "But for the 23 million Taiwanese people, our missile threat is not only a 13-day threat. Rather we have lived for a very long time under a missile threat on a daily basis," Mr. Chen said. Asked about Taiwan's plans for missile defenses, Mr. Chen said increasing missile deployments by the communist Peoples Republic of China (PRC) are the reason the United States and Japan are conducting research and development on missile defense systems. "Asia Pacific peace and stability is in Taiwan's interest; it is also the common interest of the United States and Japan," Mr. Chen said. "I believe that peace in the Taiwan Strait is key to the overall stability of the Asia Pacific region. So maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait and avoiding a PRC threat against Taiwan is something that the U.S., Japan and Taiwan must jointly deal with in a manner of division responsibilities and cooperation." Taiwan's defense agencies are "actively studying and evaluating the possibility of taking part or investing in the [theater missile defense] project," he said. "But so far we don't have a conclusion" about whether the program will move ahead. Mr. Chen was elected last year as Taiwan's first opposition political leader since 1949. In an interview focusing on national security topics, Mr. Chen also said the United States and Taiwan should increase military cooperation and exchanges to secure peace and stability in Asia. "The U.S. and Taiwan do not have official diplomatic relations," Mr. Chen said. "As such it would be difficult to achieve a military alliance. However, in terms of military exchange and cooperation there is still much more room for improvement. Currently, relations are much better than in the past and have made significant progress, but they can still be upgraded." Mr. Chen said he was encouraged by the Bush administration's decision in May to sell advanced U.S. arms to the island. But he said hardware transfers are "only one part" of Taiwan's military buildup, which is needed to create a military balance with the mainland. "What is more important are the personal exchanges and cooperation," he said. "The uplifting of battlefield management training capabilities, as well as joint training exercises between the different divisions of the military, are also important." China's military budget has been increasing annually at "double-digit" rates since 1989, a rate far greater than its economic growth rate, he said. The economic boom has helped Beijing to add more resources to its "military expansion and missile deployment." "The PRC threat is directed not only against Taiwan. It is at the same time also a threat to the United States and Japan," Mr. Chen said. China is opposing U.S. development of theater missile defenses [TMD] as well as national missile defenses [NMD] against long-range missiles, he said. But Beijing's Communist leaders "never look to the source" of the problem, he said. "Why is there an issue of TMD and NMD? The key is that the PRC is increasing its missile deployment by 50 to 70 missiles a year at this growth rate, and it is a significant threat to the peace and stability of the Asia Pacific region. It is because of this threat that there is an issue of developing TMD and NMD." China has deployed about 300 M-9 and M-11 short-range ballistic missiles in Fujian province, directly across the Taiwan Strait from Taiwan. The missile buildup, which began several years ago, is viewed by the Pentagon with alarm because the missiles are destabilizing the already tense region. Mr. Chen, 51, spoke Friday during an interview inside the sprawling presidential office building here built by the Japanese in the 1900s. The interview took place hours before China was awarded the controversial bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games. "My greatest concern is not in which city will gain the sponsorship but rather the spirit of the Olympic Games," Mr. Chen said. "I think the spirit of the Olympics is in peace. It is against war and it is against missile deployment." China has refused to renounce the use of force to reunite Taiwan, which it views as a breakaway province, with the mainland. China last year added a new condition for the use of force, threatening to take military action if Taipei failed to engaged in negotiations for reunification. Mr. Chen said he believes it will be very difficult for China to give up on its threats to use force for the foreseeable future because "this is the fundamental substance of their regime." Mr. Chen said he hopes leaders from both China and Taiwan can resume the dialogue that was suspended several years ago after then-President Lee Teng-hui called for "state-to-state" relations with Beijing. The remarks angered Beijing's Communist leaders and triggered a crisis between China and Taiwan for several months. "I believe that as long as we can sit down and resume the dialogue across the strait, we can discuss any issue," Mr. Chen said. "We would not rule out discussion of any issue, including the so-called one China question." "And of course this may also include a cross-strait peace resolution." Mr. Chen said Beijing's formula for "one-China, two systems" is unacceptable to a large majority of Taiwan's 23 million people. The president noted that a recent Pentagon report to Congress on the military balance across the Taiwan Strait stated that by 2005 the military balance could shift in Beijing's favor. The U.S. government considered Taiwan's defense needs "in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act" and offered an arms sale package that would significantly increase Taiwan's air defense, anti-submarine and underwater and surface defense capabilities," Mr. Chen said. The arms sale will "greatly strengthen Taiwan's overall self-defense as well as elevate the confidence of the Taiwanese people, and we welcome this decision with great appreciation," he said. The arms package also will give Taiwan's people the confidence to go forward with a dialogue with China and "to protect Taiwan's hard-won democracy," he said. Asked if Taiwan might develop its own ballistic missile forces or land-attack cruise missiles in addition to missile defense, Mr. Chen said no. "Taiwan's broader defense strategy is effective deterrence to defend ourselves," he said. "As such we will not initiate war, neither will we initiate the first strike." I don’t concern about the
future of Taiwan, but give President A-bian a hand would boost people’s
confidence” to deal with China.
Yours Sincerely,
※
FORMOSA (computer CD), the history of Taiwan, enclosed herewith
|
