A Chinese state publisher has
ordered “cuts and changes” to the memoirs of Singapore
Senior Minister Lee Kuan-yew, a friend and adviser of China’s Communist
leaders, an editor said on Aug. 7, 2001. “The China version of the book
contains certain cuts and changes,” said Zeng Huijie, an editor at the
state-run Foreign Language Press. She declined to give details of
what was cut from the China version of The Singapore Story: From Third
World to First, the second volume of Lee’s memoirs, which will be
released in China next month after some delays. “The decision to revise the book
was made by superiors,” Zeng said of the publisher, which is controlled
by the State Council, China’s cabinet. Officials at Singapore Press
Holdings, the original publisher of Lee’s memoirs, confirmed China was
censoring the book but declined to give details. Censorship, or outright banning of
publications, is common in China, which is in the midst of a campaign to
curb coverage of controversial topics that has seen outspoken newspapers
closed and editors sacked. But censorship of Lee – whose
tightly run city sate is thought to be admired by China’s Communist
leaders, who have hosted him in Beijing many times – has struck some in
Beijing as ironic. Lee has often been a major booster
of investment in China and has chided the US for being critical of Beijing
and for being sympathetic to Taiwan. The English-language original
version of the second volume of Lee’s memoirs, which describes his
dealings in his 30 years as Singapore’s prime minister, devotes about
100 of its 736 pages to China. Lee, who stepped down as
prime minister in 1990, praises Chinese economic reform architect Deng
Xiaoping and current President Jiang Zemin, but also criticizes corruption
and the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy activists. “We had not expected to see the
use of such tremendous fire power and force,” Lee wrote, describing the
shock in Singapore after the Chinese army gunned down hundreds of people. He identifies corruption as
China’s “most pernicious problem.” Jiang has called corruption a
“cancer” which threatens party rule and has launched a war against it.
Several senior officials have been executed for graft. Lee wrote, “Many Communist Party
cadres and government officials in the provinces, cities and countries are
not above corruption. “Worse, many officials who
are expected to uphold and enforce the law – public security officers,
procurators and judges – are also corrupt,” he said. In our viewpoints, not any words
could be accepted by communist China by telling the true stories about
Beijing. A coalition of conservative
organizations, concerned that a top military priority is facing a tough
battle on Capitol Hill, has begun a national lobbying effort to pressure
Congress into supporting President Bush’s plan for a missile defense
shield. The coalition, Americans for
Missile Defense, intends to collect more than 1 million signatures,
inundate lawmakers with letters and e-mail messages and raise money for a
media campaign in time for the September budget debate, the organizers
said. “Missile defense, like very few
other issues, has the capability to immediately unite conservatives of all
stripes,” said David A. Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative
Union, which is helping to spearhead the coalition. One of the coalition’s goals
will be to bolster congressional Republicans who are being pressured by
Democrats to trim the missile defense budget in favor of increasing
spending on conventional weapons like jet fighters and warships. Democrats have argued that
Bush’s proposed US$8.3 billion missile defense budget, a US$3 billion
increase from last year, is exorbitant when other basic needs, like
maintaining ships and buying ammunition, are being squeezed. They have
proposed transferring nearly US$1 billion from the missile defense plan to
an array of programs requested by military commanders. Another challenge for the
administration and its allies will be to convince voters that the nation
needs a large increase in missile defense spending when the Soviet Union
is gone and military issues are generally considered a low priority, many
polls show. Those polls also indicate that
while voters tend to support the idea of a missile shield, their support
declines when they are told that more than US$60 billion has been spent on
the program in the last two decades. Still, the coalition’s
organizers said they were confident that once Americans learned that the
US could not defend itself against long-range missile attacks, they would
clamor for a shield. “When you tell people we can’t
shoot a missile down,” said Frank Gaffney Jr., the president of the
Center for Security Policy and a founder of the coalition, “people start
getting out of their chairs and saying, “That’s crazy.” The coalition includes Americans
for Tax Reform; United Seniors Association, which ran a US$2 million
advertising campaign for President Bush’s tax cut last spring; High
Frontier, an advocate for missile defense in the Reagan administration and
the Eagle Forum. The group also has a celebrity
spokesman; Jeffrey Baxter, the pony-tailed former guitarist for the Doobie
Brothers and Steely Dan. “When I look at people in
North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran, understand folks, these folks don’t
sit around and watch ‘Seinfeld’ and eat Milky Way candy bars all
day,” Baxter said recently. “They have a different concept, a
different culture and a different way of looking at things.” Though not a member of the
coalition, a Democratic union representing defense industry workers has
begun urging its 750,000 active and retired members to push for missile
defense. “To my Democratic friends on
Capitol Hill, I would urge them to forgo the short-term, tactical,
partisan advantage,” said R. Thomas Buffenbarger, the president of the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, in a recent
speech. “Can our party really afford to be seen as weak on the defense
of America’s cities? I think not.” Keene declined to say how much
money the coalition hoped to raise, but he suggested that it would be a
relatively modest effort intended mainly to influence legislators. An industry official said that
coalition leaders had begun soliciting money from military contractors.
But many companies are wary of the effort lest the money come from other
weapons programs. Organizers said their first goal
would be to energize several million conservative activists through
newsletters and the Internet. The coalition’s Web site allows a visitor
to send a form letter to Congress. In our viewpoints, only NMD
would be a true force to deal any of countries those who does not mean
what they says. If Joseph Biden, chairman of the
US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, really wants to understand what
is blocking dialogue across the Taiwan Strait, he need look no further
than the bully-boy attitude of the Beijing regime. Ever since President Chen
Shui-bian took office, Taiwan has made one goodwill gesture after another
toward Beijing, including opening the "small three links" and
making plans to allow Chinese tourists into Taiwan. But Beijing has
ignored all these gestures and used various excuses to refuse official
exchanges with Taiwan. It has shown no sincerity to Taiwan at all. This is
something US Democrats, who have championed a "constructive
engagement" approach toward China, should understand. The slowness of Beijing's
democratization process -- especially after the Tiananmen Square massacre
-- has stood in stark contrast to Taiwan's rapid democratization following
the lifting of martial law in 1987. This contrast mirrors the vast,
essential difference between the two government systems. China has long relied on opposing
"US imperial-ism" as a conduit to feed its people a steady diet
of anti-democratic, anti-human rights ideas -- describing democracy as the
root of political chaos and human rights as a capitalist conspiracy aimed
at subverting communism. Beijing has also used the so-called
"democratic dictatorship of the people" to persecute anyone
opposed to communist rule. The Cultural Revolution, which left tens of
millions of people dead, and the massacre of students and others in
Tiananmen Square attest to the cruel persecution of dissidents by the
Chinese Communist Party. It is hoped that the brief tour of
Northeast Asia Biden and his team are making -- with stops in Taipei,
Beijing and Seoul -- will give them a first-hand look at the vast
political, economic and cultural differences between the two sides of the
Strait. They should also be able to learn that China's refusal to carry
out democratization and its trampling of human rights are major reasons
why the people of Taiwan resist the Beijing regime. Despite
Beijing's lies about "socialism with a Chinese face," even
so-called "moderates" such as Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin have
insisted on one-party authoritarian rule, the persecution of dissidents
and the suppression of religious freedom. Won't the US be shooting itself in
the foot if its "constructive engagement" policy solidifies the
foundations of Communist rule and helps nurture the hegemonic mindset of
Communist leaders who have a fondness for military solutions?
"Constructive engagement" has yet to lead to any sign of the
construction of a more democratic China. Sources who attended Biden's
meeting with Chen said the senator called Chen's views of cross-strait
relations too optimistic and not vigilante enough. In light of the recent
media reports about Chen's remarks -- saying he hoped "the people on
the two sides of the Strait can join hands, make peace and embrace each
other" -- the stories about Biden's comments could very well be true.
How can Chen justify holding an overly optimistic view of cross-strait
relations when Beijing will stop at nothing to corner Taiwan in the
international arena? The Bill Clinton administration's
overly optimistic view of China led to a high US trade deficit with China
and solidified communist rule in China. Taiwan's misguided economic
policies have lead to the exodus of businesses to China. It cannot afford
to make mistakes in the political arena -- errors that could render it
complicit in the strengthening of communist rule. Taiwan's democracy is
proof of its political, economic and social advances -- but such an
achievement is no cause to either complacently or arrogantly underestimate
the destructive power of the Beijing regime. In Taiwan, the People First
Party on Aug. 9, 2001 criticized the "one country, three
systems" proposal put forth by the New Party as one that would wipe
out Taiwan, as the two parties continued to haggle over their cross-strait
policies. The New Party's proposal supports
unification with China after a number of unresolved issues are agreed to. These issues include deciding what
China and Taiwan will be called once they unify and the extent of autonomy
Taiwan will be given. The proposal also supports a step-by-step
progression to eventual unification. Chang Hsien-yao, director of the
PFP's Center of Policy Research, said the proposal goes against an
agreement reached by the leaders of three opposition parties last
November. In the agreement they pledged to
support "one China with different interpretations" for
cross-strait negotiations and to develop cross-strait relations in
accordance with the Guidelines for National Unification. "We should handle
cross-strait relations flexibly and maintain Taiwan's autonomy and
security. We can never agree to the New Party's `one country, three
systems' proposal," Chang said. The three parties, after fighting
for days over the PFP's claim to lead the opposition alliance, have
redirected their focus to their differences on cross-strait policies. On Wednesday, PFP Chairman James
Soong insinuated that the New Party was a radical party in favor of a
"quick unification," in what was a response to the latter's
allegation that the PFP was being ambiguous on its cross-strait policy. Further elaborating on Soong's
remark yesterday, Chang said the PFP supports developing cross-strait
relations according to a step-by-step "integration" model that
would allow the people of Taiwan to find a common ground on the
long-standing dispute of unification versus independence. Chang said the PFP's proposal is
consistent with the mainstream trend because over 60 percent of Taiwanese
are in favor of maintaining the status quo. In response to the PFP's
criticism, New Party Deputy Secretary-general Thomas Ho said that the
PFP's policy aimed only to procrastinate, which would cause Taiwan to lose
any advantages it has in cross-strait negotiations. Ho said his party believes Taiwan
should negotiate with China on an equal footing over the "one
country, three systems" proposal. Unlike Hong Kong and Macao, which
were under colonial rule and lacked any leverage to negotiate with China,
Taiwan is in a more advantageous position to negotiate, he said. New Party legislator Elmer Fung
clarified that the "one country" does not refer to the People's
Republic of China, but a "new China" that is capable of
representing both sides of the Taiwan Strait. In our viewpoints, the
People First Party chairman James Soong is saying the truth that New Party
in Taiwan was a Beijing’s megaphone; it is betraying whole Taiwanese
people. Vice President Annette Lu
warned on Aug. 9, 2001 that China has 14 new air bases in its southeastern
provinces that are within 350km of Taiwan. The military later said the
number is actually higher. Lu made the warning yesterday as
she delivered a speech to promote an upcoming conference sponsored by her
brainchild, the Taiwan Alliance for Global Peace. A high-ranking defense official
confirmed Lu's point, but added that there are many more than 14 new air
bases in that region. "What Lu said is based on a recent report by the National Security Council (NSC). But the report seems to have quoted out-of-date information," the defense official said. "The actual threat that the Chinese air force poses to Taiwan may be much greater than that implied by Lu.""... the report seems to have quoted out-of-date information. ... The actual threat that the Chinese air force poses to Taiwan may be much greater than that implied by Lu." "When we say `areas within a
radius of 350km of Taiwan,' we roughly refer to areas east of Lienchen,
Fujian Province," the official explained. When asked exactly how many air
bases there were, the official declined to be more exact than to say
"More than 14," he said. "China's real threat cannot
be calculated merely by counting bases and planes" the official said.
"We must also know the combat readiness of the Chinese air force in
those areas." In another speech delivered
yesterday, Lu made a similar warning against China's military threat
toward Taiwan. "As Taiwanese businessmen
swarm to China for financial gain, China continues its arms build-up in
the provinces facing Taiwan. It has deployed a total of 350 ballistic
missiles and over 700 fighter aircraft in the southeastern
provinces," she said. The press conference for the
Taiwan Alliance for Global Peace was held to introduce foreign dignitaries
that have been invited to attend a conference called the 2001 Global Peace
Assembly on Aug. 15, marking the end of the second world war 56 years ago. The dignitaries include six Nobel
Peace Prize laureates: Northern Ireland peace process negotiator Betty
Williams, US anti-land mine activist Jody Williams, British anti-nuclear
activist Joseph Rotbalt, former Polish president Lech Walesa, former Costa
Rican president Oscar Arias Sanchez, and former South African president
Frederik Willem de Klerk. Lu also invited 14 legislators
from Japan and the US as well as the heads of 11 international
organizations. "Peace does not come out of
weakness. Nor will it come out of pity from the invader. It can be gained
only through wisdom," Lu said. "To defend against China, which
is like a lion to us, we must make the best use of our special `soft
power.' Compared to China, Taiwan is like a kitty cat.'' Lu called on the public not be
pessimistic about Taiwan's future, since Taiwan has garnered strong
support from the international community. "It is amazing that the Taiwan Alliance for Global Peace was able to attract so many international figures in the period of just one and a half months. This demonstrates the level of support Taiwan enjoys," she said on Aug. 8, 2001. In our viewpoints, peace
does not come out of weakness, nor will it come out of pity from the
invader; it depends on “powerful force” and “wisdom”. China tightened a media crackdown
in advance of a key Communist Party meeting, warning it would shut down
newspapers and magazines that question communist ideology or report on
sensitive topics. The rules target a new breed of
livelier, reader-oriented publications that have drawn the ire of
officials with bold coverage of corruption, labor unrest and disasters
blamed on official bungling. An edict read on national mid-day
television news said “small papers” will be consolidated and
reorganized, but didn’t say which publications would be affected. It
said that those violating official reporting rules will be shut down and
new periodicals will be banned for a year in provinces or cities where
more than two publications are closed. All media in China are state owned and controlled, but some have been given greater freedom in an attempt to make them commercially viable. Over the past week, newspapers and Web sites reported on a mine disaster in southern China despite threats from mine owners and official denials. Government investigators later found at least 81 miners had died. Chinese leaders have been
tightening control over media ahead of a party congress next year that
will install a new generation of leaders. Editors who reported on
embarrassing topics have been dismissed, some newspapers have been closed
and Web sites shut down. The edict on Aug. 8, 2001 said
publications are forbidden to deny the leading position of communist
ideology in Chinese society, oppose policies on religion and ethnic
minorities, leak state secrets or harm national security. “For a period of time, small
papers and small periodicals have diverged from the correct direction of
public opinion, creating a pernicious influence on society and requiring
these measures,” the announcement said. The announcement appears aimed at
publications that still challenge the boundaries of officially acceptable
coverage, said Joseph Cheng, who tracks Chinese politics at Hong Kong’s
City University. Following his visit to Beijing,
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the PRC has shown
eagerness to strengthen ties with the U.S., and that the PRC wants to keep
tensions over Taiwan at a minimum and avoid a replay of the April mid-air
collision between PRC and U.S. aircraft. Based on this impression, Powell
claims that the PRC has moderated its strategy of aggressiveness. Still a neophyte in the Beijing
art of locution, Powell has fallen into the semantics snare to which
Beijing so often resorts, always "pointing to a deer and calling it a
horse" and obfuscating the real points at issue. The source of
tension between the U.S. and PRC is not, after all, Taiwan per se. Rather,
it's roots are: confrontation between the democracy and freedom which
Taiwan embodies and the communist totalitarianism which the PRC stands
for; the PRC's rejection of the principle of mutual respect between equals
and its commitment to the hegemonistic concept of a world pecking order
with itself at the top; and a PRC military buildup aimed at challenging
the present international order in the Asia-Pacific region. It is precisely these sources of
tension, which led to the April mid-air collision incident. The relentless
buildup of the PRC military and its sale of destructive machines of war
has forced the U.S. to reinforce its western Pacific defense preparedness
and surveillance, leading in turn to the PRC fighter pilot's harassment of
and collision with an American reconnaissance plane. Simply put, the
incident was not so much a cause of deterioration of U.S.-PRC relations as
it was its fruit. Hence, the only possible way to
avert repeats of the incident is either for the PRC to back down from its
militaristic expansionism and exportation of lethal weaponry or for the
U.S. to abandon its will to take defensive action. In reality, however,
the PRC is continuing to actively pursue its policies of restructuring and
expanding its military might, selling missiles and nuclear technology to
Pakistan, promoting military cooperation with Iraq and Iran, accelerating
purchases of advanced weaponry and military technology from Russia, and
deploying increasing numbers of missiles targeted at Taiwan.
Believing that the PRC has moderated its strategy of aggressiveness is
wishful thinking, for it is not a fact. If America genuinely desires to
strengthen its relationship with the PRC, if it truly hopes that the PRC
will moderate its aggressive expansionist strategy, if it is adamant in
its will to assure security and peace in the western Pacific -- and
if it really believes that Taiwan is the key ingredient in relaxing
tensions between the U.S. and PRC -- then America's ideal strategy for
countering the PRC is clear and simple: the active use of Taiwan's
democracy as a mechanism for holding the PRC's militaristic expansionism
in check rather than passive response the PRC's threats against Taiwan as
a deterrent against America. The continued existence of a
robust Taiwan democracy is the most powerful weapon, which can be brought
to bear in prodding the PRC to follow a more civilized, This strategy of warding off
challengers without going to war is the best option for the U.S. The PRC's greatest fear, after
all, is not a military conflict with the U.S. but its own democratization.
Only under the pressure of the augmented use of democratic power will the
PRC be persuaded to truly moderate its aggressive strategy. In our viewpoints, only United States could say “No” to Beijing’s warning, over threats from its military attack democratic Taiwan. So Taiwan needs your support.
Yours Sincerely,
|
