Dear Mr. Trent Lott,

We want to send you our very good wishes for your well health and very thanks for kindest consideration of Taiwan situation …

The truth of Beijing’s way of peace, economic first and next to political issues, end of “military force”.

In its latest example of economic bullying, China on Aug. 24, 2001 barred Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), one of the world's largest securities firms, from doing business there in retaliation for its handling of overseas investment trips for two Taiwanese groups.

Local firms rushing to set up shop in the mainland should take heed.

"This is not about economics at all. This is entirely a political problem," the Asian Wall Street Journal cited an official at CSFB saying.

"Beijing's blood is boiling over this. ... All of our [China] deals are in jeopardy."

This is just the latest example of how China pushes around those who refuse to toe its political line. Countless examples of such intimidation exist in China's recent past and yet companies remain spellbound by the fabled "China Market" -- especially companies in Taiwan.

Seeing China as a panacea for Taiwan's economic slowdown, local firms are rushing across the Taiwan Strait in search of a new market, as well as cheap labor and land.

These firms are drawing rising condemnation from politicians who fear China will use them as pawns to further its unification plans.

"Everyone is mistaken in thinking that China is our only future," said former president Lee Teng-hui at a campaign rally over the weekend. Lee, a political juggernaut in Taiwan, then issued a strong warning to businesses that do go.

"The communists will first steal your money and then start to exploit you," he said.

He also debunked the mythical China market. China's consumer market is currently worth only about US$200 billion. By contrast, the US market equals US$1.2 trillion. Taiwanese firms should concentrate their efforts on real markets, not illusory ones, he said.

Lee also called on high-tech firms to think about national security before leaping to China.

A report published in July by the National Security Bureau, Taiwan's equivalent to the US' CIA, advised the government to use all its means to stem the flow of investment to China.

A high-ranking official in the bureau who confirmed contents of the report for the Taipei Times, took Formosa Plastics chairman Wang Yung-ching as an example of how local businessmen become the political puppets of Beijing once they place their cash in China.

In July, Wang implored the people of Taiwan to "calmly accept the `one China' principle," while repeating his call to lift all curbs on investment across the Strait.

Wang is not the only one calling for links with China. The effort received a huge boost from the three-day Economic Development Advisory Conference which ended on Aug. 26. Proposals passed at the conference called for the lifting of investment ceilings and preparing for direct cross-strait trade.

The new relaxed stance drew an immediate positive response from one of the nation's top high-tech firms, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

Earlier this year, its chairman, Morris Chang, pledged to wait up to five years before investing in China. Now, he says China's investment incentives are too good to pass up.

The report from Wang-Dan is a Chinese pro-democracy activist.

The Taiwan government's current China policy is like one hand clapping. One hand keeps flailing back and forth without receiving any response from the other.

Recently, Taiwan has discussed falling back on "one China" as defined in the framework of the ROC Constitution. The Economic Development Advisory Conference has also reached a consensus on lifting the US$50 million ceiling on Taiwanese investment in China, thereby ending the "no haste, be patient" policy. This new policy platform has made Taiwan's lively political scene even more boisterous, with some hurling criticism at the idea and others applauding it -- as if a great decision has been made. But how about the other side of the Taiwan Strait?

Facing a policy declaration that required considerable determination on the part of Taiwan authorities, Beijing's response was quite straightforward: "Lies!" How embarrassing to get such a response after so much acrimony on this side.

In fact, this embarrassment is exactly the crux of the problem in cross-strait relations. Since the DPP government came to office, it has said every good word and made every goodwill gesture it could think of to Beijing -- over and above the goodwill of Taiwan's opposition parties.

But Beijing has never given Taiwan any face. Instead, it has remained inflexible on the issue of recognizing one China with the single-mindedness of a donkey pouncing on grass it has just come across. Now even as Taiwan is poised to open direct links, Beijing remains aloof.

It's clearly time for those Taiwanese officials who believe positive interaction is possible to wake up. There are two key reasons behind this "one-hand clapping" scenario.

First, a look back at the history of cross-strait relations clearly shows that these so-called cross-strait interactions are driven completely by the domestic politics of the two sides, as well as the political atmosphere in the US.

Taiwan's moves are currently driven by the impending year-end elections. How could it be any different on the other side? The Chinese Communist Party is facing a major personnel reshuffle at its 16th national congress. How could it make any reckless mistake on the Taiwan issue at this sensitive moment?

Even if President Jiang Zemin wanted to warm up relations and use them as a trump card to consolidate his political influence, making the move too soon would do more harm than good. He can only make his moves on the eve of next year's national congress in China. Also, Taiwan's unpredictable electoral outlook has kept Beijing wary about placing its bets. Regardless of what changes occur within Taiwan, Beijing follows its own rules and nothing Taiwan can say will satisfy it.

Next, to play a game, people need to follow its rules. If one side does not follow the rules, any posturing by the other side will appear ridiculous. China's credibility is almost zero when it comes to following the rules of the game. China does not have a democratic system to regulate the decisions made by those in power, or to ensure rational policy-making.

For example, Beijing has said, "Anything can be discussed under the `one China' principle." But when the KMT proposed that the cross-strait issue be resolved through a confederation system under that principle, Beijing said "no." The KMT is naive to the point of cuteness. It does not seem to realize that the other side is merely teasing.

Cross-strait issues clearly cannot be resolved by one side continuously making goodwill gestures. Such gestures have their uses, but it is quite inappropriate to believe that they will invariably be effective.

In short Beijing handle Taiwan’s economic activity, and then, control politician we thought that EU, and U.S. would be next.

The viewpoints as Chuck Devore that he expresses the same ideas of worry. Chuck Devore served as a special assistant for foreign affairs of Reagan-era Pentagon. He said that …

China intends to eclipse the US and become the world's superpower. Standing in the way of this ambition is a free and democratic Taiwan.

The struggle for Taiwan is the core US foreign policy issue of the new century. If Taiwan remains free and democratic, the US has little to fear from China. If Taiwan is absorbed by a totalitarian China, then the 21st century will see the eclipse of American influence and the ideals of freedom, democracy and human rights -- nothing less is at stake.

Make no mistake, the un-elected rulers in Beijing see the battle for Taiwan in terms no less stark. Viewing the collapse of the Soviet empire, they understand that they must expand or die -- and they intend to expand at freedom's expense. `That any Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would be done with surprise and over-whelming force is a given .... Why Western military strategists dismiss this scenario is an interesting study in cultural arrogance and ignorance of historical precedent.'

China's strategy to take Taiwan is double-edged: it has both political and military  components.

The political front focuses on two groups in Taiwan: businessmen as well as the still potent KMT and the New Party. The political strategy seeks to use divide-and-conquer tactics to rule Taiwan through surrogates.

China has been cultivating Taiwan's tycoons in much the same manner as they successfully seduced those in Hong Kong. So far, China has netted some US$40 billion to US$60 billion of precious Taiwanese capital to build computer chip factories to the point that some 75 percent of China's computer products are made by firms owned wholly or in part by Taiwanese investors. This provides China with a huge amount of leverage to pressure Taiwan's rich and powerful to do its bidding.

Most of these silicon millionaires have little concern for human rights -- in fact, the complete lack of unionization or basic employee rights in China is viewed as an excellent way to keep labor costs down and better compete with their peers who haven't yet moved production to China.

Taiwan's middle class now finds itself increasingly squeezed in a stagnant job market (caused largely by capital flight to China). This in turn increases political unrest and contributes to a national malaise and a sense that things were better when the KMT was running the economy.

Beijing's courtship of the KMT and New Party goes hand in hand with its effort to capture the hearts and minds of the wealthy industrialists. By shunning contacts with President Chen Shui-bian and the DPP, Beijing has been building contacts with the opposition. Beijing hopes to thoroughly discredit Chen and his party so that the nation becomes ungovernable -- and even more so after this December's pivotal legislative elections. By this method China seeks to drive Chen from office and establish a pro-Beijing, Quisling government.

While many of Taiwan's rich and famous have been taken in, the average person in Taiwan seems more suspicious of Beijing's intent, and more appreciative of the democracy they've built. For them, accommodation with a totalitarian China is out of the question if it means a loss of freedom. China's military options have never been stronger and should continue to tilt in its favor until the US begins deploying effective missile defenses to shield itself and its allies in Asia. Unfortunately, there is a formidable axis of opinion among the policy elite that serves to preempt meaningful debate about China's growing arsenal and intentions.

Pro-Beijing China experts on the one hand say China is a peace-loving, developing power with no territorial ambitions. Conventionally thinking military analysts, who never tire of reliving our last victories, on the other hand laugh off Chinese military capabilities, derisively referring to any Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan as a "million man swim."

The truth of China's capabilities and intentions towards Taiwan is much more serious and urgent than most in the US or even in Taiwan realize.

In early May I (Chucks Devore) went to Taipei on a trip sponsored by the local publisher of the Chinese language translation of China Attacks, the novel about a sudden Chinese attack on Taiwan that I co-authored with Steven Mosher. After meeting with local national security experts and touring northern Taiwan I came away reinforced in my belief that Taiwan relies on two things for its immediate defense: adequate warning and its air force.

That any Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would be done with surprise and overwhelming force is a given (as opposed to squeezing Taiwan into submission through naval blockade or missile attack). Why Western military strategists dismiss this scenario is an interesting study in cultural arrogance and ignorance of historical precedent.

A Chinese amphibious assault? Oh preposterous, the experts say, who contend that without air superiority and more amphibious assault ships, such an assault would be doomed.

What the experts fail to note is China's burgeoning merchant marines (ranked by some analysts as the world's third largest) and their increasing practice of commandeering civilian vessels in support of military exercises in the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait. Taking into account ferry boats, freighters, cruise ships and fishing boats, China has a very large lift capacity -- not the modest 20,000-40,000 troops per lift often cited by experts. Could such a thing happen quickly and with surprise?

The Germans used civilian lift to get thousands of troops to Norway in April 1940 in the face of much stronger British and French naval forces.

Similarly, the use of airlift is never mentioned by analysts as a way for China to move troops onto Taiwan (except for a recent Human Events piece), yet that is precisely how the Soviet Union began its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 -- an airlift directly into Kabul. It is also interesting to note that some two-thirds of US troops sent to fight Iraq in 1990-91 were lifted into the theater with civilian aircraft. China's civil air fleet is now very large and very capable of supporting China's military ambitions.

It is instructive to note that Chiang Kai-shek International Airport is virtually unprotected. It is easy to envision a 400-man Chinese commando team flying into CKS on a commercial flight from Hong Kong, then seizing key portions of the airport as a prelude to a massive airlift of troops and supplies.

Both methods for bringing troops into Taiwan presuppose Chinese air superiority over Taiwan. How can this be quickly achieved so as not to give away surprise or draw the US into the conflict? The answer is simple and strikes at the core of something Western militaries have shut away in denial: an electro-magnetic pulse attack using special nuclear warheads.

Such an attack, using specifically tailored nuclear weapons, most likely exploded at very high altitude, would result in little to no direct casualties. What would be destroyed, however, is the very foundation of Taiwan's air defense: its advanced aircraft, its radars and its command, control, communications and computer systems. Damage could be kept localized as well -- allowing Beijing's propaganda machine to claim that minimum force was being applied to simply bring a rebellious province into line.

As to those who believe nuclear weapons would not be used by China in the opening move of an assault on Taiwan, it is instructive to note that East German war plans uncovered by the West Germans after reunification called for, in one instance, some 40 tactical nuclear weapons to be used in the vicinity of Hamburg in the first day of the attack. Even so, Warsaw Pact military planners believed they had a shortage of tactical nuclear weapons up to the early 1980s.

The point is this: the mere fact that we Americans think the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable today (whether electro-magnetic pulse bombs, neutron bombs or battlefield nuclear weapons) doesn't mean that the Chinese think so (or the North Koreans, Pakistanis or others, for that matter).

As serious as the threat to Taiwan is right now, the threat to the Chinese Communist Party and its leaders is worse. Endemic corruption with bribery consuming about 15 percent to 20 percent of the economy, bad loans totaling up to 40 percent of the annual domestic output, rising crime, 100 million unemployed migrant workers and the largest income gap between rich and poor in all of Asia, have caused a complete loss of faith in the party. Social unrest grows daily with the predictable reaction from Beijing -- more crackdowns on dissent, both political and religious.

For this reason, Taiwan's successful experiment in Chinese democracy and freedom threatens the leadership in Beijing more than the entire global arsenal of nuclear weapons ever could. No longer can the communists claim that democracy and freedom are alien Western concepts. With their legitimacy undermined the last card they have to play -- and it's a potent one -- is the nationalist card. So, as countless failed dictatorships have before them, the leaders in Beijing may yet stoke the fires of nationalism in a quest to stay in power.

If they succeed in taking Taiwan while on such a quest, the world will pay a greater price than it did to defeat Hitler and Japan. If they fail, the world will be a safer place for democracy and freedom.

Though many military analysts say it will be years before China has the capability to successfully launch an assault against Taiwan, a invasion attempt could come far earlier than most observers believe.

That's the conclusion of a new article in a leading US military journal published on Aug. 31, 2001. What's more, the attack could include a surprise missile blitz to "decapitate" Taiwan's military before Chinese troops are sent to occupy the island.

"Storm clouds are gathering in Asia, and war over the Taiwan Strait could come sooner rather than later," writes Richard Russell, a professor at the National Defense University, in the current issue of Parameters, the US Army War College's quarterly publication.

The aim, Russell says, would be to pre-empt the strengthening of Taiwan's defenses with US help and to counter what Beijing sees as "the steady march of Taiwan toward ... independence."

Beijing "probably has concluded" that Washington would come to Taiwan's aid in any cross-strait conflict -- especially after US President George W. Bush's commitment in April to do "whatever it took" to defend Taiwan, he says.

"Beijing probably would conclude that it had more vital interests at stake in the conflict than the US, and would be more willing to run ... risks in settling the conflict once and for all," Russell says.

China would use surprise and deception to carry out the attack, Russell argues. Preparation for the attack could be disguised as a routine annual military exercise.

"The Chinese could seek to lull the Taiwanese and the Americans into a sense of political security ... [by engaging] in a steady stream of diplomatic activity to portray an image of satisfaction with the status quo," Russell writes.

"The Chinese could surround cross-strait visits and talks with great fanfare and publicly claim that these endeavors herald a new foundation for cross-strait relations.

"In such a political atmosphere, the `routine' exercising of Chinese naval assets and increased air, air defense and ground-force activity might attract no exceptional attention. ... However, these military exercises would represent the movement of the Chinese military to a wartime footing and the foundation for a massive military assault on Taiwan," he says.

The assault would start with a massive "bolt out of the blue" attack by hundreds of surface-to-surface missiles on key civilian and military targets -- especially the military's command, control, computer and intelligence system.

A handful of the missiles could be armed with nuclear warheads to "magnify the psychological blow," while other missiles aimed at Taiwan's air defenses and missile defense sites could be armed with chemical weapons to incapacitate those sites,allowing China's airborne troops to seize the air bases.

Amphibious attacks would serve as a diversion to shield the airlift of troops into Taiwan, Russell says.

While China's military might not be on the same footing with Taiwan's technologically, the sheer number of soldiers Beijing could mobilize would overwhelm Taiwan's forces, he says.

In our view, that Beijing’s threat to Asia-Pacific and conflicts over Washington’s power in Asia were its mandate of history’s rights.

On the other hand, as Taiwan gambles with direct economic investment in China, cross-strait tension is intensifying, a state of affairs that Taiwan cannot afford in its current defensive position vis-a-vis China.

Taiwan cannot adopt a strategically offensive strategy to engage China through economic influence from its current position.

But Taiwan wishes to be part of the tide of direct investment and reap the economic benefits from doing so, as China opens up economically. For many people this tide may well be irresistible, but why would Taiwan also adopt such a strategy and thereby become increasingly and irrevocably committed to what is essentially a risky gamble?

Just because some will receive momentary profits by becoming cozy with Beijing does not mean that Taiwan can in any way profit by taking the same path. Yes, there are already major Taiwanese investments in China. But let's all be clear that these investments send alarming signals. One must remember that Taipei's most important defense is her isolation from China, along with the wisdom to clearly appreciate that fact.

Will Taiwan now persist in throwing away her best and only defense, for the sake of market profitability? Taiwan's strategy must be an integrated one and Taiwan must find a genuine balance between economics and national interest. This is a very hard game to play, as any fundamental error may cause you to loose your only home -- Taiwan. Does anyone in Taiwan doubt that fact?

So, Taiwan needs your help.

                                                                 Yours Sincerely,