Dear
Miss Condoleezza Rice, Who encourage “terrorists” and
do that terror-stricken way? Where terrorists come from? Who support the
“terrorists”? “Rogue states” are source of
“terrorists”? Could naïve Americans attack rogue system? From CNN reports, … What appeared to be two
passenger planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan
on Tuesday, leaving both towers in flames. About 18 minutes after the first
plane hit the northern tower, a second plane slammed into the southern
tower, erupting into a huge fireball. The harrowing images were caught in
live video. An FBI official told CNN that the
bureau had launched an investigation into the crashes. In our viewpoint, United
States should do it want to protect, that would be nothing working in
“negotiation” with “rogue states” and “terrorists”. Following “three no’s
effect, Beijing was encouraged by “Clinton’s support”? Among Taiwan's political circles
the "three nos" were viewed as the biggest blow to US-Taiwan
ties since 1979, when Jimmy Carter's administration cut official ties with
the country. DPP lawmaker Parris Chang wrote
recently in the Liberty Times that the Clinton administration totally
accepted Beijing's "one China" stance, which negates Taiwan's
independence and sovereignty. "We don't expect Mr Clinton
to apologize to Taiwan for these blows in his upcoming speech in
Taipei," Chang said in his article. "But we hope he will not
continually promote the `one China' policy for Beijing." "We also hope Clinton can sincerely examine Taiwan's achievements in democracy, freedom, and human rights -- which is totally different from the situation in China," Chang added, "and to share his observations with his Democrat colleagues in the US -- to convince them to support this free country." The Presidential Office said that
Chen was especially interested in Clinton's experiences in overcoming the
political struggles of the early days of his presidency. On the other hand, as rogue states
as communist China want to do its wills only. We thought that “nothing” for
“WTO”, when Beijing’s promise, will it follow the international
business law? Beijing has issued a veiled
warning that foreign firms risk losing out on business opportunities in
China if they interact directly with government officials from Taiwan on
Sept. 4, 2001. In a meeting with foreign
reporters in Beijing on Monday, Zhu Bangzhao, spokesman for China's
Foreign Ministry, said Beijing is opposed to "any official
exchanges or contacts" with representatives of the Taiwanese
government and also disapproves of contacts that have "official
characteristics." Zhu said Beijing has no objection
to companies engaging in "unofficial, people-to-people economic
exchanges with Taiwan." But, in language that created concern among
investment bankers, Zhu said China's government would not tolerate
"countries that have diplomatic relations with us undertaking any
exchanges of an official nature with Taiwan." Zhu's comments today came in
response to questions about a Wall Street Journal report that Beijing
recently dropped Credit Suisse First Boston, a Swiss investment bank, from
lucrative underwriting deals because bank executives participated in two
overseas investment promotion conferences that included senior Taiwanese
government officials. According to the report, the Chinese government attempted to punish CSFB by dropping the firm from a list of investment banks chosen to share in underwriting multibillion-dollar stock offerings for two state-owned giants, China Unicom Group Ltd., China's second-largest mobile phone provider, and China Aluminum. CSFB has declined to comment on the situation. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay
(R-Tex.) last week accused China of attempting to weaken Taiwan's already
struggling economy by frightening away global investment banks whose help
the island needs to attract investors. Reports from Russia … In addition to economic
cooperation, Moscow and Beijing are interested in boosting relations to
counter what they consider American hegemonism and U.S. plans for a
national missile defense system. Russia and China both warn that
the proposed U.S. missile shield could tilt the strategic balance and
trigger a new arms race. However, Beijing’s concerns are even stronger
than Moscow’s, because its nuclear arsenal is tiny compared to
Russia’s and even a limited missile defense could erode its deterrent
value. Reports from Vietnam … Vietnam and China normalized
diplomatic ties in 1991, having fought a brief but bloody war in 1979
after Vietnam invaded Cambodia and ousted the Beijing-backed Khmer Rouge. Using unusually mild language,
China has called on the United States to act cautiously on its missile
defense plans. Comments by Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao published late Sept. 8, 2001 appeared to be
a departure from previous assertions of outright opposition to U.S.
missile defense plans. “China hopes that the U.S.
act cautiously regarding the MDS issue,” state-run Xinhua quoted Foreign
Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao as saying. Zhu said U.S. plans to develop its
missile defense system was bound to damage the international strategic
balance and stability and harm the common security of all countries,
according to Xinhua. In our viewpoint, China can
protect United States? From charter of the United
Nations, we find that R.O.C was instead by PRC wherever R.O.C’s name
still on charter V … CHAPTER V THE
SECURITY COUNCIL COMPOSITION
Article 23
1. The Security Council
shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic
of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of
America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The
General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be
non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially
paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United
Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the
other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical
distribution. In Taiwan, the Securities and
Futures Commission (SFC) under the Ministry of Finance responded on
September 5, 2001 to Tuesday's comments by mainland Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao that China is opposed to private
enterprises having "official exchanges" with Taiwan. "The international banks
are only involved with arranging the schedules and participants of the
overseas trips for Taiwan officials. These activities are purely
commercial, but the mainland authorities regards them as political
events," SFC Chairman Chu Chao-chuan said during Wednesday's press
conference. "The host of these events is
the Ministry of Finance, rather than the international investment
banks," Chu stressed. Zhu made the comments to defend
Beijing's actions in refusing Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) several
underwriting deals for mainland enterprises because it helped arrange
investment conferences for Taiwan officials during their European trip in
June. This move caused two other international investments banks, Merrill
Lynch and Goldman Sachs, to cancel their agreement to schedule similar
activities in the United States. Since both Merrill Lynch and
Goldman Sachs have attempted to back away from helping arrange the U.S.
trips, Chu said that the ministry will stick to the plan to host the
investment conferences in the United States even though the schedule has
been pushed back from October to November. The SFC and the Taiwan Stock Exchange will arrange the schedule and participants instead. The U.S. trip currently is expected to comprise three investment conferences to be held in Boston, New York and San Francisco, respectively, November 5-9. Around 140 foreign investors have registered with the ministry to attending these conferences, according to Chu. As of the end of July this year,
the net amount of foreign capital remitted into the island for stock
investments has reached US$38.9 billion, accounting for 10 percent of
Taiwan's capital market. There was still saw a net capital inflow in
August when the stock market was hit by the report of a decline in
Taiwan's GDP, according to ministry figures. Mainland China is reportedly
facing criticism for putting pressure on Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs
to cut links with Taiwan officials. Its spokesman, Zhu, warned on Tuesday
that Beijing would not tolerate foreign firms pursuing
"official" contacts with Taiwan. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes future unification with China, no self-respecting citizen of this country can deny the sovereignty Taiwan currently enjoys. It is also a plain fact that the 23 million people residing on this island are entirely unrepresented at the UN. Even pro-unificationists cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the People's Republic of China (PRC) does not and has not ever governed Taiwan. For that reason alone the PRC is completely inadequate and incapable of representing the people of Taiwan at the UN. No sane person in Taiwan, be they
supporters of unification or of independence, can possibly trust China to
represent their interests. The PRC's hostility toward Taiwan and, on a
more personal level, everyone on this island is all too amply demonstrated
by the large number of missiles targeting Taiwan and recent Chinese moves
to drive foreign investors away at a time when the Taiwanese economy is
rapidly deteriorating. So unless the government of Taiwan
successfully opens the UN door, the people of Taiwan will continue to be
underrepresented within the international community. That is something everyone on this
island should find offensive, when virtually every other country in the
world has a voice at the UN. The pro-unification media have had
virtually no coverage of this year's UN bid. This comes as little
surprise. But what about all those so-called patriotic politicians and
lawmakers? Why have they all been silent? The only interpretation possible
for such a lack of interest is their total disregard for the dignity and
interests of the nation's people. Taiwan's government has made a
number of pragmatic changes to this year's UN bid. The most noteworthy
breakthrough perhaps is dropping long outdated and suicidal rhetoric that
the future of the two sides across the Taiwan Strait be jointly decided by
"the people on the two sides." Why people on the other side of
the Taiwan Strait should be invited to decide the future of people here
defies logic and common sense. Another breakthrough is the use of the name "Taiwan" to cross-reference the "Republic of China." It makes sense for our nation to enter the UN under the name "Taiwan" for the same reason that China has always maintained its UN membership under the name "China." As the PRC is the only government representing the member "China," the ROC would be the only government representing the member "Taiwan." As UN membership belongs to countries rather than the governments representing those countries, why would Taiwan enter the UN under the name "ROC" in the first place? Again, using the name
"Taiwan" should be merely a matter of common sense, irrespective
of one's stance on unification. After all, under what other name could
this country enter the UN? The name "China" is simply out of the
question. Not only is that name already taken, but it would also be
inconsistent with reality. Only when the people of Taiwan put
aside their differences and focus on UN entry can this country have a real
chance of gaining admission. Members of Taiwanese communities
in California gathered for a rally Sept. 8, 2001, taking to the streets to
proclaim that the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty should be decided by
the citizens of Taiwan. In the rally, held parallel with
anniversary celebrations marking the signing of the peace accord among the
US, Japan and 46 other nations on Sept. 8, 1951 that officially ended
World War II, members of the California-based Taiwanese groups declared
that Taiwan is a sovereign state. The declaration stated that Taiwan
has never been and is not now a part of the People's Republic of China,
and supported Taiwan's participation in international affairs and
organizations, including the UN. The idea that Taiwan is not a part
of China finds its roots in international law, in the form of the San
Francisco Peace Treaty. The treaty also constitutes legal proof refuting
the pro-unification camp's assertion that, since ancient times, Taiwan has
always belonged to China. Since its signing on Sept. 8, 1951, there has
existed an intimate association between Taiwan and the treaty, which has
exerted a huge influence on relations across the Taiwan Strait. In his article State,
Sovereignty and Taiwan (published in Fordham International Law Journal,
volume 23, 2000) Fordham University law professor Y. Frank Chiang writes
that the Ching Dynasty (1644-1911), the ROC of 50 years ago and today's
PRC were merely three successive governments in modern Chinese history. These three governments do not,
however, represent three distinct, independent nations, Chiang argues. The
ROC inherited the international debt left behind by the Ching imperial
regime and the PRC took the ROC's UN seat in 1971 while "China"
never changed its name. From these two facts one can see
that Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong merely replaced existing governments, and
did not actually establish new nations. Upon being overthrown by Sun, the
Ching government lost both its territory and people, and was thus
relegated to the dustbin of history. When the ROC government was driven
off Chinese territory by the Chinese Communist Party, it likewise lost its
territory and people. The difference between the two is
that the ROC had the benefit of luck (the Japanese defeat in World War
II), geographical position (Taiwan) and connections (World War II allies).
The ROC was eventually entrusted by the World War II allied powers with
control of Taiwan, which it has maintained to this day. Thus, during the
past 50 years of its occupation of Taiwan, the ROC has never had
"legal" claim to Taiwan and its people. What exists today is
merely the continuation of a "circumstantial" role proper to the
title of ROC, supported only by ethnic sentiment. In retrospect, during the period
1945 to 1949, if Chiang Kai-shek hadn't lost China, and Japan had still
surrendered to allied forces in August 1945, the proclamation "Taiwan
is hereby returned to the ROC" would surely have been included in the
San Francisco Peace Treaty signed six years later. Clearly, at that time,
the people of Taiwan felt that being returned to China was perfectly
reasonable, and even rejoiced at the prospect. Unfortunately, Chiang's KMT lost
the Chinese civil war. Then, in 1950, during the Korean War, the PRC
entered North Korea, becoming an enemy of the UN allied forces. By this
time, China had already become "Communist China." The San
Francisco treaty was signed the following year by the US and 49 other
World War II allies. The San Francisco treaty easily
proves that Taiwan's international status remains undefined. Amid all the
heated debate that has occurred regarding the "Taiwan question,"
50 years of history have already vanished. While the past is gone, however,
the future is still within our grasp. Now is the time to take a fresh look
at the situation! Ever since Taiwan was ceded to
Japan in 1895 under the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, it has never
belonged to China. It is most important that the Taiwan government inform
society about this historical fact and strive to encourage vigorous
debate. A senior official of the Mainland
Affairs Council has denounced China’s recent move to pressure overseas
enterprises into refraining from official contacts with high-ranking
Taiwanese officers. Vice chairman of the MAC Chen
Ming-tong said during an interview with the Central New Agency that
“with both sides about to join the World Trade Organization, China’s
actions have really disappointed us.” Chen said that the goal and
spirit of the WTO at the end of this year, the China authorities are still
trying to use irrational political reasons to interfere with free economic
activities. It is ironic and regretful,” he said. Commenting on the complexity of
the cross-strait issues, Chen admitted that both sides need to sit down
for talks in order to find a way to peacefully solve the controversy
across the Strait. But he added that a strong and
stable international framework is needed before any talks could be held,
and added that the United States plays a key role within this framework in
the Asia-Pacific region. The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs said on Sept. 7, 2001 that China has no right to interfere with
the future establishment of representative offices between Taiwan and the
EU. "This is an issue between Taiwan and the EU. China has absolutely no reason to play a part or to interfere," foreign ministry spokesperson Katharine Chang said yesterday. Chang was responding to a recent
comment made by China's Prime Minister Zhu Rongji who said on Wednesday
that the EU should not take any action that would recognize Taiwan as a
sovereign state. The European Commission suggested
on Tuesday that the EU weigh the possibility of setting up a
representative office in Taipei following Taiwan's expected admission to
the WTO. China's Vice Premier Qian Qichen
said Sept. 10, 2001 that Beijing would be patient in waiting for Taiwan to
join with China as he spelled out the "favorable" conditions the
country would enjoy if a union took place. "As long as Taiwan authorities agree to solve the Taiwan problem under the `one China' principle, we can patiently wait," Qian told an audience of senior statesmen and strategists at the China-sponsored International Forum on China and the World in the 21st Century. The statement appeared to be a
departure from China's earlier statements warning it would use force
against Taiwan if the country delayed unification indefinitely. Qian said the policy Beijing
proposed for unifying with Taiwan would be "broader" than that
for Hong Kong and Macau. Taiwan would be able to maintain
its own government structure, military and currency, Qian said. It would
also remain an independent customs zone and Beijing would not levy a
single penny of taxes on Taiwan or send its officials to the country to
take office. "The way of living of the
Taiwanese people will remain unchanged," he said. "Taiwan entrepreneurs can
keep their property and assets. Taiwan will have autonomous recruitment of
their officials. The mainland government won't send officials to
Taiwan." But Qian reiterated Beijing's
stance that Taiwan must accept the "one China" principle, under
which Beijing defines Taiwan as an inseparable part of China. He also said China could not
give up the threat of force because this would "encourage Taiwan
independence forces and will make peaceful unification impossible,"
although he didn't say under what circumstances military strength might be
used. President Chen Shui-bian has
rejected Beijing's offer of "one country, two systems." An official from the Mainland
Affairs Council rejected the offer on Sept. 10, 2001, saying it was not
new. "Why should we accept? The
Republic of China is a sovereign state. Should we accept the offer? The
ROC government would be relegated into a local government and that would
be by no means acceptable," the official said. In response to remarks by China's
Vice Premier Qian Qichen that Beijing can wait for a solution to the
cross-strait problem, as long as Taiwan agrees to solve it in accordance
with the "one China" principle, the Mainland Affairs Council
called for negotiations to be held in an atmosphere of fairness and
harmony. "Fairness is what we are looking for," said Jan Jyh-horng, the director of the council's research and planning department. "Peace talks between
Beijing and Taipei should be held under harmonious and fair conditions for
both governments. Otherwise, there is nothing to talk about." The Chinese government has made
extensive expenditures on state-of-the-art weapons and has scheduled
exercises to train its soldiers in their use. "The Dongshan Island war
games held by the Chinese Army for example," Jan continued,
"[employed] the best troops in China. They came for training, then
they went back to show everything they had learned to other
soldiers." So, Taiwan needs your concern.
Yours Sincerely,
|
