Dear Mr. Kofi A. Annan,  
        Mr. George W. Bush,  
        Mr. Edwin J. Feulner,

Our foundation wants to express our concern about Washington-Taipei-Beijing relationship. The reports could give you understand Taiwan situation in time.

Taiwan could learn a great deal about unity from the US and its response to last week's terrorist attacks, former president Lee Teng-hui said on Sept. 16, 2001.

"Look at the US. At its most difficult moment, members of the Congress, regardless of party affiliation, have all joined together. ... That is what a democratic country should be like," Lee told members of the Board of Industrial Park Manufacturers Federation at a luncheon yesterday.

"Taiwan, on the other hand, is nothing like that," Lee said. "The lawmakers just act out skits like they are a part of some big drama and I have no idea what drama they think they are acting in. This type of behavior will only create fear and cause people to worry about our future.

"If you ask me, I am afraid for Taiwan's future," Lee said.

While President Chen Shui-bian should have the power to lead the country, the legislature has stood in his way, he added.

"Some parties and some people are purposely pulling President Chen down to see whether he will collapse. What kind of attitude is that?" Lee asked.

"The only thing that these politicians dream about is getting back their power and becoming the next president. While Taiwan is in economic recession we cannot allow this chaos to continue."

Lee also defended his "no haste, be patient" policy yesterday, responding to recent comments made by Formosa Plastics tycoon Wang Yung-ching.

Lee said the policy had its time and purpose, but it wasn't responsible for driving Taiwan's economy into its current quagmire as Wang had claimed.

"The policy was made to help protect Taiwan's high-tech and infrastructure industries. Under the `no haste, be patient' policy, Taiwan's economic growth was stable and people were still making money," Lee said.

Lee also said he wasn't opposed to investment in China.

"I am not opposed to people making money in China. I encourage businessmen to make money everywhere in the world, but to be careful," Lee said.

He did, however, take issue with the government's timing of relaxing restrictions imposed by the policy, which limits investments to US$50 million and bans certain types of investments in China.

"The problem is that now -- at a time when you need blood -- you are still drawing blood and giving it to someone else," Lee said.

"The only thing that we can count on is China's cheaper labor. However, labor salaries will rise in China in the near future and they will experience the same problems Taiwan is experiencing right now.

"Taiwan should focus on improving our infrastructure industries and improving our investment environment rather than just moving our roots to China," he said.

Former President Lee Teng-hui Sept. 16, 2001 challenged the KMT to kick him out of the party, but denied he was the one that needed discipline.

Instead, he suggested that those within the party who have distorted its direction, pandered to leaders in Beijing and sold out Taiwan should be punished first.

"I am nearly 80 years old. If you want to cut my head off then go ahead and do it anytime," Lee said, addressing a Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) training camp for young leaders in Taichung.

"However, the simple problem is that the direction you are going in is wrong."

While the KMT is currently reviewing ousting its former chairman, they are doing so with caution.

Earlier this month, Lee attended rallies for the newly formed TSU, which he hopes will bring stability back to the nation's unruly legislature by supporting the DPP.

His attendance at the rallies have prompted KMT members to call for Lee's ouster.

Political observers say that the KMT has hesitated taking any strong action against Lee for fear that such a move would create more turmoil within the party.

When plans last week for party leaders to meet with Lee failed, the KMT sent Lee a letter expressing their concerns.

Lee's comments were his first public reaction to the letter.

Lee said there was no reason for him to respond directly to the letter because it was clear what he has been fighting for over the last 12 years. However, the KMT should ask itself where its loyalties lie, he said.

"Why is it that your party hasn't done anything to punish those who used to say they were `anti-communist' and who've now run off to China to reunite with the Communists?" Lee asked.

Responding to Lee's comments, most of the 500 individuals attending the training camp at a hotel in Taichung jumped to their feet and cheered.

Lee continued: "Is that the meaning of democracy? I don't know what the party leaders are doing. I think those people should be handled first, then you can come and take care of me."

The KMT, in a late press release, said that it was "shocked and confused" by Lee's comments.

Lee is not the only one who has raised questions concerning the KMT's loyalty. A recent report published by a US scholar confirmed that many KMT politicians who travel to China and meet with China's leaders have urged them to not communicate with the DPP government.

Lee said that the "tragedy of Taiwan" was that for the past 100 years -- during the Japanese colonial period and under the rule of the KMT -- the people of Taiwan were for the most part unable to be masters of their own destiny.

"It is a great pity that the Taiwanese do not have the power to rule. That is the tragedy of Taiwan. I will fight to release this kind of pressure," Lee said.

The strange thing is that those people who advocated being anti-communist in the past now go to China, leading others behind them, Lee said.

"You young people should challenge and question those people, and ask them why did you ask me to fight them in the past and now you sell out the people of Taiwan. We must be resolved and fight for the fate of Taiwanese."

Lee noted that over 100 years ago Sun Yat-sen said that the rights belong to the people, but that ideal has yet to be implemented.

"Those politicians only speak of freedom but all they care about in the end is power and control. They just use those slogans as tools to manipulate and cheat the public," Lee said.

KMT’s rule in Taiwan for about 53 years, but its position was quitted by democratic election, why?

The problem is that the party leaders seem to have forgotten that if it wasn't for Lee's 12-year effort to "Taiwanize" the KMT, this Leninist revolutionary party would have collapsed at the end of the Chiang Ching-kuo era in the late 1980s or early 1990s. It is a miracle that the KMT managed to stay alive 10 years longer than the Communist parties of Eastern Europe. And it is contemptible that the KMT leadership doesn't have the sense to thank Lee, but instead can only criticize him.

It is because Lee made "Taiwanization" and "Taiwan first" his goals during his years in power that he enjoys such high prestige among Taiwanese today. That prestige, coupled with his high standing in the media means he can have a profound influence both on the general political situation and on the year-end elections.

It is not Lee that should be asking how he could stray from the party that brought him to leadership -- rather it is the KMT that should be reflecting on where it went wrong. It is Lee's anger over the KMT's shift from "Taiwanization" to "Sinicization" and its attempt to form an anti-DPP alliance with the Communist leadership in Beijing that has lead him to back the formation of the Taiwan Solidarity Union and renew his fight for Taiwan.

Today, Lee is the abbot being chased out of the monastery by the beggar. If the KMT doesn't have enough sense to make a U-turn away from "Sinicization" drive and try to salvage its political future, it doesn't deserve to survive -- and it won't.

For about “anti-terrorists” that to counter military threats from China, Taiwan may consider developing a civilian-based defense system to enhance its overall self-defense capabilities, university military instructors suggested on Sept. 14, 2001.

The system suggested for adoption by the military is a defense concept relatively new to Taiwan.

It highlights the use of non-violent action by civilians to counter aggression from an enemy or suppression from the government. The non-violent action could take many forms, ranging from refusal to cooperate to protests and even sabotage.

It was first introduced into Taiwan by a group of DPP members as a way of resisting the former ruling KMT.

Albert Lin, chairman of the Taiwan Research Association of National Peace Security, is one of the most vigorous proponents of the system.

Through Lin's persuasion over the past few years, the military has been talked into accepting civilian-based defense and is ready to list it as one of the defense concepts to be taught in military education courses in senior high schools and colleges.

At a conference on such systems held by the research association, military instructors from colleges in Taipei expressed support for the acceptance of civilian-based defense as a concept that students from senior high schools up must learn.

Colonel Liao Teh-chih, the chief of military instructors at Tamkang University, said the military may consider developing such a system as part of its defense capabilities. Liao made the remarks as he presented a paper at the conference.

"Civilian-based defense is a defense mechanism focused on civilians. Civilians should be trained for non-violent action they can launch against the enemy if their country is occupied by the enemy," Liao said.

"It could become a multiplier to the overall self-defense power of the country. It could also become a deterrent force against the enemy since the enemy will be worried about what kind of action it will meet from the people of the country they are going to invade," he said.

Quoting foreign scholar Gene Sharp, Liao said the system could be effectively used by Taiwan against a potential invasion from China. Sharp is one of the most distinguished scholars in the field of civilian-based defense. He visited Taiwan's Tri-Service University, the predecessor of the National Defense University, six years ago to speak on the subject.

"In his analysis of Taiwan's national defense, Sharp says it is hard for Taiwan to mobilize all of its military resources against a potential invasion from China since Taiwan is much smaller than China," Liao said.

"Sharp says if Taiwan keeps investing large sums of money on a military build-up, it will affect the nations' economic development. Sharp suggests that Taiwan develop alternative weapons to replace conventional weapons. The alternative weapons could be psychological, social, political or economic," he said.

Commenting on Liao's paper, National Security Council official Lieutenant General Liu Hsiang-pin cast doubts on the effectiveness of the system.

"There is nothing new about civilian-based defense. Our military already has similar concepts in its defense thinking. These concepts are generally known as part of our passive defense," Liu said.

"Civilian-based defense stresses the use of non-violent action against the aggressor. But action must be violent to achieve its greatest effect against the enemy," Liao said. "We must not put too much emphasis on civilian-based defense although it could be developed as part of our defensive power."

Our foundation’s members support the report from Dr. Lin Wen-cheng. He is director of the Institute of Mainland China Studies at National Sun Yat-sen University. He said that …

A recent report by a US scholar disclosed that some of Taiwan's politicians traveled to China and asked the Chinese Communist Party not have any dealings with President Chen Shui-bian, so as to prevent Chen from gaining points at home.

While the disclosure may have caused some ripples in local political circles, it's no mystery that some Taiwanese go to China and kiss up to Beijing, offering advice about how to restrain Taiwan. Such activities only began after the Chen administration took power, but now that things have gotten so ridiculous that it is revealed to US scholars by Beijing -- one feels especially saddened and hurt.

Taiwan's "small versus big" relationship to China is disadvantageous. Taiwan faces a real military threat from Beijing. Only through concerted effort will it be able to successfully defend itself.

For many years, however, what we have seen is a divided Taiwan struggling to resist a united China. Politicians, interest groups and even political parties have selfishly applied pressure on the government to accept conditions proposed by Beijing. These entities will reproach the Taiwan government, saying that it must take responsibility for stalemated cross-strait relations, yet they never dare criticize or condemn Beijing's rude, rigid stance or threats to use military might. These people are a disgrace to Taiwan, and have absolutely no chance of winning Beijing's respect.

There is an American expression "politics stops at the water's edge," meaning that politics needs to have its limits. Foreign policy cannot become the sacrificial object of factional fighting. In foreign policy, there should be no "opposition." The nation's interests should be collectively defended -- anything else would be denounced in the media as being unpatriotic, and could possibly end one's political life.

Unfortunately, all too often we see some people in Taiwan take pleasure in criticizing their own government and policy in front of foreigners -- especially in front of China's leadership. We hope and trust the foreign scholar's report on this latest unpatriotic display does not reflect the policy of a certain local political party, but rather is only the actions of individual members of that party.

Regardless of what might prove to be the case, the revelation exposes an internal crisis in Taiwan, as well as the urgent need for ruling and opposition parties to seek and establish a consensus on foreign policy. If no such effort is made, Taiwan will slowly surrender itself piece by piece, eventually buckling under China's pressure.

Beijing has consistently adopted a "peace-war strategy" vis-a-vis Taiwan, excelling at "united front" warfare. These tactics succeed because of Taiwan's internal problems. It is only because some people do their utmost to sacrifice Taiwan's interests in order to curry favor with Beijing, that China's leadership is given a host of opportunities to exploit.

This is also the main reason why, for many years, Beijing has assumed such a haughty attitude toward Taiwan, refusing to restore cross-strait dialogue. If everyone in Taiwan put the country first and considered problems from the perspective of national security, Beijing's united front would cease to be effective. And once its two-pronged strategy of propaganda and military threats fails to scare us, China will finally begin to view Taiwan as an opponent worthy of respect.

Establishing a consensus on China policy is not impossible. At the National Development Conference held in December 1996, the ruling and opposition parties reached a consensus on 36 items, including developing cross-strait relations based on protecting national survival and development; development of cross-strait economy/trade taking political risks into consideration; opposing cross-strait relations on the basis of "one country, two systems" should be opposed; the resolution of direct links through negotiations at the appropriate time, in accordance with the principles of security and mutual benefit; and the government's creation of a carefully-planned policy regarding the movement of Taiwan enterprises investing in China.

The passage of time has not caused these consensuses to lose their value. The ruling and opposition parties can take the 36 items that were agreed upon in 1996 as a base and make progress toward reaching even more consensuses in the area of China policy.

On Saturday the ruling and opposition parties convened for cross-party negotiations. We hope that the negotiations will produce more than just arguments over how to yield to Beijing's conditions and promote the resolutions passed at the Economic Development Advisory Conference.

We also hope that there will not be haggling over how to divide political booty after the year-end elections. Instead, we hope that the negotiations will transcend the selfish interests of party factions, and proceed conscientiously -- with a responsible attitude toward future generations -- establishing a basis for Taiwan's secure, flourishing prosperity, as well as consolidating the consensus between ruling and opposition parties on China policy.

We thought that Asia democracy in Taiwan is the most valuable treasure of Sino-history over 5000 years.

So, Taiwan needs your help.

                                                                 Yours Sincerely,