Dear Mr. President George W. Bush,

Review terrorist’s attacks that major development in U.S. attacks investigation were.

---- Taliban forces shot down an unmanned spy plane in northern Afghanistan yesterday, but it wasn’t immediately clear to which country the aircraft belonged.

---- Heavy fighting was reported between the Taliban militia and opposition forces in northern Afghanistan.

---- The United Arab Emirates --- one of only three nations to recognize the Taliban --- cuts diplomatic relations with the religious militia. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the remaining two nations that recognize the Taliban have both pledged support to the United States in its efforts to fight terrorism.

---- Congress approves a U.S.$15 billion relief package for the airline industry in a 356-54 vote hours after the Senate approved the same bill 96-1.

---- Dozens of U.S. celebrities turn out in a televised fundraiser for attack victims. The television was show on more than 30 networks; organizers say it may be next week before they have an estimate of how much money was raised.

---- Federal prosecutors announce they charged a man with trying to fly into Chicago with an illegal passport and airline uniforms on the day of the suicide hijackings.

---- Wall Street stocks fall again. Dow posts biggest one-week point decline in history (1,369.70).

Reports from Reuters;

Two watchdog groups said the nation’s 103 nuclear power reactors were vulnerable to acts of terrorism and the government should immediately station soldiers and missiles around each plant for protection.

“It is prudent to assume, especially after the horrific, highly coordinated attacks of Sept. 11, that (Osama) bin Laden’s soldiers have done their homework and are fully capable to attack nuclear plants for maximum effect,” Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, told a news conference.

We thought what “terrorists’ attacks” were so easier than before and more and more revealed its disasters in depth.

Certainly, United States cannot stand its “justice” for economic and political balance when on the weak and strong conflicts over international issues.

The Chen administration has made a series of goodwill gestures to Beijing in the last month. Among these, the most important was the consensus reached with the opposition at the Economic Development Conference regarding the loosening of the "No haste, be patient" policy. In addition, the relevant departments have actively engaged in efforts to open up Taiwan to tourists from China, as well as to open up trading ports to direct cross-strait commerce.

In the past, when Taiwan has made such overtures to China, Beijing has responded by being either cold or exploitative. The most obvious example would be its response to the "small three links," put into effect at the beginning of this year. The Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) reaction to these most recent overtures is worth noting.

Consider the recent visit by Xing Kuishan, head of the Taiwan affairs department under the Chinese State Council's Hong Kong office. Travelling to Taiwan as an advisor to the "Friends of Hong Kong Association," Xing met with Chen Ming-tung, vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council on Aug. 29 for talks in Taipei. Xing's status is rather sensitive, because back in 1999 when former president Lee Teng-hui announced his "special state-to-state" model, Beijing immediately severed communications between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait and the Straits Exchange Foundation.

At the time that the Friends of Hong Kong Association decided to visit Taiwan, final confirmation of the loosening of the "No haste" hadn't been made, so Xing's visit wasn't in response to the loosening of the policy. Still, the eventual relaxation of the policy might have been Xing's reason for eventually making contact with Taiwan officials. And, when Taiwan agreed to allow Xing to visit, it was of course also an effort to improve cross-strait relations.

If Xing's move can be taken to be a show of enthusiasm on China's part, then the recent pronouncements of Wang Zaixi, deputy director of the Taiwan Affairs Office under the State Council, don't appear so friendly. While traveling in Malaysia on Aug. 28, Wang said that he was "still observing" Taiwan, and "whether or not [Taiwan's] next practical move is realized -- that's the key." This comment exudes the CCP's usual domineering tone.

Wang also said that the CCP had chosen to alleviate Taiwan's economic predicament and open up cross-strait exchanges out of consideration for the interests of the people of Taiwan, implying that Taipei's relaxation of the "No haste" policy was actually a way of begging China to rescue it. It was as if Taiwan had returned to the age of "eating banana skins," the term previously used in CCP propaganda to portray Taiwan's supposedly pitiful state.

The party has obviously forgotten that it was Hong Kong and Taiwan capital that first came to the rescue of China's ailing economy. Especially after the Tiananmen Incident, it was Taiwan businesses that went to China, giving the Communist Party (at the time suffering from sanctions imposed by Western nations) a much-needed infusion.

Furthermore, as Taiwan prepares for tourism from China, Beijing -- which had previously consistently called for Taiwan to establish direct links -- has been putting on airs. Deputy Director of China's National Tourism Administration, Zhang Xiqin, said on Aug. 8 that bilateral consultations had to be based on the "one China" principle, otherwise the party would not allow anyone from China to visit Taiwan.

It appears that the CCP has decided that Taiwan needs tourists from China to come and save its sluggish economy. China has also decided that Taiwan must accept "one China" as a precondition for any negotiations.

This clearly is political blackmail. Taiwan has consistently called for the maintenance of cross-strait communication channels. It was the CCP that unilaterally suspended such channels -- and now it is making unfounded charges against Taiwan, putting the burden of responsibility on Taipei's shoulders, laying bare the utterly corrupt political morals of the party and its officials.

Still, in a speech and interview given to Xinhua News Agency on Aug. 30 in Singapore, Wang Zaixi's tone had changed somewhat. Apart from softening his rhetoric, he said it wasn't necessary for Taiwan to make any official statement on the issue of "one China;" that as long as everyone believed in "one China" in their hearts, that would be sufficient (of course he didn't explain how Beijing would know how people were feeling in their hearts).

Wang also stated that Beijing doesn't want to see chaos in Taiwan, and further that Beijing hopes its "compatriots" in Taiwan will have a safe society in which people can live and work in peace. Wang also expressed his hope that Taiwan's economy would develop in a stable way.

In a mere two days, the attitude of these CCP officials seems to have done a complete turnaround. So, should one believe what they said two days before, or two days after? Because the officials involved are but small cogs in the party machine, one would guess that the CCP's Taiwan policy had actually under-gone some changes during the two days.

It is also possible that before this time, the party was already preparing to make some policy changes. Perhaps that would explain why Beijing told the US that it was the KMT that instructed it not to have dealings with President Chen Shui-bian, laying the blame completely on the KMT. Was this, after all, a case of rumor-mongering by the CCP, or were some despicable individuals in the KMT indeed offering strategy to Beijing?

Outsiders of course can't know for sure, but Beijing's purpose in sowing dissension and division within Taiwan is abundantly clear: If Taiwan's opposition trusts the CCP too easily, it could end up being sold out at any time -- haven't they learned their lesson enough times already?

It has been said that "the CCP is like the moon -- it looks different every two weeks." There's no way to predict how party policy will change in a few days' time. "Listen to what he says and observe his moves" is a term that is best applied to the CCP. As for Taiwan, its opposition absolutely must not let itself dance to Beijing's tune. Taiwan's internal unity and long-term interests should be considered top priority instead -- in all matters.

As expected that China has sentenced a seriously ill dissident to 10 years in prison for holding a hunger strike highlighting abuse he suffered during a previous jail term, a New York–based rights group said on Sept. 21, 2001.

Li Wangyang, 50, was convicted of “incitement to subvert state power” earlier this month by the Intermediate People’s Court in Shaoyang city, in the central province of Hunan and sentenced Thursday, Human Rights in China (HRIC) said in a statement.

Officials at the court refused to comment on the case, while relatives of Li were unavailable.

Li, a long-standing dissident who was a labor activist during the 1989 democracy protests, began a hunger strike in February, a few months after he was released from an 11-year prison term stemming from his 1989 activities.

He had been jailed for setting up an independent labor union, the Shaoyang Workers Autonomous Federation, and while in prison suffered frequent and severe beatings which left him with serious illness, HRIC said.

Li was hospitalized early this year and went on a 22-day hunger strike to demand authorities pay for expensive treatment for a range of back, heart and lung problems he said were the result of the prison beatings.

He was arrested on May 6 at the Daxiang Hospital in Hunan, where he was receiving treatment for his numerous health problems.

Li’s sister Li Wanglin has additionally been sentenced to three years in a “reeducation through labor” camp for helping him publicize his hunger strike, HRIC said.

“HRIC strongly condemns the sentence of the Chinese government on Li Wangyang, this sentence fully shows that the Chinese government not only violates human rights, but also refuses to allow victims to seek justice based on facts,” the group said.

A group of four cyber-dissidents are expected to be tried for subversion in a Beijing court next week for forming the Association for New Chinese Youth and publishing a manifesto on the Internet.

Computer scientist Yang Zili, journalist Xu Wei, geologist Jin Haike and writer Zhang Honghai were arrested in March and could also face sentences of up to 10 years, for what the center called “actively investigating the means for reforming society.”

“Present US policy on the cross-trait issue is often simplified to mean no use of force, no unilateral change by either side in Taiwan’s political status and that any change in this status must have the acquiescence of the people on Taiwan.”

“China’s position seems to be hardening as it has just recently expanded its efforts to contain Taiwan in the international community, to coercing foreign companies to cooperate in isolating Taiwan’s private sector economy. So far, this very significant step has received little criticism from abroad. Is that a boycott?”

“One of the most striking features of the days following the attacks was the effort to develop a consensus and unify the people behind the US president and country …

The lack of consensus in Taiwan may restrict its ability to use nationalism as a means of unifying the people, but what would happen if an attack – terrorist or otherwise – were to take place here?” Former AIT’s Chairman Nat Bellocchi said.

Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen on Sept. 26, 2001 called for Beijing to show greater flexibility in approaching cross-strait relations and to recognize the reality of the sovereignty of the Republic of China.

Tsai, speaking at a forum in Taipei Wednesday, said she hopes the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will be able to operate a working dialogue, and at the same time expressed Taiwan's willingness to interact with China in multinational structures such as the World Trade Organization.

She went on to comment that although Beijing appears to be softening the edges of its "one China" principle, its revisions still do not reflect any concrete changes in China's stance against Taiwan.

China's interpretation of the "one China" principle completely ignores the independent nature of Taiwan's political position as well as the reality of Taiwan as a sovereign state, Tsai said.

Solving the "one China" issue will require some serious give-and-take between the two sides, she said, adding that China lacks flexibility when it comes to solving issues created by reforms in politics, the economy, and the local community.

Many scholars in Taiwan expressed concern about China's fostering of nationalistic fervor, which may limit the effectiveness of foreign protocol and in addition, gave more space for terrorists.

The extremely complex cross-strait relationship is constrained by several factors, some of which are stable, others constantly in flux, Tsai said, adding that Taiwan must be very careful if it is to avoid miscalculations and subsequent breaches with China.

Tsai said Taiwan has readied itself for the long process of jointly paving a new road to interactive relations. It will solicit support from the international community for its directives of peace and local stability. 

In contrast to President Chen’s soft attitude that China has refused to negotiate with Taiwan since the last talks took place in Beijing in April 1998.

In July 1999 former president Lee Teng-hui upset Beijing by describing cross-strait relations as “state to state” in nature.

Beijing responded by unilaterally suspending cross-strait dialogue.

Following President Chen Shui-bian’s election last year, Beijing adopted an attitude toward the DPP government of “listen to what he says and observe what he does.”

Beijing has also ignored the existence of Taiwan’s central government by communicating with opposition parties, local governments and NGOs, and has tried to force the central government to accept its “one China” principle.

In our viewpoints communist China cannot change its “basic conception” for achieve “hegemony” in the world in which could fight down “US empire”.

The annual APEC meeting will be held next month in Shanghai, along with the "informal" leaders' summit. Host China, however, did not send an emissary to Taiwan to extend an invitation to the leaders' summit, in accordance with precedent. Instead it faxed an invite last May that was not addressed to any specific official by either name or title. It simply "notified" Taiwan's senior APEC officials about the leaders' summit and added "Please forward to the agencies concerned."

The fax also included an invitation to the ministerial meetings. This not only contravenes precedent, but is extremely ill-mannered. Taiwan is leaning toward not considering the fax a formal invite and is now communicating with the Beijing authorities over the issue.

China had stressed, both before and after the announcement that Shanghai would be hosting the October meetings, that it would abide by APEC's rules and precedents and would neither treat Taiwan differently nor engage in petty maneuvers. But Beijing is now doing exactly what it said it would not. It has tried to tamper with standard APEC procedures on titles and treatment for Taiwan, denigrating Taiwan at almost every APEC meeting held this year -- the CEO summit, finance ministers' meeting, trade ministers' meeting and senior officials' meeting. It has refused to refer to Taiwan's ministers by their titles, given them inferior visa status compared with their counterparts from other countries and demanded that the ministers enter China on "Taiwan compatriot's" travel passes.

Such outrageous behavior may have kept Beijing's minions snickering in their teacups, but it is hardly the statesman-like behavior expected of an aspiring superpower. Such petty denigrations are the work of cowards.

The more China tries to denigrate Taiwan in the international arena, the more it stirs up resentment among the people of Taiwan. This growing well of resentment will only widen the distance across the Taiwan Strait. The people of Taiwan have repeatedly shown themselves willing to snub Beijing's efforts to intimidate them -- as was evident during the 1996 missile crisis and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji's threats ahead of last year's presidential election. But Beijing apparently is oblivious to the fact that its actions are achieving exactly the opposite of its intentions.

The APEC leaders' meeting does not serve any significant function. It is simply a PR occasion and a chance to develop some camaraderie. However, this hasn't stopped Beijing's efforts to block Taiwan's leaders from attending past meetings. Due to Beijing's blockade, Taiwan has only sent special emissaries to represent the president in the past -- such as Koo Chen-fu, Vincent Siew and Chiang Ping-kun.

It would be foolish for Taiwan accept China's insults and once again send just a presidential envoy to the meeting. It is time that the government seriously considered the idea of not attending the leaders' meeting at all.

If Beijing were willing, APEC would be its best opportunity to break the cross-strait deadlock. By inviting President Chen Shui-bian to Shanghai and by having President Jiang Zemin shake hands with him there, China would have the perfect opportunity to convince Taiwan and the rest of the world of its sincerity about improving relations. Increasingly, however, it looks like the APEC summit will be another lost opportunity for Beijing.

However, United States should do its strategy to deal with China over any negotiations under international supervision.

So, Taiwan needs your help.

                                                                   Yours Sincerely,