20030608

`One China' roof has a leak at WHA

By the Liberty Times editorial

Taiwan's hope of joining the World Health Organization (WHO) remains just a hope as a result of China's obstruction. As Taiwan came under attack by an outbreak of SARS this year, the international community began to show a great deal of support for the country's participation into the WHO. However, facing an all-out blockade from China at the WHO, the country suffered a devastating defeat for the seventh time in a row.

Confronted by the unreasonable China, President Chen Shui-bian invited everyone, including those from both the ruling and the opposition camps, to jointly push for a public referendum on Taiwan's participation in the WHO, so that the world may hear the voice of Taiwan on the issue and that the consensus and determination of the 23 million people may be demonstrated.

But the KMT and PFP have always opposed the use of public referendums, consistently condemning the use of the mechanism to get the popular will across to the world. They questioned whether anyone opposes joining the WHO? They also said that it is a bad idea to make the world think that Taiwan still dares to play a political game during a health crisis.

During the review of the public referendum law in the Legislative Yuan, under the high-handed boycott of pan-blue lawmakers, the entire legislative session was a shambles. Now that the Legislative Yuan has adjourned, how far the review of the draft referendum law has gone is a question for which no one has an answer. Public referendums are the norm in many other democracies. Why are some people here echoing China's tune?

Even pan-blue leaders concede that there is a consensus that Taiwan should be allowed to join the WHO in some capacity. However, they seemed to have attributed Taiwan's inability to join the organization to last-minute and poorly-coordinated efforts. Actually, we all know the truth only too well.

The Chinese obstruction began neither today nor after the DPP came to power. Rather, it started way back when the KMT was still in power. Under the pan-blue logic, wouldn't the criticism about the DPP government's ill-coordinated last-minute efforts also ring true with respect to their own performance in the six previous bids? China blatantly lied to the world that it was helping Taiwan fight SARS.

The government has repeatedly refuted these lies, calling them shameless. Yet, members of the pan-blue camp repeatedly convened cross-strait conferences, so as to give China opportunities to make more lies. This is and attempt to delay the government's efforts to join the WHO and tantamount to betraying countrymen who have worked so hard on the bid.

Over the years, both the government and the private sector have pitched in to help this country join the WHO. All the sacrifices made cannot be erased by a few sarcastic comments. Not only the people here, but also the international community has come to realize that the only roadblock to the WHO is China's "atypical political extortion" based on the "one China" principle.

The funny thing is this: Those pan-blue leaders attacked public referendum bills for generating political questions unnecessarily and cleverly promised to help Taiwan join the WHO as soon as possible. What tricks can they possible have up their sleeves? It is to push for two seats for two sides of the Taiwan Strait under what they are calling a "one China" roof.

According to them, this way, not only will Taiwan will able to join the WHO, it can even join non-political international organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They even claim that under the "one China" roof, Taiwan will be able to safeguard its sovereignty. Is the so-called "one China" roof really such a clever idea?

Forgive us for being blunt. This is no different from Beijing's "one China" principle. It can even be characterized in the now popular lingo "atypical surrender" on the part of Taiwan. If the so-called "one China" roof is so miraculous, the pan-blue leaders are being way too conservative in the rosy picture they paint. The Chinese leaders have said that everything is negotiable, so long as Taiwan accepts the "one China" principle.

To Taiwan, accepting the "one China" principle is the equivalent of signing its own death warrant. Under the circumstances, isn't its life too cheap if all that is demanded in exchange is membership to the WHO?

According to the Chinese logic, once Taiwan accepts the principle, and becomes a subject of China, there can be two seats for the two sides of Taiwan Strait in all international organizations. It wouldn't be asking to much for Taiwan to have a seat in the UN. Pan-blue leaders, isn't that true?

Taiwan embraces the idea of having WHO membership. But Taiwanese have never embraced "one China." When countries such as the US and Japan voiced their support for Taiwan's participation in the world health body, they never demanded acceptance of the "one China" principle by Taiwan as a precondition.

During the meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA), Taiwan suffered a blow from Beijing's fist. Chinese officials even ruthlessly scorned Taiwan, saying "who cares about you?"

Before, the pan-blue leaders have said that once elected, they will visit China, totally disregarding that the precondition China sets for a visit by Taiwanese leaders is acceptance of the "one China" principle.

Now, as the entire country feels enraged over slow action in China which abetted the spread of the SARS virus while obstructing Taiwan's bid for observer status at the WHA, the pan-blue leaders cannot wait to pitch their "one China" roof proposal. Perhaps they think that succumbing to China is the only way out for Taiwan.

WHO questions China's SARS figures

SUSPICIOUS DECLINE: World Health Officials want an explanation for the sudden drop in officially reported cases from thousands to just a handful in the past week

REUTERS AND AFP , WASHINGTON AND TORONTO

World Health Organization (WHO) officials said on Friday they plan to have an explanation next week for an apparent sudden decrease in SARS cases in China.

The WHO has been suspicious of China's reported decline, which dropped from thousands in recent months to just a handful in the past week, but has been diplomatic in its questioning of officials in Beijing.

More than 8,400 SARS cases have been reported worldwide, nearly two thirds of them in China, and about 775 people have died. On Friday China reported one new SARS case and two deaths from the disease, and for three days this week reported no new cases at all after having logged more than 5,000 in March, April and May.

"So we don't have any reason to believe that this virus is changing and we don't have any reason to believe it is becoming less virulent or more virulent."

China's health care system is rickety at best and doctors and nurses have publicly complained they lack the supplies and facilities needed to control the virus -- such as masks and gowns and isolation rooms.

"In China we are asking ... for clarifications about a couple of things. They reported that only 50 percent of cases could be traced back to another person," Heymann said.

That is "very concerning" as everywhere else SARS has been seen, it has been possible to trace each patient to contact with another, or to a place.

"At the same time, we are asking China for clarification on which case definition they are using," Heymann added. "They may not be reporting what all other countries are calling probable cases and what we are calling probable cases."

Hampering this effort is the lack of a good diagnostic test for SARS. WHO said last week current SARS tests were unreliable.

Therefore SARS, which has symptoms resembling many other causes of pneumonia, must be diagnosed based on these common symptoms and on a patient's possible contact with other SARS patients.

Heymann also hinted that China might be frightening people off from reporting to clinics with SARS symptoms.

Meanwhile, Canadian health officials on Friday said the number of probable and suspected cases of SARS dropped here by two to 81 overnight, but said they were concerned about one infected health care worker.

Canada, with 31 SARS-linked deaths, is the only country outside Asia to report any deaths related to the flu-like illness, which first appeared here in early March.

All of the 70 probable and 11 suspect cases reported Friday were located in Toronto, the epicenter of Canada's largest SARS outbreaks. Some 221 people in Ontario were also under observation as a precaution.

A suspected SARS case in British Columbia was dropped from the list compiled by the federal health agency, Health Canada.

Ontario health officials, who have been saying this week that the second SARS outbreak in Toronto -- discovered May 22 -- has been tailing off, said they were looking into a health care worker who developed symptoms two days after his 10-day quarantine was over.

"It appears that the person may have been (symptomatic) beyond the 10 days," said James Young, Ontario's commissioner for public security.

The medical trainee, who worked in the obstetrics department of Mount Sinai Hospital had apparently finished his 10-day quarantine, but a day later he became sick at work when he developed a fever.

"World opinion still remains that 10 days is the correct time, but everyone acknowledges that there could be outlying cases slightly beyond the 10 days," Young said.

Lack of support is not opposition

Has the US policy toward Taiwan changed? That is the question many asked after US President George W. Bush's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao on the sidelines of the G8 meeting in Evian last weekend. Possibly to ease worry, only a few days later on June 5, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairwoman Therese Shaheen held her first-ever press conference with members of the Taiwan media, during which she emphasized that there has been no change to the US' Taiwan policy whatsoever.

During the Evian meeting, Bush affirmed the American commitment toward the "one China" policy, the three Sino-US Communiques and a lack of support for Taiwan independence. Anyone who pays attention to the contents of the statement will realize that it is in no way different from the unwavering position of the US.

The primary reason for all the speculation was a slew of misleading reports emanating from Beijing and pro-unification media that Bush had openly stated "opposition" to Taiwan independence. Of course, anyone with enough common sense can see the less-than-subtle difference between "opposition" and "no support."

It was only last August that US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage educated the media during a press conference in Beijing about the difference between those two words, emphasizing that the US does not support Taiwan independence, but that doesn't mean the US opposes it.

It is impossible for Hu not to know this difference, since in response to Armitage's explanation Hu, then vice president, had personally lectured Armitage about the supposed threat Taiwan independence posed to peace and stability in Asia. The Chinese media and the pro-unification media that reported Bush's "opposition" to Taiwan independence either have a very short memory or are simply too lazy to check the dictionary.

Of course, in politics the timing of a statement, even if a statement with no new element whatsoever, can have important implications. It is no secret that Beijing has repeatedly pressured Bush without any success to openly state his opposition to Taiwan independence. Although still not succumbing, Bush's decision to at least voice lack of support demonstrated more of a warming toward Hu and Beijing rather than anything negative toward Taiwan.

Ruan Ming, an advisor to former CCP secretary-general Zhao Ziyang, has interpreted Bush's gesture as intent to show support for Hu's leadership in China, which still remains unconsolidated and shaky.

With chairman of the Central Military Commission Jiang Zemin still holding tightly onto the military power, Hu has some tough hurdles to jump over before substantive succession to power. On the other hand, the Chinese military's recent mishandling and concealment of SARS cases gave Hu and his supporters opportunities to attack Jiang's power.

This show of goodwill by Bush toward Hu will obviously help Hu's political stature both inside and outside China. In return, Hu may very well show much more cooperation with the US on issues such as the North Korean nuclear row, the reconstruction of Iraq and the war on terrorism.

One can hardly see what Taiwan has to lose from this gesture. In fact, the US-Taiwan relationship has never been better, as well demonstrated by the US' recent support for Taiwan's observer status at the World Health Organization (WHO) and opposition to downgrading Taiwan's status in the WTO.

Report reveals cracks in `one China' plan

DIFFERING IDEOLOGIES: The two sides are so far apart that the risk of war must be taken seriously, International Crisis Group President Gareth Evans warned

By Monique Chu

STAFF REPORTER

The `one China' principle which has helped sustain fragile cross-strait ties is showing signs of erosion following Taiwan's democratization over the past ten years, argues a renowned international think tank in its latest report on cross-strait flashpoint.

"Taiwan has moved right away -- far more than most realize -- from accepting that it and the mainland are part of one country," International Crisis Group (ICG) President Gareth Evans was quoted as saying in an ICG press release on Friday.

"Neither side wants war, but positions on the sovereignty issue are now so far apart, and so intensely held, that the risk of war must continue to be taken seriously," Evans added.

Evans, former Australian foreign minister as well as a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, made the comment following the concurrent release of three reports on cross-strait ties by the ICG in Taipei, Beijing, Washington and Brussels.

The first report argues that Taiwan, as part of its new democratic identity, has come to assert itself not just as a separate political entity, but also as a sovereign country.

The emergence of the `new Taiwanese' identity following large advances in Taiwan's democratization, the country's economic performance and its integration with the international trade system became a source of pride to its people, the report says.

It comes as no surprise that citizens of Taiwan increasingly feel a sense that these achievements had come regardless of the constraints imposed by Beijing and the international community in respect to the `one China' principle, the report says.

"As a result, many Taiwanese resented China for imposing this international straitjacket," the report says, while adding that Beijing's military threats in 1995 strengthened the new Taiwan identity and weakened support for the `one China' idea.

The report also argues that "the position that Taiwan is already an independent sovereign country is not one of a radical political fringe, but a mainstream view" in the present society of Taiwan.

As a result, the longstanding formula, whereby both sides supported the `one China' policy but had differing interpretations of what this meant, is on the verge of fragmentation, the report argues.

"The argument that the `one China' principle is in retreat is a depiction of the cross-strait reality," said Wu Chih-chung, political analyst at Soochow University.

Lee Kuo-hsiung, professor of political science at National Chengchi University, said the ICG report grasped the increasing sense of identity that Taiwanese have come to express over the past one decade. Although President Chen Shui-bian is firm on the view that Beijing has to acknowledge Taiwan's position as an independent sovereign state, his administration has acted with some restraint in dealing with China, the ICG report argues.

"He has committed his government to prevent a final show-down with China by avoiding highly provocative political acts such as ... [trying to] change the Constitution to create a `Republic of Taiwan,'" the report says.

Although Beijing has put the Taiwan issue on the backburner in its day-to-day preoccupations, it remains "deeply concerned about the underlying trends in Taiwan domestic politics and, more recently, in US-Taiwan military relations."

While the report says it's unlikely to witness any early resumption of cross-strait high-level political talks, all parties involved should continue to "subdue any tendency to provoke."

"The period leading up to Taiwan's next presidential election, now announced for March 20 next year, will be an important test of whether its pro-independence leaders will be willing to act this way," the report adds.

The second ICG report assesses the chances of military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait, while the third spells out what involved parties can and should do to avoid it.

A non-profit multinational organization, Brussels-based ICG has over 90 staff on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy for conflict prevention. Deputy Secretary General to the President Joseph Wu, is currently an ICG board member with high-profile international credentials. He has served on the staff of such former US ambassadors as Morton Abramowitz and Kenneth Adelman.

Brown leads fight for Taiwan in US

Sherrod Brown, a Democratic member of the House, is the leading supporter in Congress of Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly. For several years he has introduced legislation pushing the White House to find a way to secure Taiwan's participation. This year, as in the past, such bills were approved by both the House and Senate. Brown, a 50-year-old sixth-term congressman, is also one of four co-founders of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, which was created in April last year to promote Taiwan's interests among US lawmakers. This week, Brown spoke in Washington with `Taipei Times' staff reporter Charles Snyder about the work of the caucus and the role of Taiwan issues in Congress

" I think the Bush administration itself, the White House itself, is dragging its feet [on Taiwan].－-- Sherrod Brown, Democratic congressman

Taipei Times: The Congressional Taiwan Caucus is just over one year old. How do you assess the accomplishments of the caucus so far?

Sherrod Brown: The accomplishments are several. One is we have 118 members; that's more than one fourth of the House. It's bipartisan, about half and half. They have coalesced around the WHO [World Health Organization] bill, which we've passed without opposition. They have been active in speaking out on democracy issues and Taiwanese issues. And, the fact that there are four founders, two of each party, allows us to do a lot of things in a versatile way

TT: What would you say is the biggest success so far?

Brown: I think that the Congress is supportive to a point. Few Republicans are willing to stand up to President [George W.] Bush, to push him harder on support of Taiwan. Too many members of Congress are cowed by the Chinese government and the Chinese presence. You know, it's a country of a billion plus people, for sure. But it's also a nation that can't hold a candle to the democracy of Taiwan. I'm disappointed that more members of Congress don't stand up to China on human rights. But I also think a lot of members of Congress celebrate the miracle of Taiwan, the democracy of Taiwan and the growing prosperity in Taiwan.

TT: Do you think the caucus stands a chance of turning some of these congressmen around?

Brown: The caucus does matter. In particular, the four founders are the most active. There are other active members, too. But the four of us are speaking for Taiwan and calling on each other when we need assistance on something, and I think the caucus does, over time, really begin to move people into more support for Taiwan. There are more "dear colleague letters" going out, there's more information out there, there's more recognition of Taiwan, there's more attention paid to Taiwan.

TT: You've been the leading congressmen in support of Taiwan's observer status in the World Health Assembly, but you've also been critical of the administration's efforts in the past to push that. How do you think the administration did this year?

Brown: I think the administration did better this year. Every year, through [former president Bill] Clinton and Bush, we've seen a baby step, and this year is no exception. I was hoping, because of SARS, that we would see something more than that. And while I was pleased with what [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Tommy] Thompson did, and I don't want to understate that, I would hope in the future we could see a few giant steps and not just baby steps in terms of assisting Taiwan.

TT: In a statement signing the bill this year, the president seemed annoyed at Congress' demand for a report on the administration's actions, saying he would not disclose certain information. How do you assess that?

Brown: This is an administration that trades in secrecy. It rarely tells the American people or Congress [what] it doesn't want to tell us, what happened Sept. 11; it doesn't much want to tell us what happens in its trade negotiations, and it doesn't really want to report to Congress the moves toward democracy in China, if there are any, and especially doesn't want to share with us its efforts or what it's doing on Taiwan. I don't think it's doing enough. While I applaud Secretary Thompson's efforts, I think the Bush administration itself, the White House itself, is dragging its feet.

Brown: I think it's because of pressure from China and corporate America, which are joined at the hip.

TT: On the World Trade Organization, I understand the caucus is preparing a letter or thinking of preparing a letter to Director-General Supachai [Panitchpakdi], complaining about his campaign to lower Taiwan's status in the organization. Did you send that letter, or do you expect it to be sent, or have you heard any indication that he might step back?

TT: The Senate has shown itself less committed to Taiwan than the House in the past, having overridden House legislation to increase military cooperation with Taiwan and pass the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. Do you have any indication that this might be changing, perhaps because of the work of the Taiwan Caucus in the House? Perhaps including the creation of a Senate version of the caucus?

Brown: I have no way of knowing about a Senate version of the caucus, but I do think the Senate is slowly paying attention to Taiwan. The Senate never responds to the public as quickly as the House does. And I think this is another example. There is a significant number of Taiwanese-Americans living in most congressional districts. And we've heard from our constituents. And the House members tune in to that public interest more quickly than do Senate members, and I think that's probably the lag time there.

TT: This week, House Majority Leader Tom Delay mounted what seemed to be a strong attack on the "one-China" policy in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, a day after the president reiterated the policy in his meeting with Hu Jintao. Do you think this might be the beginning of a House drive to end or modify the "one China" policy?

Brown: No. I don't see a Republican House pushing the Bush administration very hard on this. They've never stood up to the Bush administration on any foreign policy that I know, and I would be shocked if there's any major departure from what Bush wants on this.

TT: Let me ask you a personal question. What has driven you to be such a big booster for Taiwan and its WHA participation?

Brown: First of all, I've done health care for years, and I am an internationalist in my outlook, and I've seen that this is a country of 23 million people. And I'm interested in human rights everywhere. This is a simple way, by including them in the WHA and ultimately integrating them into other UN organizations. This is an easy way to bring human rights to that nation of 23 million people, and it's such an obvious thing to me.

I'm very involved in international infectious diseases, and tuberculosis, and AIDS and malaria. Taiwan has been a miracle in so many ways in combating those diseases. I mean, they've had trouble with SARS. That's partly because of some mistakes they've made, but it's largely a mistake China made, and it's a mistake the world made that Taiwan is not with China and every other country in the WHO. But, it's a human-rights issue to me that's so clear-cut.