Cabinet gripes over China interference

AT ODDS: While the government said the WHO is being unfair, an UN official said Taiwan has yet to meet two of the three criteria to get off the travel advisory

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER WITH AP

The Cabinet yesterday protested against China's alleged interference with the World Health Organization's (WHO) treatment of Taiwan as President Chen Shui-bian encouraged the government to continue its SARS control efforts.

"While we'll provide the WHO with more information about our efforts in restraining the SARS outbreak, we're strongly protesting China's irrational behavior because it not only interferes with the WHO's professionalism but also endangers the overall health of the 23 million Taiwanese," Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung quoted Premier Yu Shyi-kun as saying after the weekly Cabinet meeting yesterday morning.

Media speculation suggests that China has pressured the WHO to postpone removing Taiwan from the WHO's travel advisory list until China itself has been removed from the list.

On Sunday, the Department of Health sent a letter to WHO Director-General Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, requesting that the nation be removed from the travel advisory because it had met the requirements set forth by the WHO.

After the government reported six SARS cases on Tuesday, the WHO turned down the nation's request on Tuesday, requesting the department provide more information to confirm the six suspected exportation of SARS cases.

Calling the WHO's decision "unfair," Center for Disease Control Director Su Ih-jen  yesterday said that the department filed a protest with the medical experts dispatched by the WHO to work in Taiwan..

"While Hong Kong and Guangdong Province were removed from the list when they continued to export SARS cases, I don't understand why the WHO turned down our request when we don't have any confirmed exported SARS cases," Su said.

However, Iain Simpson, a WHO spokesman in Geneva, told The Associated Press that Taiwan has only met one of three key requirements for canceling the travel warning -- showing that its most recent three-day average of new cases is five or less.

But Taiwan still has to meet the two other requirements: having fewer than 60 active cases in hospitals and being able to show that the virus isn't being exported, Simpson said.

Steven Kuo, spokesman for SARS Control Committee, told reporters that according to the latest count yesterday, the nation's hospitals only had 27 active patients, or people who got sick within the past two weeks.

But Simpson said WHO has counted 286 active cases. ``According to the way we calculate it, they are still a long way from coming off that list,'' he said.

The WHO official also said it's not clear whether Taiwan has been exporting cases.

At a daily SARS briefing, Taiwanese officials said WHO has requested more information about six cases involving people who developed SARS symptoms after leaving Taiwan.

Su said the WHO was being unfair because the cases were old. ``None of the countries where those six people traveled to is treating them as SARS cases,'' he said.

Only one of the cases was recent, he said. It involved a Taiwanese traveler who developed a fever -- a key SARS symptom -- after he or she went to Sao Paulo, Brazil, on June 4.

The WHO wants the government to get the person -- who's gender wasn't provided -- to have a chest X-ray and other SARS tests so that the agency can confirm the traveler is SARS-free, Su said.

Lin yesterday also dismissed China's claim that it had "agreed" to let Taiwan's health officials participate in a upcoming global SARS conference organized by WHO in Malaysia.

"China's claim is definitely not true because we've been in direct contact with the global health body and we don't need China's approval to attend the meeting," Lin said.

Chen yesterday encouraged the Cabinet to respect the WHO's decision and continue its SARS control efforts.

"I'm confident that the global health body will remove us from the list in no time if there isn't any doubt or rumors about our qualifications," Chen said.

Chen made the remark yesterday morning while receiving Dr. Susan Maloney, leader of a medical group dispatched by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at the Presidential Office.

WHO sends Taipei invites for SARS summit to China

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

In what appeared to be another slap in the face to Taiwan by the World Health Organization (WHO), four Taiwan medical experts have been invited to a global SARS conference but their invitations have been sent to China, a source from the Presidential Office said yesterday.

The cards, said the source, were in the hands of the Beijing-based Chinese Medical Association (CMA) as of press time last night.

A Chinese-language newspaper yesterday said that China was attempting to insert material into the invites showing that the Taiwan experts were attending the conference with the permission of China.

The Presidential Office source, however, could not be reached to verify this, or explain how China could alter the invitations.

The Geneva-based WHO refused to confirm whether the invitation cards had been sent directly to Taiwan or through China.

"I have no idea," said WHO spokesman Dick Thompson when asked where the WHO sent the cards.

Thompson said he did not even know whether the WHO had already sent out the invitations and that he had no intention of bothering the conference organizers to clarify the situtation.

The global SARS conference will be held in Malaysia's Sunway Lagoon Resort Hotel, close to the nation's capital city, Kuala Lumpur, on June 17 and 18.

A wide range of SARS-related issues will be discussed during the two-day conference. The session on the first day will open with reports on global and national response to the epidemic.

Taiwan is not on the list of five nations and one region invited to present their national response.

The WHO aske four Taiwanese experts, Su Ih-jen, director of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Ho Mei-shang, an Academia Sinica reseacher, and two doctors, Chang Shang-chwen and Chen Pei-jer, to join the conference.

Chang is chief of the infectious disease department at National Taiwan University Hospital and Chen a virologist from the same hospital.

No need to fear Bush's Strait policy

By Tung Chen-yuan

More than two years ago, US President George W. Bush said the US would do "whatever it took" to defend Taiwan. When he met with Chinese President Hu Jintao on June 1 this year, he said to China that the US does not support Taiwan's independence but will, if necessary, help Taiwan defend herself. Given such variation in his words, has Bush's cross-strait policy changed?

Bush's pledge in April 2001 about defending Taiwan came in response to a question about whether the US has a responsibility to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese military attack. Bush later warned that Taiwan should not declare independence so as to avoid provoking an attack from China. And he said the US will cooperate with Taiwan to make sure such an attack does not happen.

In May 2001, when Bush met with Asian-American leaders, he emphasized again that the US hoped to see China and Taiwan at peace with each other and see a resolution of the dispute by peaceful means. However, should China take military action against Taiwan, he said, the US will help Taiwan. In October, when Bush met with then president Jiang Zemin, he reiterated that the US would uphold the "one China" principle and cross-strait problems must be resolved peace-fully, and that the US would also observe the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and the basic position of the three joint communiques.

In late February last year, when Bush visited China, he reiterated that the US believed cross-strait issues should be resolved by peaceful means. He said the US would urge both sides of the Strait not to provoke a conflict and would continue to observe the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).

When he answered the students' questions at Tsinghua University, Bush explained the US policy more clearly: the US had the TRA and he promised to abide by it. In other words, he promised to help Taiwan defend herself should Taiwan be provoked. But, the US must emphasize that neither side of the Strait should take provocative actions that would make peaceful dialogue impossible.

The US hopes neither side of the Taiwan Strait will provoke a conflict, which means China must not take military action and Taiwan must not declare independence. Bush already expressed this position in late April 2001. At a media conference in early June last year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz pointed out more clearly that the US policy toward the two sides of the Strait is a "one China" policy that includes two principles: no support for Taiwan's independence and objection to the use of force in the Strait.

In August last year, after President Chen Shui-bian said that there is one country on each side of the Strait, a US National Security Council spokesperson again indicated that the US has a "one China" policy and does not support Taiwan's independence.

At a news conference following his meeting with Jiang last October, Bush stressed that the US "one China" policy based on the three joint communiques and the TRA has not changed. He also said that China and Taiwan must settle their differences through peaceful dialogue. At that meeting, Bush already stated clearly that the US would not support Taiwan's independence.

While Bush's expressions of US cross-strait policy may change, the policy itself has been consistent. Bush's cross-strait policy is subject to two documents: the three joint communiques between China and the US, and the TRA.

Bush's cross-strait policy has three pillars: "one China," peaceful settlement of cross-strait problems through negotiations and no provocation by either side of the Strait. In accordance with the third pillar, Bush has two principles: objection to China's use of military force on Taiwan and no support for Taiwan's declaration of independence.

To prevent China's use of force against Taiwan, Bush emphasized the commitment to Taiwan's security as stipulated in the TRA and also stated clearly that the US will help Taiwan defend itself if China tries to seize Taiwan by force.

Bush's rigorous cross-strait policy has not changed since the beginning and will likely continue in the future. Bush's cross-strait policy is not likely to change due to anti-terrorism or the problems in the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, Taiwan should certainly not fear or misinterpret Bush's policy.

Tung Chen-yuan is an associate research fellow at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations.

SARS provokes journalists in China to call for more openness

By John Gittings

THE GUARDIAN , SHANGHAI

When the SARS panic was at its height last month in Shanghai, the city information department called an urgent press conference. The international car show had just been closed down hurriedly and a team from the World Health Organization was in town. Foreign and domestic journalists packed the room -- some wearing masks -- but they were soon disappointed. A senior official read out an empty statement and then fled without taking questions. His helpful aide had the door open so he could make a quick getaway.

From the cover-up earlier this year to today's comparatively open coverage, it has been a steep learning curve for China's media bureaucrats and for determined journalists pushing at the limits of control.

The epidemic was reported briefly in February when officials in Guangdong Province -- where it broke out -- sought to allay panic. The subject was then banned from all the Chinese media for almost a month in the run-up to and during the National People's Congress -- when only good news is allowed.

After the Congress was over, and the virus had spread north to Beijing, the government at first tried to minimize the crisis.

However the reality of overflowing fever wards, revealed by a whistle-blowing doctor who spoke to the foreign press, finally forced China's leaders -- President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao -- to intervene. Admitting that the SARS figures were 10 times higher than previously claimed, they sacked the minister of health and the mayor of Beijing and pledged themselves to transparency.

Under the shock of SARS, say optimistic analysts, the shift to openness may become irreversible.

"SARS has shattered the philosophy among some bureaucrats that silence on negative things might sustain their power," writes Beijing journalist Lei Xiong. "Now they are made to see that they may lose the power if they fail to give priority to people's well-being."

In private, others are more critical.

"They were playing politics with our lives," says a reporter on a Guangzhou newspaper. "They did not even take the trouble to find out the truth for themselves. The system has got to change."

Is the SARS crisis a "wake-up call" for Beijing that will finally bring about radical changes in the approach to press freedom that even some officials admit privately are long overdue? It is, after all, the first time that high officials have been sacked for negligence, and that a cover-up has been widely admitted. It is now a crime to conceal epidemics.

Or, as more pessimistic observers argue, will the system simply yield some ground while maintaining intact most of its controls?

In the space of a few days in mid-May, the censors blocked out a CNN report on SARS while it was being transmitted via Chinese satellite to authorized mainland viewers. A sophisticated tracking system was used to catch "rumor mongers" who send SMS messages about SARS -- and now face prosecution. Southern Weekend, China's most outspoken newspaper and often in trouble, was criticized for publishing "state secrets" in articles about SARS. And messages taking a "negative" tone posted on internet bulletin boards were either blocked by monitors or removed within minutes of appearing.

A more balanced view sees the media progress over SARS as limited but still significant. It is the latest incremental gain made by Chinese journalists who have "seized the hour" (in Chairman Mao's old phrase) whenever they get the chance.

Chinese reporters who investigate sensitive stories on the ground are supposed to seek permission first from the "relevant authorities." It is the same Catch 22 that faces foreign journalists.

If permission is requested, it will be refused. To go ahead anyway risks being accused of "illegal news-gathering." Chinese journalists have one advantage: they can make a quick entry and exit from the local area with less chance of exposure. But while the foreign journalists only risk the next visa renewal if caught, the domestic reporters risk their jobs.

Some metropolitan dailies, especially the new tabloids which challenge the monopoly of the long-established Communist Party organs, are more willing to take a chance. Journalists from these papers have been threatened and beaten up while covering industrial accidents such as the mining tragedies which kill more than 5,000 workers every year.

Two years ago they filed the first domestic reports on the HIV-Aids scandal in Henan Province in which thousands of peasants were infected with the virus by commercial blood collectors. The operation had been backed by local health officials who then covered up the spread of the virus.

The China Youth and Beijing Youth newspapers often carry hard-hitting reports on natural disasters. In Shanghai, the New People's Weekly has published exposes of social evils such as prostitution and toxic waste.

When SARS appeared in Guangdong Province in January this year, a news blackout was imposed while rumors spread of a new deadly plague which could "kill within a day." The tabloidSouthern Metropolitan Daily received thousands of agitated inquiries from readers, and begged for permission to publish. The provincial government, alarmed by a wave of panic buying as people stocked up on medicine, disinfectants and food, briefly allowed the press to report that everything was "under control."

Gratefully -- or more likely with tongue in cheek -- Southern Weekend and other papers applauded the government for its openness.

They argued that the only way to maintain "social order" (always the regime's top priority) was to keep the public well informed.

Then came the second clampdown in the run-up to the National People's Congress. Southern Weekend stood alone in publishing a bold call for press freedom. It quoted journalists and academics who urged the government not to suppress "negative news". No one mentioned SARS but the link was clear -- for those who knew about the virus.

"The popular press is not just a mouthpiece for important government and party information," wrote former People's Daily editor Zhou Ruijin. "It should also publish in a timely manner what society needs to know."

The grim joke is that Hu and Wen now have to cope with the consequences of a news blackout imposed to give them an easy ride at the Congress where they were formally elected. During that fatal month the virus spread unchecked into the heart of Beijing -- including a case in the top leadership's own guarded compound.

Much of the coverage today adopts the upbeat tone demanded by the party's propaganda departments, but some is more critical, particularly of the poor state of public health in the countryside.

The wide-ranging financial weekly Caijing has documented the death of a retired woman who brought the virus to Shanxi Province and was not diagnosed in time. Her brother had just died in a SARS-infected hospital in Beijing. What a pity, said Caijing, that she "didn't read English or surf the Web or listen to rumors (about the virus)". She might have been able to tell the doctors why she was so ill.

In China's only half-free press, irony is often the most effective weapon.