Wen's US visit likely to reaffirm status quo

 

By Liu Kuan-teh
Friday, Nov 28, 2003,Page 8

 

After a long period of silence on Taiwan's gradual move in the direction of self-determination, the Chinese leadership finally responded with harsh words against President Chen Shui-bian's push for a referendum and a new constitution.

 

In an interview with the Washington Post, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called on the US to deter Taiwan from adopting laws that could pave the way for a referendum on the nation's independence, warning that China would "pay any price to safeguard the unity of the motherland."

 

The timing of Wen's comments on Taiwan reveals three important things. First, it reflects Beijing's dissatisfaction with Washington's inability to restrain Taipei's unilateral move toward independence, as manifested in Chen's treatment during his recent transit in the US.

 

Second, it worries Beijing that the pan-blue camp, long perceived as a "safety valve" in preventing independence, has suddenly changed its position on the referendum and constitution and moved to an even more radical position than the president.

 

Third, it is natural for the Chinese leader to repeat his tough stance on Taiwan before embarking on a visit to the US. Wen is the first Chinese senior leader to visit Washington since the transfer of power earlier this year. By raising the stakes of his trip, Wen could reinforce his image as one of the leading members of China's new generation.

 

Most people tend to read Wen's statements as a direct message to Washington for failing to stop Taipei from rocking the boat. However, an intensive review on the background of Wen's planned visit displays a more complicated picture.

 

Despite the fact that American senior officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have repeatedly highlighted the current Sino-US relationship as the best ever, a number of differences exist between Washington and Beijing.

 

Among them, trade disputes, the North Korea crisis and Taiwan are most important.

 

The discussion on China's further opening of its markets has long been a hot potato. The Bush administration blames China's trade policies for the loss of US jobs. American officials have argued that China keeps its currency at an artificially low exchange rate, unfairly making its imports cheaper.

 

Moreover, the Bush administration also needs the Chinese government to provide balance against North Korea's nuclear proliferation.

 

Under such circumstances, to what extent can the Taiwan issue become an obstacle for Wen's first visit to American soil?

 

China is upset about Taiwan because its options have been limited in the past couple of years. Missile threats and verbal attacks are no longer effective, as they encourage Taiwanese voters to choose a national leader who can safeguard national dignity.

 

With its own domestic challenges unsolved, China sees the US as its best hope to influence Taiwan, especially now that Chinese cooperation in the UN Security Council and on the Korean Peninsula have become critical to achieving US goals.

 

Therefore, the most likely outcome of Wen's discussion of the Taiwan issue with American leaders will be reassurances from Washington reiterating the "one China" policy, as embedded in the Three Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.

 

Washington will also guarantee the Chinese Premier that the Bush administration has not been sending mixed signals to Taiwan since it has stated publicly that the administration neither supports nor opposes Taiwanese independence. Furthermore, the US will not overly influence Taiwan's domestic politics and election.

 

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator

 

　

Referendum won’t set China off

 

On Wednesday, Zhang Mingqing, spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of China’s State Council, indicated that if the Legislative Yuan enacts a referendum law, China will “react strongly.” This marks China’s third public statement on this issue in a week. That the underlying intention of China is to away the legislative process and the upcoming presidential election goes without saying.

 

It is generally observed that China has managed to maintain “unprecedented calm” ─ in comparison to its typical behavior ─ in the face of the March election and the controversies surrounding the referendum legislation (which all agree will have a decisive impact on the outcome of the election).

 

Perhaps China has finally realized after multiple experiments that whomever it has lashed out against has ended up winning brownie points from Taiwanese voters. However, with the popular support of President Chen Shui-bian reaching new heights because of his campaign platform of “one country on each side of the Strait,” and the pending passage of the national referendum bill, China feels that it has been pushed toward the edge and that it hat to speak its mind.

 

Last Tuesday, Wang Daohan, chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, and Wang Zaixi, vice minister of the Taiwan Affairs Office, both issued warnings about the passage of the referendum bill.

 

These two officials seemingly read form the same script.

 

Wang Daohan, who is typically considered more dovish when it comes to Taiwan, played the “good cop,” while Wang Zaixi, perhaps due to his military background, played the “bad cop.”

 

Wang Daohan first indicated respect for the democratic spirit underlying enactment of a national referendum law, but accused Taiwan of pushing for independence through the passage of the referendum bill, which would give a legal basis to a declaration of “Taiwan independence,” pushing Taiwan toward a “dangerous edge.”

 

Wang Zaixi spoke in a highly coercive tone, indicating that if Taiwan openly declared independence, then China’s line would be crossed and the “use of force is inevitable.”

 

They did not say if China considers a referendum law equivalent to “Taiwan independence.” But Zhang Mingqing’s statement on Wednesday offers the answer to this question. According to Zhang, if a referendum law is enacted “without any restrictions” on the issues of the national flag, name and territory,

China will “react strongly.” As for what kind of “strong reactions” he was referring to, Zhang said “﹝we’ll﹞ know in a few days.”

 

However, he also commented that there was nobasis to the rumor that former president Jiang Zemin, chairman of China’s military commission, has given the order to be prepared for an attack on Taiwan. Zhang said in private after the press conference that such rumors “ were laughable.”

 

Based on Zhang’s talk, it is obvious that china equates changing the national flag, name and territory through national referendums as “Taiwan independence,” and as actions that would cross its line.

 

But because a referendum law by itself does not rise to that standard, and because China realizes that passage of a referendum law is inevitable, it had to attempt to more clearly delineate its so-called “line.”

 

This attempt was of course laughable, because self-determination is a universally accepted human right, and China has no right to interfere with the rights of Taiwanese people.

 

 

Referendums a tool, not a cure-all

 

By Chiou Chang-tay
Friday, Nov 28, 2003,Page 8

 

There has been a lot of arguing between government forces and opposition forces concerning who should have the right to initiate a referendum.

 

The green camp's position is that the government should have the right of initiative, while the blue camp's position focuses on public initiative, but with some accompanying mechanism.

 

In European countries, there are those where referendums are initiated by the government, those where the law specifies when the government is bound to initiate a referendum, and those where initiative is non-governmental and rests with, for example, the public or parliament.

 

Looking at trends between 1940 and 1969, 13 referendums were held on governmental initiative, four on non-governmental initiative and nine were held where the government was bound by law to initiate a referendum. Between 1970 and 1999, governments initiated 17 referendums, 46 were held on non-governmental initiative and there were 26 referendums where the government was bound to initiate a referendum.

 

Judging from this, beginning in the 1990s, European countries have put increasing emphasis on non-governmental mechanisms for initiating a referendum.

 

Why would a government need to initiate a referendum? For no other reason than political strategy and factional operations -- they believe that it will be easier to get the people to pass a certain bill in a referendum than to get parliament to pass it.

 

Examples are the referendums on the future of nuclear power in Austria in 1978 and Sweden in 1980, and Finland's referendum on whether or not to join the EU in 1994.

 

Another reason is the hope to use an external referendum to solve intra-party conflict over a certain issue and to disarm a tense relationship -- for example, the referendum on Algerian independence held by France in 1962, and direct presidential elections.

 

Democratic politics means responsible politics. A government must be responsible, and must respect the wishes of voters when it decides to initiate public undertakings.

 

When a government finds that parliamentary suggestions go against its own policies, it chooses a referendum topic that it believes to be advantageous to the implementation of its political undertakings.

 

If a government in Taiwan advanced an initiative based on its own concerns or those of its party, the country's diversity of opinion would mean that the government wouldn't necessarily succeed in its scheme.

 

To make a referendum binding, the blue camp has proposed a specific "punishment" clause. Looking at the European experience, this kind of regulation is almost non-existent. It would in fact be very difficult to find someone responsible for all the different referendum issues.

 

In, for example, a referendum on changes to the national territory, who would be responsible if the outcome were to be negative?

 

The consultative referendum proposed by the green camp would in fact be an interim solution until a referendum law was passed.

 

Once the government and opposition passes a referendum law, the implementation of binding referendums should be stipulated by law. It would certainly not be necessary to spend this much time and effort if the result only were to be a non-binding, consultative referendum.

 

In fact, again looking at the European experience, a majority of referendums are legally binding referendums.

 

Consultative referendums are very rare, and even if a referendum is consultative in character, the decisionmakers in the government normally cannot avoid making it binding. After all, which decisionmaker would dare go against mainstream public opinion?

 

The referendum may indeed deepen democratic politics in Taiwan. Taiwanese society isn't at all afraid of adopting a European or American referendum system.

 

This is definitely unusual as Asian countries go, and it would therefore not be appropriate to set up too many restrictions to the referendum initiative mechanism in order to avoid shackling ourselves and violate the spirit of people power. But is the referendum a cure-all? In Taiwanese society, ideology is king and any topic for referendum will easily develop into a standoff between the blue and green camps.

 

The question of whether future referendums will deepen the cracks running through this society will hinge on the ability of government and opposition to adopt the responsible attitudes required to build long-term peace and stability when establishing a referendum mechanism.

 

In the end, the purpose of a referendum is to apply rational voting attitudes to the search for the widest possible consensus, not to create a standoff between the blue and green camps on the issue of unification versus independence.

 

Chiou Chang-tay is director of the Research Center for Public Opinion and Election Studies at National Taipei University.

 

 

Straits Exchange Foundation presses on with work despite China's anger

 

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 28, 2003,Page 3

 

Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Koo Chen-fu said the passage of a referendum law that angers China shouldn't get in the way of talks on cross-strait flights, adding that any improvement in relations requires efforts by both sides.

 

Koo urged his Chinese counterpart to visit Taipei for talks on a charter-flight plan.

 

Koo, who held historic talks with Wang Daohan, head of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), in 1993, stressed the urgency for both sides to start negotiations on the plan for cross-strait flights.

 

The charter-flight project is designed to help bring China-based Taiwanese businesspeople and their families, estimated to include over 1 million people, back to Taiwan for the Lunar New Year holiday.

 

The SEF faxed a letter to ARATS yesterday morning inviting it for talks on charter flights.

 

With the three-week charter-flight plan due to begin on Jan. 9, Koo was concerned that ARATS' postponement in replying to the letter would leave insufficient time for airlines and government agencies to prepare for the flights.

 

"For the huge number of China-based Taiwanese businessmen and their families in Taiwan, the Lunar New Year holidays are an important occasion for family reunions," Koo said.

 

As for Wang's recent criticism of Taiwan's push for a new constitution and referendums, Koo said he understood Wang's concerns.

 

Asked whether it is still possible for both sides to reopen talks while China condemns the referendum law as an effort by Taiwanese authorities toward independence, Koo said the improvement of cross-strait relations "depends on both sides' efforts."

 

Talks are more urgently needed when Taiwan and China hold different opinions, Koo said.

 

"The holding of referendums is the people's basic right. People discuss the issue seriously. It is a good situation," Koo said.

 

On Wednesday, Zhang Mingqing, spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's State Council, said Taiwan should expect a "strong response" from China in a few days if it passes a referendum law that would pave the way for independence.

 

Koo declined to speculate whether the "strong response" might include military force.

 

"Zhang said we might know what the response is in a few days. We shall wait for a few days to see what he means," he said.

 

 

Victory goes to blue camp in referendum showdown

 

FEELING BLUE: While stating that the just-passed Referendum Law is a step forward, the DPP says the legislation robs people of their right to determine their own future

 

By Chang Yun-ping
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 28, 2003,Page 3

 

Lawmakers from the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union raise a banner on the legislative floor to show their opposition to the proposals for the Referendum Law put forward by the alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP). The banner reads, ``Opposing KMT-PFP birdcage referendum law.''

 

 

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday lambasted the new Referendum Law, saying it prevents the people's and the government's participation in the referendum process, while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) urged the Cabinet not to reopen debate on the law.

 

The legislature yesterday killed all the controversial clauses in the Referendum Law, such as those allowing a change in the country's sovereignty status, and denied the Cabinet the right to propose a referendum.

 

Amid the pan-blue victory, DPP legislative caucus leader Ker Chien-ming said yesterday, "We were very disappointed with this Referendum Law, which is basically a law restricting the practice of a referendum."

 

Ker said the pan-blue alliance put numerous limitations into the law, including the establishment of a referendum supervisory committee to screen topics allowed for referendums, and the requirement that the committee members be chosen according to the number of legislative seats held by each party.

 

"Given that pan-blue legislators dominate the legislature, we don't see any possibility that a referendum can be held together with the presidential election next year," Ker said. "The minimum requirement to hold a referendum is too high."

 

DPP Legislator Lin Chuo-shui said yesterday that, given the dominance of the KMT-PFP alliance, the Referendum Law passed last night sabotaged people's right to determine their own future and inflated the rights of the legislature.

 

"The KMT-PFP alliance infringed on people's rights and dwarfed administrative agencies' participation in the referendum," Lin said.

 

Failed clauses in the bill included DPP Legislator Trong Chai's proposal that the people be allowed to vote on changing the country's name, flag, anthem and territory -- the so-called referendums leading to Taiwan's independence.

 

The pan-green camp secured only the passage a "defensive referendum," which allows the president to initiate a referendum on national security issues when the country is under foreign threat.

 

KMT caucus whip Lee Chia-chin urged the Cabinet not to propose renewed discussion of the Referendum Law to undermine the new law which the country has been expecting for so long.

 

DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan said yesterday that although the party was not satisfied with the results, it was still a historic moment in that the Referendum Law, which has long been advocated by the DPP, was passed.

 

"Although the Referendum Law was mostly based on the pan-blue camp's version, we think it is a significant, historic moment because the law gives people the right of initiative and referendum guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a great stride forward in the furthering of democratization in Taiwan," Lee said.

 

Lee also said that allowing a defensive referendum, the only clause the pan-green camp secured, would raise public consciousness about the importance of national security.

 

Legislature passes referendum law

 

DISMAY: The bill was passed clause by clause with the government's draft being almost totally eclipsed by the watered-down pan-blue version

 

By Fiona Lu
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 28, 2003,Page 1

 

The pan-blue parties dominated the legislative showdown on the Referendum Law yesterday, as the legislature acted on its promise to complete a referendum law by the end of this month.

 

Cashing in on their numerical edge in the 223-seat legislature, opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) lawmakers passed a law that did not fulfill the Cabinet's hopes.

 

The pan-blue camp vetoed most of the pan-green parties' ideas, denying the Cabinet the power to hold advisory referendums, and excluding the issues of sovereignty, territory, and a proposed new constitution from the referendum process.

 

The new law denies the government the right to hold advisory referendums to gauge public opinion.

 

Government officials would face legal punishment for violations of the referendum law.

 

The opposition-controlled legislature excluded from the referendum process the pan-green camp's ideas for allowing referendums on altering the country's name, flag, anthem and territory.

 

This came despite an announcement by KMT whip Lee Chia-chin just before yesterday's showdown.

 

Lee had claimed that "KMT caucus members decided to withdraw the ban because Chairman Lien Chan recently declared the existence of the Republic of China. The KMT caucus members thought that we should safeguard the people's right to make proposals in the future when they feel that Taiwan needs to think about a change."

 

The new law restricts citizens' referendum rights on the nation's major policies and on constitutional amendments.

 

 

Chinese Nationalist Party Legislator Tseng Tsai Mei-tsuo, center, is held back by her colleagues as she attempts to push down the ``opposition'' button to support Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Trong Chai, who agreed to withdraw his version of the referendum law, in the legislature yesterday.

 

The KMT and PFP lawmakers held that the country's overhaul of the Constitution should be carried out only in accordance with the regular procedure of the Legislative Yuan.

 

The legislature resolved in the new law that the Executive Yuan would be in charge of nationwide referendums, while regional referendums would be managed by local governments.

 

A Referendum Supervisory Committee would be formed to examine proposed topics for referendums and to make rules for implementing referendums after their approval.

 

The referendum committee, in addition to the chairman of the Central Election Committee (CEC), would be comprised of 20 commissioners recommended by the various political parties, with seats apportioned according to the parties' representation in the legislature.

 

The commissioners would have to be confirmed by the president.

Eligible topics: 1. Laws passed by the legislature; 2. Proposed new laws; 3. Controversies concerning major national policies; 4. Constitutional amendemnts; * Excluded from referendums are issues involving budgets, taxation, investment, salaries and personal matters. * The ad hoc Referendum Supervisory Committee has the final say in what is put before voters. * The president is entitled to initiate a referendum on national security issues when the country faces an external threat that could interfere with national sovereignty (the "defensive referendum")

Administraion: The Executive Yuan is responsible for nationwide referendums, while local governments are to manage regional referendums.

Initiative: The government is prohibited from proposing or commissioning a referendum except on statutory grounds stipulated in the Referendum Law (the right to call an advisory referendum was vetoed).The Legislative Yuan is able to initiate a referendum on topics that lawmakers feel should be referred to the people.

Threshold: A successful referendum petition needs the signatures of 0.5 percent of the electorate joining in the latest presidential election (approximately 63,000 signatures) before it can be screened by the Referendum Supervisory Committee.

Date: A referendum should take place within six months of the Central Election Committee's announcement of a successful petition. Referendums can be held on the same date as national elections, including presidential elections.

Punishment: Government officials violating the Referendum Law by proposing or commissioning a referendum would face legal punishment with sentences ranging from six months to three years' imprisonment and be required to reimburse any public expenditure incurred by the referendum.

 

A referendum would take place within six months after an announcement by the authorities, according to the provisions of the new law.

 

Lawmakers concluded that referendums could be held on the same date as national elections, including the presidential election and those for county commissioners and mayors.

 

The pan-blue parties decided to be open to a defensive referendum, which offers the president the power to initiate a special referendum on changing the country's sovereignty when the country faces external threats to its security.

 

A referendum item, after being approved or rejected by the electorate, could not be presented for another referendum for three years from the date that the CEC released the referendum result.

 

Referendum items on major infrastructure policy issues could not be reintroduced within eight years, according to the new law.

 

The vote upset Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawma-kers and their pan-green allies in the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

 

The DPP caucus said that the legislature had passed a referendum law that restricts people from practicing their referendum power.

 

"The DPP protests this law," said DPP whip Ker Chien-ming. "This Referendum Law would not only ban people from voting to show their wish to change the country's sovereignty, but would also kill the hope of legislative reforms accomplished through the votes of the people."

Members of the TSU caucus also decried the passage of the law.

 

TSU Legislator Chen Chien-ming said that "the decision to form a Referendum Supervisory Committee, and to provide for legislative control of the referendum process, turns lawmakers into the supreme rulers of the referendum process in this country."