Rapprochement on June 10, 2004

Take steps toward rapprochement

On Monday, the pro-China Hong Kong newspaper Wen Wei Po quoted an anonymous Chinese military official as saying that if the US halted sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan, China would consider pulling back its ballistic missiles along the coast targeting Taiwan. Cabinet spokesman Chen Chi-mai responded on Tuesday by saying that these were simply remarks made through the media and, as they were not an official statement, would be treated as rumors.

Ministry of National Defense spokesman Major-General Huang Suei-sheng pointed out that pulling back the missiles was an empty gesture as it would be easy to redeploy them on short notice and that, in any case, China had long-range missiles which were able to threaten Taiwan.

A deal in which arms sales are exchanged for a pull back of missiles is meaningless in a situation where mutual trust does not exist. Put another way, China's military build up and its threats can only force Taiwan to pursue its own arms buildup. This will start an arms race from which there will be no escape.

The over half-century-long standoff between Taiwan and China has resulted in an incalculable waste of military and diplomatic resources. One wonders what the Chinese feel about this protracted period of threatening Taiwan. For Taiwan, this seemingly endless war of attrition has become so distressing that it has responded emotionally by seeking to put as much distance between itself and China as possible.

This long period of enmity and the strong emotions to which it has given rise have made us irrational. As a result we have lost sight of a simple fact: that Taiwan and China are closely tied through geography, history and culture. Under normal circumstances, Taiwan and China should be like brothers on the international stage. Based on historical and ethnic ties, Taiwan's and China's positions on regional economics and culture should be the same, and its military and peacekeeping mechanisms should operate in unison. Theoretically, if big brother China is in difficulties, then Taiwan should come to its aid. Conversely, if little brother Taiwan is in need, China might occasionally help it out. That's how "fraternal states" should behave.

Have intelligent people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait ever stopped to think about why it is that the two sides, instead of developing an intimate relationship, have become enemies? The civil war is long over, and the old leaders of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party have died off. Although the civil war is now history, we are still its victims.

After more than 50 years of standoff, the people of Taiwan are exhausted. We long for a friendly relationship with China and want China's respect. Political independence for each side of the Strait will not affect the cross-strait economic and cultural alliance -- just take a look at the EU and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Looking at Taiwan and Singapore, while it is true that their political development differs, both are Chinese societies sharing the same history and blood. This has led to close private exchanges and a good relationship between their respective political leaders. Could we forget the imperialist "unification" concept and instead discuss alliances?

We are, of course, clear on the fact that as long as Chinese authorities remain entranced by the "one China" myth, our calls may be dismissed due to suspicion and anxiety. But heroes create the moment. Too much emotion has made us lose the imagination necessary to see the possibilities for bringing the two sides of the Strait together again.

We must not let the cross-strait stalemate continue unchecked. Let us use courage and inventiveness to take the first step toward friendship across the Strait.

MND warns attack could come soon

CROSS-STRAIT THREAT: The vice minister of national defense said a US report indicates that China would be in a position to consider attacking Taiwan by 2008
By Debby Wu
STAFF REPORTER
 

The US Department of Defense believes China might attack Taiwan in 2006 or 2008, Vice Minister of National Defense Tsai Ming-hsien said yesterday.

"The US has solid intelligence on China and China is likely to have a better air force and navy than Taiwan after 2006, so the US made such a judgment," he said.

Tsai made the statement when asked about China's military threat during a question and answer session at the legislature's National Defense Committee.

"If China provokes us and makes the first move to attack Taiwan, our military will certainly strike back. Our targets will include Chinese military facilities and the sources of the attack. The Three Gorges Dam, however, will not be a target," Tsai said.

The emphasis on the Three Gorges Dam came after details of the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military power were released.

The report said that, should Taiwan come under attack, "proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion."

Tsai denied that the US Department of Defense had highlighted the Three Gorges Dam as a possible target, saying it was reported only in a US military magazine.

Local media reports also stated that Minister of National Defense Lee Jye said two days ago that Taiwan was capable of retaliating against targets in China, including the Three Gorges Dam.

Lee reportedly made the statement while discussing NT$610 billion-worth of arms purchases with legislators. Lee's remark was relayed by a legislator who was at the meeting.

The Ministry of National Defense issued a statement yesterday denying that Lee specifically highlighted the Three Gorges Dam as a target.

It was also reported yesterday that Lee said he would resign if the legislature refused to grant the budget for the purchase of diesel-powered submarines, worth more than NT$400 billion.

Opposition legislators dismissed the threat to resign as a political stunt.

"Minister Lee Jye said he would resign if the legislature doesn't grant the budget," said People First Party Legislator Chin Huei-chu , a convener of the National Defense Committee. "It is easy to see that talk about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan is an attempt to push the budget through."

DPP Legislator Lee Wen-chung defended the US report.

"The US Department of Defense is not dealing with politics, but military affairs," Lee said. "The US reckons that the military balance between Taiwan and China will be tipped between 2005 and 2010. Taiwan will lose its advantage and that may tempt China into starting a war."

Think tanks shrines to the double standard

By Gerrit Van Der Wees
 

When President Chen Shui-bian last year said that he wanted the Taiwanese people to get accustomed to the democratic mechanism of a referendum, hordes of US think-tank figures fell over one another to condemn such "provocative" words. Just imagine: it might be used to change the "status quo!" Never mind that the present status quo derives from an anachronistic "one China" policy, itself the result of two Chinese regimes fighting a Civil War. Never mind also that a referendum is a widely-accepted mechanism for gauging people's views almost anywhere in the world.

Suddenly, in the view of these think-tank pundits, it became "provocative" to even talk about it, let alone apply it to major issues which determine the nation's future.

The storm of commentaries then increased when Chen dared to suggest he would steer the country toward a new constitution. According to the think-tank folks, this meant destruction and disaster would befall the island. Never mind that the present Constitution of the "Republic of China" was drafted by China's National Assembly in Nanking on Dec. 25, 1946, and promulgated by Chiang Kai-shek's regime on Jan. 1, 1947. Some two-thirds of its articles are outdated.

Here are some examples of how outdated it really is. The flag of the "Republic of China" is based on the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) flag, and was selected in China in the 1920s (Article 6). The territory of the "Republic of China" encompasses all of China, including "Outer Mongolia" and Tibet (Article 26). And the national anthem is a 1928 KMT song that has nothing to do with Taiwan.

It would therefore be practical and logical for the Taiwanese to devise a new constitution that meets the needs of the country today.

But the US Department of State and the White House have put their feet in concrete and their heads in the sand, telling Taiwan in no uncertain terms that there should be no new constitution, and certainly no changes to the Constitution which touch upon the issue of sovereignty. Only changes which would enhance governance would be acceptable.

To any reasonable person, such a position sounds ludicrous, but there are apparently people in Washington who maintain this position with a straight face. The reason for this, of course, is that they are playing to the "sensitivities" of Beijing.

So, let us see how "sensitive" Beijing is these days. On May 17, a few days before Chen's inauguration, China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing declared that China would "completely annihilate" any moves toward Taiwanese independence, no matter what the cost, even the loss of the summer Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008 -- a clear reference to military action if necessary. If Taiwan pursues independence, the statement warned, "the Chinese people will crush their schemes firmly and thoroughly at any cost."

To the casual observer, this looks like a rather provocative statement. However, the only thing State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli could say was that China's statement was "unhelpful."

To the casual observer it seems that there are two measures being applied: when Taiwan wants to make a baby-step in the direction of normality and acceptance in the international community, it is branded as "provocation." When big bully China throws its weight around, we have to tiptoe through the tulips. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

By the way, Kenneth Lieberthal and other think-tank friends: you came down hard on Chen for making his referendum statements in November and December last year. But we still haven't heard your reaction to China's statements.

Provocative, perhaps. Or just unhelpful?

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.

What is China's beef with Chen?

By Sushil Seth
 

Why is China so angry with President Chen Shui-bian? Because he is not delivering Taiwan on a platter. Otherwise he appears quite reasonable, even from a Chinese viewpoint. For instance, in his recent inauguration address he scrupulously avoided the question of independence for Taiwan. He simply sought Beijing's cooperation "to guarantee there will be no unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait." Indeed, he hasn't ruled out "any possibility, [for relations between Taiwan and China, including unification] so long as there is the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan."

For all his efforts at moderation, Beijing has branded his "provocative pro-independence activities [as] the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait." It has declared that "we will absolutely not tolerate Taiwan's independence" and would crush it "at any cost."

The sub-text of this harsh message is that Beijing doesn't trust Chen, no matter what he says. They also feel frustrated at the lack of credible political alternatives in Taiwan to advance China's unification goal. Indeed, Chen has consolidated his position by polling about 11 percent more votes than in 2000.

Taiwanese may not all be keen on formal independence for their country, but they certainly like to forge their own identity. In Chen's words, "We must seek to create an identity with this land and a common memory and to build a new and unified sense of shared destiny."

And this is what bugs China. In Beijing's view, this is clever semantics advancing the goal of an independent Taiwan. Hence the need for constant haranguing and warnings of disaster ahead if Taipei were to cross the line.

But such threats are counter-productive because "this will only serve to drive the hearts of the Taiwanese people further away and widen the divide in the Strait."

Apparently, Beijing thinks that such threats will work. First, because it will frighten Taiwanese people and erode Chen's position. So far, though, it hasn't worked. He polled significantly better that he did last time. Second, it is designed to weaken US commitment under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. By raising the temperature on Taiwan, Beijing hopes to use its increased leverage from the US' present difficult political and military situation to its advantage. So far this hasn't worked either.

Apparently, Taipei has been under US pressure not to provoke China and Chen had to take that into account. But, at the same time, US-Taiwan military cooperation is increasing and the US is keen to sell advanced weaponry to Taiwan. Indeed, the US House of Representatives has passed legislation to broaden military contacts with Taiwan.

Ever since Sino-US relations were normalized in the late 1970s, Beijing has sought to pursue its Taiwan policy at two levels: first, US facilitation of China's unification agenda, and second, military threats to assert its intent.

It might be recalled that the process of normalization of US-China relations, beginning in the early 70s and culminating with diplomatic ties in the late 70s, began against the backdrop of a shared perception of a Soviet threat between the two countries. This made them strategic partners.

In this larger scheme of things, Taiwan was downgraded as an issue. It was, therefore, a shock of sorts to Beijing when Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 to underline US commitment to help defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. But China vigorously sought in the 80s to curtail and, hopefully, bring to an end US military sales to Taiwan.

During the Cold War when the Soviet Union got increasingly bogged down in Afghanistan and then US president Ronald Reagan upped the ante by talking of the "evil empire" and missile defense ("Star Wars"), Beijing sought to maximize its leverage as a strategic partner to influence America's Taiwan policy. Its thrust was that since the US was committed to the "one China" principle, it might as well work to strengthen the Sino-US strategic partnership.

But it never worked out because US commitment to the "one China" principle was predicated on peaceful reunification, which essentially meant that Beijing and Taipei needed to sort this out between themselves. But China remained opposed to this, and still is. Taiwan is, therefore, left with no option but to accept Beijing's terms with, at best, the status of an autonomous province.

While Beijing was seeking the unification of Taiwan by any means, two things happened to weaken its position. The first was the Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 1989, which created an enormous backlash in the US against China's communist leadership. The second was the collapse of the Soviet Union, which undermined the much-vaunted US-China "strategic partnership" against the now moribund communist empire.

All through the 1990s the Sino-US relationship was marked by strategic ambiguity. Regarding Taiwan, China sought to test US resolve by exercising its military muscle in the Taiwan Strait during the 1996 presidential election. It found US commitment to defend Taiwan unchanged when then president Bill Clinton moved in two aircraft carriers to deter China from undertaking any military adventure.

Under President George W. Bush, the relationship faced a crisis during the spy plane incident when China impounded the US plane and its crew. The incident ended with Washington issuing an apology of sorts in exchange for the return of its personnel. Things, however, changed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as China became generally more cooperative with the US on Afghanistan and Iraq.

As during the 1970s, Beijing is once again seeking a quid pro quo of sorts on Taiwan, and was, therefore, not impressed when Washington gently chided it for its harsh language against Chen's moderate inauguration address.

But this can be expected when rhetoric takes over policy. There might be more of it in the near future if Beijing clings to its rigid position on Taiwan. There are too many imponderables, however, for China to risk a military invasion of Taiwan.

Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.

Images of the party state live on

By Ling Feng
 

Whether in relation to constitutional reform or the presidential inauguration, the national flag has become a point of discussion. To avoid controversy, President Chen Shui-bian  indicated in his inauguration speech that constitutional reform would not in any way affect the name of the country, the design of its flag or the national anthem.

The government even ordered that members of the public participating in the inauguration ceremony carry the national flag. At the end of the ceremony, these flags were scattered over the ground. This prompted a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator to say that the flag had been treated in the same way as a condom -- used once and thrown away. While this was a somewhat far-fetched analogy, the fact that the flags were left lying on the ground does indicate that green-camp supporters have little feeling for it.

In the KMT-People First Party (PFP) protests that followed the March 20 presidential elections, many participants held the national flag, seeming to indicate that the flag was the "exclusive property" of the blue camp and a symbol unloved by the greens. Even former New Party legislator Elmer Fung made use of the flag after he had been accused of sexually assaulting a maid, a matter he settled with a NT$800,000 payout to get the woman to go home and keep the matter from going further. He was met at the airport by supporters, at which time he ostentatiously waved the national flag and called out: "Long live the Republic of China."

It isn't easy to see the connection between the flag, Taiwan's official name and Feng's philandering with a Filipina maid. Should the maid's supporters have brought out the Philippine flag to balance things out?

But from such incidents it is possible to see the different ways in which the flag is regarded by the blue and green camps. It is a difference that is easily understood.

The flag of the Republic of China (ROC) is a white sun in a blue sky with a red background. The white sun in a blue sky is the KMT party flag and also its badge. The existence of this flag is incontrovertible proof of the one-party state that ruled the ROC for so many decades. Now that Taiwan has become a democratic country and has had a transition of power, shouldn't we do something to change these symbols?

The same is true of now irrelevant words in the national anthem such as "the Three Principles of the People, on which our party is based." The national anthem started life as the party anthem of the KMT. In 1912, when the provisional government was established in Nanking, it adopted the five-colored flag, representing the Han, Manchu, Mongol, Uygur and Tibetan ethnic groups. In 1920, when Sun Yat-sen was elected as "extraordinary" president through an extraordinary session of the legislature, the national flag also gained "extraordinary" status. Sun ordered that the five-colored flag be replaced by the "white sun in a blue sky on a red background." So, strictly speaking, Sun is only the father of the KMT and not the father of a democratic ROC.

But for various historical reasons, changing the national flag is not a simple matter. The DPP should instruct its supporters that before the flag is officially changed, the current flag must continue to serve as an official symbol of Taiwan, and as such they should respect it. With respect to the KMT, if they truly accept the fact that they have become a political party within a democratic system and recognize the transfer of power, they should be the first to raise the issue of changing the flag and the national anthem to demonstrate this fact.

If, on the other hand, they not only don't raise this matter, but in fact are nostalgic for the one-party state, even hoping that it might be brought back, and wish to use the national flag as a weapon to attack their opponents, then clearly they are behind the times.

As China also rejects any changes to the name of the country, its flag and its national anthem, any attempt by the blue camp to oppose changes might give rise to suspicions of a KMT-PRC alliance, and ultimately that the KMT has betrayed Taiwan. Of course, the KMT has a way of escaping from this bind; namely changing its own party flag. (The words to the national anthem can also be changed.) If the KMT and the PFP are really going to merge, then the KMT flag will necessarily disappear, dissipating the powerful connection between the party and the white sun in a blue sky on a red background.

Ling Feng is a commentator based in New York.