Three amigos action on Oct 05, 2004

Legislature to ignore court hearing on injunction bid

SHOOTING PROBE: The controversial committee began work yesterday, despite political skirmishes about the pan-green injunction request and an actor's comments

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AP
 

Amid verbal clashes and political bickering, the legislature yesterday decided that it would not send any representatives to a court hearing for the pan-green camp's temporary injunction application on the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute

But despite the skirmishes, the committee started work yesterday morning. Former Judicial Yuan president Shih Chi-yang was elected as convener by the 10 members nominated by the pan-blue camp.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), who filed the injunction request against the statute, yesterday confirmed that they would participate in the hearing.

The Judicial Yuan has requested that the DPP, the TSU and the legislature each designate representatives by tomorrow to attend the court hearing scheduled for Oct. 14.

Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng said that the legislature would not send anyone because lawmakers failed to reach a consensus during yesterday's cross-party talks on the injunction bid.

"Many people don't agree that the legislature should be listed as the plaintiff in the case," Wang told reporters.

"As the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute has been passed into law, I'm calling on the ruling and opposition parties to respect the dignity of the lawmaking body," he said.

DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming said that the party would send a representative.

"We'll definitely attend, because we're one of the parties filing the request. The legislature is relinquishing its rights if it decides not to appear in court," Ker said.

The DPP is expected to send Legislator Yu Ching, and the TSU may send Legislator Wu Tong-sheng. Both are lawyers.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Huang Teh-fu said that the KMT is refusing to take part in the hearing because the request is illegal and unconstitutional.

"Neither the Constitution nor any existing law provides for the the so-called `immediate temporary injunction,' so there shouldn't be any plaintiff or accused," he said.

Verbal clashes also erupted during the meeting of the Judiciary Committee. People First Party (PFP) Legislator Chou Hsi-wei said the Judicial Yuan was setting "the worst example" and putting a "diaper" on the DPP.

DPP lawmakers called Chou "shameless" and accused him of insulting the grand justices.

The DPP yesterday urged the Executive Yuan to neither cooperate with the "questionable committee," nor allocate any money to cover its operational costs.

In related news, actor Richard Gere -- in an interview aired on TVBS yesterday -- weighed in on the question of whether President Chen Shui-bian faked the assassination attempt. Gere said that he didn't believe Chen staged the March 19 shooting.

"What I thought was kind of bizarre was that the opposition assumed that he had set it up, in some way had himself shot," Gere said.

Taiwans' 'underwar' is continuing

By Nat Bellocchi

The US is only a few weeks from its presidential election. In Taiwan campaigning has begun in earnest for the election of the next Legislative Yuan in December, and China's leadership is completing the consolidation of its new generation of leaders. Decisions on objectives for the next four or five years may well be put off until January. But other activities important to the relationship between the three countries, and pertinent to these objectives, are taking place now.

Three of these activities are: that China now seems to be coordinating its efforts to damage Taiwan's security capabilities with opposition efforts in Taiwan to block needed resources for defense; Congress in Washington is unusually quiet about the Taiwan issue, and Singapore seems much more active in recapturing its former status as a go-between with China and the West.

Discussing these activities in reverse, commentaries written in the main English-language newspaper in Singapore are again being seen frequently in well-established secondary sources worldwide. They are evidently, for the most part, based on news from China, or from China's perspectives. Comments by Singapore's prime minister and its foreign minister seem to indicate the government may be supporting this expanded media activity.

For many years, during the reign of Lee Kuan Yew, his visits with major world leaders always received public attention. During Taiwan's pre-democratic period, he was seen in the West as a neutral advisor to these leaders based on his being ethnic Chinese, and an elected -- somewhat -- leader of a recognized predominantly ethnic Chinese state. It also was a time when Singapore's political system, compared to either China or Taiwan, was as close to a democratic system as one could find in so-called "Greater China."

That notion went down the tubes after Taiwan established its popular democracy.

In western democracies -- and especially in the US -- after many years of calling Chiang Kai-shek's regime "Free China" -- most people had the perception that Taiwan was sort of democratic already. Taiwan's real democratization, and Singapore's public support for its "Asian Values" manifesto, helped Western observers to better understand the difference.

Though Singapore's security relies heavily on US arms and contracts, its apparent resurrection of go-between activities now tends to bolster China's objectives in cross-strait relations -- such as its foreign minister's statement in the UN.

This may be seen by Singapore as a balanced strategy, but it may also be at Taiwan's expense. In Taiwan this may have some influence on the new generation of voters. How many among them recognize the difference between Singapore's "Asian values," and Taiwan's "popular democracy" is not clear.

At the same time, the US Congress in Washington recently seems rather quiet about Taiwan issues, even at a time when bilateral tensions between Taiwan and the US are unusually high.

For Taiwan this might be a concern of an entirely different kind. It is based more on confusion about where Taiwan's politics are going than any change of heart in the Congress' usual support for Taiwan. The government-to-government tensions between the US and Taiwan have subsided somewhat, but there is still a lot of confusion generated by the overseas Taiwanese community -- but seldom in the broad public media. Add to this the mushrooming number of new Americans coming from China -- which would be of concern even to a unified Taiwanese community -- there is a deep emotional split between the "pan-green" and "pan-blue" supporters.

For Congress, and for the general American public, this problem is seen as a domestic problem for Taiwan, not for the US. Being lobbied by supporters of an opposition party is not in itself unusual or opposed, but being asked to support the overthrow of a friendly democratic government that has been legitimately elected is another matter.

If the legitimacy is itself being challenged, then in most democracies the judicial institutions in that country decide the matter.

Ironically, in this particular case, there is a problem between lobby groups of American citizens who have a greater fervor for their cause than many of their comrades in Taiwan. While Congress tries to avoid getting involved, the growing number of Americans from China must be enjoying the spectacle as Taiwan's important support in Congress erodes.

As for arms sales to Taiwan, China may well be reaching an objective it has sought for over a half-century. Since 1979, the US has refused China's requests to halt arms sales to Taiwan, sometimes at a very considerable cost to the important US-China relationship. The present challenge within Taiwan to change this dependency on US arms sales is both complicated and dangerous. There are anti-war organizations in almost all democracies, which seek to stop spending money on weapons and use it for "more important" objectives.

As in Taiwan, these associations are often supported by distinguished academics who believe in these moral objectives, though they are not always expert in security matters. They are honest advocates of an ideal they believe in, but they do not always weigh the dangers to their country and their people in facing an adversary that doesn't share their priorities.

In Taiwan, however, these groups are joined by partisan groups who know about security matters, know the risks and danger to the country, but see the objective of destroying their political adversary -- and their country if necessary -- as justified. Joining the two -- academics and politicians -- into a united group with some common goal is misleading to the general public, who hold influence over their representatives in the Legislative Yuan.

Then, of course, there is the role of China. To what degree is it providing resources to these groups is unknown. But China's more recent and stronger public demands to the US to stop making arms available to Taiwan are well timed to add to the anti-arms sale efforts being made domestically in Taiwan.

It is difficult to judge how these three activities will impact on the future plans of Taiwan, China and the US.

To what extent Singapore's departure from a more neutral stance influences other countries to do the same is not clear.

Should the efforts of Taiwanese opposition groups in the US continue, once the results are presented by the Judicial Yuan on the legitimacy of the last election, it will make a difference in Congress' views of Taiwan. And the results of the Legislative Yuan vote on the special funds for the purchase of the needed arms will make a sharp difference in the planning of both China and the US.

Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Taiwan, Japan have crucial roles

Due to historical factors, there are two "abnormal" countries in Asia: Taiwan and Japan. Taiwan, as a result of the international community's postwar relationship with China, has not achieved international recognition, and its diplomatic maneuvers have been severely restricted by Beijing. Japan, on the other hand, has restrained itself in its postwar Constitution from participating in international affairs, especially in military affairs. That's why this economic superpower has a disproportionately small presence in international affairs.

These two countries, however, are gradually freeing themselves from the shadow cast by the 20th century. Taiwan, for example, actively seeks international recognition of its national status. Japan is also discussing the possibility of revising its Constitution. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed his country's wish to become a permanent member in the UN Security Council, indicating that Tokyo is intent on playing a more active role in the international community.

President Chen Shui-bian publicly called for Taiwan's inclusion in any US-Japan security framework while greeting Japanese visitors yesterday, saying that Taiwan, Japan and the US should cooperate on regional security in Asia. Taiwan and Japan not only share a similar historical context, but they are also geographically close and have similar strategic importance.

The biggest challenge the two countries face is the rise of China. The growing pressure from China goes beyond economic competition. Most important is Beijing's military modernization and the expansion of its naval presence as it seeks to acquire superpower status in the Asia-Pacific region. China's missiles are aimed at Taiwan, Japan and Korea, and many other Southeast Asian nations have also fallen under the shadow cast by China's military rise.

There is historical enmity between China and Japan. From the violence seen at the Asian Cup soccer final, Japanese should have no doubts about what China continues to think about them. That Koizumi's advisors are considering whether to designate China a military threat shows that they are looking at long-term developments.

China has consistently sought to keep Taiwan out of any regional or international security and economic cooperative structures. Given Taiwan's geo-strategic position and the strong role it now plays in economic development in East Asia, keeping Taiwan out of such structures will mean that such groups will remain incomplete. This adversely affects the development of regional security and economic prosperity, and directly challenges the basic order in the Asia-Pacific region established by the US and Japan.

Taiwan and Japan are both maritime nations, and there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation on a host of security and economic issues. For the safety of the whole region, Taiwan encourages Japan to play a bigger role in the UN and on the cross-strait issue. This will diversify East Asian leadership and push China into becoming a more responsible member of the international community.

The historical conditions of the 20th century are no longer suited to the context of the 21st. It is no longer reasonable for China to question the legitimacy of Japan becoming a member of the UN Security Council for historical reasons. Sixty years after the end of WWII, the Cold War is over and Japan has transformed itself into the most powerful democratic country in East Asia. It should now be able to cast aside its historical burden and take up its responsibilities as a leader in the region.

For its part, Taiwan should return to being a sovereign nation with normal diplomatic relations with China and the rest of the international community, and work with China to establish peace in the Taiwan Strait. This is the only road to security in East Asia.

Peace in our time, or peace on our terms?

By Tsai Ming-hsien

St. Augustine wrote in The City of God that "All men desire peace, the problem is that they all want peace on their own terms." Peace can be achieved under various conditions. The ancient Romans achieved peace by slaughtering the Carthaginians, and a peace -- of a sort -- was achieved behind the Iron Curtain. Warmongers always call for peace -- but it is always peace on their own terms.

The special budget for the procurement of submarines, anti-missile batteries and anti-submarine weapons for the Ministry of National Defense has given rise to heated controversy. I believe that at its core, the debate centers on the issue of "peace": on whose terms do we want peace, and what price are we willing to pay in order to achieve the peace that we seek?

China's situation in relation to its neighbors has greatly improved since the Cold War. Russia, once an implacable enemy, is now a major arms supplier, and Beijing is now making friends with both Vietnam and India. But despite these developments, China's military strength has continued to increase by leaps and bounds. Its primary objective, in addition to replacing the US as the dominant military power in the Pacific, is to force Taiwan into accepting "one country, two systems." As a result, in the last few years China has become the world's largest arms importer.

That its armaments program is aimed at Taiwan can be glimpsed from its deployments. The new Sovremenny-class destroyers and Kilo-class submarines have all been deployed with the East China Sea Fleet and its Sukhoi-27 and Sukhoi-30 fighter aircraft are deployed at airbases suited for an assault on Taiwan.

The people who oppose the arms procurement budget for the reason that it is likely to lead to an "arms race" are forgetting one important point: Taiwan's deployment of F-16s is a response to China's deployment of Su-27 fighters; that Taiwan seeks to purchase Kidd-class destroyers to counteract China's Sovremenny-class destroyers. Taiwan is reacting to the continuous pressure from China, but in seeking to maintain the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, the Ministry of Defense has acted with great caution, always purchasing a minimum of armaments to counter China's buildup. We do not wish to engage in an arms race with China, but the greatest threat to stability in the Taiwan Strait is the temptation for the People's Liberation Army to act because they perceive that the military balance is tilted in their favor. Our current raft of purchases aims at making such an invasion more costly for China. If you don't lock the door, you're just inviting the thief in.

Obviously, the cross-strait issue is complex and will not be determined by military factors alone. Taiwan is a small country and to meet force with force is not the best policy. The military force of a small country must be reinforced by the determination of the whole people to defend the country. But if we oppose an arms procurement bill that aims at maintaining the minimal force to counter-balance China, how will this be perceived by Taiwan's citizens? How will it be perceived by the international community?

Opposition to war is a universal value, and in comparison, the preservation of peace is a much more difficult task. We can simply take to the streets to oppose war, but in the face of China's ambitions, we must work hard to preserve peace.

To achieve this end, the people must be united, and they may even have to sacrifice some conveniences and benefits. Unless we wish our children and grandchildren to enjoy the peace of "one country, two systems," rather than the peace we currently enjoy, there is a price to be paid.

Tsai Ming-hsien is the vice-minister of national defense.

Butt out, Singapore

By Taitzer Wang

Since when has Singapore become such a heartless, communist-supporting nation? Its people are being misled by Foreign Minister George Yeo, who, according to media reports, has also somehow misled the world into thinking that "Taiwan and China split in 1949 at the end of a civil war and Beijing continues to view the island as part of its territory."

The fact is this: Taiwan was ceded to Japan by the Qing Dynasty in 1895, which had absolutely nothing to do with the civil war between the Nationalists and Communists in China. Read the constitutions of both the Republic of China (founded 1912) and the People's Republic of China (founded 1949), and you will know that Taiwan has never been a territory of either one.

Sadly, Singapore needs to kowtow to China to such an extent that it curries favor with China at the expense of Taiwan.

The Taiwanese fought the Japanese when Japan was in Taiwan. And the Taiwanese madea great effort to fight the KMT when the KMT came to Taiwan. So why should Taiwan have to fight with Singapore, when Singapore has never been and will not be in Taiwan?

As I understand, most of us speak same languages [sic]. Therefore, Web site forums like www.taiwanus.net and www.taiwanyes.com should help Singaporeans learn more about what Taiwan is today.

For the birds

By Jourdan Yang

I have read about Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen's remarks on Singapore.

It is sad that a member of the Taiwan government can use such fowl [sic] language in the press. Taiwan needs as many friends as it can get in a time like this.

The Singaporean foreign minister's comments might not be in Taiwan ruling party's flavor [sic] but he is stating a true fact.

Now to make the matter worse: the burning of Singapore's flag. Singaporeans don't do such hash [sic] act but how would you feel if we were to burn Taiwan's flag in Taiwan's representative office in Singapore?

Your foreign minister remarks were: "Singapore did not protest." No protest does not mean we condomn [sic] such a practice. No protest could means, worst [sic].

The reality behind the name

By Charles Hong

We often hear of the phrase "to exist only in name." We seldom hear of the phrase "to exist only in fact" because of its redundancy. A good example of the latter case is Taiwan -- an independent country in fact, but not in name.

As a matter of fact, Taiwan has too many names, including "Formosa," "ROC," "ROC on Taiwan," "Taipei," "Chinese Taipei," "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu," etc. What Taiwan needs is the unification of all of these names into "Taiwan" -- not unification with China. The latter unification needs a prerequisite that Taiwan is a country independent from China -- a fact to which the unification faction is opposed. It takes two or more to unify or merge with mutual agreement.

On the other hand, the independence faction insists that Taiwan is not a part of China. This implies that Taiwan is already an independent country -- independent both from China in 1949 and from Japan in 1952. Taiwan has been independent for more than 50 years. As a nation, Taiwan is as independent as Singapore, Australia and the US. What Taiwan needs is not independence again, but the rectification of its name and the recognition by the rest of the world community. The 23 million people in Taiwan deserve these basic rights.