Old farces in Democratic Taiwan on Oct 08, 2004

Cabinet officials battle `319' committee

POLITICAL ROW: A group of officials from the nation's executive visited the committee investigating the March 19 shooting, but the meeting ended in shouting

By Jimmy Chuang, Ko Shu-ling and Debby Wu
STAFF REPORTERS
 

Five senior Cabinet members yesterday visited the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee, but the visit descended into chaos immediately upon their arrival at the committee's office.

The five Cabinet members, including Minister of the Interior Su Jia-chyuan, Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan, Cabinet Spokesman Chen Chi-mai, Chief Accountant Hsu Chang-yao and Minister without Portfolio Hsu Chih-hsiung, were assigned by Premier Yu Shyi-kun to visit former Judicial Yuan president Shih Chi-yang, who is now the convener of the committee.

Shih greeted the five with a question as they stepped through the door.

"Excuse me, but why do you think the existence of this committee is against the law, against the Constitution?" Shih asked, smiling. "What makes you think so?"

Su responded that it was difficult for the Cabinet to accept the statute -- drawn up quickly to form the committee before the end of the last legislative session -- because it was too vague in the powers and limitations it endows on the committee.

"Well, I suppose that is because `Mr. Minister' did not study his law books very well," committee member Chai Tsung-chuan said, in response to Su's remark.

Chen Chi-mai tried to smooth over the awkward start to the meeting, saying that the visit was meant to try and work out differences, not to create more problems.

"We are here to show our sincerety and hope that we can work something out, since many people have an issue with the statute," Chen Chi-mai said.

Chen Ding-nan said that the pan-green camp has filed an application requesting a constitutional interpretation regarding the statute.

"It is quite possible that the grand justices will rule the statute invalid, since it is against the Constitution," Chen Ding-nan said.

"The committee should suspend its operation until the grand justices come up with a decision. That is my sincere hope," he added.

Chen Ding-nan's remarks immediately sparked a screaming match, with numerous committee members competing to get their voices heard above the fray.

"If this is an illegal committee, then what are you here for, and why are you here now?" committee member Stephen Chen said. Chen is a former Taiwanese representative to the US.

After a short row, the committee told the five Cabinet members to leave, saying it appeared little progress would be made with the meeting.

Meanwhile, committee members ordered prosecutors from Tainan to come to Taipei for interviews yesterday, but the prosecutors did not show up, and did not explain the reasons for their absence.

Committee spokeswoman Wang Ching-fong said that the prosecutors' failure to acknowledge the committee's order was of no consequence, as the committee will send members to visit the Tainan District Prosecutors' Office today.

The Executive Yuan yesterday expressed regret over the fruitless meeting, but reiterated their staunch refusal to cooperate with the committee in any way until the committee's legality has been established.

"Our stance on the matter is clear. We'll continue to negotiate with the committee," Chen Chi-mai told the press conference held after their return from the failed visit. "Our door is always open, should they want to talk. We'll also continue to try and arrange another meeting, if possible."

Chen Chi-mai said the Cabinet's position on the matter is that it supports an investigation into the assassination attempt, but opposes carrying out an investigation in an unconstitutional manner.

Hsu Chih-hsiung said the statute allows opposition parties to usurp powers reserved for the state. The Cabinet will take responsibility for the consequences of its actions, should the ruling on the statute run against it, he said.

"The least the people -- and the government -- can do, in the face of a law which is unconstitutional and violates human rights, is to disobey it," he said. "Of course, we're responsible for the risk we are taking and the consequences that are entailed should the judiciary decide we're wrong."

Chen Ding-nan said that he managed to express his opinion about the contentious legislation during the meeting, although he failed to catch hold of the microphone.

"We're concerned about how to make up for the losses when people's rights are violated and government authority is encroached upon," Chen Ding-nan said.

Cross-strait peace relies on goodwill from China

By Andy Chang

On Oct. 4, the TAIEX rose above the 6,000-point barrier -- moving up 132.61 points to close at 6,077.96 -- its highest level in more than four months.

Although the jump was related to the performance of overseas stock markets, both local and foreign investors are asking: What message will President Chen Shui-bian deliver on Double Ten Day?

Can this "important National Day speech on cross-strait relations," as referred to by Chen a few days ago, promote normal relations with communist China, and ensure Taiwan's future security?

Cross-strait relations have been made worse by Premier Yu Shyi-kun's comments on keeping a "balance of terror" across the Taiwan Strait, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen's portrayal of Singapore as a piece of snot, a well as his condemnation that the city-state is embracing China's lan pa (testicles) to curry favor with Beijing.

But so far, Chen Shui-bian has not been involved in this war of words.

On the contrary, he has assured us that he will make a "positive and constructive" National Day speech in the hope of easing cross-strait tensions and promoting pragmatic cross-strait relations.

It seems that he is now ready to build peaceful and stable cross-strait relations as he promised during his presidential campaign, as well as in his inauguration speech.

At this time, we should adopt new thinking to find common ground between Chen's May 20 inauguration speech and the March 17 statement made by China's Taiwan Affairs Office.

Why don't we make "peace and development" the new paradigm for cross-strait relations? If this is desirable to the Chinese people and leadership and the international community, then perhaps this should be the standard for examining all cross-strait interactions. We should speak and do whatever is good for peaceful development in the Taiwan Strait.

Meanwhile, our officials should not say or do things that injure this development. Thus, "peace and development" should be a privilege enjoyed by the people on both sides of the Strait and an unshakable responsibility of the two governments and even the world.

Since mutual trust has been absent in cross-strait relations, when either of the two sides expresses goodwill, it usually dies away after one side's words or deeds are not to the liking of the other side.

Each side is suspicious of the other, and often responds to perceived hostility without thinking. This is the reality of the current cross-strait situation.

I believe that, based on mutual trust, the two sides have to realize that any goodwill must be expressed on the basis of continuity, consistency and feasibility if we do not want the goodwill to die away.

Any goodwill that is shown but not reciprocated can hardly be effective.

Goodwill must also be pragmatic, rather than an empty gesture. Each side can act pragmatically in its own right, making this the first step for the other to reflect on its own need for goodwill.

I look forward to Chen's speech. I would also like to call on all government agencies to prepare for complementary measures to promote cross-strait development based on Chen's words.

Further, I urge Beijing to seize the opportunity. Do not spoil the seed of peaceful development with suspicion.

Andy Chang is a professor in the Graduate Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University.

MAC will not rule out conflict with Beijing

CROSS-STRAIT WORRY: Citing the possibility of `accidental' skirmishes, the MAC chief said this didn't conflict with the president's promise of no war under his presidency

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER

Top cross-strait policymakers at the Mainland Affairs Council yesterday warned that inadvertent military conflict across the Taiwan Strait was a real threat given present circumstances, qualifying President Chen Shui-bian's vow on Wednesday that no war would break out during his term in office.

"A military skirmish is not the same as war. Saying that the threat of inadvertent military conflict exists is therefore not a contradiction of Chen's announcement yester-day," council chairman Joseph Wu said during an interpellation session at the Legislative Yuan.

"The possibility of accidental conflict does exist, and as such, cross-strait negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible to work out military confidence-building measures that are necessary to ensuring peace across the Taiwan Strait," Wu said.

He pointed to the mid-air collision of a Chinese F-8 fighter pilot and a US Navy surveillance aircraft over the South China Sea in April 2001 as an example of a possible accidental conflict.

"It is the council's duty to prevent such skirmishes from occurring," Wu said.

He had previously pointed to the rejection of first-strike attacks by both sides, mutual notification of planned military drills, transparency of deployment plans, the establishment of a hotline and demilitarized zones as examples of confidence building measures needed across the Strait.

Wu said Chen's vow highlighted that the administra-tion's policy direction was toward peace.

"Ensuring peace is our policy. What we are trying to do is to frame this peace in a structural framework," Wu said in response to a question from People First Party (PFP) Legislator Lee Ching-hua.

Wu dismissed accusations that the arms procurement bill or Chen's plans for constitutional reform invalidated Chen's vow to stave off war during his term.

"The arms purchase will not increase tension across the Strait because China is procuring arms more quickly than we are. It would be providing incentive for attack if we allowed China to believe Taiwan can be easily defeated," Wu said in answer to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lin Pin-kun's question on whether arms procurement was a provocation that ran contrary to Chen's guarantee of peace.

Wu also said that if Taiwan were to authorize a representative to negotiate with Beijing about details for cross-strait chartered flights for the Lunar New Year, the council would not hand the job to legislators because this would neutralize the legislature's ability to act as the Cabinet's watchdog.

EU arms dealers gunning for Asia

By Honigmann Hong

The EU has agreed in principle to lift its embargo on the sale of arms to Libya, saying the ban should be lifted at the next meeting of the union's foreign ministers, scheduled for Oct. 11 and Oct. 12 in Luxembourg.

There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the arms sales embargo on China is next in line to be lifted. If that really is the case, the arms procurement plan currently creating a great deal of debate in Taiwan may be expanded further.

The possible amendment of the EU's Code of Conduct for Arms Exports toward the end of the year is usually analyzed from the perspective of international relations, the competition between strong powers -- the EU and the US are cooperating and competing with each other -- or as a matter of "currying favor" with China (with an eye on the massive business opportunities that are predicted to follow with the rise of the Chinese economy).

This analysis is further extrapolated to mean that such a move by the EU would bring "evil results," making it a certainty that China will rise even faster to become a regional military power, and -- directly or indirectly -- increasing the possibility of military conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

While basically agreeing with this point of view, I contend that there is another angle for analysis.

Using a few simple groups of data, such as the distribution of and changes in the global arms trade over recent years, I will explore why the EU, which always talks about human rights and democracy, is so eager to help arm China.

First, the members of the UN Security Council rank very high in global exports of conventional arms. In a report by the US Congressional Research Service, the top seven exporters listed according to real payments are, with last year's export figures in parentheses: the US (US$14.5 billion), Russia (US$4.3 billion), Britain (US$4 billion in 2001), Germany (US$1.4 billion, though not a permanent member of the Security Council), France (US$1 billion), Italy (US$0.6 billion, also not a permanent member of the Security Council), and China (US$0.3 billion).

The major importers, on the other hand, are mainly developing countries.

This state of affairs is due to the fact that arms development is capital and technology-intensive. Since the leading EU members are also among the biggest arms exporters, the EU is quite active in the arms market.

Britain is more concerned about US opinion -- the US is opposed to lifting the arms embargo on China -- and therefore more reserved on the issue, but it does not oppose lifting the embargo.

Germany and France, meanwhile, actively promote the idea that the original reasons for instituting the embargo -- human rights and democracy -- no longer exist. Their actions fully comply with their interests and status as big arms-exporting nations.

Second, the total global arms trade has declined since 2000 as a result of changes in international politics, military affairs and the economic environment. US arms exports, however, which already make up more than half the total of global exports, continue to increase rapidly while exports from EU nations are seeing a proportional decline.

This situation may cause the US to engage in "moral persuasion" of EU countries: there will be negative effects if they lift the arms embargo on China.

When it comes to arms exports, most of the trade between developed countries consists of industrial goods.

The main reasons for this are economies of scale, individual divisions of labor and mutual exchanges, meaning that there is no need for every country to produce every type of weapon.

It is also worth noting that Asian arms purchases have been increasing significantly, and this also stands as a negative signal of sorts.

Consecutive years of falling demand for arms will undoubtedly have an impact on the EU's arms industry. In addition to idle production capacity, unemployment and a difficult economic situation, it is easy to see that lobbying efforts will grow stronger -- bribery is now far more worth the risk than it used to be.

In this area, it may be possible to cooperate with the Berlin-based Transparency International to find possible or suspected irregular trading.

In addition, to effectively lower production and development costs, joint manufacturing or strategic alliances between arms manufacturers in EU member states is on the rise, and government policies are also aiding the gradual creation of interest groups.

The EU's Code of Conduct for Arms Exports is gradually becoming more unified, and treats arms as a regular good. This has led to a situation in which realpolitik is transcending ethical values.

And East Asia?

Leave that to be solved by the people there, or leave it to the dominant world power, the US, to worry about.

Finally, by observing the ambitions and conflicts within the EU's arms industry and evaluating what types of arms the EU may export, and even studying the technical level of these arms, we might better appreciate the true reasons for why the EU might lift its embargo on arms sales to China.

We might even be able to better predict the timing of such a decision.

Honigmann Hong is an associate research fellow in the international affairs division of the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.

Australia strikes back

By Graeme Meehan

We fully support the right of the media in a democracy to express views as you see fit, but we respectfully disagree with the terms by which you characterised Australia's foreign policy in your editorial on 4 October, in particular your reference to "appeasement."

Australia has consistently urged both sides of the Taiwan Strait to avoid any provocative statements or actions that could alter the status quo and put regional security at risk. At the same time as we express our concerns over moves towards independence by Taiwan, we have made -- and will continue to make -- clear to China our opposition to the use of force to resolve the cross-strait issue.

The Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has urged both sides to engage in dialogue to find peaceful ways to settle their differences.

Australia values its substantive and positive relations with Taiwan. Economic, educational, cultural and people-to-people contacts are growing strongly. We look forward to continuing to work closely with Taiwan to achieve outcomes that benefit both Australia and Taiwan.

Graeme Meehan  
Deputy Representative,
Australian Commerce and Industry Office, Taipei

Singapore strikes out

By Y.J. Ho

This is not a letter from an irate Taiwanese. This is from an incredulous Malaysian on the logic of Singaporean Foreign Minister George Yeo's speech at the UN General Assembly. His criticism of Taiwan is unwarranted in light of Singapore's history and the even-handed treatment it received when it broke away from the Malaysian Federation in 1965. Mind you, Singapore willingly joined the federation in the first place because it perceived there to be advantages in being part of a larger nation.

The point is this: When Singapore joined the federation in 1963, its government effectively reduced itself to a provincial government. I would think that once a state enters into a political union it gives up certain rights, such as the right to secede.

Throughout history, the exercising of this right has been labeled as anything from "rebellion" to "separatism." I can only think of the breakup of Singapore and Malaysia and the former Czechoslovakia as examples of peaceful separation.

In both cases, the parties involved acted like adults. They sat down, talked and arrived at a mutually agreed solution. I believe that had the federal government of the day chosen to do so, it could have forced the union upon Singapore.

This is in stark contrast to the situation in the Taiwan Strait. Here we have one country laying claim to another country. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled Taiwan in any way or form. The Republic of China on the other hand lost the mainland to the communists, but kept insisting it was the only legitimate ruler of China. This thickheadedness has left Taiwan with a historical burden, and the average Taiwanese knows this.

As the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) grip on power slowly eroded, the natives rightly wished to put things right by doing away with the ROC and navigating their own destiny. What is wrong with that? George Yeo's derision of Taiwanese independence is therefore most unwarranted, shameless and intellectually bankrupt.

Singapore was able to secede from a union it had clamored to join. Taiwan on the other hand is simply maintaining a sovereignty that is not recognized by Singapore or most of the rest of the world.

Mr. Yeo, please don't let your reverence for Greater China blind you to reality. The same goes for you too, [Prime Minister] Lee Hsien Loong. The very least you could have done was to nudge China to tone down its warmongering rhetoric.

The modern ROC is no longer synonymous with the KMT, and it is no longer suppressed by KMT nationalist doctrine. It therefore no longer necessarily believes in reunification. More and more people are beginning to realize the existence of their own culture and consciousness.

This nation has developed separately from China. In fact, China owes much of its present prosperity to Taiwanese businessmen, who are investing heavily there. The Taiwanese, on the other hand, have not received a single word of thanks, only the constant threat of invasion or annihilation. China would have all others believe that those businessmen are patriots returning to the motherland.

Instead of swallowing Chinese propaganda and believing that cross-strait tensions are an internal problem, UN members should take the step of providing Taiwan with some political protection against Chinese aggression.

Taiwan is part of the global village, like it or not. Help it break out of its isolation, not trample on its evolution. It is belligerent China that is missing the opportunity to resolve the dispute peacefully.

Y.J. Ho  Tainan