Dollar diplomacy on Oct 17, 2004

MOFA denies dollar diplomacy claim

DEVELOPMENT AID: The minister of foreign affairs said that recent scandal involving Costa Rica's former president and bribes allegedly from Taiwan was an internal affair

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AP AND AFP

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen yesterday denied allegations that the ministry was conducting dollar diplomacy under the guise of foreign aid to Costa Rica.

Chen said that the foreign aid was clearly earmarked for specific uses and that he had not even heard of the Friendship Company, an organization believed to have made "donations" on the government's behalf, which is at the center of the controversy in Cosa Rica.

Chen made the remarks in response to inquiries from the media regarding the ministry's stance on former Costa Rican president Miguel Angel Rodriguez' having returned home on Friday to face corruption allegations, after just two weeks as head of the Organization of American States (OAS).

Reports have implicated the ministry's foreign aid programs in the scandal.

"I don't think these allegations are true. Every country has its own loves and hates in politics. We can't interfere with [Costa Rica's] internal politics. However, from the ministry's point of view, we hope that the aid we give will reach [those who need it.] This is our primary goal," Chen said yesterday, while attending a seminar on global trends in international development.

Chen denied the validity of the allegations, saying that all foreign aid is allocated with funds earmarked with specific goals in mind.

"In cooperating with our diplomatic allies, there is a set plan. For example, we plan to build a bridge or a hospital. These you can see," Chen said, pointing to the aid that Taiwan had recently given to Grenada to boost that nation's hurricane reconstruction.

"Foreign aid is given in accordance with set procedures. We sign an agreement with the local government, but what happens for sure, we do not know. For us, none of [the allegations] could have happened ... when something like this comes up, we are completely in the dark because we don't engage in this type of conduct," Chen said.

He said that the ministry's embassies in relevant nations would be "working to understand the situation" in more detail.

He was unaware of the reported irregularities involving foreign aid funds, saying that he had never heard of the Friendship Company when pressed by reporters.

"I've never heard of it, never even heard of it," he said.

Rodriguez is accused of improperly taking US$200,000 in 2001 from the foreign ministry, and another US$200,000 in 2002 from the Republic of China Embassy in San Jose, while he served as president, according to Costa Rica's Channel 7 news and La Nacion newspaper.

The reports also detail payments of up to US$1 million to the Panama-based firm Denisse from the Friendship Company in 1999.

"This is their domestic affair and it is not appropriate for me to make comments, especially since they are our diplomatic allies ... I trust that their judicial process will make a decision on the matter," Chen said.

Upon arrival in Costa Rica on Friday, Rodriguez was detained by officials who want to question him about the allegations that he accepted kickbacks from Taiwan and other sources.

"I am calm, I am not afraid. I have a lot of faith in God," Rodriguez told reporters on the plane. "I have come back to defend myself and prove my innocence."

Rodriguez is also accused of having pocketed US$500,000 in a scandal involving French telecommunications company Alcatel. Rodriguez admits to having taken US$140,000 on loan. No formal charges have been brought against the former president.

Japanese pair favor Taiwan's independence

INTERNATIONAL FORUM: A journalist and retired admiral said their country would back Taiwan in case of a cross-strait war -- though not with troops

By Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTER

A pro-Taiwan Japanese journalist and a former navy rear admiral said yesterday that they would endorse Taiwan as an independent country.

The pair told a forum in Taipei that Japan would support Taiwan if there is a cross-strait war, although it would be impossible for Tokyo to despatch troops to help defend Taiwan.

"I definitely support the idea of Taiwan independence and I believe that many Japanese people feel the same," said Kazuhiko Inoue, senior producer of Japan's Sky Perfect TV.

He made his remarks during the "International Symposium on Pre-sent and Perspective of Asian Security," held by the Taiwan National Security Institute at the Grand Hotel yesterday.

Inoue is a military affairs journalist who has studied the relations between China, Taiwan, Japan and the US for more than 10 years.

"If peace is not maintained in the [Taiwan] Strait, the Japanese will not be able to enjoy the prosperous economic growth that they are enjoying today," he said. "Japan and Taiwan are on the same boat."

"Taiwan's ability to maintain the peace in the Strait fits Japan's needs indeed," said retired admiral Hideaki Kaneda, another speaker at the forum.

Nearly 200 participants, most of them retirement age, attended the six-hour-long seminar.

Both Kaneda and Inoue believe that China will not launch a war against Taiwan.

Both focused on analyzing the regional military deployment of China, Taiwan, Japan and the US. However, the audience appeared more interested in knowing if the Japanese would support Taiwan as an independent country and if Japan would help Taiwan in case of a cross-strait war.

"Currently it is quite impossible for Japan to assign its military troops to help Taiwan if there is a war. But we would definitely mentally support Taiwan anyway," Inoue said.

Asked whether Japan would support Taiwan if Taipei restarted its nuclear weapons program, Inoue became more cautious.

"The Japanese are quite sensitive to certain words, such as war and atomic bombs," he said.

"We hate war. I cannot comment on behalf of my government, but I am quite sure that we will not support any development of nuclear weapons," he said.

Inoue and Kaneda tried to persuade the audience that it was not necessary to fear China's military even though it has large numbers of aircraft, ships, weapons and personnel.

"The Chinese are still using lots of Russian weapons," Inoue said. "Most Russian factories are suffering money problems so the Chinese military is having a hard time trying to maintain their weapons. That is the most serious problem."

According to him, the Chinese government's "one child" policy has created a serious problem for the military because no parents want to sacrifice a child for a war, especially when they have only one and especially when that child is male.

"When there is a war, most parents will try everything they can to help their only sons avoid potential deaths on the battle field. For those soldiers, they will do whatever it takes to avoid battles because they know that they are their parents' hopes," Inoue said. "Under these circumstances, do you think they will try their best, even sacrifice themselves, for their country if necessary?"

Groups call for Zhao’s freedom

`One China' myth is the problem

By the Liberty Times editorial

On Wednesday China's Taiwan Affairs Office formally responded to President Chen Shui-bian's National Day speech last Sunday. The office spokesperson Zhang Mingqing strongly criticized Chen's speech, saying that Chen "stubbornly insists on the separatist stance of one country on each side across the Taiwan Strait," and that Chen was "faking moderation, while practicing Taiwan independence."

Zhang also accused Taiwan's constitutional and political restructuring as "demonstrating the advance of Taiwan independence." With respect to Chen's proposal for direct chartered passenger and cargo flights across the Taiwan Strait, and invitation for visits to Taiwan by Chinese delegates to negotiate about making cross-strait direct chartered flights for the Lunar New Year holiday bilateral, two-way and without any transit stop, Zhang reiterated China's stance that flights between the two sides are "domestic affairs, which must take the form of bilateral direct flights, and be made in furtherance of mutual interests."

According to Zhang, it isn't enough for Taiwan to call for direct flights without any transit stop.

Taiwan must accept that such flights are domestic air links, said Zhang, so as to make direct charter flights possible. Zhang went on to declare that only when Taiwan accepts the "one China" principle based on the so-called "1992 consensus" can the two sides of the Taiwan Strait possibly resume dialogues and negotiation.

Chen made what he referred to as a goodwill gesture during his National Day speech, indicating a willingness to resume cross-strait negotiation on the basis of the 1992 cross-strait talks in Hong Kong, to push for procedural simplification of passenger and cargo charter flights across the Taiwan Strait, and to accept Lunar New Year charter flights that are two-way, bilateral and without any transit stop.

Chen also advocated that the two sides of the Strait should take action toward arms control, and that a mechanism for mutual trust in the military field be established through negotiation.

He even indicated that so long as the 23 million people agree, he did not rule out the possibility of establishing any particular form of political relationship with the other side.

Frankly speaking, the goodwill extended by Chen was beyond what was acceptable to the majority of people in Taiwan.

In particular, the part about resuming cross-strait talks on the basis of the 1992 talk in Hong Kong runs the risk of Taiwan falling into the "one China" trap of the other side, which is something that the people cannot possibly agree to.

However, it cannot be denied that the goodwill shown by Chen in his talk reached the limit of the goodwill that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) can ever possibly extend.

However, such compromises were not appreciated by the other side.

The DPP government wanted to patch things up with China, but Beijing wasn't interested.

While the DPP brought this humiliation onto itself, it also gave Zhang the opportunity to again trample the pride of the 23 million people of Taiwan.

China pushed aside the olive branch extended by Chen, declaring to the people of Taiwan in the snobbish manner of a ruling monarch that the sanctity of its "one China" principle can never be compromised.

By doing this, China exposed its mentality as a hegemon and made the world see for itself that Chinese ambition to take over Taiwan is what could bring a destructive catastrophe to mankind.

Regardless of how it is sugar-coated, and regardless of the manner of exchanges between the two sides, Chinese policy toward Taiwan ultimately seeks to engulf the country.

However, China cannot directly say that it wishes to engulf Taiwan without exhibiting its naked ambition. China needs to package its ambition with some sort of theory.

Therefore, the "one China" principle was made a synonym for "engulfing Taiwan." Under the said principle, a myth complete with ideology, nationalism, and historical justification was born to defraud and deceive the international community.

Since China's ultimate goal is engulfing Taiwan and the "one China" principle is a lie created by the pro-unification con artists, abandoning the "one China" principle will obviously bring about the collapse of the unification myth.

Under the circumstances, how can China possibly resume cross-strait negotiations without the "one China" principle as a basis? While China agrees that the two sides can have their respective interpretation what "one China," is, accepting "one China" is nevertheless still a must.

While Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen may have seemingly implied in his phrasing that China and Taiwan were equals, his ultimate purpose was in highlighting that the two both belong to "one China."

Moreover, while Beijing's previous remarks regarding cross-strait links seemed to leave some room for ambiguity in terms of the nature of the links, at the end it was still characterized as "domestic links."

Actually, the "one China" principle is not only a weapon used by China against Taiwan. It is also a curse that bewitches the minds of those in Taiwan who cannot identify with Taiwan.

During the era of authoritarian rule in Taiwan, the ruler of Taiwan also used the "one China" myth as the ideological justification of its rule.

The ruler of the time, Chiang Kai-shek tightly embraced the "Republic of China" (ROC) banner and tried to brainwash the people of Taiwan.

In terms of orthodoxy of teaching, the government claimed to follow Chinese kings including Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu and Chou. Politically, it portrays itself as the heir to the Wuchang revolution through which the Qing Dynasty was over thrown.

Historically and culturally, it considered itself orthodox Chinese.

Therefore, it was able to establish an iron-fisted authoritarian regime under the slogans of "retaking the Mainland" to "save our compatriots."

Ironically, while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used the "one China" myth as the basis of its authoritarian rule, it lost support at home and abroad precisely for the same reason, eventually causing the regime to lose power and disintegrate.

The authoritarian ruler tightly embraced the "one China" myth, while implementing totalitarianism at home under which human rights and freedoms were oppressed, based on the justification that the country was in a state of emergency and in a period of "communist rebellion" in advance of retaking the "Mainland." As a result, Taiwan was unable to become democratized. Externally, it adopted the inflexible policy of no coexistence with the "communist bandits."

Once any country allied to Taiwan recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan immediately severed formal diplomatic relations with that ally.

Once the PRC joined any international organization, Taiwan automatically withdrew from it, causing the country to lose all its international space.

The twenty-three million people of Taiwan were left without any room to speak in the international community.

Of the harm caused by the "one China" myth, Taiwan's withdrawal from the UN was the greatest and the most painful.

At the time, the PRC was becoming increasingly strong, closing in on Taiwan in an attempt to finish it off. But in the debates over the Chinese seat in the UN, most countries were still willing to accept a way for Taiwan to remain a member of the organization.

In particular, when countries such as the US, Japan, and the UK realized that they could no longer keep the PRC out of the UN, they changed their strategy and proposed "dual representation" by the two sides of the Strait.

That was to mean that while Taiwan would have to give up its seat in the Security Council, it would still be able to maintain its membership.

That was a most pragmatic solution. If Taiwan had accepted the proposal, it would have been able to leave behind the shadow of the civil war between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party and enjoy a new beginning. That would have represented the international community's recognition of Taiwan.

Unfortunately, although such "dual representation" was not repelled by the international community, Chiang refused to accept the proposal on the grounds of "no co-existence with the enemy" -- despite efforts by countries such as the US and Japan to persuade Taiwan to accept the proposal. This is the root of the political isolation faced by the nation today.

At the time, KMT officials with foresight, such as Yeh Kung-chao, suggested that Chiang accept the proposal for co-existence of China and Taiwan in the UN, so that Taiwan could become a sovereign country independent from China.

Plus, at that time China's military and economic strength was insufficient to block this proposal. It was the ideal opportunity for Taiwan to enter the UN as a sovereign nation.

Today, Taiwan has become an outcast from the international community. The use of the "ROC" name by Taiwan also gives China a reason to argue that the cross-strait standoff is a continuation of the Chinese civil war and that cross-strait conflict is merely a domestic issue.

These are all repercussions of the KMT's refusal to face the trend of democratization.

China's "one China" principle and the "one China" myth of Taiwan's former totalitarian ruler is the root of the sorrow of the Taiwan people. Today, China has made it clear that there will be no resumption of cross-strait talks without the "one China" principle, and the said principle is a synonym with "engulfing Taiwan."

Therefore, the pan-blue politicians of Taiwan should cut off their "one China" umbilical cord, identify with Taiwan and accept democracy. Otherwise, Taiwan will be led into the tragedy of war.

The popularly elected head of state has no need to waste his efforts dealing with China.

The only way forward is to insist on Taiwan's sovereignty and seek a a way out for the people of Taiwan.

National identity is common sense

The debates in the Examination Yuan over the scope of the test on the subject of "national history and geography" in the qualification exam of entry-level civil servants next year highlights the fundamental problem of national identification within Taiwan -- which has become the root of many problems here. Just what exactly is the "national history and geography" of this country?

In other countries of the world where people do not have a self-contradictory and confused national identity, this would be a simple question that even elementary school children could answer. However, this is not the case in Taiwan, where not even those with PhD degrees in history and geography can necessarily give the right answer.

The question is this: Does the country's national history and geography mean Taiwan's history and geography? The common-sense answer would of course seem to be "yes." Unfortunately, too many people in Taiwan do not seem to have that kind of basic common sense. In national examinations at all levels, ranging from qualification examinations for civil servants to entry examinations for senior high schools and universities, Chinese history and geography continues to be tested as "national history and geography." Moreover, national history and geography textbooks used in schools of all levels also focus predominantly on Chinese history and geography.

In fact, even Mongolia, which is an independent country formally recognized by the world, is treated as part of this country in these tests and textbooks. Anyone who so much as bothers to suggest or recommend that the definition of "national history and geography" be redefined to conform with reality is condemned for blasphemy. That is exactly what has happened in the current debate in the Examination Yuan.

Lin Yu-Ti, who will head the examination committee for the qualification exam of the entry-level civil servants next year, made that suggestion. He was immediately blasted, not only by pan-blue lawmakers but even other committee members too. In fact, some of them went as far as calling for his removal from the chairman's seat on the ground that his suggestion was made from his personal ideology.

The ironic thing is this: Those who insist that Chinese history and geography be labeled "national history and geography" are even more blinded by their personal "one China" ideology. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how they can persist in their arguments while turning a blind eye to the fact that China is not just another country to Taiwan, but a hostile country that many consider to be an enemy state. As pointed out by Lin, one purpose of the national civil servant examinations is to select those who can vow their loyalty to this country and the Taiwan government.

Isn't it ironic, and dangerous, if those chosen actually think that Taiwan is part of China? Won't they feel confused about where their loyalty lies, and to which government -- that of Taiwan or that of China -- they owe allegiance? According to the pan-blue lawmakers, Taiwan's civil servants should not be taught to be narrow-minded and they need to learn as much about the world as possible. It is therefore wrong, they say, to exclude Chinese history and geography.

They are right, of course. But while it is a good thing to learn as much as possible about Chinese history and geography, these subjects should be studied as part of world history and geography instead. Moreover, Chinese geography and history that is related to Taiwan may of course still be included in teaching and testing "national history and geography."

One is not even talking about amending the Constitution to completely reflect the political reality of this country, which requires dealing with much greater political complications and pressures -- in particularly those coming from China and the US. Yet these opponents still put up a strong fight. This only highlights the magnitude of our national identity problem.

Taiwan urged to improve communications with US

By Debby Wu
STAFF REPORTER 

The government should improve its communication channels with the US instead of leaving Washington in the dark about major announcements such as the making of a new constitution, US experts and diplomats have warned.

The message was relayed by Examination Yuan President Yao Chia-wen yesterday.

He said the issue of bad communication had been mentioned by former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) chairwoman Therese Shaheen last March when she was still on the job.

Yao said former AIT chairman Richard Bush told him last week that the communications between the two countries should be improved because there has been a few times Washington was not informed in advance of major policy announcements.

"Richard Bush offered the new constitution as an example. He said that when President Chen Shui-bian announced his intention to write a new constitution on Sept. 28 last year, the US was not prepared in advance," Yao said.

According to Yao, Bush said that the US was a good friend to Taiwan, and Taipei should really improve communications with it.

Yao and Bush met in Washington on Oct 12, during Yao's week-long visit to the US. John Tkacik, a research fellow in China policy at the Heritage Foundation, was also at the meeting.

"Actually Shaheen said the same thing on March 1 when we met. She said that while Taiwan would look for US help when in trouble or when in need of support for such things as WHO [World Health Organization] and WTO membership, but the US would not be informed in advanced of important policy decisions," Yao said.

"She said that the US was a good friend of Taiwan, and that this was not the way to treat a good friend," he said.

Yao and Bush also touched on the subject of the nation's name, with Bush saying it would be wise to keep the name of Republic of China for now.

"Bush told me that it was fine for Taiwan to assert that it is a sovereign state, and that it does not belong to PRC, but he said that keeping the name of Republic of China [ROC] brings great advantages and it would be wise not to tamper with the name too readily," Yao said.

"He said that it was because the name had been in use for over 50 years, many countries in the world recognized the name, and although China did not like the name, it could not deny the existence of ROC," Yao said.

He said Bush told him the US was fine with whatever shortened forms of the name, be it ROC or Taiwan, that Taipei preferred.

In addition, "Tkacik told me that if the arms-procurement budget did not pass, the US government and general public would considered the Taiwanese unwilling to protect themselves," Yao said.