|
|
|
Submarines
on Oct 18, 2004 Submarines
are key to defense, vice minister says A
sufficient number of submarines could reduce the Chinese threat along the
Western Pacific and maintain an economic lifeline for Asian and Pacific
countries, Vice Minister of National Defense Tsai Ming-shian said yesterday. Tsai
made the remarks at a seminar organized by the Institute for Taiwan Defense and
Strategic Studies in Taipei on national defense capabilities. Noting
that Taiwan's northern and southern waters control the route where Chinese
submarines enter and leave the Pacific, Tsai said that if China's submarines can
go through these areas freely, the security of all marine transport in the
Western Pacific will be threatened. In
his judgment, a strong submarine fleet would not only help stabilize the Taiwan
Strait, but would also contribute to the regional security. Tsai
made the remarks against the backdrop of the defense ministry's efforts to gain
support from the legislature for its special arms purchase budget plan worth
NT$610.8 billion (US$18.23 billion). Under
the plan, the ministry hopes to buy six advanced Patriot anti-missile defense
batteries, 12 P-3C anti-submarine aircraft and eight conventional submarines
from the US. However,
Tsai stressed that good hardware should be accompanied by good strategies and
tactics. Tsai said China is depending more and more on its navy, and if Taiwan
can boast of a strong submarine fleet, it can become a powerful counterforce and
make China's blockade of the country unprofitable, said. No
other weapons can have such a strong effect like submarines, Tsai stressed,
quoting Hyman Rickover, father of the world's first nuclear-powered submarine,
as saying that all the weapons used in wars are expensive, and cheap weapons
seldom win wars.
Drop
`one China' says candidate SURVEY:
A KMT legislative nominee-commissioned poll suggests the party could win the
2008 presidency if it becomes more `Taiwan-centered' By
Caroline Hong A
poll released yesterday that suggests a majority of people believed the Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) could win the 2008 presidential election, but only if
they discard an adherence to the "one China" policy, Taipei City
Councilor and legislative candidate Lin Chin-chang said yesterday. Lin
vowed to form a "movement to abandon the one China policy alliance" in
order for the KMT to win voter support. "I
have sent my campaign ideas to senior party members, such as KMT Chairman Lien
Chan and General Secretary Lin Fung-cheng. So far, nobody told me not to do
so," Lin said at a press conference yesterday. The
survey, conducted by the Taiwan Real Survey Company Ltd on Lin Chin-chang's
behalf revealed that 20.74 percent of respondents said that they would vote for
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates in the year-end legislative
elections, 14.57 percent for KMT candidates, 5.12 percent for People First Party
(PFP) candidates and 2.74 percent for the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU). The
majority of those surveyed -- 44.03 percent -- still had not decided who they
would support. With
regard to which party would win a majority of seats in the legislature in the
December elections, 34.6 percent believed the DPP would prevail, while only
16.13 percent believed the KMT would do so. At 47.57 percent, the majority of
respondents said they were still undecided. On
which party "loves Taiwan most," the DPP ranked the highest at 20.74
percent, followed by the KMT at 10.17 percent. The TSU ranked 4.63 percent and
the PFP 2.15 percent in that category. Asked
whether the KMT should abandon the "one China" principle in order to
win the 2008 presidential election, 39.5 percent of the respondents said yes,
while 32.6 percent did not agree, while 27.9 percent declined to answer. In
addition, 49 percent of the interviewees believed the DPP's coming into power
was directly linked to its adherence to a "Taiwan-centered
consciousness," while 33 percent disagreed. Eighteen percent refused to
answer. With
little over a month before the legislative elections, it is crucial that the KMT
sway swing voters in their direction, Lin Ching-chang said. The key is
convincing voters that the party is in line with mainstream public opinion, he
said. The
"one China" policy supports the country's eventual reunification with
China under the name the "Republic of China," he said. He
made news earlier this month when he mailed a package representing the
"burden" of the policy to China and asked the KMT to abandon its
adherence to it. The
candidate said survey results showed that about 40 percent of respondents
believe that if the KMT drops the "one China" policy to focus on
Taiwan, the party will be able to regain its position as the governing party. Ironically,
35 percent of those who responded positively to the KMT's proposed policy shift
claimed to be either TSU or DPP supporters, Taiwan Real Survey Co's general
manager Kao Shih-yuan said at the press conference yesterday. The
survey also asked participants about their opinion on Taiwan's independence
versus unification with China. Just over 17 percent said they support
independence, while 5.4 said they favor unification. The
telephone survey was conducted from Oct. 11 to Oct. 12 from a random sampling of
people nationwide. Results were based on the responses of 1,088 participants,
with a 2.97 percent margin of error..
KMT
going down the wrong path The
poll released yesterday, and cited by Taipei City Councilor and legislative
candidate Lin Chin-chang, contains a number of puzzling contradictions. For
example, while 19.21 percent of respondents claimed to support the Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) compared with 32.26 percent who support the Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT), we also learn that 20.74 percent of respondents said
that they would vote for DPP candidates in the year-end legislative elections
and 14.57 percent for KMT candidates. It's hard to make sense of that. It does
appear, however, that the greens should cruise to a majority in the legislature
in December, and government in Taiwan can begin again. But
the more interesting thing about the poll was what it might tell us about the
topic of localization. In terms of which party "loves Taiwan," the DPP
beat the KMT by a 2:1 ratio. Just as interesting, a very large number of
respondents said they believed the reason the DPP was able to obtain power so
soon after its creation was because of its Taiwan-centered consciousness. Lin
has taken the results of the poll to mean that people reject the idea of
"one China," and he advises the KMT to drop its commitment to this
ideal or else face catastrophe at the polls. But "one China" is a
symptom of the KMT's malaise, not its cause. The real locus of the KMT's
problems is in the leadership's refusal to face facts. The
election result in March should have been a wake-up call. In 2000 Lien Chan
eschewed Lee Teng-hui's legacy in his election campaign and lost miserably.
Instead of learning his lesson and embracing Lee's legacy, which at the time was
the mainstream position in Taiwan (though voters were confused as to who
represented it) he became more doctrinaire, clinging more closely to the
"old days when there was hope" -- referring to the dictatorship of
former secret-police chief Chiang Ching-kuo. He then forged an alliance with the
People First Party's (PFP) James Soong, the very antithesis of everything Lee
stood for, and together they were both beaten. While this should have been
overwhelming proof that Lien had taken the party in the wrong direction, he
escaped the consequences by claiming that the election was rigged. He has since
tried to lead his party into even more serious folly. The
last thing the KMT needs, if it is to become centrist and mainstream again, is a
merger with the PFP. Yet this is exactly what Lien has been working on. You
might think that the election results since 1996 show the popularity of the
"Lee Teng-hui line" and the likely success at the polls of whoever can
assume the mantle of heir to the pragmatic pro-Taiwan centrism that was Lee's
hallmark. Yet James Soong said that he would not merge with the KMT as long as
it still retained what he called "the stink of Lee Teng-hui." We can
only interpret this as ideology blinding common sense. If
the KMT wants to see power again, it has to become what Lee tried to make it
(and let us note here that the centrist Lee, who kept stealing the DPP's popular
policies in the 90s, was something different from the fulminating anti-China
zealot he has latterly become). Younger
KMT members surely realize this. Lin is not the first among the younger
generation in the party to talk of a radical makeover. Ever since the pan-blue
ticket's election defeat, there has been talk in the party of adopting a more
vigorous pro-Taiwan stance, dropping the "commitment" to unification
and even changing the name to the Taiwan Nationalist Party. But
such voices are simply not heard, and the party is moving in exactly the
opposite direction.
Democracy
and Chiang's legacy By
Jerome Keating
The
US presidential elections approach. Win or lose, people are beginning to ask:
What will President George W. Bush legacy be? Will it be the economy, the Iraq
war or terrorism? What should this man be remembered for? Perhaps
perspective can be gained from the case of another controversial historical
figure. Oct. 31 is the anniversary of the birth of Chiang Kai-shek. Time was
needed to get a clearer picture of his true character and impact. Books have and
can still be written on the ambitions, goals, wealth, deeds and misdeeds of this
man. One reality too often overlooked has been Taiwan's long arduous path to
democracy and Chiang's role or lack of it therein. Examine three countries in
the post-World War II era. In
May 1945, Germany was a defeated country. Under martial law, imposed on it by
the Allies, Germany was demilitarized and de-Nazified. The political, legal and
educational systems were reformed. In non-communist West Germany, democratic
elections were held as early as 1949 and, despite the split and the Berlin
Blockade, progress began. In September 1949, Konrad Adenauer of the Christian
Democratic Union was elected as the first chancellor. By early 1952 the
occupying army that had by then taken a constabulary role was preparing for
deactivation. In
less than a decade after the war, this once Nazi fascist country had returned to
a functioning democracy; it joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
and began an economic miracle. The Germans, with their typical hard work ethic
and aided by the Marshall Plan, were well on their way to building a strong
country. In politics, a multi-party system that even gave participation to
communists and former Nazis was in effect. In
August 1945, Japan also was a defeated country forced to surrender
unconditionally. The main occupier and enforcer of martial law from the Allies
was the US. Emperor Hirohito lost his "divinity" but was kept as a
symbolic figurehead. US General Douglas MacArthur had almost absolute power. A
new Constitution was drafted. War criminals were prosecuted (seven men were
hung); and a period of rebuilding with a multi-party political system followed. In
this multi-party state, the first postwar election was held on April 10, 1946
for members of the Lower House of the Diet; and the second was on April 20, 1947
again for the Lower House of the Diet. By late 1955, the country had stabilized
into two major political parties: the Liberal Democratic Party and the
Socialists. The
San Francisco Peace Treaty (signed by 48 nations) went into effect on April 28,
1952. With it, martial law formally ended; but the US would retain bases in
Japan and be responsible for the country's military protection. By
the late 1950s Japan, with a multi-party democracy freed of martial law, was
also well on its way to creating its own economic miracle. This would be carried
out by the hard work of its people, with some assistance from the outside. Taiwan
after World War II was treated not as a defeated country but as a Japanese
colony of 50 years. It was taken from Japan and placed in the care of Chiang
Kai-shek's Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) but its definite status was not
spelled out in the subsequent San Francisco Treaty (1952). Taiwan
did sustain bombings during the war, but the destruction was nowhere near the
scale as that of Germany or Japan. The true devastation of Taiwan ironically
took place after the war as the occupying KMT Nationalist army under Chiang took
almost anything that was not nailed down to sustain their losing effort in
China. It was at that time that the infamous 228 Incident took place, in 1947,
as the people protested their unfair treatment and exploitation. It was under
the guise of quelling this protest that many of the Taiwanese intelligentsia who
had experienced the development of democratic participation under the Japanese
were killed off. Martial
law followed; in 1949, as Chiang's army was facing defeat in China they had to
retreat to Taiwan. Elections would begin to be held in Taiwan in the 1950s but
they would only be for bodies beneath the provincial level, like county and city
governments. A multi-party system was not allowed. Access to the top was denied
public vote. Representatives of the National Assembly (namely those in the
Legislative Yuan and the Control Yuan), after having been elected in China in
1947, never had to face another election until 1991. What justified this
usurpation? Taiwan
achieved its own economic miracle like the Germans and the Japanese, again due
to the hard work of the people and some outside assistance; but it is the area
of democracy where the real scrutiny of Chiang and his legacy must take place. Why
were national elections delayed in Taiwan until the 1990s when they were
possible in Germany and Japan in the 1950s? Why did martial law have to wait
until 1987 to be lifted in Taiwan when it had been lifted in Germany and Japan
again in the 1950s? Why could a multi-party government with opposition parties
be developed in Germany and Japan in the late 1940s, when it had to wait till
the late 1980s in Taiwan? (In 1986 the nation's first opposition party the
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was formed but even then it was still
technically not legal.) Why
were the so-called "re-united brothers on Taiwan" treated more
brutally and with less respect than were the conquered enemies of Germany and
Japan? Why was Taiwan's press controlled for over 40 years by the KMT? Why did
Taiwan have to suffer over 40 years of purges and White Terror after World War
II with thousands (20,000-30,000 in some estimates) of Taiwanese executed on the
streets and in prison when only 12 Germans were sentenced to be hung and seven
Japanese executed for war crimes? Why did the KMT, as the saying goes,
"have to kill nine Taiwanese to find one communist?" Were
the Taiwanese that much more vicious, more dangerous and not to be trusted with
self-determination than the Nazi Germans and the militaristic Japanese? Stability
is not an excuse. All three countries, postwar, had relative stability in which
to develop their economies. The threat of instability was perhaps the greatest
in Germany as the US faced off against Russia in the Cold War. Japan had the
security of the US taking over its military obligations. Taiwan had the security
of the US Seventh Fleet occupying the Taiwan Strait after the Korean War started
in 1950. Chiang
ruled with a one-party state in Taiwan from 1945 to 1975 when he died; another
decade would pass before martial law would be lifted and then it would only come
after pressure from the outside. This is Chiang's legacy. Why
did democracy never come under Chiang? The answer is simple, clear and
unavoidable. The central focus of Chiang and the KMT was to keep one party, one
privileged group and one person in power. Some
western historians have praised the accomplishment of democracy in Taiwan --
that the dream finally became reality. Minimally, Taiwan has at least proven
that Chinese culture is not antithetical to democracy. But the only true
question for democracy in Taiwan is why did it come so late? The
Republic of China founded in 1911 under Sun Yat-sen's guidance had three key
principles, min-tsu, min-chuan and min-sheng. Min-chuan --
government by the people, or people's rights -- was not intended to mean rule by
one party. This lesson of Chiang and the dictatorship of a one-party state are
still to be learned on the other side of the Taiwan Strait where one party
controls all, facetiously "in the name of the people." Initially
viewed by many as the man who opposed communism, time has exposed Chiang's true
Taiwan legacy. We can now see why so many Taiwanese can never consider him a
hero. If you had listened to Chiang's resolute words at the time, he was a
champion of democracy. Ultimately, he served his friends and special interest
groups; he left Taiwan with Langston Hughes famous "dream deferred."
And Bush? Despite his resolute words, what is he leaving the economy, the
American people and the people of the world in the long term? What is his
unspoken reality? Americans must give it careful consideration. Jerome
Keating is the co-author of the book Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of
Taiwan's Complex History.
|
|
|
