S Korea tense on Oct 27, 2004

S Korea tense after infiltration scare, Powell threats
AP , SEOUL
 

US Secretary of State Colin Powell urged North Korea yesterday to rejoin nuclear disarmament talks if it wants international aid, while South Korea ended a high alert triggered by holes cut into a border fence.

Powell rejected the North's demand that Washington change its policy if six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons development are to continue. Meanwhile, the North accused the administration of US President George W. Bush of using the nuclear dispute to gain votes in next week's presidential election.

South Korea urged all sides in the six-nation talks to become "more creative and realistic," a comment suggesting it believed the burden was on Washington, its chief ally, as well as Pyongyang to show more flexibility in resolving the nuclear standoff.

"We agreed to continue devoting maximum efforts to achieving this goal through multilateral diplomacy and six-party talks," Powell said in a joint news conference with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon.

"Clearly, everybody wants to see the next round of six-party talks get started," Powell said, referring to the stalled talks among the US, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia. "This is the time to move forward, to bring this matter to a conclusion."

He said the goal was to help the people of North Korea have a better life, in part by providing more food aid.

"We don't intend to attack North Korea, we don't have any hostile intent notwithstanding their claims," he said. "It is this nuclear issue that is keeping the international community from assisting North Korea."

Powell, who was in Seoul following visits this week to Japan and China, also met yesterday with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and South Korea's unification minister.

Powell predicted that North Korea will return to the talks after next week's US election, South Korean officials said.

Meanwhile, South Korea said two mysterious holes found on the wire fence on the tense border with North Korea were most likely used not by communist infiltrators but by a South Korean defector to the North. It ordered its troops to stand down from a high alert.

About 40km to the north, South Korean border guards had earlier found two holes in a wire fence at the buffer zone that has separated the two Koreas since their 1950 to 1953 war.

The highly unusual discovery of the holes -- found on the fence checked daily by troops for signs of infiltration -- had triggered fears of North Korean commandos slipping through the border and led South Korea to tighten roadblocks and traffic checks north of Seoul.

"After investigating the way the fence was cut and the foot prints in the scene, we have concluded that an unidentified person crossed into the north," said Brigadier General Hwang Joong-sun, an operations officer in the South Korean military.

Three rounds of six-party talks, held in Beijing, have yielded little progress. North Korea skipped a fourth round that was to have taken place in September, and lashed out yesterday at Washington.

"It is impossible to open the talks now that the US is becoming evermore undisguised in its hostile policy toward the [North]," said North Korea's official news agency, KCNA.

Pan-blues block arms deal citing Powell's comments

By Debby Wu
STAFF REPORTER

The statute governing the arms deal with the US failed to pass the Procedure Committee yesterday as the pan-blue camp claimed they objected to the statute in response to US Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that "Taiwan is not a sovereign state," and the meeting ended in confusion as the lawmakers from the two camps threw their lunch boxes and other items at each other to vent their frustration.

The pan-blue camp lawmakers boycotted the statute yesterday, saying that if Powell does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, then Taiwan should refrain from buying weapons from the US.

While the Cabinet put forward its version of the statute for consideration yesterday, the People First Party (PFP) caucus withdrew its version as a protest to Powell's comments.

PFP caucus whip Liu Wen-hsiung proposed in the committee yesterday to put the Cabinet's version of the statute aside temporarily, and asked the Cabinet to revise the statute.

"I suggest the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) revise its version to withdraw all arms deals with the US. If the US does not acknowledge [Taiwan] as a sovereign state, we should not buy any weapons from the US," Liu said when commenting officially on the bills arranged to be reviewed in the committee yesterday.

While Liu was making the statement, several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers chanted, "Powell doesn't love Taiwan," and "We are not intimidated."

In the end, the pan-blue camp again got its way with its majority in the committee, but the meeting ended in chaos after KMT Legislator Chu Fung-chih and DPP Legislator Chen Tsung-yi escalated their quarrel with a barrage of flying lunch boxes, paper cups and notebooks.

Chu and KMT Legislator Hung Shiu-chu were mocking Chen as someone without lam pa (balls) during the session, and in the end Chu lost his cool and started to throw things -- including his lunch boxes -- at Chen.

Chen threw things back, but shortly after the exchange DPP caucus whip Tsai Huang-liang demanded that caucus members leave the session to protest the pan-blue's boycott. The session then ended amid chaos.

Meanwhile, Vice Minister of National Defense Lei Kuang-shu also visited Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng yesterday morning to seek support for the statute, but Wang told Lei that the statute would not be approved in the committee this week, and it should wait until next week.

While the PFP boycotted the statute in protest of Powell's speech, the KMT caucus used the chance to warn the public against independence.

"Taiwan's independence is a dead-end, and it may bring disaster for Taiwan," KMT caucus whip Huang Teh-fu said earlier in the morning.

"The KMT insists that the ROC is an independent country, and we object to the international powerhouse's arrangement for Taiwan's future. Taiwan's future should be decided by its 23 million people," Huang said.

Meanwhile, both the DPP and Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) said they were upset by Powell's comments.

"The DPP caucus cannot accept Powell's talk, which is unfaithful to the facts. We have to make grave protests against it. So far there is no other country that can exercise its administrative power in Taiwan. So if Taiwan is not a sovereign state, what is Taiwan?" Tsai said.

TSU expressed similar sentiment and said that President Chen Shui-bian should stop being ambiguous about Taiwan's sovereignty and instead explain this clearly to international society.

"Chen should tell international society clearly that Taiwan is a sovereign state, which is not related to China," TSU caucus whip Chen Chien-ming  said.

US quietly increases military help

By Richard Halloran

At the US Military Academy graduation in June, a cadet from Tai-wan marched up to receive his diploma and thus became the first soldier from his nation ever to graduate from West Point. A few weeks earlier, a marine captain from Taiwan had completed a grueling 30-week course run by the US Navy's commandos known as SEALs and received his golden trident insignia.

The West Pointer, Lee Wu-ling, has returned home and was commissioned a second lieutenant. The marine, Yu Kuei-lin, was congratulated in person by President Chen Shui-bian before starting to train other marines.

These two young officers reflect a quiet expansion in US military relations with Taiwan in which the US and the Taiwanese are walking on a razor's edge.

On one side, their alliance is intended to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan by showing Beijing that the US and Taiwan are working together. On the other, the part-ners try to avoid antagonizing the Chinese, who vigorously denounce every instance of US-Taiwan collaboration.

Over the last five years, beginning in the Clinton administration and continuing under President George W. Bush, Taiwan has become the third-largest recipient of US security assistance, behind only Egypt and Israel.

A US Defense Department spokesman declined to disclose the value of that assistance but pointed to clues in a Pentagon report. It said deliveries and future commitments in US military sales to Taiwan last year amounted to US$1.1 billion, compared with US$1.3 billion to Israel and US$1.9 billion to Egypt.

Most attention in Washington and Taipei -- and bitter opposition in Beijing -- has been directed at arms sales, including a proposed package of submarines.

The more telling US aid, however, has been in training Taiwan's young officers, rendering operational advice to senior officers, and coordinating war plans. About 200 military personnel from Tai-wan are studying in the US, including 39 at military acade-mies, according to Taiwan's representative office in Washington.

In return, West Point cadets have visited the military academy in southern Taiwan for a two-week orientation. A lieutenant colonel from Taiwan, Ken Chang, has been teaching a course at West Point on Sun Tzu, who wrote the classic Art of War 2,500 years ago.

US colonels and Navy captains often observe Taiwanese training, evaluate command and communications practices, and urge Tai-wan's leaders to integrate the operations of their air, sea and land forces. To avoid attracting Chinese criticism, US officers do not wear their uniforms in Taiwan.

At a higher level, Taiwan and the US have each devised contingency plans to repel a Chinese assault since Beijing has repeatedly threatened to attack if Taipei declares independence. The US would be obliged to help defend Taiwan unless the Taipei deliberately provoked Chinese hostilities.

US and Taiwanese military leaders have begun coordinating those plans, with Taiwan more forthcoming with the US than is the US with the Taiwanese as the Americans are worried that their plans would be leaked.

US-Taiwan military collaboration started in 1996, after China fired missiles in the direction of Taiwan and the US deployed two aircraft carriers to nearby seas.

Michael Pillsbury, a longtime China expert and an associate fellow at the Pentagon's Institute for National and Strategic Studies, has written that US and Taiwan-ese strategic thinkers began meeting in Monterey, California, in 1997. The focus has been on strategy, not arms sales, in the ensuing eight rounds of discussions.

In 1998, a Pentagon delegation quietly visited Taiwan at the invitation of former minister of national defense Tang Fei to discuss national strategy. The following year, US teams visited Taiwan to assess the island's air defenses, anti-submarine operations and plans for countering a Chinese invasion.

The Pentagon decided in April 2001 that arms sales to Taiwan would be considered on an as-needed basis, not just once a year. Also in 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz flew to Florida to meet then minister of national defense Tang Yao-ming at a conference of the US-Taiwan Business Council, the highest level contact in two decades.

Later, American officers encouraged Taiwan to forge a capacity for operating with US forces and others if that became necessary.

As Pillsbury asserted: "If deterrence fails, Taiwan, supported by the US and its allies, must be prepared to swiftly defeat the PRC's use of force."

Richard Halloran is a journalist based in Hawaii.

Welfare state helps competitiveness

By Chang Tieh-chih 

The recently released Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005 published by the World Economic Forum ranks Taiwan fourth, making it the only country outside Europe and the US in the top five. This is something that Taiwan should be proud of. But there is another feature of the report that is worthy of note and which can inspire Taiwan in its future development.

The top-ranked country in this report is Finland, followed by the US and Sweden, with Denmark and Norway in fifth and sixth place.

Except for the US, these are all northern Europeancountries, with high taxation and generous social welfare programs. This is a clear indication that a democratic welfare state can maintain a high level of competitiveness.

This observation is not particularly remarkable, for the annual report Doing Business published by The World Bank Group also places northern European countries at the top of its rankings.

"Competitiveness" is regarded by economists as being a very vague concept, but as this report is based on a survey of 9,000 companies, it can be regarded as a good indication of how these firms regard the potential for economic growth in various countries. The question is, how can we explain the competitiveness of these welfare states with heavy tax levies?

The concept of the welfare state developed at the end of the 19th century as a way of balancing the conflicting demands of capitalism and democracy. By the involvement of a democratic government in the operation of the market, the welfare state sought to correct the huge social inequalities created by the capitalist system. But in this era of globalization, a common argument is that the welfare state system is in danger of collapse.

This theory argues that globalization will deprive governments of the tools, such as tax rates and exchange rates by which they can influence the market and that it will force a convergence of the economic and social policies of different countries and blur the divide between the right and left of the political spectrum to create a market-driven society that is "neo liberalism."

But this isn't what has hap-pened. After World War II, Western political and economic policy began to consolidate on the basis of a system of free trade, while at the same time the growing maturity of Keynesian welfare thinking sought to mitigate some of the social inequalities created by free trade.

The countries with the most liberal trade policies often also had the largest bureaucracies; these were mostly the countries of northwestern Europe. In the 1980s, although these welfare states faced numerous challenges, reforms were limited. It is important to note that despite reforms to specific aspects of the welfare system, the social systems of these democratic welfare states remained quite different from that of the UK and the US, which tended toward economic liberalism.

This was because the new wave of economic liberalization brought on by globalization also brought with it greater economic instability and social inequality. Increasing numbers of white-collar and blue-collar workers in both developed and developing nations became victims of globalization, thereby increasing the need for government to bolster its involvement in the market.

These recent reports make it even clearer that a comprehensive social welfare system will not hinder the competitiveness of a country, but can serve as a support in promoting its economic growth and opening up to the world.

A comprehensive social security net can limit the social risks of innovation and liberalization and ease the difficulties of the transitional period. In fact the reason why these countries can rank so highly in competitiveness, is because they have a sound economic environment, an effective legal system and an outstanding ability in technological innovation. It is these that are the key to competitiveness.

The first of the above elements might surprise some people who expect that because these countries have such comprehensive social systems, they necessarily have huge government debt. But because they all have highly advanced tax systems, they have abundant revenues to ensure the soundness of the economic environment so that they even are able to have a surplus.

So we can see that a country's competitiveness can be built on this basis and does not necessarily rely on low taxes to attract foreign investment.

In addition, and not mentioned in the reports, is that these countries also have trade unions that are part of a corpor-atist structure that make them an important player in resolving disputes between labor and management, and key participants in the government's policy-making. Such a system gives investors an even greater sense of security.

Taiwan is also looking for a new relationship between the government, the market and society. We have put a lot of effort into upgrading industry and creating a structure for a knowledge economy, and Taiwan's ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report is a vindication of our efforts over the last few years.

But if there were a similar report about social justice around the world, would Taiwan be able to make it into the top 10? Neither the government nor the opposition parties have been able to establish a national pension system, nor have they been able to reform the tax system to conform more closely with the principles of social justice, all for fear of offending the capitalists. But clearly, based on the experience of the northern European countries, we can see that economic competitiveness can coexist with a just social system.

Chang Tieh-chih is a doctoral student in the department of political science at Columbia University.

US and regional allies hold naval drill

Mainland Affairs Council downplays Powell's words

NO POLICY CHANGE: The MAC chairman noted the US State Department said its policy toward China and Taiwan remained unchanged after Colin Powell said Taiwan did not enjoy sovereignty

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER 

Cross-strait officials and analysts yesterday downplayed US Secre-tary of State Colin Powell's recent assertion that Taiwan "does not enjoy sovereignty," stressing that the "one China" policy had not been "fundamentally changed" in light of the remarks.

"Taiwan, with the national title of Republic of China, is an independent, sovereign country. This is an undeniable fact. Taiwan is not under the People's Republic of China's jurisdiction," Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu told the Taipei Times.

Powell had expressed opposition to any "unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking" during an interview conducted by CNN in Beijing on Monday.

He also told Hong Kong's Phoenix TV that "It [Taiwan] does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation."

Wu said the US State Department had already publicly stated that the "one China" policy had not been altered and said that President Chen Shui-bian's adherence to the content of his inauguration and National Day speech remained unchanged as well.

Wu spoke with the Taipei Times yesterday after a high-level government meeting on Powell's comments.

"In addition, the president already expressed in his inaugural address on May 20 this year that he will not rule out any sort of political relationship with China as long as it is an arrangement to which Taiwan's 23 million citizens agree," Wu said.

Alexander Huang, a director of Tamkang University Graduate Institute of Strategic and International Studies and former vice chairman of the council, also felt that Powell's remarks did not indicate any significant change in policy.

"This can be considered a setback for this round ? Taiwan was partially humiliated or insulted," Huang said, but noted that no fundamental change had been made to Washington's "one China" policy.

Huang interpreted Powell's comments to be targeted at the lack of formal diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the US.

However, he warned that the nation had to acknowledge that recent events in Taiwan could have prompted Powell's responses during the interviews in China.

"The US government praised Chen's inaugural address and the Double Ten speech ? but even as the US sees [President] Chen as the ultimate policymaker, they are annoyed by other factors," Huang said.

Huang was referring to Senior Presidential Adviser Koo Kwang-ming's placing ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and Taipei Times that called on the US to abandon its "one China" policy and to the premier's comments last month regarding a "balance of terror."

According to Huang, Powell's rhetoric could be seen as a direct response to such events and as such a warning, in effect saying: "Do not deviate from Chen's remarks. Do not change the status quo through words or actions."

However, Lai I-chung, director of the Taiwan Thinktank's Foreign Policy Studies, took issue with Huang's interpretation.

Lai said that Koo had clearly distanced himself from the Presidential Office in placing the advertisements. He also pointed out that the US could have easily addressed the events directly.

Lai came just short of attributing Powell's remarks to a "slip of the tongue" yesterday, saying that previous statements made by government officials had been such.

"After the interview, Powell nevertheless referred to the president as President Chen Shui-bian," Lai said, adding that perhaps it was an effort to downplay or rectify previous remarks that Taiwan did not enjoy sovereignty. Lai pointed out, however, that the US has never seen Taiwan as a sovereign nation.

According to Lai, the clearest message was the State Department's assertion that Washing-ton's "one China" policy remains unchanged.

He highlighted that Powell's comments had been made during interviews, and not at the formal talks conducted during Powell's visit with state officials.

Lai also attributed the timing of Powell's trip, just days before the US presidential election, to the need to stabilize problems arising from North Korea's nuclear wea-pons program.

Powell has said previously that he plans to step down as State Department head whether there was a change in administration after the Nov. 2 elections or not, and Chinese language reports have likened Powell's visit to Asia to a "graduation trip" of sorts.

"If Powell's trip were just a graduation trip, the question would be why doesn't Powell wait until November," Lai said, adding that North Korea could be a factor in the upcoming elections.

Poor word choice or a policy shift?

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent country. The question is: Is Powell really clear on what he is talking about? If the status of Taiwan really is what Powell claims it to be, then his statement could be interpreted as meaning either that sovereignty over Taiwan remains undetermined, as stated in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, or that Taiwan comes under the sovereignty of China.

The question of whether this China is the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China (PRC) will surely lead to further dispute. To those interpreting Powell's statement as meaning that Taiwan belongs to the PRC, we can only say that this goes further than any of the communiques signed by Washington and Beijing, and it is not consistent with the US' position.

A better explanation for Powell's comments in Beijing is that he was simply continuing the US' long-standing position of maintaining an ambiguous China policy. He was only clarifying the fact that the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei and that the US does not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan. But nor does the US recognize Taiwan as being part of the PRC's territory. The US hopes that the Taiwan sovereignty issue will be resolved through negotiations between the governments on each side of the Taiwan Strait. The question of whether there will be peaceful unification will be decided by the outcome of such negotiations -- which must be approved by the Taiwanese people to take effect.

When US officials speak on the international stage about Taiwan's lack of national sovereignty, they clearly demonstrate how perilous Taiwan's situation is today -- even its closest friend finds itself unable to lend public support.

Only if Taiwanese show determination and are willing to defend themselves at any cost will they be able to avoid being swallowed up by China by one means or another. Beijing's most devious ploy is to get Taiwanese to take national defense lightly.

If Taiwan loses its military ability to oppose China's threats, what reason would Beijing have to sit down at the negotiating table to engage in substantive and meaningful talks with Taiwan? China would be able to threaten Taiwan militarily at any time -- and continue to do so until this nation surrenders. If this is a situation that the pan-blue camp finds intolerable, then they have no reason to oppose the arms-procurement budget that has turned the Legislative Yuan into a battleground.

Taiwan meets all the conditions for being a modern democratic nation, so Powell's comments about Taiwan not having sovereignty are a slap in the face. Unless the people of Taiwan are willing to face the same fate as the residents of Hong Kong and Macao, then there is only one thing they can do. They must convince the legislators they elected to represent them that Taiwan must equip itself with advanced weapons. The government must accelerate the development of a society sharing a strong sense of common identity. The people and the government must show their determined resistance to communist rule. This is a road that Taiwan has no choice but to follow.

MOFA blasts US `betrayal'

MUTUAL TRUST: Mark Chen said yesterday that the US secretary of state's comments about Taiwan `breached mutual trust' and came as a `surprise'

By Debby Wu
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AGENCIES 

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen criticized Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks on the cross-strait relationship two days ago as a breach of the "mutual trust" shared between Taiwan and the US.

"The US has told us not to give them surprises, but this time it is the US giving us a surprise. This is unfair. Taiwan and the US share the same interests and we should build mutual trust. But Powell's talk has breached mutual trust," Chen said.

Chen made the statement when questioned by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chang, who is also a former minister of foreign affairs, in the legislative sitting yesterday.

"This is indeed the first time the US has used relatively heavy language [about the cross-strait relationship]," Chen said when questioned by other lawmakers.

Chen was responding to Powell's remarks two days ago that "We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking."

Chen pointed out yesterday that the ministry was already trying to obtain further informtion. He said that usually when US top officials traveled abroad and would make remarks related to Taiwan, the Taiwan's representative office in the US would get briefed first.

But this time, Chen said, there were "surprises" in Powell's remarks.

Powell gave interviews to CNN International and China's Phoenix TV at Beijing's China World Hotel two days ago. Besides reiterating the US' "one China" policy, Powell further elaborated on Taiwan's current status.

"We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking," Powell told CNN, according to the transcript released by the US Department of State.

Powell reiterated unification again when talking to the Phoenix TV.

"So both sides should show restraint, not take any unilateral actions, look for ways of improving dialogue across the Straits and move forward toward that day when we will see a peaceful unification," Powell said, according to the transcript released by the State Department.

Powell also explained the "one China" policy again, further elaborating on Taiwan's current status.

"There is only `one China.' Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy," Powell told the Phoenix TV.

Powell's remarks regarding the cross-strait relation were picked up by the media, and the State Department had to stress that the US government still maintains "one China" policy and its attitude toward the cross-strait relation have not changed in the daily press briefing on Oct 25.

"The words the secretary used accurately reflect our longstanding policy on Taiwan's status. And so, frankly, I think we are today where we were yesterday," State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said, according to the transcript released by the State Department.

"The policy has not changed. One element of our policy has been to favor a peaceful resolution of the cross-strait issue through dialogue and through a resolution that is acceptable to both sides," Ereli answered when asked about Powell's use of the word "reunification." Ereli then said that Powell's remarks about Taiwan not enjoying sovereignty as an "objective statement of fact." Powell's mention of unification and Taiwan's "non-sovereign" status also touched quite a few nerves in Taiwan, and lawmakers kept pressing the issue when questioning Chen and the premier yesterday.

As a response, Chen said that the State Department had made it clear that when Powell mentioned "reunification," he actually meant "resolution."