US policy ON Oct 28, 2004

Paal asked to explain US policy

SLIP OF THE TONGUE?: The de facto US ambassador to Taiwan was summoned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to clarify Powell's comments about 'peaceful reunification'

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER
 

US Secretary of State Colin Powell's denial of Taiwan's sovereign status and vision for future cross-strait development are "unacceptable," Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen said yesterday.

Confounded by Powell's comments in China that Taiwan and China should move toward a peaceful unification and that Taiwan "does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation," Chen called in Director of the American Institute in Taiwan Douglas Paal seeking clarification.

Meeting with Chen at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at 11am, Paal reassured the minister that the US' Taiwan policy had not changed.

The State Department explained that the US wishes to see Taiwan and China move toward a peaceful "resolution" rather than "reunification," Chen told reporters after meeting with Paal.

It has been Washington's policy to encourage both sides to seek a peaceful resolution, Chen said. However, he was unable to confirm whether Powell's "reunification" comment was a misstatement or a slip of the tongue.

Paal told Chen that Powell displayed his goodwill toward Taiwan in Beijing by urging the Chinese leaders to be more accommodating towards Taiwan's efforts to join the World Health Organization and function better in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum.

Powell also discussed with the Chinese leaders the US' arms sales to Taiwan, and prodded them to respond to President Chen Shui-bain's call for dialogue, Paal noted.

Taiwan's diplomats in Washington have been communicating with US officials after hearing Powell's remarks made during his interviews with CNN International and Phoenix TV.

"The US has, on public and private occasions, reassured us that its Taiwan policy has not changed," Mark Chen said.

State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli, at a daily press briefing on Monday, said one element of the US' "one China" policy has been to favor a peaceful resolution of the cross-strait issue through dialogue.

"Mr. Ereli also said the resolution needs to be `acceptable to both sides,'" Mark Chen said.

"We have enjoyed a long-term friendship with the US, and can understand Washington's clarification," the minister said.

"However, we have to solemnly point out that Taiwan is a sovereign country. The Taiwanese people have come closer to such understanding through the country's democratization process," he said.

Powell's comments in Beijing undervalued Taiwan's active participation in international affairs and rights to exercise its intact sovereignty, said Mark Chen.

"His remarks damaged Taiwan's democracy and hurt our status as a state. We have to express our serious concerns. The US should respect our people's will and take it into account when forming its Taiwan policy," the minister said.

"We express deep regret. The Republic of China is a sovereign country. No other countries can deny our sovereignty," he said.

"We hope Washington can restate its `Six Assurances' to Taiwan to restore the Taiwanese people's faith in the US," he said.

The "Six Assurances" were made under then president Ronald Reagan's administration in 1982.

One of the pledges said the US "would not alter its position about the sovereignty of Taiwan which is that the question is one to be decided peacefully by the Chinese themselves, and would not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with China."

Taking it back

By Lee Long-hwa

Solving the problem of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) return of assets to the people of Taiwan should be simple. You take it -- you give it back. But nothing involving the KMT is simple. Arrogance stands in the way of just about any solution. The KMT assumes the arrogance of power lost, of righteous indignation, of paternalism and of greed. Taiwan is a nation of laws, and no one, no person or party, including the KMT, is above the law.

As a way of enticing voters in the 2000 presidential election, KMT Chairman Lien Chan suggested as part of his platform that the party put its assets in trust to facilitate some form of equitable return to the nation. In four years, almost nothing has happened. Before the latest presidential election in March, the party said the same thing again in an effort to convince the people that the KMT had the interests of the nation at heart. But the KMT's team of lawyers, experts, accountants and representatives can't even agree on the name of the committee investigating the assets, much less any possible solution.

After fleeing to Taiwan from China, the KMT appropriated local assets. In the minds of the party's leadership, the KMT and the "Republic of China (ROC)" were, and unfortunately continue to be, one and the same. The property of one was naturally considered property of the other. The KMT acquired media organizations to consolidate its rule; it acquired real estate, businesses and other assets to accumulate wealth and power. Fifty years later, untold billions of dollars of assets which rightfully belong to the people of Taiwan remain in the possession of the KMT. But the KMT is not the same as Taiwan, nor the "ROC." It is merely a political party.

How then to rectify the true ownership of these assets, given the change in the status of the KMT from a dictatorship to a political party, the nation having come from dictatorship to democracy? Like untying a troublesome knot, the process of disentangling the KMT from Taiwan has not been easy. Divestiture has begun to help remove KMT influence from the media, government and the private sector, but much remains to be done.

In other countries, when an autocratic regime collapses, the property it looted from the country is returned to the people. Its leaders are made to give up their ill-gotten gains. The same has to occur here. Having plundered the public coffers to invest, re-invest, transfer, exchange and otherwise launder such assets, the KMT must disgorge those assets found to be the rightful belongings of the Taiwanese people.

There must be no constitutional impediment to a commission examining KMT assets, nor to court proceedings determining which assets should be returned. The laundering of assets determined to have been stolen from the Taiwanese people should be investigated. As for those assets which can't be recovered, the KMT should reimburse the nation.

Nothing less will serve the people of Taiwan, and nothing less will serve justice and democracy.

China's Taiwan policy turns covert

By Lin Cho-shui 

China's Taiwan Affairs Office has issued a tough statement in response to President Chen Shui-bian's Double Ten National Day speech. The statement mentions a few points that need further investigation.

First, although the tough statement was directed at Chen,

I am afraid it also offended the Taiwanese general public.

Taiwanese public opinion has lately been focusing on the idea that "The Republic of China [ROC] is a Taiwanese treasure, and its protective charm." This is a new way of protecting the old viewpoint that "Republic of China is the nation's title."

In the wake of the recent chaotic movement to rectify the national title, and as a result of both domestic and international pressure, Chen's statement that "The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China" was directed at Taiwanese mainstream opinion.

The pan-blue camp was mightily distressed at seeing Chen move faster than they did, because they felt he stole a sentence that would be of extraordinarily good use when attempting to relieve massive domestic pressures for localization and avoid a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Unexpectedly, the Taiwan Affairs Office highlighted this sentence in the speech as an expression of "naked Taiwan independence."

With the ROC national title thus having been attacked as being an expression of "naked Taiwan independence," Taiwan's government no longer knows how to adjust its discourse.

Some say this calamity was caused by saying that the ROC is Taiwan, and that it would be better to simply say that the ROC is the Chinese mainland and Taiwan.

Indeed, saying that the ROC equals Taiwan plus the Chinese mainland would be much more welcome in Beijing, but it would not affect China's threat to invade.

On the contrary, with Taiwan and the China united as one country, there would be a Republic of China on Taiwan to rival the People's Republic of China, that is to say, the two would meet the conditions of a civil war, and Taiwan would be seen as a rebellious part of China.

In such a situation, a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan would be nothing but a domestic affair.

Any country trying to deal with that situation would be violating the international principle excluding interference in the domestic affairs of other states.

Beijing could thus hammer away at Taiwan to its heart's content, because, with Taiwan itself asking for a beating, Beijing would only be too happy to oblige.

Since Taiwanese independence would be a reason for launching an attack, China would be even happier to attack a rebel group. I truly cannot understand wherein the cleverness lies when the Taiwanese public chooses to place itself in the position of a domestic Chinese rebel group.

Judging from Beijing's response, it should be abundantly clear that the ideas of a "Nation of Taiwan" and "The Republic of China is Taiwan" make up Taiwan's first and second external lines of defense.

Since Chen has abandoned the first line of defense, Beijing is launching a merciless attack on the second line of defense.

If the second external line of defense is abandoned, China will then be certain to enter Taiwan and engage in close range combat.

Second, Beijing never used to talk about the so-called "1992 consensus."

The 1992 consensus was an invention by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which said it meant "one China, with each side having its own interpretation." Taiwanese public opinion joined in. This was the first time the Taiwan Affairs Office officially stressed that the 1992 consensus should be adhered to, pleasing the public.

In the past, the ROC was pushed into a corner by China, making action difficult. During the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong, China's representative demanded that Taiwan's representative verbally state the "one China" principle.

Taiwan's representative wanted the verbal statement to be in the interests of Taiwan, and managed to change the original "each side stating that there is one China" to "one China, with each side having its own interpretation."

No conclusion was reached, but in order to deal with domestic political enemies, the KMT insisted a consensus had been reached. Beijing now takes advantage of the situation and, saying there was a consensus, uses it to force Taiwan into submission.

Beijing has of course decided that the consensus is that there can be no "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" meaning that there is no Republic of China. The KMT is not a very clever organization, but showing themselves off as smart alecks, they have brought harm to us all.

Finally, there are a few more points we should pay attention to.

First, Beijing responded to Chen's 2000 inauguration speech in a couple of hours, while it took them four days to respond to his second inauguration speech in May.

Second, Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Ming-qing only read a statement and was unwilling to answer any questions, wearing an exceptionally stiff expression making it clear that he was unhappy to respond to Chen's speech.

Third, the statement was fairly chaotic, with many contradictions.

Chen's unambiguous statement that he will not change the national title was met with, on the one hand, a great fuss over changing national title and, on the other hand, by severe criticism, with China saying it did not understand what "the Republic of China" means.

Fourth, and most important, former Chinese premier Qian Qichen had said previously that politics and economics should be kept separate, that "one China" was not a premise for direct links and that transportation links could be described as "special."

Beijing has now gone and changed all that.

On paper, they stress the "one China" premise and say they are ready to sacrifice everything for domestic affairs.

Then they make a major political change and build great obstacles to the opening of direct links while saying that they want to separate politics and economic issues. Contradictions abound.

There are several reasons for China's contradictory attitudes and caution.

First, they want to take advantage of US displeasure with Taiwan.

Second, they predict that the US Democratic Party and their Chinese experts, who are even more unfriendly toward Taiwan, will win the US presidential election.

Third, they want to keep a low profile during Taiwan's election campaign and year-end legislative vote.

Fourth, China's Taiwan policy is in a transition period between old and new.

What ever happens, these phenomena imply that China's Taiwan policy is going from overtness to covertness, making a breakthrough difficult. More cross-strait friction is to be expected.

Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.

MAC welcomes China's speech

TRANSPORTATION: China's Taiwan Affairs Office said the 'Hong Kong model' could apply to cross-strait charter flights, while the MAC said it would not rule anything out

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AP AND CNA  

China's willingness to attempt negotiations in accordance with the "Hong Kong model" should be viewed as a gesture of goodwill, Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) spokesman Chiu Tai-san said yesterday in response to China's Taiwan Affairs Office's remarks on cross-strait chartered flights.

"As long as the government authorizes delegates to participate in negotiations, we do not rule out any possibilities," Chiu said, noting that the Taiwan Affairs Office had taken a lighter tone this time, compared with its Oct. 14 response to President Chen Shui-bian's National Day speech.

"I've mentioned this before -- if you are not willing to accept our suggestions, then you should make some of your own ... this is a sort of starting point," Chiu said. "I understand that they are testing Taiwan's bottom line right now, but negotiations, by definition, cannot be dictated by one party alone."

Chiu was referring to China's insistence that talks be conducted by the private sector and that air routes be regarded as domestic.

Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing said yesterday during a routine press conference that negotiations on establishing cross-strait chartered flights could be conducted as long as Taiwan recognized the "1992 Consensus" but gave its approval for the implementation of flights using the "Hong Kong model."

Under the latter model, talks are primarily conducted by business representatives but under government direction. The model formalized direct flights between Hong Kong and Taiwan in 2002, and resulting agreements were signed by aviation representatives and not by government officials.

Zhang yesterday quoted Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen, who had previously said that cross-strait challenges could be approached as economic issues. However, Zhang stressed yesterday that chartered flights were a domestic matter.

"Our policy is consistent. The `three links' are an economic matter. However, it is definitely not a `state to state' matter," Zhang was reported as saying in the China Times.

He also approved of the possibility of establishing air links for the upcoming Lunar New Year in accordance with the "Hong Kong model," saying it was "workable."

Zhang also rejected US Secretary of State Colin Powell's appeal for talks based on a call by Chen in his National Day speech for new negotiations. Zhang dismissed Chen's comments as a "phony olive branch."

"Taiwan's authorities aren't using the basis of the `one-China principle.' They say, `Taiwan independence' and `one country on each side.' So we have no basis for negotiation," Zhang said.

"Stick to the `one China principle.' This is the basis of cross-strait talks."

Zhang welcomed Powell's comments in a television interview during a visit to Beijing this week. Powell said it is Washington's "firm policy" that Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation.

"Powell's comments are consistent with the US' `one-China' policy and cross-strait relations," Zhang said.

Zhang criticized US weapons sales to Taiwan, saying they violated a 1982 commitment to reduce and eventually end such supplies.

Beijing is especially concerned about a plan under consideration for Taiwan to buy up to US$18 billion worth of US-made missiles and other weapons.

Combative PFP hurts itself and the nation

By Paul Lin 

Taiwan's political instability originates in the media and the Legislative Yuan, while media and legislative instability originates in the uncertain political situation. The situation prior to the transition of power in 2000, when politicians staged shows aimed at gaining media attention, has changed. Pan-blue politicians now oppose anything that President Chen Shui-bian does and anything that has to do with Taiwan and localization.

The accusation by People First Party (PFP) Legislator Liu Wen-hsiung and others that Chen gave former Panamanian president Mireya Moscoso a "birthday present" -- a check for US$1 million -- as a "settlement fee" to cover up "improper dealings" is a typical example of collusion between certain political and media circles.

Liu and the others first heard this information in a radio program hosted by UFO Radio chairman Jaw Shao-kang. They went on to conjecture that the check was a settlement fee to cover up improper behavior on Chen's part. The original "red envelope" allegation, however, came from Huanqiu Shibao, which is owned by the Chinese Communist Party newspaper People's Daily. Huanqiu Shibao has a close relationship with China's military and a clear anti-Taiwan and anti-US stance. Birds of the same feather, pro-China media in Taiwan are also spreading rumors to hurt the country. The PFP and the New Party, where Liu and Jaw respectively came to prominence, make up the most China-friendly part of the blue camp.

PFP Chairman James Soong clearly understood the seriousness of the incident. When Liu was still busy talking his nonsense, proclaiming that he would file a counter lawsuit, Soong came out to end things and then apologized together with Liu. Yet they continued to make reference to money politics, secret diplomatic aid and so on in an attempt to shift the focus of attention.

Jaw, less remorseful than Liu, is relying on a tendency for media figures to get off the hook by referring to "freedom of the press." His political wisdom is vastly inferior to Soong's, but Jaw is canny enough to have pulled out of politics.

There are several reasons why Soong fears that this issue will be detrimental to the PFP.

First, the use of false information from China to attack Taiwan's already very difficult diplomatic situation unambiguously painted the PFP as being on China's side. Continuing in this fashion will only clarify and reinforce this pro-China stance, and although it will earn the party a good grade from China, it is certain to place them at a disadvantage in December's legislative elections.

Second, the success in converting news of a "red envelope" into slandering Chen for an "improper relationship" with Moscoso reflected the base nature of Liu's attitudes and language, as well as a sexist way of thinking that could lead to a loss of votes from women.

Third, the incident ran the risk of becoming a diplomatic incident. Fortunately for the PFP, Moscoso reversed her decision to file a lawsuit. Had the incident degenerated further and Moscoso tried to hold Huanqiu Shibao to account, it would have become more embarrassing for the PFP.

The object chosen by pro-China politicians and media for their attack is the same topic that China would use were it to make a combined domestic and external attack on Taiwan's reputation.

The acts of these politicians are nothing less than an attempt to collaborate with China to wrestle back lost power. Voters should protect the nation's interests and throw these politicians out of the legislature, thus denying them a powerful vehicle for creating disorder in Taiwan -- the very disorder which China is waiting to capitalize on.

Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.