They burned a Chinese flag on Oct 30, 2004

Protesters smother Lady Liberty with the Chinese flag

BACKLASH: Independence activists burned a Chinese flag in an angry protest against the US secretary of state's comment that Taiwan is not sovereign

AP , TAIPEI

Protesters in Taipei yesterday torched China's flag after draping it over a mock Statue of Liberty, as they demonstrated against US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claim that Taiwan is not an independent country.

The 50 demonstrators were also angered by Powell's assertion that Taiwan hopes to unify with China.

Powell's comments, made on Monday in media interviews in Beijing, alarmed Taipei. Powell later toned down his remarks, saying he meant that Taiwan and China wanted a "peaceful resolution" to the issue.

But this did not stop the pro-independence protesters from rallying yesterday outside the American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto US embassy.

The demonstrators unfurled a large green banner that read, "This country is Taiwan!"

They also held signs saying, "Reject Unification" as about 30 police -- some with riot shields -- lined up in front of the building and watched the brief and peaceful protest.

The demonstrators used China's red and gold flag to cover the face of a cardboard figure of the Statue of Liberty, then set fire to the flag, which burned briefly and flickered out.

"Powell said Taiwan isn't a sovereign nation. This has made us all really mad," a protester with a megaphone told the crowd.

"We came here to ask America to say once again it was incorrect," he said. "Then the Taiwanese people can forgive them."

US officials have declined to comment further on the controversy.

Why Beijing claims Taiwan

As China has stepped up its rhetoric on Taiwan and steadily increased deployment of the missiles targeting the country, I believe that it is important for Taiwanese, as well as the rest of the world, to know the reasons behind China's obsession with the nation off its southeastern coast.

The Chinese communist regime wants possession of Taiwan for several reasons:

First, surging nationalism. National pride is perhaps the prime motive for annexing Taiwan. Chinese leaders and elites see Taiwan as the last remnant of China's humiliation by Japan and the West during the colonial period, when imperial powers carved China into different spheres of influence.

To many Chinese, the US' continued arms sales to Taiwan are an example of foreign powers perpetrating a historical "wrong" that is hindering China's rise and contributes to its "humiliation."

Second, Taiwan's threat to the Communist Party's legitimacy. By placing the issue of Taiwan so high on its agenda, the Communist Party has linked its own legitimacy to "reunification." Because of the importance placed on brining Taiwan under Beijing's control, Chinese leadership cannot afford to be less than adamant on the Taiwan issue, let alone "lose" Taiwan. As such, Taiwan could become an excuse for dissidents and activists to oppose the Communist Party's "mandate of heaven" to rule China.

Third, spreading separatism. The "loss" of Taiwan could spur dissent in other provinces with separatist tendencies, such as Xingjian and Tibet. Furthermore, foreign influence in Taiwan sets an undesirable precedent for Xingjian and Tibet, where international support for independence already exists.

Fourth, strategic geography. Chinese leaders see Taiwan as a critical link in a chain of US containment that begins in South Korea and Japan. The chain runs south to the Philippines, Thailand and Australia -- nations with which the US has security treaties. Beijing seeks to break that chain and to project power into the Pacific.

Fifth, China has become increasingly dependent upon imported energy resources. An independent Taiwan that could be used as a foreign military base can curtail China's ability to project military power into the Pacific and undermine its energy security.

Sixth, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) as constituency. The annexation of Taiwan has been the PLA's primary mission in the post-Cold War period. The PLA has always placed pressure on civilian leaders, but major events in Taiwan could increase its influence in the decision-making process.

In the event of a failure to "unify the motherland," the PLA would directly place the blame on civilian leaders and weigh in on any post-independence or post-conflict rectification scenario, potentially taking China back to isolation.

Seventh, diverting attention. Some believe that Chinese leaders play up the Taiwan issue to divert attention from China's political struggles and economic difficulties. Although China has just passed through a tense transition from the third generation to the fourth generation of leaders, corruption is still rampant, the banking system is riddled with bad loans, industrial productivity lags, especially in state-owned enterprises, and approximately 125 million people are unemployed.

Eighth, economic capacity. Taiwan has a strong economy and possesses impressive technologies. Absorbing Taiwan's vibrant economy and its technological prowess would be a plus for the troubled Chinese economy.

In summary, for its own political purposes, the Chinese Communist Party has cultivated nationalism among the Chinese people. By making "reunification" with Taiwan a core goal of the party, the regime has effectively linked its own legitimacy with that country.

A failure to carry out "reunification" would certainly present a domestic challenge to the party's continued rule, and perhaps bring about eventual collapse of the communist regime.

Chi Chen

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Powell must apologize for remarks

By the Liberty Times editorial

During an interview last week in Beijing, US Secretary of State Colin Powell made some surprising remarks regarding the cross-strait relationship, saying that "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation," and that the two sides should move forward to a "peaceful reunification."

Powell's comments clearly deviated from the US policy of supporting "peaceful resolution," "opposing any unilateral change of the status quo by either side of the Taiwan Strait," and "doing [its] best to assist Taiwan in self defense." The deviation became the center of public concern.

President Chen Shui-bian immediately reiterated during three separate meetings with foreign guests that "the existence of Republic of China is a fact and Taiwan is definitely an independent and sovereign country, as well as a great country; it most certainly does not belong to the People's Republic of China and this is the status quo, as well as the fact." Chen also said that "whether or not other countries hold formal diplomatic relationships with Taiwan neither impacts nor changes the fact and reality that either the Republic of China or Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country."

Chen's statements were not only a most serious response to Powell's inappropriate comments, but even more importantly a declaration to the international community that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country.

Powell's trip to China at a time when the US presidential election was about to enter the final phase suggests an intention to both seek Beijing's assistance in resolving the issue of nuclear weapons in North Korea, as well as the hope of winning some brownie points for US President George W. Bush in the election. Therefore, hoping to get a helping hand from China, Powell, as expected, said things in order to please China.

Actually, no signs indicate that there is any change in the US policy toward Taiwan. US State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli indicated during a routine press conference that the US policy toward Taiwan has not changed, and that the US hopes the two sides can resolve their differences through peaceful dialogues.

Moreover, Powell did not state any new policy in Beijing. On Wednesday, during a meeting with Taiwan's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen, American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal personally clarified that what Powell had said should have been "peaceful resolution" rather than "peaceful unification" and that there has been no change in US policy toward Taiwan. The Washington Post reported that US officials had later on said that Powell had made a misstatement or a slip of the tongue in saying "unification," that the US continues to support the maintenance of status quo until both sides agree on whether there should be a change and what that change should be. Unification is only one option among others.

Some US academics further expressed that Powell is not especially familiar with Asian or cross-strait affairs and that Powell obviously made a slip of the tongue. The Center for Strategic and International Studies pointed out that Powell's statement that Taiwan independence is incompatible with the US "one China" policy was an example of his misstatement, because the US policy does not take any specific stance on the ultimate resolution of the cross-strait issue. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait were to reach an agreement on Taiwan independence, then such independence would not contradict the US policy.

Actually, although the US maintains a formal diplomatic relationship with China, while making only private exchanges with Taiwan, close trade, economic, cultural, academic and technological interactions exist between the US and Taiwan. The two countries also share common strategic interests and values on political democracy. Despite the lack of official government interactions, the development of substantive ties between the two countries has not been hampered.

Although Powell may have chosen the wrong words, the focus of his formal discussions with Beijing was to push for dialogue between the two sides, oppose any unilateral change of the status quo by either side and keep the promise of arms sales to Taiwan. This confirms that there has been no change in US policy.

However, though Powell may have made an inadvertent mistake, one cannot deny that his remarks contradicted reality, and injured the feelings and interests of the 23 million people in Taiwan. Therefore, the people of this country must ask that the US issue stronger clarifications and promises. Powell must also openly apologize to the people of Taiwan.

US policy may remain unchanged. But as the secretary of state of the most powerful country in the world -- who has praised Taiwan as a success story -- it is a grave insult to the people of Taiwan for Powell to put down one of America's long and loyal friends by saying that it is not an independent country and does not enjoy sovereignty.

The alien colonial regimes that have ruled this island in the past 400 years include those of the Spanish, Dutch, the Qing dynasty and Japan. During this period, the people of Taiwan were unable to exercise self-rule. As the foreign powers fought for sovereignty over Taiwan, China saw the island as a barbaric, alien land. Claims such as "Taiwan is part of China," and "Taiwan has always belonged to China" are recent fabrications, and conflict with historical reality.

After the end of the World War II, the Allies ordered Chiang Kai-shek to accept the surrender of Japan. While Japan ceded sovereignty over Taiwan, it never explicitly indicated to whom that sovereignty was given.

Therefore, the Republic of China is, as former president Lee Teng-hui said, "an alien regime," and Taiwan's sovereignty should belong to all of its people. Having gone through democratization and the first popular elections for president, Taiwan clearly now conforms with fundamental democratic principles. This gives its government legitimacy and a legal basis.

The popularly-elected government holds effective rule, the country independently conducts its foreign affairs and national defense, and the nation's population is larger than that of most other countries in the world. Taiwan's situation completely meets with the criteria for an independent sovereign country, regardless of whether it is the right to self-determination proclaimed by the late US president Woodrow Wilson, the UN Charter, or any Western discourse on statehood.

From being a colony, subject to the mercy and whim of other countries, Taiwan has developed into an independent democratic country. This is a glorious chapter of the history of mankind. The existence of Taiwan is a fact. The economic and democratic development of Taiwan is, as Powell characterized it, "a success story."

No politician or official from another country, whether as part of an effort to pander to China, or through a slip of the tongue or compelled by international politics, can deny this success story. The reality of Taiwan's sovereignty and independence cannot be changed or disrupted by others.

Therefore, while it's comforting to know that US policy toward Taiwan has not changed, the people of Taiwan nevertheless must express their strong regret and protest Powell's comments, which have insulted Taiwan's dignity.

Blues lack respect for Constitution

The debates at the Constitutional Court over the constitutionality of the controversial March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute have resumed again this week. Hopefully some preliminary conclusion can be reached over the request for a temporary injunction against the continued operation of the committee. This would prevent putting civil servants in the painful dilemma of whether to cooperate and comply with the committee in the interim.

It goes without saying that the political motivations and political nature of the truth investigation statute and committee are the most fundamental problems for them. The reason that the pan-blue opposition insists on creating such a committee is their belief that the assassination attempt against President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Annette Lu the day before the past presidential election was staged to help Chen win.

They stubbornly cling to that belief because otherwise they would have to painfully live with the fact that they were rejected by voters. Under the circumstances, they cannot accept the investigation results of the police and the prosecutors -- the existing law enforcement mechanisms. This is of course ironic, because while there's still much room for improvement, Taiwan's law enforcement and judiciary have never been more transparent and well-monitored -- at least in comparison to the days of authoritarian rule by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Frankly put, the committee was specifically created to accomplish the agenda of denying the legitimacy of Chen's presidency. With that kind of biased mindset and political agenda, it becomes impossible for the investigation committee to be anything but partisan in nature -- and outright unconstitutional.

The partisan nature of the committee is most notably indicated by how its members are chosen -- out of a total of 17 members, each party can appoint a number of members based on its proportional representation in the Legislative Yuan. But the last thing that the people of Taiwan need is a miniature recreation of the Legislative Yuan -- where inter-party rivalry and hatred have trampled and distorted everything. In view of what that's done to the productivity and the credibility of the Legislative Yuan, one can hardly believe that the new committee will be anything but a new playground for politicians. One more question to ask is this -- what is the point of establishing an investigation committee when its political nature has made it unlikely for the general public to believe in its findings?

The fact that the statute creating the special investigation committee is riddled with many egregious violations of the Constitution and basic human rights did not help. For example, the committee is immune from the application of the Criminal Procedural Code. Without any other law in place to safeguard the procedural due process of the actions taken by the committee, flagrant violations of fundamental human rights of the individuals and entities questioned or investigated will take place, including warrantless searches, seizures and detentions.

Moreover, if the investigation results of the committee contradict the factfinding of the courts, that may actually serve as grounds for retrying the case. That of course is a serious violation of the power of the judiciary, which can only disrupt the balance of power between government branches. Other provisions of the special investigation committee are no less troublesome.

The illegality of the statute is so obvious that even the pan-blue camp is talking about amending it in the face of public pressure. If even the pan-blue camp knows and concedes that there are major flaws with the statute and the committee, why insist on immediately kicking off the committee's investigation? This shows how little respect the pan-blue camp has for the very Constitution they claim to hold dear.

Kerry slams Beijing over treatment of Hong Kong
AP , HONG KONG  

US presidential candidate Senator John Kerry accused Beijing of blocking Hong Kong's democratic aspirations -- and vowed to raise the matter with China if elected -- in a newspaper interview published in the territory yesterday.

Beijing hasn't completely fulfilled the autonomy and political rights guaranteed to Hong Kong by its mini-constitution, Kerry said in comments translated in the Chinese-language Sing Tao Daily.

The Democratic Party candidate promised to bring up the issue with Chinese leaders if elected, according to the newspaper.

Kerry also said that if China doesn't respect Hong Kong's guaranteed rights, it sends a negative message to Taiwan.

Hong Kong's leader was chosen by an 800-member committee loyal to Beijing. Ordinary residents only voted for half of their 60 current law-makers, with special interest groups -- which also tend to side with China -- choosing the other 30.

The mini-constitution, called the Basic Law, sets full democracy as an eventual goal but does not give a timetable. Many people want full direct elections, but Beijing in April rejected the idea for the near future.

Critics said that ruling violated Beijing's promise to let Hong Kong largely run its own affairs.

Kerry's stance on the Hong Kong issue appears tougher toward China than the current US administration's.

The US State Department has said it was "disappointed" by Beijing's decision to rule out elections for Hong Kong's next leader in 2007 and for all lawmakers in 2008.

US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told reporters in Hong Kong earlier this year that it was too soon to tell if China had violated its autonomy promise to Hong Kong.

Calls to Kerry's campaign office in Washington seeking confirmation of the remarks went unanswered yesterday. Hong Kong's government has not responded to Kerry's remarks. China's liaison office in the territory didn't immediately return a reporter's call, and China's foreign ministry has repeatedly declined comment on the US elections and candidates.

MAC welcomes Kerry's comments about Taiwan

By Joy Su
STAFF REPORTER

The Mainland Affairs Council yesterday welcomed Senator John Kerry's remarks that the "one country, two systems" model could not be replicated in Taiwan, saying that it was a recognition of Taiwan's situation as unique and different from that of Hong Kong.

"The "one country, two sys-tems" approach was designed to protect Hong Kong's freedoms while respecting China's sovereignty. The "one country, two systems" model can't be replicated for Taiwan" Kerry told the Sing Tao Daily in an exclusive interview conducted by written exchanges.

"If China will not respect Hong Kong's full rights under the current system, it sends a negative message that will further complicate efforts to resolve issues with the Taiwanese," Kerry wrote in response to questions about the applicability of the "one country, two systems" framework to Taiwan.

Kerry's remarks on cross-strait relations have been sparse, but his statements in the newspaper effectively reverse previous remarks.

He had suggested in January during a radio interview with six other democratic candidates that the "one country two systems" model could be implemented in Taiwan as a solution to the cross-strait impasse.

Council Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san told the Taipei Times yesterday that the council welcomed the senator's remarks as they clearly identified Taiwan's circumstances as unique, and as such unsuitable for the "one country, two systems" framework.

"The [US] election is so close. Both candidates want to make sure that they do not lose the election on a simple mistake," Chiu said.

"Taiwan is not the central issue in the elections, and as such neither candidate wants to take the risk that comes with endorsing uncertain variables," he said.

He added that Kerry's remarks were effectively a reaffirmation of the US' "one China" policy.

Chiu reiterated that the US' overall stance, specifically its insistence on its "one China" policy and the six assurances forged under former president Ronald Reagan's administration, would continue to be the cornerstone of US cross-strait policymaking.

"I will reaffirm the US' `One China' policy, whose core is an insistence that the Taiwan Strait issue should be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan," Kerry said in the interview, vowing to "minimize misperceptions and misplaced expectations" and encourage the resumption of cross-strait dialogue.

"Taiwan is the most difficult and sensitive issue in US-China relations. The goal of United States policy is to deter Beijing from taking military action and to restrain Taipei from political initiatives that would provoke a use of force," Kerry said, pointing out that the US did not support Taiwan independence.