20041101

HOSTAGE DRAMA: Three UN employees kidnapped by militants will die unless foreign troops and the UN leave Afghanistan within three days, group says
AFP , KABUL

Militants holding three UN workers hostage set a three-day deadline yesterday for foreign troops and the UN to leave Afghanistan, saying they would kill the hostages otherwise.

The demands were read out to reporters shortly before the Arabic television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video showing the three UN employees, who were kidnapped at gunpoint on Thursday in Kabul.

The hostages' governments will "witness the death of their nationals in three days" unless four demands are met, said Mullah Mohammad Ishaq, spokesman for the breakaway Taliban group Jaishul Mus-limeen (Army of Muslims).

"First, we want the UN to leave Afghanistan and we want them to condemn the attacks and invasion of Afghanistan by foreign forces," he said.

"Second, we want all those Afghans who have been arrested in Afghanistan and held in foreign prisons to be released immediately.

"Number three, we want Britain and Kosovo to withdraw their forces immediately from Afghanistan or to witness the deaths of their nationals in three days.

"And fourth, we want the Philippines to condemn the invasion of foreign forces in Afghanistan and to announce it as illegal."

Al-Jazeera did not specify the date of receiving the tape, but the captors said they gave the tape to Al-Jazeera and to a reporter in Pakistan at around 9am.

"A couple of hours ago, we gave videotapes to Al-Jazeera and Rahimullah Yusufzai, which will prove that we have the hostages and they are alive up till now," he said, referring to a reporter based in northwest Pakistan.

British-Irish woman Annetta Flanigan, Kosovo woman Shqipe Hebibi and Filipino diplomat Angelito Nayan were snatched at gunpoint from their vehicle in Kabul last Thursday by armed men wearing military-style jackets.

All three had been contracted by the UN to oversee Afghanistan's first presidential election on Oct. 9.

Earlier yesterday the UN issued an emotional appeal for the release of the hostages.

"We miss them and we worry about them ...We call on those holding them not to harm them," UN spokesman Manoel de Almedia e Silva told a news briefing.

A US-led international military coalition of 18,000 troops has been in Afghanistan for the past three years hunting Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

Some 16,000 US troops dominate the coalition, which also includes British forces. The Philippines and Kosovo, a province of Serbia, have no troops in Afghanistan.

Another 9,000 troops from some 30 countries including Britain make up a UN-mandated peacekeeping force based in Kabul and some northern provinces.

Several hundred Taliban fighters were arrested by US-led forces. They are held in US detention centers in Afghanistan and a US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The three-day deadline coincides with the US presidential elections.

HOSTAGE TAKING: Japan's leader said troops would remain in Iraq yesterday after learning that kidnappers had carried out a threat to behead a Japanese hostage
AFP , TOKYO

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vowed yesterday that Japanese troops would continue their domestically unpopular mission in Iraq after Islamic militants demanding a pullout killed a 24-year-old Japanese tourist.

A head and a decapitated body with bound hands and feet were found wrapped in a US flag on Saturday behind a hospital on Baghdad's Haifa Street, a stronghold of Iraq's most wanted man Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.

Fingerprint samples were sent to Tokyo and matched those of Shosei Koda, a naive traveller who took a public bus to Baghdad and was an easy target for kidnappers.

"It is our utmost regret that Mr. Shosei Koda fell victim to terrorism although the Japanese government made every possible effort to rescue the hostage," Koizumi said. "I offer my sincere condolences to his family."

Koda is the fifth Japanese to die in Iraq since the US-led war in the country, of which Koizumi was a vocal supporter. Two diplomats and two journalists were killed in gun attacks.

"Our country in cooperation with the international community will carry out humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance by the Self-Defense Forces for the sake of the people of Iraq and continue resolutely to fight against terrorism," Koizumi said.

The military, known as the Self-Defense Forces as Japan's Constitution rejects the use of force, is on its first deployment since World War II to an area of active fighting, although it is on a non-combat reconstruction mission.

An Asahi Shimbun poll, published a day before Koda's kidnapping was announced by an Islamist Web site, found that 63 percent of Japanese oppose keeping troops in Iraq after their mission expires on Dec. 14.

The opposition pledged after Koda's killing to fight against any extension of the mission.

"If the Self-Defense Forces had not been dispatched, this never would have happened," said main opposition leader Katsuya Okada of the Democratic Party of Japan. "I want to strongly request a withdrawal."

Mizuho Fukushima, leader of the opposition Social Democratic Party, criticized Koizumi for immediately rejecting the kidnappers' demands to withdraw troops, saying the prime minister "did not even allow for negotiations" on Koda's release.

After days of mediation in April Japan was able to secure the release of three Japanese aid workers and two journalists kidnapped in Iraq. The hostages, on returning to Japan, apologized for putting the nation on edge.

Similarly, the parents of Koda Sunday released a statement of apology "for causing anxiety to the many people who supported us."

"We pray for peace for the Iraqi people as soon as possible," the statement said.

Koda reportedly went to Baghdad out of curiosity and was refused entry at budget hotels that feared the security risks of a foreign guest.

Failing to get on a return bus to Jordan, he hopped into a waiting car offered by young men who spoke English.

The next time Koda was seen was at the feet of three armed, masked men under a banner of Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born militant who has pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

In a T-shirt and unkempt hair, Koda calmly told Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on a video Tuesday that if he did not withdraw Japan's troops within 48 hours "they will chop off my head."

Majid Hadi, a Baghdad police officer on the patrol that made the grisly discovery of Koda's remains, said the body was decapitated and also had two bullet wounds.

But Japan otherwise has a limited presence in Iraq and was dependent during the hostage crisis on US forces and the interim Iraqi government, to which Tokyo is a major donor.

US Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker called Koda's killing a "heinous crime."

"We strongly support the government of Japan's rejection of terrorist demands," he said.

China does not change leaders every four years. In regards to the US, it offers a consistent political line and one not based on ideology. Conversely, US policy changes from president to president. So, one day before the US presidential vote we ask,: what will US policy be?

China has much to gain if President George W. Bush were to be re-elected. But things could be quite different should Senator John Kerry get the nod tomorrow.

Facts say that in order to obtain Beijing's support for the war on terror, the US looked the other way on China's human rights issues.

Furthermore, the US benefited from a Chinese non-hostile attitude in regards to the US-led Iraq War and Beijing's proactive role in the difficult negotiation with North Korea.

Under the Bush administra-tion, the Washington-Beijing axis has gained quite a lot of momentum and it has never been stronger. A reality confirmed by Bush's opposition to a unilateral change in Taiwan's status quo, at the end of last year, and the recent comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

When it comes to China, US political analysts are split. Some favor a policy of "constructive engagement, leaning towards a strategic partnership," while others see Beijing as the "inevitable adversary and eventual enemy" destined to shake the current balance of power.

The latter consider the Taiwan issue and the various trade problems the first warning signs. The same analysts envisage a sequence of events wherein, in the not too distant future, China's growth will upset the relative equilibrium in Northeast Asia and Beijing will gain a hegemonic position throughout eastern and Southeast Asia.

jing has committed itself to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a collective security agreement that includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Such a security pact has no precedent in China's foreign policy.

Regardless of spheres of influence, what worries some analysts most is that, over the last fifteen years, China's GDP has grown at an annual rate of around 9 percent. Such an impressive growth, coupled with improved technology, has supported a double digit military budget. Experts have predicted that, within 10 to 20 years, China will be able to deploy and sustain military force well beyond its borders.

So, while it is undoubted that China is closing the gap with the US, in Washington and beyond the two-fold question remains the same: Will it be a peaceful Chinese ascendancy (within the current balance of power) or will Beijing's economic and technological growth lead to a desire for a continental hegemony? Andwhat will the US answer be?

The first scenario would require a "liberal approach" and an overall strengthening of US-China cooperation. Such an option would be conducive to an opening of the Chinese regime. The second scenario would require a "realistic approach" and a containment policy -- similar to that applied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Such an approach would be based on the US alliances with those Asian countries historically wary of Beijing.

However, whatever the path, one thing is certain, the US-China relationship needs to be handled with care especially because East Asia presents specific problems: the area's economic growth -- the world's fastest -- implies a heighten competition for natural resources and the China-Taiwan and the North Korean's issue are potential serious contentions.

Francesco Maria Greco is a visiting professor of international relations at Orientale University in Naples, Italy. Fabio Scarpello is a political analyst and freelance journalist based in Jakarta.

With the US election tomorrow just about every media organization almost anywhere in the word has come out to say which candidate it prefers. Most interesting over the weekend was the Economist which in an editorial equally handedly scathing about the choice between George W. Bush's incompetence and Senator John Kerry's incoherence finally plumped for Kerry as the less worse choice in a miserably thin field. So which way would we vote, if we had one?

That is a tough question to answer. But the fact that the answer isn't obvious is a comment on the recent performance of the Bush administration. Some might think that to not immediately endorse Bush is blank ingratitude. After all, has he not been the most pro-Taiwan president since, well, the last George Bush?

Up to a point. But that point gets thinner the longer he has been in office. Simply contrast where the Bush administration stands now and where it stood just after George W. entered the White House. We have gone from a president who was prepared to "do whatever it takes" to protect Taiwan to a secretary of state who is prepared to prejudge the outcome of Taiwan's dispute with China -- "reunification which we all want" -- and cause irreparable damage to Taiwan's standing in the world, in defiance of the longstanding policies of his own country and his country's obligations under international law, in particular the San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan of 1952 and the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

It is hard to know what the consequences of Colin Powell's remarks this week might be. The State Department is keen to try and portray this as a slip of the tongue, and they assure us that there is in fact no change in the US position. So apparently we are being asked to believe that Powell, as the foreign minister of the world's greatest power is incompetent, and so poorly briefed about the nature of the Taiwan-China dispute that he doesn't know the difference between the words "resolution" and "reunification." And who is also so ignorant of US treaty obligations he thinks it is a matter of the US' choice, as to whether a territory is supposed to enjoy sovereignty or not.

Frankly this all seems rather implausible. Indeed Beijing thinks it so implausible that it believed Powell means just what he appeared to mean. Far from encouraging China's return to the negotiating table -- which was, remember, Powell's purpose -- his comments have only encouraged it in its belligerence.

But Powell's sellout -- it is hard to call it anything else -- is only the latest in a series of blunders. A series which began with the harsh language used by Bush himself about President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) decision to hold a referendum last December. Bush should have known that the decision had a huge domestic purpose: to introduce referendums as a means of making difficult decisions on highly controversial matters. It was, in fact, a way to make sure that the pan-blues, should they have won the presidential election, could not have made a unification deal with China over the heads of the Taiwanese people, as they had every intention of doing.

The referendum was therefore a means to maintain the status quo, not to destroy it and this paper, along with a host of other commentators, clearly pointed this out. So Bush's behavior can only be seen as both unfriendly and incompetent -- the US has no reason to want either unification or a pro-unification government in power in Taiwan. So our impression of the Bush administration, which after the "anything it takes" comments and the arms package was extremely high, has been on the slide for quite some time.

Would John Kerry be any better? Who knows? Certainly he hasn't impressed so far. His comments earlier in the year about "one country, two systems" being right for Taiwan, were a reason in themselves to vote for Bush. Only last week he seems to have changed that position, now thinking the Hong Kong formula cannot be applied to Taiwan. He's learning. But can he learn fast enough? And when it comes to brinkmanship with China is he in fact tough enough? We know Bush certainly is. If only he could remember where his best interests lay.

Judging from his public statements and his record in Congress, Democratic Party candidate Senator John Kerry, if elected president, would likely shift US foreign policy toward a pro-China, anti-Taiwan stance.

Kerry has strongly propounded a policy of avoiding conflict. He voted against the Gulf War in 1991 and against funding US forces in Iraq. He speaks of being the "peace president."

Regarding Taiwan, he says the US has no obligation to defend the island. He has also been critical of US arms sales to Taiwan -- both in the past and for weapons currently in the pipeline.

Worse for Taiwan, Kerry states that Taiwan is part of China and backs the "one China" principle. The "one China" principle is officially US policy, but most US leaders who support it link it to the principle of a peaceful resolution of the "Taiwan issue." Kerry doesn't mention this.

Finally, the Democratic platform, Kerry's platform, does not mention the Taiwan Relations Act. The TRA, passed by Congress in 1979, treats Taiwan as a nation-state and promises US arms sales and protection. Kerry apparently does not favor this law.

Kerry has praised Taiwan's democratization, but that seems pro forma and even disingenuous. If Taiwan does not survive, its democracy will no longer be relevant to its citizens or as a model to other countries (which it is).

For all of this, Kerry's stance on Taiwan has evoked talk in Washington of a "fourth communique" that would declare that the US officially opposes an independent Taiwan and will work with China toward its unification with Taiwan.

There has even been mention among Kerry's supporters that the US might allow China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) to seize one of the Taiwan-governed islands near China or otherwise threaten Taiwan, with Washington acquiescing, in order to send a signal to President Chen Shiu-bian that he must not talk of independence any more.

For all of this, Chinese leaders in Beijing are delighted with Kerry's positions. China's official newspaper, People's Daily, has endorsed Kerry for president. This is unusual; China has in the past supported incumbents.

What is the logic in Kerry's anti-Taiwan (and pro-China) policy? Certainly it is not that China is popular in the US and Taiwan isn't.

Perhaps it is because President George W. Bush is seen as pro-Taiwan. In fact, this is one of the hallmarks of the Bush administration. Kerry may think he must take a different stance to be noticed and/or give voters a choice.

Alternatively, Kerry advisors may anticipate a blow-up in US-China relations. Since the March presidential election in Taiwan, Washington and Beijing have been seriously at odds over Taiwan, and there has been growing tension in their relations.

Kerry's China/Taiwan policy seems to fit his worldview. Kerry sees Europe as playing a bigger role in international affairs. He definitely opposes the neoconservative's unilateral view of the world.

He envisions a multipolar world, which Europe advocates -- and China favors (when it is at odds with the US) and could help to engineer.

On the less principled side, it has been reported that Kerry has received campaign funds from China. If he has chosen to follow former president Bill Clinton's model in winning a presidential election (and Clinton people are now much closer to Kerry), then there may be something to this money angle.

Kerry also has some big time financial backers that have large and arguably insecure investments in China. George Soros, who has pledged millions of dollars to defeat Bush, has a major stake in a Chinese airline that will prosper (or not) depending on Chinese government regulation.

In erecting a pro-China, anti-Taiwan policy, candidate Kerry is obviously taking some risks.

Taiwan is a democracy; China is an authoritarian communist country. Americans prefer democracies. China also threatens the US, economically and militarily. Furthermore, Taiwan's viability is important to the US if America is to remain an Asian power.

And Americans like the under-dog. Taiwan is the smallest country in Northeast Asia. China is the biggest. Taiwan has survived because of its will to do so and US help.

Finally, Kerry is going against a US China/Taiwan policy that has worked and has kept the peace in the area.

Admittedly it is now being challenged, but is there a good alternative? Few would say that selling out Taiwan to a communist dictatorship is an acceptable solution.

Kerry's policy then seems to be an election gambit. It appears to be one that would be justified only if some of the less wholesome things said about Kerry's motives are true or if he is desperate, or both.

John Copper is the Stanley J. Buckman Professor of International Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. He is the author of a number of books on China and Taiwan. He can be reached at copper@rhodes.edu.

I'd like to address several issues raised by Guan G. Lo (Letters, Oct. 25, page 8) responding to an article by George Soros ("Throw George W. out of the White House, for America's sake" 20 Oct., p 9) which criticizes the administration of US President George W. Bush.

I have noticed that whenever the Taipei Times runs an article critical of Bush, it is deluged with angry letters from his supporters. Yet these same writers never seem to notice when articles by Bush administration officials appear in the paper, as when a piece by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ran a few weeks ago -- and when an article by Secretary of State Colin Powell ran a few weeks before that.

It is also curious that those who are quick to vilify France for its former financial interests in Iraq seem not to even notice America's recent acquisition of those same venal interests, by force of arms. Nor do they acknowledge that Bush's insistence that all existing oil-related contracts be cancelled might have contributed to France's opposition to the war. Lo contends that "a majority of UN members" reached the same conclusion as Bush from pre-war intelligence. But that is stretching the truth. Yes, a majority agreed that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, which is why the Security Council vote on resolution 1441 was unanimous. But almost no one agreed with Bush's conclusion that Iraq must be invaded immediately, in March last year.

Lo would have us believe that George Soros is part of a "very sinister anti-US movement [which] has helped to sustain terrorism." As a fellow American, I see Soros as a principled, courageous patriot, who rightly points out Bush himself is the chief reason for the unprecedented levels of anti-US sentiment around the world.

Lo seems to imply -- by reminding us what an evil dictator Saddam was -- that those of us who oppose Bush support Saddam. I supported regime change from the outset, but Bush's mishandling of the entire enterprise has infuriated me at every step.

First, the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) would be irrelevant today if Bush had argued for regime change honestly from the start, stressing humanitarian reasons and the strategic benefits to the entire world of getting rid of Saddam -- so that UN sanctions could be legitimately lifted and Iraq's oil could flow freely again.

Along with most of the world, I was skeptical of Bush's WMD case, as it seemed to me he was seeking any excuse to go to war and justify it on the basis of Sept. 11. But I supported regime change anyway for the indisputable reasons stated above.

What angers me is Bush's innumerable mistakes, which can be summed up in two categories: first, pushing away traditional allies, and second, the failure to adequately plan for winning the peace as well as the war.

The chief culprit in this failure was the refusal to deploy adequate forces to protect the people we claimed to be liberating. Bush derides Kerry for voting against the Gulf War, but he neglects to mention that in that war, under the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, we went in with a half a million troops, not to invade or occupy Iraq, but only to push Saddam's forces out of Kuwait.

Bush was warned by General Eric Shinseki and many other advisors that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed, but he insisted on the Rumsfeld doctrine of low-manpower, high-tech, "shock-and-awe" warfare. We see the results today.

Meanwhile, rather than asking his rich pals (some of whom stand to profit from this war) to help share the burden, he lavished upon them the biggest tax cut in US history.

World War II was an all-out national effort, shared by all through ration cards, war bonds and the draft. Bush seems to want us to grow accustomed to war as a "normal" part of the economy.

Lo is right to criticize France for its disgusting tendency to cozy-up to dictatorships, most notably China. But considering the Faustian deal we Americans seem to have struck with Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, in support of our goals in Afghanistan and Iraq -- not to mention the blind eye we turn to the torture chambers of Saudi Arabia -- perhaps we Americans ought not talk too indignantly about the evils of the realpolitik.

Lo advises Taiwan not to trust "glib anti-Bush" Democrats, but to side with Bush, who "supported the survival of Taiwan's democracy." He seems to have forgotten that it was Democrat Bill Clinton who parked a pair of aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait for the nation's first-ever direct presidential election in 1996.

In his concluding words, Lo appeals to Soros's "free market capitalism" as a reason to support Bush and eschew the lowly "trial lawyers" (Kerry and Senator John Edwards), as if he believes that Soros is driven by selfish financial motives. Here is a man who devotes nearly half his annual income (several billion dollars' worth) to philanthropic organizations, which he himself founded, and which have earned him broad international acclaim.

To Lo, I suggest that, given Soros' years of practical experience in fostering democratic institutions around the world and his personal experience of war, dictatorship, and poverty, perhaps he doesn't need your advice. Perhaps he knows exactly what he's doing, and it's that other George who's out of touch with reality.

History and politics
TSU legislative candidates and members of the Southern Taiwan Society, shown in middle ground, yesterday protest in front of a bronze statue of Chiang Kai-shek at the CKS Cultural Center in Kaohsiung. Police hold a warning sign to discourage protesters from defacing the statue.
PHOTO: HOU CHENG-HSU, TAIPEI TIMES