History class of Taiwan on Nov 11, 2004

The Cabinet gives Ma a history class

DOCTORED HISTORY: The mayor, following KMT practice, confused a press release for an international treaty so the rest of the Cabinet had to correct him
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou yesterday engaged in a heated debate with Cabinet officials over the nation's sovereignty and political status, in the wake of the education ministry's intention to modify high school history books to indicate that the Republic of China (ROC) is not the legal government of Taiwan.

While the ministry made public a draft outline for high school history books on Tuesday to include two international treaties to rebuff the previous administration's argument that Taiwan is part of China and that the ROC is the legitimate ruler of Taiwan, Ma said that the government should be consistent in its stance over the politically sensitive issue.

"There're at least 11 official documents related to Taiwan's political status when I come to think of it," Ma said. "The education ministry should be impartial in presenting the facts and be consistent in addressing the issue with other government agencies."

Ma was referring to the different stances taken by the education ministry and the foreign ministry. While the foreign ministry recognizes the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the education ministry does not.

The declaration, which actually is little more than a press release, followed a meeting of Chiang Kai-shek , Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in Cairo, Egypt, in 1943. It is a statement of the World War II Allies' intention that, after the Japanese surrender, territory that Japan had "stolen" from China -- including Taiwan and Penghu, would be returned to China.

Pro-unification groups, including the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), have long claimed that this, and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration in 1945, gave China the right to resume sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu.

They claim that the Cairo declaration is a legal document which established the ROC's claim.

The problem is that Taiwan and Penghu were ceded in perpetuity to Japan in 1895 in an internationally recognized treaty and which, in international law, can only be superceded by a similar treaty. But no treaty awards Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC.

The education ministry is planning to add two relevant international treaties to high school history textbooks to indicate that Taiwan is not part of China and that the ROC is not the legal government of Taiwan.

These two treaties -- the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and Sino-Japan Peace Treaty, better known as the Taipei Treaty, of 1952 -- were deliberately left out in high-school history textbooks during KMT rule.

Pro-independence activists have cited the two agreements to argue that Taiwan's international status is undefined. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in 1951, six years after Japan's defeat and the end of its half-century rule of Taiwan, states that the Japanese government renounces sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, but does specify to which government that sovereignty was to be transferred.

The Taipei Treaty affirms the 1951 pact, reiterating that the Japanese government would renounce any claim to to Taiwan, Penghu, the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. The treaty, again, does not specify the legal successor government of these territories.

While Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng said that the ministry's proposal has not yet been finalized, he said that the ministry would merely present historical facts to include the two treaties in the textbook. He also questioned the legality of the Cairo Declaration.

"There's no such a thing as the Cairo Declaration because it's nothing but a press communique," Tu said.

He also pointed out that even the current textbooks were inaccurate.

"While current textbooks say the document states that Japan was to return Taiwan to China, the original document actually says that Japan would return Taiwan to the Republic of China," he said.

Disapproving of the argument that Taiwan's international status is undefined, Ma said that the theory had been superceded by the Shanghai Communique in 1972.

He did not explain how an agreement between the US and the PRC, which also does not have the force of a treaty, could change the legal situation resulting from the San Francisco Treaty.

NSC mulls how to make `Code of Conduct' a reality

By Huang Tai-lin
STAFF REPORTER
President Chen Shui-bian's idea of a Code of Conduct for cross-strait relations was fleshed out some more yesterday in a four-hour closed-door meeting of the National Security Council.

"It's been a month since President Chen made his National Day address on Oct. 10" in which the Code of Conduct was raised, National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen said at a news conference held at the Presidential Office last night.

"We don't want the National Day address to be just empty words, so the meeting was called to deliberate issues and provide directions on how to bring about the Code of Conduct, Chiou said.

Chiou said that other issues such as those relating to Taiwan-US-China relations after the US presidential election were also discussed.

In his Double Ten National Day address, Chen proposed both sides of the Taiwan Strait establish a "Code of Conduct across the Taiwan Strait" as a guarantee of peace.

Chiou said that Chen reiterated during the meeting that both sides should seriously consider the issue of arms control and adopt concrete actions to reduce tension and military threats across the Taiwan Strait.

"We don't want the National Day address to be just empty words."

Chiou I-jen, Secretary-General of the National Security Council

For example, while both sides observe a line down the middle of the Taiwan Strait as separating their zones of military activity, it would be more of a safeguard if that line could be thickened into a proper demilitarized area to avoid any risk of misunderstandings that might lead to conflict.

Chen also urged China to renounce its nuclear weapons development.

"In view of humanitarian reasons and international norms, we think weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapon, biological and chemical weapons should be banned from use across the Taiwan Strait," Chen said.

"We are willing to openly pledge that we will never develop these kinds of weapons and would like to urge China to openly renounce developing and using them," Chen said.

Stressing that Taiwan's democratic and economic development are the international community's asset and not its burden, Chen expressed gratitude for the US' affirmation of its "Six Assurances" to Taiwan and said that both the US and Taiwan should, based on their shared values, continue to cooperate and safeguard the Asian-Pacific region's security and stability.

Stating that cross-strait peace should be placed above partisan feuds and personal interests, Chen pledged also to invite leaders from all political parties after the legislative elections to collaborate on establishing a Committee for Cross-strait Peace and Development .

Chen urges delegation to act as nation's boosters

APEC CONFERENCE: The president asked delegates to use every opportunity to express the country's desire for increased cooperation with APEC members
CNA , TAIPEI
 

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday exhorted members of Taiwan's delegation to the 2004 informal leadership meeting of the APEC forum to grasp every opportunity to let the nation's voice be heard.

During a meeting at the Presidential Office with Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh , who will head the delegation, and other delegates to the APEC ministerial meetings, Chen said he wants them to take every opportunity, private or public, to make known Taiwan's sincerity in bolstering cooperation among all APEC economies and its concrete plans toward that goal.

The delegates should actively seize every opportunity to talk with their counterparts, particularly those from the US, China, Japan and Russia, Chen said.

Lee has been assigned by Chen to attend the APEC meeting in Santiago, Chile, on Nov. 20 and Nov. 21 on his behalf.

Chen said he is confident that Lee would achieve these tasks to win international support and respect for Taiwan again this year. Lee also attended the APEC informal leadership meeting on Chen's behalf last year and in 2002.

Noting that APEC is one of the few international groupings that has both Taiwan and China as members, Chen said that although he cannot attend the leadership meeting in person due to Beijing's obstruction, this does not mean that Taiwan's resolve in contributing to APEC efforts as a member would be lessened.

Chen said that Taiwan is not only resolved to support the implementation of various APEC projects and plans, it also keenly expects that other APEC economies will throw their support behind the projects that Taiwan plans to field this year. These include an avian flu prevention project and regional cooperation in vaccine research and development.

He added that Taiwan cannot afford to restrict itself under the current difficult circumstances that it faces due to Beijing's ubiquitous diplomatic suppression and the international community's reluctance to offend Beijing.

"We must take the initiative in creating opportunities for ourselves and make as many friends as possible in the international community, particularly in important dialogue platforms such as APEC," Chen said.

As security will be one of the main themes to be discussed at this year's APEC conferences, Chen said, the delegation should express the country's desire to play an active role in cultivating a safe living environment and explain its past contributions in this regard.

Resist China's divisive approach

By Paul Lin

The US presidential election had many similarities with Taiwan's presidential election in March this year.

First, the close opinion polls. Second, the media's position, leaning toward Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry. Third, the campaign topics, focusing on national security. Fourth, the intervention of outside forces, trying to influence the election.

If we apply these conditions to the presidential candidates, there is no doubt that US President George W. Bush found himself in a position similar to President Chen Shui-bian, and that Kerry found himself in a position similar to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan.

Kerry, however, handled the election outcome radically different from Lien, which highlights the difference in democratic maturity between Taiwan and the US, as well as differences in the two individuals' character.

The day after the election, although the ballot count was still incomplete, Kerry's team came to the conclusion that the result was basically settled. They did not place their hopes on the slimmest of chances, because they didn't want to affect national unity by having to wait another 11 days before Ohio's provisional votes could be counted. Kerry, who had at first refused to concede the election, made the decision to do so in a phone call to Bush. Both parties have acknowledged that something has to be done to deal with the national divide.

Looking back at the many disturbances that have occurred in Taiwan following the presidential election on March 20, I don't know how many such 11-day periods have gone by because of that person who is constantly stirring things up in the belief there still is a glimmer of hope.

Not only are there several lawsuits in progress, but several experts also keep issuing sensational statements and severe criticisms. This spirit, however, has dissipated over time, leading the mighty chairman to roll up his sleeves and take to the streets, provocatively calling the president a cheater and saying that everyone has the right to execute [a deliberate double entendre -- in Chinese the word used can mean both "to execute a criminal" and "to condemn"] him, thus once again inciting supporters to create disturbances.

With the case already brought before the courts, how can this chairman override the court and pin a crime on the president, and how can he call for his lynching? How can this be called "rule of law?" Is this the "green terror" that they keep talking about, or is it a return to the "white terror" of the authoritarian era?

Aren't these endless squabbles all about creating and deepening divisions to promote their own interests and the interests of a small group of people? Do these interests coincide with the interests of Taiwan and the KMT, or with the wishes of China? The truth is that Lien will never have another chance to run for president, and so he has staked everything on a final bet.

Bush's re-election means the continuation of past domestic and diplomatic policy, which means that Taiwan's pro-China lobby can give up any unrealistic hopes for a major change in the US-China-Taiwan relationship. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should immediately clarify the misunderstandings created between the US and Taiwan during Taiwan's presidential election campaign as a result of domestic political requirements.

China's official English-language mouthpiece the China Daily published an article by former Chinese vice premier Qian Qichen attacking Bush's foreign policy and complaining about the US spirit in an attempt to influence the outcome of the elections.

The US objected strongly to the article, which made an excellent match with Osama bin Laden's videotaped threats to the US. It revealed the insincerity of China's friendship with the US, instead displaying its true animosity.

There will be a price to pay for Beijing's failed opportunism. The US' "one China" policy will not change yet, nor will policies on economic cooperation with China aimed at winning commercial advantages, but the US will strengthen precautionary mea-sures and containment of China when it comes to security issues.

Past differences between the State Department and Pentagon in their views on China show that the Pentagon was right. At a time when the US' war on terror is intesifying, they should remain clear on the fact that the most evil state is China.

Some of US Secretary of State Colin Powell's statements during his visit to Beijing last month have had an impact on the Taiwan-US relationship. The US' partial explanations have not succeeded in restoring the original relationship, just as the US still is uncertain about Taiwan.

But the issues between Taiwan and the US are still issues between friends, just as are the issues between the US and Israel. The US, however, recognizes the destructive impact it would have on the US and the world, and particularly on security in the Far East and Southeast Asia, if Taiwan falls into China's hands.

Taiwan must also understand US strategy and offer effective cooperation instead of adding to the US' troubles. But Taiwan is a democratic society, with pro-China politicians attempting to topple the legally elected government as well as those who have been labelled Taiwan independence activists by China.

To sum up, Taiwan and the US should look at the grand scheme of things and not accept China's provocations and attempts at dividing the two.

Given China's rapid military expansion, the importance of communication and cooperation between Taiwan and the US is growing by the day, and it is necessary to consider the establishment of a direct communication mechanism aimed at maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait.

The DPP should also take a long-term approach and prepare for future needs by training diplomatic talent with an American contact network in US Ivy League universities.

Speak out for sovereignty

By Martin Chen

This letter is in response to an article by Hsu Yung-ming ("Face up to the reality of a lack of sovereignty," Nov 04, page 8). Hsu clearly points out the problem regarding sovereignty. I agree with the first half of his article, up to the point where he talks about the US perspective on the problem. But then I got lost. I am not sure what direction he is pointing us in. Is there a hint that, from the China perspective, a solution will be found? If so, he certainly did not show us how.

My proposed solution is to explore a different subject with a two-word addition to his title: "Face up to the reality of a lack of recognition of sovereignty." As far as I am concerned, there is no lack of sovereignty. Democracy is sovereignty. Gaining recognition is the problem. And, believe it or not, the first place where recognition is needed is within Taiwan.

For over 50 years the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime have brainwashed Taiwanese people, so now they are afraid to believe in sovereignty. The KMT regime used every means possible to emphasize the importance of maintaining the so-called "status quo" so they could stay in power. The US maintained it because it could control both Taiwan and China. China of course loved it, because it allowed Beijing to play the Taiwan card against the US. And a few years ago they started using it to take advantage of Taiwanese businessmen investing in China. So what's new, when everyone is just looking to further their own interests?

After this complicated triangular relationship among the three countries becomes apparent, our solution to this puzzle is quite clear. Taiwan needs to be concerned with its own interests. In fact, the country is already headed in the right direction. The majority of Taiwanese people are wise enough to dump the pan-blues. But it will take some years to truly wash away the KMT influence. Taiwan should stand up and use every opportunity it can to accentuate its sovereignty to the world.

On Feb. 28, over 1 million people told the world about it. In September, Olympic heroes from Taiwan told the world about it. There may be pro-unification sentiment among a few old-generation people.

But unification is clearly not a choice. Even the young pan-blue politicians claiming to be pro-unification do not believe it in their heart. Most of them are afraid to even speak out loudly about it. It's because they don't have a good reason for supporting unification. They simply use the sentiment to gain votes and further their own interests.

Many people in Taiwan voiced their anger over US Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statements in China. It appeared that he made some major errors and later revised part of what he said. But the damage has already been done. To learn from this, one question Taiwanese should ask is: What could we have done better to minimize such damage in the future?

Again my answer is the assertion of sovereignty. Make it heard loudly, not wishy-washy. I would not rule out the possibility that Powell truly did not know Taiwanese would be so upset about his statements. If Taiwanese people want other countries (including China) to recognize it, they have to assert the position consistently and persistently. There will be bumps along the way. Certain tactics will be required. But eventually the recognition will come.

Finally, I want to say it would be a shame if Taiwanese people do not realize sovereignty and eventually give it away. But personally I do not believe it will happen. I have faith in Taiwanese people.

US cannot decide for Taiwan

By Bode Bliss

Richard Hartzell's letter has many good points and is mostly true, including the thought that the US reserves the right to recognize China but not Taiwan (Letters, Nov. 8, page 8).

The part I would quarrel with is that the US does not have the right or the ability to transfer sovereignty to Taiwan. The matter of the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan was left out of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and therefore has fallen to the people of Taiwan to decide. The US cannot change this, and should not meddle in the final choice of the free people of Taiwan.

The act of meddling in the final choice of the people of Taiwan would be a huge black mark on the name of the US. Mr Hartzell points out that he could find no date for when Taiwan became a sovereign nation. The date for sovereignty will be the much-feared (by China, mostly) date of the new constitution's implementation, because no state without sovereignty can implement a new constitution by it's people. Much ground needs to be covered between now and then. Security and international support are key to the process. Is Taiwan up to the task? I think it is ready for this.

Editorial: KMT is nothing without its assets

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) announced on Tuesday that it has filed a lawsuit against Premier Yu Shyi-kun for libel and defamation. The suit was filed after Yu repeatedly claimed during legislative question-and-answer sessions that the KMT's assets are stolen "booty," and that whoever purchases the party's assets is buying stolen property.

According to the KMT's complaint, "The KMT assets are a legacy of history and the accumulation of years of effort. They have by no means been obtained by illegal means." Obviously, the thief still does not know what he did wrong. The KMT's wealth does in fact derive from theft. The concept of "the rule of law" did not exist during Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣中正) authoritarian rule, as those in power owned almost everything at that time. Since there was no difference then between "legal" and "illegal" procurement of assets, how can such assets be called booty? No wonder the KMT dared to sue Yu.

However, the KMT is not aware that times and the political system have changed. Under the rule of law, we must review the inappropriate damage to lives and properties in the past -- such as mishandled judicial cases, including those related to the 228 Incident, and the assets robbed by the KMT.

By turning its back on authoritarianism, the KMT might have openly embraced the rule of law with the arrival of democracy, carrying out party reforms to transform itself into a real democratic party. Unfortunately, it has not changed its authoritarian attitude. Not only is it holding on to its assets, but it has also resisted various reforms, as if the party is the driving force of Taiwan's "counter-revolution."

It is no wonder that, come election time, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) takes aim at the KMT's assets -- this is campaign ammunition that is ready at hand. In past elections, the KMT has adopted the tactic of shameless denial. To every accusation, the KMT would respond with all sorts of unreasonable nonsense. And so, with each election, the KMT loses a few more votes.

The period after each election is an excellent time for the KMT to engage in self-examination about making thorough internal reforms, but because of succession struggles and the unwillingness of KMT Chairman Lien Chan and a number of other party elders to relinquish power, a complete overhaul has been repeatedly delayed. As Executive Yuan spokesperson Chen Chi-mai pointed out on Tuesday, the KMT has already used its majority in the legislature 68 times to block the passage of bills governing the disposition of assets improperly obtained by political parties. Clearly, in filing a lawsuit against Yu, the KMT has lost all sense of shame and is simply being obstructive.

Over the years, the KMT's assets and bribery have been the two pillars of its electoral machine. It is the party's assets that allow it to buy votes. After many years of engagement with the KMT, the DPP is very aware of the KMT's tricks, and in every election Justice Minister Chen Ding-nan takes a tough stand on bribery. This has partially crippled the KMT. But if its assets were also to be compromised, then its campaign machine would collapse completely.

Chen calls on pan-blues to follow Kerry's example

POLITICAL DIVISIONS: Citing John Kerry's concession speech, the president decried the pan-blue camp's continued efforts to contest the result of the March 20 election
By Huang Tai-lin  STAFF REPORTER 

While complimenting the democratic manner shown by US Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry in his concession speech, President Chen Shui-bian  yesterday expressed incomprehension over moves made by his election opponents since the March 20 presidential vote.

"Kerry stressed in his concession speech that one who loses election should not harbor remorse, anger or recrimination," Chen said.

"Yet here in Taiwan, now almost eight months after the March 20 presidential election, those who were defeated in the election still keep with them feelings of animosity," Chen said while receiving three members of the US House of Representatives at the Presidential Office.

They were Ciro Rodriguez, Solomon Ortiz and Charles Gonzalez, all Democrats.

"Such a demeanor not only is hard for people to comprehend but is also something that Taiwan ought to learn from the US and its founding-nation spirit," Chen said.

Chen told his visitors that two parts of Kerry's speech had made a vivid impression on him.

The first was when Kerry made a point to stress that after the election,"the next morning we all wake up as Americans ? We must join in common effort, without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity."

The second part was when Kerry noted in his speech that "the outcome [of the election] should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process," Chen said.

"It is different story here in Taiwan," he said.

Chen said that when he was elected four years ago, rather than receiving congratulatory calls from his election opponents, he had made calls to the other contenders to give his regards.

"Four years later, when I succeed in re-election, [my] opponents still do not respect the voters' decision nor do they respect the verdict rendered by the court in their judicial suit [contesting the election result]," Chen said, referring to the annulment suit filed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance seeking to overturn the result of the March 20 election.

The Taiwan High Court last Thursday gave its verdict on the lawsuit. The court dismissed the pan-blue camp's claims that Chen had been unfairly elected and announced that Chen had prevailed by a margin of 25,000 votes.

But the pan-blue camp has refused to accept the verdict, with KMT Chairman Lien Chan saying that the findings of the court were riddled with mistakes that disappointed him and his supporters. According to Lien, the battle is not yet over, and they will continue to file appeals.

PFP Chairman James Soong .Lien's running mate, expressed support for Lien's view.

Chen told the US representatives that although the Democratic Party had not won the presidential election, they should feel proud for having won the hearts of the people and their respect.

Citing US president Abraham Lincoln's 1858 "House Divided" speech, in which he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Chen stressed that Taiwan needs to be united.

"Although Taiwan's walk on the democratic road is hard and bumpy, democracy is the road of no return, it is the correct road and is Taiwan's best defense," he said.

Parties argue over history education

CURRICULUM: A proposal by the education ministry to separate China's history from Taiwan's history in high-school courses sparked a row at the legislature
By Debby Wu  STAFF REPORTER
 The legislative caucuses yesterday argued over a proposed Taiwan-centric curriculum for high schools, with the pan-blue camp accusing the pan-greens of promoting Taiwan independence and the pan-greens defending the education ministry's decision.

The Ministry of Education released a tentative curriculum for high-school history courses two days ago: Students would study "Taiwan History" in the first term of the first year, and the establishment of the ROC [Republic of China] would be included in "China History," to be taught in the second term of the first year.

The most important change, however, is that the curriculum would examine materials on the lack of a conclusion regarding Taiwan's international status. The textbooks will include the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Cairo Declaration, and students will be allowed to consider Taiwan's "uncertain" status.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus yesterday said that the ministry's move was aimed to denationalize Taiwan, and push Taiwan into an uncertain status.

"Leave history to be history and politics to be politics, and don't try to meddle with the school curriculum."

Huang Teh-fu, KMT caucus whip

"Dr Sun Yat-sen  is the founder of the ROC, and President Chen Shui-bian  is the ROC president. The president denying the founder indicates a problematic mentality," KMT caucus whip Huang Teh-fu said.

Huang said the ROC had reigned over China in the early 20 century, while from 1945 to the present, it only controlled Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.

But looking historically, Huang said, the nearly 100-year history of the ROC should not be split up.

"If President Chen acknowledges the ROC history before 1949 as China's history, then he would be admitting that the ROC now is a part of China, and he would be the chief executive of the Taiwan Special Administrative Region," Huang said.

"Leave history to be history and politics to be politics, and don't try to meddle with the school curriculum or the status quo," Huang said.

The People First Party (PFP) caucus attacked the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for promoting Taiwan independence.

"The DPP has been ruling the country with its independence ideology, and it is realizing independence via education and examinations," PFP Legislator Diane Lee  said.

But the pan-green caucuses said the ministry was offering students the right context regarding Taiwan.

DPP caucus whip Tsai Huang-liang pointed out that the peace treaty and the declaration were two keys to Taiwan's sovereignty, but that textbooks in the past have offered subjective interpretations from the governing party, and the interpretations were not necessarily correct.

"The ministry has the right to clear up where Taiwan's sovereignty lies, and allow the next generation to learn Taiwan's history correctly," Tsai said.

Tsai said that while Taiwanese students knew everything about Chinese dynasties, they knew little about Taiwan's history.

The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) also claimed, as usual, that since Taiwan was a sovereign nation, it was only logical that the home country's history in textbooks should be Taiwan history.