China’s new laws on Nov 16, 2004

China evicts families in Beijing

ILLEGAL ACTION: Despite new laws protecting private property in China, police yesterday started using force to get unwilling homeowners to leave their dwellings
AFP , BEIJING 

A woman was injured as at least 100 police officers began forcefully evicting families from a neighborhood in east Beijing yesterday despite new laws in China protecting private property.

Police surrounded three one-story old brick homes in the Nanyingfang neighborhood of Chaoyang district yesterday morning as moving crews piled the belongings of the unwilling home-owners onto vans.

One middle-aged woman was brought out of her home covered in blood, the cause of her injuries was unclear. Several residents from another home were pulled out and shoved into a police van.

Police sprayed foam from fire extinguishers on a large crowd of onlookers whose homes were also facing demolition in coming days.

Journalists were ordered not to take pictures and leave the site.

"What laws? The Chinese government's words are all meaningless, all lies," said a nearby resident who was facing imminent eviction.

"It was all over the newspapers, that officials cannot carry out demolitions as they wish, but if they want to do, what power do we have to stop them?" said another woman.

As they spoke, two large bulldozers knocked down the wall of one home, where someone had scribbled in large black Chinese characters: "Forceful demolition and evictions violate and are forbidden by the national constitution. Uphold the constitution. Fight for human rights."

More than 1,000 households live in the neighborhood where houses once served as barracks for soldiers of the Qing Dynasty (1644 to 1911) who guarded the Chaoyangmen gate of the capital's city walls.

Unlike most demolitions happening throughout Beijing, the residents in Nanyingfang own their homes, purchased following the fall of the Qing Dynasty and passed down from generations over 100 years.

Under China's constitution, amended in March to protect private assets for the first time, the res-idents are supposed to have rights to negotiate a fair compensation before moving.

The central government this year also ordered local governments not to carry out "chaotic," unreasonable requisition of land.

But none of that mattered yesterday with the Chaoyang district government intent on making way for a major developer to build what residents believe will be a shopping district.

"We are not against demolitions, but they should give us a fair price for our land," said one woman.

"With the price they are giving us, we can't even afford to buy a home in the outskirts of Beijing. Our kids won't be able to go to school in central Beijing."

The government is offering a compensation price of about 4,000 to 6,000 yuan (US$482 to US$723) per m2, which residents said was below market price.

A newly built upscale apartment building next to the brick homes is selling for more than double the rate -- 13,000 yuan per square meter.

DPP clarifies Chen's `soft coup' remarks

WARNING REITERATED: Party officials said the president was simply trying to inform voters of what had happened in the days immediately following the March election
By Huang Tai-lin  STAFF REPORTER , WITH CNA 

The aim behind President Chen Shui-bian's mention of a pan-blue attempt to launch a "soft coup d'etat" in the wake of the March presidential election was not meant to point fingers but simply to inform voters of the situa-tion, Presidential Office Secretary-General Su Tseng-chang  said yesterday.

"President Chen merely wanted to report to the voters about the situation at the time and called on the public to safeguard democracy and to end unrest with their votes," Su said.

He was referring to remarks made by Chen on Sunday night while campaigning for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative candidates in Taipei County.

Shortly after the election Chen the pan-blue camp had tried to persuade senior generals and officers to launch a "soft coup" against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong have yet to concede defeat in March 20 poll.

Chen labeled the pan-blue move a "soft coup d'etat" because instead of cannons and tanks it tried to use pressure from senior officers.

The president said it was "very clear who, when and where people held high-level meetings with senior generals and high-ranking officers and retired generals to try to get them to stand up ? to pretend to be ill and check themselves into a hospital in order to pressure me to submit my resignation."

Chen said the coup bid had not succeeded because of long-term efforts to depoliticize the military and because "top generals did not let themselves be used."

Sunday was not the first time that Chen has used the term "coup." Back in April Chen described the opposition's persistent protests over his re-election as an "aborted coup."

Su said yesterday that it was true in the immediate post-election period that individuals had tried to persuade high-level military officials to quit their posts in a bid to create social instability and misgivings among the public.

Su said it was apparent that senior generals possess a more mature democratic capacity and disposition than Lien and Soong do -- given the pan-blue camp's actions in the wake of the election when opposition leaders called for huge protests in front of the Presidential Office and then published and distributed the Bulletgate pamphlets about the assassination attempt on Chen in an attempt to smear him.

DPP Legislator Lee Wen-chung said yesterday that four retired generals had tried to persuade three serving generals and eight lieutenant-generals to either resign or check themselves into hospitals.

New school textbooks will simply tell the truth

By Chin Heng-wei
The Ministry of Education's curriculum guidelines for senior high history textbook have recently been released -- to the delight of some and the chagrin of others. No matter what, the seeds of Taiwanese consciousness have been sown in the education system.

As the Chinese saying goes, "It takes 10 years to grow a tree, and 100 years before a sound education program takes root." This is where it begins.

In the larger scheme of things, the new text places Taiwan's history alongside Chinese and world history. No longer will Taiwan's history be regarded as being a subsidiary of Chinese history.

From a more local perspective, we see Taiwan's history escaping from the confines of "party-state history," breaking away from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-endorsed myths and finally bringing out the truth of events like the White Terror and the misfortune that Taiwan suffered due to the battle between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The most interesting aspect, which has the appeal of being a false accusation being overturned, has to do with the Cairo Declaration. In 1945, Chiang Kai-shek did meet with British prime minister Winston Churchill and US president Franklin Roosevelt, but what came out of that meeting was just a press communique, not a declaration. A copy of the original is stored in the Academia Historica in Taiwan, with originals also in the achieves of the UK and the US, so it's possible to reexamine this matter.

Why didn't the Cairo conference produce any official conclusion? This was mainly because British foreign minister Antony Eden was against returning Taiwan to China, and the document given to Chiang by the official representing China, Wang Chunghui , made this plain. (This document can be found in Important Historical Records of the Republic of China edited by Chin Hsiao-yi ).

This is why the meeting in Cairo produced nothing more than a communique (even though it is often referred to as a "declaration"). It was not a signed treaty and simply stated the matters discussed. The KMT twisted history and tampered with evidence, creating a "Cairo Declaration" that fitted their purposes with the aim of making the statement that "Japan relinquishes sovereignty over Taiwan" into "Taiwan's sovereignty reverts to China."

The new high school text books will do nothing more than tell the truth. And this hasn't come easily. It has taken constant calls from concerned people to finally penetrate the lies of the KMT and the "two Chiangs."

It is interesting to note that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou has not made any statement on his position regarding the Cairo Declaration. He has taken aim elsewhere, using the Shanghai Communique and some other documents as his weapons to deflect the argument that Taiwan's status is still unclear.

The problem is that once you accept the three Sino-US Joint Communiques, this is tantamount to accepting that the Republic of China (ROC) no longer exists. Ma, who has sworn to defend the ROC to the death, has basically denied the existence of this entity.

Former president Lee Teng-hui's question "where has the ROC gone?" seems more than justified. Besides, the Shanghai Communique affirms that there is only one China. Once 23 million Taiwanese deny that they are Chinese, this totally undermines the foundation of the communique, and the US "one China" policy becomes urgently in need of change.

Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China. There is one country on either side of the Taiwan Strait. This is the fact, and it should not surprise anybody.

EU provides an inspiring model

By Francis Kan

The repercussions of the strong comments made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell during his two-day visit to China denying that Taiwan is an independent nation have not ended. Although a lot of effort has been exerted from different angles to interpret and clarify this incident, a diverse range of views makes the whole issue even more complicated. I think that we can regard Powell's statement as a preventive measure intended by Washington to pull Taiwan back to the status quo.

Powell's comments clearly make the following points.

First, the US does not want to see either side take unilateral action, interpret the "one China" policy, or settle on a structure for future cross-strait relations, because if they do the US will inevitably be involved in a cross-strait conflict. Therefore, the US has taken the initiative to prevent a possible war that could take place within a few years.

Second, as for the US, its best strategic advantage in the Asia-Pacific region is served by maintaining stability, and the most important factor to achieve this is by maintaining the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. When the US senses that Taiwan intends to change the current situation, it will do whatever it must to prevent any harm to US international interests.

Third, Powell's warning-like comments on Taiwan indicate that the US attaches greater importance to Sino-US relations than its relationship with Taiwan. Nor is it afraid of revealing its priorities. We cannot rule out the possibility that the US has used this statement to calm China over US arms sales to Taiwan.

Since the Bush administration declared that it has a responsibility to protect Taiwan and will do its best to assist Taiwan's national defense four years ago, to the warning signal given right before the end of this administrative term, it is foreseeable that the US will continue to pursue an increasingly defined China policy.

The next four years will be crucial in determining stability across the Taiwan Strait. How can Taiwan handle the upcoming challenges? If Taiwan refuses to face up to cross-strait issues, it will waste its current economic and political advantages, perhaps even losing the US' moral support. If we understand the inevitable nature of direct cross-strait talks, then our problem lies in how to face China's insistence on its "one China" principle.

If the "one China" principle is the inescapable crux of the matter, then how can Taiwan respond with a "one China" proposal based on its best strategic interests? The best example to soothe conflict and create prosperity should be the peace process of European integration. If we can follow the spirit of the EU, eliminate any possible military and political factors that can trigger conflicts, and launch a multi-level cooperation that can reinforce mutual trust and dependency, the stability and prosperity of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be guaranteed.

Therefore, we can propose the concept of "one China" based on the model of the EU as a response to China's rigid "one-China" definition. This new "one China" will give Taiwan the following guarantees:

First, maintaining Taiwan's status quo, and not changing Taiwan's sovereignty: the development of the EU is not involved in national sovereignty issues of each member country, but rather, it only emphasizes the cooperation of policy issues that are beneficial to the EU as a whole.

The issue that touches off cross-strait conflict is the controversy of Taiwan's sovereignty; if we can incorporate the spirit of the EU, and focus on the cooperation and mutual trust in diverse issues and multi-layered administration, we can develop a bilaterally beneficial partnership while avoiding sensitive issues.

Second, keeping an open mind as to the ultimate goal of an integration process: the future forms of development of the EU will not be confined to becoming a single country, a federation, a confederation, or some other forms.

A "one China" based on the EU should retain its flexibility, and put an emphasis on finding collective benefits. If the ultimate goal is defined too soon, the integration process may be impeded.

Third, the "one China" based on the EU will benefit the expansion of Taiwan's diplomacy and economy: the EU experience indicates that a strong economic community facilitates each country's respective interests. The integration of Taiwan and China will substantially help both countries' economy and trade; also, with the establishment of mutual trust [across the Taiwan Strait], Taiwan will have a broader stage before the international community.

Fourth, facilitating China's democratization: the EU can be seen as a collective body of democratic countries in Europe. The mechanism and discipline of the EU reinforce its member countries' insistence on their values of democracy; it is also the impetus for prospective member countries to promote democracy.

Taiwan's gradually maturing democracy will become the factor that influences China during the cross-strait integration process. At the same time, democratic China is the best partner for Taiwan in its sustainable development.

Within Taiwan, there are different proposals for cross-strait relations. The concept of "one China" based on the EU can not only take care of different ideologies among different factions within Taiwan, but also meet China's "one China" demand.

Editorial: Military has passed the test

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong have continued in their efforts to stir up trouble ever since the presidential elections seven months ago. The ensuing disorder has hung over Taiwan like a dark, ominous cloud. Fortunately, even this cloud has a silver lining.

In the month following the election, the pan-blue camp mobilized the masses to protest in front of the Presidential Office as part of their attempts at a revolution. They were exploiting the power of the people in their quest to overturn the government of President Chen Shui-bian, and also called on the military and the police to make a stand.

This weekend Chen revealed a hitherto unknown fact, namely that after the election a retired general had asked high-ranking military leaders to exert pressure on the president either by having themselves admitted to hospital on false pretenses, or by tendering their resignations. The abortive seven-day coup was not an attempted military coup, but was intended as a "soft coup." Fortunately, the depoliticization of Taiwan's armed forces has already occurred with a considerable degree of success, and the "soft coup" failed.

The failure of the quasi-revolution brings us mixed feelings of anxiety and happiness. The anxiety is because certain elements in the KMT are willing to resort to any expedient to gain power, even to the extent of tainting the politically neutral military by encouraging senior officers to express their political views.

This violates Article 138 of the Constitution, which states that military personnel "shall be above personal, regional and party affiliation." At the same time, the blue camp has also violated Article 139 of the Constitution, which states that "no political party ... shall make use of the armed forces as an instrument in the struggle of political powers."

The blue camp does not respect the outcome of a democratic election, and refuses to trust the process of judicial arbitration; instead, it puts its faith in Machiavellian intrigue, which the blues believe is all that works. We are happy to see that the light of democracy in Taiwan has not been consumed by the darkness of political reactionism.

We can be happy that Taiwan's military has finally cast off its role as an army loyal only to the KMT, and has become an army loyal to the Republic of China, its Constitution and its people.

The army of the Republic of China was founded by Chiang Kai-shek with an officer corps drawn from members of the Whampoa Military Academy. It was heavily colored by personal loyalty to its founder and his family, and was often called "Chiang's army."

During the process of Taiwan's democratization, the identification of the military as Chiang's army, which was the KMT's army, was questioned and subsequently challenged. With the passage of the Defense Ministry Organizational Law, Taiwan's military acquired political neutrality under the law, and the quality of the military organization began to improve as a result. After the 2000 presidential election, Chief of the General Staff Tang Yao-ming led the military in swearing allegiance to the constitutionally elected president, clearly drawing a line of separation between nation and party. In this year's presidential election, although the final result was controversial, the military maintained its neutrality and was unmoved by the political pressure of the KMT. This clearly showed that the military had passed the test and become defenders of the Constitution and protectors of the people.