Emprise’s China on Nov 18, 2004

Japan, China's relations take another dive

SINKING FEELING: Although the two Asian superpowers share a thriving economic partnership, their political ties are straining under disputes from as far back as WWII
AP , TOKYO
Despite a thriving economic partnership, political ties between Japan and China are at their lowest ebb in years. The two countries are locked in disputes over World War II history, natural gas exploration and now a bold incursion by a Chinese nuclear submarine.

The troubles have blocked a meeting between the countries' top leaders since 2001, complicated Northeast Asia's scramble to meet its growing energy needs and threatened to limit the growth of Japan-China business ties.

The startling intrusion by a Chinese nuclear submarine last week into Japanese waters introduced a disturbing military aspect to the tensions between East Asia's two leading powers, putting greater urgency on calls for a repair in relations.

"We should hold talks because we have problems. We are making arrangements," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said on Tuesday when asked whether he was trying to schedule a summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Santiago, Chile.

The turmoil is a marked contrast to flourishing business relations. Bilateral trade hit a record US$130 billion last year, a 30.3 percent increase from the previous year, and officials expect another record to be set this year.

Political ties, however, have long been rocky between Asia's most populous nation and its biggest economy.

Japan's military conquest of China in the 1930s and 1940s and what the Chinese see as Tokyo's reluctance to atone for its aggression have gnawed for decades at Chinese sensitivities. Japan, in turn, accuses Beijing of using history to browbeat Tokyo into providing aid and political concessions.

The countries have also squabbled over territory and natural resources. Both, for instance, claim a cluster of Japan-controlled East China Sea islands, called the Senkakus in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese. The two are also sparring over Chinese exploration of natural-gas fields near Okinawa that Japan claims could infringe on its exclusive economic zone, and they have competing plans for an oil pipeline from Siberia to East Asia.

The flare-ups illustrate an increasingly competitive relationship.

China's spectacular economic performance has turned it into a global growth engine, and Beijing is eagerly converting that power into diplomatic influence, especially among Southeast Asian countries that Japan had long considered its backyard.

Tokyo nurses fears of being eclipsed, and has eyed with suspicion Beijing's military spending and diplomatic maneuvering. The influential right-wing strongly favors responding with a more robust and assertive Japanese military.

"In the political arena, conservatives aren't really trying to get along with China," said Makoto Iokibe, a political scientist at Kobe University. "People who want to be tough with China feel as if we were about to go to war when something like this -- the submarine, or gas development issues -- happens."

While the incursion did not turn violent, it has come to symbolize the escalating friction between China and Japan in recent years.

The sub was spotted in Japanese territorial waters among islands between Okinawa and Taiwan on Nov. 10, putting Japan's military on alert and prompting the navy to launch a maritime policing operation -- only the second time such an order was issued in 50 years.

The submarine refused to identify itself, and Japan tracked it for days until announcing on Friday that it was Chinese. Tokyo immediately protested to Beijing. Japanese officials said on Tuesday that China had confirmed the sub's identity, claimed the incursion was an accident and expressed regret, but Chinese officials refused to immediately confirm that.

China forces APEC to scrap Taiwan ad

`INAPPROPRIATE': A television commercial describing Taiwan as a `nation' caused China to request the APEC Secretariat to remove the `politically oriented' ad
By Ko Shu-ling  STAFF REPORTER , IN SANTIAGO, CHILE 

The Taiwan delegation at this year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting on Tuesday expressed dismay over the APEC Secretariat's caving in to pressure by China, who requested that Taiwan remove a promotional commercial it said was "inappropriate" and "politically oriented."

The diplomatic wrangling between the two political arch-rivals broke out six days before the two-day informal leaders' summit, or the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, takes center stage on Saturday in Santiago, Chile.

Refusing to compromise the nation's dignity, Taiwan on Tuesday opted to remove a commercial that incurred protests from Beijing, after two days of fruitless negotiations with the organizers.

Advertisements running in local newspapers, weeklies and on subway trains, however, were to be launched yesterday as scheduled. The ads were part of the government's NT$10 million promotion campaign during the annual international event.

Beijing lodged two written protests with the APEC Secretariat on Sunday against a TV commercial produced by the Government Information Office (GIO) and screened at the International Media Center, requesting that it be removed immediately.

China claimed that the use of the word "nation" in the ad went against the "consensus" and "normal practice" of the annual conference. It also charged that the wording of the ad was clearly "inappropriate" and "politically oriented."

The two-minute, four-segment commercial, dubbed into English, related that Taiwan has struggled "from humble beginnings, laboring in the fields," but gradually worked toward "building a nation one day at a time."

"The people of Taiwan have realized the dream of a better tomorrow and succeeded in creating a prosperous modern society. At the dawn of the 20th century, Taiwan has already walked toward an even brighter future," the commercial said.

Responding to China's protests, the APEC Secretariat requested that Taiwan edit the content. Two days of negotiations with the Secretariat and the local contractor running the ad for Taiwan were in vain, according to Deputy Delegation Spokesman David Lee, who flew to Santiago on Monday to conduct the negotiations and supervise the event.

"I told Director Rose Marie Graepp of the APEC Press and Communications Department that it was unacceptable to edit the content because each member economy of the organization should be on an equal footing when promoting their own country. The request was a humiliation of our national dignity and a heinous move to belittle our international status," he said.

Graepp told Lee that the ad had created "sensitivity for another economy" and caused the host country "inconvenience."

Lee said that it was unfathomable why China made such a big fuss about the matter since the message in the ad did not violate any APEC principles or regulations.

"I don't know why they make a mountain out of a molehill," he said. "Besides, building a nation can have different meanings."

Although Lee said that it was not surprising to see China exert pressure on the nation at the international event, he did not expect to eventually withdraw the ad.

"We expect China's petty maneuvers because it's not the first time and it'll definitely not be the last time [that this will happen]," he said.

Since the nation joined the regional economic bloc in 1991, China has been engaging in flagrant efforts to suppress Taiwan. Its back-room bullying reached a climax in 2001, when the nation was forced to excuse itself from the leaders' summit.

The US$3,500 ad was supposed to run for a week between Nov. 14 and Nov. 21, when the leaders' meeting concludes.

Ministry welcomes US' stand on jurisdiction

By Melody Chen and Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTERS
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) welcomed yesterday a US court's decision to turn down fugitive Chen Yu-hao's lawsuit against the country's representative office in Los Angeles, based on the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The US District Court of the Central District of California rejected the former Tuntex Group chairman's accusation against the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles (TECO-Los Angeles) on Monday.

Maxwell Lin , a lawyer representing TECO-Los Angeles, said he received judge John Walter's ruling on Monday afternoon, which said TECO-Los Angeles' capacity is "similar to the function of foreign embassies."

The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act grants foreign states immunity from jurisdiction except under listed exceptions.

According to ministry spokesman Michel Lu, the ruling, though citing that the US government does not recognize Taiwan as a foreign state, decided that Taiwan's representative office in Los Angeles functions similarly to foreign embassies in the US.

The court, said Lin, therefore decided TECO-Los Angeles does not fall under US jurisdiction because it is Taiwan's representative office in the US.

"TECO-Los Angeles won a just ruling," he said.

Lu said that the ruling also mentioned the Taiwan Relations Act as the US government's commitment to maintain formal relations with Taiwan and to continue bilateral trade and cultural exchanges.

The tycoon-turned-fugitive Chen filed a lawsuit against TECO-Los Angeles shortly before Taiwan's presidential election in March, Lin said.

Chen, who claimed he presented a NT$3 million donation to President Chen Shui-bian's wife Wu Shu-chen, filed the lawsuit against TECO-Los Angeles as it represents the Taiwanese government in the US.

In his lawsuit, Chen Yu-hao accused the Taiwanese government of political oppression and demanded that the US court order the Taiwanese government to remove him from its fugitive list.

According to US law, Chen Yu-hao will not be able to file the lawsuit against TECO-Los Angeles based on the same facts, Lin said.

Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan yesterday said that the US court decision had indirectly recognized that Taiwan is an independent country.

"In fact, the US has already recognized our independence of jurisdiction since we have signed a judicial agreement with the US Department of Justice two years ago. And the recognition of the independence of jurisdiction equals the recognition of the independence of the government," Chen Ding-nan said during a press conference at the ministry yesterday.

Rice expected to push for cross-strait talks

DIALOGUE: Washington insiders say Condoleezza Rice is fully in tune with the US president's thinking and would promote consistency in the US' Taiwan policy
By Charles Snyder  STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
US President George W. Bush's nomination of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to replace Secretary of State Colin Powell will signal no change in US policy toward Taiwan, but will fill the post with someone who believes Washington should play a more active role in pushing Beijing and Taipei toward a resumption of cross-strait dialogue, according to observers in Washington.

The appointment will put in place at the State Department an official who has been Bush's closest foreign policy aide, who is fully in tune with Bush's thinking on China and Taiwan, and whose presence could reduce the chance of mixed messages emanating from Washington to Taiwan.

Significantly, when Bush criticized President Chen Shui-bian on Dec. 9 last year over his plans for a referendum to coincide with the March 20 election, it was Rice who sent her deputy James Moriarty to deliver a personal message from Bush to Chen complaining about the move in no uncertain terms.

"I see continuity on how the US will continue to lean on Taiwan to cool its jets on issues of independence and sovereignty, and there will be continued pressure for dialogue and discussion."

Michael Fonte, the DPP's Washington liaison

"Condi Rice and Bush were on the same page last December. That is a policy that Condi Rice supported," said Bonnie Glaser, a senior associate at the Center For Strategic and International Studies.

"What we are going to see is a lot of continuity. Condi really un-derstands what the president is thinking, and she will proceed to implement that," Glaser said.

Irrespective of who is in charge at the State Department, it is Bush who will decide on foreign policy issues, said Michael Fonte, the Democratic Progressive Party's Washington liaison.

"Bush is completely in charge of the US approach to Taiwan. It is really his decision that has put Taiwan to the side and has made China the more important player," he said.

"I see continuity on how the US will continue to lean on Taiwan to cool its jets on issues of independence and sovereignty, and there will be continued pressure for dialogue and discussion," Fonte said.

Hopefully, he added, such dialogue will be on the basis of no preconditions to the talks.

Robert Hathaway, the director of the Asia program at the Wood-row Wilson Center, agrees.

"I don't think you can expect any particular changes. At the end of the day, the US president makes policy," he said.

"In Taiwan's case, Secretary Powell was simply following the direction of the White House," Hathaway said.

However, Rice might be more energetic in trying to push for a resumption of cross-strait dialogue.

"I think we will see Condi supporting a policy of doing more, to try to encourage both sides to think more creatively about how to stabilize the relationship, how to restart dialogue, how to start the three links and confidence building measures," Glaser said.

During her tenure as national security advisor, Rice regularly made her offices open to delegations from Taiwan for discussions of bilateral issues.

While she did not often attend the meetings, her top Asian experts always did, and the Taiwanese visitors universally came away satisfied that their views were listened to and had a positive effect.

Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley usually welcomed Taiwanese visitors who described meetings with him as very comfortable. Hadley has been named by Bush to replace Rice in the security advisor post.

Observers point to Rice's visit to Beijing in July, in which she pointedly and firmly rebuffed Chinese efforts to get Washington to reduce US arms sales to Taiwan. The Bush administration did not expect Beijing to make the arms sales issue the centerpiece of their negotiating strategy.

China felt that with its new leverage with the Bush administration over the war on terrorism and other international issues, it could get Washington to relent on arms sales to Taiwan -- a strategy that turned out to be a miscalculation.

"Rice recognized this and told them [the arms sales decision] does not reflect a shift in US policy toward Taiwan. It reflects the decision Bush made in April 2001 to sell the arms to Taiwan," said one observer close to US policymaking.

During her visit, coming about a month after Chen's inaugural address, Rice refused to back down on arms sales, telling the Chinese leaders that the US felt it was on the right track with its policy.

However, Rice did try to advance the resumption of cross-strait dialogue.

Chen has a good grasp on political realities

By Wang Kao-cheng王高成
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) held a National Security Council meeting on Nov. 10 to discuss Taiwan's cross-strait policies in the aftermath of the Nov. 2 US presidential election. During the meeting, Chen proposed 10 points, among which were some new ideas. The impact of Chen's points on the US-China relationship and Taiwan's political parties is worth further attention.

The timing of the security meeting was closely related to the possible direction of the US' policy toward Taiwan after the presidential election and recent developments in cross-strait relations. From the US perspective, President George W. Bush's re-election means the continuance of anti-terror policies and as a result the US may not change its Taiwan policy.

In a speech by US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly recently in Washington seems to verify this point. But, if we take a closer look, its anti-terror policy will cause the US to demand Taiwan show restraint, and this will put pressure on Taiwan's diplomacy and policies toward China. The outcome of the impending two-day meeting between Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) beginning on Nov. 20 at the APEC summit in Chile is of great concern to the nation and we must be prepared to respond.

There are a few key directions derived from Chen's "10 points," as they have been dubbed. Taiwan once again should show good faith in the development of cross-strait relations, including urging China to grasp the "window of opportunity" to resume cross-strait dialogue, taking the consultative model used for Taiwan-Hong Kong air routes to negotiate cross-strait direct chartered flights, and demarcate military buffer zones to prevent accidental conflicts between the two sides of the Strait. The purpose of this is to mend and promote US-Taiwan relations by making clear to the Bush administration that Taiwan is sincerely seeking a peaceful cross-strait resolution.

As for China, Taiwan aims to remove Beijing's doubts and push it to give up the thought of a military attack. If Beijing is willing to accept our goodwill and respond with positive feedback, this will naturally reduce the military threat, or at least prevent the escalation of cross-strait tensions.

The conclusions of the National Security Council are meant to restrain the tendency of high-ranking government officials to advocate Taiwan's independence. Apart from showing an understanding of why Beijing would want to insist on its "one-China" principle, we must also urge China to face the fact of the existence of the Republic of China (ROC). By affirming the existence of the ROC, we are able to eliminate the concerns of China and the US on the issue of Taiwan gradually pushing for independence. To promote the "small three links," we should reiterate the use of the spirit of the 1992 Hong Kong meeting to emphasize that the so-called "1992 consensus" is not totally impossible to achieve.

The most innovative part of the meeting's conclusions was the reiteration of a willingness, for humanitarian reasons and in compliance with international norms, to publicly promise that we will not develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and to urge China to do the same.

This point, of course, is aimed at the Bush administration, which is currently emphasizing that the world call a halt to the spread of WMDs. The point also reduces concerns in the US and internationally concerns over Taiwan's possible intention to clandestinely develop WMDs after the recent controversy sparked by Premier Yu Shyi-kun's use of the phrase "balance of terror."

Editorial: Voters to judge traitorous blue camp

This country has been kidnapped by both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong . The Lien-Soong ticket was defeated by an extremely narrow margin in the March 20 presidential election, and on Nov. 4, the Taiwan High Court determined that the re-election of President Chen Shui-bian  and Vice President Annette Lu  was valid. However, Lien and Soong are unwilling to concede and are mobilizing the blue camp's resources to protest.

Although the Dec. 11 legislative elections are only about three weeks away, we have little sense of their imminent arrival. Both candidates and parties have failed to propose any tangible policies. No one notices the new faces, as campaign rallies are mostly occupied by familiar faces. Lien and Soong are shouting themselves hoarse in accusing Chen of cheating, while Chen has accused Lien and Soong of launching a "soft coup d'etat" by encouraging several military officials to retire or take sick leave right after his re-election.

The fundamental problem for Lien and Soong is that they have failed to come up with any concrete evidence. Meanwhile, Chen has also failed to identify those who were involved in the so-called "soft coup d'etat." Such pre-election campaigning is at once boring and exasperating. People are wondering when the presidential election will finally be over. Why can't people just cast ballots and get it over and done with? If this chaos continues, how can we live?

In this light, the legislative elections are simply a slow torture. The Taiwanese people have already made their decision over the results of the March 20 election and they will express this with their votes on Dec. 11. It's a pity they have had to wait so long.

This election is not really a legislative election at all. It is simply a case of Lien and Soong prolonging the controversies surrounding the presidential election. Although calls from within the KMT for reform and a transition of power to a new generation of leaders have been getting louder, Lien and Soong's insistence that they carry the matter through to the end has effectively prevented any progress on these issues. The DPP might have been able to pursue reforms, but these have been curtailed by the pan-blue camp and the interminable controversy over the presidential election. This is simply obstructing the progress of Taiwan's development and democratization.

Looking at what progress has been made in terms of government reform, the DPP could have put many new faces, including women, in its legislative lineup by introducing a younger generation to the electorate and distinguishing itself from the KMT. But since Lien and Soong have steadfastly refused to let go; the president has had no choice but to take the lead in campaigning, so that the new faces are generally hidden behind him and a number of his stalwarts. The opportunity to give new talent the exposure it deserves is being lost.

The NT$610.8 billion arms procurement bill has become a sacrificial victim. This budget allocation was intended to arm Taiwan to counter the threat posed by China. Lien and Soong continue to ignore this threat and have mobilized pan-blue and pro-unification forces to mount resistance to the bill. It is no surprise, then, that Premier Yu Shyi-kun some days ago became angry enough with such behavior to say that history would be the judge of their traitorous behavior.

World should unite behind Taiwan

By Christopher Lingle
Beijing has successfully brow-beaten many countries into accepting it dubious claims of sovereignty of the territory and people of Taiwan. In an ill-advised attempt to placate Beijing, US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that Taiwan is not a sovereign state and that the US supports Taiwan's eventual unification with China.

His remarks exceeded the Shanghai communique of 1972, wherein Beijing's position that "there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" was acknowledged. They also went beyond former US president Bill Clinton's statements that changes in the future status of Taiwan should be taken with the consent of the Taiwanese people.

The Clinton administration kowtowed to China's autocrats by issuing a de facto acceptance of the policy known as "Four Noes." In relations with Taiwan, China insists that other countries accept the following: no independence for Taiwan, no "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan," and no to participation by Taiwan in international forums in which statehood is a prerequisite.

`Taiwan has never been an inalienable part of China. The island of Formosa was originally inhabited by Aboriginal peoples that were not of Han Chinese descent.'

During negotiations with former US president George Bush in 1992, China convinced the US to agree to conditions under which Taiwan should be allowed into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and by implication into the WTO. The condition was that Taiwan would have to wait until China had gained admission.

Bowing to China's authoritarian rulers involves considerable disadvantages to democratic Taiwan. This delay imposed on the nation's membership is unjustified because its economy and legal structure satisfy the preconditions for entry. A more erroneous submission to Beijing's will was that Taiwan would only be admitted as a "customs territory" instead of as a sovereign country.

There are several problems with Powell's recent remarks on Taiwan's status in the international community. First, they contradict US claims of promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Second, a Chinese takeover of the nation would give them control over the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China seas, which could impede the freedom travel in this area of the Pacific.

In any case, Beijing's claims that Taiwan is or has been an integral part of China and its insistence on "one China" have very little historical or factual support. In the first instance, the Chinese Communist Party has never exercised control over Taiwan.

The reality is that Taiwan and China are two countries on opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait. After all, Taiwan has its own territory, citizens, government and diplomatic relations -- which all conform to the criteria defining a sovereign state under the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.

It turns out that Taiwan has never been an inalienable part of China. The island of Formosa was originally inhabited by Aboriginal peoples that were not of Han Chinese descent. Before the Qing dynasty's brief legal claim on Taiwan in 1895 when it ceded Taiwan to Japan, the Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish were in command.

Since 1949, Taiwan and China have been ruled separately after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) fled to the island. Then, the Republic of China (ROC) under the KMT government of Chiang Kai-shek imposed 45 years of martial law. This marked the beginning of a second period of colonization that ended when Chiang Ching-kuo died in 1988.

After former president Lee Teng-hui increased the pace of democratization, the stage was set for 2000 when a democratic transfer of power brought President Chen Shui-bian into office. Now, changes have been proposed to Taiwan's Constitution that would improve the document formulated in Nanking in 1947 by the KMT. At that time, it secured a one-party dictatorship. Revisions are needed to support the vibrant, multiparty democracy that now operates in Taiwan.

Beijing's repeated rejection of Taiwanese sovereignty ignores reality and is on the wrong side of history, which points to a momentum towards greater freedom and democracy. The fact is that Taiwan is a sovereign nation and is not part of China's territory.

Threats of aggression reinforce the development of a distinctive Taiwanese identity that has gained strength while trade and investment across the Taiwan Strait have exploded. Public-opinion surveys indicate that a Taiwanese identity has grown over the past decade with over 40 percent of inhabitants viewing themselves as Taiwanese. Meanwhile, a slightly larger percentage sees their identity as both Taiwanese and Chinese.

Why should democratic nation yield to the unelected autocrats in Beijing? Despite its checkered past, the Taiwan is both a democratic and a free country. At least this is the opinion of the Freedom House, a New York-based nonprofit organization that rates countries on a scale of one to seven, with one representing freest and seven least free. It categorizes 192 countries and 18 related and disputed territories as "free," "partly free" or "not free"

In its annual report, Freedom in the World for 2004, Taiwan received a score of two for both political rights and civil liberties and was identified as being free -- as were 88 other countries. This most recent rating puts Taiwan in the same category as South Korea.

Among Asian countries, only Japan received a higher ranking. Singapore is rated "partly free" with scores of five and four for political rights and civil liberties, while China is classified as "not free" with scores of seven and six.

The Chen administration has taken steps to restrain corruption, especially in the area of vote-buying and trying to break links between politicians and organized crime. In its annual corruption perceptions survey for this year, the Berlin-based Transparency International, Taiwan was tied for 35th place out of 102 countries. Among Asian countries, only Singapore and Japan ranked higher.

Chen has also extended several goodwill gestures to Beijing. However, each has been rebuffed by intemperate language from various Chinese authorities. Bei-jing's continued animosity toward Taiwan and its allies is one of the principal sources of regional instability.

It might seem improbable for an autocratic regime to soften its approach. But the free world should unite behind Taiwan's citizens so they can remain free and control their own destinies.

A list of wrongs

I don't know who Richard Hartzell is, what his qualifications are, or why he thinks he can explain Taiwanese national identity according to US standards, but there are certainly some glaring errors in his argument (Letters, Nov. 13, page 8).

Since he appears to enjoy lists so much, and since I must be as qualified as he, perhaps I can indulge in a list of my own: First, by US standards, sovereignty should be awarded by the people being governed and not an international court or an occupying force.

Second, to my knowledge the Taiwanese people had no representatives at the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and therefore, it should not be binding to Taiwan.

Third, Taiwan cannot be referred to as "island people of the Taiwan cession" because they were never citizens of China, and thus, they could not secede. That would be like Tibet seceding from China. The term should only be applied when the citizens seceding were originally citizens by choice.

Fourth, if the US is truly a friend of democracy, it should be recognizing the "sole legitimate government" of Taiwan, and its president, elected, for the first time in history, by the people of Taiwan.

Fifth, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is not correct, and this American, for one, is very disappointed in his careless words.

Boni Webster

Tacoma, Washington

Taiwan is a nation

Along with many others, I was also disappointed and a bit confused with US Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks about Taiwan not enjoying sovereignty, which he made in Beijing on his recent Asian tour.

For decades, Taiwan has been relegated to doing the best it can with the precarious "one China" policy the US government has officially espoused since full diplomatic ties were switched from Taipei to Beijing during the Carter administration.

However, to say that the US supports the "one China" policy and saying that Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty are two different things. I have searched many dictionaries and textbooks on diplomacy and international relations for definitions of state sovereignty. Without exception, Taiwan fits every definition. To take one example, Professors Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi state in their book International Relations Theory that sovereignty is "the supreme, independent and final authority. The attribute of a state that refers to its right to exercise complete jurisdiction over its own territory."

According to this definition, Taiwan does indeed enjoy sovereignty. In regard to its domestic and foreign policy, the ROC government is the final authority.

The argument could be made that Taiwan is even more "sovereign" than many debt-ridden developing countries that are officially recognized as independent states by the international community but are at the mercy of the IMF, World Bank or other institutions which represent the real power in the world.

Declaring independence or choosing not to doesn't alter the facts. Would simply telling everyone that I am a man suddenly make other people see me and accept me as such? No wonder Powell's comment has received so much attention.

Wayne Schams

Pingtung

Cultural Money
A woman yesterday holds up a new coin collection, the seventh in the Cultures of Indigenous Peoples series issued by the central bank. The collection features the Bunon people.
PHOTO: WANG MIN-WEI, TAIPEI TIMES