20041208

SMALL LINK: Cross-strait exchange and the economy are expected to benefit after the first group of tourists arrived on the island since Beijing agreed to lift bans on tourism
By Joy Su STAFF REPORTER , WITH CNA
The arrival of the first three groups of Chinese tourists in Kinmen yesterday marked the launch of newly implemented tourism policies that are slated to bring increased cross-strait exchange and economic growth for the island.

"In the past, more Kinmen residents traveled to China through the `small three links' than the other way around, causing Kinmen residents to think that capital was leaving the island," Kinmen County Commissioner Lee Chu-feng said yesterday when he received the three tour groups.

While Taiwan opened its doors to Chinese tourists wishing to visit Kinmen and Matsu when the "small three links" were implemented in January 2001, Beijing did not give its approval until late September, when Fujian Province Deputy Governor Wang Mei-xiang announced that the government was ready to lift bans on tourism.

A total of 55 Chinese tourists left Xiamen at 10am and arrived by boat in Kinmen just before noon. They were welcomed by Lee, Kinmen County Legislator Wu Cheng-tien, and several travel industry representatives amid firecrackers, banners, and flowers. They began their tour of the archipelago with a look at the historic site of Wentai Pagoda and Kinmen National Park.

According to the Immigration Office's records from August, only 14,655 Chinese residents have traveled to Taiwan since the start of the "small three links," while 248,535 Taiwanese have visited China in the same time period. In addition, of the 14,655 visits to Taiwan, only 448 were for tourism and most of those trips were made by government officials.

China's approval of Chinese tourism in Kinmen should balance those figures and bring increased investment to the region.

According to a Kinmen County Government press release, among the tourists who arrived yesterday was the chairman of Xiamen C&D Corporation Ltd, a large state-owned enterprise with holdings in the real estate, travel and service industries.

Under current policies, 600 Chinese residents can visit Kinmen each day for a duration of three days. China has designated five Chinese travel agencies to handle and initiate these tours and authorized a handful of travel agencies in Kinmen to show tourists the attractions.

In addition, Taiwanese authorities have promised expedited service for the clearing of necessary travel documents, limiting themselves to a week to process material.

A group of tourists from China's Fujian Province follow their guide through artist Lee Shi-chi's art installation ``War Bets on Peace'' yesterday. The work is part of the island-wide Bunker Museum of Contemporary Art in Kinmen exhibition, which makes use of defunct military installations as a venue for contemporary art reflecting on the conflict between China and Taiwan.
PHOTO: CNA

Arrogant. Patronizing. Deeply disturbing. Absolutely stomach-churning. These are the only words that I, an Australian national proudly integrated in Taiwanese society, can find to describe the letter by Zhu Zhiqun (Letters, Dec. 2, page 8).

His letter is an unforgivable insult to all peace-loving Taiwanese, and betrays a racist sense of superiority towards Taiwan that is deeply ingrained in the psyche of the average Chinese chauvinist. Mind you, in the bygone days of the British Empire, the British colonialists shamelessly displayed exactly the same haughty attitude towards Ireland, the US, Australia and all the other British colonies.

First of all, if Zhu does not live, work and pay taxes in Taiwan, then it is not his place to comment on how the Taiwanese government should spend its taxpayers' money.

Second, the Taiwanese economy is in much better shape than the Chinese economy -- at least the Taiwanese government does not cook the books and does not doctor official statistics in order to produce fictitious figures of "stunning" economic growth.

Third, Taiwan is already an independent nation, simply with the wrong name, flag, national anthem and Constitution. On this issue Zhu is accidentally right that the Taiwanese don't need to build a new nation.

Fourth, Taiwan has every right to acquire the best possible weapons to defend itself from the Chinese imperialists and colonialists, whether Zhu and his fellow Chinese imperialists and colonialists like it or not.

Fifth, he states that "China will do anything to prevent the birth of a new Taiwanese nation." So what? For his information, the Taiwanese harbor no more desire to meet Chinese aggression without a fight than the Irish, who hardly could forget centuries of heroic struggle against their former colonial masters.

Make no mistake, I and many of my fellow Taiwanese have vowed that in case of Chinese attack we will not leave Taiwan, and if at that time we are overseas, we will return to Taiwan to fight.

Sixth, he suggests that building bridges with China is the only way for Taiwan to defend itself. Has he already forgotten that it is China that has decided to burn these bridges and unilaterally cease all forms of cross-strait dialogue?

Seventh, if Zhu is so concerned about cross-strait peace, why doesn't he protest against China's increasingly belligerent and hegemonistic behavior?

Sorry, Zhiqun, but your letter sounds like mafia-style blackmail that no self-respecting Taiwanese can stomach.

Zhu Zhiqun's comments must be taken with a grain of salt, given their source. Zhu, an Asian relations "pundit" originally from Shanghai, has offered Beijing-oriented observations before in his various articles and commentaries. I read the Dec. 2 comments, and knew at once these were the offerings of a Beijing apologist (as were the comments Zhu offered in a letter dated Oct. 18, which accused Taiwan of inflexibility on cross-strait issues).

It takes political gymnastics to come up with the concept that China is not the enemy of Taiwan.

Zhu has criticized John Tkacik's call for a stronger defense for Taiwan as "ill-advised, if not totally irresponsible."

I submit that offering such advice as "China is not the enemy" is probably a lot more "ill-advised," and is definitely "totally irresponsible." In fact, the advice strikes me as similar to a fox asking the chickens to gather in the henhouse for a group hug.

But the problem currently is that China apparently has many sycophantic pick-pockets (like France) believing that anything Taiwan does anytime, anywhere to more clearly identify itself is "provocation" worthy of invasion, and that none of the destructive and morally repugnant actions taken by Beijing every single day -- like forcing an international gathering of hairstylists to call Taiwan "Chinese Taipei," lest China withdraw -- are "provocative" or violations of the Taiwanese people's basic human rights.

Apparently, Zhu's point is that instead of buying weapons, Taiwan should be "building bridges" with Beijing, and that when China becomes a more democratic and prosperous nation, Taiwan could benefit from its close association with China. It's a nice fantasy, but the "instead" part is naive and dangerous advice.

But I also strongly believe that Taiwan having the ability to defend itself (through alliances and weapons procurement) is the only thing that will keep China at bay and assure national survival.

There are few examples in history over the past 2,000 years in which making nice with or appeasing the beast has produced true freedom (as opposed to, at best, benign domination).

To the contrary, the equally ferocious, the poisonous pills and the well-defended porcupines have remained free.

Zhu surely must know that the moment Taiwan drops its guard, Beijing will overrun the country, and the likelihood that anything "Taiwanese" would remain thereafter is probably close to zero.

One need only look to the eugenics being practiced in Tibet for a case in the extreme, and to Hong Kong for another case in point.

And if the dual policy of peace and defense is what is needed to preserve the "status quo" -- and Taiwan's survival -- for as long as it takes the communists to fall, then so be it.

NO SUPPORT: The US State Department's spokesman said that the US does not support the president's plan to change the names of the nation's de facto embassies
By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
The US Monday came down squarely against any attempt to change the name of Taiwan's semi-official presence in Washington from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the US, saying any change would alter Taiwan's status quo, which would run afoul of a basic tenet of the Bush administration's policy toward Taiwan.

State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli expressed the administration's unhappiness with the proposed name changes in response to statements by President Chen Shui-bian that he would like to change the names of Taiwan's overseas offices, as well as other government offices, in coming years.

"These changes of terminology for government-controlled enterprises or economic and cultural offices abroad," Ereli told reporters in his daily press briefing, "in our view, would appear to unilaterally change Taiwan's status, and for that reason, we're not supportive of them."

"The United States has an interest in maintaining stability of the Taiwan Strait," Ereli asserted. "And we are, therefore, opposed to any unilateral steps that would change the status quo."

"The United States has an interest in maintaining stability of the Taiwan Strait. And we are, therefore, opposed to any unilateral steps that would change the status quo."

Responding to Ereli's statement, former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellocchi conceded that a name change for TECRO "could come closer to sovereignty issues" than any changes in the names of state-controlled corporations, which are an internal affairs.

As a result, the Chen administration should "proceed carefully" with any plans for such name changes, said Bellocchi, who was AIT chairman from 1990 to 1995.

Taiwan's office in Washington was set up in 1979, after the Carter administration switched official diplomatic recognition of China from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime in Taipei to the People's Republic of China in Beijing.

It was then called the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA), and was created under the Taiwan Relations Act that established the unofficial US-Taiwan ties that continue to this day.

The name of CCNAA was changed to its current name, usually referred to as TECRO, in 1994, under a Taiwan policy review conducted that year by the Clinton administration. Under TECRO are 12 other Taiwan offices in various US cities, which were and are called Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO).

TECRO acts as the unofficial Taiwan embassy in Washington, and its head is regularly referred to as "ambassador" by individuals and members of Congress alike, although most government officials shun that title.

Within a year after CCNAA was changed to TECRO, supporters of Taiwan in Congress began attempts to change the name again, to the Taiwan Representative Office.

A bill authorizing State Department programs for the fiscal years 1996 and 1997 contained a provision making such a change. The bill was passed by both the House and Senate, but President Bill Clinton vetoed it for a wide variety of reasons, and Congress failed to override the veto.

One of the reasons for his decision, Clinton said in his veto message, was a provision that would amend the Taiwan Relations Act to state that it superceded the 1982 third joint communique, which called for the eventual reduction in US arms sales to Taiwan.

The communique was "one of the cornerstones of our bipartisan policy toward China" and the provision would "complicate, not facilitate" US-China relations," Clinton said in his veto message. He did not raise any objection to the provision to change the name of TECRO, however.

Even Wyoming Republican Senator Craig Thomas, then the chairman of the East Asia and the Pacific subcommittee who was supportive of better ties with China, in a floor speech before the veto, conceded that, "I fail to see how this simple [TECRO] name change can cause so much consternation."

Not long ago, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen confirmed his deputy Michael Kau was taking on China's diplomats in Vanuatu. With the advantage of superior numbers, the Chinese are

temporary embassy in the Le Meridien hotel in Vanuatu's capital. They have even eavesdropped on the Taiwanese diplomats' conversations, and have warned the hotel to lower Taiwan's national flag. Such conduct is repellent and clearly illustrates the evil face of China's diplomacy.

Backed by Vanuatuan Prime Minister Serge Vohor, Taiwan's flag is still flying in Port Vila. As for the question of how long such "dual recognition" will last, this will likely depend on the parliament's support for his decision.

In the latest round of this battle, China has mobilized a massive amount of resources to thwart Taiwan. The most obvious example is Australia's interference, with the Australian government attempting to defame Vohor for corruption in Vanuatu while threatening to cut off economic aid. At this crucial moment, Australia's move has helped China to interfere with diplomatic ties between Taiwan and Vanuatu.

Therefore, on Nov. 29, Chen summoned Australian Commerce and Industry Office Representative Frances Adamson, and told Canberra not to meddle in Taiwan-Vanuatu ties. China's purpose is very clear, and it will not give up until Vohor gives in.

Australia's behavior reminds one of unfriendly remarks made by Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer during his visit to Beijing in August, which seriously upset the Taiwanese public. In fact, Australia has gradually been changing its diplomatic strategy, shifting the focus from Europe to Asia ever since the mid-1990s. Apart from building relations with ASEAN, it also takes the improvement of Sino-Australian relations as an index, while China has become one of its major trade partners.

economic and trade relations between the two, as well as Canberra's status as an important US ally in the Asian region, Beijing can restrain the US-Australia alliance by luring over the latter and preventing it from interfering if a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait.

Moreover, through Australia's influence over the countries of Oceania, China can prevent Taiwan from extending its reach in the region. Beijing purposely appointed Fu Ying -- a former director-general of the Department of Asian Affairs under the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- as ambassador to Australia in March.

It's clear that Beijing's diplomatic strategy toward Australia is more than what it seems. As expected, Australia is behind the entanglement of Taiwan-Vanuatu ties. And for Taiwan, there are now two enemies in this conflict.

Taiwan must continue this battle. The thing of primary interest is that Vohor hopes to maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and China at the same time, a stance that deserves our recognition and support.

It is more feasible if we can begin a new phase by adopting such "dual recognition." We are unable to predict how long Vanuatu's "dual recognition" can stand up against China's pressure, but the longer the better.

On the other hand, if Taiwan really wants to push for Oceanian diplomacy in the future, it may have to strengthen its diplomatic relations with Australia, and in particular communicate with Canberra on the ideal of dual recognition. After all, it is unnecessary for Australia to interfere with Taiwan's diplomacy.

Yang Chih-heng is an adjunct professor in the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.

DESTRUCTION: A pan-green majority in the legislature is needed to make much needed reforms, and to ensure the blue camp doesn't wreak havoc with the country, Chen said
By Jewel Huang
STAFF REPORTER

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday said that the so-called "five crises" caused by the pan-blue camp would continue to plague Taiwan if the pan-green camp failed to win a majority in the legislative elections. He also said that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's recent controversial remarks about forming his own Cabinet would cause a constitutional crisis which would constitute "one country with two governments."

Chen made the statement yesterday in a speech before the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) weekly central standing committee.

Chen first noted how impressed he was to see that the massive rallies launched by the Taiwan Solidarity Union and the pan-blue camp on Sunday came to a peaceful end, which showed the "democratic accomplishments of Taiwanese" people, according to Chen.

"The only regrettable thing on that day was that KMT Chairman Lien Chan made an astonishing remark that if the pan-blue camp wins a legislative majority, it could form a government according to the Constitution," Chen said.

"In fact, there is no single article in the Constitution stipulating that a legislative majority has the power to form a Cabinet," he added.

"Lien's remarks not only violated the Constitution, it destroyed the Constitution," Chen said.

The president said that Lien should know more clearly than any other person the reason that the Legislative Yuan forfeited the power of approving the premier in the constitutional amendment in 1997.

"Lien ignores historical facts and distorts constitutional regulations simply because of his personal desire for power," Chen said.

"I would like to remind the nation that Lien's remarks were not simply inflammatory campaign rhetoric, but grave warnings for us," he added.

"It cautioned us that the disorder caused by the pan-blue camp would not end, but would get worse if the pan-green camp fails to win a legislative majority."

Chen also pointed out that Taiwan would suffer from five major pan-blue-driven crises, which he said would constitute "constitutional disorder, shattered political situation, unstable national security, downgrading of justice and disappearing competitiveness."

Chen also added that these concerns were by no means just rhetoric, noting the violent clashes the nation experienced in the aftermath of both the 2000 and this year's presidential election.

If the pan-blue camp once again wins a legislative majority, it might exploit its majority advantage to pass laws that are unconstitutional, such as the 319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Commission Statute.

"The pan-blue camp could possibly cause constitutional chaos akin to `one country with two governments' with its majority violence," Chen said.

"It might also launch a series of political moves such as the dissolution of the Cabinet, recalling the president or impeaching the president, which would paralyze the government and make the country unable to progress," he also said.

The much-needed arms procurement bill would unlikely be able to pass if the pan-blue camp retains a legislative majority. This would cripple the nation's ability to keep the balance of military power with China, he said.

Also, the passage of the Disposition of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties Law , National Pension Law which will allow senior citizens aged 65 or older to receive a monthly pension of NT$7,500, the amendment to the Organic Law of the Executive Yuan and the Resolution Trust Cooperation would all die on the floor if the pan-green camp does not win the elections, Chen said.

"Taiwan cannot afford the disorders caused by a handful of people who are not able concede when they are defeated," Chen said.

After presiding over the DPP's Central Standing Committee, President Chen Shui-bian, second left, holds a press conference to call for supporters to vote for three veteran legislative candidates, from left to right, Wang Tuoh, Trong Chai and Ker Chien-ming, for their re-election.
PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES

Early last month, a Chinese submarine entered Japanese territorial waters in the vicinity of Okinawa, raising tension between the two nations. Not long afterward, Japan announced that it would be reducing financial aid to China. These two incidents have caused turmoil in Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations.

A week after the of discovery of the submarine, Beijing came out and admitted it was indeed theirs, and although there was no formal apology, China's response was regarded by Japan as sincere.

that information about the submarine's presence in Japanese waters had been provided by Taiwan. This was done in a manner to emphasize the close intelligence ties between Taiwan and Japan, but the "revelation" touched a nerve in the Japanese political establishment and it was immediately denied by the Japanese government.

According to the Japanese account of events, the submarine had been spotted a number of days before its incursion into Japan's territorial waters. The submarine was in Japanese waters for only about two hours, but this was the first time that such an incursion had taken place (as far as we know) and may have been due to technical difficulties, as the Chinese claimed.

In recent years there have been numerous incidents of North Korean spy ships, Chinese surveillance craft and submarines in the vicinity of Japan. These have posed new challenges for the nation's defense apparatus. This is especially true in light of China's double-digit economic growth, massive spending on its military and obvious aspirations to become a naval power. All this has made Japan rethink national defense strategy.

But Japan has been hampered by its so-called pacifist Constitution, so that even possession of a strong navy would be of little use.

Areas of overlap exist regarding China and Japan's claims to resource-rich maritime areas. Recently, China has been cooperating with multinational firms to search for natural gas in the East China Sea, which has been the source of much anxiety in Japan. The problems associated with sovereignty over the Diaoyutai islands are also a result of competition over resources. Both China and Japan are major importers of energy, and the competition for safe passage and security of resources from the East China Sea, Taiwan Strait, South China Sea down to the Indian Ocean, will only intensify.

In this situation, for Japan to provide aid to China is peculiar and the Japanese people cannot understand why its government has provided long-term aid to a nuclear-armed nation that is not only constantly strengthening its military, but is not even particularly friendly to Japan.

In fact, when Japan's foreign aid program was launched in 1958, the first recipient of its aid was India, but because of the Cold War, the relationship became increasingly distant. China's position, on the other hand, became increasingly important, and today the Japanese economy is highly dependant on China, and is even seen as a means of economic recovery. Japan will certainly seek to maintain whatever friendship there may be with China.

The 1995 Taiwan Strait crisis was a turning point for Sino-Japanese relations and caused the Japanese to adjust the terms of their mutual defense treaty with the US. China's "rising" has also influenced strategic thinking in Asia and given a new dimension to Taiwan's strategic value, which has created considerable space for joint security cooperation between the US, Japan and Taiwan. But this cooperation should be planned cautiously and implemented in an unobtrusive manner. Ostentatiousness will be counterproductive.

It is a pity that Japan is a major power in economic terms, yet is not very significant in diplomatic terms. For this reason, annual discussions on defense cooperation between Japan and the US tend to revolve around trivial issues. The same can be said of relations between Taiwan and Japan, for although the two countries have close ties, the many dialogues and exchanges lack direction and clear goals. There is a sense of weariness about it all.

In announcing that Taiwan had a hand in detecting the Chinese submarine, Chen sought to underline Taiwan's relationship with Japan. But such a bold move may not be beneficial to relations between the two nations.

Antonio Chiang is a former deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council.

After visiting Taiwan a few years ago, some journalists from New Zealand said their biggest regret was the government's refusal to call itself by the name "Taiwan" -- despite it clearly being an independent country. But the nation's official representative offices across the world continue to use other names, confusing allies and friends and undercutting national dignity.

Take, for example, the name of Taiwan's delegation to the WTO. Its title is the "Permanent Mission of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu." Taiwan's representative office in Hong Kong is called a "travel service," and its office in London was once called the Sun Yat-sen Cultural Center. Dignified, indeed.

It is necessary, therefore, to standardize the names of Taiwan's official representative offices and state-run companies in order to clearly distinguish them from those of China.

When the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government broached the introduction of a new constitution and the amendment of the national title, many people said -- all too predictably -- that this was like walking a tightrope, provoking China by implementing a unilateral change to the cross-strait "status quo."

Those raising such questions now seem to include officials from the US Department of State. Yet there can be no doubt that the Taiwanese public is determined to see that peace prevails. The current problem, therefore, is how to adjust the currently unstable situation and help the international community get a clearer picture of this country without attracting too much opposition from less sympathetic countries.

There is no need for the State Department to be so nervous. It seems that as soon as Taiwan mentions a new constitution or title of convenience, their officials fear a declaration of independence is imminent. Taiwanese democracy operates on the strength of the same mechanisms as many other democratic countries. All matters concerning national sovereignty must be approved by the legislature, so President Chen Shui-bian and the government are hardly likely to adopt the autocratic methods so loved by earlier Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administrations.

Changing the names of state-run enterprises, on the other hand, is a purely domestic matter and the US has no basis on which it can interfere. As for the names of private enterprises, not even Taiwan's government can interfere with such commercial decisions.

Attempts to change the name of Taiwan date back to 1979 when the Taiwan Relations Act came into force. At that time the KMT even protested that the name Taiwan was being used to refer to the Republic of China (ROC). So, if "Taiwan" is now used to stand in for "ROC" in other contexts, the US really has no reason to object. If it does, it might be usefully asked to refer to its own law books.

There is nothing unreasonable about a new constitution that redefines this nation's territories as those which it actually controls, namely Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Similarly, any reasonable person would welcome the name "Taiwan" as a replacement for all of the peculiar titles under which this country has labored so that people can differentiate between Taiwan and China at a glance.