20041219

On Friday, Kao Pao-chung, a man suspected of being the so-called "Station Bomber," was arrested. Only a few weeks earlier, Yang Ju-men, who confessed to being the so-called "Rice Bomber," was also arrested. But this still leaves the Taiwanese police with at least three more bomb cases with no suspects yet arrested.

It is unprecedented to see a series of bomb cases taking place in just one year, suggesting the emergence of a worrisome trend. But it is also important to point out that there are some very twisted social values displayed in both the alleged bombers themselves and the general public.

Planting explosives or bombs to make some sort of public appeal has apparently become contagious in Taiwan. Kao, who ignited a minivan filled with gas cans outside Taipei Railway Station two days before the legislative elections and threatened to bomb the Taipei 101 skyscraper, claimed that he was acting in opposition to President Chen Shui-bian and Taiwanese independence. Yang included notes accusing the government of pursuing policies that threatened farmers' survival, along with the home-made bombs he left in parks and other public places on at least 16 occasions.

Kao himself conceded upon his arrest that he had decided to imitate Yang because he felt that the anti-Taiwan independence cause was not receiving enough attention from the Taiwanese government. In fact, immediately after the gas explosion ignited by Kao and before his arrest, many people began to connect the two incidents. On Monday, Yang issued an open letter apologizing for the first time for his own conduct and expressing the hope that others would not imitate him.

This all had much to do with the way the media covers these stories, as well as the open sympathy and support from some segments of society for these bombers's conduct -- a result of identification with their causes. The way the media reports at length and repeatedly the details of how these crimes were committed -- from the way the bombs were made, to where the materials used to make the bombs were purchased, among other details -- not only gives practical know-how to those who want to imitate the bombers, but also encourages those who feel forgotten by mainstream society to use these methods to garner long-overdue attention and force others to hear what they have to say.

Moreover, while the political appeals of these bombers should be respected, the ends never justify the means. Under the circumstances, it is truly unfortunate that a group of farmers and social activists is planning to stage a rally in support of Yang. Yang should not be portrayed or treated as a hero, no matter how much one may identify with his cause. His conduct put innocent people in extreme danger, and created a sense of panic in an already tension-ridden society.

His admirers argue that he knew what he was doing and that he in fact did not injure anyone. One can only say that he was lucky. The next Yang wannabe may have neither Yang's skill nor his luck. Case in point: According to the police, Kao was less skillful and so posed a greater danger to the public.

Some supporters of Yang pleaded with the Democratic Progressive Party to keep in mind the days when it too was resorting to extreme measures, including violent protests and confrontations, in pursuit of its political causes. However, Taiwan is now a fully democratic society. Grievances must be addressed and remedied through legal and peaceful channels within the system. There is simply no justification for Yang and Kao's conduct.

The legislative elections were distorted by fear, much as the election of US President George W. Bush was distorted by fear. Different fears for different countries, to be sure, but fear and democracy do not mix.

Interviews strongly suggest that the vote was based on fear of an invasion by China -- which the pan-blue media had drummed up relentlessly. Those who were not afraid voted for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while those who were afraid voted for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After the election results were reported, everyone relaxed into the notion of Confucian harmony. A conciliatory gesture toward China had effectively been made, and now everyone could go back to shopping. After all, holidays are coming soon!

But the Taiwanese seem to be the last people on Earth to get the message that they themselves just sent out to the world. All of the international press, including even the Arab press, as someone noted, printed the same headlines: "Taiwan voted against independence." Here in Taipei, academics are disputing this message, but they seem to be in denial. The denial nevertheless reveals that the election was distorted by fear: People didn't vote against independence; they just voted for peace. But that choice is an illusion. It may take a few years before the Taiwanese realize what they've just done.

In other words, the international press got it right, and further the "no independence" sign is not merely a rhetorical message. Beyond communicating this message, Taiwan's little window of opportunity just slammed shut. History is moving relentlessly onward, in an accelerated period of transition. Time waits for no one. President "A-bian" Chen [Shui-bian cannot run for election again.

As in the past four years, we again are saddled with a KMT majority in the legislature blocking any effective reform, trashing anything and everything that the DPP attempts to pass. For the next four years, Taiwan will be able to change nothing. Meanwhile, after four years, they say that China's military will have attained effective superiority. More fear is the consequence.

More fear equates to more KMT. Hence, the KMT will be back in full power, controlling the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judiciary and the media. They will have the authority to move toward unification.

Independence from China will remain a curious little dream left in the wake of historical "realism."

KEEP CALM: In response to Beijing allegedly planning to pass anti-secession legislation aimed at Taiwan, the US said that the focus should be on cross-strait dialogue
CNA , WASHINGTON
The US government exhorts both sides of the Taiwan Strait to really focus on engaging in dialogue and to refrain from hardening their positions or taking any unilateral actions to change the status quo, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on Friday.

Boucher was responding to media reports that China is considering passing anti-secession legislation, with Taiwan as its main target.

Speaking at a daily news briefing, Boucher confirmed that the Bush administration has had conversations with both Chinese and Taiwan authorities on the anti-secession law issue.

The spokesman said that since the US government has not yet seen the text of China's new legislation, it is not in a position to comment on the law at the moment.

"We have not seen the law. We've not had a chance to study it, so we're not in a position to comment in any detail, " he said.

"I would repeat our longstanding position that we've stated many times that both sides should really focus on engaging in dialogue and try to peacefully resolve their differences," he said.

Neither side should do anything to unilaterally change the status quo, Boucher said, adding: "So we think it's the time to focus on dialogue and not for hardening of positions."

Asked about his views on a senior Taiwan official's statement earlier in the day that the US government is against China's new anti-secession law, Boucher only confirmed that the Bush administration has kept in contact with all the relevant parties on the matter.

"We certainly keep in touch with all the parties on this subject. We talked to the Chinese and talked to some people in Taiwan and are following this development. But our view is the that it's important for both sides to focus on dialogue, it's not time to harden positions or take unilateral stances," Boucher said.

As to whether Beijing's anti-secession legislation coincides with the US' one-China policy and stances on maintaining the cross-strait status quo, Boucher said Washington will have to see the actual text of the legislation before making any further comments.

Anyway, Boucher said, the US has consistently encouraged the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to "look for dialogue and not to look for staking out positions or hardening their positions."

Asked whether enacting such a law is hardening the position, Boucher said: "I'd just leave it at what I said. I think we said the same thing in other cases as well."

By Huang Tai-lin
STAFF REPORTER
The timing of China's announcement to enact a so-called "anti-secession" law busted the myth that the pan-blue camp's perceived upper hand in Taiwan's politics would help ease cross-strait tensions, political observers said yesterday.

"China is not naive. China does not trust the pan-blues nor does it have confidence in the pan-blues," said Ruan Ming, an advisor to the Taiwan Research Institute's strategic and international studies department.

China's Xinhua news agency reported on Friday that Beijing is planning on drawing up anti-secession legislation, with Taiwan as its main target. Leaders of China's parliament will deliberate the law at a meeting starting on Dec. 25, the report said.

The report came in the wake of Taiwan's legislative elections held last Saturday in which the pan-blue camp, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP), which harbored a more conciliatory attitude toward China, won a small majority in the new legislature.

Counter to its high expectations and predictions, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), along with its political ally the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), failed to garner a majority in the legislature.

Although the DPP remained the largest party in the legislature with 89 seats of the available 225 seats, it fell far short of its targeted goal of 101 seats. The TSU garnered a mere 12 seats.

The pan-blue opposition retained its slim majority with 79 seats won by the KMT, the PPF's 34 seats and one seat from the New Party, grabbing a combined total of 114 seats in the new legislature which will take office in February.

"While the pan-blue camp's slim majority in the legislature might somehow have eased pressure from China, China knows this [the pan-blue's majority in the legislature] does not guarantee unification," Ruan said.

"Because China is not that naive, it knows that the pan-blue camp did not really win a majority in the recent legislative elections," he said.

Ruan was previously a special assistant to the late secretary general of the Chinese Communist Party, Hu Yaoban .

"China does not count on the pan-blues anymore, it now counts on the US," Ruan said, referring to China's recent efforts to get the US to assert pressure on Taiwan on Beijing's behalf.

While some analysts said that Beijing's plan to enact the law means that it is preparing the legal groundwork for a future military attack against Taiwan, Ruan, who also serves as senior advisor to the president, said the proposed law by China is nothing more than its usual "United Front " strategy against Taiwan.

The "United Front" refers to tactics and efforts employed by Beijing aimed at extending its influence in Taiwan to aid unification.

"Taiwan is an independent sovereignty. Beijing's proposed law therefore would not have any bearing on Taiwan," Ruan said, adding that "the proposed law would be a move aimed mainly at intimidating the people of Taiwan."

China's plan to enact the law also disproved another myth called "one China," TSU caucus whip Chen Chien-ming said.

"The proposed law from China would further allow no breathing room for the `Republic of China,' and [the proposed law] would give China an excuse to step up its threat against Taiwan," Chen said.

With that said, Chen called on the pan-blue camp to stop indulging themselves in the "one China" myth.

By Yang Chih-heng
On Wednesday the Ministry of National Defense released its defense report for this year. By coincidence, a similar report by China has also just been released. This timing is by no means intentional, but it was certainly convenient for both reports to be published in the same month, so that the international community can compare the national defense policies of both countries.

The focus of Taiwan's report is the establishment of mutual trust across the Taiwan Strait. In the short term the ministry would like to seek goodwill and common ground on contentious issues; in the middle term it wants to establish norms of conduct and consolidate mutual trust; and in the long term it is looking to put an end to enmity and ensure peace. To realize these goals, the report suggests having a "set of norms of military conduct across the Strait" consisting of seven measures.

With all eyes on the mutual military escalation across the Taiwan Strait, this is clearly showing the softer, more peace-oriented face of Taiwan, and should give cause for reflection to China's leaders, who are refusing to rule out military force against Taiwan.

Most attention will focus on what the reports say about the development of military capability. Both reports emphasize the importance of a "revolution in military affairs." The crux of this is a reassessment of the form that any war will take, shifting the focus from a comparison of individual weapons, to one of integrated systems, including C3I systems (command, control, communication, and intelligence), and how they are integrated with weapons systems and logistics.

In recent years the military has been trying to consolidate its air power with aircraft such as the Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF), F16 and Mirage, and naval power with Lafayette and Cheng Kung frigates, to integrate C3I and firepower systems.

In addition, the ministry is avidly trying to secure the purchase of Patriot 3 missiles, P-3C anti-submarine aircraft and diesel submarines, all of which are earmarked for integration into these systems, following the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is all intended to act as a deterrent, to ensure that China would sustain heavy losses if it attacked Taiwan.

Since both sides are emphasizing this revolution in military affairs, any future war will consist of the orchestration of integrated systems. According to Major-General Zhang Yuliang , director of military studies at the National Defense University of China, war will be a matter of integrated multi-force engagements such as having ground forces closely supported by the air force and airborne infantry.

Today, China's study of the integration of combined operations focuses on a naval blockade, amphibious landings and other strategies. To unify these strategies, they have focused on regulating military deployments and command structures.

Meanwhile, from the defense report, we can see that Taiwan's military build-up also focuses on the integration of various operations. This is where the key lies in the cross-strait military contest. Whoever achieves the capability for seamless combined operations will have a greater chance of victory in the event of a conflict.

Of course, peace and stability in the Strait is desired by the international community, and both sides of the Strait have a responsibility for achieving this. Taiwan expressed its goodwill by proposing military mutual trust. We certainly hope that China, which will soon publish its defense report, will express the same goodwill. The two transparent defense reports can be used as a bridge, to help achieve peace and stability across the Strait.

Yang Chih-heng is a vice professor at Tamkang University's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.