20041228

An angry Chinese Internet user hacked into the local Web site of McDonald's Corp after the fastfood giant listed Taiwan as an independent country, state media said yesterday.

The attack was discovered by Internet users on Saturday as they got onto the McDonald's site only to discover it had turned black with the words "Chinese Hacker" written in large red letters, the Beijing News reported.

Under this headline, the hacker stated the action had been launched to protest that Taiwan had been listed as an independent country on the McDonald's Web site. In was unclear if this referred to the Chinese or the global site.

"Taiwan is an inalienable part of China," the hacker was quoted by the paper as stating, in rhetoric reminiscent of official Chinese declarations.

"Any attempt to separate Taiwan from China or to obstruct reunification is doomed to failure," the hacker apparently said.

The company's Chinese-language Web site had been restored as of early yesterday, while its international Web site still listed Taiwan as a "Country/Market."

Foreign enterprises with business in China often run afoul of local sensitivities, especially in their promotional activities.

A TV ad for US sports manufacturer Nike featuring American basketball player LeBron James was recently banned in China.

In the 90-second promo James defeats a kung fu master, two women in traditional Chinese attire and a pair of dragons, considered a sacred symbol in Chinese culture.

LINKS: Beijing officials made it clear that they are not interested in discussing charter flights over the Lunar New Year. Most travelers have already made other arrangements
By Joy Su STAFF REPORTER

Six weeks ahead of the Lunar New Year, the Mainland Affairs Council said yesterday that Beijing is not interested in pursuing cross-strait charter flights during the holiday.

"As soon as the elections were over we tried to approach China again through private channels, and the answer we got was a flat `no.' Their officials have made things very clear -- China is just not interested," council Chairman Joseph Wu said yesterday.

"While we had hoped that talks on charter flights could begin after the legislative elections, from what we've heard recently, it does not seem like China is interested in working on bringing about the charter flights or even in engaging in any sort of positive interaction across the Taiwan Strait," he said.

Since last month, the government has been prepared to hand the proposed negotiations over to the Taipei Airlines Association, but said that it would only do so when China's stance became clear.

Although Wu said yesterday that China rejected talks on charter flights, both sides had agreed earlier this year to establish flights in accordance with the so-called "Hong Kong model."

Negotiations to formalize direct flights between Hong Kong and Taiwan in 2002 were conducted primarily by business repre-sentatives, but under government supervision.

It is estimated that around 500,000 Taiwanese businesspeople working in China plan to come home for the Lunar New Year holiday, but prospects for cross-strait charter flights are bleak in light of the recent introduction of an anti-secession law in Beijing and the harsh line China took in yesterday's white paper on national defense. The government had been aiming to implement direct, reciprocal flights between Taiwan and China.

According to Wu, it was unlikely that charter flights similar to those implemented last year would be established for the upcoming holiday.

Cross-strait holiday charter flights, which took place for the first time in February last year, were limited to making stops in Hong Kong and Macau and had been open only to Taiwanese airline carriers.

Transportation officials also expressed doubt regarding whether it was too late to establish cross-strait flights.

"If the governments agree to cross-strait flights, airline carriers will be very rushed. Usually, the China-based Taiwanese business-people who plan to return to Taiwan over the Lunar New Year book tickets two months in advance. If these tickets have already been booked by the time cross-strait flights are established, then the question is whether there will be market demand for the cross-strait flights," said Hou Chien-wen , director of the Civil Aeronautics Administration's air route department.

Business representatives and academics yesterday called on the government to take steps to capitalize on the possible dissolution of tension that direct flights could bring about.

The Council for Industrial and Commercial Development yesterday held a forum to urge the government to move away from the current stalemate.

"The Mainland Affairs Council has requested that China engage in talks with Taiwan, but China has taken a very hard stance on this," said Chao Chien-min, a political science professor at National Chengchi University.

He urged the government to take a more proactive stance, noting that legislators have in the past gone to China to encourage progress on chartered flights.

"This is not about market needs. Even if businesses lose money on this, it would still be worth it. It would bring about the benefits that come with better cross-strait relations, and that is what we really care about," said Chang Wu-yen, a professor at Tamkang University's Institute of China Studies.

Former president Lee Teng-hui began a week-long visit to Japan yesterday despite protests by China, which was furious that Tokyo allowed the trip by the pro-independence leader.

Lee smiled and waved to a crowd of supporters as he arrived in the central Japanese city of Nagoya in what his Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) party called a "breakthrough" against China's efforts to isolate Taiwan.

"The more China oppresses Lee, the more we will support him," a leader of the Taiwanese group told ETTV cable news.

The leader said the group's office received a lot of phone calls yesterday asking about Lee's arrival time and his schedule.

The Japanese government had taken the unusual step of telling journalists and members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to stay clear of Lee.

But a crowd of 100 reporters and photographers were ready at Nagoya airport to receive Lee, who did not address the press as he got off his commercial flight.

Some 500 supporters greeted Lee on his arrival by waving Taiwan's national flag and the "Hinomaru," or Japanese flag, while carrying welcome banners and chanting "banzai, banzai!," a Japanese expression similar to "hooray!"

"The purpose of Lee's visit to Japan this time is to set a precedent," an aide to the former president told the daily Tokyo Shimbun.

"Unless a new reason emerges in the course of this sightseeing trip to deny him a visa, we expect there will be high probability that Japan would approve visa applications in the future," said the aide, whose name was not given.

Lee brought his wife Tseng Wen-hui, granddaughter Lee Kun-yi, daughter-in-law Chang Yue-yun, doctors and two close friends with him on the trip.

A statement issued by Lee's office in Taipei yesterday said Lee would travel in Nagoya, Kanazawa and Kyoto during his weeklong stay in Japan. Lee will meet with one of his former professors, now 98 years old, at his alma mater Kyoto University.

A manager at the Nagoya Marriott Hotel, where Lee, his family and friends stay, declined to reveal details about arrangements for Lee.

"We are very sorry. Our customers asked us not to leak information about them. There is nothing we can tell you," the manager told reporters in Nagoya.

The manager only said the hotel increased security in preparation for Lee's visit.

The hotel is located immediately above Nagoya Station and is about 40-minutes' drive from Nagoya Airport.

At CKS International Airport yesterday afternoon, many TSU and Democratic Progressive Party (TSU) officials and supporters lined up to see Lee off.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen and former TSU chairman Huang Chu-wen were among the throng of supporters waving to Lee as he left.

China has again aroused the attention of Taiwan and the rest of the world by announcing it will enact an "anti-secession law." People in Taiwan have become somewhat immune to the incident since President Chen Shui-bian previously brought up China's intention to enact unification legislation. Therefore, the psychological impact on people should not be too great, if there is any at all.

Since it is going to be a law, people have begun to address this issue on the legal front. A swift response first came from Vice President Annette Lu and Chen Lung-chu, a national policy advisor and president of the Taiwan New Century Foundation.

Lu said that "China has its own Constitution, while we have our own. China uses its own currency and we use our own ... Therefore, China, even with a plan to pass the anti-secession legislation, can never assert its control over Taiwan. China may even have its jurisdiction over Xinjiang and Tibet, but definitely not Taiwan."

Chen added that "the cross-strait relationship is defined as state-to-state, so it should come under international law. The so-called anti-secession law is a domestic law of China, with which China has no way to get Taiwan under its control."

`To deal with a rogue state like China, only a demonstration of power can deter bellicosity.'

Chen also said that as China is pushing for unification on a "legal" basis, to respond effectively Taiwan should stand firm on the "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait stance proposed by Chen, work toward writing a new constitution for Taiwan, strive to rectify the country's name and gain entry to the UN.

The truth is that Taiwan and China are not united, otherwise there could be no discussion of unification. Neither side has jurisdiction over the other. In the past, when Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation and its counterpart, China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, were dealing with cross-strait affairs, respecting each other's jurisdictions was a matter of great importance. In this regard, whatever law China is going to enact, Taiwan will never fall under the jurisdiction of China.

Otherwise, Taiwan would not have become what it is today and would instead have become one of China's so-called "autonomous zones" or "special administrative regions." China's Constitution already states that Taiwan is part of China's "sacred territory," yet when has the rule come into force within Taiwan? China just repeats the same thing each time they amend their Constitution.

Now that China has launched this legal warfare, Taiwan should respond on a legal front by enacting a new constitution. The move would serve not only as a response to China's proposed anti-secession law but also to the constitutional parlance of "sacred territory" that has been in existence for decades.

Naturally, that China has put forward the idea of anti-secession legislation at this juncture has its own political background. First, ever since Chinese President Hu Jintao took unified control over the government, he has been trying to gain control over the cross-strait situation by coming up with something new to replace "Jiang's Eight Points," proposed by former Chinese president Jiang Zemin . If he succeeds in accomplishing "a great cause of reunification," his name will go down in history.

Second, Beijing thinks Taiwan's pro-independence camp suffered a setback in the legislative elections. Therefore, they wanted to give an extra boost to the morale of the winning pro-unification camp. We can see that some of Taiwan's media was so excited about the results of the election that they spared no pains to express their pro-China viewpoints and to denigrate Taiwan.

Third, it is an important move for China to feel out the positions of the world on this issue and the US in particular.

China has also seemingly made some concessions by proposing a "unification law" instead an "anti-secession law." It has camouflaged itself with a passive role in the whole scenario, trying to cover up its ambition to annex Taiwan.

To counterbalance this political offensive launched by China, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council immediately held a press conference to spell out the government's stance and denounce China's attempt to change the status quo. The National Security Council and Ministry of National Defense followed suit in voicing their stance.

As Hu did not make any comment on this issue when he was in Macau for celebrations of the former Portuguese colony's fifth anniversary as a Chinese territory, Chen does not have to come forward to deal with this himself. China is likely to misinterpret the US' wishy-washy attitude, even though the US is opposed to the idea. To deal with a rogue state like China, only a demonstration of power can deter bellicosity.

China's military has yet to make any formal response. On Monday last week, Globe Biweekly, a magazine from the state-controlled Xinhua News Agency, published an article entitled "An anti-secession law is better than a million valiant soldiers." It is thought that the author of the article is Luo Yuan (羅援), a colonel at the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences and an academic who often voices his opinions on these matters.

Luo outlined four strategies behind the proposed legislation. First, attempts to split the country would be opposed through the will to unify. Second, "unrighteous laws would be fought against with righteous ones." Third, "smaller" public opinion would be overcome by "larger" public opinion. And fourth, sovereignty would prevail over "interference."

These four points sound rather odd. Take the "righteous law" for example. This is the language usually employed by Falun Gong, which China has considered a defiant religious cult. Yet, in Luo's article there is nothing that reflects the spirit espoused by Falun Gong, which is truthfulness, benevolence, and forbearance. The idea of using "larger" public opinion to fight against "smaller" opinion is also inexplicable. Normally it is "larger" public opinion that oppresses "smaller" voices, and it is the "smaller" public opinion that usually fights against the "larger" variety. This kind of misinterpretation of truth only makes Luo look like a charlatan.

Luo also wrote that "with a law like this, it is perfectly justifiable for the People's Liberation Army to strike Taiwan once the pro-independence activists attempt to split it from China. In summary, the enactment of the anti-secession law is significant and is definitely much better than a million valiant soldiers."

So China needs a "rational cause" to invade Taiwan. Even Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, considered to possess a "greater China complex," would not agree with Luo.

Before Luo published his article, Ma had said that "China is never well-known for abiding by the rule of law. If it is to take Taiwan by force, it does not even need a law like this. Therefore, setting up a law like that is unnecessary."

Luo seems naive as to the idea of "an anti-secession law is better than a million of valiant soldiers." Does he mean Taiwan is sure to surrender if hundreds of anti-secession laws were to be enacted? With a huge population, China can gain the upper hand in any battle. However, if China is to enact a great many laws of a similar nature, will Taiwan succumb to its will?

Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.

I find Henry Ting's arguments ("Call for a joint China-Taiwan election," Dec. 24, page 8) to be not only logically insane but physically irresponsible to both the Chinese and the Taiwanese people.

First of all, how can a vote amounting to 43.5 percent of the electorate (35.7 for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and 7.8 percent for

the Taiwan Solidarity Union) amount to a "somber defeat" for the pan-green camp? The pan-greens actually gained 2.37 percent compared with the 2000 legislative elections. The pan-blue camp vote, however, lost 2.89 percent this year.

Yes, the outcome was a surprise, but this is democracy. Yes, the political parties lack maturity, but this is a young democracy. Just because

"the current and future US administrations are not going to support an independence movement in Taiwan due to the more pressing urgency of the global anti-terrorist campaign," doesn't mean Taiwan must subscribe to the US standpoint.

To suggest letting the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the DPP, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and others "participate in open and transparent political debates and campaigns to convince people of their plans for the future of China and Taiwan" is political suicide. How could this be beneficial for Taiwan -- politically or economically?

Taiwan has 23 million democratic subjects, as opposed to 1.3 billion oppressed people in China. Taiwan should not have to carry the cross for China. God helps those who help themselves.

The CCP is losing its grip, and one should let nature take its own course. The Chinese people will stand up to the challenge. Meddling in Chinese affairs is not in the best interests of Taiwan, because no one can afford to take Chinese nationalism lightly.

If Ting is suggesting a model similar to that of the EU, shouldn't we first be making sure the 1.3 billion Chinese have their basic human rights before the right to vote -- a privilege hard earned by the Taiwanese.

Ting also fails to understand the Taiwanese people if he thinks the only repercussions of a "united" China is economic. Instead of empowering the Chinese people prematurely, let's help these 1.3 billion people obtain their basic needs first, or else its future democracy will be doomed to fail.

I agree that any military action in the Taiwan Strait will be devastating for both sides. The real question, however, is "Why must China have Taiwan?"

BALANCE OF POWER: Beijing sees Taiwan as the first of a number of threats to its 'sovereignty and territorial integrity'; a new white paper says technology is the key
AP , BEIJING

China, home to the world's largest standing army, said yesterday that it would modernize its military to better face down threats from an independence-minded Taiwan and an increase in global uncertainty.

"New changes are occurring in the balance of power among the major international players," China's State Council said in a 100-page white paper on the nation's military. "However, a fair and rational new international political and economic order is yet to be established."

As the balance of power shifts, China is stepping up efforts to make its 2.5 million troops more effective, flexible and able to adapt to a high-tech world, it said.

A key goal is "transforming the military from a manpower-intensive one to a technology-intensive one," it said.

China has long expressed its intention to acquire high-tech capabilities, upgrade its weaponry and improve training to help bring its troops -- believed by many experts to lag far behind those of major Western nations -- into the 21st century.

The paper called pro-independence activities in Taiwan "the biggest immediate threat to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

"The US action does not serve a stable situation across the Taiwan Strait," it said.

The paper noted what it called US efforts to beef up its military presence in east Asia "by buttressing military alliances and accelerating development of missile defense systems."

This, coupled with Japan's moves to give its military a broader mandate and develop missile defenses, show that "complicated security factors in the Asia-Pacific region are on the increase," it said.

But the paper did not say what China would do specifically in response to those perceived expansions other than modernizing its military overall.

China has spent billions of dollars in recent years on Russian and other foreign weapons technology. It has also been pressuring the EU to end an arms embargo imposed after Beijing's bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square.

Germany and France, eager to sell to China's massive military, want to see the ban lifted.

But other European governments have refused to lift the ban, citing Beijing's poor human-rights record in their defense.

China is also more involved in UN peacekeeping and international efforts to fight terrorism, and its military "learns from and draws on the valuable experience of foreign armed forces," the paper said.

China is currently part of UN missions in Liberia and Congo and has held anti-terror exercises this year with Pakistan and Russia.

The white paper noted that China is seeking more civilian uses for its military technology, such as in its space program -- a project that carries enormous national prestige.

China last year sent its first person into space, becoming only the third country to launch its own manned mission after Russia and the US.

The white paper reiterated plans, first announced last year, to trim China's military by 200,000 troops to 2.3 million by the end of next year.

Doing so would compress the chain of command and make the army more responsive, the paper said.

China also wants to strengthen its naval, air force and missile-launching capabilities, it said.

The nation's defense budget this year was 211.7 billion yuan (US$25.6 billion), it said, an increase of 11 percent over last year.

The official budget does not include weapons purchases, research and development and other costs, however.

The Pentagon estimates actual spending at up to four times the public figures.

China also repeated its commitment to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"It pursues a policy of not supporting, not encouraging and not assisting other countries to develop WMD," it said.

Mainland Affairs Council calls China's anti-secession legislation self-defeating

Taiwan's top cross-strait official yesterday responded to renewed military posturing from Beijing by calling for "more civilized" measures, indicating that the threats would only serve to put distance between the two sides.

"[The defense white paper] is so explicit. It says that it will use force against Taiwan, and as we enter a new era in international relations, I think a civilized international community should resolve differences in a civilized manner through peaceful negotiations," Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu said yesterday.

"It is very rare to see a country [state] in a white paper that it will use force against others," Wu said.

As momentum grows for an anti-secession bill said to target Taiwan, Beijing yesterday released a white paper on defense, repeating warnings that attempts to secure Taiwanese independence would be "resolutely and thoroughly crush[ed] at any cost."

"That's why I don't link the white paper with enactment of the [anti-secession] law," Wu said.

He added that while he had not read the paper in full, he had not detected any new elements in it.

"[The timing of the white paper and the bill] seems to be coincidental ... we haven't come to the conclusion that they are doing this in sequence to step up pressure against Taiwan," Wu said.

The release of the white paper comes just one day after the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress approved further consideration of an anti-secession bill on Sunday.

Wu said that China's threats would only achieve the opposite of what was intended.

"This effort to bring Taiwan closer to China will only push Taiwan further away," he said, adding that China did not understand Taiwan.

Wu also said China's threats would not play well with the international community and that this worked against the credibility of China's commitment to a "peaceful rising."

"The raw use of military threat can only turn the international community away from China," he said.

"They [the Chinese] stress this "peaceful rising," but at the same time they constantly threaten other nations with military force. I think this will only lead to the opposite of what is intended because others will doubt China's commitment to peaceful methods," Wu said.

Wu said, however, that the US only sold weapons to Taiwan because it recognized the military threat that China posed. He also said that Taiwan was only considering the purchase of defensive weapons from the US.

Wu also commented on what he called the international community's lack of action in relation to the anti-secession bill.

He said that in general the international community was waiting to see the text of the proposed law before taking action, but he warned that "by the time the text is released, it might be too late."

"This is an urgent call to the international community to stop China before it is too late," he said.

When the EU-China summit was held in The Hague on Dec. 8, the international media focused primarily on the outcome in terms of the arms embargo issue -- that the EU did not lift the embargo at this time, but gave a signal that it might do so on a future occasion.

The EU has indicated it is reviewing its policy on the basis of three criteria -- China's human-rights record, the impact on tension in the Taiwan Strait and the as yet incomplete EU code of conduct on arms exports.

However, another matter virtually escaped attention. On the Taiwan issue, the EU expressed its hope for "a peaceful resolution through constructive dialogue." The EU position, therefore, is that China enter into a constructive dialogue with Taiwan, no pre-conditions, no pre-determined outcome, no artificial clinging to a nebulous "status quo."

The EU did do a ritualistic reaffirmation of its continued adherence to the "one China" policy -- meaning that it recognizes Beijing as the government of China, period, with no further pronouncements on Taiwan's status.

The phrasing represents a subtle move on the part of the EU to express itself on an issue that has been dominated by the uneasy Taiwan-US-China relationship. During the past decade, Europe has significantly increased its trade relations with both China and Taiwan, leading to an increasing awareness of the prickly political situation between the two.

Also, the increasing openness of Taiwanese society after the political transformation of the late 1980s and early 1990s has led to an increase in contacts between European academia and political circles -- such as the European Parliament -- and an appreciation on the European side of the position of the Taiwanese democratic movement which brought about democracy and an increase in Taiwanese consciousness. A telling recent headline in De Volkskrant, a major Dutch newspaper, said: "Taiwanese increasingly vote Taiwanese."

All this does not mean that this has become a major issue on the European political scene, but it does mean an increasing assertiveness by Europe to use its significant political weight to help resolve conflicts around the world.

The message from Brussels to Beijing is thus clear: a constructive dialogue is preferable. But what is the reality?

The administration of President Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly indicated its willingness to enter into a dialogue with China, but from the Chinese side there are only military threats, intimidation with some 600 missiles and virulent attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally.

The "anti-secession law" recently proposed by Beijing is not helping matters either. It will lead to a dangerous escalation of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and is certainly not contributing to a dialogue of any kind.

The EU would thus do well to express its deep concern about this unilateral attempt by China to have its way on this issue. Certainly, the new Chinese law should be an indication to the EU that any relaxation of its arms embargo against China is helping the one-party authoritarian bully on the block to intimidate one of Asia's most vibrant and dynamic democracies.

Europe prides itself on its own long history of democracy and has stated it supports the growth of democracy around the world. This is an opportunity to show it is serious in its resolve to stand on the side of a blossoming democracy and oppose a dictatorship and regional threat reminiscent of the dark days of pre-World War II Europe.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.