Taiwan Chinese camp on Dec 31, 2004

Blue camp to appeal `illegal' verdict

SENSE OF INJUSTICE: The KMT and People First Party directed savage criticism at the Taiwan High Court's judges, accusing them of pandering to the government
By Caroline Hong  STAFF REPORTER 

The Taiwan High Court yesterday dismissed the second of two pan-blue-camp lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of March's presidential election, but the pan-blue camp declared it would appeal the court's "illegal" and "unjust" verdict.

The joint plaintiffs, the People First Party (PFP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), accused the court of succumbing to political pressure from the government.

"This verdict is a tragedy for the Taiwanese people over the state of the nation's democracy. We express our disappointment, regret, anger and sense of injustice at the high court's decision. We will appeal this unfair decision all the way to the top," KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng) said during a joint KMT-PFP press conference last night.

The Taiwan High Court announced at 4:30pm that it had rejected the pan-blue camp's second lawsuit, which was filed against the Central Election Commission for holding the March 20 presidential elections as scheduled despite "irregularities" before election day, including the election-eve shooting of President Chen Shui-bian  and Vice President Annette Lu.

The pan-blue camp would not accept the ruling because the judges "expressed clear bias" throughout the proceedings, the joint KMT-PFP legal team said yesterday.

In dismissing the pan-blue camp's evidence as "insufficient," the high court was clearly biased towards maintaining the "current situation," lawyer Lee Chung-teh said yesterday, adding that the court "deliberately ignored and dismissed large portions of pan-blue camp evidence."

PFP Deputy Secretary-General Chin Chin-sheng said the court's leanings toward the administration was reflected in the decision not being released until yesterday, which he said was illegal.

The pan-blue camp filed its lawsuit on April 5, Chin said, and as Article 111 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law calls for all election or election-recall lawsuits to be settled within six months of being filed, the court should have already handed down its verdict.

Chin also said that since the lawsuit had been filed for the benefit of the people, the courts should have treated the case as an administrative legal appeal, which would have given the courts greater investigative jurisdiction.

Chin and Lin yesterday cited the Ukrainian opposition's success in overturning the results of that country's presidential election.

"A fair judiciary is the last line of defense for a nation's democracy. It is incredible to think that a new democracy such as Ukraine has a fair justice system and that Taiwan, a model of democracy in Asia, does not," Chin said.

Because the high court rejected the pan-blue camp's first lawsuit, the mood among supporters yesterday prior to the verdict was not optimistic. Earlier yesterday, party spokesman Chang Jung-kung said at KMT headquarters in Taipei that he hoped the high court would be able to resist "political pressure" and issue the verdict as "prescribed by the law."

The KMT legislative caucus added yesterday that it would accept the results if the court gave the blue camp a fair verdict. Despite this, posters anticipating an unfavorable result were already hanging in the media room at KMT headquarters before the verdict was announced.

"We believe justice will come sooner or later," one read. Another said, "We do not believe the way of justice will always be dark."

In response to the ruling, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) urged the pan-blue camp to respect the verdict and not be irrational in protesting the result any further.

"The pan-blue camp should end its opposition. A political truce is what mainstream public opinion wants," DPP acting chairman Ker Chien-ming said yesterday. "Lien should face reality and let society get back on the rails."

DPP information and culture department director Cheng Wen-tsan said the verdict vindicated election workers who had been accused by the pan-blue camp of cheating.

The pan-blue camp owed an apology to all of them, Cheng said.

Defense minister warns exodus if budget fails

LAST SOLDIER: Lee Jye warned those who are able to do so to flee to the US if there is continued legislative interference with the country's defense budget
By Charles Snyder   STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON 

Minister of National Defense Lee Jye  yesterday warned Taiwanese to flee to the US if the legislature fails to pass the NT$610.8 billion (US$18.2 billion) arms procurement budget.

"Those who can go to the US can go, and the rest will remain in Taiwan and fight until the last soldier is gone," Lee said.

Lee made the remark while answering reporters' questions at a military ceremony yesterday in Taipei.

Lee declined to make any comment to the throng of reporters on reports that he had spoken to President Chen Shui-bian and tendered his resignation because of the legislature's refusal to back the budget.

Meanwhile, Taiwan's de facto ambassador in Washington, David Lee, said that recent differences between Taiwan and the US were "not as bad" as they might seem and that the Bush administration had not shifted its policy.

Speaking at his monthly press conference with Washington's Taiwan press corps, Lee said communication channels between the two countries had been "very effective," and that the bilateral relationship was "stable."

But, using the words "frank" and "honest," he indicated that communication with the US had been strained lately.

Lee also said he expected Taiwanese and American officials would discuss relations between the two countries next month when a Taiwanese delegation visits Washington to attend the Jan. 20 inauguration of US President George W. Bush.

"I'm sure there are some misunderstandings between the two countries," Lee said. "But overall, the situation is really not as bad as some have described. We have very effective channels of communication and our discussions have been frank and honest.

"I think that up to this moment, we do not have as many misperceptions as many people have suggested," he said.

He said that the US government had "reassured us several times" that there had been "no change in the basic policy vis-a-vis Taiwan," nor any changes "in US pledges to Taiwan."

Lee's comments come in the wake of US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's comments that the US was under no obligation to come to Taiwan's defense if China attacked, and that Washington agreed with Beijing that Taiwan is part of China.

Speaking on Beijing's plan to enact an anti-secession law during the next session of the National People's Congress in March, Lee said that he had discussed the matter privately with US officials.

"This is something I consider to be a very serious matter," Lee told the Taipei Times. "I think this is a very important issue in terms of the triangular relationship [Washington, Taipei and Beijing] for the year 2005. I hope the Beijing side will exercise some restraint. Otherwise, it will further complicate this triangular relationship and make the regional situation more unstable."

Lee said the Bush administration had been cautious in its public statements because it had not seen the text of the planned legislation.

Commenting on US Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that he was not concerned about Beijing's new defense white paper, Lee said that Powell was referring to the immediate threat.

No warning in Armitage comments

By James Wang

When interviewed by the US' Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) on Dec. 10, outgoing US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage sidestepped a question about whether the US will come to Taiwan's defense if China attacks.

He pointed out that "we have the requirement with the Taiwan Relations Act to keep sufficient force in the Pacific to be able to deter attack; we are not required to defend. And these are questions that actually reside with the US Congress, who has to declare an act of war."

Surprisingly, his remarks stirred up a frenzied round of over-interpretation throughout Taiwan. As usual, the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) immediate and incomprehensible reaction to the remarks was to speak for the US and interpret the comments as another warning to President Chen Shui-bian's government.

Prior to the US presidential election, US Secretary of State Colin Powell mistakenly brought up "peaceful unification" as the solution to the cross-strait dispute in an interview with the media during his visit to Beijing.

`If we do not stand firm on challenging the "one China" policy, Taiwan will become another Hong Kong ... It is an overstatement to say Armitage was warning Taiwan when he said the US is not required to defend Taiwan under the TRA.'

A US source familiar with this incident revealed that upon checking the coverage concerning Powell's remark, Armitage made a phone call to Powell. He asked him: "Mr. Powell, do you plan to change the current policy toward China?" Amazed, Powell said, "No, I don't, how come you came up with a question like this?"

Armitage explained that the US policy toward this issue is a "peaceful resolution" rather than "peaceful unification." After this conversation, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher came forward and reiterated the "peaceful resolution" stance.

After returning to the US, Powell arranged another TV interview and restated the US' policy, replacing "peaceful unification" with "peaceful resolution."

[In other words,] Armitage was aware of the US' long-standing stance and knew that it had no intention of changing its policy. In the interview with PBS, Armitage only aimed to state the consistency of US policy, including the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA, 台灣關係法) and three joint communiques, which serve as the foundation of the US' policy. His statement concerning the US Constitution and the TRA is also a fact based on the rule of law. But even though Armitage is well-versed in the US' China policy, he still made a grave mistake in his statement regarding Taiwan.

The mistake, made during the interview with the PBS, lies in this statement: "But I think we have to manage this question appropriately. We all agree that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China."

Obviously, "we" refers to "the US."

He went further, saying that "we are guided in our own relationship with China by three communiques, which have been negotiated by successive administrations, and the Taiwan Relations Act." This proves that his statement was mistaken, because in the three communiques the US only "acknowledges" China's stance that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

The US, however, never "recognized" or "agreed" with China's stance.

[Starting decades ago,] China, KMT-ruled Taiwan and the US all had different interpretations of the so-called "one China" policy created by the US.?When the US broke off diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979 and recognized China, former president Chiang Ching-kuo  responded to the US envoy, Warren Christopher, by saying that "the existence of the Republic of China [ROC] has been a fact in the international community. The international status and international persona of the ROC will not change just because there is any country recognizing the bogus Communist regime.

The US should continue to recognize and respect the de jure status and international persona of the ROC." Nonetheless, the US finally recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the only representative of China. Chiang's statement is a clear refusal to accept the idea of "one China" and is a clear statement of a "two country" or "two Chinas" formula.

Armitage did make a grave mistake. Yet Taiwan's former KMT government was even worse, fabricating a national goal to reunify with China under the propaganda of the three principles of the people.

Trapped in a "future China" model,? the KMT dared not voice any objection to the US' "one China" policy for the sake of its political interests, and was unable to resist China's scheme to isolate Taiwan diplomatically.

Currently, China -- taking advantage of its rising political and economic clout -- constantly forces countries, both big and small, to "acknowledge" or "recognize" its stance that Taiwan is part of China.

China's conspicuous intention is to gain the recognition and acknowledgement of every country. In this way it can claim the sovereignty over Taiwan that it has never before possessed on the legal front.

When the KMT, reluctant to implement democracy, was governing Taiwan under an authoritarian rule, it obstinately adhered to the "old sovereign power of China" and the "one China" policy for the sake of its political interests.

While the political scene has become far more liberal since Taiwan underwent democratic reforms, the KMT still lacks the will to shake off its fabricated "one China" shackles and ignores China's ambition to bring Taiwan under its control.

When the US cooked up its "one China" policy, it imposed its opinion on the Taiwanese people. Taiwan has become a more democratic country since the localized Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power.

Faced with the "one China" principle, which is endangering the interests of the country, we can no long tolerate it. Even former president Lee Teng-hui , who was also then chairman of the KMT, put forward the "special state-to-state" model to define cross-strait relations. It is now impossible to ask President Chen Shui-bian to accept the "one China" policy or overlook the disaster it might incur.

Now that the KMT is not in power, it can afford to be critical of the DPP's efforts to challenge the "one China" policy, pointing out that it may undermine US-Taiwan relations. In fact, faced with a tough choice, choosing not to challenge the "one China" principle would see Taiwan being annexed by China through diplomatic means.

Political friction between Taiwan and the US may occur if the "one China" principle is challenged. To Taiwan, the dispute with the US will incur some "warnings," which are not fatal. If we do not stand firm on challenging the "one China" policy, Taiwan will become another Hong Kong. The US should understand that while it may not have to recognize Taiwan as a country, it cannot force Taiwan to negate itself as a country.

The KMT, gloating over the DPP's troubles, thinks Chen has overstepped the red line drawn by the US. It is an overstatement to say Armitage was warning Taiwan when he said the US is not required to defend Taiwan under the TRA.

First, while Chen has pushed for constitutional reform and to uphold the sovereignty of Taiwan, he has not totally ignored the interests of the US and the security and stability of the region. Otherwise he would not have put forward the "four noes" pledge earlier this year. Second, it is impossible for China to be unaware of the fact that the right to declare an act of war resides with the US Congress and that there is no requirement in the TRA that forces the US to defend Taiwan. Third, no one can precisely say that the US will come to Taiwan's defense if China attacks. However, the leadership of the Chinese government has to presume that the US will be present if China tries to take Taiwan by force.

Armitage was actually answering a hypothetical question. On the Web site of the US State Department, we can see that the excerpt of his interview does not highlight his remarks concerning Taiwan. The PBS interviewer, Charlie Rose, even mistakenly asked whether "we will defend China from Taiwan if they attack?"

Armitage was not authorized to answer "yes" or "no" as the US government has never committed itself to the use of military force. The Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, abolished after the US established diplomatic ties with China, only stipulates that actions are to be taken in accordance with constitutional procedures when any signatories (Taiwan and the US) are under military attack. However, it does not stipulate that the US has to send troops to defend Taiwan.

Armitage did not dodge the question by saying, "I can't answer hypothetical questions," nor did he say "yes" or "no." Yet, he admitted that "to make a statement like that is not quite appropriate." He chose to offer a legal explanation, pointing out that the TRA requires the US to provide adequate military equipment for Taiwan to defend itself and keep sufficient force in the Pacific to be able to deter attack, but does not require the US to defend Taiwan.

Armitage's remarks were perfectly clear. The US' strategy is to "deter," using a demonstration of power to warn China not to utilize military force as the first step to "defend Taiwan." To deter, however, does not amount to declaring war. In 1996, China launched missiles toward Taiwan as part of military maneuvers and the US deployed two aircraft carriers to nearby seas.

China immediately stopped its military maneuvers. A situation like that did not require the "US Congress to declare an act of war."

To study the meaning of the TRA, China should include past examples of similar situations. Armitage brought discussions up to the constitutional level when touching on the right to declare a war. The fact is that he would not and could not answer such a sensitive and hypothetical question. He would rather choose an ordinary constitutional procedure to explain how a war would be declared. Considering a remark like this to be a "warning" to Taiwan is sheer overreaction.

China seeks to punish Japan over Lee visit

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AGENCIES 

Beijing warned that Japan might be barred from participating in a major high speed railway project in China shortly after former president Lee Teng-hui  began a weeklong trip to Japan earlier this week, a Chinese-language newspaper reported yesterday.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei  told a visiting delegation of Japanese Diet members on Tuesday that Beijing found it difficult to let Japan join the construction of the Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Railway as a result of worsening bilateral ties, according to a local evening paper.

Praising the high quality of the Shinkansen, or Japanese bullet train, Wu nevertheless said Beijing might have to exclude Japan from the Beijing-Shanghai railway project, which Japan, Germany and France have competed for fiercely over the past few years.

"We are facing high anti-Japan sentiment in China. If our government adopts the Shinkansen technique in the railway project, people would have [negative] opinions," Wu said.

"We are facing high anti-Japan sentiment in China. If our government adopts the Shinkansen technique in the railway project, people would have [negative]opinions."

Wu Dawei, China's vice foreign minister

Xu Jialu , vice chairman of the National People's Congress' Standing Committee, told the Diet members the same thing at a separate meeting.

"The current relations between China and Japan make it hard for us to adopt the Shinkansen technique in building the Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Railway," Xu said.

Beijing's warning to Japan over the railway project, which came a day after Lee arrived in the Japanese city of Nagoya Monday, is viewed as retaliation against Japan's decision to issue Lee a visa despite China's repeated protests.

Calling Lee a mastermind of Taiwan's "independence forces," a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said before Lee's trip that Beijing might retaliate against Tokyo if it allowed Lee's visit.

On Wednesday, Lee and his family traveled by train from Nagoya to Kanazawa, a historic castle town by the Sea of Japan. He visited a museum in honor of prestigious local figures and suggested that the museum should display more documents and items related to Yoichi Hatta, an engineer from Kanazawa who led a huge farm irrigation project in Taiwan when it was under Japanese rule from 1895 to 1945, Japanese media reported.

Later in the day, Lee met Ohi Chozaemon, a 77-year-old traditional ceramic artist, and made a ceramic mug for his good friend Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara. According to media reports, Lee wrote the Chinese character "Sincerity"  on the mug and signed his name next to it.

Lee and his family toured downtown Kanazawa yesterday morning and returned to Nagoya in the afternoon.