US defense paper calls for nuclear pre-emption

DETERRENCE: The draft paper argues that the US must reserve the right to strike first with nuclear weapons in cases where an attack may be imminent

AFP , WASHINGTON

"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."－ Excerpt from the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."

The document, titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, a defense official said.

But the official, who spoke to reporters late Saturday on condition of anonymity, said it has not yet been signed by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thus has not been made official policy.

"It's in the process of being considered," the official said.

A copy of the draft obtained by reporters urges US theater force commanders operating around the world to prepare specific plans for using nuclear weapons in their regions -- and outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike.

They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations.

Preventive nuclear strikes could also be employed to destroy a biological weapons arsenal belonging to an enemy, if there is no possibility to take it out with conventional weapons and it is determined the enemy is poised for a biological attack, according to the draft.

They could also be seen as justified to destroy hardened bunkers containing enemy chemical or biological weapons or the command and control infrastructure required to execute a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

However, a number of scenarios allow nuclear strikes without enemy weapons of mass destruction in the equation. They could be used, for instance, to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply "to ensure success of US and multinational operations," the document indicates.

In the context of the US-led "war on terror," the draft explicitly warns that any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.

Regional US commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear "to respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations," the draft says.

The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely and urges troops to constantly train for nuclear warfare.

"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use," the document states.

Beijing says Pope’s invitation to Rome shows 'no respect'

TURNED DOWN: China's Catholic organizations rejected an invitation from the Vatican that had asked four bishops to a synod next month

REUTERS, BEIJING

China, which bans its Catholics from recognizing the Pope, has turned down a Vatican invitation to four Chinese bishops to go to Rome, saying it showed no respect.

Beijing has not had diplomatic ties with the Vatican since 1951, two years after the Communist takeover in China, and insists that relations cannot be resumed unless Rome severs links with Taiwan.

The four bishops invited to Rome were on a list of prelates from around the world that the Pope had named to be members of next month's synod, the Vatican said on Thursday.

RESPONSE

The act [invitation] goes against the original good intention of the Pope and shows no respect for China’s 5 million Catholic, Bishops College and the China Patriotic Catholic Association and for the decision-making power of the two Chinese Catholic groups,” a spokesman for the two groups was quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying in a report late on Saturday.

The China Patriotic Catholic Association is the state backed Catholic church. Catholics who recognize the Vatican are forced to worship underground.

"If the Holy See has deep sincerity to improve China-Vatican relations, we hope they take real actions, rather than put up new barriers," the spokesman said.

The four bishops are Anthony Li Duan of Xian, Aloysius Jin Luxian of Shanghai, Luke Li Jingfeng and Joseph Wei Jingyi.

Li Duan and Jin. were appointed by the government from the state backed church and their appointments were later tacitly recognized by the Vatican.

Li Jingfeng had been a member of the underground church but was later recognized by the Chinese government. Wei remains a member of the underground church.

Then Vatican estimates it has about 8 million followers in China, compared with about 5 million who follow the association.

REPRESSION

The Vatican has regularly accused China of violating human rights and criticized the government for what it sees as the repression of religion.

After his election in April, Pope Benedict said he hoped to establish diplomatic relations with countries that still had no formal ties with the Vatican, a clear reference to China, the only major power not to recognize the Pope.

Beijing congratulated the Pope on his election, raising hopes in some quarters of a possible warming in relations.

Sovereignty explored online

By Richard Hartzell

I have seen some recent comments in the local newspapers about a new argument between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou and Vice President Annette Lu regarding the international legal status of Taiwan.

Under international law, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was owned by Japan from 1895 until late April 1952. Ma's statement that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the Republic of China (ROC) via the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and/or the Japanese surrender documents is totally incorrect.

In the post-Napoleonic period, the sovereignty of territory is transferred by treaty.

I have produced a chart which explores this topic in detail. It is entitled "Examination of Taiwan's Territorial Sovereignty and the ROC's International Legal Position," and is available for download in MS Word format at www.taiwanbasic.com/notes/download.htm

Richard Hartzell

Taipei

Legislators do nothing

By Lee Yen-mou

With regard to Taiwan's purchase of an arms package from the US, most Taiwanese do not realize what the weapons involved really are. They do realize that the content and specifics are complex. They also realize that political and ideological differences cannot be avoided among the ethnic groups and parties in Taiwan.

Why isn't the issue of purchasing arms being debated in the Legislative Yuan? Some might be in doubt as to whether the Executive Yuan has provided sufficient details, and whether it has been sufficiently cooperative.

However, the fact remains that the Legislative Yuan has not faced up to its responsibility. Although the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) do not agree on the issue, they have no right to block the bill consigned to committee for deliberation. In fact, the package has been talked about and reported on in the media for over a year. The legislators have voted down, within the Procedure Committee, the inclusion of the arms budget 27 times.

In theory, regardless of who originally initiated the package, how the content might have changed, whether the expenditures were justified, and whether the weapons and technology might be appropriate, and how incomplete or imperfect the series of purchases might be, the legislators have a duty to perform as elected representatives of the people on the issue. They have the right to delete the budget, deny the bill or return it to the Executive Yuan, but they should not ignore or boycott the subject matter.

Many people often ask the question: "What's wrong with the Legislative Yuan? Do all legislators do nothing but boycott?" People want to know about the process of deliberation inside the legislature, not outside of it.

Without regard to political affiliation and ideological differences, the Legislative Yuan should face up to the issue and have the issues debated, modified or amended, through the appropriate committee and then in the Legislative Yuan at large.

Then, have a decision taken by vote of the members of the Legislative Yuan, either for or against.

Lee Yen-mou

Taipei

Bring justice to victims of abuses

By John Wei

Recently the Cabinet's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission and the National Archives Bureau were forced to apologize to Shih Ming-teh and others involved in the Formosa Incident. This was a result of the Documents of the Formosa Incident exhibition held in 2003, in which personal letters and derogatory news reports of various individuals were put on display without their prior consent. I approve of the courage and consideration of the government's apology, but this should in no way mitigate the considerable injustice that has been shown.

The fact that 10 years after the lifting of martial law it was still necessary for the individuals involved to take legal action against the government to protect their human rights is an indication that Taiwan's transition into a just society is still far from complete.

Following the third wave of democratization in the 1980s, nations that formerly practiced dictatorship and tyranny have one after another established truth and reconciliation commissions, declassified government documents and implemented legislation to reflect their commitment to become a more just society. Such efforts are directed at re-establishing the collective memory of the people, condemning injustice and fear caused by former regimes, and building a new political identity. Therefore, transitional justice has become a concept that nations cannot ignore.

Although different countries have adopted different systems to reflect their various historical, political and cultural backgrounds, the commitment to historical truth and transitional justice must remain constant. Besides South Africa, in Latin America nations such as Bolivia, Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala have all established a truth and reconciliation commission of some sort. South Africa, for example, helped those who had been oppressed become respected citizens by having the families of the persecuted recount their stories. The media then spread the truth and the government recognized its past wrongdoings. As a result, the perpetrators faced criminal charges but they were entitled to an amnesty if they could expose atrocities from the apartheid period.

In other words, transitional justice can not only serve to heal the wounds of the past but also integrate and reform society through the pursuit of penitence and reconciliation.

Former Eastern Bloc countries such a Poland and East Germany focused on disclosing the truth of political incidents of great significance, making public national archives and re-establishing the collective memory of their citizens. In 1991, a new unified Germany enacted the Stasi Records Act to disclose classified documents previously held by the Stasi, the East German Intelligence and Security Service. This allowed people to access these files showing the human rights abuses, preserving the truth of what happened and re-appraising the political climate.

Additionally, the German government also returned properties that had been illegally seized by the communist regime, and established tribunals for those who had been and sentenced for crimes they hadn't committed.

Between 1945 and 1987, major political incidents including the 228 Incident and the Kaohsiung Incident infringed on the human rights of more than 140,000 people.

During these incidents, people went missing or were secretly imprisoned; others were tortured and jailed without trial -- not unlike what happened in the former communist states of Latin America and Eastern Europe.

In 1987, the Legislative Yuan passed the National Security Law, which replaced Martial Law. Article 9 of the National Security Law stipulates that military trials that have been completed cannot be appealed or protested in civil courts.

In January 1988, Lee Teng-hui succeeded Chiang Ching-kuo as president. Perhaps partly because of Lee's shaky power basis, it was not until Feb. 28, 1995 that he made a public apology, as a representative of the government, during a ceremony to establish the memorial for victims of the 228 Incident in Taipei's 228 Peace Park. Lee said the government admitted its past mistakes and sincerely apologized for them.

During this time, several laws were also promulgated, such as the Statute Governing the Recovery of People's Rights Damaged During the Period of Martial Law, the Statute of Compensating Improper Verdicts on Sedition and Communist Espionage Cases during the Martial Law Period, the 228 Incident and the law set up to deal with compensation for it: the National Archives Act, and others. But, all these laws emphasized monetary compensation rather than demanding that justice be served and wrongs be righted.

In 2000, President Chen Shui-bian became president, marking the nation's first democratic transfer of political power. Although the Chen administration claims to rule the country based on human rights, relevant human rights bills have not been passed due to pan-blue lawmakers' obstruction in the legislature. As a result, Chen has only been able to resort to the method of increasing the amount of money offered in compensation, rather than making a more significant breakthrough in truth, reconciliation and making the national archives public.

Thousands of people suffered from major violations of human rights in the past and their family members remain enraged because of their inability to escape from this shadow in their past. But the root of the problem has not yet been eradicated.

Over the past 10 years, no matter what measures the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government chose as a way to forgive and forget, neither has been able to resolve unsettled human rights cases by simply offering money as compensation. Nevertheless, the family members of human rights victims have not stopped their efforts to gain redress. Three weeks ago, a group of former political prisoners addressed a petition to the Taiwan Association for Human Rights. The scene of a group of white-hair citizens pouring out the wrongs they suffered for much of their lives made me lament the fact that justice has not arrived in Taiwan.

The government has given some justice to Shih Ming-teh, who was arrested for organizing the December 10, 1979 pro-democracy rally, subsequently known as the Kaohsiung Incident. But, this is just a single case. There are still a lot more people like Shih, who need the government to give them redress. Unless the government can bring justice to these victims, it will only show that it is unable to expose the former KMT government's human rights abuses.

In July, the KMT elected a new chairman, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, who emphasizes party reform. Ma has long been an advocate of human rights. He not only has long supported bringing justice to those oppressed in the Tiananmen Square Massacre, but also recently emphasized the idea of Taiwan first.

Perhaps he can help bridge some of the differences between the KMT and the DPP.

I look forward to seeing the DPP and the KMT cooperate to resolve unsettled human rights cases and bring justice to former political prisoners.

John Wei is a Taipei-based lawyer.