IOC mulls dropping international relay
　

APPEAL TO BUSH: US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton urged the US president on Monday not to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics

AGENCIES, BEIJING, WASHINGTON AND SAN FRANCISCO
Wednesday, Apr 09, 2008, Page 1

　

Senior Olympic officials yesterday raised the prospect for the first time of abandoning the international legs of the Beijing Games torch relay, amid a wave of protests targeting the flame overseas.

The protests continued on Monday with a dramatic stunt at San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, two days before the torch’s arrival to the city. Police appeared to have been caught cold by the protest, during which demonstrators scooted up the bridge’s cables using climbing gear and unfurled two giant banners.

The torch relay for Beijing and future Games will be reviewed at a meeting of International Olympic Committee (IOC) chiefs in Beijing beginning on Thursday, Gunilla Lindberg, a vice president of the IOC, told reporters.

“I am sure it will be discussed. I think we need to have a full review,” Lindberg told reporters when asked if she thought the IOC would scrap the overseas legs of the Beijing torch relay.

Other senior IOC officials who are in Beijing to prepare for the August Games spoke bitterly of the demonstrations that have marred China’s efforts to stage the most ambitious torch relay ever.

“All I can say is we are desperately disappointed,” IOC board member Kevan Gosper said.

“[Activists] just take their hate out on whatever the issues are at the time,” Gosper said.

Campaigners are trying to raise publicity about Beijing’s controversial rule of Tibet and a wide range of human-rights abuses in China.

On Monday, the torch relay had to be dramatically cut short in Paris due to disruptions by hundreds of protesters. Widespread protests also disrupted the previous day’s leg in London, while activists promised more of the same in Australia, India, Thailand, Japan and elsewhere.

China’s Foreign Ministry yesterday angrily denounced the protests in Europe against the torch relay as “sabotage” by Tibetan separatists.

Gosper and other IOC officials said they would discuss whether to completely abandon the concept of taking the torch around the world for future Games. Gosper said the IOC might prefer a return to a relay program that would see the torch lit in Greece and then transferred to the host country.

Meanwhile, 11 foreign journalists were scheduled to depart yesterday for western China on a tour organized by China’s Foreign Ministry.

The second tour for foreign media of areas that saw mass Tibetan protests recently will fly to Lanzhou, Gansu Province, where more than 1,000 Buddhist monks led protests.

At the end of last month, journalists were taken on a highly regimented three-day trip to Lhasa. Their tour was interrupted by 30 monks at Jokhang Temple, who shouted about the lack of freedom in Tibet and rebutted China’s claims that the Dalai Lama had fomented the riots.

In related news, US Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton urged President George W. Bush on Monday to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

Clinton, in a statement, cited violent clashes in Tibet and the lack of pressure by China on the Sudanese government to stop “the genocide in Darfur.”

“I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government,” the New York senator said.

Beijing’s other crackdowns

Wednesday, Apr 09, 2008, Page 8

With the focus on unrest in Tibet, not much has been said about another disturbing development in China — government claims that it had stopped a terrorist attack on an airplane last month and arrested a terror ring that was allegedly planning attacks on the Beijing Olympics.

While the news may soon die down — largely unnoticed in the shadow of the Free Tibet debate — the allegations have serious repercussions for the population of China’s largest province, Xinjiang.

The accusations concern the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim, Turkic ethnic group that lives under an autonomous government that, like Lhasa’s, is a farce.

For more than a decade, there has been no evidence of attacks on civilians by Uighurs. That fact has repeatedly undermined Beijing’s efforts to gain support for the “war” on terror that it launched in Xinjiang soon after the Sept. 11 attacks in the US. China’s “war” on terror is a continuation of previous crackdowns in Xinjiang that sought to silence peaceful dissent — including those who appeal for democracy, religious freedom or true autonomy, not independence.

But by reclassifying dissidents in Xinjiang as terrorists, Beijing has sought to gain support from the US and other governments in blocking the activities of Uighurs at home and abroad. It has labeled US-based human-rights activist Rebiya Kadeer a terrorist — in much the same way it deals with the Dalai Lama. It has pressured the US and the UN to blacklist several Uighur groups as terrorist organizations, but has presented not a shred of evidence that these groups are pursuing a violent agenda.

A major obstacle to the success of Beijing’s campaign has been the outcry from non-governmental organizations and governments that have repeatedly asked: How can you wage a “war” on terror on people who are not terrorists? As the Uighur rights movement has gained momentum in the past three years, that question has become a thorn in the side of Beijing.

In this context, human-rights groups and Uighur activists abroad are calling on Beijing to proceed transparently with its prosecution of those whom it accuses of engaging in terrorist activities. Beijing has not presented evidence substantiating its claims that the plots are anything more than a twisted fantasy to justify its oppression in Xinjiang.

And as trials concerning Uighur dissidents are usually labeled state secrets, the chances that the facts would come to light are scant.

That should come as no surprise, as Beijing has blocked any unbiased probe into the Xinjiang region Gulja massacre for 11 years. Like the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, that incident began with peaceful demonstrations and ended in a military crackdown. And with Beijing’s clampdown, it remains difficult to determine how the violence started.

That same secretiveness ensures that it is impossible to disprove allegations of Uighur violence today, which Beijing hopes will give it the upper hand as it seeks to silence dissent. The international community should not let these reports go unnoticed.

Governments should refuse to take Beijing’s allegations at face value, voice their opposition to oppression of peaceful dissent in Xinjiang and demand that Beijing substantiate its claims of terrorism. If genuine terrorist acts are being plotted, Beijing’s alarm would be legitimate, but it cannot justify the systematic religious and cultural repression it exerts on all Uighurs living within its borders.

Let us not forget Tibet’s neighbor to the north, who now, as much as ever, need the help of a critical international community to take Beijing to task over its actions.

Ma’s first steps

Wednesday, Apr 09, 2008, Page 8

Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was elected as the next president of Taiwan with the campaign slogan “Taiwan moves forward.” However, by visiting and paying his respects to the late dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) he is retreating into the past.

If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is a modern party that represents Taiwan and has a vision for the future, it would distance itself from Chiang. Instead it is displaying its true colors as a party of the past that suffers badly from historical amnesia.

Ma would be much better spending his time paying respect to the victims of the White Terror and making efforts of achieve transitional justice.

Taiwan needs to move forward in a spirit of harmony and reconciliation.

The president-elect should set a better example.

David Reid
Xindian



The proposal that Ma visit the US before his inauguration next month is a great idea that should serve the best interests of the US, China and Taiwan in the long run.

After reading Sushil Seth’s article (“Can Ma work cross-strait miracles?” page 8, March 28) and Li Chen-ching’s letter (Letters, page 8, March 29), I think that there are many considerations for the US to realistically endorse the request.

First, the US should realize that the most suitable time for Ma to visit Washington would be before his inauguration, good timing that will help warm up cross-strait relations.

US President George W. Bush has stressed that it is a fresh opportunity for China and Taiwan to solve long-term tensions.

He has also reiterated that a peaceful relationship between Taiwan and China will be beneficial to multilateral interest. A visit by Ma to the US before May 20 is a practical option for enhancing multilateral relations.

As China is busy coping with the hectic problems of Tibet and simultaneously bracing for the Olympic Games in August, endorsing Ma’s unofficial visit to the US before his inauguration is a pragmatic and acceptable arrangement, signifying harmony and cooperation for all in the years to come.

Debbie Hou
Taipei

Unity through independence

Wednesday, Apr 09, 2008, Page 8

In the wake of the recent crackdown in Tibet, which preceded Taiwan’s presidential election, feelings of uncertainty shrouded the people of Taiwan regarding the issue of future cross-strait relations.

With the KMT now in power after eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rule, the thought (or perhaps fear) of unification does not seem so distant. Yet, a lack of understanding could present a barrier for progress in solving the cross-strait issue.

The future of Taiwan, whether unification with China or formal independence, should be decided by Taiwanese.

Taiwanese are distraught each year to find proposals to be considered a “region” of 23 million people in a conventional sense continues to be denied. But we all know this travesty is a result of China’s inferiority complex and the Western powers’ desire for economic access to China.

Yet, perhaps letting go of “Taiwan” may exactly be the key for Taiwan to see China as a true motherland.

I hate to say it, but Taiwanese just do not have a strong attachment to China. Period.

Perhaps the descendants of the KMT do, although they make up about 13 percent of the population.

Despite the proximity of the two states, constant threats from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has further distanced the two. Having spoken to many Chinese regarding this sensitive issue at a world-class university, they simply do not comprehend why Taiwan is seeking independence.

Why are Taiwanese seeking independence when most Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese? The puzzle within the dilemma that baffles our understanding of cross-strait identity has been identified.

“Modern” international norms do not define a state to be ethnically homogeneous or amalgamated. If the people of Taiwan lack an attachment to the PRC, then what good is it to force unification?

Unfortunately, there is a preconceived notion or perhaps even an obsession within the PRC that countries with a ethnic Chinese majority should merge with the motherland to form a supreme nation. Yet this comes at the price of abolishing self-determination and sovereignty.

The existing domestic social turmoil that can’t be contained even with a monopolistic state-run media should be more than enough to caution the PRC against engulfing further chaos.

Why not form a “Chinese Union” with several sovereign states? Why not psychologically examine the consequences of Taiwanese independence rather than deciphering the political aftermath? After all, Taiwan is the only sovereign state that the PRC claims to have jurisdiction over.

While recognizing an independent Taiwan may lead to a domino effect of turmoil in Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet and Qinhai, it may actually be favorable to the PRC.

An independent Taiwan could follow mutual cooperation on social, economic and political issues which will gradually help establish Taiwanese trust in the PRC.

The current deadlock of tension and uncertainty can easily be traded for a newfound respect for a great nation that has decided to wisely give Taiwan what it deserves.

Independence would certainly create a path for a sustainable future and only then could we truly develop an attachment for China.

China needs to improve its global image as the taint has only been overlooked for the benefits of investment.

Yet, considering all reason and cost-benefit analyses, the current rationale for the PRC’s stance toward Taiwan is simply not to lose face.

Kenta Hayashi
Ann Arbor, Michigan

First China must keep its promises
　

Lin Chia 林洽
Wednesday, Apr 09, 2008, Page 8

"KMT legislators appear very eager to change Taiwan’s laws to cave in to China’s position".

The day after Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) won the presidential election, he announced he would accept the “one China with each side having its own interpretation” framework. Three days later, the Xinhua news agency reported on the discussion between Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and US President George W. Bush on the so-called “1992 consensus.”

The English version of the report contained the phrase “one China, different interpretations,” while the Chinese version only mentioned the “one China” principle. This sequence of events must have been carefully orchestrated and planned beforehand. Because of differences between the Chinese and English versions of the story, much room was left for interpretation.

Whether Chinese leaders verbally agree with “one China with each side having its own interpretation” is not important. What matters is whether Beijing is sincere in putting it into practice. This is something that can be verified as soon as Ma takes office.

Let’s take currency exchange between the New Taiwan dollar and the Chinese yuan as an example. Because of Beijing’s opposition, Taiwan is not a member of the IMF, so it cannot demand that China follow through on currency-clearing obligations, as IMF rules state. Therefore, before allowing the exchange of the yuan, it is only economically sound and reasonable for Taiwan to demand that China enter into a bilateral currency-clearing pact. This requirement has already been stipulated in the Statute Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例).

China has refused to sign such a pact. Taiwan’s government, however, has been under pressure from businesspeople and the banking and tourism industries to unilaterally legalize the large-scale exchange of yuan for NT dollars. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers have been to trying to amend Article 38 of the statute to remove the “currency clearing agreement” clause.

Without such a deal, legalizing the large-scale exchange of yuan would be recognizing the yuan as a legal foreign currency, while the NT dollar would not be viewed the same way in China. Chinese would be able to exchange yuan for NT dollars on a large-scale basis, but Taiwanese would not enjoy the same privilege, except at a limited number of locations.

Without a bilateral agreement, any problems involving the yuan in the future would be the Taiwanese government’s problem. China would be under no obligation to provide any assistance or cooperation.

Solving problems with the international currency mechanism requires a bilateral or multilateral effort. A unilateral approach will only create more problems.

Signing a bilateral currency-clearing agreement is a simple economic task. It does not involve any of the complications of signing a so-called peace agreement. Therefore, come Ma’s inauguration on May 20, we can immediately put him to the test.

KMT legislators appear very eager to change Taiwan’s laws to cave in to China’s position. They seem to have little, if any, faith that Ma’s “one China with each side having its own interpretation” policy will work. They also do not seem to believe that China would sign a currency-clearing agreement with Taiwan under this framework.

KMT legislators should give Ma and the Chinese government a chance to put the “one China, different interpretations” framework into practice. If Beijing is willing to sign a mutual and equal currency-clearing agreement that does not limit Taiwan’s rights or marginalize Taiwan or its currency, then it would truly be a master stroke and a blow against the Taiwanese independence movement. The Taiwanese independence discourse would need to be adjusted.

But if Beijing only makes exploitative demands about an agreement’s preconditions, structure and content, then the Ma government, pan-blue legislators, and voters will not need to entertain any illusions about its idea of “one China with each side having its own interpretation.”

Lin Chia is an independent commentator.