Representatives of the Dalai Lama in China for talks

AP AND AFP, BEIJING AND TOKYO
Sunday, May 04, 2008, Page 1

Representatives of the Dalai Lama were expected to hold talks with Chinese officials yesterday on the troubled region of Tibet as state-run media in China railed against the exiled spiritual leader.

The meeting would be the first between the two sides since violent anti-government protests erupted in Tibet in March.

Details of the meeting were not available yesterday. The Dalai Lama’s office said on Friday the two envoys would have “informal talks with representatives of the Chinese leadership” and had arrived in Hong Kong.

Envoys of the Dalai Lama — Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen — would convey “deep concerns” over China’s handling of the situation in Tibet and would put forward “suggestions to bring peace to the region,” the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharmsala, India, said in a statement.

The Tibetan envoys were to meet with officials from a government department tasked to contain separatist movements, a spokesman for the exiled government said.

China has faced mounting international calls to negotiate with the Dalai Lama and some experts believe Beijing agreed to the meeting to ease pressure ahead of the Olympics.

The Tibet talks were not mentioned yesterday in China’s entirely state-run media, but two articles continued to accuse the Dalai Lama and his supporters of organizing riots with the aim of breaking the far western Himalayan region of Tibet away from Chinese rule.

“The hope of realizing Tibetan independence by the Dalai clique has become more and more dim. When their hopes shattered, the Dalai clique launched bloody violence, this was their last act of madness,” the Tibet Daily said.

A front-page story in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily, denied the Tibetan issue was related to religion, saying “the religious issue is a card played by the Dalai clique for gaining sympathy from some people.”

Meanwhile, a senior exiled leader of China’s Muslim Uighur minority called for a boycott of the Olympics, accusing Beijing of “cultural genocide” alongside its crackdown in Tibet.

”China has no right to host the Olympic Games because they represent peace, freedom and friendship,” said Dolkun Isa, secretary general of the Munich-based World Uighur Congress.

Isa said that China had failed to improve human rights in Tibet and China’s western Xinjiang region.

Isa held talks in with senior lawmakers, including former prime minister Shinzo Abe and former foreign minister Taro Aso, to seek pressure on China over its human rights record when President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) visits this week.

Can Ma keep Taiwanese freedom?

By Li Thian-hok 李天福
Sunday, May 04, 2008, Page 8

In January’s LegislativE election the pan-blue camp won more than 75 percent of the seats. On March 22 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) won the presidential election, taking 58 percent of the votes cast. When Ma takes office on May 20, the KMT will rule all branches of the central government and 15 cities and counties out of a total of 25.

With this new political landscape, Taiwan’s status quo as a de facto independent and democratic state faces three grave dangers.

First, the KMT’s dominance could erode the nation’s democratic institutions, since there are no longer any checks and balances. The KMT was built on the Leninist model, with the party controlling the state. The party may be tempted to revert to its old ways, where the party is indistinguishable from the state and plunders the national treasury at will. The nation’s judiciary, which has only begun to learn the merits of its independence from political interference, already shows ample signs that it is again becoming the docile tool of the KMT.

Second, Ma’s policy of opening up to China, without regulatory safeguards to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and economic security, could result in unification by stealth. In addition to the three direct links, Ma welcomes Chinese investment in Taiwan’s real estate and thousands of Chinese tourists per day. Ma also supports recognition of Chinese university credentials.

Many Chinese tourists have disappeared soon after arriving in Taiwan. There are probably thousands of Chinese spies and special forces personnel already deployed in Taiwan. The Mainland Affairs Council once estimated that the number of People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizens living in Taiwan through marriage, immigration and smuggling would reach 1.5 million by 2013. By encouraging unlimited immigration from China, Ma could in effect create a de facto “One China.”

Finally, Ma’s proposed peace accord with China will certainly sound the death knell for Taiwanese freedom.

In a recent article (“Learning from Tibet’s experience,” March 28, Page 8) Ruan Ming (阮銘) wrote of how the PRC signed a peace accord with Tibet in 1951, promising that: “The Central Authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The Central Authorities also will not alter the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama.” Within five years, there was a rebellion and tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed.

On March 22, 2006, Ma promised in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington that, if elected, he would negotiate a peace accord with Beijing right away. In his recent telephone conversation with US President George W. Bush, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) reportedly indicated his willingness to negotiate a peace accord with Taiwan on the basis of the so-called “1992 consensus.”

The “1992 consensus” has two elements: the “one China” principle, which says there is only one China, and that Taiwan is part of China, subject to the proviso that each side is free to interpret what “China” means. The “one China” principle is the substantive core of the “1992 consensus.” The different interpretation provision in reality is just a diplomatic fig leaf to enable the KMT government to surrender Taiwan’s sovereignty to the PRC with a semblance of dignity. Once the KMT government recognizes the PRC’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, the nation’s fate will be sealed. Taiwanese will forfeit their hard-won freedom and fall under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The signing of a peace accord would unmistakably mean the abrogation of the US’ Taiwan Relations Act and servitude of the Taiwanese people under the CCP.

What can the Taiwanese people do to forestall this impending peril?

They should closely monitor the actions of the KMT government with the aid of opinion leaders such as the North Society, South Society and other nongovernmental organizations dedicated to the enhancement of democratic values and human rights. They should build grassroots organizations that can launch massive street demonstrations to protest government policies and actions that betray or impair Taiwan’s status as an independent democracy, free from PRC control.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should rebuild the party with fresh, young blood and restore the vision of an independent, democratic state once again as its guiding principle. Without that vision, the DPP has no raison d’etre. With a clear, hopeful vision, the DPP could inspire the public to jointly work for a free and prosperous nation wherein the public can live in dignity.

During the election campaign, Ma promised that the future of Taiwan will be decided by Taiwanese themselves.

In order to carry out this promise, Taiwan’s Referendum Law must be amended to remove the high threshold of the majority of eligible voters and other obstacles. This would also be a way for the KMT to show its good faith.

The Taiwanese-American community in the US is nearly 1 million strong. It is still in a state of shock. But Taiwanese-Americans interested in preserving Taiwan’s freedom can do a number of things to help.

First, stress to the US establishment the connection between Taiwan’s freedom and the credibility of the US-Japan alliance and ultimately US security. Second, urge the incoming US administration to reassess US policy toward China and Taiwan based on long-range US political, economic and security interests in East Asia. The US should seriously consider what status of Taiwan would best serve US national interests and how Washington could steer all concerned parties toward that goal. Lastly, Taiwanese-American groups could lobby the US Congress to help push the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan. How the Bush administration handles this matter will indicate how friendly it may act toward the new Ma government.

Can Taiwan’s freedom survive Ma’s presidency?

If Ma’s pro-Beijing agenda were implemented with nary a challenge, then the outcome would not be the 30 or 40 years of peace that Ma hopes for but the annexation of democratic Taiwan by the PRC sooner rather than later.

Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.

Making more concessions to China?
　

By Lin Cho-shui 林濁水
Sunday, May 04, 2008, Page 8

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) president-elect Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent appointment of Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) as chairwoman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) has enraged a group of KMT elders who were stepping over each other to kowtow to Beijing and beg for favors. Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) chairman-designate Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) even claimed that the appointment could mean a dead end for cross-strait relations.

Those in the Chiang camp believe that China has been kindness itself to Taiwan. For instance, they believe that Taiwan’s trade policy toward China violates WTO regulations because of the one-way trade and investment restrictions that Taiwan places on China. Beijing, however, lets this pass because of its “united front” strategy, allowing Taiwan to run up a large trade surplus. Hence Taiwan should give in “a little” politically to China in order to gain economic benefits.

Is this really the case?

First, Taiwan’s trade surplus with China is a result of Taiwanese exports of mechanical equipment, upstream components and semi-finished goods for assembly or production in China before they are shipped to Europe, the US and Japan. This kind of trade allows China to acquire Taiwanese capital, technology and employment opportunities for 20 million Chinese, as well as rake in huge foreign currency reserves from foreign trade.

Second, the reason China does not deal with Taiwan under the WTO framework has nothing to do with a desire to protect Taiwan’s economy. Taiwan is a WTO member and has the right to sign free-trade agreements with any country in the world. However, China has constantly intervened to prevent Taiwan from gaining equal status with China under the WTO framework. In short, China does not wish to deal with Taiwan under the same context.

Third, if China wanted what is best for Taiwan, then in the matter of the three links, why has it always insisted that passenger transport be opened first while obstructing cargo transport? Why does China encourage Taiwanese businesses to invest in the electronics industry that earns foreign exchange for China, but continues to block access to its domestic financial market?

Although the MAC has the authority to oversee the SEF, Chiang probably thought he could lord it over the MAC. As KMT vice chairman, any KMT member who works for the MAC is subordinate to him within the party. His anger at the appointment of Lai, a former Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator, is not difficult to imagine. Chiang now insists that before negotiations between the SEF and China’s Assocation for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits take place, a consensus should be reached through the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) communication platform. In short, the KMT-CCP communication platform will render Ma and Lai’s system for Chinese affairs hollow and turn Ma into the executor of Chiang’s policies.

While Chiang is still frothing at the mouth, former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) left quietly for his fourth meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), planning to use this occasion to teach Ma and Lai a lesson. Hu appears to have given Lien “face” by touting the so-called “1992 consensus.” While this may be a slap in the face for Ma and Lai, it is far from a “face-saving” measure for Lien. Hu avoided mouthing the KMT contention that the “1992 consensus” refers to “one China, two interpretations.” At the same time, Hu reiterated the four principles of “building mutual trust, leaving disputes aside, pursuing common ground while preserving differences, and creating a win-win situation” — echoing the policies that Ma has promoted. Hu was making it clear to Lien that he is still negotiating with Ma.

The infighting within the KMT has allowed Hu to become a supreme intermediary, handing out carrots to both sides as well as giving both 50 slaps each. The fact that they have become a laughingstock is secondary. What is more important is how Taiwan’s interests can be protected. Hence, when Chiang says that Taiwan must “give” politically, he must clearly explain what will be given.

Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.