MOJ says
26,000 Chinese violated laws since 2003
By Rich Chang
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Jul 20, 2008, Page 2
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) said yesterday that about 26,000 Chinese violated
laws in Taiwan between 2003 and last year.
Those convicted mainly violated the National Security Law (國家安全法), the Statute
Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland
Area (兩岸人民關係條例) and committed forgery and theft, the MOJ said.
While 134,000 Chinese entered Taiwan in 2003, the number increased to 320,000
last year, the ministry said, adding that of the 26,000 criminals, most were
illegal immigrants who were worked illegally, some as prostitutes, and that they
were repatriated to China after being arrested.
The ministry said there were currently 56 Chinese serving their jail terms in
Taiwan, with 38 percent of them serving sentences between five and 10 years,
which indicated those Chinese had committed more serious crimes.
The government this month opened the country to more Chinese tourists, currently
allowing 1,000 Chinese tourists to visit per day.
Authorities have reported several Chinese tourists missing in the country.
The MOJ said it would work harder to prevent Chinese tourists from breaking the
law.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators had expressed concern that the
tourism policy could result in violent criminals from China making their way to
Taiwan.
Door on
arms sales not closed yet
By Edward Chen 陳一新
Sunday, Jul 20, 2008, Page 8
‘Washington has been sending various messages
through different channels, making it safe to say that the US is not interested
in blocking arms sales to Taiwan.’
Reports HAVE indicated that the US is planning to halt arms sales to Taiwan, and
it is meaningless to discuss responsibility at this stage of the game. Perhaps
the government should start brainstorming and try to come up with some ways to
coax the White House to change it’s mind.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and key national security officials have been more
active recently in talks with the US about arms sales. They know that if US
President George W. Bush’s administration freezes arms sales to Taiwan, they
will face even greater difficulty restarting sales after the election of either
Republican presidential candidate John McCain or Democrat rival Barack Obama.
In the past, the Democrats have approved fewer arms deals with Taiwan than the
Republicans. Theoretically, a US president should decide the time, quality and
quantity of arms sales in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.
However, the US president has great discretionary powers. Therefore, even if he
does nothing, he does not violate the law. Take former presidents Jimmy Carter
and Bill Clinton, both Democrats. They seldom sold advanced weapons to Taiwan
and Clinton even considered temporarily stopping all sales of weapon parts to
Taiwan after then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) made his controversial
“state-to-state” statement.
As for Republican presidents, although Ronald Reagan was forced to sign the 1982
Sino-US Joint Communique; because of changes in the international situation, he
still sold a number of important weapons systems to Taiwan and allowed Taiwan to
build the Indigenous Defense Fighter with US help. In addition, George Bush sold
Taiwan F-16A/Bs and E-2T early warning aircraft and George W. Bush approved
eight arms deals at once.
Washington has been sending various messages through different channels, making
it safe to say that the US is not interested in blocking arms sales to Taiwan.
On the contrary, the US wants the Ma administration to officially declare its
stance on arms procurement.
First of all, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young has been
in close contact with leaders of both the pan-blue and pan-green camps, making
every effort to push through arms sales. The alleged misunderstanding between
Taipei and Washington is a great insult to Young. Washington sent former White
House chief of staff Andrew Card to congratulate Ma at his inauguration and AIT
Chairman Raymond Burghardt has visited Taiwan twice since the presidential
election. Washington should understand Ma’s determination to increase Taiwan’s
defense budget to 3 percent of GDP and his stance on arms sales.
During former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, Chen purposely
tied the three most expensive arms deals together: submarines, anti-submarine
aircraft and Patriot missiles.
The Democratic Progressive Party even talked about selling government-owned land
and issuing government bonds to finance the procurements. The pan-blue camp had
no choice but to boycott the deals and some US officials took this to mean that
they were against arms sales. Through partisan negotiations, the legislature
finally passed a three-in-one procurement package after reducing the total value
and establishing an annual budget for it. It is highly unlikely that Washington
is unaware of the budget the legislature passed.
When Chen pushed for the UN membership referendum ahead of the presidential
election, the Bush administration refused to sell F-16C/Ds and froze other arms
sales to Taiwan, so as not to affect Sino-US cooperation and to avoid escalating
the North Korean nuclear crisis. However, things are different now. The US
sincerely hopes that Taiwan can strengthen its defense capabilities and
therefore it should not freeze arms sales. Otherwise, why would Ma increase
Taiwan’s defense budget?
The US hopes that Taiwan will strengthen its defense capacity on the one hand,
while improving cross-strait relations on the other. From its own experience,
Washington knows that national strength is the biggest bargaining chip in
negotiations. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that as Taiwan improves relations with
China, we must not forget that the US is still an important ally of Taiwan. Her
comment was made intentionally to show that arms sales to Taiwan remain open.
Beijing is trying to “systematize” the freeze of arms sales through US
Ambassador to China Clark Randt and Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang
Jiechi (楊潔箎). China has always wanted to interfere with US arms sales to Taiwan
and would certainly stick its nose in given the chance. Nevertheless, in
accordance with Reagan’s six assurances to Taipei, Washington must not allow
Beijing to interfere with arms deals between the US and Taiwan.
Based on past experience, when the US makes a decision, it can simply inform
Taiwan without giving any explanation. Yet Washington allowed Ma to send key
security, military and diplomatic officials to participate in the Taiwan-US
military meeting in Monterey, California, which opened on Monday. It has also
allowed a delegation from the Foreign and National Defense Committee of the
Legislative Yuan to visit Washington and meet US security and defense officials
later this month, showing that the US has not closed the door on arms sales to
Taiwan.
It is difficult for Taiwan to make its stance on arms sales known because we do
not have control over the matter. Taiwan should not allow Washington to demand
sky-high prices or offer weapons systems that do not meet our defense needs.
Making Washington understand Taiwan’s determination and need for improving our
military without hurting the long-term friendship between the US and Taiwan will
require great diplomatic and political skill.
Edward Chen is a professor in Tamkang
University’s Graduate Institute of American Studies.
Talks with
China must not damage sovereignty
By Chen Lung-chu 陳隆志
Sunday, Jul 20, 2008, Page 8
The promises to launch cross-strait weekend charter flights and allow more
Chinese tourists to visit were two key points of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九)
campaign platform.
Following his inauguration on May 20, he actively sought negotiations between
the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations
Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), which took place in China last month and led
to a structural change in the “state-to-state” relationship between Taipei and
Beijing.
On the surface, the SEF and ARATS may seem to have carried out only routine
negotiations with the goal of realizing Ma’s two key campaign pledges, but the
political significance of the talks should be carefully scrutinized.
Because the Ma administration is pinning all its hopes for the future of the
nation’s economic development on China, it was in a hurry to announce a
timetable for direct cross-strait charter flights even before Ma’s inauguration.
That meant Beijing was in a position to set the agenda and guide the
negotiations.
In his inaugural speech, Ma said that negotiations with China should be resumed
based on the so-called “1992 consensus,” which means that the talks are based on
a consensus that does not exist.
The government has failed to stress its view that there is “one China with
different interpretations” and to make it clear that the nation, whether called
Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC), is an independent and sovereign state.
At the same time, the government tells the international community that it
supports the “one China” principle.
This is giving a false impression to other governments that Taiwan is part of
China.
The negotiations with China resulted in an uneven situation concerning the
number of airports open to direct cross-strait charter flights. While Taiwan
promised to open eight airports, China offered only five.
Furthermore, the launch of cross-strait chartered cargo flights — which would
benefit the nation’s economy more than passenger flights — will only be
discussed when ARATS representatives visit Taiwan in October. This risks
damaging our national interests and making the negotiation process unnecessarily
complex.
As a result of the talks, Taiwan will allow up to 3,000 Chinese tourists per
day. But Beijing is responsible for checking the qualifications of the
applicants, which means that Taipei can only accept the applicants passively,
relinquishing its right to review their visa applications.
That is likely to open loopholes in national security.
National strength is everything in international politics, and the same is true
when it comes to cross-strait talks. Faced with China’s rise, we should not base
our policies on wishful thinking. If the nation’s expectations and demands for
China are unrealistic, it will be like entrusting national security to one’s
enemy. Beijing is all but certain to demand further compromises in return for
increased economic links.
The public are the real masters of the nation. Faced with a government that is
focusing too much on China, we should not sit idly by. We have the right to
request that the government push for bilateral contacts, dialogue and
negotiations between Taiwan and China based on a consensus between the Taiwanese
government, the opposition and the public.
Any decisions that could change the “status quo” should be decided through a
referendum. This is the only way we can ensure the public’s welfare and rights.
Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the Taiwan
New Century Foundation.