MAC promises
to loosen rules on Chinese students
DEFUSING TENSION: The council said it would allow Chinese students to stay
longer than four months and would also recognize Chinese school credentials
By Ko Shu-Ling
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Aug 15, 2008, Page 3
The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) yesterday promised to further loosen
cross-strait regulations relating to education, including extending the time
Chinese students remain in the country for study and recognizing educational
credentials from China.
Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Secretary-General Kao Kong-lian (高孔廉) said
that educational exchanges between both sides of the Taiwan Strait were bound to
improve cultural understanding and defuse tensions. And with that in mind, Kao
said they would consider the proposals.
Kao made the remarks in Taipei yesterday morning while attending a workshop for
Taiwanese students studying in China.
The two-day event was organized by the council, the SEF, the Ministry of
Education, Chinese Youth International and Taiwan Students Union.
ONE YEAR’S STUDY
While Chinese students are allowed to stay in Taiwan for four months, Kao said
it would make sense to extend that time to a year for the convenience of the
students. Under this scenario, students could study for a whole academic year,
he said.
As recognition of Chinese educational credentials did not require negotiations
with China, Kao said it was the goal of the administration to recognize Chinese
educational credentials as China does.
Kao pointed out, however, that the government will do so in a “selective”
manner, emphasizing that recognizing Chinese educational credentials is
different from allowing Chinese-education graduates to take national
examinations to obtain certain professional licenses, such as practicing Chinese
medicine.
DOUBLE DEGREES
Kao said it was also the goal of the government to allow students to obtain
double degrees in Taiwan and China.
Kao said many people agreed that cross-strait relations over the past few months
have improved compared with those during the former administration. Improved
ties were attributed to improved communication, Kao said, especially in terms of
business and culture.
With the negotiation channel in place, Kao said, both sides of the Strait could
resolve many problems through the conduit.
In the future, Kao said the administration would like to see a liaison office
set up to “directly” resolve problems.
“Many people hope to see peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait,” he said.
“Because that’s how Taiwan can continue to survive and develop and China can
continue to strengthen its economy and improve its livelihood.”
Taiwan, the
UN, what’s in a name?
By Jerome Keating
Friday, Aug 15, 2008, Page 8
We have all witnessed how quickly the People’s Republic of China (PRC) broke its
most recent promise to refer to Taiwan as Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北, Chinese Taipei)
and not Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北, Taipei, China) at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.
This broken promise followed on the heels of an earlier failed pledge to use
this term. But another issue now faces Taiwan, that of UN membership. Not to
worry, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) Cub Scouts are again hard at work, flying
by the seat of their pants.
Since 1993, Taiwan has made an annual application to regain membership in the
UN. What name to use is an issue. This is the name game and charade that Taiwan
plays with the hypocrites of the world who trade and make money with Taiwan as
an equal, who have cultural exchanges with Taiwan as equals, who do everything
else with Taiwan as equals but who cannot bring themselves to officially
recognize Taiwan as a diplomatic equal because that would jeopardize their
ability to make money from China.
Traditionally Taiwan had used the name “Republic of China” for entry. As this
had always been shot down by China, the Taiwanese government switched to the
name “Taiwan” last year — with no greater success. This year, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs Spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said the Ma government would not
follow the strategy of the previous administration under Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Fair enough, each administration has it own call, so what brainstorm will they
come up with for this annual issue?
Ma, of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), was elected president in March and
he and his Cabinet took office in May. It is now August and Taiwan’s application
to the UN, a standard annual priority in Taiwan’s affairs regardless of
administration, is due. Media reports said Ma picked his Cabinet based on their
capability and seasoned experience: So why are they stalling?
Unfortunately the foreign ministry is stuck and seems to be taking its lead from
“ostrich” Ma. The government has yet to decide on a name as it does not want to
risk offending China. It has also falsely claimed that it cannot use the same
name employed in previous UN applications after two local referendums on UN
accession this year failed to pass. That logic tests the mind and reveals the
typical fudge factor Ma uses to skirt responsibility for his actions.
A little background is in order on this. Taiwan conducted the two referendums on
UN membership in March. For a referendum to pass it must first have the
participation of 50 percent of the nation’s eligible voters (not votes cast at
the time). After meeting that requirement, the referendum must also be approved
by 50 percent of those who voted plus one.
This places a high burden on any referendum since, as in many countries, getting
a 50 percent turnout for a referendum is difficult. If a referendum fails to
pass that bar, then that topic cannot be brought up again as a referendum for
three years. This says nothing about the nation or national policy; it only says
the topic cannot be raised again for three years.
Taiwan has never had any referendum that passed that bar. One of the two UN
referendums this year was initiated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
asking whether Taiwan should apply for entry to the international organization
under the name Taiwan. The KMT, faking a show of Taiwanese consciousness,
countered this with a referendum on entering under any suitable name. For them
the name Taiwan is anathema.
The KMT was clearly faking because soon after the party proposed a referendum
and obtained the necessary signatures to support the holding of such a
referendum, it urged voters to boycott it as well as the DPP referendum. Why?
Boycotts lower the possibility of passing the first bar — that of getting 50
percent of the eligible voters.
The KMT did not want to risk voter confusion as to which was the more
appropriate referendum, and it certainly did not want a referendum with the name
Taiwan passing. It was better to burn all bridges and lower the eligible voters
for both. In this way, Ma could use the KMT to block Taiwan’s wish for entry to
the UN although technically he could not be accused of voting against it.
Not surprisingly, both referendums failed to pass the required threshold. More
than 6.2 million people voted in the referendums, which received 87 and 94
percent voter approval, but they did not meet the first requirement that more
than 50 percent (8.6 million voters) of the 17.3 eligible voters should
participate in the vote.
This is the hypocritical obfuscation and fudge factor that Ma always hides
behind. With this background, the foreign ministry recently floated the idea of
using “Chinese Taipei” — the non-entity name given the Olympic team — for the
nation’s application to join the UN.
The deadline for application is tomorrow.
Non-plussed, Henry Chen has been quoted as saying: “We will have a strategy by
then, I cannot say what it will be, but there is still time.”
Whipping up a strategy in a short time might not be a problem, especially as
much of the ministry has been in place through both administrations.
But to think that the ministry can come up with a name that China will approve
other than that of a PRC satellite is ludicrous. To think that it can placate
China is ludicrous. To think that the issue will go away if the ministry hides
its head in the sand is ludicrous.
The problem in this matter is China and has always been China; it is not the
previous Taiwanese administration that Ma keeps trying to paint as the bad guy,
nor is it the name.
Ma’s team should be man enough and continue to expose the hypocrisy of the UN,
whose charter says that people have the right to self determination. It should
not false-heartedly try to find a denigrating name that China would accept.
Simply tell the Chinese Emperor that he has no clothes. If the question of name
is still a problem, then what name should they use? A friend suggested a
different name for the ministry, one that reflects the attitude of Ma and his
pie-in-the-sky
NITWITS, yes that name has a ring to it; it certainly captures the spirit and
character of Ma’s Cub Scouts and “new” flexible kowtowing strategy in diplomacy.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based
writer.
EVIL BE GONE
A performer dressed as legendary character Zhong Kui fights off the “demons” of
pollution outside the Control Yuan in Taipei yesterday. The campaigners were
protesting plans to build a fossil fuel power plant in Lukang Township, Changhua
County.
PHOTO: CHANG CHIA-MING, TAIPEI TIMES
Weak Western
diplomacy has failed to prevent an avoidable war
By Richard Holbrooke and Ronald Asmus
Friday, Aug 15, 2008, Page 9
In weeks and years past, each of us argued that Russia was pursuing a policy of
regime change toward Georgia and its pro-Western, democratically elected
president, Mikheil Saakashvili. We predicted that, absent strong and unified
Western diplomatic involvement, war was coming.
Now, tragically, a full-scale Russian invasion of Georgia has happened. The
West, especially the US, could have prevented this war. Instead, regardless of
whether it actually pulls back its troops to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia
has crossed the Rubicon, making this a watershed moment in the West’s post-Cold
War relations with Russia.
Exactly what triggered the fighting is unclear. Each side will argue its own
version. But we know, without a doubt, that Georgia was responding to repeated
provocative attacks by South Ossetian separatists controlled and funded by the
Kremlin.
This was a not a war Georgia wanted; it had believed that it was slowly gaining
ground in South Ossetia through a strategy of soft power.
Whatever mistakes Georgia’s government made cannot justify Russia’s actions. The
Kremlin invaded a neighbor, an illegal act of aggression that violates the UN
Charter and fundamental principles of cooperation and security in Europe.
Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were
opening also violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the
Games. Russia’s willingness to create a war zone 40km from the Black Sea city of
Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its
commitment to Olympic ideals.
In contrast, Russia’s timing suggests that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
seeks to accomplish its aggressive aims ahead of the US elections, thus avoid
beginning relations with the next president on an overtly confrontational note.
Russia’s goal was not simply, as it claimed, to restore the status quo in South
Ossetia. It was and remains regime change in Georgia. This is why it quickly
opened a second front in the other disputed Georgian territory, Abkhazia, just
south of Sochi. Its great goal is to replace Saakashvili — a man Putin despises
— with a president more subject to Kremlin influence. The current promised
withdrawal does not mean it has abandoned that aim.
As Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt pointed out, the Kremlin’s rationale for
invading has parallels to the darkest chapters of Europe’s history. Having
issued passports to tens of thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians, the
Kremlin claims it intervened to protect them — a tactic reminiscent of one used
by Nazi Germany at the start of World War II.
Russia wants to roll back democratic breakthroughs on its borders, to destroy
any chance of further NATO or EU enlargement and to reestablish a sphere of
hegemony over its neighbors. By trying to destroy a democratic, pro-Western
Georgia, the Kremlin is sending a message that, in its part of the world, being
close to the US and the West does not pay.
This moment could well mark the end of an era in Europe during which Realpolitik
and spheres of influence were supposed to be replaced by cooperative norms and a
country’s right to choose its own path.
Hopes for a more liberal Russia under President Dmitry Medvedev will need to be
reexamined. His justification for the invasion reads more like Leonid Brezhnev
than Mikhail Gorbachev. Of course, no one wants a return to Cold War-style
confrontation, but Russia’s behavior poses a direct challenge to European and
international order.
What should the West do now?
First, Georgia deserves the West’s solidarity and support. The West must insure
that fighting does not resume, that Russia does indeed withdraw fully, and that
Georgia’s territorial integrity within its current international border is
preserved. There must also be a major, coordinated transatlantic effort to help
Georgia rebuild and recover.
Second, we should not pretend that Russia is a neutral peacekeeper in conflicts
on its borders. Russia is part of the problem, not the solution. For too long,
the Kremlin has used existing international mandates to pursue neo-imperial
policies. The West must disavow these mandates and insist on truly neutral
international forces, under the UN, to monitor a future cease-fire and to
mediate.
Third, the West needs to counter Russian pressure on its neighbors, especially
Ukraine — most likely the next target in the Kremlin’s efforts to create a new
sphere of hegemony. The US and the EU must be clear that Ukraine and Georgia
will not be condemned to some kind of gray zone.
Finally, the US and the EU must make clear that this kind of aggression will
affect relations and Russia’s standing in the West. While Western military
intervention in Georgia is out of the question — and no one wants a 21st-century
version of the Cold War — Russia’s actions cannot be ignored. There is a vast
array of political, economic and other areas in which Russia’s role and standing
will have to be reexamined. The Kremlin must also be put on notice that its own
prestige project — the Sochi Olympics — will be affected by its behavior.
Weak Western diplomacy and lack of trans-Atlantic unity failed to prevent an
avoidable war. Only strong trans-Atlantic unity can stop this war and begin to
repair the immense damage done. Otherwise, we can add one more issue to the
growing list of foreign policy failures by the administration of US President
George W. Bush.
Richard Holbrooke served as US ambassador to the UN in the Clinton
administration. Ronald Asmus, a deputy assistant secretary of state in the
Clinton administration, is executive director of the Brussels-based
Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Reform in China
Friday, Aug 15,
2008, Page 8
It wasn’t a surprise to see US President George W. Bush attend the Olympic
opening ceremony in Beijing last Friday. After all, the US State Department
removed China from its top 10 list of human rights violators in its annual
report early this year, although China has never eased up on human rights abuse.
As an example, to show off the good side of Beijing during the Olympic Games,
the Chinese government has evicted many of its citizens and destroyed many
houses around Beijing. Moreover, many dissidents have either been detained or
silenced before the Games.
China continues to block news Web sites such as the BBC’s Mandarin site and the
Chinese-language Apple Daily in Hong Kong. Media censorship is rampant.
Beijing was given the right to host the Olympics because it had promised the
International Olympic Committee that it would respect human rights, or at least
loosen the grip on its nationals.
Then came the Tibet incident in April. We also saw Chinese students in South
Korea hounding and hitting South Koreans who demonstrated against the torch
relay in South Korea.
What is the best way to encourage reform in China? I do not see any measurable
improvement in human rights in China. China has become a rising economic power
after opening its door to foreign investment, but we have not seen any
improvement in human rights situation.
To say that more contact with the outside world would pressure the Chinese
government to ease its hold on basic freedoms and promote democracy is a dream.
For instance, Internet access to worldwide search engines such as Google and
Yahoo has not forced China to improve its treatment of its citizens. On the
contrary, Yahoo even enabled the Chinese government to hunt down one dissident,
who was subsequently captured and jailed.
Bush had said that he would speak about respect for human rights and democracy
when he met Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) during his visit. But did an
international boycott change China after the Tiananmen Square incident? No, it
appears that China is only willing to pay lip service to change. Its usual
practice is to release one dissident from prison to pacify international
criticism. The global outcry has not motivated China to make any constructive
improvement.
By holding dialogue with the Dalai Lama’s representatives, China gives the
outside world an impression that they are talking. We are wasting our time
because we are too civilized and naive.
TIEN C. CHENG
Libertyville, Illinois
