More pro-Chen rallies planned
　

TRAPPED IN TUCHENG: Reverend Lyim Hong-tiong said the Church cared about the former president's predicament because it was an abuse of his human rights
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 28, 2008, Page 3

Beginning tomorrow, former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) office will hold a series of rallies across the country in support of Chen, who has been detained incommunicado without charge since Nov. 12.

Chen is suspected of money laundering, accepting bribes, forgery and embezzling NT$15 million (US$450,000) during his presidency.

Chen has refused food since Nov. 13 in protest at what he calls “political persecution.” He has accused the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration of waging a “political vendetta” against him to curry favor with Beijing.

After agreeing to drink some liquid drawn from boiled rice on Wednesday, Chen yesterday ate 500cc of congee, said Lee Da-chu (李大竹), deputy head of the Taipei Detention Center in Tucheng (土城), Taipei County, where Chen is being held.

Former Examination Yuan president Yao Chia-wen (姚嘉文) said that an evening gathering organized by the office last Saturday in Taipei attracted about 20,000 people and the office was planning to hold three more rallies.

Tomorrow there will be a rally in Taichung, on Sunday in Tainan County and on the following Saturday a rally will be held in Kaohsiung, the office said. Another group of Chen supporters has announced it will hold a similar event on Sunday at Yungchun MRT station in Taipei.

Yao said they would invite Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweights to the events, including former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), but they were not certain whether they would attend any of the events.

Describing Chen’s incarceration as “political,” Yao said it was clear that it was an attempt to frustrate the pro-independence campaign.

“They put him in jail because he [Chen] advocates ‘one country on each side of the Strait,’ which is entirely different from the ‘ultimate unification with China’ promoted by the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] government,” Yao said.

Yao said that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) should stand together with the Taiwanese people rather than with Beijing, because he was elected by the public.

“The ‘one country on each side of the Strait’ theory will not die because of Chen’s detention,” Yao said.

Yao said Chen’s case showed that it was not a fight between the ruling and opposition parties, but one between democratic and communist forces. The KMT and Special Investigation Panel (SIP) at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office should stop their political persecution because Chen’s incarceration did not accomplish any political aims and many local and international rights groups have denounced it as a violation of Chen’s human rights, he said.

Chen’s former Presidential Office secretary-general Mark Chen (陳唐山) warned on the perils of a lack of social justice, saying without them society would plunge into turmoil.

Mark Chen said he had been blacklisted by the former KMT government, but had been glad to see some progress made on human rights and democracy over the past few years. However, things have deteriorated since Ma took office, he said, adding that the KMT administration should conduct some soul searching, especially since international human rights groups had expressed concerns over the former president’s detention.

Reverend Lyim Hong-tiong (林芳仲) said his Church had informed other churches around the world of the political persecution of the former president and that the case would be highlighted by other churches worldwide.

Lyim said the Church cared about the case because it was a violation of human rights and it must take care of the “abused.”

Chin Heng-wei (金恆煒), editor-in-chief of Contemporary Magazine, said the former president’s case was political, not judicial, and that it had been unnecessary to handcuff Chen Shui-bian.

The goal of the detention was to “totally destroy the A-bian [Chen Shui-bian’s nickname] path,” he said.

China’s carrier plans worry region
　

By Yu Tsung-chi 余宗基
Friday, Nov 28, 2008, Page 8

In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Chinese Major General Qian Lihua (錢利華), director of the Defense Ministry’s Foreign Affairs Office, said China has every right to build aircraft carriers, without confirming whether it had decided to do so. This enigmatic remark stirred fresh speculation about China’s intentions in developing or acquiring the carriers in light of its economic rise.

China’s intention to build up its own aircraft carriers, viewed as an essential component of building the “blue water” navy able to deploy beyond its coastal waters, has not surprised China watchers. In fact, China has already invested decades of effort in its bid to acquire or develop a monstrous warship.

In 1975 Admiral Liu Huaqing (劉華清), vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, highlighted for first time that China must establish its own aircraft carrier battle group(s) to secure sea lines of communication and protect national sovereignty.

Liu said the goal of developing aircraft carriers was not to start an arms race with the US or the Soviet Union but to meet the requirements for a potential military struggle with Taiwan, settle potential conflicts in the South China Sea, protect its maritime resources, enable China to keep up with regional powers such as India and Japan, give the Chinese navy a decisive edge in future warfare, and participate in the world peacekeeping.

China has purchased four decommissioned carriers: the Melbourne (1985), the Varyag (1998), the Minsk (1998) and the Kiev (2000) from Australia, Ukraine and Russia respectively. Only the Varyag, now docked in Dalien, seems to be a candidate for refurbishment to operational status after photos seen in December 2005 appeared to show activity on the deck to apply new coatings consistent with aircraft operations.

Some specialists, however, believe that these four carriers — which are different in terms of function, designation and structure — must have been used to expedite China’s research and development capabilities in developing its own model.

There have been many reports regarding China’s aircraft carrier intentions. In October 2006, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that Russia had signed a US$2.5 billion arms sale contract with China to deliver 48 SU-33 fighters, which the Sukhoi Aviation Bureau designed specifically for carrier operations.

In March last year, a Beijing-backed Hong-Kong newspaper reported that China could have its first aircraft carrier by 2010. Rick Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center and an expert on the Chinese military, concurred with that report. He believes that “before the end of this decade, we will see preparations for China to build its first indigenous aircraft carrier.”

Jane’s Defence Weekly reported last month that the People’s Liberation Army was training the first batch of 50 cadets to become naval pilots capable of operating aircraft from the mock-up carrier at the Dalian Naval Academy.

All this is evidence that China has a more ambitious and impending timetable than many might think. An aircraft carrier is perceived as a potent symbol of national power, and China is expected to finish building its first aircraft carrier within two to five years.

Such a scenario is cause for concern in East Asia, especially among countries that claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, and will definitely have a great impact on other countries in the region — India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and of course, Taiwan — as well as the US.

The case of Taiwan is especially noticeable because if the Varyag can be transformed into China’s first aircraft carrier battle group, it would have a great impact on Taiwan’s defensive operation.

By then, Taiwan’s operational forces would be kept at bay because China’s aircraft carrier(s) could sail off Taiwan’s east coast, beyond the radius of action of fighter jets. This could not only deter foreign forces coming to Taiwan’s aid, but also allow China to attack Taiwan from both sides.

Subsequently, Taiwan’s “forces reservation” at a preliminary stage in east Taiwan, where it reportedly can protect more than half of its sophisticated fighter aircraft, would also be challenged by China’s new capabilities.

Although submarines are believed is the best deterrent to aircraft carriers, Taiwan only has four submarines — two World War II-era subs from the Soviet Union and two Dutch subs imported in the 1980s. These outdated subs are obviously ill-suited to deter China’s new carrier equipped with the state-of-the-art weapon systems supported by Russia.

To remedy the cross-strait status quo tilting in China’s favor, the US must review the hold-up on its offer to sell Taiwan eight submarines. After all, any policy disregarding the Taiwan Relations Act would endanger the equilibrium in the Taiwan Strait and increase the likelihood of war that would involve the US.

An aircraft carrier is also a long-range power project weapon. Such a weapon in China’s hands could serve as augury for China’s rise and to determine if its intentions are hostile.

Some specialists have said that growing Chinese international stature and self-confidence also means fewer releases of human rights activists, less reticence about openly pursuing its military development, and increasing defiance when confronted with criticism.

The US, India and Japan would also be anxious about the prospects of carriers, about how they will be used in the Chinese fleet and what impact they will have on China’s foreign policy.

China’s military actions in recent years are particularly alarming. In April 2001 China ignored international law in holding a US EP3 flight crew for 12 days; in November 2006 a Chinese submarine surfaced in the vicinity of a US Navy aircraft battle group in the East China Sea; in January last year China launched its anti-satellite weapon without a public notice, putting at risk other nations’ space assets.

Even as cross-strait relations are thawing, China has not hesitated to deploy cutting-edge YJ-62 guided missiles with a maximum range in excess of 400km along the southeast coastline opposite Taiwan. These missiles are a military threat and hostile gesture toward not only Taiwan but toward all of China’s neighbors.

This is clearly at odds with China’s claim of peaceful rise or peaceful development. In fact, improving Sino-American strategic relations are conditioned upon China not challenging US global leadership, a position that Chinese leaders have repeatedly stressed. China’s rigorous military reach-out, however, is now being interpreted otherwise. The more China’s flexes its military muscle the more defiant it may become.

To mollify its neighbors’ worries, it would behoove China to explain the purposes and intentions behind its carrier-building program. The more transparent China is about its military and security affairs, the less other nation’s militaries have to assume the worst and respond accordingly, leading to potential misunderstandings, miscalculations and an action-reaction cycle of military preparations, to the detriment of all sides.

Yu Tsung-chi is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in the US.

Austrian Anschluss has lessons for Taiwan
　

By Lai I-chung 賴怡忠
Friday, Nov 28, 2008, Page 8

‘Germany’s “peaceful unification” with Austria remains a prime example of how the collapse of democracy undermines sovereignty.’

In 1938, Adolf Hitler carried out a “peaceful unification” of Germany and Austria. Is the same thing about to happen between Taiwan and China?

Let us take a look at the process through which the Austrians voted in favor of joining Germany in a referendum.

Germany and Austria share both language and people, and just like the Republic of China’s Constitution aims for unification with China, unification with Germany was the political goal of the Austrian Constitution at the time.

Hitler’s intent to annex Austria was also obvious. When he met then Austrian chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg in 1938, he pushed hard for the legalization of the Austrian National Socialist party and forced von Schuschnigg to appoint two members of the Nazi party to his Cabinet.

Hitler then demanded the dismissal of Alfred Jansa, the Austrian chief of staff who had defended the Austrian border from German invasion, a move that left the border wide open.

Under renewed pressure from Hitler, von Schuschnigg announced a defensive referendum in an attempt to guarantee Austrian independence. On the eve of the referendum, however, German troops invaded Austria — and were warmly welcomed. The Germans then held the referendum and unification was supported by 99.7 percent of the voters.

Not even the United Kingdom, the world’s super power at this time, had expected such expediency, and then British prime minister Neville Chamberlain was forced to adopt a policy of appeasement.

Prior to the Austrian invasion, Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler was already busy orchestrating the arrest of prominent individuals opposed to the Nazis. Within a few days of the invasion, more than 70,000 socialists, communists and members of the nobility who opposed unification had been arrested. Arrests on this scale would have been impossible without name lists put together with the help of the Austrian Nazi Party.

Looking at the cooperation between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party — the promotion of a cross-strait common market, refusing to treat China as an enemy, the diplomatic truce, the appointment of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) to represent Taiwan at the APEC meeting, the judiciary’s score settling with the pan-green camp, and so on — in the light of Hitler’s “peaceful unification” with Austria is a terrifying exercise and there are many lessons to be learned.

There was the initial establishment of an economic alliance followed by the elimination of Austria’s military force, the forcing of the Austrian government to appoint specific people to key positions, the orchestration of the arrests of Nazi opponents and finally the domestic cooperation by the Austrian Nazis.

Germany’s “peaceful unification” with Austria remains a prime example of how the collapse of democracy undermines sovereignty. Will 400 years of colonial history repeat itself in Taiwan four years from now?

Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.