Chinese
court rejects earthquake suit
CHILDREN’S BRIGADE: A judge
told representatives the central government had issued a memo instructing courts
not to hear cases related to the collapsed schools
AP, BEIJING
Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008, Page 5
A court in southwestern China has rejected a lawsuit filed by a group of parents
seeking compensation for the deaths of their children when their classrooms
crumbled during a devastating earthquake in May, one of the parents said
yesterday.
The court’s move is a sign of the authorities’ extreme sensitivity to any
protests by parents demanding investigations into alleged corruption and shoddy
construction, a flash point for government critics after the 7.9-magnitude quake
killed nearly 70,000 people in Sichuan Province, including many students.
The group of about 60 parents filed the lawsuit against school and local
authorities in Sichuan on Dec. 1 at the Deyang People’s Intermediate Court, said
a parent who would only give his surname, Sang, because he was afraid of
official retaliation.
The parents want an official apology and compensation for the deaths of their
children after Fuxin No. 2 Primary School in Mianzhu city collapsed during the
May 12 quake.
The government still has not given a separate toll for children who were crushed
when their shoddily built schools collapsed, but has said that about 7,000
classrooms were destroyed. Their deaths have become a sensitive political issue,
with parents — many of whom lost their only child — staging protests demanding
investigations.
Many of the parents say they have also been subjected to intimidation and
financial inducements to silence them.
Sang, one of the parents’ representatives, said a judge from the court last week
informed the plaintiffs verbally that it would not accept their case and that
the central government had issued an internal memo to the courts to say that
such cases were not to be heard.
Sang also said police on Sunday detained one of the other parents for a day and
warned him against talking to overseas media, saying those who did could face
treason charges.
“We representatives are now moving constantly to hide away from the police,”
Sang said. “We have to live in our relatives’ homes.”
At the People’s Intermediate Court in Deyang, a woman surnamed Dai confirmed
that a lawsuit had been filed against the town of Fuxin, the education
department of Mianzhu, the school’s principal and the company that built the
school. She referred further questions to a case-filing department that refused
to take calls from the media.
Sang said the group continued to grow by the day, with about 80 parents
currently planning to petition the Deyang City Government now that the court has
rejected the case.
“We are reluctant to set a time for the petition now as there are too many of
us. Once they find out about our plan, we won’t be able to carry it out,” Sang
said.
In September, a Chinese government scientist acknowledged that a rush to build
schools in recent years likely led to construction flaws causing so many of them
to collapse — the first official admission that low construction standards may
have been behind the student deaths.
In many cases, schoolhouses were the only buildings in the area to fully
collapse and experts say China’s problem, similar to that in many other parts of
the world, was a lack of commitment by governments to safe schools.
While the government has vowed strict punishment for bad construction along with
the investigation, there has so far been no public attempt to hold anyone
accountable.
No asylum
law: It’s all a gamble
Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008, Page 8
On Monday, the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission gave a glimmer of hope
to a group of more than 100 Tibetans in exile who made their unfortunate way to
Taiwan in hopes of gaining residency here.
The commission promised shelter for the Tibetans while their fate is decided and
said the Cabinet might propose amending the Immigration Act (出入國及移民法) to allow
them to stay.
As the law stands, the Tibetans would have no hope of help from the government.
Many in the group have lived here illegally for years. They entered the country
on forged travel documents — passports from India and Nepal — thus deceiving
immigration staff. But most importantly, the policy that at one time helped
Tibetans in exile come to Taiwan and stay here has been defunct for years, while
the nation has no asylum law.
Yet the Tibetans, many of whom probably have no legal passport, cannot easily be
returned to India and Nepal — countries they entered from Tibet before
continuing to Taiwan, and which can refuse them entry based on their lack of
travel documents. The worldwide irony of asylum law is that would-be refugees
must usually enter a country illegally before they can legally seek asylum:
There is no internationally recognized right to enter a country with the purpose
of seeking asylum.
The other option — returning the Tibetans to their home country — can hardly be
considered. Having fled once, they would likely meet harassment from
authorities, compounding the oppression that prompted them to flee in the first
place.
While the Tibetans are here illegally under local law, the fact that Taiwan has
no procedure to judge their claim to stay is illegal under international law.
The nation has a responsibility to create a mechanism to deal with applications
from potential refugees.
Taiwan should consider that this obligation applies to it regardless of the
nation’s limited participation in international bodies. During the decades when
international asylum law took form at the UN and the UN High Commissioner of
Refugees was established, the Republic of China was a member. The governments of
the world, it was decided, share a responsibility for the tragic reality that
hundreds of millions of people face political persecution or violence within
their own countries.
Taiwan cannot continue to decide the fate of those in need on a case-by-case
basis, seeking loopholes or adding piecemeal amendments to the Immigration Act.
This group of Tibetans are not the only people in Taiwan who find themselves in
limbo, nor should the government expect that this case will be the last. The
nation does attract a small number of would-be refugees, such as from African
countries, and earlier this year, two Chinese asylum-seekers drew the media’s
attention. Asylum seekers will continue to make the sad mistake of coming to
Taiwan to apply for help under a law that doesn’t exist.
Unless this is addressed by the legislature through the creation of an asylum
law, the fate of those who say they suffered persecution in their home countries
may depend on their ability to win public sympathy through media coverage. Where
the public’s concern is sufficient, the government may be moved to act, if only
to avoid controversy.
Suing for future
generations
In a recent article by Agence France-Presse on the appointment of scientist
Steven Chu (朱隸文) as the next US secretary of energy, the news agency noted that
Chu will be president-elect Barack Obama’s “dedicated champion in the
life-or-death fight against global warming,” adding: “Chu has increasingly
sounded the alarm on the dire need to address climate change before it is too
late.”
The report also quotes the 60-year-old Chu as saying that our Earth is
threatened with “sudden, unpredictable and irreversible disaster.”
It is important to keep readers informed about what is happening in the fight
against global warming and to show both sides of the issue. Some people, like
Chu, believe global warming is real, while others believe it is not.
In keeping with Chu’s feeling that alarms need to be sounded about the problem
of climate change, I have started a process to file a class-action lawsuit with
the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, asking for US$1 billion in
damages from current world leaders for manslaughter of future generations of
human beings if strong steps are not taken now to curb global warming.
The money, if any is awarded by the ICC, will be donated to the Nobel Peace
Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to help inform
the public about this most “dire” issue.
The only news media to report on this lawsuit so far was Reuters News Service in
the Netherlands, which posted a brief news item about the suit last month.
The lawsuit might seem frivolous to some people, but those who want to read more
about it can visit the Web site northwardho.blogspot.com and post their
opinions.
DAN BLOOM
Chiayi City
Obama’s
pragmatic view of China
By Yu Tsung-chi 余宗基
Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008, Page 8
Looking at his record sheds some light on US president-elect Barack Obama’s
thoughts on China’s rise and his interest in both cooperation and competition
with China.
In response to a question on the campaign trail, Obama said: “Increasingly, the
center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia ... Obviously China is
rising and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend.
They’re competitors.”
He also said that “although the US should maintain a cooperative relationship
with China, it should never hesitate to be clear and consistent with China where
we disagree.”
Unlike his predecessors, Obama did not demonize China as “evil” and communist as
a tool to feed xenophobia, boost protectionist sentiment or attack China’s trade
surplus to pander to voters.
However, Obama vowed to push China harder to loosen the reins on its currency,
improve its human rights record and end its support for repressive regimes in
Iran, Myanmar, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
This reflects his increasing maturity on US-China relations and shows that he
sees China as a complex issue that involves trade, security, the environment,
energy objectives, democracy, human rights, Tibet and military build up.
But with the US mired in both diplomatic and economic troubles and China’s
growing clout in international affairs, Beijing’s value to Washington will
likely outweigh issues such as democracy, human rights, Tibet and China’s
defense buildup.
What is less predictable is whether, at a time of domestic crisis or
international troubles, an Obama administration would be likely to accommodate
China’s demands.
Former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) once said: “Don’t pay attention to
unfriendly remarks [that a US presidential] candidate might make about China
during the campaign, because once elected, [he or she] will be friendly.”
Some specialists have identified a pattern among presidential candidates, who
are wont to take a hard stance on China during the campaign and threaten to
change their country’s policies toward Beijing, only to find after being elected
that there is little they can change before being compelled to cooperate with
the Chinese government on common interests.
As a presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan once criticized Jimmy Carter for
normalizing relations with China and forsaking Taiwan; Bill Clinton accused
then-president George Bush of cuddling with the butchers in Beijing after the
1989 Tiananmen Massacre. George W. Bush later criticized Clinton’s policies,
arguing that China was not a strategic partner but a strategic competitor.
However, it did not take long for China to become the US’ “partner” and a
“responsible stakeholder” in international politics and economics.
Although it is hard to pin down a candidate’s opinions during a campaign, it
will be interesting to see how Obama handles relations with China, since he is
resolute in his belief that China’s rise is inevitable and relations between the
two countries have nowhere to go but forward.
Obama is a pragmatist at heart — he sees China not only as an opportunity but
also as a challenge. The nomination of his national security team — with Senator
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, retired Marine General James Jones as
national security adviser and Robert Gates staying on as secretary of defense —
signaled that his China policy would be pragmatic rather than idealistic.
All three of Obama’s picks indicate a sweeping shift of priorities and resources
in the areas of national security and foreign policy. They all know very well
that China’s cooperation is very important to the US’ domestic and international
interests.
If one focuses on Asia, China is definitely the most crucial player the US must
deal with. The US has a good position in Asia, for example in the six-party
talks on North Korea’s nuclear program and on Myanmar’s human rights abuses. If
Washington hopes to see results on these issues, it must work with China.
To bend China toward US interests, the US must, in Obama’s words, “pursue a new
strategy that skillfully uses, balances and integrates all elements of American
power: our military and diplomacy ... economy and the power of our moral
example.”
In other words: “Strength and wisdom must go hand in hand.” Soft power and hard
power must both be part of the strategy, although there should be more carrots
than sticks.
But for its China policy to succeed, the US must take several factors into
account.
First and foremost, the US must tend to its economic crisis and keep its economy
competitive and vibrant.
As Obama said: “The national security challenges we face are just as grave and
just as urgent as our economic crisis.”
The next US administration will need economic power to bolster the country’s
military strength, diplomatic leverage and role as a global leader.
If the US wasn’t weighed down by an economic crisis as well as two wars,
Washington would definitely hold more sway over Beijing on promoting a
cooperative and constructive bilateral relationship.
In addition, Washington must remind Beijing that the US wants a cooperative
relationship and is optimistic about a durable mutual relationship. But the
dialogue on democracy, human rights, Tibet and military build up must be
particularly careful.
For example, if Washington stays silent about Beijing’s recent pressure on
French President Nicolas Sarkozy not to meet the Dalai Lama or on its recent
execution of medical researcher Wo Weihan (伍維漢), it could send the signal that
democratic values can be overshadowed by economic concerns and that Washington
could eventually be turned against its own policies.
Moreover, Obama has said the US must strengthen its capacity to defeat enemies
and support friends, and that Washington should renew old alliances and forge
new, enduring partnerships.
The coming administration should therefore avoid giving China the impression
that Washington is only interested in its relations with China — even at the
expense of making other Asian allies irrelevant.
On the contrary, the new administration should indicate to its allies that they
should expect more, not less, from US engagement with China.
The fact is that most of Asia consists of democracies such as Australia, India,
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Washington should indicate to China that reinforcing the multilateral
relationships of its allies is not intended to contain China but to teach it the
rules in Asia: freedom, democracy and respect for human rights.
China is welcome to join the democratic community, but it is not welcome to take
charge of it.
Yu Tsung-chi is a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council of the United States.
Ma policies
could upset ‘status quo’ in the Strait
By Chen Lung-chu 陳隆志
Wednesday, Dec 24, 2008, Page 8
On Dec. 16, 1978, US president Jimmy Carter announced to the world that
Washington would recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and establish
formal diplomatic relations, effective Jan. 1, 1979. At the insistence of the
PRC, the US government terminated its diplomatic relations with the Republic of
China (ROC) and unilaterally nullified the US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty.
Believing that the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the US
and the PRC should not be allowed to adversely affect existing de facto
relations between the US and Taiwan, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)
on Apr. 10, 1979, as the legal basis for future US-Taiwan relations.
The TRA is a very special item of US domestic legislation. Since its enactment
in 1979, it has played a vital role in consolidating US-Taiwan relations and
preserving peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. With regard to
maintaining Taiwan’s national security, the TRA obliges US governments to supply
Taiwan with defensive weapons and states that the US will view with grave
concern any effort to determine Taiwan’s future by other than peaceful means,
including by boycotts or embargoes, and will consider any such action to be a
threat to the peace and security of the western Pacific region.
The establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and the PRC was a great
shock for the people of Taiwan, but the TRA provided a stable environment for
the island’s economic development, leading to Taiwan’s economic miracle.
The TRA has also facilitated Taiwan’s democratization and localization, through
which it has evolved into a sovereign and independent nation neither subordinate
to China nor having jurisdiction over it.
Throughout the 30 years that have passed since Carter’s announcement, the US has
maintained a policy of “One China, but not now,” founded on the TRA and the
three US-China joint communiques.
An important aspect of this policy is the insistence that Taiwan’s future can
only be resolved by peaceful means.
Since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office in May this year, he has broken
his election promises and gone against Taiwanese public opinion by moving
rapidly in the direction of unification with his policy of leaning heavily
toward China.
He has abandoned his predecessors’ positions of “state-to-state relations” and
“one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait.”
His policies lead toward de-Taiwanization and away from Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Stressing the idea that cross-strait relations are more important than
diplomatic relations, Ma has called a diplomatic truce with China and seeks to
create an illusory atmosphere of peace between the two countries on either side
of the Strait.
This may give the international community the false impression that Taiwan is
willing to become a part of the PRC.
The Ma government has adopted these pro-China policies with scant regard to the
opinions and rights of the public, aiming to sign a peace accord with China that
disregards the concerns of other interested parties.
These unilateral actions by Ma threaten to upset the long-standing “status quo”
in cross-strait affairs.
What attitude Washington takes in response to these developments in Taiwan is a
matter deserving of everyone’s attention.
Chen Lung-chu is president of the
Taiwan New Century Foundation.