Tibetan monks’ Sichuan protest brings lockdown

AP AND AFP, BEIJING
Tuesday, Mar 03, 2009, Page 1

Scores of Tibetan monks marched in protest in Sichuan Province over the banning of a prayer service, rights advocates said — the latest incident in an apparent increase in acts of defiance against Chinese rule ahead of sensitive anniversaries.

The demonstration began on Sunday when monks at the Sey monastery in the ethnically Tibetan county of Aba gathered to celebrate Monlam or Great Prayer Festival for the Tibetan New Year, the Washington-based International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) said in an e-mail statement.

Tensions have been high in the area since last week, when a Tibetan Buddhist monk from the nearby Kirti monastery was reportedly shot after setting himself on fire to protest the prayer ban and restrictions on religion.

The presence of paramilitary police has noticeably increased in Tibetan communities in recent weeks ahead of the anniversary of last year’s deadly March 14 Tibetan riots and the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising that sent the Dalai Lama into exile.

When Chinese officials stopped Sunday’s ceremony, the monks left the prayer hall and marched toward the main town, shouting that they should be allowed to observe Monlam, the ICT said: “They walked for around five to 10 minutes ... before they were apprehended by officials who urged the monks not to proceed further for fear of a violent response from troops stationed in the area.”

Armed security officials soon arrived and the monks returned to their monastery, the group said.

“They are now surrounded by armed police personnel and are likely to be under lock-down after the protest,” it said. Also See: Tibetan exiles threaten sit-in

China’s food safety situation still grim: Health Ministry
　

STRICTER SUPERVISION: The ministry said a new law has tougher restrictions on additives to stop the ‘high risks and contradictions’ that keep ‘popping out’

AGENCIES, BEIJING
Tuesday, Mar 03, 2009, Page 1

China’s food safety situation is still grim, although some improvements have been made in the wake of a scandal last year that killed at least six babies and made another 300,000 sick, the Health Ministry said yesterday.

The comments from the ministry came after China’s legislature enacted a tough food safety law on Saturday, promising tougher penalties for makers of tainted products. Several food scares in recent years have exposed serious flaws in monitoring of the nation’s food supply.

“At present, China’s food security situation remains grim, with high risks and contradictions popping out,” the ministry said in a news release, adding that it cannot afford “even the slightest relaxation over supervision.”

The law, which was five years in the making, consolidates hundreds of disparate regulations and standards covering China’s 500,000 food-processing companies.

It pays special attention to the issue of food additives that lay at the heart of last year’s scandal involving infant formula produced by the Sale dairy and other companies. No additives will be allowed unless they can be proven both necessary and safe, according to the law, which goes into effect on June 1.

China’s government has been trying to restore confidence in the country’s food supply ever since revelations in September that formula was contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine. The tainted milk is blamed for the babies’ deaths and illnesses.

Vice Health Minister Chen Xiaohong (陳嘯宏) said the government was confident the enforcement of the law would boost food safety, since it holds food producers primarily responsible for any problems.

“The big reason for the new law is that the Sanlu incident drove home the severity of the problem. It made us realize that we need to strengthen oversight and regulatory systems,” Chen said.

China’s regulatory system had previously come under scrutiny after exports of pet food ingredients killed and sickened pets in North and South America in 2007. The chemical in the pet food was melamine.

Authorities ratcheted up inspections following the pet food problems, but China continues to have trouble regulating its countless small and illegally run operations, often blamed for introducing illegal chemicals and food additives into the food chain.

Ma Aiguo (馬愛國), director of the Agriculture Ministry’s Agri-food Quality and Safety Center, acknowledged the difficulties of monitoring farming operations but said China’s agriculture is “safe and reliable.”

“Given the scattered distribution of agricultural production in our country and the backward mode of production, we are facing great pressure for ensuring the quality and safety of agriculture produced,” Ma said. “It will remain a long-term and arduous task for us.”

China has 450,000 registered food production and processing firms, but many employ just 10 people or fewer. The UN said in a report last year that the small firms present many of China’s greatest food safety challenges.

Tibetan exiles threaten sit-in
　

BROKEN PROMISES: Refugees from Tibet say the government is reneging on a vow made in January to grant residency status to the exiles who find it hard to get jobs

By Meggie Lu
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Mar 03, 2009, Page 2
　

Tibetan refugees yesterday threatened to stage another sit-in if the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC) refused to grant them residency permits as promised.

Tibetan Welfare Association chairman Jamga (蔣卡) said that although the government had promised to give his compatriots legal residency status, it was now tightening application criteria, making it difficult for them to obtain permits.

“We were overjoyed when the Immigration Act [入出國及移民法)] was amended before the Lunar New Year, making it possible for us to get permits, and President Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九] also said that he cared about us and would help us,” Jamga told reporters.

“However, after several explanatory meetings, more and more of us have been disqualified from obtaining permits for various reasons. We don’t know how many people will be granted residency in the end and feel cheated by the government,” he said.

Over 100 Tibetan refugees without legal status staged a sit-in demonstration at Liberty Square last December, asking the government to grant them asylum. The demonstration ended when the refugees received temporary residency permits in January.

Many of the Tibetan refugees crossed through the Himalayas to Nepal and India before arriving in Taiwan using forged Nepalese or Indian passports.

The amended law stipulates that the refugees must provide legal documents to prove their identity as Tibetans, Jamga said.

The document can be either the applicant’s birth certificate (or that of his/her parents), passport, Indian Identity Certificate (IC, issued by the Indian government to stateless refugees) or their Independent Book (commonly known as the Green Book, a document proving they pay taxes to the Tibetan government in exile in India), Jamga said.

“But while constantly moving, many of us have lost our documents or never had such documents [to begin with],” he said.

In addition, Jamga said that while National Immigration Agency (NIA) officials had told them in their first meeting that holders of Indian ICs would get priority, in the third meeting officials said those whose Indian ICs were still valid would be repatriated to India immediately.

“This terrifies us; if we are sent back, we may face imprisonment or even execution,” he said.

Even without being repatriated, without legal residency the refugees have no right to work, said Awansangdan, another Tibetan.

“We are now having difficulty buying food and paying rent. We have relied on donations from our Taiwanese friends, but we are at the end of our resources. We are pleading for the government to give us residency,” he said.

In response, MTAC Secretary-General Chien Shih-yin (錢世英) said that the priority was to help the refugees stay in Taiwan legally, but it would take time.

“The commission has employed very loose criteria for residency application ... I understand that [the refugees] have been through a lot, but the commission wants them to attain residency status legally so they must provide something [as opposed to verbal promises] to prove their identities,” Chien said.

Commission staffers have been working overtime since the Lunar New Year to help the refugees, Chien said, but the whole process will take a few months.

“There will be no immediate repatriations,” Chien said. “There may have been misunderstandings between the refugees and frontline staff.”

Name games won’t help

The proposed economic agreement with China has turned into an acronym game (“Ma seeks to settle disputes over economic agreement,” Feb. 28, page 1). President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is trying to settle the controversy by changing the name “comprehensive economic cooperation agreement” (CECA) to “economic cooperation framework agreement” (ECFA).

It is risky to name an agreement without knowing its content. A bottle of “methanol” should not be labeled “ethanol” even if both are alcohols.

The word “framework” is even worse than the word “comprehensive.” The former will remind people of the phrase “one China framework.”

Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) has demanded the “one China framework” be the basis for an economic agreement.

Yet the Ma administration has denied this and reiterates that the agreement would have nothing to do with sovereignty.

The majority of Taiwanese have lost confidence in Ma. During the presidential election, Ma pledged not to negotiate with China unless it dismantled the 1,300 missiles it has deployed across the Taiwan Strait. But since he took office, China has increased the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan to 1,500.

“ECFA” is supposedly better than “CECA” because the former sounds like “the country will get rich” and the latter sounds like “washing your feet” in Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese).

But you could also say ECFA sounds like a method for dying (literally “will die method”) and CECA sounds like “four-legged,” referring to beasts.

But nobody will know what the deal is about until details are made public.

A more effective way to settle the controversy over the economic agreement would be for the Ma administration to ask Hu to take back his remarks about the “one China framework.”

This might help, but would not be fully convincing, since China’s promises to Hong Kong have been broken.

CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio

Clinton’s Asia trip shows priorities
　

By Sushil Seth
Tuesday, Mar 03, 2009, Page 8

‘An important difference was that Clinton, who championed women’s rights and other rights issues at the Beijing women’s conference in 1995, said that she would not let human rights derail progress on issues such as climate change, the global economic crisis and US security concerns.’

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent Asia tour is a significant development. It signals the intention of the new US administration to put Asia at the top of its diplomatic priorities.

Under the regime of former US president George W. Bush, all diplomacy increasingly became a function of its military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the generic war on terror. Two other important issues were North Korea and Iran.

In Asia, only China seemed to matter in terms of helping or hindering US policy.

Clinton’s trip to Asia — her first foreign trip as secretary of state — starting with Japan and including Indonesia, South Korea and China, sought to restore some balance to a China-obsessed US perspective.

Japan is the US’ most important security ally in the region, yet China got the most attention from the Bush administration. In other words, Japan felt slighted by its more powerful ally.

By making Japan her first port of call, Clinton sought to assuage hurt feelings. She symbolically restored Japan’s place of pride as the US’ most important security partner in Asia.

And by visiting the families of some of the Japanese abducted by North Korea and listening to their stories, Clinton showed sufficient sensitivity for the continued trauma of those grieving for missing relatives.

Clinton’s Indonesia visit was part of the same initiative, but this time intended to focus on Southeast Asia. This part of Asia was neglected under Bush even more than the Asia-Pacific rim. It sometimes seemed the US was in the process of withdrawing from the region, with China increasingly filling the vacuum.

As a result, countries in the region have increasingly adapted themselves to China’s power role.

Indonesia is the most populous member of ASEAN and Clinton announced in Jakarta that the US would soon begin the process of signing an agreement with ASEAN.

As for South Korea, the US’ commitment goes back to the Korean War in the 1950s. South Korea depends on the US for its security from North Korea.

The latter is dependent on China for political and economic support, though Beijing is not inclined to support its provocative and dangerous nuclear program.

Therefore, North Korea casts a large shadow on any visit by a US leader to South Korea. For both the US and South Korea, Pyongyang’s nuclear program is a major worry.

Pyongyang’s expected test of a long-range missile that would be capable of reaching parts of the US compounds their concerns.

However, Clinton’s tone on the nuclear question was softer, suggesting that the US will help North Korea with economic aid and in other ways in return for a verifiable commitment toward non-proliferation by Pyongyang.

When she was in Seoul, Clinton raised the question of uncertainty created by a likely succession battle in North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-il reportedly suffered a stroke, although he is believed to have recovered sufficiently to carry on much of his duties.

Clinton said “there is a succession, even if it’s a peaceful succession, that creates more uncertainty, and it may also encourage behaviors that are even more provocative, as a way to consolidate power within the society.”

Expressing understanding for South Korea’s predicament, she said: “This is an especially important time for South Korea, as they are confronting a lot of worries about what’s up in North Korea, what the succession could be, what it means for them.”

“North Korea is on China’s border and I want to understand better what the Chinese believe is doable,” she said.

It would suggest that while the six-party forum for talks on North Korea’s nuclear program will remain the vehicle for formal discussions, the US will lean more on China to put pressure on Pyongyang to achieve real progress. China will remain an important instrument of the US’ North Korea policy.

Clinton, as a former US first lady, senator and Democratic Party presidential contender, is familiar with the main issues in Sino-US relations.

She said in Beijing before official talks that she would raise familiar issues with Chinese officials, such as human rights in Tibet, while she expected Beijing to bring up US arms sales to Taiwan.

“We know what they‘re going to say because I have had those conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders,” she said.

Clinton thus took the mystery out of her talks with Chinese leaders and the talks were more or less as expected.

An important difference was that Clinton, who championed women’s rights and other rights issues at the Beijing women’s conference in 1995, said that she would not let human rights derail progress on issues such as climate change, the global economic crisis and US security concerns.

This suggested that the US would soft-pedal the issue of human rights violations in China and disappointed human rights campaigners.

From Beijing’s viewpoint, though, China has no human rights problems. As Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎) said, the “smiling faces” of Chinese attest to the country’s respect for human rights.

By living in a world of make-believe, however, Beijing risks a rude awakening one day when the situation blows up in its face.

Reports are frequent of protests across China in response to rising unemployment and social and political marginalization.

But that is a different story.

The centerpiece of Clinton’s approach seemed to be to avoid airing controversial issues in public and to focus on the overarching themes of climate change and the global economic crisis. Her tone was soft.

On climate change, for instance, Clinton said in Beijing that she hoped China would not “make the same mistakes” the US did during industrialization.

“When we were industrializing and growing, we didn’t know any better; neither did Europe,” she said.

The point is that China and the US are in it together.

As for the global economic crisis, China needs the US to start buying its products to restart its industries and generate jobs.

The US needs China to keep buying its Treasury notes to help it stimulate its economy.

Clinton thanked Yang for China’s “continued confidence” in the US, as the largest foreign buyer of US Treasury securities.

The overarching themes of climate change and economic recovery should enable the two countries to rise above certain political controversies.

The problems start, however, when broad themes lead to specifics, such as the question of the trade imbalance to the US’ disadvantage, which leads to the controversial issue of Chinese “manipulation” of the yuan to give them an unfair trade advantage.

Similarly, in dealing with climate change, the question of mandatory emissions caps will be difficult.

Clinton’s Asia visit was a positive exploratory exercise, but much will depend on how it is followed up.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.