White Terror documents cause uproar
　

ABANDONED: Documents were found scattered at a building once used by the notorious Taiwan Garrison Command to question dissidents and criminal suspects
　

By Rich Chang AND Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Mar 19, 2009, Page 1
　

Former victims of political persecution and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday slammed the government for neglecting evidence relating to the White Terror period after interrogation records were found at an abandoned Ministry of Justice building.

Yesterday’s Chinese-language Apple Daily reported that the documents, along with body parts in jars, had been left scattered at the Investigation Bureau’s abandoned Ankeng Guesthouse in Taipei County.

The guesthouse, once used as an office by the notorious Taiwan Garrison Command, was used to question dissidents and criminal suspects during the Martial Law era.

The Taiwan Garrison Command was a military state security agency during the Martial Law era from 1949 to 1992.

The newspaper printed photos taken inside the building of human body parts in glass jars. Both the newspaper and the government said the body parts belonged to homicide victims and were unrelated to politics.

The newspaper’s reporters were able to enter the derelict office and take photos of the documents and human remains.

Among the documents found inside were records of the interrogations of late DPP chairman Huang Hsin-chieh (黃信介); the late writer, human rights activist and one-time political prisoner Bo Yang (柏楊); and former national policy adviser Hsieh Tsung-min (謝聰敏), who was also once a political prisoner.

The DPP slammed the government for failing to preserve and disclose the documents.

“How can important documents that hold vital information about the White Terror era be discarded this way? We think someone should take responsibility for this,” DPP Legislator Wong Chin-chu (翁金珠) told a press conference.

At a separate setting, DPP Spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said the National Archives Administration under the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission had asked the bureau to collect and clear all archives of documents from the White Terror era, but the bureau had clearly not complied.

“The Investigation Bureau violated the National Archives Act (國家檔案法) and its officials should be investigated,” Cheng said.

Hsieh said: “They [Taiwan Garrison Command officials] told me they conducted human experiments on a mountain in Jingmei [景美], but few people knew where it was. Most people were taken to the place blindfolded and few of them came back.”

He said both former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the fates of political prisoners during the White Terror era.

Asked by the Taipei Times why the documents had not been dealt with under the two-term Chen administration, Cheng said the government had not been aware of them. Had it known, it would have requested action, he said.

Lin Shih-yu (林世煜), an academic specializing in the White Terror era, called for the Investigation Bureau to give the National Archives Administration all documents on political prisoners that the Ministry of National Defense’s Secrets Bureau gave to it in 1955 — the year the secrets bureau was disbanded.

Documents belonging to the Taiwan Garrison Command’s Security Department should also be handed over to the archives administration immediately, he said.

Lin said that a defunct unit of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) known as the special agent department had documents on dissidents, the location of which is now unknown. The Ministry of Education’s military education department also has a number of documents on dissidents.

Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) yesterday asked the ministry to launch an investigation into the matter, while Tsai Chung-yu (蔡中鈺), deputy director of the Investigation Bureau, admitted that the bureau had mismanaged the Ankeng facility.

　“We will organize the contents and hand them over to the National Archives Administration,” he said.

　He said the materials were photographs and fingerprints taken from detainees and not classified personal data, but added that the bureau would hand them over to the administration for safe keeping.

　Lin Tsyr-ling (林慈玲), acting director-general of the National Archives Administration, said yesterday that the administration had urged the Investigation Bureau to organize the materials as soon as possible.

　Lin said the administration had not been aware that so many materials had been left unguarded and “neither was the Investigation Bureau’s archives administration” aware.

　“The place houses a miscellany of documents, some of which seem, at first glance, unnecessary to keep in the archives, but we hope the Investigation Bureau will examine them all carefully,” Lin said after visiting the Ankeng facility.

　Lin said the discovery reflected problems with the collection of documents from the Martial Law era.

　“As the Archives Act (檔案法) was not implemented until 2002, the government got a late start in managing the archives. A major problem was that some state agencies were dissolved with the lifting of martial law and they did not transfer their documents to other agencies,” Lin said.

　When asked for comment, KMT Legislator Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀) urged the bureau to file the data as soon as possible.

　“[The guesthouse] became a warehouse after the Investigation Bureau took it over from the Taiwan Garrison Command because no particular government agency was put in charge of it,” Chang said.

US comfortable with detente: AIT
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Mar 19, 2009, Page 1

The US government feels comfortable with the direction of cross-strait relations and considers any developments a matter for China and Taiwan, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt said yesterday in a meeting with the press.

Burghardt said the US was “truly enthusiastic” about the detente, but that the level of cross-strait engagement should be decided by Taiwan and China alone.

“There is not a view in Washington that there is some kind of red line in terms of cross-strait engagement. There is not a concern that moving beyond economic issues into the political and military realm is threatening to us,” Burghardt said. “We are comfortable with what’s happening and where it seems to be going.”

What would make the US uncomfortable, he said, would be a breakdown in cross-strait negotiations and reaching an impasse that could lead to tensions re-emerging.

He said the drop in hostility between Taiwan and China was favorable to the US’ commercial interests and that for many Taiwan-based US companies, the recent cross-strait transportation and communication agreements have made it easier to use Taiwan as a base for business with China.

The US is most concerned about avoiding aggression, he said; all cross-strait issues must be handled peacefully and accurately reflect the will of the people on both sides of the Strait, and Taiwan must not be coerced into any situation.

“But that’s not something we foresee,” Burghardt added.

Regarding Washington’s plans for the rest of its arms sale package to Taiwan, Burghardt said military dialogue between Taiwan and the US would continue and that so far “nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.”

When asked whether the US saw China’s missiles pointed across the Strait as a threat to Taiwan and what the US would do if it deemed the missiles a threat, he jokingly replied: “What are you suggesting we do about it? Bomb them?”

“The US has very clearly and publicly stated that the 1,500 missiles — or the 1,100 missiles, whatever it is — that are facing Taiwan are a threat, that they are threatening and they should go away,” he said. “As far as what the US is doing about it ... in addition to telling China that we want to see those missiles go away, we do what we have done in the last 30 years under the TRA [Taiwan Relations Act], which is to provide Taiwan with military support.”

Burghardt cited equipment and training as examples of military support and said the US had contingency plans for “what ifs.”

The director reiterated the US’ support for Taiwan to be granted meaningful participation in international bodies such as the World Health Assembly, but said the US did not wish to mediate on the matter between Taipei and Beijing and was not expected to do so.

Burghardt also reiterated a call for Taiwan to fully open its market to US beef.

Meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said yesterday while recei Burghardt at the Presidential Office that the government would continue to negotiate with the US over a free-trade agreement, an extradition agreement and a visa-waiver program.

Ma said his administration had made considerable efforts to improve cross-strait relations and he promised to continue to promote stability in the region.

“We have improved cross-strait relations and reduced tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Such efforts open up a lot of opportunities and help people from the two sides gain a better understanding of each other,” Ma said.

The president praised the creation of the TRA 30 years ago and said he expected it would continue to play a role in maintaining stability across the Strait.

At his meeting with Ma, Burghardt said the administration of US President Barack Obama applauded the progress in cross-strait relations.

This is Burghardt’s sixth visit to Taiwan as AIT chairman. He was also scheduled to meet Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).

US comfortable with detente: AIT
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Mar 19, 2009, Page 1

The US government feels comfortable with the direction of cross-strait relations and considers any developments a matter for China and Taiwan, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt said yesterday in a meeting with the press.

Burghardt said the US was “truly enthusiastic” about the detente, but that the level of cross-strait engagement should be decided by Taiwan and China alone.

“There is not a view in Washington that there is some kind of red line in terms of cross-strait engagement. There is not a concern that moving beyond economic issues into the political and military realm is threatening to us,” Burghardt said. “We are comfortable with what’s happening and where it seems to be going.”

What would make the US uncomfortable, he said, would be a breakdown in cross-strait negotiations and reaching an impasse that could lead to tensions re-emerging.

He said the drop in hostility between Taiwan and China was favorable to the US’ commercial interests and that for many Taiwan-based US companies, the recent cross-strait transportation and communication agreements have made it easier to use Taiwan as a base for business with China.

The US is most concerned about avoiding aggression, he said; all cross-strait issues must be handled peacefully and accurately reflect the will of the people on both sides of the Strait, and Taiwan must not be coerced into any situation.

“But that’s not something we foresee,” Burghardt added.

Regarding Washington’s plans for the rest of its arms sale package to Taiwan, Burghardt said military dialogue between Taiwan and the US would continue and that so far “nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.”

When asked whether the US saw China’s missiles pointed across the Strait as a threat to Taiwan and what the US would do if it deemed the missiles a threat, he jokingly replied: “What are you suggesting we do about it? Bomb them?”

“The US has very clearly and publicly stated that the 1,500 missiles — or the 1,100 missiles, whatever it is — that are facing Taiwan are a threat, that they are threatening and they should go away,” he said. “As far as what the US is doing about it ... in addition to telling China that we want to see those missiles go away, we do what we have done in the last 30 years under the TRA [Taiwan Relations Act], which is to provide Taiwan with military support.”

Burghardt cited equipment and training as examples of military support and said the US had contingency plans for “what ifs.”

The director reiterated the US’ support for Taiwan to be granted meaningful participation in international bodies such as the World Health Assembly, but said the US did not wish to mediate on the matter between Taipei and Beijing and was not expected to do so.

Burghardt also reiterated a call for Taiwan to fully open its market to US beef.

Meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said yesterday while recei Burghardt at the Presidential Office that the government would continue to negotiate with the US over a free-trade agreement, an extradition agreement and a visa-waiver program.

Ma said his administration had made considerable efforts to improve cross-strait relations and he promised to continue to promote stability in the region.

“We have improved cross-strait relations and reduced tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Such efforts open up a lot of opportunities and help people from the two sides gain a better understanding of each other,” Ma said.

The president praised the creation of the TRA 30 years ago and said he expected it would continue to play a role in maintaining stability across the Strait.

At his meeting with Ma, Burghardt said the administration of US President Barack Obama applauded the progress in cross-strait relations.

This is Burghardt’s sixth visit to Taiwan as AIT chairman. He was also scheduled to meet Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).
　

China can use strategic reassurance
　

By Yu Tsung-chi 余宗基
Thursday, Mar 19, 2009, Page 8

In a recent report to the National People’s Congress, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said Beijing was ready to hold talks on political and military issues in pursuit of ending hostilities across the Taiwan Strait.

However, Wen failed to mention any specific confidence-building measures (CBMs), even though Beijing, Taipei and Washington have all recently expressed some interest in this proposal.

Some China specialists have suggested that Wen may be hesitant about cross-Strait CBMs because the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has little interest in improving relations with Taiwan, particularly as preparations for a possible conflict with Taiwan are central to PLA’s annual double-digit budget growth in military spending and its role in Beijing’s decision-making process.

In addition, many Chinese military analysts firmly believe that: “Because there is still a certain market for ‘Taiwan independence’ on the island, at the same time that China expresses goodwill toward Taiwan, it must also continue to maintain sufficient strategic deterrence,” especially as “in recent years, the mainland’s missiles have clearly played a very important role in the struggle to deter ‘Taiwan independence.’” (Editor’s note: These quotes are from the Jamestown Foundation’s China Brief, Volume 8, Issue 15, July 17, 2008, which translates quotes from the Chinese-­language Huanqiu shibao [Global Times], June 5, 2008).

China may find it difficult to understand Taiwan’s perception of its CBMs because such an understanding may conflict with China’s image of itself. China on the one hand promotes cross-Strait CBMs, but on the other has deployed 1,500 missiles targeting Taiwan even as Beijing and Taipei continue working toward a more stable and constructive cross-Strait relationship.

It is thus only natural that Taiwan perceives China’s CBM proposal as duplicitous and continues to regard China’s military posture as an obstacle to realizing the full potential of the thaw in cross-strait ties. This reflects the fact that the foundation of “mutual trust” or “confidence” essential for CBMs does not yet exist across the Taiwan Strait. Logically, without mutual trust, both sides will constantly take into account the possible danger that the other side is trying to deceive them.

For China and Taiwan to solve this “mutual mistrust,” both may need to first struggle to demonstrate that their long-term intentions are benign. Both sides and Beijing in particular may need to engage in Strategic Reassurance Measures (SRMs).

The SRMs concept was first introduced by Banning Garrett, director of Asia programs at the Atlantic Council, in his article “The Need for Strategic Reassurance in the 21st Century” published in the March 2001 issue of the journal Arms Control Today. There he defines SRMs as “measures seeking to address the deeper causes of mistrust among nations, especially suspicions about the perceived long-term political, military and economic objectives.”

Garret said that traditional CBMs such as military hotlines, pre-notification of key military exercises and military exchanges are only tactical measures aimed at preventing an accidental war or providing a means to prevent the escalation of hostility.

“They were not designed, however, to address the core values and strategic interests of nations,” Garrett said.

“Through strategic dialogue or other means, the leadership of each state should try to determine the basis of the other side’s strategic mistrust and which of its policies and actions are perceived as especially threatening, as well as what new steps could be taken to reassure the other side. Simply seeking to understand the basis of strategic mistrust on both sides might be in itself an SRM, though it might only be the beginning of a long, tortuous process,” he said.

As far as China is concerned, “Taiwanese independence” and Taiwan’s military capabilities, including arms procurements from the US, are the major threats to China’s territorial integrity.

Responding to these concerns, Taiwan has taken steps to reassure China. These include renouncing the pro-independence policy, scrapping plans for developing long-range cruise missiles, downsizing military troops, cutting the frequency of war games, decreasing its military outlays, planning to phase out the conscription system by 2014 and even working on a think tank to coordinate strategic dialogues with the Chinese military.

In contrast, in response to Taipei’s major concern — the 1,500 missiles pointed at Taiwan — Beijing has so far done nothing at all, let alone shown any benign gestures regarding military CBMs. Beijing simply keeps ignoring that Taiwan has frequently pointed out the missiles are a significant threat to the island.

To Taiwan’s chagrin, China has not only increased the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan by more than 100 since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) entered office last May, but it has also increased its annual military outlay this year by 14.9 percent, launched its plans to acquire aircraft carriers and prepared its first massive forces parades at sea to demonstrate its military might in return.

China should be aware that continuing to modernize and build up its military signals a threat not only to Taiwan, but all of China’s neighbors. This is clearly at odds with China’s claim that it seeks a “peaceful rise” and could also increase the chance of mistrust and real damage to other relations.

Recent events are evidence that China fails to see that its neighbors are reacting out of fear. Russia turning down its order for 50 Su-33 fighters; the US Impeccable surveillance vessel incident, which prompted South Korea and Australia to warn against an arms race are examples. China’s failure to see that fear could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: The more China flexes its military muscle, the more neighbors react in fear, then the more defiant China may become, producing ever more spiraling mistrust and hostility.

“Strategic mistrust can exacerbate problems that might have been more easily resolved had they been dealt with on their own merits,” Garrett said.

Now is the perfect time for China to withdraw the missiles it points at Taiwan. Taipei has reiterated that China must reduce its military threat before peace talks can be held, specifically calling for China to remove the missiles. The world would extend a hand if China were willing to unclench its fist by removing the missiles in line with its statement that its peaceful development and rise pose no threat to any country. Such a benign gesture would also greatly reduce the worry and mutual mistrust in the region.

Recently, Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of the US Pacific Command, has offered to host face-to-face talks between Chinese and Taiwanese military officials at his headquarters in Hawaii. Some China analysts in Washington have said that Keating’s offer would be a great opportunity for cross-strait dialogue and that it was now up to the Chinese to take it or leave it.

For the benefit of all sides, now is the right time for cross-strait SRMs.

Yu Tsung-chi is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States.

‘Six cents’ on a trade agreement with China
　

By Peter Chow 周鉅原
Thursday, Mar 19, 2009, Page 8

On the controversial issue of the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, I would like to offer my “six cents.”

One, the status of signatory, not the title of the agreement:

The government claims the trade pact is for business, not politics. Anybody with an undergraduate level understanding of international law can see that is not true. Whatever the title is, the most important issue is the status of the signatory. What is the exact status of Taiwan in signing a trade pact with China? Is it “Chinese, Taipei,” “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,” “the Republic of China,” “Taiwan” or “Taiwan (Taipei), China”? How will it erode Taiwan’s de facto independence? Leaders must be sure not to trade off Taiwan’s de facto independence for probable economic benefit as I wrote earlier (“ECFA poses three likely outcomes for Taiwan,” March 5, page 8).

Two, transparency and democratic procedures:

Any trade pact must be transparent, open to the public and approved by democratic procedures. In view of the polarization on the issue and its deep impact on the livelihood of Taiwanese people, Taipei needs to handle the proposed trade pact with more delicate tactics. To ratify the Maastricht Treaty, many members of the EU held a referendum before they joined, as did Brazil and Bolivia on ratifying the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Given that opinion in Taiwan is divided, a referendum would not only consolidate Taiwan’s democratization and demonstrate its sovereignty to the world community, it would also offer Taipei a bargaining chip as indicated in my fourth point below.

Three, objective cost-benefit analyses:

Free trade is a two-way street. Any trade pact is a “give and take” with gains in some sectors and losses in others. Leaders must not exaggerate the potential gains and hide the losses as they try to sell the ECFA to the public. An objective cost-benefit analysis on the pact is a “must.”

Four, bargaining leverage and negotiation strategy:

The party that is more eager to reach an agreement with the other side is more likely to make concessions and gain less from the deal, while the one in the driver’s seat of the negotiation is likely to gain the most. Taipei needs to objectively assess all the positive and negative aspects of the emerging trade blocs under ASEAN Plus One and ASEAN Plus Three.

Meanwhile, Taiwan can use the above-mentioned referendum procedure as a bargaining chip in its negotiation with Beijing while Beijing’s National People’s Congress acts as a rubber stamp, thus depriving Beijing from using this tactic.

Five, don’t underestimate the externalities:

Forty percent or more of Taiwan’s exports are destined for China, and Taiwan has already had an asymmetric trade dependency on the Chinese market without any formal trade pact. With the ECFA, Taiwan’s trade with and investment in China will accelerate. That is an intrinsic or hidden cost for Taiwan. In addition to its vulnerability of relying on a single market — putting all eggs in one basket — domestic income and labor employment will be significantly affected. The “factor price equalization” theory dictates that more of Taiwan’s investments would shift to China and wage rates in Taiwan would drop to become similar to those in China.

Six, the compensation principle and remedy policy:

Freer trade will result in a winner and loser. For the aggregate national interest, the total gains from freer trade must be greater than the total loss. The government needs to have a set of “remedy policies” to compensate those industries that will suffer from freer trade.

Peter Chow is professor of economics at the City University of New York.