Chen speaks at end of corruption trial
　

DIFFERENCE OF APPROACH: The prosecution used PowerPoint slides to illustrate their allegations while the court-appointed defense team stuck to black ink

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 1
　

Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) last night began to make a statement at the end of his trial on money laundering and corruption charges at the Taipei District Court.

As of press time, Chen was still addressing the court.

After asking whether there was a time limit, the former president began to speak for the first time in weeks, almost entirely in Hoklo.

He said that ever since September, when Special Investigation Panel prosecutors held a press conference to say they would step down if they failed to successfully prosecute him, he knew he stood no chance of a fair trial.

He reiterated that the switching of judges last year was unconstitutional and that there was no procedural justice in his trial.

“Yes, the law is the last line of defense against greed,” he said, quoting comments prosecutors made on Monday. “I agree that the law is just. But are there no double standards? No political vendetta?” he asked.

Earlier in the day a prosecutor became so emotional talking about the country’s path to democracy that he broke down in tears.

Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) scheduled yesterday’s court date to hear closing arguments from Chen, his court-appointed lawyers and the prosecution.

Throughout most of the session, the former president remained silent in protest against what he has described as an unfair judicial system.

Prosecutors yesterday began their closing arguments by quoting an ancient saying by Emperor Song Taizu (宋太祖): “Your salary is sourced from public funds. Although it is easier to deceive the people, you can never successfully deceive God.”

The prosecution used PowerPoint slides filled with color photographs of a handcuffed Chen and his family members, as well as media coverage and graphical depictions of the former first family’s cash flows, to illustrate their allegations.

Prosecutor Lin Yi-chun (林怡君) said in the closing argument that the president should be a public servant, not “the head of a mafia that ‘takes care of’ private corporations.”

Prosecutors said the way the former first family laundered money was on a par with international money laundering rings.

“Wiring billions of NT dollars to overseas bank accounts. Is this love of Taiwan?” Lin said.

Rebutting the accusations, Chen’s court-appointed attorney Tseng Te-rong (曾德榮) said the former president did not intend to launder money because his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), had previously testified that her husband was unaware of her transferring funds to overseas bank accounts.

Tang Chen-chi (唐禎琪), another court-appointed attorney, cited witness statements to argue that the NT$10 million (US$300,000) donated by former Taipei Financial Center Corp (TFCC, 台北金融大樓公司), chairwoman Diana Chen (陳敏薰) to the Democratic Progressive Party was not a bribe because it was not in a president’s power to arrange personnel changes in a privately owned company.

Tseng requested that the court release Chen from detention, but Tsai told Tseng the court would deal with the request later.

The court-appointed attorneys spent more than four hours rebutting prosecutors’ arguments. Tseng later told reporters that Chen Shui-bian whispered to him: “Tang is better than the lawyers I hired.”

The court-appointed attorneys’ arguments were printed plainly in black ink, which was a stark contrast to the prosecution’s colorful illustrations and emotional speech.

At the end of the prosecutors’ rebutted, prosecutor Lin Chin-kang (林勤綱) repeatedly broke into tears talking about Chen Shui-bian’s corruption charges.

“Those who oppose the former president may not be willing to admit that even though he has committed serious mistakes, there still exists righteousness in him,” he said.

Yet although Chen had espoused the ideals of clean government in the past, he became corrupt, Lin said.

“To reprimand a revolutionary who, because of temptation, lost his ideals along the way, is a very cruel thing to do,” he said.

However, Lin did not mean to excuse Chen of all guilt.

“Those who know right from wrong, but choose to give in to temptation, should they take part of the responsibility?” Lin asked.

In related news, Taipei District Court judge Shen Chun-ling (沈君玲) was yesterday assigned to hear whether Chen Shui-bian’s daughter Chen Hsing-yu’s (陳幸妤) travel restrictions should be lifted.

Chen Hsing-yu, her brother Chen Chih-chung (陳致中), her husband Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), and Diana Chen were charged on July 17 with making false witness statements in relation to the former first family’s embezzlement and corruption cases.

Wu was indicted for instigating perjury by allegedly instructing her children to lie during a probe into the embezzlement charges against both herself and her husband, the prosecutor said.

Chen Shui-bian, who left office last year, stands accused of embezzling public funds, money laundering, accepting bribes on a land deal, influence peddling and forgery. He has been detained since December last year.

The Taipei District Court will announce its verdict on Sept. 11.

Obama declares new era of PRC cooperation

AP, WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 1

US President Barack Obama declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China on Monday, even though two days of high-level talks were not expected to resolve differences over the two nations’ yawning trade gap and China’s unease over soaring US budget deficits.

The Obama administration pledged to take control of the deficits once the economic crisis is resolved. It also pressed China to reshape its economy to rely more on domestic demand and less on exports that drive up the US trade deficit.

Chinese Assistant Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao (朱光耀), briefing reporters after Monday’s meetings, said the US and Chinese sides had “profound exchanges” on the recovery of the US economy.

“We sincerely hope the US fiscal deficit will be reduced, year after year,” Zhu said, speaking through an interpreter, after being asked if China was worried about US recovery.

The discussions in Washington represent the continuation of a dialogue begun by the administration of former US president George W. Bush that focused on economic tensions between the two nations. Obama chose to expand the talks to include foreign policy issues as well as economic disputes.

Top officials from both countries have called the relationship crucial to solving many of the world’s crises. The Obama administration hopes the talks can set the groundwork for cooperation on climate change, lifting the world economy out of turmoil and addressing nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran.

Both sides sought to underscore the importance of the revamped Strategic and Economic Dialogue, with Obama delivering a major policy address to welcome a sizable Chinese delegation of 150 diplomats.

“I believe that we are poised to make steady progress on some of the most important issues of our times,” Obama told officials from both countries assembled in the Ronald Reagan Building.

“The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world,” Obama said.

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan (王岐山) said his country’s attempts to create a more open economy would help US recovery efforts.

“With the furthering of China’s reform and opening up, China and the United States will have even closer economic cooperation and trade relations and [the] China-US relationship will surely keep moving forward,” Wang said, speaking through an interpreter.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were leading the US team. The Chinese delegation was led by Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo (戴秉國) and Wang.

Geithner and Wang both spoke of hopeful signs that the global economy was beginning to emerge from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Geithner said the stimulus packages put together by Beijing and Washington had made a substantial contribution to fighting the global downturn and represented a milestone in economic cooperation between the two nations.

The US accounts for about 22 percent of global output, and China about 7 percent. The combined impact of the massive stimulus programs should make a difference, economists said, in cushioning a recession that appears to be bottoming out in the US and some other countries.

Geithner traveled to Beijing last month to assure Chinese officials that federal budget deficits, which have ballooned because of government efforts to deal with the recession and stabilize the financial system, would be reined in once those crises have passed.

He said Americans were already moving to boost their personal savings rates. Economists have long argued that is necessary to controlling US trade deficits because it means Americans are not consuming as much in imports from China and other countries.

“We are committed to taking measures to maintaining greater personal saving and to reducing the federal deficit to a sustainable level by 2013,” Geithner said at the opening session of the talks.
　

No mention of Taiwan situation in Obama speech
　

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER, WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 1

US President Barack Obama delivered his first major policy speech on China without mentioning Taiwan or even mildly challenging Beijing on its human rights record.

Addressing the opening session of a two-day “Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” he described the meeting as “an essential step forward in advancing a positive, constructive and comprehensive relationship between our countries.”

Obama went out of his way to avoid anything controversial or upsetting to Beijing and appeared to be paving the way for a politically profitable trip to China in November.

Lee Edwards, a professor of politics and a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told the Taipei Times that by ignoring human rights and Taiwan, Obama was ignoring US history and that he was sure that members of Congress would bring it to the attention of the White House staff.

“You can’t build bridges to new friends by burning bridges to old friends. I just can’t say that emphatically enough. It is very unfortunate and ill-timed,” Edwards said.

“The president’s approach shows a misreading of China. We know from history that if you kowtow to them they are going to take advantage. He should stand up for certain things. On his agenda should be human rights and the relationship we have had with Taiwan,” he said.

June Teufel Dreyer, an expert on US-Asian relations at the University of Miami, said: “He does not want to introduce contentious issues at the moment because the priority is to get some kind of cooperative relationship going. Of course these issues cannot be ignored indefinitely and at some point will have to be addressed. But I am pessimistic about it.”

In his speech, Obama said: “I have no illusions that the United States and China will agree on every single issue, nor choose to see the world in the same way. But that only makes dialogue more important — so that we can know each other better, and communicate our concerns with candor.”

He said: “My confidence is rooted in the fact that the United States and China share mutual interests. If we advance those interests through cooperation, our people will benefit and the world will be better off — because our ability to partner with each other is a prerequisite for progress on many of the most pressing global challenges.”

Obama listed four priorities for US-China relations: economic recovery; clean, secure and prosperous energy; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; and confronting transnational threats.

“Support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America. Our nation is made up of immigrants from every part of the world. We have protected our unity and struggled to perfect our union by extending basic rights to all our people. Those rights include the freedom to speak your mind; to worship your God; and to choose your leaders,” he said.

“These are not things that we seek to impose — this is who we are. It guides our openness to one another and to the world,” he said.

Ma faces criticism over exchange of letters with China
　

MISSING TITLES: The DPP accused Ma of shying away from using his own official title, while Chiu Yi said Beijing failed to accord Ma equal status
　

By Jenny W. hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 3

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) criticized President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday for bowing to China by refraining from penning his official title or the name of his party in correspondence with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).

“Is Ma some kind of magician? Whenever it comes to China, his title automatically disappears,” DPP Spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said.

On Sunday, Ma was declared the winner in the one-man race for the KMT party chairmanship, garnering 93.87 percent of the vote, with a turnout of 57.79 percent out of 533,000 eligible voters.

On Monday, Hu, in his capacity as secretary-general of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), congratulated Ma on his triumph via telegram. In his message, Hu referred to Ma as “Mr Ma” rather than using his title and expressed hope both parties would join hands in creating harmonious relations across the Taiwan Strait.

In his reply, Ma said both sides should “value reality, establish mutual confidence and shelve differences to create a win-win situation.”

Ma did not mention any title in his message.

The date on his letter also left out the national title — the Republic of China (ROC) — which , in general practice, precedes the year, month and day. Ma simply wrote “98 (2009) July 27.”

“What does '98' stand for? The unleaded percentage in gasoline?” Cheng said, adding that when it comes to China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) did not even dare mention the ROC.

The DPP also urged the KMT to launch an investigation into allegations made by a KMT councilor in Taoyuan that the party had inflated the number of votes that Ma had received.

Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) said the Presidential Office should protest to Beijing because Hu failed to accord the same respect to Ma in the exchange of greetings.

KMT Legislator Chu Fong-chi (朱鳳芝) said Hu should send Ma another greeting after Ma assumes the chairmanship and call him “Chairman Ma.”

But KMT caucus secretary-general Yang Chiung-ying (楊瓊瓔) urged the public not to over-interpret how Ma addressed himself in the letter as Ma had yet to officially take up his position as the party's chairman.

DPP lauds Chen Chu, blasts Ma
　

CREDIT: The DPP criticized the president for thanking China for the success of the World Games and overlooking the efforts of those who worked hard for it at home
　

By Jenny W. Hsu and Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTERS
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 3
　

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday lauded Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) and her team for successfully hosting the World Games, but lamented the absence of pan-blue politicians who flocked to the Beijing Olympic Games but ignored an important international sporting held in Taiwan.

Chen and her team, including three former mayors, had invested a lot of time and energy to secure the bid to host the games and prepare for them, the party said. Despite the lack of financial support from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration, the team managed to pull off a “near perfect” event that won accolades from around the world, DPP Spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said.

Chen said that in addition to the spectacular 11-day event, Chen should be credited for her painstaking efforts that resulted in President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) being able to open the games in his capacity as president of the Republic of China.

“What Chen did not only fully demonstrated the DPP's leadership ability, it also presented the best side of democracy. Most important, the world saw that Taiwan is a sovereign country and [has] a unique culture,” he said.

Cheng criticized the Chinese delegation for skipping the opening and closing ceremonies. This proved that Beijing's so-called “goodwill” toward Taiwan was far below Ma's expectation, he said.

“The most regrettable part was that Ma credited China — not Chen — for his opportunity to open the games. It is clear that he was completely oblivious to the fact that it was made possible by Chen and her team and not because of China's goodwill. If that was the case, the Chinese delegation would not have boycotted the opening and closing ceremonies,” he said.

Cheng added that the enthusiasm pan-blue politicians showed toward the Beijing Olympics far surpassed that for the World Games.

“Why was there such a disparity? Was it because Kaohsiung City is led by the DPP, so the pan-blues refused to support the World Games? We can't help but ask if these politicians love China more than they love Taiwan,” he said.

Ma yesterday again thanked Beijing for supporting the World Games.

Ma said it was the first time in 60 years that the head of the country had attended an international event and that it had a lot to do with Beijing's goodwill.

“Although they were absent at the opening and closing ceremonies, they supported the event,” he said. “I would like to point this out and thank them.”

Ma made the remarks while meeting members of the national team at the Presidential Office yesterday morning. It was the first time Ma had addressed the issue of China's boycott.

Local media speculated that the Chinese delegation boycotted the opening ceremony to avoid giving the impression that Beijing recognized Ma's status as president or Taiwan's status as a sovereign state.

Ma has hailed his opening of the games as a “breakthrough.”

Ma yesterday also thanked the International World Games Association for extending its goodwill, saying he was glad it agreed to let him attend the opening in his capacity as president.

The Taiwanese team won 34 medals at the World Games, including official and invitational events.

Attributing the success of the games to many factors, Ma said the efforts of the organizer, Chen and her predecessors, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) and Yeh Chu-lan (葉菊蘭) made him proud of Kaohsiung.

The NT$10 billion (US$312 million) funding from the Sports Affairs Council was also unprecedented in World Games history, Ma said.

Ma also acknowledged the 5,000 volunteers, law enforcement and security officers and National Police Administration staffers for maintaining order and security.

He encouraged local athletes to participate in international events and promised government support. To promote sports and exercises nationwide, Ma said his administration plans to build 70 sports centers and parks in three years, starting next year.

While Ma has been criticized for paying too much attention to such details as soldiers' physical condition, he said yesterday that his objective was simply to “build a healthy country.”

Ministry defends Ou's letter to US foundation
　

By Jenny W. hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 3

“I am concerned that such an overhaul could well compromise both the [Taiwan Foundation for Democracy’s] independence and the quality of its work.”— Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) yesterday insisted that its chief, Francisco Ou (歐鴻鍊), who also serves as the vice chairman of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, did nothing wrong when he penned a letter to the president of the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) without first notifying the chairman of the foundation, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平).

MOFA acting spokesman James Chang (章計平) said Ou did not need to seek Wang's authorization before writing a letter to NED president Carl Gershman because Ou was acting in his capacity as the foundation vice chairman.

The ministry made the comments in response to a media report that Ou had been out of line when he wrote the letter without Wang's approval.

In May, Gershman wrote a letter to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) urging him not to interfere with the foundation's structure and policies after it was reported that under Beijing's influence, the Ma administration planned to make major changes to the foundation's governing board and to prevent it from offering financial support to pro-democracy movements in China, Tibet and Cuba.

“It has come to my attention through reports in the press that broad changes are being proposed for the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. I am concerned that such an overhaul could well compromise both the Foundation's independence and the quality of its work,” Gershman wrote.

In the letter dated June 29, Ou said the personnel reshuffle reflected the current political balance in Taiwan and that it was carried out in a democratic manner. Ou cited Article 8 of the foundation's charter, which states that half of the board members must come from political parties that hold 5 percent or more of the seats in the Legislative Yuan. As such, the TFD board changes after each legislative election, he wrote.

Ou also appealed to the US to respect the sovereignty and the rule of law in different countries. He said he hoped that the NED would show similar deference to Taiwan's due process.

Speaking yesterday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lin Yu-fang (林郁方), of the legislature's Foreign and National Defense Committee, said Ou should have notified the speaker before writing the letter.

“The organic laws [of the foundation] do not state that the vice foundation chairman should not write letters to personnel abroad or should notify the chairman before doing so, but it would have been more courteous if [Ou] had done so,” Lin said.

KMT Legislator Lee Hung-chun (李鴻鈞), who also serves on the foundation's board, said Ou should have informed all of the foundation's board members before sending the letter to Gershman.

Beijing’s whitewash backfires

Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 8

Details of recent unrest in Xinjiang will never fully come to light. Like the Tibetan riots last year, the Gulja massacre 12 years earlier or the violence at Tiananmen two decades ago, there will be no public probe to establish the truth of events, and wounds festering in private will not heal.

But long after this summer’s riots, the lingering impression will be that Beijing’s talk of ethnic harmony and national unity is hollow, while discontent with its authoritarian rule is strong.

For this, Beijing has itself to blame. It remains unwilling — in public at least — to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Uighurs’ complaints. Rather than recognizing systematic economic discrimination and repealing government policies that are crushing the language, religion and other aspects of Uighur culture, Beijing has stepped up its “war on terror” rhetoric.

Having learned nothing from its failed campaign to label the Dalai Lama a “terrorist,” China has intensified its invective against exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.

The strategy has been another public-relations disaster for China, underscoring its thuggishness and alienating it further from the human rights agendas of Western countries. Judging from statements about Kadeer made by senior Chinese officials to foreign media, Beijing has yet to understand that rhetoric that works well at home to whip up nationalist anger is counterproductive in democratic countries.

Beijing is, if anything, fueling Kadeer’s fame and expanding her audience. By dogging her wherever she goes, Beijing ensures there is plenty of media interest before Kadeer even steps off the plane.

Kadeer’s arrival in Japan yesterday received more attention from the media as a result of Beijing’s protest to Tokyo over the visit.

Likewise, a documentary about Kadeer that might otherwise have attracted little attention has become the focus of an international discussion on Beijing’s campaign against Kadeer and its treatment of Uighurs. A screening of the documentary sold out at a Melbourne film festival that, thanks to Beijing’s pressure to pull the film, had to schedule an extra screening to accommodate public interest.

Today, very few people have heard of Gulja or the events that took place in Xinjiang in February 1997, when China sent in troops to silence street protests for economic equality, religious freedom and other fundamental rights. The blood that was shed launched Kadeer on a quest to determine who was responsible. Her questions quickly undermined her status as a darling of Beijing and eventually her efforts to highlight injustices in Xinjiang landed her in prison. The violence in Gulja remains a subject as forbidden as the events of June 4, 1989.

But Kadeer understood something that Beijing didn’t: Probing the Gulja crackdown was in its interest. Only by recognizing wrongs and addressing the causes of Uighur resentment can stability be realized.

Today, she is only one of many well-educated and articulate Uighurs leading a campaign for human rights in exile, many of whom were once loyal members of the Chinese Communist Party.

With these voices scattered in Europe and North America, the complaints of Uighurs are gaining sympathy and prominence. Beijing’s campaign to label the peaceful activities of Uighurs abroad as “terrorism” will only lend credence to their cries of oppression.

The events of Gulja may never be addressed, but the reaction to recent unrest in Xinjiang shows Beijing’s propaganda efforts have failed. Gone are the days when China could send in the military to bludgeon opposition and count on little attention from abroad.

Sino-Australian relations in crisis
　

By Sushil Seth
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 8

‘If Canberra were to make a humiliating backdown on the iron ore issue (ignoring the arrest of Stern Hu and his colleagues), it would mean that its economic policy toward China would be increasingly dictated by Beijing.’

Who would have thought that Australia’s relations with China would nose-dive under Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd?

When Rudd took office, expectations were high on both sides. He believed that as a friend of China, and one well-versed in Chinese culture, he had some latitude to speak to Beijing frankly about issues that would annoy them, like Tibet.

China also seemed inclined toward Rudd, the only leader of a Western country known for his fluency in Mandarin.

Beijing naturally thought that he would be sympathetic to Chinese interests.

But things soon started to go wrong.

Although he chose China among the first countries (and the first in Asia) that he visited — rattling Japan particularly — Beijing was not amused by a Peking University address in April last year when Rudd said that “there are significant human rights problems” in Tibet and advised China to recognize the fact and deal with it.

Even as he claimed to be China’s friend, Rudd continued to emphasize the primacy of Australia’s strategic alliance with the US.

Beijing, of course, wasn’t expecting any sudden change in Australia’s primary political and security relationship with the US, but it did expect that under Rudd Canberra wouldn’t stand in the way of Chinese investments in the crucial resources sector, particularly iron ore.

China is now Australia’s top trading partner, ahead of Japan, devouring the country’s exports, particularly iron ore.

One estimate said iron ore comprised A$18 billion (US$15 billion) of Australia’s A$32.5 billion exports to China last year.

With the global economy spiraling and high commodity prices, China’s insatiable demand for iron ore helped Australian exporters like Rio Tinto reap huge profit.

China was not happy. It wanted to control both the supplies and pricing of iron ore.

Beijing sought to take advantage of Rio Tinto’s debt problems and double its share in the company.

However, Rio Tinto made up with BHP, another Australian mining giant that had only recently wanted to gobble up the company, and Rio Tinto backed out of the Chinese deal at the last moment.

China was left high and dry — and fuming, it would appear.

Beijing feels that Canberra played a role in scuttling China’s investment by delaying its approval.

Whether or not the Australian government forced Rio Tinto’s hand is not the question, as most countries — and especially China — would prefer not to have another country having a controlling share in its strategic resource sector.

As things were heating up over the refusal to sell shares in Rio Tinto, the global economic crisis lifted the pressure on commodity prices.

However, China wanted Rio Tinto to reduce its iron ore prices by more than 40 percent, refusing to accept a 33 percent reduction as agreed with Japan and South Korea.

With the wrangling over the price of iron ore continuing, Chinese authorities arrested Stern Hu (胡士泰), a Rio Tinto executive in China carrying an Australian passport, and three Rio Tinto employees who are Chinese citizens.

They are accused of bribing executives of Chinese steel mills and attempting to damage China’s economic security by stealing state secrets, but have not been formally charged.

Australia is being largely ignored, with its approaches in the matter dismissed as interference in China’s “judicial sovereignty.”

The arrests have become highly charged in Australia’s domestic politics, with the opposition taunting Rudd to pick up the phone and talk directly with the top man in China, obviously referring to President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) or Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶).

The implication is that Rudd made much politically of his magic touch with China, and now is the time to deliver.

However, Beijing has virtually told Canberra that it should forget about Stern Hu and his colleagues, who have already been branded guilty, with Chinese bloggers calling them traitors.

There are two schools of thought on the question of dealing with China. Those sympathetic to Beijing would like Canberra to cave in, not only because China is a regional giant but also because commodity exports are increasingly the bread and butter of Australia’s economic lifeline.

This school includes a good number of Australian Sinologists, as well as some strategic analysts.

The second school, reflected in government policy on the issue so far, acknowledges the growing importance of China’s economic connection but argues, as did Rudd in a recent statement, that the importance of Sino-Australian economic relations cuts both ways, because China needs the resources that Australia has to offer.

If Canberra were to make a humiliating backdown on the iron ore issue (ignoring the arrest of Stern Hu and his colleagues), it would mean that its economic policy toward China would be increasingly dictated by Beijing. In a larger sense, Australia would become part of China’s regional sphere of influence, undercutting its US alliance and much more.

As Australian columnist Paul Kelly has written: “Australia’s greatest strategic challenge: how to manage a successful relationship with China as a repressive state that rejects our values, legal system, governance and US alliance.”

In addition to the Rio Tinto problems, China is unhappy with Rudd’s Australia for a variety of other reasons, including its softness toward the Dalai Lama.

This annoyance must have turned into anger after a bipartisan parliamentary delegation recently made an unofficial visit to the Dalai Lama in his Dharamsala headquarters in India.

To complicate things further, the Melbourne International Film Festival is screening a documentary about Rebiya Kadeer, the Uighur leader in exile in the US. Beijing calls her a terrorist and blames her for recent unrest in Xinjiang.

A Chinese consular official reportedly called the director of the film festival, demanding that the documentary be dropped. Kadeer is coming to Australia for the premier of her documentary and has plans to canvass her people’s cause with the Australian government.

Chinese directors have withdrawn some films that were to screen in the festival, and Chinese hackers have been at work to damage the Web site of the Melbourne festival.

At a strategic level, the new Australian defense White Paper has apparently angered Beijing even more by suggesting that a rising China could threaten Australia’s security when it overtakes the US as the world’s largest economy, as it is predicted to do around 2020.

“By 2030, any changes in economic power will affect the distribution of strategic power,” it said.

It would seem that Sino-Australian relations are in for a rough ride for quite some time. How it will be resolved is anybody’s guess.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.

Hackers in China are widening their nets
　

By Hsu Chien-jung 許建榮
Wednesday, Jul 29, 2009, Page 8

Following recent friction between China and Australia over alleged espionage by a senior executive of mining company Rio Tinto, the two countries are having another row — this time about a documentary film. This year’s Melbourne International Film Festival includes showings of Australian director Jeff Daniels’ documentary The 10 Conditions of Love, a portrayal of World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer and her struggle for freedom and human rights in East Turkestan (Xinjiang). Kadeer has been invited by the festival’s organizers to attend a screening of the film on Aug. 8.

This move has angered China, which called on the Australians to withdraw the Kadeer film, but the festival organizers turned down Beijing’s request.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang (秦剛) said: “We resolutely oppose any foreign country providing a platform for her anti-Chinese, splittist activities.”

Chinese producer Jia Zhangke (賈樟柯), director Zhao Liang (趙亮) and Hong Kong director Emily Tang (唐曉白) have withdrawn their entries from the festival, while China mobilized its film industry to protest against Australia.

Festival director Richard Moore was angered by the political interference and refused China’s unreasonable demands.

However, withdrawing a couple of films was not enough for China in its attempts to teach Australia a lesson. On Saturday, Chinese hackers broke into the festival’s Web site and posted China’s five-star red flag along with the words: “We like film, but we hate Rebiya Kadeer! We like peace, and we hate East Turkistan terrorist! Please apologize to all the Chinese people!” with the Chinese national anthem playing in the background.

The flag image was hosted at oldjun.com, a Web site registered in Shanghai. Although it is reportedly a personal Web site, it should be borne in mind that China is said to have an army of at least 300,000 “patriotic” hackers.

This is by no means the first time China has used hackers against targets in other countries. In April, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chinese hackers had penetrated a computer network and stolen secret information about Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike fighter jet. On May 13, the South Korean military released a report saying China had three teams of hackers who attack overseas networks and steal secrets.

There have been several similar instances.

Until recently, Chinese hackers limited their activities to penetrating foreign government and commercial networks to steal confidential information, but recently they have turned their attention to ordinary Web sites like that of the Melbourne International Film Festival.

Another attack took place on June 11, when Chinese hackers broke into the well-known Taiwanese Web site socialforce.net, posting a big Chinese flag and causing such damage to the site that it still has not resumed operation. The Web site came under attack because it was critical of Taiwan’s pro-unification media, Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government and Chinese Web sites.

These days any Web site that arouses China’s displeasure can come under attack. Australia has been targeted even though it has good relations with China. Taiwan’s government is even more China-friendly, but it cannot escape the same fate. Earlier this year, a survey released by the Canada-based Information Warfare Monitor said that Taiwan was among the countries most often targeted by Chinese hackers.

If even an innocuous film festival Web site is subject to Chinese hacking, who can feel safe?

Hsu Chien-jung is a doctoral candidate at Monash University, Australia.