Taiwan supporters push for fighter sale
　

FRIENDS ON THE HILL: Congress ordered the Pentagon to make a full report on the state of Taiwan旧 air force. It will likely say the 66 F-16s Taipei requested are needed
　

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER, WASHINGTON
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 1

A political ploy to help Taiwan buy advanced F-16C/D fighter aircraft is still on track despite moves by China to derail it.

The US Department of Defense is being ordered to make a study of Taiwan’s air force — a study that is expected to conclude that the new planes are needed.

It is part of a complex plan by friends of Taiwan on Capitol Hill to make sure the Taiwanese military can continue to defend Taiwan against China’s ever expanding forces.

When the US National Defense Authorization Bill for the next fiscal year was first being separately debated by the House and Senate in July, Republican Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment requiring the Pentagon to make a full report on the Taiwanese air force.

Military analysts have told the Taipei Times that Cornyn and others feared that US President Barack Obama would bow to pressure during his visit to China next month and decide that Taiwan did not need the 66 F-16C/Ds that have been requested.

These analysts, however, say the pro-Taiwan faction reasoned that an unbiased report from the Pentagon on Taiwan’s air force would make it abundantly clear that new state-of-the-art fighters were in fact badly needed. Such a report could make it more politically difficult for Obama to refuse the sale.

An amendment demanding the report was included in the Senate version of the bill that passed with unanimous support. No such amendment, however, was included in the House version of the bill.

When a conference committee from both the House and Senate considered the bill last week, they decided not to include the amendment in the final bill. That decision followed heavy lobbying by Beijing that the sale of the F-16C/Ds would harm US-China relations.

However, a member of Cornyn’s staff told the Taipei Times on Thursday: “The actual bill language was not included in the conference report, but they included language in the Joint Explanatory Statement that will have the desired effect [of forcing the Obama administration to report to Congress on this issue].”

Under the heading “Report on Taiwan’s Air Defense Force” the Joint Explanatory Statement says: “The Senate amendment contained a provision that would have required a report on Taiwan’s air forces. The House bill contained no similar provision. The Senate recedes.

“The conferees direct the secretary of state for defense to submit to Congress, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report that contains an assessment of the following:

“(1) The current state of Taiwan’s air defense forces; (2) the ability of Taiwan’s air defense forces to defend Taiwan’s air space in response to a range of cross-strait scenarios; and (3) possible measures, if any, that Taiwan could undertake to strengthen its air defense forces. The report shall be submitted in an unclassified form, but may include a classified annex if necessary,” it states.

At a Washington press conference on Wednesday, Senator John McCain was asked if the amendment had survived the conference committee and what his own view was of providing Taiwan with F-16s.

“The provision was not included in the final bill. My position on F-16s for Taiwan is that I believe that we should provide Taiwan with the equipment that they feel is necessary to defend themselves. We know that there’s a significant military buildup on the other side of the Strait,” McCain said.

“So, I personally favor the sale of F-16s to Taiwan. I will be glad to listen to the administration’s arguments if they are not in agreement with that, but I think that it would be very helpful for them to maintain their ability to defend themselves with the acquisition of that aircraft,” McCain said.

Senior administration members have said that a decision on selling F-16s to Taiwan will not be announced until next year.

As part of his original amendment, Cornyn said that China had based 490 combat aircraft — 330 fighters and 160 bombers — within unrefueled operational range of Taiwan and had the airfield capacity to expand that number by hundreds. In contrast, Taiwan had 390 combat aircraft, all of them fighters, he said.

The original amendment ordered the Pentagon to provide the US Congress with the number and type of Taiwan’s fighters; the age and capability and effectiveness of the aircraft; an analysis of the specific weapons systems and platforms that Taipei would need for its self-defense and to maintain control of its own airspace; and options for the US to assist Taiwan in achieving these capabilities.

It also asked the Pentagon to provide a five-year plan for fulfilling the obligations of the US under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide for Taiwan’s self-defense and aid Taipei in maintaining control of its own air space.

Asked to comment on the news, Wendell Minnick, Asia bureau chief for Defense News magazine, was less optimistic.

“Based on the current atmosphere in Washington, there is a mood to make friends with China. Selling F-16s to Taiwan would disrupt relations. Improved relations between Beijing and Taipei also make future US arms sales doubtful,” he said.

“There is a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude now in Washington. If China does something stupid, threatens to attack Taiwan, then you can expect F-16s to go forward. But as relations across the [Taiwan] Strait improve, Taiwan has less justification for F-16s and other arms,” he said.

“With Obama going to China in November and the economic and diplomatic influence China now has in the world, I would say F-16s are a no go for now,” he said.

Obama wins Peace Prize to mixed reviews
　

MIXED FEELINGS: The decision drew both praise and derision because the US president is only nine months into his first term and has accomplished little

REUTERS, OSLO
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 1

US President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday for giving the world “hope for a better future” and striving for nuclear disarmament in a surprise award that drew criticism as well as praise.

The decision to bestow one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months into his first term, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, provoked gasps of surprise from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

The first African-American to hold his country’s highest office, Obama has called for disarmament and worked to restart the stalled Middle East peace process since taking office in January.

“Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in a citation.

While the decision won praise from statesmen like Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev, both former Nobel laureates, it was also attacked, especially in parts of the Arab and Muslim world, as hasty and undeserved.

The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, said the award was premature at best.

“Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said. “Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes.”

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, said: “He doesn’t deserve this prize. All these problems — Iraq, Afghanistan — have not been solved ... The man of ‘change’ hasn’t changed anything yet.”

Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing “joke.”

The chief Palestinian peace negotiator, Saeb Erekat, however, welcomed the award to Obama and expressed hope that “he will be able to achieve peace in the Middle East.”

Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland rejected suggestions from journalists that Obama was getting the prize too early, saying it recognized what he had already done over the past year.

“We hope this can contribute a little bit to enhance what he is trying to do,” he told a news conference.

The committee said it attached “special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons,” saying he had “created a new climate in international politics.”

Obama laid out his vision on eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in Prague in April, but he was not the first US president to set that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.

Former Chen aides proclaim innocence in high court
　

By Shelley Huang, Jenny W. hsu and Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 1

Two former aides to former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday said they were not involved in wrongdoing as Chen’s embezzlement trial opened at the Taiwan High Court.

Former deputy secretary-­general Ma Yung-cheng (馬永成) and former Presidential Office director Lin Teh-hsun (林德訓) said they followed precedents when handling the presidential “state affairs fund” and accused the court of not taking into consideration evidence and statements that helped build their case.

“I did not pocket one dollar of the [state affairs fund],” Ma said.

They were found guilty by the Taipei District Court of helping the former first couple embezzle money from public funds and were sentenced to 20 years and 16 years respectively, and stripped of their civil rights for 10 years and eight years respectively.

The former first family’s bookkeeper, Chen Chen-hui (陳鎮慧), said very little in court. She admitted to the charges against her, but said she wanted to appeal because if she had to return more than NT$100 million (US$3.1 million) in embezzled funds as the district court ruled, she and her family would lose everything they own.

The hearing began several hours after High Court judges ruled at midnight to keep Chen Shui-bian behind bars following a four-hour detention hearing on Thursday night.

Presiding Judge Teng Chen-chiu (鄧振球) listed several reasons for the court’s decision, saying that since Chen left office he has kept in frequent contact with people overseas and, as a former president, he knows more channels for fleeing the country than ordinary citizens. The judges also said that if he chose to escape, he would live comfortably off the funds he and his family had overseas.

The court said because Chen received a life sentence from the lower court, he was a flight risk and would likely hide his assets, so detaining Chen was a necessity as there was no suitable alternative.

Teng had previously ruled on Sept. 24 to keep the former president behind bars for another three months, citing the same reasons.

Chen and his attorneys then filed an appeal against the High Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court, which on Thursday sent the case back to the appeals court for a new hearing.

The Supreme Court said the High Court’s reasons for keeping Chen in detention did not adequately explain why this was necessary and questioned evidence supporting the High Court’s notion that Chen and his family had huge amounts of ­undisclosed cash and other assets hidden overseas.

The Supreme Court also questioned the High Court’s reasoning that Chen had more channels to flee the country because he was a former president. The Supreme Court asked the lower court to reconsider whether it was necessary to keep Chen detained, since as a former president, he was under 24-hour surveillance by between eight to 12 National Security Council bodyguards.

At the beginning of the hearing, Chen kept his answers brief and let his lawyers do most of the talking. However, toward the end, he spoke for 40 minutes.

Chen said if he had wanted to escape, he “would have done it a long time ago,” but in order to prove he has no intention of leaving the country, he requested that the court inform foreign affairs authorities to void his passport.

He was emphatic when talking about his family’s offshore funds, which he said Swiss authorities had frozen.

He also said that as a former president, he did not know of any methods of escaping the country to which he had access because they were only accessible from places such as the Presidential Office.

Chen has been in detention since last December. He and former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) received life sentences and fines of NT$200 million and NT$300 million respectively in the first trial on Sept. 11.

After the hearing concluded, dozens of Chen’s supporters protested in front the Taiwan High Court, demanding his immediate release.

Led by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Taipei Branch director Huang Ching-lin (黃慶林), the protesters wore yellow headbands and held banners supporting the former president and criticizing the legal system for not processing a constitutional interpretation on whether the Taipei District Court’s judicial process was unconstitutional.

“The Council of Grand Justices should promptly interpret whether switching judges in Chen’s trial was unconstitutional. We are calling on Judiciary President Lai In-jaw (賴英照) to stop protecting judges,” said Huang, who said he had not been surprised by the hearing’s outcome “because Taiwan’s judicial system has no fairness to speak of, especially as it is under the Chinese Nationalist Party’s [KMT] control.”

The DPP released a statement expressing “regret” over the High Court’s ruling, saying it had discredited the nation’s legal system.

The decision to continue detaining Chen highlighted the flaws of the system and “seriously disregarded the defendant’s legal rights” by robbing him of a fair trial, the statement said.

DPP acting spokesman Chuang Shuo-han (莊碩漢) said the party would continue to support Chen. A more definite plan of action on how to “save Chen,” which includes the possible mobilization of 1,000 people to sue the Council of Grand Justices for malfeasance, would most likely be announced on Wednesday at the party’s Central Standing Committee, he said.

Meanwhile, National Police Agency Director General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) said it was inappropriate for Chen to disclose the location of secret tunnels.

KMT Legislator Luo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) also criticized Chen at the legislature’s State Affairs Forum for revealing the information, saying it was “mean” of him because it would jeopardize the nation’s safety.

Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Wang Sing-nan (王幸男) said he did not think Chen was wrong and attacked the High Court’s decision to keep him in detention.
　

DPP lawmaker quizzes Wu over marine development
　

GOVERNMENT EFFORTS: Wong Chin-chu asked the premier about plans to cooperate with China on tapping resources around Diaoyutai and the Spratlys
　

By Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 3

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Wong Chin-chu (翁金珠) questioned Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) yesterday about the government’s plans to cooperate with China in developing the waters around Diaoyutai (釣魚台) and Taiping Island (太平島), the biggest islet in the Spratly Islands.

Fielding questions from Wong during a legislative question-and-answer session, Wu failed to give clear answers, saying only that the government wanted to tap the resources in the waters around the islands with other countries.

“Is the government going to cooperate with China to counter Japan and Philippines?” Wong asked. “As the sovereignty over the waters is in dispute, the plan could start wars.”

He “had not heard of a concrete plan, but we cannot let go of these waters too easily and that was the government’s direction,” Wu said.

“There are abundant mineral resources in the waters around the Diaoyutai, over which we have sovereignty. But Japan disagrees with this … We hoped we could set aside disputes about these waters and maybe it would be possible to jointly tap into the resources,” Wu said.

Wong said afterwards that she did not have more information on the issue, but she thought that Wu had tried to avoid answering questions of great concern to the nation’s safety and sovereignty.

During her questioning, Wong also said that researchers who joined a team organized by the National Science Council for a marine surveys project had shared their results with China’s State Council after being told to do so by National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起).

Wong said information about marine meteorology, continental shelf, ocean temperatures and marine biology were given to China and China had registered the information with the UN.

“This caused very serious damage to the country’s sovereignty. It not only meant that the UN recognized Taiwan as part of China’s territory, but also helped China enhance its marine strength,” Wong said.

Wu said he was not aware of the issue and promised to look into it.

In other news, Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) told DPP Legislator Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英) yesterday that the government’s plan to decriminalize prostitution in red-light districts would not be off limits to married men.

Jiang said that allowing married men to seek prostitutes was contrary to the Criminal Code, which considers such an act to be adultery.

“We are also considering the possibility of decriminalizing adultery,” Jiang said.
　

Bao Tong hails Taiwan’s democracy on Web site

STAFF WRITER, WITH CNA
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 3

A former aide to the late Chinese Communist Party (CPC) general secretary Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) has praised Taiwan’s democracy.

Bao Tong (鮑彤), who was expelled by the CCP after the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989 and was sentenced to seven years in jail for “leaking national secrets,” praised Taiwan’s system in an essay to mark the Republic of China’s (ROC) National Day celebration today.

In Taiwan, where there is no socialism, it is possible to ferret out corruption openly, Bao said in an essay posted on Free Radio Asia’s Web site.

Bao said that while Taiwan had long since reversed the official verdict on a massacre of demonstrators by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) troops in 1947, no one dares mention “June 4, 1989” to this day in China.

“Courts in Taiwan have the power to pass judgment on high-ranking officials,” Bao wrote.

In contrast, “on the mainland, where we enjoy the benefits of the dictatorship of the proletariat, masses of people who turn out to protest at corruption are suppressed as troublemakers,” he wrote, referring to the 1989 military crackdown on student-led protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere in the country.

While Beijing held its largest National Day parade on Thursday last week to mark the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, Bao said the last 60 years of communist rule contained “a big lie.”

“In the first 30 years, tens of millions either died of starvation or were ‘harassed’ to death under the banner of revolution,” Bao wrote.

“In the second 30 years, anyone standing up for civil and constitutional rights, for religious freedom, or for ethnic autonomy has been declared an enemy of the people en masse, all in the name of stability,” he wrote.

In an interview with Hong Kong’s Apple Daily, Bao said the power struggle within the CCP continues to this day.

He said former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民), who retired as CCP general secretary in late 2002, continues to play a major role and still exerts influence in the party.

He also said Jiang was “bullying” Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).

Bao said this was evidenced by the appearance of Jiang alongside Hu atop the Tiananmen Squre rostrum to review the Oct. 1 parade.

He said Jiang got much more attention from China’s state-run media during the parade and the official anniversary party that evening than any other Chinese leader except for Hu.

Bao has been kept under house arrest in Beijing since his release from jail on May 1996.

Suu Kyi talks sanctions with Western envoys
　

REQUEST: Aung San Suu Kyi’s letter to Myanmar’s military chief requesting the meeting offered suggestions on getting Western sanctions lifted

AFP , YANGON, MYANMAR
Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 5

Detained Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was granted a rare meeting yesterday with top Western diplomats to discuss sanctions imposed on the military-ruled nation.

The Nobel Laureate met the heads of the US, UK and Australian embassies in Yangon for an hour at a government guesthouse, following a request in a letter she wrote to the junta chief, US embassy spokesman Drake Weisert said.

“We can confirm that sanctions were discussed at the meeting. However, we do not want to pre-empt Aung San Suu Kyi’s discussions with the authorities by discussing the details of the meeting,” Weisert said.

Suu Kyi’s correspondence with Senior General Than Shwe, which offered suggestions on getting Western sanctions lifted, marked an easing of her stance after years of advocating punitive measures against the ruling generals.

Her lawyer Nyan Win said she “wanted to get the facts and figures on Western sanctions” at the diplomat talks.

“The authorities allowing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s request is good — she is getting what she needs,” he said.

“We are hoping that the senior general and Aung San Suu Kyi will meet soon,” Nyan Win said, adding that meeting with diplomats meant she “could get chances” to become more involved in politics.

A statement from Australia’s department of foreign affairs and trade said the meeting was a “positive step by both the Burmese authorities and Aung San Suu Kyi.”

“The government hopes that this constructive meeting may lay the groundwork for further contact,” it said, adding that Suu Kyi appeared in “good health.”

Myanmar officials were present at the talks, the statement added.

In the past week, Suu Kyi has also had two meetings with Myanmar Minister Aung Kyi, the official liaison between herself and the junta — the first time they have met for talks since January last year.

State media reported on Sunday that they discussed her letter at the first meeting, but further details of the talks have not yet emerged.

... and justice for none


Saturday, Oct 10, 2009, Page 8

And so it goes on.

The Supreme Court, rightfully irritated by the arguments of the Taiwan High Court that have kept former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in detention while his appeal is prepared, returns the case to the lower court, demanding a better explanation.

The High Court, unperturbed, thumbs its nose at the order by recycling its arguments and embellishing them with some of the most intelligence-insulting lines of reasoning that one could hope to hear from senior judges. Worse, without a new appeal by Chen’s counsel, the High Court’s refusal to take the Supreme Court’s concerns seriously will attract no penalty.

Among the High Court’s baffling reasons were the contention that knowing foreigners and having rumored overseas sources of money in themselves constitute a flight risk, that a former president comes equipped with an escape manual and that Chen’s alleged high crimes — in a country where criminals have routinely found shelter in the legislature — are so serious that bail was inconceivable. Short shrift was given to the procedural flaws and illegal conduct in the course of prosecuting the former president.

Either the High Court thinks ordinary people are incapable of seeing through such nonsense, or it is so removed from the reality of the world that it cannot distinguish fatuous argument from careful legal work.

The problem that is emerging extends well beyond the contention that the Chen case is being politically manipulated, however. The florid nature of the District and High Court decisions cannot simply be put down to political bias or interference — as much as Chen’s supporters would like this to be the case — though it remains possible.

In the context of a series of high-profile cases over recent years, the public has every reason to doubt that justice is being served consistently throughout the system, which is to say that a large number of judges, prosecutors and lawyers may not meet remotely acceptable standards of professional rigor.

It is clear that a comprehensive review of the legal system is essential to restoring trust in it. A non-partisan body of legal experts is needed to review the entire system and the way prosecutors, defense counsel, judges and ministerial officials go about their business. The haunting question is: Is Taiwan remotely capable of forming such a group?

We have suggested Taiwan’s legal fraternity refer this case to the International Council of Jurists for investigation. The qualified body’s silence points to, at best, a distinct feeling of embarrassment on the part of even professional victims of such cant. If any competent collection of eminent jurists were to probe this farrago, the fear might be that the self-esteem of every lawyer, prosecutor and judge would be damaged to an unbearable degree as international scorn rains down on the industry.

Taiwan’s notoriously high prosecution rate, widespread flouting of the rights of the accused — no better illustrated than by police parading unconcealed, handcuffed suspects in police stations — the lack of an interface between the legal establishment and the education system, the utter incompetence of Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and the overall impotence of her predecessors (on both sides of politics), a litany of bizarre and corrosive court judgments, and the general sense of unaccountability to a professional standard has left the system reeling.

This is not to say that there are not conscientious individuals in the system, including judges who, in some cases, have fearful workloads.

Yet, as we have seen with the ludicrously protracted Hsichih Trio saga and several other abuses of judicial process, for too many in this world unto itself, justice delayed — and even denied — is justice indeed, and considerations of face reign supreme.