N Korea missile tests breach UN resolutions: Seoul

AFP , SEOUL
Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009, Page 1

South Korea accused North Korea yesterday of flouting a UN ban with its latest short-range missile tests amid reports that the communist state is planning more launches.

The North on Monday launched five missiles off its east coast despite making a series of peace overtures to the US and South Korea in recent weeks.

The North is under pressure to return to six-nation nuclear disarmament talks that it quit in April, a month before it staged a second nuclear test.

The South’s Yonhap news agency said there were signs the North was preparing later yesterday for more launches, this time off the west coast.

Japan’s coast guard said the North had warned of “firing exercises” in the Yellow Sea day and night until Oct. 25.

Pyongyang nevertheless agreed yesterday to Seoul’s request for talks on various issues.

They will meet tomorrow to discuss flood prevention in a cross-border river and on Friday for talks on humanitarian issues including family reunions, Seoul’s unification ministry said.

The North on Sept. 6 released millions of tonnes of water from a dam across the Imjin river, sweeping away six South Koreans camping or fishing downstream.

Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Jung Ok-keun told South Korean lawmakers the KN-02 missiles fired on Monday have a range estimated between 130km and 160km, greater than the 120km previously believed.

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said that if the launch reports were correct, “I think it’s very regrettable.”

China was less concerned.

“I believe that this will not affect the improving situation on the Korean Peninsula,” foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu (馬朝旭) said.

Chen reveals DPP struggles during red shirt campaign
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009, Page 3

Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) revealed in an interview that some pro-independence groups did not like the idea of seeing former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) take over the presidency should he step down at the height of the corruption allegations against him in 2006, adding that his resignation would only have led to the collapse of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Lu said Chen told the "Formosa Weekly," which she founded, his side of the story regarding the “red shirt campaign” organized by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) to depose Chen in 2006.

Since Chen is in detention, Lu said Chen answered their questions in writing. The material was released yesterday.

The former president said some pro-independence groups or activists told him that they opposed seeing Lu take over the presidency if he were to resign over the corruption scandal.

“It is not a secret that some people at the Taiwan Society complained about her,” he said. “When I learned that some people at Taiwan Society wanted vice president Lu to resign before would they allow her to speak at a rally to counter the red shirt army campaign, I felt it wasn’t right. I immediately told her never to quit.”

Chen said he would never resign under the pressure of the “red shirt army” or the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which tried to recall him three times.

“Had I resigned, I would not be better off than I am now,” he said. “They would not stop the vendetta waged against me but would only strengthen it. At least I finished the two terms in office and was not deposed.”

Describing the campaign to depose him as a naked power struggle among the pan-blue camp, pro-unification media and frustrated politicians, Chen said it was a precursor to then-Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) bid to win the presidential election last year.

Chen dismissed allegations that then-premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) tried to force him to step down when pan-blue legislators were organizing their third recall attempt. Chen said he was grateful Su agreed to stay at his post, adding that Su did not pressure him or ask his permission to allow DPP legislators to endorse the recall campaign.

Chen said then-DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun told him that Su had suggested either he step down if he were found guilty by the district court or if he agreed to let DPP legislators support the recall proposal. Chen said he decided to go for the first suggestion and announced it on Nov. 4.

Chen said he did not find out that it was Yu who made the suggestion until the presidential debate in 2007 and he did not know exactly who suggested it.

Commenting on his relationship with Shih, Chen said Shih had his eyes set on the post of legislative speaker, but not many DPP legislators supported his bid. Chen said Shih was also interested in the position of chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation, but he did not feel comfortable about giving Shih the position.

Shih yesterday denied he was interested in the position.

Chen said he apologized to his long-time supporters for ethical lapses or any political failing, but that he could never accept the accusation that he was corrupt.

While many DPP members distanced themselves from Chen after he was implicated in corruption charges, Chen said those who distanced themselves from the party would only be doomed in elections.

“Political parties that have faith in themselves and their colleagues don't easily talk about severing ties,” he said. “During the 2012 presidential election, I don't believe any DPP nominee would dare say he or she does not want the vote of A-bian supporters.”

Chen regrets connection with Lin's lawsuit
　

ENTANGLED: The former president said that he only endorsed Roger Lin's lawsuit to help clear up the US' position on Taiwan's status and Taiwan policy
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009, Page 3
　

The office of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday expressed regret over the connection between Chen and a lawsuit filed by Taiwanese activist Roger Lin (林志昇), saying the former president would never meet Lin again or sign any paper he issues.

In a statement issued yesterday, Chen's office said the former president endorsed Lin's lawsuit because he thought it could help clear up Washington's position on Taiwan's status and its Taiwan policy.

It said Chen understood that Lin’s lawsuit had been going on for many years and that it had nothing to do with the former president's legal problems.

“The connection between Lin's lawsuit and the former president's legal cases has caused Chen much trouble,” the statement said. “The former president feels puzzled and regretful about it. He has decided never to see Mr Lin again or sign any more documents.”

Chen also disagreed with Lin using his name to ask for donations, the statement said.

Lin petitioned a Washington district court in October 2006 to rule on the nationality of the people of Taiwan. He wanted the US court to decide what rights the Taiwanese have under the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the US Constitution, including whether they should be issued US passports.

Lin said the treaty did not address sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, and that the US was therefore still the principal occupying power. The court dismissed the case, saying it lacked jurisdiction over political matters.

On appeal, Lin argued that the US was Taiwan’s “principal occupying power,” effectively giving the US temporary de jure sovereignty. When permanent sovereignty is ultimately decided, Lin said, the de jure sovereignty of the US would cease.

The US Court of Appeals in Washington upheld the district court’s ruling that deciding sovereignty was a political task rather than a judicial question. As the executive branch of the US government has remained silent on this issue, the court said, it could not intrude on its decision.

Lin appealed to the US Supreme Court on July 8 this year.

The case took an unusual twist last month when Chen signed an affidavit in support of Lin's lawsuit. In the affidavit, Chen said the US has been the “principal occupying power” of Taiwan and that he would like to clarify in court the relationship between “the people of Taiwan (not the 'exiled Chinese' on Taiwan) and the United States.”

The US Supreme Court declined to hear Lin's case earlier this month.

Separately, Chen petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces late last month after he was sentenced to life imprisonment for corruption.

Chen said in an English declaration he signed that during his eight-year presidency, the US executive branch often made decisions for the people of Taiwan without consulting them. These affected the lives, liberty and property of Taiwanese and the nation's territory.

Under the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Chen said it is clear that Taiwan was not awarded to the Republic of China and thus remains under the US Military Government until that government is legally supplanted.

Lin, who said his organization was sponsoring the legal action for Chen, demanded Chen's immediate release from incarceration and full respect for Chen's civil rights.

Lin, however, focused on Chen's argument in the affidavit concerning Taiwan's international status and dismissed speculation that the suit was aimed at resolving Chen's legal problems.

The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces declined to hear Chen's case a few days after the US Supreme Court rejected Lin's case.

More pandering to China

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009, Page 8

The first time the Dalai Lama wanted to visit after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, the Tibetan spiritual leader was turned down because it was not an “appropriate time for him to visit.” When World Uyghur Congress president and former political prisoner Rebiya Kadeer was invited to visit, the government said she was “linked to terrorists.”

Then there were the beat-ups. World Uyghur Congress secretary-general Dolkun Isa had not even planned to visit when the National Immigration Agency barred him based on intelligence from a “friendly country” indicating that he had links to terrorist groups. Isa, who has visited Taiwan before, was surprised and disappointed.

Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi (李洪志) might be equally surprised to hear that he, too, is not welcome in Taiwan — even though he has not made public any plans to come.

Last week, the Chinese-language China Times reported that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) intended to invite Li to visit. This could only be interpreted as a “provocation” designed to push the government into another awkward refusal of a Beijing foe who poses no risk to public order or national security.

Each refusal is an embarrassment that highlights the government’s willingness to stifle free speech to appease its authoritarian neighbor. Its rejection of Kadeer was perhaps even more cringeworthy than that of the Dalai Lama, because Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) gratuitously linked a peaceful democracy activist to violent elements. That is rhetoric often heard from Beijing on both the Dalai Lama and Kadeer, but this was the first time the Taiwanese government has chimed in.

On Li’s case, National Security Bureau Director Tsai Der-sheng’s (蔡得勝) response was as telling as Jiang’s. In a legislative question-and-answer session, Tsai said a visit by Li would “damage cross-strait ties.”

This is precisely the government’s reason for shunning Kadeer and the Dalai Lama, who was later allowed to visit in the aftermath of Typhoon Morakot, but snubbed by Ma.

Tsai’s bluntness is noteworthy. It may indicate that the government is smarting after its claims about Kadeer backfired, drawing much negative publicity. Yet it is surprising that Tsai felt obliged to offer information on Li at all. No one — the newspaper that first published the report about Li, the DPP legislator who asked Tsai about him or Tsai himself — seems concerned with just how implausible a visit by Li at the invitation of the DPP is.

Li is described by people who know him as intensely private. He has long avoided the limelight, although there is no shortage of news outlets and other audiences who would be interested in hearing his opinions on the persecution of Falun Gong, the stability of Chinese Communist Party rule and other matters in his home country.

Tsai, like Jiang, offered more information than was called for, raising the question of whether he was pandering to Beijing.

His comments may have pleased China, even if Zhongnanhai is probably not concerned about Li visiting Taiwan.

After the security bureau’s frankness, it would be interesting to hear the government’s response if another of China’s star dissidents were invited. The DPP may never have planned to invite Li, but perhaps it should draw up a list of other thorns in China’s side. There is good reason to be intentionally provocative: Barring peaceful dissidents to avoid upsetting Beijing is deplorable and must be confronted.

Obama deserves prize

While many people were shocked by the news that US President Barack Obama was selected as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, I think that Obama has deserved the prize since the first day of his presidency.

When Obama delivered his inauguration speech, he sent messages of love, hope and peace to the world.

In his other speeches, we learned that he resents people who use violence and respects people who care for the welfare of all mankind. He has called for unity and is reluctant to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

Obama is the first standing US president to deliver a speech in Cairo, and the first to advocate peace and unity in the Muslim world.

One of the most severe critiques is that the nomination came two weeks after Obama became the US president. I think this issue should be measured against the quality of time spent in office rather than the quantity of time.

It is hard for us to deny that “Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics,” as the Nobel Peace Prize committee said.

MANDY CHOU
Taipei

KMT keeping its ‘chamber pot’ full

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009, Page 8

The role of local factions in Taiwan’s democratic evolution has become a focus for discussion in the wake of three recent events — the defeat of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in last month’s Yunlin County legislative by-election, the failure to pass a referendum proposal to allow casinos in Penghu County and the withdrawal of KMT candidate Chang Li-shan (張麗善) from the contest for Yunlin County commissioner in December’s local elections.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) reacted with his famous phrase: “We would rather be defeated than tolerate abuse.”

On the surface, Ma seems to be saying that he would rather gloriously sacrifice himself than compromise with local factions, but he is actually evading responsibility for the KMT’s recent defeats. It reminds one of the words of Tu Yueh-sheng (杜月笙), the boss of Shanghai’s Green Gang (青幫) who said: “Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) treats me like a chamber pot. When he’s done with me, he sticks me back under the bed.”

Tu’s words shed an interesting light on the present situation. The circumstances may differ, but the essence of the problem is the same.

Tu’s “chamber pot” is an apt simile for the sinister way local factions have traditionally divided the spoils with KMT officials. The story goes that when Tu, whose name struck fear into the hearts of people in Shanghai, witnessed how Chiang turned on his allies and ordered the massacre of labor union leaders, he said to his underlings with a sigh: “People call me ruthless, but compared to this lot I’m a pious Buddhist vegetarian.”

Of course Tu was no vegetarian monk, but his description of Chiang was spot on. When the KMT was defeated by the communists in the Civil War and retreated to Taiwan, it transplanted its policy of playing one faction against another. Much research has been conducted on the origin of Taiwan’s factional politics since Hu Fu (胡佛) published Political Change and Democratization (政治變遷與民主化) in 1988.

Ma may talk of abuse by local factions, but history shows that it was the KMT, that epitome of corruption, that nurtured those factions with the enormous resources it got by siphoning money from the national treasury into its own coffers. The factions are regularly rewarded with a slice of the action of local construction projects. Come election time, they are responsible for going door to door to buy votes.

Factions have been the very basis of the KMT’s political survival. The fact is, for the past 60 years, the KMT has used local factions to implement its divide-and-rule policy to control the Taiwanese.

The party has maintained overwhelming power in local government and the legislature and only lost control of the presidency and central government for eight years. This shows that the mutual reliance of the KMT and local factions remains unchanged.

Ma would rather not talk about how his own poor performance has wrecked the KMT’s chances in recent by-elections. Instead, he puts the failures down to local factions and their “abuses.” Is this not a modern-day version of Chiang and his chamber pot?

We see many KMT branches splitting over nominations for December’s elections for mayors, county commissioners and councilors. Ma would have us believe that it is because he is saying goodbye to the factions, but the real reason is that the factions are no longer playing by Ma’s rules.

Local factions, a product of the KMT, have become an impediment to the progress of democracy in Taiwan and a focus of public resentment. If Ma were really willing to break with his party’s murky past, say goodbye to the factions and improve the quality of Taiwan’s democracy, he would have our full support and win applause from the public.

The reality, however, is quite different. On one hand, Ma says he will never compromise with the factions. On the other, his party’s candidate lists for the year-end elections are full of known faction members. For example, a Chiayi County legislator has unexpectedly been transferred into the National Security Council, despite his lack of expertise, allowing one of the potential candidates for Yunlin County commissioner to take over his legislative seat and thus avoid a potentially divisive primary election and appease local factions with a share of political power.

Again, Ma sent one of his trusted lieutenants off to Hualien County ostensibly to eliminate local factions, but with the real purpose of setting up an alternative “presidential guard” faction to pave the way for the 2012 presidential election. Luckily the public are clever enough to see through these schemes.

If the task of dealing with local factions is in the hands of others, then it may not all go according to Ma’s plan. However, Ma also promised during his election campaign to deal with the KMT’s assets, a matter that has damaged Taiwan’s democracy.

However, what has he done about fulfilling his campaign pledge? Ma will soon take over as KMT chairman. Will he hold on to these resources that defy principles of social justice, or will he make a clean break with his party’s past by responding to the public’s calls for reform? He has little time left to decide which path to choose.

As to the local factions that gain strength by relying on the KMT, they too face an important choice. The emergence of factions was no accident. In the past, the US had its southern factions and the notorious Chicago families. However, as democracy evolved, these factions were all absorbed into political parties or replaced by them.

At most, they live on as factions within parties, not locally dominant entities. This experience is noteworthy, especially now, after Ma said: “We would rather be defeated than tolerate abuse.” This is an expression of his deep disdain for local factions.

They should clearly understand that relying on water from the KMT’s tap is a bad idea, because then the KMT has you by the throat and can turn off the water whenever it wants. In the end, the KMT will still say “you stink.”

Who wants to go on being a “chamber pot?” It would be better for the factions to wean themselves off the KMT and take a fresh road toward cleaner, healthier politics.

With the year-end elections in 17 cities and counties approaching, let us hope Ma will live up to his word and end his party’s unscrupulous manipulation of local factions. Let us hope also that local factions will see the trend of the times and no longer be lured for the sake of material gain into being manipulated by political parties.

Finally, let us hope that vote captains and voters will no longer let their votes be bought. If these hopes come true, democracy, the nation, political parties, factions and the public all stand to win.