US beef deal angers lawmakers
　

OFFAL ANGRY: The Consumers’ Foundation secretary-general said that it would not rule out calling a boycott of US beef, and if that didn’t work, a boycott of all US imports
　

By Ko Shu-ling, Shih Hsiu-chuan, and Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 1
　

The government’s decision to relax restrictions on imports of US beef came under fire yesterday, with Department of Health (DOH) Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) facing a particularly fierce barrage in the legislature.

Legislators from across party lines and consumer groups lined up to blast the government and threatened boycotts over last week’s announcement, while Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) announced the formation of a trade association that would boycott certain US beef products.

Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said the central government would not prohibit local governments from boycotting US beef and beef products.

“[The actions taken by Taipei City Government] to ensure the public’s health were understandable. We, too, always bear public health in mind. The DOH will implement the strictest inspections of US beef imports to make sure they will not harm health,” Su said.

In response to the concerns over lifting the ban on brains, eyes, skull and spinal cord from cattle less than 30 months of age, Su said the highest standards would be applied to ensure safety, adding that the government would adopt inspection procedures that would not violate the agreement with Washington.

“We believe that the international community will understand,” Su said.

Su said the DOH would take necessary measures to remind consumers of the potential risks of US beef and beef products and require importers to specify the place of origin on packages.

Speaking at a meeting at the legislature’s Social Welfare and Environmental Hygiene Committee to brief lawmakers on the talks that led to the lifting of restrictions on US beef, Yaung said he was disappointed that Taiwan was not able to secure a deal to open its market only to bone-in beef from cattle younger than 30 months.

“I am not happy with the result, but it is acceptable,” Yaung said.

The ban will be lifted to allow the entry of US bone-in beef, ground beef, some offal and processed beef from cattle younger than 30 months that have not been contaminated with “specific risk materials” beginning on Nov. 10. Washington had wanted Taiwan to open its market to all US beef products, he said.

The two sides managed to reach an initial consensus on the issue in June, agreeing that further talks should be held based on a South Korean formula, Yaung said.

The DOH announced on Friday that Taiwan would expand market access for US beef after officials of the two countries agreed the previous day in Washington to lift a partial ban on such imports.

“All negotiations involve concessions,” he said.

KMT Legislator Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) said that the health minister should step down to take political responsibility for the new market-opening measures.

Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英) said the Taiwanese negotiators, led by DOH Vice Minister Hsiao Mei-ling (蕭美玲), fought a losing battle, adding that when Taiwan agreed in 2006 to open its doors to US boneless beef, it attached the condition that if a single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, occurred in the US, Taiwan could immediately halt imports.

“This time we have allowed bone-in beef and organs and we cannot reimpose the ban unless the World Organization for Animal Health [OIE] decides the US is an infected area. This is absurd and a humiliation to the nation,” Huang said.

DPP Legislator Wang Sing-nan (王幸男) said President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) should be held accountable, accusing them of interfering with the decision-making process.

Meanwhile, Council of Agriculture (COA) Minister Chen Wu-hsiung (陳武雄) said at another legislative hearing that he and his family would eat US-imported beef and beef products, but he would not pressure the public to follow suit.

KMT Legislator Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) asked Chen how the government would be able to screen the safety of cow offal if Taiwanese traders apply to import brains, skulls, eyes and spinal cords as there are technical difficulties involved.

“Japan has barred imports of such offal on the grounds that there are technical difficulties in screening their safety,” Lu said.

Chen said the COA “will make every effort to keep those kinds of offal at bay.”

He declined to elaborate.

Meanwhile, the Consumers’ Foundation panned the government and said it might launch a boycott if the government does not reverse its decision.

“We’re protesting against the government’s decision on behalf of all consumers,” the foundation’s secretary-general, Gaston Wu (吳家誠), told reporters before entering the Legislative Yuan to visit caucus offices. “Whichever government institute made the decision — the DOH, the Executive Yuan, the Presidential Office, or even the National Security Council [NSC] — our government should make our health its priority, instead of sacrificing it for political interests.”

He also said that as the government apparently does not side with the public, the public must look out for themselves.

“We will not rule out the possibility of calling on all consumers to refuse to buy US beef products, and if a boycott on US beef is not enough, we may also launch a boycott on all US products,” Wu said.

Both DPP and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers supported Wu’s call.

“We will urge retailers not to sell US beef products and will mobilize the livestock industry and consumers to stage demonstrations to stop US beef from coming into the country,” Wang told a press conference after meeting with foundation representatives.

DPP caucus whip Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) panned the government for violating a legislative resolution proposed by the KMT caucus and adopted in January 2006 that requires the government to receive legislative approval before lifting the ban.

“The DPP caucus will refuse to review next year’s central government budget and refuse to take part in cross-party negotiations until the government acts according to [the resolution],” Chai said.

KMT caucus whip Lu Hsueh-chang (呂學樟) said he would push for a resolution to ask the government to renegotiate the issue with the US.

“If the legislature fails to adopt such a resolution, we will launch a boycott of US beef,” he said as he met the Consumers’ Foundation.

DPP headquarters later issued a statement saying the party would work with lawmakers from other parties to pass the resolution. It also called on Ma and Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) to shoulder political responsibility and called on Su Chi to step down.

DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) also called for Su Chi’s resignation.

Tsai said the failed negotiations over US beef demonstrated the NSC’s inability to stand up to US pressure. She called for fresh negotiations.

The Kaohsiung City Government also issued a statement saying the deal should be renegotiated.

Chen Shun-sheng (陳順勝), a neurology professor at Chang Gung University, criticized Wu Den-yih and the DOH yesterday for giving the public “incorrect information” about brains, eyes, spinal cords and skulls from cattle less than 30 months old.

“The four products are not non-specific risk materials [non SRMs] and there is no promise in the protocol that they will be banned from import,” Chen said.

Chen urged the premier and DOH officials to explain why they had listed the four products as non SRMs as their risk coefficients are higher than cow tonsils and the distal ileum of the small intestine.

“According to the WHO and the OIE, the brains, eye, spinal cord, and skull are inedible, no matter what. Coefficient of variation risks for the products are higher than 25 percent or even between 60 percent and 70 percent, while those for tonsils and the distal ileum of the small intestine are less than between 1 percent and 2 percent,” Chen said.

Meanwhile, the Presidential Office said negotiations with Washington on beef were a matter of give-and-take, but stopped short of revealing exactly what the country had asked in exchange for partially lifting its ban.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said Taiwan enjoys a trade surplus with the US and it is widely known that Washington wanted Taiwan to lift the ban on US beef.

“In negotiations, both sides have their own expectations,” he said. “We have been making a lot of money from the US over the years.”

Wang Yu-chi declined, however, to disclose the details of the negotiations, saying he was not in a position to do so. Speculation abounds that the liberalization was related to Washington’s willingness to resume talks on a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, which Vice Premier Eric Chu (朱立倫) yesterday denied.

Wang Yu-chi said meeting participants agreed that government agencies should offer a clearer account of the rationale behind the decision, adding that the government used “stricter” standards than those adopted by the EU and the OIE.

While the opposition alleged that the Presidential Office or the NSC were behind the decision, Wang Yu-chi said it was a consensus and the “joint decision” of the Presidential Office, the NSC and the Executive Yuan, and that the liberalization would be conducive to bilateral trade.
　

Environmental vacations grow in popularity
　

By Sofia Wu
CNA, WITH STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 2
　

“Through this volunteer program, we got first-hand experience and saw for ourselves how goose grass has affected local aquatic plant growth ... In the future, we will use more eco-friendly and environmentally sound thinking when preparing environmental impact assessments for our customers.”— Shih Chi-yuan, vice general manager of Capital Engineering Corp

Working vacations have become a fad in recent years, with growing numbers of people choosing to spend their holidays with their sleeves rolled up and working the land.

Capital Engineering Corp recently turned a company outing into an eco-friendly holiday, with vice general manager Shih Chi-yuan (史濟元) leading 12 employees to volunteer at Yangmingshan National Park.

They took part in a program the Taiwan Environmental Information Association (TEIA) has organized every weekend from May to September over the last five years in Yonglai Ecological Park to rid the park of goose grass, an invasive alien species, and Leersia hexandra, a dominant native grass to preserve the ecological balance of the Lengshueikeng (冷水坑) wetlands.

Wearing wetsuits, the group waded through the muddy wetlands, finding out how difficult it is to walk in sticky mud.

“It was more difficult pulling my legs from the mud than pulling the weeds,” Shih said. “Only now have I come to realize how invasive this pan-tropical species is and why it is so difficult to tame.”

“Through this volunteer program, we got first-hand experience and saw for ourselves how goose grass has affected local aquatic plant growth,” Shih said. “In the future, we will use more eco-friendly and environmentally sound thinking when preparing environmental impact assessments for our customers.”

The working holiday concept is not new. Volunteers have long used their leisure time to build bridges for financially strapped townships or repair houses for disadvantaged families.

Eco-working holidays, however, focus on doing something for the environment. Participants plant trees, clean up scenic areas in the mountains or work on community beautification projects.

TEIA organized its first eco-working holiday in August 2004. In its first project, it enlisted volunteers to help build an artificial wetland to recycle wastewater and plant millet in the Taiping ecological farm along the Lijia Trail in Taitung County.

The project also involved bird watching, river tracing, participation in Aboriginal festivals and visits to ancient tribal sites.

Sun Hsiu-ju (孫秀如), a TEIA department director, said the program allowed participants to become involved in nature and local cultures, relax their bodies and minds, and help the environment.

TEIA has since organized many types of eco-working holidays to maintain the ecological balance in diverse natural habitats, Sun said.

More than 1,000 people have taken part in the programs, which have included protecting sand in the Cigu (七股) Wetlands in Tainan County, using traditional, eco-friendly building techniques to restore an historic tobacco facility in Hualien County and repairing and painting the walls of rundown buildings on Lanyu (Orchid Island, 蘭嶼).

Last summer, the association collaborated with the Taiwan Marine Environmental Education Association and Academia Sinica’s Biodiversity Research Center to protect a new habitat: coral reefs.

The group enlisted volunteer divers to work with local communities in northeastern Taiwan, on Green Island (綠島) and Orchid Island, Penghu County’s Siaoliouciou (小琉球) and Shanyuan Beach in Taitung County to check on the conditions of reefs in those areas and collect data to gain a better understanding of the areas’ waters.

“All of our programs involve a great deal of work ... but the hardships have not stopped participants,” Sun said. “The number of people choosing this form of vacation and registering for our programs has been steadily increasing.”

Given Taiwan’s vulnerability to natural calamities, such as earthquakes and typhoons, Sun said she believed there was still ample room for Taiwan to champion environmental volunteering through well-designed eco-working holidays.

Government agencies and private organizations have also organized such working vacations.

Lin Wen-min, director of Kending National Park’s Nanrenshan Station (南仁山), said her office organized six two-day and one-night eco-working packages in August and last month that drew 137 people to clean up garbage in the Chufengbi (出風鼻) protected area on Hengchun Peninsula (恆春半島).

Members of the public are barred from the 7km coastline without prior permission. The area boasts unusually shaped reef rock formations and much biodiversity, but is often polluted by trash swept onto the beach by high tides.

Each volunteer had to walk two to three hours to reach the beach and picked up an average of two bags of trash, which originated in China, Hong Kong and Malaysia, Lin said.

The response to the beach cleanup was more enthusiastic than organizers had expected.

“Ten senior high school students took part in the program along with their parents, who encouraged their children’s participation to enhance their environmental awareness and altruism,” Lin said.

The package had some conventional perks, including a nighttime guided tour of the national park and a stay in an eco-friendly inn that featured local cuisine.

“As well as providing a new vacation option, working holidays offer a new promise in helping revitalize local economies,” Lin said.

Mayor Hau says Taipei City to launch boycott against select US beef products
　

By Mo Yan-chih
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 3

“There were many landslides in reforested areas in the mountains where there wasn’t enough space for trees’ roots to grow. [Their] roots had curled up instead of spreading out.”— Huang Yuan-jung, of the Fushan Community Development Association

Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) said yesterday the city government would launch a campaign next month to discourage restaurants from serving US ground beef and cow intestines and spinal cords.

“I am against [the US beef import] policy from the perspective of food safety. The central government should reassess it,” Hau told a press conference at the Taipei City Hall.

Hau said the city government would form an “Anti-US Ground Beef, Intestines and Spinal Cords Association” and encourage the more than 15,000 restaurants, department stores and supermarkets in Taipei to join the association and its boycott.

“We have no right to ban these three items [US ground beef and cow intestines and spinal cords] in stores and restaurants, but we will do our best to protect the safety of Taipei residents,” he said.

Taipei is the first local government to announce action against the central government’s beef policy. However, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) said the Taichung City Government may also take action.

Under the new accord, US bone-in beef, ground beef, cow intestines, brains and spinal cords, and processed beef from cattle younger than 30 months that have not been contaminated with “specific risk” materials can be imported starting on Nov. 10.

Hau brushed off speculation that the city government’s opposition to the deal would worsen his relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), saying he had informed the Presidential Office of the city’s decision.

Liu Chia-chun (劉佳均), director of the city’s Business Management Office, said the association would be launched on Nov. 16. Participating stores will display stickers for identification.

Participating stores will agree not to sell or use US ground beef, cow intestines or spinal cords. If caught violating the association’s regulations, they will face fines of between NT$60,000 and NT$150,000 under the Consumer Protection Law (消費者保護法), Liu said.

Allen Chiu, commissioner of the city’s Health Department, said the city would not allow the products to be used in school lunches.

The city’s law and regulation commissioner, Yeh Ching-yuan (葉慶元), said the city government could not force stores to join the association, and stores that do not join will not be fined.

“But we encourage stores and restaurants to join us in protecting the safety of Taipei residents,” he said.

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Taipei City Councilor Chuang Ruei-hsiung (莊瑞雄) said the city government should also look into the beef to be used in next month’s Beef Noodle Carnival.

Liu said the participating beef noodle shops use beef from Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan, and that the office had not found any shops using US beef so far.

US healthcare system wasteful, report says

REUTERS, WASHINGTON
Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 7

“America’s healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial.”— Thomson Reuters report

The healthcare system is just as wasteful as US President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, says a Thomson Reuters report released yesterday.

The US healthcare system wastes between US$505 billion and US$850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.

“America’s healthcare system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial,” the report reads.

“The bad news is that an estimated [US]$700 billion is wasted annually. That’s one-third of the nation’s healthcare bill,” Kelley said in a statement.

“The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce healthcare costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care.”

One example — a paper-based system that discourages sharing medical records — accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.

“It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient’s record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed,” the report says.

Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters included:

• Unnecessary care, such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure, makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste, or US$200 to US$300 a year.

• Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to US$200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.

• Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.

• Medical mistakes account for US$50 billion to US$100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.

• Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost US$30 billion to US$50 billion a year.

“The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada,” the report says, citing dozens of other research papers.

“American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada,” it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Steffie Woolhandler.

Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report says.

All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country, yet are an unhealthier population, with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal births than other developed nations.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country’s US$2.5 trillion healthcare system.

The ‘former bitter rivals’ fantasy

Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 8

No sooner had President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) launched his rapprochement initiative with Beijing than some international wire agencies began referring to Taiwan and China as “former bitter rivals.” This characterization of an ongoing process is not only inaccurate but also creates the false impression that the threat the Taiwan Strait represents to regional stability is a thing of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While it is true that on the surface tensions between Taipei and Beijing have diminished, relations between the two have always been characterized by ups and downs. The argument could be made that the threat of war was significantly higher in the 1950s, and again in 1995-1996, than in 2000 and after, when the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party was in power. During those eight years, however, did media outlets refer to Taiwan and China as “former bitter rivals”? Of course not.

The same fallacy applies today. By only casting a superficial glance at ties between Taipei and Beijing — tourist arrivals, the resumption of cross-strait talks and economic deals — reporters are ignoring the more complex undercurrents that still exist. If Taiwan and China were indeed “former bitter rivals,” the People’s Liberation Army would not continue its military build-up by adding to the ballistic missiles it aims at Taiwan, conducting simulations of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan or developing a variety of weapons systems — from submarines to anti-ship ballistic missiles — that could be used in a war over Taiwan. Nor would Beijing be using Chinese tourists as an economic weapon to punish Taiwan when the latter invites political figures Beijing abhors or screens documentaries banned in China.

In fact, if the two were no longer “bitter rivals,” Beijing would not be pressing for an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with so much vigor, simply for the fact that the Chinese leadership sees the agreement — and has said so openly — as a means to engulf the Taiwanese economy and make unification inevitable.

Yes, we’re seeing smiles, handshakes and long banquet tables, but anyone who knows anything about cross-strait ties would know that such a facade of politeness existed in the 1990s before the Chinese military started firing missiles into Taiwanese waters. The reality is, beyond the veneer of peace lie the same old ghosts that have made true, lasting peace in the Taiwan Strait so elusive.

Beyond China’s breakneck militarization lies a political system that is repressive, anti-democratic and unpalatable to the great majority of people in Taiwan — even those who support Ma’s policies. As long as the political systems on both sides of the Strait cannot be reconciled, meaningful peace will be impossible to achieve, at least as long as Beijing continues to harbor designs on Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Beyond all this, many things could go wrong at every turn of cross-strait talks, especially once sensitive political issues are laid on the table. If Ma were seen to be giving too much, the Taiwanese polity would threaten to undermine his efforts and could oust him from office in 2012. Conversely, if Ma were seen to be dragging his feet on unification, Beijing could grow impatient and become more belligerent in its approach. Either way, instability would be the result and it would soon become evident that the “former bitter rivals” are, in fact, still bitter rivals.

A little patience on the part of those who write about cross-strait relations and a little more attention to detail would do everybody a great service.

In praise of Page 8
　

Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 8

Page 8 of the Taipei Times was on fire on Oct. 20.

The editorial “Missiles, leaks and really odd timing,” makes it abundantly clear that Democratic Progressive Party forces within the military leaked information on missile tests so that economic cooperation framework agreement (EFCA) talks got pushed back. No surprises there, as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) don’t want any missile news on their radar. Pun intended!

If the tests were successful, does the KMT government want it hushed up? Probably, as it doesn’t want to appear either capable or aggressive in the wake of “talks.”

Then there was “Closing schools and low birthrates.” While reading the penultimate paragraph, a sudden vision kept coming into focus. This paragraph is what an ECFA will lead to, as has been noted frequently in the Taipei Times (and imagery-wise, it’s scary!)

Jerome Keating’s piece was ... how to put it? On the mark? Correct! Funny? Certainly! To me, it is a very good critique of Mr President.

As for “Illusions about Chinese goodwill,” you can see what you get when you deal with the Chinese. The Dalai Lama fled after making agreements with the CCP; Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) got 100 years even though he too arranged agreements with the CCP during his term as president.

Chen was labeled a troublemaker and now anyone who opposes the KMT-CCP alliance is labeled the same.

With the government weak and eager for the EFCA agreement, invocations of mass layoffs are quite frightful. Moreover, leaders who have done deals with China always appear to eventually be punished. Someone’s got something coming to them.

Taipei

CCP won’t accept DPP comeback
　

By Nathan Novak 李漢聲
Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009, Page 8

The ninth dialogue on Sino-US relations and regional security took place at Fudan University’s Center for American Studies in Shanghai on May 8 and May 9. The dialogue was co-sponsored by the Center for American Studies at Fudan, the CNA Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Pacific Forum CSIS.

At the event, Tao Wenzhao (陶文昭) a senior fellow at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, spoke about several issues regarding cross-strait relations. While mentioning the significance of Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) presidency, particularly the subsequent cooling of tensions across the Taiwan Strait following Ma’s election, Tao also said that China could budge no further with concessions to Taiwan.

This unwillingness to grant further concessions to Taiwan, Tao said, stemmed from the antagonism between the pan-green and pan-blue camps in Taiwan. It seemed that, according to Tao, improving cross-strait relations hinges upon Ma’s ability to remain in power and provide China with continuing concessions and posturing. But in the eyes of Chinese leaders, Ma’s efforts could easily come to nought should the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the rest of the pan-green coalition make a comeback.

The pan-green’s potential comeback appears at least somewhat likely, given the recent economic woes Taiwan has faced. Add to that the slow response to Typhoon Morakot, and recent electoral developments and you have yourself the workings of a comeback for the opposition — at least in theory.

Whether the DPP and its allies can capitalize on such developments is a question that remains unanswered.

But missed in this mixture of political rhetoric and slamming of the “independence forces” in Taiwan is the tacit consent of all involved — including US participants — that the pan-green coalition is inherently a threat to peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, although in theory the pan-green’s political ideologies, at least at face value, clash with Beijing’s political aims, there is no evidence to support the claim that the pan-green coalition is inherently a threat to peace.

If anything, it is Beijing’s misperception of the pan-green coalition that fuels this sentiment.

During former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, cross-strait relations were tense, but they were not violent. In fact, nothing at all similar to the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, which occurred during the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), came close to happening during Chen’s time in office. Taiwan neither claimed independence nor rattled any sabers at its behemoth neighbor, although Beijing itself certainly upped the rhetoric in denouncing Chen and his government.

Meanwhile, former US president George W. Bush criticized Chen for his remarks. This gave the perception that the US, in order to preserve stability in the Taiwan Strait, would rather have a member of the pan-blue alliance, a group more willing to appease Beijing, at the helm of Taiwan’s government.

But this served Beijing’s purposes more than Washington’s. The “status quo” remained, despite Chen’s rhetoric, and Beijing got what it wanted: Washington’s tacit consent that Chen and the pan-green coalition were reckless, hell-bent on independence and not to be trusted with power. Moreover, Washington’s reaction implied that Taiwan’s status as a multi-party, democratic and self-governing nation was not useful in Washington’s scheme of things.

This only furthers views of the US as a supporter of authoritarian and single-party systems of government that serve Washington’s goals, views that stretch back to pre-Cold War times. Although US-imposed democracy in Iraq appears to be an instrument of peace throughout the world, democracy in Taiwan, which includes the pan-green camp that both Washington and Beijing so obviously despise as rabble-rousers, is not worth protecting. And US President Barack Obama has shown almost no signs of supporting democracy in Taiwan even though he is viewed by so many in the world as a beacon of hope and freedom.

Whether you are blue or green, moderate or fanatical, you have to admit that the emergence and existence of the DPP and the pan-green coalition has given Taiwan its own bit of space — and respect — in the international eye. Years ago, as the Chinese Nationalist Party’s [KMT] single-party rule grew older and more repressive, people in the upper echelons of the US government began asking how on Earth the US government could continue to consider Taiwan “Free China”?

It is because of the emergence of the pan-green coalition, the existence of an “opposition” party and the election of an “opposition party” president that Taiwan has not only become a free and democratic society but also consolidated its democracy and earned the respect of other members in the global community, especially established democracies — and particularly the US. Even if Taiwan is a part of China and deserves to be called China, it can today truly be called “Free China” simply because it allows members of its own populace to regard Taiwan as something other than China.

What Tao’s statements — and those who agree with Tao — suggest is that Beijing equates a political comeback by the pan-green coalition as not only a show of belligerence by Taiwan and its people but also a reason for Beijing to act belligerently. In effect, what Tao is saying is that missiles aimed at Taiwan cannot be removed because opposition forces exist and have the ability to seize power. It is a cloaked threat — one that US academics and experts accept hook, line and sinker.

But Tao is merely creating a scapegoat. His statements admit the fear and weakness of the Beijing government. During the years that no opposition was allowed in Taiwan, Beijing acted belligerently. And crowning Ma King of Formosa will not raise Taiwan’s status in the global community — and certainly not in the eyes of Beijing. Let us remember that in any reunification scheme involving Taiwan and China, even the KMT would be considered an opposition party. And we all know that the Chinese Communist Party cannot accept opposition — from anywhere or anyone.

Nathan Novak is a Taiwan-based researcher in Chinese and Taiwanese history and cross-strait relations.